Jan 21, 2025 Caroline County Commissioners Meeting

[00:04:58]

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE, AND WELCOME TO THE JANUARY 21ST, 2025 CAROLINE COUNTY COMMISSIONER MEETING,

[00:05:07]

SO WE'LL JUST MOVE ON TO THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

SO IF EVERYONE COULD PLEASE RISE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

[Call to Order: Invocation – Rev. Don Reynolds, Calvary Baptist Church of Denton, Pledge of Allegiance; Agenda Review]

OKAY. DURING THE JANUARY 14TH COMMISSIONER MEETING, THE BOARD MET IN CLOSED SESSION UNDER AUTHORITY.

[President’s Report Out]

OKAY. WE'LL NOW HAVE OUR OPENING PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.

IS THERE ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK THIS MORNING? ALL RIGHT.

[Public Comment]

[Human Trafficking Awareness Month Proclamation]

GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING. HELLO. GOOD MORNING.

AND WE HAVE A PROCLAMATION HERE FOR HUMAN TRAFFICKING AWARENESS MONTH.

SO GO AHEAD. YEP. SO THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBERS AND COMMISSIONERS.

MY NAME IS JOSIE WENZEL AND I'M THE MARKETING AND OUTREACH COORDINATOR AT FOR ALL SEASONS.

WE ARE YOUR LOCAL BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AND RAPE CRISIS CENTER OFFERING THERAPY, PSYCHIATRY, VICTIM SUPPORT, AND COMMUNITY EDUCATION. AND THIS IS REGARDLESS OF A PERSON'S ABILITY TO PAY OR THEIR LANGUAGE.

WITH SEVEN OFFICES ACROSS THE MIDSHORE AND TELEHEALTH SERVICES STATEWIDE, WE ARE PROUD TO SERVE CAROLINE COUNTY.

I'D ALSO LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT OUR HUMAN TRAFFICKING PREVENTION PROGRAM LED BY OUR REGIONAL NAVIGATOR, SUSAN AHLSTROM. FOR MORE DETAILS ON THAT, YOU CAN VISIT FORALLSEASONS.ORG.

HI. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS MICHELLE HUDSON. I'M A VICTIM ADVOCATE AT FOR ALL SEASONS IN THE RCC, WHICH IS THE RAPE CRISIS CENTER. SO HUMAN TRAFFICKING IS A VERY SERIOUS ISSUE.

IT AFFECTS COMMUNITIES EVERYWHERE. IT'S MODERN DAY SLAVERY, PRETTY MUCH.

IT'S WHERE INDIVIDUALS ARE EXPLOITED FOR LABOR OR COMMERCIAL SEX THROUGH FORCE, FRAUD, COERCION OR THREATS.

ANY PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 18 WHO EXCHANGES SEX FOR SOMETHING OF VALUE IS A IS A VICTIM OF TRAFFICKING, REGARDLESS OF IF THERE'S FORCE, FRAUD, OR COERCION PRESENT.

A CHILD CANNOT LEGALLY CONSENT TO COMMERCIAL SEX.

HUMAN TRAFFICKING KNOWS NO BOUNDARIES. IT IMPACTS PEOPLE EVERYWHERE OF ALL AGES, GENDERS AND RACES AND BACKGROUNDS.

AND WE ALL HAVE A ROLE TO PLAY IN RECOGNIZING AND COMBATING THIS CRIME IN OUR COMMUNITIES.

IF YOU SUSPECT THE VICTIM OF BEING TRAFFICKED, PLEASE REACH OUT AND SHARE THE INFORMATION.

WE DO HAVE A CRISIS HOTLINE. WE HAVE TWO OF THEM, ACTUALLY.

SO OUR ENGLISH ONE IS (410) 820-5600. AND THEN OUR SPANISH HOTLINE NUMBER IS (410) 829-6143.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. WELL, THANK YOU BOTH FOR COMING IN.

WE DO HAVE THE PROCLAMATION HERE, WHICH I'LL READ.

WHEREAS NEARLY 25 MILLION CHILDREN, WOMEN AND MEN ARE TRAFFICKED AND DEPRIVED OF THEIR FREEDOM, HUMAN RIGHTS AND DIGNITY EVERY YEAR. AND ACCORDING TO UMD SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WORK, THERE HAVE BEEN OVER 1000 REPORTS OF CHILD SEX TRAFFICKING SCREENED BY MARYLAND DSS CPS SCREENING UNITS SINCE 2013.

AND WHEREAS HUMAN TRAFFICKING IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM ON THE EASTERN SHORE WHEREBY TRAFFICKERS USE VIOLENCE, THREATS, DECEPTION, AND OTHER MANIPULATIVE TACTICS TO FORCE AND COERCE BOTH YOUNG PEOPLE AND ADULTS, BOYS AND GIRLS, TO ENGAGE IN COMMERCIAL SEX ACTS OR TO PROVIDE LABOR AGAINST THEIR WILL.

AND WHEREAS HUMAN TRAFFICKING IS AMONG THE FASTEST GROWING CRIMINAL INDUSTRIES IN THE WORLD, SECOND ONLY TO DRUG TRAFFICKING. AND WHEREAS THE STATE OF MARYLAND HAS AN ACTIVE, COMPREHENSIVE ANTI-HUMAN TRAFFICKING LAWS WITH A FOCUS ON CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AND VICTIM SUPPORT. AND WHEREAS CAROLINE COUNTY RECOGNIZES THE CONSIDERABLE MORAL AND MORAL AND ECONOMIC HARM OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING TO OUR COMMUNITIES, OUR STATES, AND THE NATION.

AND RECOGNIZES THAT BRINGING A GREATER AWARENESS TO THIS PROBLEM WILL HELP VICTIMS. AND WHEREAS, BY BRINGING AWARENESS TO HUMAN TRAFFICKING WITHIN THE MID-SHORE REGION OF MARYLAND, WE BRING VICTIMS HOPE AND WORK TO SECURE THE NATURAL BORN FREEDOMS ALL HUMAN BEINGS SHOULD ENJOY.

[00:10:07]

GIVEN UNDER OUR HANDS AND THE GREAT SEAL OF CAROLINE COUNTY, THIS 21ST DAY OF JANUARY IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD 2025.

JAY TRAVIS BREEDING PRESIDENT. LARRY C PORTER, VICE PRESIDENT.

AND FRANKLIN BARTZ, THIRD COMMISSIONER. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING, COMMISSIONER? THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR COMING. ALL RIGHT. AND HERE'S THE PROCLAMATION.

IT WOULD BE OKAY IF WE GET A QUICK PHOTO. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.

YEAH, WE CAN COME RIGHT UP HERE.

. ALL RIGHT. AWESOME. THIS IS OUR SOCIAL MEDIA.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ONE MORE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. PERFECT. THANK YOU. HOW MANY DID YOU GET LARRY TO SMILE.

HE DID. I HAVE A GOOD SMILE. THAT'S ALL I GOT.

THANK YOU. WELCOME BACK. THAT'LL BE THE LAST ONE FOR THE DAY.

ALL RIGHT. OH, I KNOW I GOT STUFF OVER HERE. OKAY.

NEXT AGENDA ITEM WE HAVE ROY WITH FOR OUR FISCAL YEAR 2024 AUDIT PRESENTATION.

MORNING, SIR. GOOD MORNING. I COMMEND THOSE LADIES FOR WHAT THEY DO.

I WAS ON THE LIFE CRISIS CENTER, WHICH IS MAYBE LIKE THEIR SISTER THING BACK IN THE DAY ON 24TH.

SO THAT'S SOMETHING HONORABLE. YEAH. BUT GOOD MORNING.

I'M ROY GEISLER WITH YOUR AUDITORS. THANK YOU FOR HAVING US TODAY.

THIS IS THE JUNE 30TH, 2024 AUDIT PRESENTATION.

JUST ONE REAL QUICK THING BEFORE WE EVEN GO INTO THIS, AND YOU GUYS WON'T EVEN NOTICE IT.

DANNY, YOU PROBABLY BARELY NOTICED IT, BUT THERE WAS A NEW STANDARD THIS YEAR.

IT WAS SACHSE 145. UNDERSTANDING THE ENTITIES, ENVIRONMENT, AND RISK OF MATERIAL MISSTATEMENT.

[Roy Geiser, UHY, LLP]

SO THAT WAS BEHIND THE SCENES. AGAIN, YOU GUYS PROBABLY DIDN'T EVEN PICK UP ON IT.

BUT WE HAD A LOT MORE WORK ON THE PLANNING END OF THINGS.

IN FRONT OF YOU, THERE'S TWO PACKETS. THE BIGGER OF THE TWO PACKAGES IS YOUR FINANCIAL REPORT.

PAGE 15 IS YOUR AUDIT OPINION. THAT'S WHY YOU PAY US.

WHAT THIS SAYS IS WE THINK THAT THE FINANCIALS AS PRESENTED ARE FREE OF ANY MATERIAL MISSTATEMENTS, AKA A CLEAN SHEET. AND I'M JUST GOING TO KIND OF GO OVER THE BROAD TOPICS.

IF YOU WANT ME TO FOCUS ON ONE PARTICULAR THING, PLEASE STOP AND ASK ME.

AND OR IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, JUST STOP DOING THE THING.

MOVING ON TO PAGE 35. THIS IS YOUR STATEMENT OF POSITIONS.

THIS IS THE COUNTY AS A WHOLE. THIS IS ALL YOUR GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES, ALL YOUR BUSINESS TYPE ACTIVITIES, AND EVEN HAS YOUR COMPONENT UNITS IN THERE. WHAT I WANT TO FOCUS ON IS THE THIRD COLUMN FROM THE RIGHT, THE TOTAL PRIMARY GOVERNMENT. IF YOU LOOK ALL THE WAY DOWN, YOU SEE NET POSITION NET INVESTMENT IN CAPITAL ASSETS OF 52.3 2.3 MILLION.

WE HAVE RESTRICTED ALL THOSE LITTLE THINGS FOR 4.5 MILLION, AND UNRESTRICTED IS 28.4 MILLION, FOR A TOTAL OF 85.2 MILLION IN NET POSITION. THE REASON I FOCUS ON THAT IS BECAUSE AS NET POSITION MAYBE INCREASES, THAT CAN MEAN FINANCIAL HEALTH. AS IT DECREASES, IT COULD MEAN FINANCIAL DETERIORATION.

AND NOT NECESSARILY YEAR TO YEAR, BUT OVER TIME THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO LOOK FOR.

SO IF YOU GO TO PAGE 37 ROY, REAL QUICK. SO THESE ALL THESE RESTRICTED FUND COLUMNS, SO LIKE

[00:15:08]

WILL THE CANNABIS FUNDING, IS THAT GOING TO BE CONSIDERED A RESTRICTED FUND? YES. SO WE HAVE CREATED THAT NEW FUND. AND THE REGULATIONS THAT COME WITH THE CRF SIDE OF THAT WILL BE MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE MONEY GENERATED FROM TAX REVENUE. YOU CAN USE GENERAL FUND OPERATIONS, BUT THE MONEY WE'RE GETTING NOW IS GOING TO BE RESTRICTED. OKAY. SO SO THESE RESTRICTED FUNDS ARE ARE GROWING.

WE'RE WE'RE SEEING MORE AND MORE. VERY MUCH SO.

WE'VE CREATED A HANDFUL OF MORE FUNDS THAN WE'VE PROBABLY SEEN IN THE PAST FIVE, SIX, SEVEN YEARS.

RIGHT. SO IT'S IMPORTANT WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS IT'S JUST IMPORTANT FOR THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE STATE IS RESTRICTING THE FUNDING THAT WE RECEIVE MORE AND MORE ALL THE TIME. THEY'RE TELLING US WHAT WE CAN AND CAN'T USE IT FOR.

YEAH, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S COUNTY FUNDS, BUT IT'S REALLY NOT.

IT'S DIRECTED IN LARGE PART ON HOW IT'S SPENDING BUT SPENT BY THE STATE.

SO. ALL RIGHT. SORRY, ROY. THANKS. NO, NO, THAT'S.

THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING. PAGE 37. THIS IS YOUR STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES.

AGAIN, THIS IS EVERYTHING AS A WHOLE. REALLY? AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 37, WE'RE SHOWING HOW WHAT HAPPENED WITH NET THAT POSITION THIS YEAR? WE STARTED THE YEAR AT 68.1 MILLION. NET POSITION WENT UP BY 17 MILLION.

AND WE ENDED THE YEAR WITH 85.2 MILLION. SO AGAIN, AS THAT GOES UP, THAT CAN MEAN FINANCIAL HEALTH OR DETERIORATION.

SO PRETTY GOOD YEAR FOR THE FOR THE COUNTY. PAGE 38 IS YOUR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS.

I ALWAYS LIKE TO FOCUS ON THE GENERAL FUND BECAUSE THE GFOA ALWAYS HAS A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT.

WHAT THEY RECOMMEND IS THAT YOUR COMMITTED, ASSIGNED AND UNASSIGNED GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHOULD BE NO LESS THAN TWO MONTHS OF YOUR OPERATING EXPENSES. SO THAT'S OUR MINIMUM TWO MONTHS. WE'RE AT ABOUT SEVEN MONTHS.

SO AGAIN, NICE, NICE FINANCIAL PICTURE THERE.

NEXT, I MOVE ON TO PAGE 43. SO THIS IS YOUR STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENSES FOR YOUR PROPRIETARY FUNDS.

REMEMBER THERE'S, THIS IS JUST CONSOLIDATED. BUT THERE ARE FOUR FUNDS IN HERE.

THERE'S THE REC PROGRAM, PUBLIC WORKS, BROADBAND AND BLS.

WE DID HAVE AN OPERATING INCOME OF 637,000 39,000, WHICH COVERS 132,000 DEPRECIATION EXPENSE.

SO WHAT THAT MEANS IS REMEMBER THESE PROPRIETARY FUNDS, THE FEES CHARGE SHOULD BE ENOUGH TO COVER THE OPERATING EXPENSES, KIND OF LIKE A BUSINESS. SO WHAT THIS IS SHOWING IS FOR THIS YEAR YOU HAVE YOUR FEES WERE ENOUGH TO COVER THOSE EXPENSES.

ALL RIGHT. NOW WE'LL MOVE TO PAGE 74. WE'LL GO OVER THE ALL THE RETIREMENT PLANS AND ACCOUNTS.

SO THIS ON PAGE 74 IS THE COUNTY PENSION PLAN.

THIS FOOTNOTE GOES ABOUT 5 OR 6 PAGES. BUT WE'LL SUM IT DOWN INTO ONE COUPLE SENTENCES HERE.

SO WHAT YOU'RE SHOWING IS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR, YOUR NET PENSION LIABILITY IS 5.5 MILLION.

SO WHAT THAT MEANS IS THE COUNTY SENDS THEIR INFORMATION OUT TO AN ACTUARIAL.

THEY DO A STUDY AND SAY, HEY, THIS ALL THESE PROMISES ARE GOING TO COST YOU $34 MILLION.

WE'VE SET ASIDE 28 MILLION. SO THE NET, THE 34 -28 IS THE 5.5 MILLION.

THEN DURING THE YEAR, THROUGH SERVICE CALLS, INTERESTS CHANGE IN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EXPECTED AND ACTUAL.

IT WENT UP BY ABOUT 4.6 MILLION, IN WHICH THE COUNTY FUNDED 1.6 MILLION MEMBERS, CONTRIBUTED 400,000.

AND THEN THE FUNDS THAT WERE IN THE NET FUNDS OF THE PLAN GENERATED ABOUT $2.6 MILLION.

SO THE NET LIABILITY ACTUALLY WENT DOWN BY ABOUT 300,000.

SO WE ENDED THE YEAR AT 5.2 MILLION FOR THE NET PENSION LIABILITY FOR THE COUNTY'S PENSION FUND, WHICH IS ABOUT 86% FUNDED. THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT TO FUND THESE.

THE BEAUTY OF FUNDING IT, THOUGH, IS IF YOU LOOK AT THE CHART AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE.

NET INVESTMENT INCOME OF 2.6. THE FUNDS GENERATE ENOUGH INCOME TO COVER THE COST OF THE BENEFIT PAYMENTS.

SO THAT'S WHY IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE THESE THINGS FUNDED.

THEY KIND OF START PAYING FOR THEMSELVES OVER TIME.

NEXT WE'LL GO TO PAGE 83. SO REMEMBER THE COUNTY ALSO HAS AS PART OF THE STATE PLAN THIS ONE YOU HAVE A LITTLE BIT LESS CONTROL OVER YOU KNOW SAME THING. YOU SEND YOUR CENSUS DATA. IT GOES UP TO THE STATE.

[00:20:02]

AND THEN THEY ALSO SEND YOU WHAT YOU'RE REQUIRED TO PAY. BUT THE TAKEAWAY FROM THIS IS, IS THAT YOUR NET PENSION LIABILITY IS ABOUT 7 MILLION.

AND IT'S ABOUT 74% FUNDED. AGAIN, THERE'S REALLY NOTHING TO DO ABOUT IT.

IT'S BEEN BETWEEN 70 AND 76% FUNDED FOR THE LAST TEN YEARS.

SO I DON'T KNOW THIS FOR A FACT, BUT I'M ASSUMING THAT'S WHERE THE STATE PROBABLY WANTS IT TO BE IN THAT RANGE.

SO THAT ONE'S A LITTLE BIT OUT OF CONTROL. BUT THAT'S WHERE THAT ONE IS FUNDED.

WELL, PENSIONS ARE THOSE JUST BOARD OF ED OR IS THAT THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. SHERIFF'S OFFICE. ANYTHING TO THE LOW SIDE.

JUST SHERIFF'S NOT OUR BOARD OF ED THROUGH, BOARD OF ED AS WELL.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WELL, THE BOARD OF ED WILL HAVE ITS OWN ONE, TOO.

THAT'S PROBABLY DISCLOSED IN HERE FOR THAT. LET ME SEE IF I CAN.

SO IS THIS JUST SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT OBLIGATION? SO, THIS WOULD BE JUST ON 83. OKAY. WELL, HERE YOU GO.

SO THERE'S ON PAGE 83. WE HAVE THE COUNTY AND THE BOARD.

I'LL FOLLOW THAT. SO THE COUNTY IS 6.9 AND YOU ON THE PAGE 83 NEAR THE BOTTOM YOU SEE NET PENSION LIABILITY.

THE BOARD IS 7.5. SO WE HAVE TO DISCLOSE BOTH OF THEM IN HERE AS A COMPONENT UNIT.

SO THAT WOULD BE YOUR LAYUPS. YES. SO THE COUNTING IS ACTUALLY LAYUPS, RIGHT.

THEN WE HAVE THE OPEB PLAN WHICH IS THE OTHER POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS.

THAT'S BASICALLY EVERYTHING BUT PENSION. THIS IS THE BENEFITS THAT YOU SUPPLY TO YOUR EMPLOYEES UPON RETIREMENT.

SO THIS YEAR WE HAD AT THE BEGINNING OF YEAR, WE HAD FOUR, FOUR, SEVEN OF TOTAL OPEB LIABILITY.

THIS IS AT THE CHART AT THE BOTTOM OF 87. WE ACTUALLY HAD MORE NET POSITION.

WE HAD 7.7 MILLION IN PLAN ASSETS. SO WE ACTUALLY HAD A NET OPEN ASSET OF ALMOST $3 MILLION.

THEN WE GO THROUGH THE SERVICE COSTS, PAYMENTS AND ALL, AND THE ASSET WENT DOWN A LITTLE BIT.

BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS THIS PLAN IS 142% FUNDED.

SO ESSENTIALLY, IT'S FULLY FUNDED. THIS THING IS PAYING FOR PAYING FOR ITSELF AT THIS POINT.

ARE WE STILL CONTRIBUTING TO THAT? WE ARE NOT.

YEAH. THE TRUST. THE TRUST THROUGHOUT 734,000, WHICH PRETTY MUCH COVERED THE BENEFITS.

BUT THEN, YOU KNOW, THE ACTUARIAL STUDY MADE IT GO UP AND DOWN A LITTLE BIT, BUT YOU'RE 142% FUNDING.

REMEMBER, THIS WAS BEFORE THE GASB CAME OUT. YOU GUYS HAD ALREADY STARTED FUNDING THIS A LONG TIME AGO, WHICH A LOT OF COUNTIES HAVEN'T. SO THAT WAS IT WAS KIND OF NICE TO ACTUALLY SEE IT IN A POSITIVE POSITION.

SO THAT THAT'S A GOOD THING. MOVING ON TO PAGE 97 IS LOSAP, WHICH IS LENGTH OF SERVICE AWARD PROGRAM.

BASICALLY, FOR YOUR FIRE VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY.

AT THE BEGINNING OF YEAR, WE HAD A $4.5 MILLION LIABILITY.

WE HAD NO ASSETS IN THE PLAN AT THAT POINT. THIS YEAR THAT LIABILITY GREW OR, I'M SORRY, IT WENT THROUGH THE ACTUARIAL STUDY. THE LIABILITY ACTUALLY WENT DOWN A LITTLE BIT.

PLUS, WE CONTRIBUTED 1.7 MILLION TO IT. SO OUR LIABILITY WENT FROM 4.5 ALL THE WAY DOWN TO 1.1 MILLION.

THE NET PENSION NET LIABILITY. AND THAT MEANS THAT'S AT 59% FUNDED.

THIS YEAR THAT THREW OUT ABOUT 122,000 IN NET INVESTMENT INCOME.

SO IT'S I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT AGAIN. THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT TO FUND THESE, BUT IT'S GOOD TO FUND THEM BECAUSE THEY'LL START PAYING FOR THEM.

SO THE IDEA WAS TO GET THIS TO THE POINT WHERE IT WAS GOING TO FUND ITSELF.

BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'M UNDERSTANDING FROM DISCUSSIONS HERE IS THAT THEY ARE NOW GOING TO REQUEST TO LOWER THE AGE TO 55, WHICH I'M NOT GOING TO AGREE TO. AGREE TO.

I CAN TELL YOU THAT BECAUSE WE THAT WOULD MEAN THAT.

I THINK AS LITTLE AS PROBABLY FIVE YEARS AGO IT WAS 65.

SO WE WILL HAVE LOWERED THE AGE TEN YEARS AND INCREASE THE BENEFIT, WHICH JUST MAKES THAT VIABLE.

YEAH. SO, I THINK WE DID LOWER IT TO 60 AND WE INCREASED IT BY THE NUMBER OF YEARS THAT WERE SERVED. SO, YOU KNOW, YOU GOT A CERTAIN BENEFIT IF YOU WERE GOING IF YOU HAD BEEN IN 20 YEARS, THEN IT WENT TO 25. AND I THINK THAT'S A VERY FAIR WAY TO DO IT.

BUT JUST A NOTE. SO I DON'T KNOW HOW WE GO ABOUT LOOKING AT THAT WITH THE ADDITIONAL LIABILITY

[00:25:01]

THEY COULD PROBABLY GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT THAT NUMBER IS.

I'M SURE DANNY PROBABLY COULD CHAT WITH HIM. YES, AND WE'VE HAD THEM RUN SCENARIOS FOR BOTH THE OPEB AND THE PENSION.

AND NOW THAT THE LOSAP IS IN THE SAME SCENARIO, WE CAN HAVE THEM RUN WHAT? THAT WOULD CHANGE DEPENDING ON THE PLAN THAT HAS COST ANYWHERE FROM FIVE AND TEN GRAND TO HAVE THAT STUDY RIGHT.

DONE. I WILL JUST MENTION ONE THING WHILE WE'RE ON THIS.

SO WHEN WE LOOK AT THE LOSAP LIABILITY AND TO YOUR POINT, WE'RE SHOWING AT THE END OF THIS STATEMENT ESSENTIALLY A $2.7 MILLION LIABILITY.

BUT GOING BACK TO LIKE OPEB AND PENSION, YOU'LL SEE WE'VE HAD THE KIND OF A DIFFERENT REACTION WHERE THAT LOSAP LIABILITY HAS GONE DOWN.

PENSION AND OPEB HAVE GONE UP. AND THAT'S BEEN FOR TWO REASONS.

WE'VE INCREASED THE HRA PAYMENT THAT COMES OUT OF THE OPEB.

SO KEEP IN MIND, EVERY TIME WE INCREASE THE OBLIGATION THAT WE'RE WANTING TO PAY OUT THOSE FUNDS, IT WILL BE REFLECTED IN THAT LIABILITY AND THE PENSION AS WELL.

WE CHANGED TO A 25 YEAR PENSION FROM THE THIRD PARTY.

AND ESSENTIALLY ANYBODY CAN RETIRE WITH 25 YEARS OF SERVICE, REGARDLESS OF AGE.

SO AS THESE TYPES OF REQUESTS COME UP AND THROUGH THE BUDGET, WE DO HAVE TO BE MINDFUL THAT WE DO HAVE A SECONDARY EFFECT WITH THE CHANGE IN LIFESTYLE. SO JUST KIND OF WHY THERE WAS A CHANGE TO EACH YEAR.

AND WE HAVEN'T WE HAVEN'T CONTRIBUTED ANY GENERAL FUND MONEY TO FUND THE SAP LIABILITY.

BUT WE HAVE PAID THE LOSAP LIABILITY BENEFIT OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND WE HAVE.

SO, REALLY THE NET POSITION PERCENTAGE IS GOING UP BECAUSE WE'RE FUNDING THROUGH THE GENERAL FUND.

WE'RE MAKING A CONTRIBUTION WITHOUT REALLY MAKING A CONTRIBUTION.

CORRECT. AND WHEN WE LOOK AT THAT, LET'S SAY THAT SECOND COLUMN, THAT COLUMN B IS THE CONTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYER SHOWS AT 1.7 MILLION WE DID 1.5.

IF YOU TAKE OFF THE BENEFIT PAYMENTS, INCLUDING REFUNDS.

THAT DIFFERENCE IS THAT 1.5. WE ESSENTIALLY SHOW IT AS IN AND OUT.

I WILL SAY, OBVIOUSLY, IF ANYBODY FOLLOWS THE MARKET RIGHT NOW, WE'VE DONE EXTREMELY WELL ON ALL THREE FUNDS.

I BELIEVE AS OF LAST MONDAY WHEN I RECEIVED THE STATEMENT FROM MARQUETTE.

WE'RE JUST OVER $1.9 MILLION IN THAT ACCOUNT NOW.

SO IT'S BEEN DOING EXACTLY WHAT WE WANTED IT TO DO, SIT THERE AND ACCRUE.

SO, I THINK FOR THE TIME BEING, WE'LL TAKE AS MUCH INVESTMENT INCOME AS WE CAN GET.

ONE THING TO POINT OUT ON, ON THE STATE PENSION IS USING A 6.8% DISCOUNT RATE, WHICH IS WHAT THEY'RE ASSUMING THE MONIES THE MARKET'S GOING TO GIVE.

EVERYTHING ELSE IS USING SEVEN. WHICH IS REASON WHY I THINK THAT'S PRETTY MUCH INDUSTRY STANDARD.

AND EACH OF THESE HAVE THIS STUDY. BUT WHILE WE'RE ON PAGE 97 YOU CAN SEE RIGHT ABOVE THE CHART WE'RE LOOKING AT.

THERE'S A SENSITIVITY CHART AND YOU CAN SEE THAT AT THE CURRENT DISCOUNT RATE, OUR NET LOSS AT LIABILITY IS 1.1 MILLION.

IF WE WOULD DECREASE THAT TO 6% THAT CHANGES ONE FOUR.

AND IF IT GOES UP TO 842. SO REMEMBER THIS IS A LONG TERM A LOT OF ASSUMPTIONS GOING INTO IT.

SO IT'S REALLY YOU WANT TO TRACK IT OVER TIME AND SEE HOW IT GOES.

IT'S GOING TO GO UP AND DOWN A LITTLE BIT EACH YEAR. BUT I ALWAYS LIKE THAT SENSITIVITY BECAUSE THE FIRST TIME I SAW IT, I WAS LIKE, WOW, IT'S AMAZING HOW MUCH 1% CAN CHANGE THE END RESULT. SO YEAH. SO THAT'S YOUR FINANCIALS IN A NUTSHELL.

IN ABOUT FIVE MINUTES, A LOT OF WORK WAS DONE ON THAT.

THE SMALLER THE TWO PACKAGES IS THE AUDIT COMMUNICATIONS.

DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE FINANCIALS BEFORE WE MOVE TO THE AUDIT COMMUNICATIONS? OR OUR NET POSITION CHANGE, IS THAT CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER JURISDICTIONS THAT YOU AUDIT? YOU AUDIT. WELL, YOUR FIRM AUDITS MULTIPLE OTHER JURISDICTIONS? YEAH. I, I DON'T KNOW, OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.

USUALLY WHEN YOU SEE SOMETHING THAT LIKE YOU'RE REFERRING TO PAGE 37.

YEAH. I MEAN, THAT'S A SUBSTANTIAL. YEAH, THAT'S A BIG JUMP.

USUALLY WHAT THAT MEANS IS YOU GOT A BIG GRANT FOR SOMETHING THAT'S CAPITALIZED.

SO, YOU'VE GOT REVENUE IN, BUT THE EXPENSES AREN'T BOOKED ON THE PNL.

IT'S IN AN ASSET SOMEWHERE, AND I DON'T. DO YOU REMEMBER ANY BIG GRANTS OF THAT NATURE? HONESTLY, FOR THIS YEAR? NOT REALLY. WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY NEW MONEY COMING IN OTHER THAN THE EXTREME JUMP IN INCOME TAX THAT WE'VE SEEN AND PROPERTY TAX AND PROPERTY TAX. IN MY OPINION, WE LAG.

TYPICALLY, A YEAR FROM MOST OF THE STATE, ESPECIALLY ACROSS THE BRIDGE. AND WHAT WE SEE, AND WE'RE KIND OF STARTING TO REALLY RAMP UP IN VOICING THEIR ASSESSMENTS GOING UP.

SO IN MY OPINION, PLAYING CATCH UP AND STARTING TO SEE A LOT OF THIS MONEY GET TO A POINT.

[00:30:07]

YEAH, I WOULD NOT COUNT ON THAT BEING THE NORM.

YEAH. NO. AND I MEAN, AND THE CURRENT STATE BUDGET POSITION IS GOING TO BE VERY DETRIMENTAL TO THE COUNTIES, I CAN TELL YOU. I MEAN, WE'RE ALREADY SEEING TEACHER PENSION SHIFTS.

WE'RE SEEING THAT STAT I MEAN, WE'RE NOW GOING TO HAVE TO PAY 90% OF THE, OF THE ASSESSMENT OFFICE.

THAT'S WHAT THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSED. IF IT MAKES IT THROUGH, IT'LL, THAT'S, THEY'LL DO THAT.

SO I MEAN, THEY'RE JUST DOING NOTHING BUT SECRETLY SHIFTING COSTS TO THE COUNTIES.

YEAH. YEAH. SO JUST SO YOU CAN SEE FOR COMPARATIVE BECAUSE YOU GUYS HAVE AN AFFAIR, YOU HAVE SOME HISTORICAL INFORMATION.

AND ON PAGE 150 WE'LL SHOW YOUR CHANGE IN NET THAT POSITION.

FROM 2015, IT WAS 2.9 MILLION AND 2024 17 MILLION, BUT THE NEXT HIGHEST BEHIND THAT 17 WAS A TEN.

DURING COVID PROBABLY. YEAH. AND THEN THERE WAS A NINE AND THEN IT DROPPED.

I MEAN AFTER THAT YOU'RE TALKING SIX. SO THESE ARE EXCEPTIONS.

AND REMEMBER YOU HAD A LOT OF ARPA MONEY, COVID MONEY COME OUT THAT YOU'RE USING TO FOR THINGS.

SO YEAH, THAT 17 WAS A GOOD YEAR. BUT I WOULD NOT EXPECT THAT TO CONTINUE.

YEAH. ANOTHER GOOD QUESTION. ALL RIGHT. SO, AUDIO COMMUNICATIONS EVERY AUDIT IN THE COUNTRY HAS TO HAVE SOMETHING LIKE THIS. THIS IS REQUIRED COMMUNICATIONS.

IT'S A SMALLER THE TWO PACKAGES, BUT ESSENTIALLY, I CAN BUZZ THROUGH THIS BECAUSE YOU'VE SEEN THIS A COUPLE OF TIMES NOW. BUT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE IBM, YOU'RE GETTING A LETTER LIKE THIS FROM THEIR AUDITORS, BUT THERE'S NO NEW ACCOUNTING POLICIES THIS YEAR, NO SIGNIFICANT ONES. YOU KNOW, IF YOU REMEMBER, WE'VE HAD LEASES AND A COUPLE OF THE BIG ONES COME THROUGH. THE KEY ESTIMATES WITHIN THE FINANCIALS ARE DEPRECIATION EXPENSE. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT OPEB.

LENGTH OF SERVICE AND THE NET PENSION LIABILITIES.

AND THEN THE OTHER KEY ESTIMATE IS THE RIGHT OF USE LEASES.

AND DANNY AND I DANNY AND OUR TEAM WORK TOGETHER TO FIGURE THOSE OUT.

NO DIFFICULTY IN PERFORMING THE AUDIT AND THEIR DISAGREEMENTS WITH MANAGEMENT ON THE HORIZON.

YOU'VE GOT A COUPLE NEW ACCOUNTING POLICIES. ALL PRETTY MINIMAL IMPACT TO THE COUNTY.

YOU HAVE COUNTY CHANGE THE CORRECTION, ERROR STATEMENT NUMBER 100.

IT'S ON PAGE SEVEN. THAT'S NOT REALLY GOING TO AFFECT YOU UNLESS WE HAVE TO DO A PRIOR PERIOD ADJUSTMENT OR CORRECTION ERROR.

SO COMPENSATED ABSENCES THAT WILL BE FOR 2025.

AGAIN, MINIMAL IMPACT FOR YOU GUYS AND IN CERTAIN RISK DISCLOSURES AGAIN MINIMAL IMPACT FOR YOU GUYS.

AND THEN AT THE END IT'S JUST WE JUST SUMMARIZE ALL THE JOURNAL ENTRIES THAT.

WELL, I APPRECIATE YOU GUYS HAVING US OUT AGAIN.

THE ONLY THING WE HAVE TO. WE GOT A COUPLE LOW HANGING FRUIT, LIKE, 911 AND LANDFILL, I THINK, WHICH ARE 95% DONE ON OUR END. WE JUST GOT TO GET THEM OUT AND A SINGLE AUDIT.

I THINK WE'RE 75% THROUGH THAT. FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, TALKING TO MIRANDA YESTERDAY.

SO WE'LL HAVE THEM PROBABLY WRAPPED UP BY THE END OF THE MONTH.

AND THEN 2025 WILL BE ALL BEHIND US AND HAPPY TO SEE US AGAIN, HOPEFULLY IN MAY.

RIGHT, DANNY? YES, YES. WELL, THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE YOU, YOU KNOW, YOU GETTING THIS DONE ON TIME AND US MAKING OUR SUBMISSION DEADLINE WITHOUT HAVING TO FILE. WE DIDN'T HAVE TO FILE FOR AN EXTENSION THIS YEAR.

RIGHT? SO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE ON TIME. I APPRECIATE THAT.

WELL, THAT THAT'S A LOT OF KUDOS TO DANNY AND HIS STAFF.

IT'S HARD TO DO ESPECIALLY IN THE ENVIRONMENT.

NOW WE'RE CPAS, 70% OF CPAS ARE AT RETIREMENT AGE.

LESS AND LESS PEOPLE ARE GOING INTO THE MARKET. SO, IT'S SO AS SEEDS AND PEOPLE ARE LEAVING, THERE'S NOBODY TO BACK. WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS THE QUALITY OF THE PREPARATION COMING TO US IS GOING DOWN.

SO, IT'S A LOT MORE WORK ON IT. BUT DANNY HAS HIS SIGHTS SET ON DELIVERY, SO GOT A GOOD ONE THERE.

THANK YOU, DANNY. FOR ME, YEAH. MAKING AN AUDIT.

WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE. AND THANKS FOR HAVING US OUT.

YEAH. AND THANK YOU AGAIN TO MY STAFF AS WELL.

STACEY'S IN THE ROOM, IS DEFINITELY A BIG PART OF THIS.

IT'S ALL 7 OR 8 OF US THAT TAKE TO GET US TO THIS POINT.

YEAH, GOOD. A LOT OF WORK. GOOD WORK DONE BY YOU GUYS.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANKS, GUYS.

THANKS. SEE YOU NEXT YEAR. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. IT'S COMING QUICK.

I CAN'T BELIEVE IT'S 24. YEAH. THANK YOU.

OKAY. NEXT UP, IT'S NOT KATHLEEN, IT'S DANNY.

[Discussion of Regional Detention Center]

AND I WILL ACTUALLY TAG TEAM THIS ONE AS FAR AS THE REGIONAL DETENTION CENTER.

[00:35:02]

I THINK A COUPLE THINGS HAVE COME OUT OF THAT MEETING.

UNFORTUNATELY, I WAS UNABLE TO ATTEND TO A CONFLICT AND SCHEDULES AND MEETINGS THAT I HAD TO ATTEND HERE.

SO, I THINK IT'S STEWART. IF YOU HAD A COUPLE THINGS YOU WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THAT AND HIT ON WHERE WE NEED TO GO POST THAT MEETING.

THE QUICK SUMMARY WOULD BE THAT WE ARE AWAITING A REDRAFT OF THE AGREEMENT FOLLOWING THAT MEETING, WHICH HAS NOT ARRIVED YET. THE MAJOR POINTS OF DISCUSSION AND INCLUDED THE IDEA OF THE GENERAL PARTNERSHIP APPROACH VERSUS THE TENANT PAYING FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING THAT IT THEN PAYS RENT TO USE. AND WE FINALLY GOT DOWN TO BRASS TACKS AND GOT POSITIONS CLEAR.

I POINT BLANK ASKED, IS IT QUEEN ANNE'S POSITION THAT YOU WILL NEVER PART WITH ANY PART OF THE TITLE TO THE GROUND OR THE BUILDING? BECAUSE I ASKED FOR A WAY TO APPROACH THIS, THAT WOULD, I THINK, MAKE THE COMMISSIONERS IN BOTH COUNTIES HAPPIER IS IF OUR PERCENTAGE OF OWNERSHIP OF THE FACILITY. IT WAS THE SAME AS OUR RESPONSIBILITY FOR PAYING 30%. AND I GOT IT. FINALLY GOT IT OUT THAT NO, QUEEN ANNE'S WILL NEVER PART WITH ANY PART OF THE TITLE TO THE FACILITY OR THE BUILDING.

I'M SORRY, OR THE CAMPUS. SO, I SAID, IN THAT CASE, THEN SECTION 2.5 SHOULD BE DELETED.

THAT'S THE ONE THAT ORIGINALLY, I HAD REQUESTED MONTHS AGO THAT AT LEAST THE PARTIES AGREE TO DISCUSS IN GOOD FAITH THE POSSIBILITY OF FORMING AN AUTHORITY DOWN THE ROAD. AND SO, I SORT OF DRILLED IT RIGHT BETWEEN THE EYES AND THE REACTION WAS TAKE IT OUT. SO, WE'RE NOT EVEN GOING TO HAVE THAT PROVISION IN THERE ABOUT THE DISCUSSION OF FORMING AN BEING AN AUTHORITY IN THE FUTURE.

AND AS I SAID, WE'RE AWAITING THE REDRAFT. SO, THE OTHER THE OTHER THING THAT JUMPS OUT TO ME AFTER THAT STATEMENT WOULD BE THE NEED TO HAVE THE CALLS THAT, THAT KNOW THAT.

WELL, MY UNDERSTANDING IS NOW THAT QUEEN ANNE'S CANNOT EXIT THE AGREEMENT.

THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ONE OF THE CHANGES. SO ONLY CAROLINE AND KENT COULD ELECT TO EXIT THE AGREEMENT VOLUNTARILY ON THEIR OWN ACCORD. CORRECT. SO, AND IF WE'RE GOING TO FUND IT OURSELVES, THE, THE PORTION THAT SAYS YOU CANNOT EXIT UNTIL ALL DEBT REQUIREMENTS ARE MET SHOULD BE REMOVED AS WELL, BECAUSE WE'RE ALL WE'RE ALL PAYING OUR OWN PORTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION. RIGHT? SO THAT NEEDS TO BE REMOVED.

THAT WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION THAT IF WE WERE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS, THAT THAT ALSO BE REMOVED.

THE FUNDING SPLIT IS 45%. QUEEN ANNE'S 30% CAROLINE, 25% KENT.

DOES THAT SOUND RIGHT? SOUNDS RIGHT. SO THE START WAS GOING TO BE A FLAT AMOUNT PER COUNTY.

RIGHT. BASED OFF PER POPULATION. AND THEN AFTER SO MANY YEARS OF OPERATION IT WOULD GO TO A COUNT BY INCARCERATED INDIVIDUAL. SO, IF YOU HAD SOMEBODY IN THE FACILITY FROM CAROLINE WHO WAS THERE FOR THREE MONTHS OUT OF THE YEAR, YOU WOULD HAVE A 0.25 OF AN INDIVIDUAL COUNT TOWARDS YOUR POPULATION.

AND THEN AT THE END OF THE YEAR, THEY WOULD ESSENTIALLY REBASE AND SPLIT THE PERCENTAGES BASED OFF ACTUAL ATTENDANCE IS ANOTHER THING. SO, SO TO ADDRESS MY CONCERN ABOUT INVESTING IN A IN A BUILDING IN ANOTHER COUNTY THAT WE COULD POTENTIALLY BE KICKED OUT OF.

THEY SAID WE WON'T. THE ONLY WAY YOU COULD BE REMOVED IS BY YOUR OWN ACCORD.

CORRECT. WHAT? YEAH. GO AHEAD. ONE OF THE BIGGER CONVERSATIONS, JUST

[00:40:04]

THE ONLY CONCERN I HAVE ABOUT THAT, AND I SORT OF SAID IT TO THE MEETING.

I SAID THE CAMPUS; THE FACILITY IS ALL OWNED BY THE QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. THE WARDEN AND EVERY SINGLE EMPLOYEE OF THE FACILITY IS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.

AND I SAID, IF THEY'RE IN THE EVENT THAT THERE WAS AN IMPASSE OR A PROBLEM WHERE THE OVERSIGHT BOARD WANTED SOMETHING DONE AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DID NOT WANT THAT DONE.

I SAID, WHO DO YOU THINK IS GOING TO WIN THAT IN THE END? AND THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.

SO AT THIS POINT IN TIME, I HAVE NOT SEEN, AND IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE STEWART HAS SEEN A REDRAFTED VERSION THAT INCLUDES SOME OF THESE CHANGES.

I KNOW DURING THAT MEETING QUEEN ANNE'S IS LOOKING FOR DIRECTION.

I THINK THEIR REQUEST WAS TO HAVE A YAY OR NAY BY TODAY.

I THINK KATHLEEN'S RESPONSE WAS THAT WAS NOT ABLE TO OCCUR, AND THAT WE WERE STILL CONTINUING TO NEGOTIATE AND WORK THROUGH THIS DRAFT AGREEMENT BEFORE WE WOULD HAVE ANY VOTE FOR YAY OR NAY, SAY, WELL, THEY CAN WANT WHAT THEY WANT. I, YOU KNOW, I'D LIKE TO BE 6'3" AND HAVE HAIR, BUT I MEAN, I THINK SO.

TO ME, WHAT I FEEL THAT WE SHOULD DO IS TO ONCE WE GET THIS REVISED AGREEMENT, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US PULL TOGETHER EVERY PIECE OF INFORMATION WE CAN ON THIS.

I THINK WE HAVE TO HAVE A HEARING. PUBLIC HEARING.

I MEAN, WE GOT TO LISTEN TO WHAT THE PUBLIC IS GOING TO SAY ABOUT THIS. THIS IS PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, THIS IS PROBABLY THE BIGGEST DECISION THAT'S GOING TO BE MADE IN A LONG TIME FOR YEARS TO COME.

AND I'M NOT GOING TO JUST WE GOT TO LISTEN TO WHAT THE PEOPLE SAY.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS. WE GOT TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS. WE HAVE YOU KNOW, SOME, SOME CONCERNS. I'M SURE THAT WE AREN'T THINKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, AS MUCH AS WE'VE LOOKED AT THIS, I MEAN, BUT I'M NOT I'M NOT PREPARED TO MOVE FORWARD UNTIL WE PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC, TO THE TAXPAYERS AND LET THEM KNOW WHAT THE IMPACT IS GOING TO BE TO THE COUNTY FOR YEARS TO COME.

OUR BIGGEST CONCERN, ONE OF THE BIGGEST CONCERNS WE HAD WAS THE IMPACT IT WOULD HAVE ON OUR EMPLOYEES.

FROM WHAT I GATHER, FROM TALKING, I THINK, TO KATHLEEN OR SOME SOMEWHERE DOWN THAT HAS PRETTY MUCH BEEN RESOLVED, THAT OUR EMPLOYEES WOULD BE ABLE TO BE ABSORBED INTO THE WORKFORCE.

YES, BUT WE DON'T I DON'T KNOW ALL THE DETAILS ABOUT THAT.

AND I THINK MY SUGGESTION IS GOING TO BE FOR ME, EITHER PERSONALLY OR AS A GROUP, THE PERSON THAT I'M LOOKING TO ON THIS IS WHO I THINK PROBABLY KNOWS WHAT THEY'RE MORE ABOUT, WHAT, YOU KNOW, ANYTHING THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THAN CERTAINLY ME WOULD BE THE WARDEN. WARDEN SCOTT, I MEAN, I THINK WE GOT TO SIT DOWN AGAIN WITH HIM.

TALK THIS OUT, BUT THERE'S NOT THERE'S NO DEADLINES AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED.

I MEAN, THEY CAN PUT THEY CAN SAY THEY WANT WHAT THEY WANT, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE NOW, I MEAN, I KNOW WE'VE GOT COVERAGE ON THIS, BUT I'M JUST NOT SURE, YOU KNOW, THE AVERAGE PERSON IS,

[00:45:07]

AND IT'S A BIG MOVE. AND I MEAN, THE ANSWERS THAT I GOT FROM WARDEN SCOTT LAST WEEK OR YEAH, LAST WEEK WERE CLARIFIED SOME THINGS FOR ME THAT WE, YOU KNOW, THE INMATE POPULATION IS SIGNIFICANTLY DOWN, OR THE INCARCERATED PERSON POPULATION IS SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED.

BUT IN ORDER FOR US TO RETAIN THIS, THIS FACILITY HERE IN THIS COUNTY, WE WOULD HAVE TO RENOVATE THE ENTIRE FACILITY.

AND I JUST DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHERE WE ALL STARTED WITH THIS.

YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH CAN WE PUT THERE AND HOW MUCH OF IT HOW MUCH CAN WE AFFORD TO REALLY RENOVATE THAT FACILITY WITH THE FUNDS WE HAVE, AND WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THAT FACILITY WOULD ACTUALLY BE RENOVATED? AND I THINK AT THAT POINT WE WERE LOOKING AT 20% OF THE FACILITY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SO YEAH, PROBABLY IF YOU FACTORED IN THE OUTSIDE, I MEAN, IT'S LOOK, IT'S 100 YEARS OLD.

SO, I MEAN, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO. THE NUMBER CRUNCHING STILL NOT DONE FOR US.

I'M CONCERNED. BUT I DO I DO THINK WE NEED PUBLIC INPUT.

IF NOBODY COMES THEN THAT'S UP TO THEM. BUT I MEAN, I DON'T I DON'T WANT TO WALK OUT HERE ON THE STREET AND HAVE PEOPLE SAY, PEOPLE SAY, WELL, YOU GUYS MADE THIS AND I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT OR I DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO EXPRESS MY OPINION.

SO THAT'S WHAT WE'VE DONE FOR YEARS, THROUGH THE YEARS.

AND THAT'S WHAT I FEEL WE SHOULD DO WITH THIS.

SO. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? YEAH. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS THE TIME RESTRAINT GOES, WE WERE WE WERE PATIENT, JUST, YOU KNOW, WE WERE PATIENT WITH THE LANDFILL.

SO I JUST FEEL WE SHOULD BE GIVEN THE SAME RESPECT AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, MAKING THE DECISION.

I DO THINK WE NEED A PUBLIC HEARING. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE COST SAVINGS ANALYSIS ON THAT FOR ONE.

AND JUST MORE REASSURANCE FOR THE EMPLOYEES OF OUR COUNTY EMPLOYEES, WHICH I THINK THAT'S BEEN TAKEN CARE OF AS FAR AS WHAT KATHLEEN HAS SAID.

SO CAN I ASK ONE MORE THING? SO WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE BREAKDOWN OF THE INCARCERATED POPULATION. EXPLAIN TO ME AGAIN HOW WILL THAT BE CALCULATED WHEN IT COMES TO MEDICATION AND FOOD? AND THOSE CONTRACTS WILL THEY'LL BE BASED ON THE POPULATION PERCENTAGE, PERCENTAGE OF EACH COUNTY. CORRECT. SO WE ENDED UP FALLING AT THE 30% EXACTLY OR ANYWHERE AROUND THERE.

THEY WILL GET THEIR TOTAL BUDGET, HAVE ACTUAL COSTS THAT COME THROUGHOUT THAT YEAR AND TAKE THAT APPLIED TO 30% FOR CAROLINE COUNTY.

AND WE WOULD RECEIVE A BILL. PART OF THAT DOES INCLUDE A 3% ADMIN THAT WOULD BE ADDED TO THAT.

FOR QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY, MANAGING AND USING THEIR HR, FINANCE, ALL THE SUPPORT TO THE TO THAT AGENCY.

BUT IT WOULD BE BASED OFF THE OVERALL COST. AND WE ALSO HAD TALKED ABOUT THE COURSE PROGRAM? YES. SO ONE OF THE BIG QUESTIONS AND SOMETHING THAT I'LL PROBABLY HAVE TO TACKLE IS WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO SET UP A CALL WITH THE STATE TO SEE WHAT IT'S GOING TO COST FOR US TO GET INTO DECOR. SO ESSENTIALLY, OUR EMPLOYEES ARE NOT ON THE STATE COURSE RETIREMENT.

SO, KENT AND QUEEN ANNE'S ARE. SO MY UNDERSTANDING AND KNOWING THE COST, OF COURSE, AND THE OPS AND DIFFERENT STATE PROGRAMS IS TYPICALLY THE COST MORE TO GET INTO THAN WHAT WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE A PENSION FOR.

SO, TO HAVE OUR 38, 40 EMPLOYEES GO INTO THAT I THINK IT'S SAFE TO ASSUME THAT THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO BE SOME TYPE OF CONTRIBUTION.

AND I BELIEVE WHAT WE'VE CONTRIBUTED TO THE TENSION IS LESS THAN WHAT THEY'LL REQUIRE.

SO THAT WILL HAVE TO BE CALCULATED AND FIGURE OUT FIGURED OUT BY THE STATE, BUT THAT MY GUESS NOW IS NOT GOING TO BE A SMALL NUMBER. SO, THAT'S CERTAINLY GOING TO BE A NUMBER THAT WE NEED TO, YES, FIGURE INTO OUR CALCULATION. AND THE SO FOR EXAMPLE, I KNOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE MEDICAL, THE CONTRACTS. WHO WOULD ACTUALLY NEGOTIATE THOSE CONTRACTS AND WHOSE NAME WOULD THOSE CONTRACTS BE IN. SO, MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROCESS IS THE DETENTION.

[00:50:04]

SO THE DETENTION CENTER WILL ISSUE AN RFP FOR FOOD SERVICES.

MEDICAL SERVICES. ONE OF THE TOUGH THINGS, THOUGH, IS ONCE THAT IS DECIDED, THE BOARD WILL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THAT THEY WANT TO GO WITH CONTRACTOR XYZ, AND THAT CONTRACT, I IMAGINE, WOULD HAVE TO BE SIGNED BY QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY BECAUSE THEY ARE THE CHECKBOOK.

THEY ARE THE ONE WHO IS ISSUING PAYMENT TO THAT VENDOR AND USING THEIR FINDINGS AND PURCHASING.

SO, TO STUART'S POINT, I BELIEVE THE CONTRACT, ONE OF THE STATEMENTS NOW IS QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY CANNOT OR WILL NOT VOTE NO AGAINST SOMETHING THAT THE BOARD HAS RECOMMENDED AS THE OVERSIGHT BOARD.

CORRECT. AND THE OVERSIGHT BOARD AGAIN, IS MADE UP OF IT IS MADE UP OF THREE MEMBERS FROM QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY AND THEN TWO MEMBERS FROM CAROLINE AND I'M SORRY, FOUR THREE AND THREE, TWO FROM CAROLINE AND TWO FROM KENT.

YES, AND THREE FROM QUEEN ANNE. ADMINISTRATOR.

YEAH. AND THEN QUEEN ANNE'S COMMISSIONER. ADMINISTRATOR.

AND THEN ONE THAT THEY CAN DECIDE. I BELIEVE IN THE AGREEMENT THAT, SAID ONE RESIDENT, THAT OF QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY THAT RESIDED NEAR THE DETENTION CENTER FACILITY. SO, THE LOCAL REPRESENTATION. IT ALSO PRESENTLY STATES THAT THE QUORUM WOULD CONSIST OF FIVE MEMBERS.

I MADE THE SUGGESTION THAT AT LEAST ONE OF THOSE FIVE.

THERE HAS TO BE REPRESENTATION FROM ALL THREE COUNTIES.

RIGHT. AND THAT GOT A POSITIVE RESPONSE. OKAY.

SO, SOMETHING OF THIS SIZE, YOU KNOW, ONCE IT'S ALL DONE, WILL THEY GO TO A SEPARATE AUDIT.

LIKE NOT LIKE WE JUST HAD THROUGH THE COUNTY.

LIKE THEY JUST HAD A COUNTY. OH, WE HAD A COUNTY AUDIT. SO, EVERYTHING FALLS UNDER THAT UMBRELLA. SO, WE JUST HAVE WHAT THEY HAVE THEIR OWN AUDIT. SO, THIS WOULD BE INCLUDED IN QUEEN ANNE'S AUDIT BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT CREATING A WHOLE SEPARATE ENTITY WITH ITS OWN FEDERAL ID NUMBER. THIS IS GOING TO BE AN ENTITY OF QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY.

SO, THEY WILL HAVE AND BE PART OF QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY.

AND NOT THAT I'M NOT THAT I'M TRYING TO BRING UP A, I MEAN, I CERTAINLY TRUST PEOPLE.

WE WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO VERIFY THE BUILDINGS THAT WE I MEAN, THAT WOULD BE OUR FINANCE DEPARTMENT WOULD VERIFY THE PERCENTAGE OF BUILDINGS THAT WE GET AND HOW MUCH WE'RE BEING CHARGED FOR THESE THINGS.

CORRECT? YES. OKAY. WHAT WAS THE COST TO BUILD THE FACILITY? WHAT WERE THEY PROJECTING IT AT? DO YOU REMEMBER? WAS IT 60 MILLION? THAT'S WHAT I REMEMBER.

OKAY. DO YOU HAVE THE INFORMATION YOU NEED TO PUT TOGETHER A COST SAVINGS. WHAT? WE'RE PROJECTING THE COUNTY COULD SAVE THE IDEA BEHIND THIS.

I MEAN, YOU ASK, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S WHAT'S THE UPSIDE IN THIS? TO QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY OR TO KENT COUNTY OR TO US? WHAT'S THE ANSWER TO THAT? WOULD BE COST SAVINGS FROM SHARING THE ADMIN STAFF TO OPERATE A DETENTION CENTER.

COST SAVINGS FROM SHARING THE VENDORS THAT THE COST TO HAVE THE VENDORS THAT WE USE, WHICH ARE MAINLY FOOD SERVICES AND MEDICAL. SO WE WOULD SPLIT THOSE COSTS AND POTENTIALLY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE BETTER MEDICAL SERVICE.

ONE ONE OF THE COST SAVINGS IDEAS WAS NONE OF THE THREE FACILITIES PROVIDE 24 HOUR MEDICAL RIGHT NOW.

SO SHOULD THERE BE A MEDICAL EMERGENCY IN ANY OF THE THREE DETENTION FACILITIES.

THAT INMATE WOULD HAVE TO BE TRANSPORTED TO A HOSPITAL, WHICH THE COUNTY THERE IN TURN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COVERING THE FULL COST FOR THAT HOSPITALIZATION. CORRECT. SO BY PROVIDING 24 HOUR MEDICAL SERVICE, WE'RE HOPING THAT WE COULD SAVE ON SOME TRANSPORTS AND SOME MEDICAL COSTS FOR MINOR MEDICAL. YES. AND REALLY KIND OF TO THAT MEDICAL HAS BEEN ONE OF OUR LARGEST LINE ITEMS OUTSIDE OF THE SOUTH TO THE SHERIFF. SO, JUST TO PUT IT IN COMPARISON, RIGHT NOW, WE'RE BUDGETED AT ONE POINT I WAS GOING TO CALL A RECESS AFTER WE GOT DONE WITH THIS. FRANK. ALL RIGHT, ZACH, I'LL HOLD IT.

SORRY. I CAN PRESS 1.2 MILLION OF OUR JUST SAY $5.9 MILLION BUDGET IS FOR MEDICAL, AND THAT IS FOR A THIRD PARTY

[00:55:09]

PLUS, ANY COST. WE HAVE TO GO OUTSIDE. ALL THREE DETENTION CENTERS ARE DOING THAT.

SO, THE IDEA WOULD BE THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO HIRE AND STAFF IN-HOUSE FOR A LOT LESS THAN THAT THIRD PARTY.

SAME THING WITH FOOD. SO RIGHT NOW, IN 2025, THE THREE DETENTION CENTERS BUDGET COMBINED TO ABOUT $17.3 MILLION FOR THE THREE DETENTION CENTERS. SO, THE IDEA AND SOMETHING THAT TO YOUR ORIGINAL QUESTION, I FEEL LIKE I HAVE PART OF THE STORY OR PART OF THE INFORMATION IS WHAT WOULD THIS FACILITY.

RIGHT. WE NEED TO BUILD WHAT THE WHAT OUR WHAT THE BUDGET WOULD BE .

RIGHT. ANTICIPATED BUDGET. THE HARD PART. AND BACK TO THE EMPLOYEES.

I MEAN, SALARIES BEING ONE OF THE LARGEST LINE ITEMS. IF MEMORY SERVES ME CORRECT FROM THE CONVERSATION THEY'RE EXPECTING, I BELIEVE 115 110 EMPLOYEES OF THIS FACILITY, WHICH IS ABOUT FIVE MORE THAN ALL THREE CURRENT FACILITIES ARE STAFFING.

SO, I DON'T THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE MUCH DIFFERENCE UNLESS YOU HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE RETIRING NOW THAT ARE HIGHER END OF THE SCALE.

SO, IT REALLY HAS TO COME DOWN TO THOSE THIRD PARTY SERVICES AND CAPTURING SAVINGS THERE.

NOT KNOWING WHAT A MEDICAL WING OF A DETENTION CENTER COST MAKES IT VERY HARD TO TRY TO BUDGET OR FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT MAY SAVE US.

BUT QUEEN ANNE'S IS ASKING SOME OF THE QUESTIONS ABOUT OUR BUDGET AND WHAT WE'RE EACH SPENDING.

SO, I THINK BEHIND THE SCENES, THEY'RE PROBABLY LOOKING TO DO THE SAME THING.

SO, I THINK THE NEXT TIME KATHLEEN AND I HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH TODD, I'M SURE WE'LL HAVE A FOLLOW UP EMAIL WITH WHERE THE DIRECTION IS.

WE CAN CERTAINLY ASK ABOUT WHETHER THEY'RE PROJECTING OR RUNNING ANY MODELS OF A BUDGET.

WE CAN TRY TO IN HOUSE IF THEY ARE NOT. AND THEN WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO THE PUBLIC HEARING, WE CAN WORK WITH JEN TO FIGURE OUT WHEN WE CAN GET SOMETHING ADVERTISED AFTER WE HAVE A VERSION OF THE REVISED DRAFT AND GET THAT SCHEDULED, WE'LL OBVIOUSLY HAVE TO DO THE ADVERTISEMENT SO MANY DAYS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING.

IS THE INTENT TO HAVE IT ON A NORMALLY SCHEDULED TUESDAY MORNING COMMISSIONERS MEETING, OR ARE YOU LOOKING TO DO SOMETHING THAT'S AFTER HOURS? IT DOESN'T. I THINK WE PUT IT OUT AND ASK PEOPLE TO, TO COMMENT, YOU KNOW, ONLINE, BE ONLINE.

AND THEN WE CAN MAKE A DETERMINATION IF IT NEEDS TO BE, YOU KNOW, OUTSIDE OF WORK HOURS.

BUT I NEED NUMBERS I NEED TO KNOW WHAT WE'RE SAYING.

I NEED IT LIKE WE'RE NOT I'M NOT AGREEING. I'M NOT GOING TO VOTE YES UNTIL I SEE HOW MUCH WE'RE GOING TO SAY.

I GOT TO BE ABLE TO JUSTIFY THIS. AND IF WE'RE ALL SPENDING 17.3 NOW AND THAT'S WHAT IT'S GOING TO CONTINUE TO BE MOVING FORWARD, I'M NOT DOING THE DEAL. WE GOT TO HAVE SAVINGS.

IT'S THE WHOLE PREMISE OF DOING THIS RIGHT. AND I THINK THE OTHER THE OTHER PART OF IT IS THE FACILITY WE HAVE.

HOW MUCH WHERE'S THE POINT HERE WHERE WE HAVE TO CONTINUE? WE HAVE TO GO IN AND CONTINUE SPENDING MONEY IN THIS FACILITY TO RENOVATE IT WHEN IT'S 100-YEAR-OLD FACILITY.

AND HOW MUCH, HOW MUCH CAN WE PUMP WITH NEW SENTENCING GUIDELINES AND THE REDUCED, YOU KNOW, INCARCERATED POPULATION? THAT THAT'S THE BIG PART AS WELL.

IS IT HOW'S THE LEGIT THE INSURANCE COVERAGE COST GOING TO GO? IS QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY GOING TO FLIP THAT OUT OF THE 3%, OR IS THAT BUILT INTO THE OPERATING BUDGET, THE 3% ADMIN FEE? IF IT WAS ME, IT WOULD BE BUILT INTO THE ACTUAL IN THE OPERATING BUDGET? YES. FOR INSURANCE. RIGHT. OKAY. SO, THERE'S NOT REALLY ANY SAVINGS THERE.

SO. ALL RIGHT. YEAH. COMMISSIONER? YEAH. YEAH.

I FOLLOW UP ON SOMETHING YOU ASKED A FEW MINUTES AGO.

LIKE, WHAT IS IN IT FOR QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY? WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES FOR THEM? ONE OF THEM IS THEY'RE GOING TO OWN 100% OF A FACILITY THAT THEY ONLY PAID HALF OF THE COST TO CONSTRUCT.

RIGHT. THEY'LL CARRY THAT ON THEIR BOOKS, I SUPPOSE, IN THEIR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. COST TO BUILD AND SAVINGS. I NEED SOMETHING BUILT OUT AND I'LL WE'LL START GOING DOWN THE PATH OF THE COURSE COST AS WELL.

I MEAN, THE OTHER IDEA. I DON'T WANT TO GLOSS OVER THIS.

IT HASN'T BEEN BROUGHT UP. BUT THE OTHER THING IS, IS THAT WE ALL COMPETE FOR THE SAME PEER RECOVERY SPECIALISTS.

[01:00:09]

SO POOLING OUR RESOURCES TOGETHER, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO PROVIDE BETTER SERVICES TO THE INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS AND HOPEFULLY CUT DOWN ON RECIDIVISM AS WELL. BUT, YOU KNOW, AND SAY THERE. BUT THE BIG THING IS THE DOLLARS.

SO YEAH. AND I THINK LOOKING AT YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT THE HISTORY AND THE BILLS AND LEGISLATIVE ATMOSPHERE IN ANNAPOLIS, I DON'T THINK THE I DON'T THINK THE SERVICES OR CARE THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE TO INCARCERATED PEOPLE IS GOING TO LESSEN. IT'S GOING TO INCREASE.

WE'RE LOOKING AT MENTAL HEALTH NOW AND ADDICTION COUNSELING AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO, I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO BE ANY CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, ANY LESS MY I DON'T I DON'T KNOW, I CAN'T JUDGE WELL ENOUGH TO KNOW ABOUT SENTENCING GUIDELINES.

I MEAN, THOSE, YOU KNOW, THOSE COULD CHANGE, I GUESS.

BUT I DON'T SEE THEM HAPPENING IN MARYLAND HAPPENING, YOU KNOW, SO IT'S A BIG DECISION.

AND I THINK WE NEED. CERTAINLY. THANK YOU, GUYS, FOR YOU KNOW, THE 15 WEEKS OF GOING THROUGH THIS I KNOW IT'S A JOB.

AND BUT IT BOILS DOWN TO NUMBERS AND COMMON SENSE.

BUT THE MORE INFORMATION WE CAN PROVIDE TO OUR TAXPAYERS, THE BETTER.

EASIER TO BE FOR US TO WALK INTO BULLOCK'S AND ANSWER QUESTIONS.

AND THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR. SO THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT LET'S TAKE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS.

[01:08:26]

[• Legislative Bill #2025-001-Chapter 33 Ethics, Code of—Repeal and Reenactment]

SO DO I HEAR A MOTION TO GO INTO LEGISLATIVE SESSION? THEN I'LL COME BACK. SO MOVED.

SECOND. MOTION SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

I. I. WE ARE NOW IN LEGISLATIVE SESSION. I'LL TURN IT OVER TO COUNTY ATTORNEY BARROLL AND MR. WILLIE, IF YOU WANT TO COME FORWARD. YES, I'M FINE WHERE I AM.

COME ON UP. YOU'RE HERE THIS MORNING. HE DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO DO TODAY, SO JUST DON'T LISTEN TO AN AUDIT REPORT.

YEAH, RIGHT IN YOUR WHEELHOUSE. YOU NEVER HEARD ANY OF THOSE? BY WAY OF BACKGROUND, IF I COULD JUST INTRODUCE IT.

THE MARYLAND PUBLIC ETHICS LAW REQUIRES IN A GENERAL PROVISIONS ARTICLE, SECTION 5807, WHICH IS ENTITLED PUBLIC ETHICS, LAWS REQUIRED AND DUTIES.

AND THERE IS A REQUIREMENT THAT EACH COUNTY AND EACH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION SHALL ENACT PROVISIONS TO PROVISIONS TO GOVERN THE PUBLIC ETHICS OF LOCAL OFFICIALS RELATING TO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE AND LOBBYING, AND IT FURTHER REQUIRES THAT ANY SUCH ETHICS CODE BE SUBMITTED TO AND APPROVED BY THE STATE ETHICS COMMISSION.

[01:10:05]

AND I'LL LET MR. WILLY TAKE IT FROM THERE. AS FAR AS ITS REVIEW BY THE ETHICS COMMISSION.

WELL, THERE ISN'T MUCH TO SAY. I MEAN, AS YOU KNOW, WE MEET, WE DON'T.

WE HAVE NO REGULAR MEETING SCHEDULE. WE MEET WHEN THERE IS AN ISSUE OR THERE'S SOMETHING THAT'S REPORTED THAT SOMEBODY THINKS WE NEED TO CONSIDER OR WEIGH IN ON. AND DURING THOSE INFREQUENT MEETINGS.

WE WOULD THEN ON OCCASION TALK ABOUT THE THE NEW REQUIREMENTS FROM THE STATE.

AND I DON'T KNOW, WHEN WE STARTED WORKING ON THIS REVISION, I WAS PROBABLY A GOOD TWO, TWO AND A HALF YEARS AGO.

POSSIBLY. I WOULD SAY I TELL MY WIFE, I KNOW WHAT IT FEELS LIKE TO HAVE A BABY NOW, EXCEPT THE LABOR WAS TWO YEARS, SO MOST OF THE WORK HAS ACTUALLY BEEN DONE BY LEGAL COUNSEL EITHER.

MR. BARROLL. I'M NOT SURE IF YOU DID IT OR IF YOU SHARED WITH IT WAS ME.

OKAY. WELL, SO MOST OF THE CREDIT GOES HERE. NOT TO THE COMMISSION.

I JUST THOUGHT THAT IT WOULD BE NICE FOR YOU GUYS TO JUST SEE A FACE THAT YOU COULD ASSOCIATE WITH US, AND FOR ONCE. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. SOME OF THE YOU MIGHT ASK, WHAT ARE SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT WE'RE MAKING? ONE OF THEM IS WITH RESPECT TO RECUSAL, WHICH IS NOT SPELLED OUT IN THE EXISTING CODE.

BUT IF YOU'RE RECUSING YOURSELF, WHAT THIS DOES IS GIVES A LITTLE MORE DETAIL TO THE PUBLIC OFFICIAL AS TO PHYSICALLY REMOVING YOURSELF FROM THE DECISION MAKING BOARD IN THE EVENT YOU ARE RECUSED.

AND THIS IS FOR THE THERE'S SOMETIMES A MISIMPRESSION BY THE PUBLIC THAT A RECUSED MEMBER WHO CONTINUES TO SIT UP THERE WITH THE DECISION, THE REAL VOTERS IS GOING TO SUBTLY INFLUENCE THE OUTCOME OF THE VOTE.

THERE'S ALSO A PROVISION IN THERE THAT IF YOU ARE RECUSED, YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO PARTICIPATE IN DISCUSSION OF THE PENDING ISSUE, EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE NOT GOING TO VOTE AT THE END OF IT, BUT YOU SHOULD NOT BE PARTICIPATING IN THE DISCUSSION. ANOTHER CHANGE THIS MAKES, AND THIS CAME OUT OF SOME EXPERIENCE I HAD IN HAD IN CHESTERTOWN.

INVOLVING A BOARD OR COMMISSION. FOR EXAMPLE, LET'S JUST SAY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION BEING SOLICITED PRIVATELY BY A DEVELOPER OR AN APPLICANT WHO'S GOING TO BE COMING BEFORE THAT COMMISSION TO PLEASE COME ON OUT AND LOOK AT THE SITE WITH ME, LOOK AT MY PLANS, HAVE LUNCH, TALK TO THE ARCHITECT, WHATEVER ALL OF THAT STUFF IS UNDER THIS VERSION IS PROHIBITED. AND SO AN APPLICANT TO DISCOURAGE THIS FROM OCCURRING, AN APPLICANT WHO DOES SO RISKS THAT. ACCORDING TO THIS CODE, THE MEMBER OF THE BOARD OR COMMISSION WHO HE HAS TRIED TO BUTTONHOLE THE OLD EXPRESSION ABOUT PRIVATELY TALKING TO SOMEBODY ABOUT IT, IS EXPOSED AT THE MEETING.

THE MEMBER OF THE BOARD OR COMMISSION MUST DISCLOSE THAT.

MR. SMITH, BY THE WAY, CONTACTED ME. HERE'S WHAT HE SAID TO ME.

I MAY OR MAY NOT FEEL THAT I'M NOW I SHOULD RECUSE, BUT I AT LEAST AM AIRING IT IN THE PUBLIC SO THAT MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS CAN BECOME AWARE THAT THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED. I DON'T THINK I'VE BEEN UNDULY INFLUENCED.

I'M NOT GOING TO RECUSE MYSELF UNLESS THIS BOARD, THE REST OF MY COLLEAGUES HERE BELIEVE I NEED TO DO SO.

AND THAT IS BECAUSE THE PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO HAVE ITS BUSINESS TRANSACTED ON THE RECORD.

EVIDENCE, EXHIBITS, PHOTOGRAPHS, WHATEVER THAT THE BORDER COMMISSION IS RELYING UPON TO MAKE ITS DECISION SHOULD BE A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD AND NOT A PRIVATE CONVERSATION BEHIND CLOSED DOORS WITH THE PERSON WHO'S COME BEFORE THE BOARD FOR A DECISION.

SO THOSE ARE THE MAIN CHANGES. I THINK IT'S ALSO A LITTLE CLEARER IN THE DEFINITION SECTION.

A LOT OF THIS IS DEFINING THINGS AND ALSO MAKING IT, I THINK, CLEARER THAT YOUR IMMEDIATE FAMILY, IF IT COULD BENEFIT FROM A DECISION THAT YOU'RE GOING TO VOTE ON THAT, THAT EXTENDS TO A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. IT'S NOT JUST YOU PERSONALLY BENEFITING, BUT IF YOUR SON, YOUR WIFE, YOUR DAUGHTER ARE GOING TO

[01:15:08]

IT BASICALLY, THE WHOLE IDEA HERE IS TO ENHANCE THE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE DECISION MAKERS.

THERE'S NOT MUCH CHANGE ON THE LOBBYING, THE LOBBYIST PROVISIONS.

THESE ARE ALL VERY SIMILAR TO THE STATE ETHICS LAW, WHICH GOVERNS STATE OFFICIALS.

SO IN A CASE WHERE A CONSTITUENT WERE TO CALL.

SO YOU GAVE THE EXAMPLE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION BOARD.

SO WOULD THAT SAME PROVISION EXTEND TO THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ABOUT.

NO. THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.

YOU ARE YOU WEAR MULTIPLE HATS. YOU ARE THE LEGISLATURE AND ALSO THE EXECUTIVE.

YOU'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS. IN FACT, IT'S ENCOURAGED THAT CONSTITUENTS BE ALLOWED TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT SOMETHING.

FOR EXAMPLE THE DAF LEGISLATION THAT WE WENT THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING WE'RE ABOUT TO HAVE ON THE DETENTION CENTER, YOU ARE ENCOURAGED TO HAVE PEOPLE OUT IN THE PUBLIC SAY THINGS TO YOU ABOUT THIS.

IT'S WHEN AN APPLICANT FOR A PROJECT WANTS TO WANTS TO PRIVATELY PERSUADE YOU TO THEIR WAY TO APPROVE MY PROJECT. THAT IS WHERE WE DRAW THE LINE.

SO NO, IT WOULD NOT CAUSE YOU ALL TO BE SUDDENLY HAVING ETHICAL PROBLEMS BECAUSE YOU'VE BEEN SPEAKING TO A CONSTITUENT ABOUT SOMETHING.

NO. OKAY. GOOD. YEAH. FIRST OF ALL, BOB, THANK YOU FOR SERVING ON THIS. I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN THERE FOR A LONG TIME. AND, YOU KNOW, WE I THINK SOMETIMES WE, YOU KNOW, DON'T DON'T RECOGNIZE THE PEOPLE WHO SERVE ON THESE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS ENOUGH.

I MEAN, IT TAKES TIME, AND I THINK I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN HERE.

I'VE REACHED OUT. I THINK WE'VE TALKED A COUPLE OF TIMES.

I THINK THE WAY WE'VE KIND OF APPROACHED THIS IS I'VE USUALLY, YOU KNOW, AND I KNOW WE WOULD SAY PREEMPTIVELY, DO DO YOU THINK THIS IS GOING TO BE A PROBLEM? AND YOU'VE ALWAYS BEEN VERY RECEPTIVE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, ANSWERING THOSE QUESTIONS.

IN LOOKING THROUGH THIS AND I JUST IF I MAY, I'LL JUST SAY SPEAKING FOR THE REST OF THE COMMISSION, WE WE CONSIDER IT AN HONOR TO BE ABLE TO SERVE IN SOME SMALL WAY.

AND, AND, AND I ALSO SAY THAT THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE HAD COME BEFORE US IN THE LAST NUMBER OF YEARS.

I'M KIND OF IMPRESSED AT YOU KNOW, YOU GENTLEMEN, OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT THAT HAVE COME AND REQUESTED OPINIONS, SOME STUFF WE GET IN THERE, AND I SAY, I DON'T EVEN THINK I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT OF THAT, THAT THAT MIGHT BE AN ISSUE.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, COMPLIMENTS TO EVERYONE FOR REACHING OUT BEFORE IT BECOMES A PROBLEM AND ASKING US TO WEIGH IN.

YEAH. WELL, THANK YOU. IN LOOKING THROUGH THIS, I GOT I GOT A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED HERE ABOUT FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

WHAT IS THERE? I MEAN, I WAS READING THROUGH BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THERE ARE FINANCIAL REPORTS THAT WE DO TO THE STATE, BUT WE'RE NOT CHANGING. WE'RE NOT REQUIRING THOSE TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE ETHICS COMMISSION.

CORRECT. NOTHING NEW. OKAY. SO, I HAVE ONE KIND OF QUESTION HERE. SO, FOR EXAMPLE COMMISSIONER BARTZ, PRIOR TO ME AND WE KIND OF DID A LITTLE BIT OF REARRANGING, AND I AM NOW THE COMMISSIONER MEMBER OF THE ON THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES BOARD.

THERE IS A PROPOSAL RIGHT NOW BY A PERSON TO BUILD A NEW SOCIAL SERVICES BUILDING.

I DIDN'T SELECT THAT PERSON AND KIND OF CAME IN IN THE MIDDLE IN THAT CAPACITY.

I'M NOT, I MEAN, I'M SITTING HERE THINKING TO MYSELF, THIS PERSON HAS PRESENTED A PROPOSAL BASICALLY TO THE STATE, YOU KNOW, TO CONSTRUCT THIS BUILDING AND HAS NEGOTIATED THE LEASE RATE THAT HE WOULD REQUIRE AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

BUT HE HAS ASKED ME IF I CAN KIND OF WORK, YOU KNOW, WITH THROUGH OUR, OUR LOBBYISTS AND THINGS TO SEE IF THAT CAN BE APPROVED.

[01:20:02]

I MEAN, BUT IN MY CAPACITY AS A MEMBER OF THAT BOARD, I CERTAINLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE A NEW BUILDING.

I THINK EVERYONE WOULD LIKE TO SEE A NEW BUILDING BUILT HERE. SO, I JUST, I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT WOULD FALL.

YOU WOULD NOT HAVE AN ETHICAL CONFLICT IN MY OPINION.

I'M NOT BENEFITING IN ANY WAY FROM HIM. I'VE NEVER MET THE GUY UNTIL ABOUT A MONTH AGO, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU.

SO. OKAY. BUT I DON'T KNOW. I THINK THE BEST, THE BEST WAY FOR ME TO DO THIS WOULD BE TO TRY TO THINK EVERYTHING I CAN.

AND IF I GOT A QUESTION, REACH OUT AND SAY, IS THIS SOMETHING WE SHOULD BE? YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD DISCUSS AND GET AN ANSWER.

SO. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, BOB .

APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. SO, STEWART, IF WE MAKE ANY THIS WENT THROUGH A REVIEW BY THE STATE ETHICS COMMISSION.

THAT IS CORRECT. AND APPROVED. SO IF WE MAKE ANY CHANGES TO IT, IF YOU MAKE SUBSTANTIAL, SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO IT, NOT IMMATERIAL ONES. FOR EXAMPLE, A DATE HAS BEEN CHANGED, SO MINOR THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT. SO, WE DON'T HAVE TO RESUBMIT IT IF WE CHANGE A WORD, RIGHT? WELL, AS AN EMPLOYEE OF A FAMILY BUSINESS, THAT PROBABLY PUTS ME IN A IN A MORE UNIQUE POSITION THAN, THAN PROBABLY ANY RECENT COMMISSIONER OR ANY SITTING COMMISSIONER NOW.

WE, IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S. KIND OF HAD ME IN A POSITION OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS WHERE I HAVE NOT PROVIDED MY OPINION ON PROJECTS THAT THE COUNTY IS ENTERING INTO, BECAUSE THERE'S A POTENTIAL THAT OUR COMPANY MAY BID ON THOSE PROJECTS. SO, I HAVE LET THINGS GO OUT THE DOOR OR HAVE NOT WEIGHED IN ON THAT I FEEL COULD HAVE BEEN DONE A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY TO BENEFIT THE COUNTY. BUT BECAUSE MY COMPANY MAY COMPETITIVELY BID ON THOSE END PROJECTS, I HAVE NOT WEIGHED IN ON THE DEFICIENCIES THAT I'VE SEEN IN THOSE DIFFERENT PROJECTS THAT HAVE GONE, YOU KNOW, OUT THE DOOR. SO, IT'S, I DON'T KNOW, IT'S JUST IT'S AN INTERESTING AND DIFFICULT CONCEPT FOR ME TO ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND AND FIGURE OUT A WAY TO MAKE TO MAKE THIS WORK.

YOU KNOW, I'M TRYING TO THINK OF EXAMPLES. YOU KNOW, THERE MAY BE A PROJECT WHERE I SEE A WAY COULD BE ENGINEERED DIFFERENTLY TO SAVE THE COUNTY MONEY. BUT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T INVOLVE MYSELF ON THE FRONT END.

I DON'T SEE THAT IT GOES OUT TO BID. AND THEN I SEE IT, AND I CAN POINT OUT ALL KINDS OF DEFICIENCIES AND WAYS THAT IT COULD SAVE THE COUNTY MONEY ON THE BACK END, BECAUSE I WASN'T INVOLVED ON INPUT.

AND I UNDERSTAND THAT SEPARATION NEEDS TO HAPPEN.

BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE GOT TO FIND A WAY TO USE EACH OF OUR STRENGTHS TO BENEFIT THE COUNTY HERE AS WELL.

SO I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS, YOU KNOW, DOES THAT IF IT MAKES ANY CHANGES THERE OR NOT.

DO YOU WANT TO HANDLE THAT FIRST? IT'S A TOUGH ONE, MR. BREEDING. AND I GUESS THE WAY I HAVE ALWAYS LOOKED AT IT WITH RESPECT TO YOU IN PARTICULAR, IS THAT, YOU KNOW, ON ONE END OF THE SPECTRUM, YOU'VE GOT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE SOMEBODY GETS ELECTED AND USES HIS ELECTED OFFICE TO PERSONAL GAIN, FEED BUSINESS INTO HIS POCKET. AND ON THE OTHER END OF THE SPECTRUM, YOU'VE GOT I JUST CAN'T PARTICIPATE IN BIDDING ON ANY OF THOSE JOBS. AND THAT'S JUST THE COST OF PUBLIC SERVICE.

RIGHT. AND IT AND IT WORKS TO MY DETRIMENT. RIGHT.

BUT IN MANY CASES, GOT TO SETTLE SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE.

AND I DON'T KNOW WHERE, BUT IT COULD COST THE COUNTY ON THE BACK IF WE WERE THE LOW BIDDER.

I MEAN, IF WE WOULD HAVE BEEN 5% LOWER THAN THE OTHER CONTRACTOR, 10% LOWER THAT COST THE COUNTY, YOU KNOW, SO IT'S LIKE, YOU KNOW, I SEE THE THINGS COME OUT AND I'M LIKE, MAN, I WOULDN'T HAVE DONE IT THAT WAY.

BUT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE CALL. SO, I HAVE TO MAKE THE CHOICE EITHER TO WEIGH IN AND TRY TO MAKE THE PROJECT MORE EFFICIENT.

AND, YOU KNOW, AND THEN AT THAT POINT, I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO BID ON IT ON THE BACK END, WHICH IF I WAS THE LOW BIDDER,

[01:25:02]

BUT YOU KNOW, I DON'T, IT'S BEEN, IT WAS, IT WAS A DYNAMIC OR A SOMETHING THAT I DIDN'T REALLY THINK ABOUT WHEN I RAN, HONESTLY, WAS, YOU KNOW, THAT PORTION OF IT, I THOUGHT, YOU KNOW, I COULD COME IN AND, AND, YOU KNOW, CLEAN UP SOME OF THE THINGS WE WERE MAYBE DOING HERE AND THERE TO, TO SAVE THE COUNTY MONEY.

AND, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW, JUST SOME OF THOSE THINGS HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE I HAVEN'T BEEN ADDRESSED BECAUSE I DON'T SEE IT UNTIL IT ACTUALLY GETS ADVERTISED. AND THEN WHEN IT GETS ADVERTISED, I'M LIKE, WHY DID WE DO IT THIS WAY OR WHAT ARE WE? YOU KNOW, BUT IT IS A DILEMMA. YEAH. FOR US AS COMMISSIONERS AS WELL.

BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IT'S KIND OF LIKE I THINK BRIAN WILL TELL YOU FIRE COMPANY.

I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU HAVE PEOPLE WHO HAVE AREAS OF EXPERTISE, LIKE WE SET UP HERE AND TALK ABOUT ROADS, HE'S FORGOTTEN MORE ABOUT ROADS THAN I'LL EVER KNOW.

SO, I MEAN, IT JUST LIKE I CAN SIT HERE AND LOOK AT THESE, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

I MEAN, BUT EACH ONE OF US HAVE, YOU KNOW, SOME AREAS THAT WE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE SOME KNOWLEDGE IN.

IT'S JUST HARD TO SAY. YOU CAN'T USE THAT KNOWLEDGE.

YOU CAN'T, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T ASK QUESTIONS.

YOU CAN'T SAY, DO YOU THINK THIS IS THE RIGHT IS THIS THE RIGHT WAY TO DO THIS? I MEAN, IT'S JUST, IT'S DIFFICULT. WELL, I THINK AS SPEAKING FOR THE ETHICS COMMISSION, I THINK WHERE WE'VE KIND OF SETTLED ON TRYING TO WRESTLE WITH THIS, ESPECIALLY THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, HAS BEEN IF WE HAVE A STRONG PROCUREMENT POLICY AND POLICIES AND PROCEDURES AND A STRONG DEPARTMENT, WHICHEVER DEPARTMENT IT IS THAT HANDLES IT.

YEAH. THEN THAT'S OUR THAT'S OUR COMPROMISE BETWEEN MY TWO EXAMPLES OF THE ENDS OF THE SPECTRUM.

AND I THINK THAT WE IN CAROLINE COUNTY OR HAVE STRUCK THAT BALANCE WITH THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT ADHERING TO STRICT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES IN PROCUREMENT AND DESIGNS OF RFPS AND SPECS AND WHAT HAVE YOU.

AND THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THERE MIGHT NOT BE AN ISSUE THAT COMES UP IN THE NEXT THREE MONTHS THAT WE ADDRESS AND SAY, WELL, YOU KNOW WHAT? IT DIDN'T WORK IN THIS CASE.

BUT ALL WE CAN DO IS HANDLE THEM ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS.

YEAH. OUR DEPARTMENT HEADS ARE STRONG IN THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR. I MEAN, IT WOULD YOU KNOW, THEY KEEP EYES. GOOD EYES ON THINGS. I MEAN AS THE AUDIT JUST SHOWED.

SO. ALL RIGHT. WELL, WE'LL READ THROUGH IT. I GOT ABOUT HALFWAY THROUGH IT.

I DIDN'T GET THROUGH THE WHOLE THING YET. SO.

WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO GO FORWARD WITH THE FIRST READING, THE INTRODUCTION OF IT FORMALLY, OR DO YOU WANT TO WAIT ON THAT? YOU WANT TO DELAY FOR A WEEK? YEAH. I MEAN, TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO READ THROUGH IT.

HAVE YOU READ THROUGH THE ENTIRE. I GOT THROUGH MOST OF IT, BUT I WOULD I MEAN, I THERE'S NO WE DON'T HAVE A DEADLINE TO ADOPT THIS OR ANYTHING.

I'D LIKE TO MAYBE PUT THIS OFF TILL NEXT WEEK FOR THE INTRODUCTION.

WE GOT A LOT TO READ. SURE. WHAT'S GOING ON? AND, YOU KNOW.

SO. YEAH, COMPARED TO THE DETENTION CENTER, THIS IS.

YEAH. YEAH. WELL, WE GOT A LOT GOING TO DO. AND IF THERE'S NO DEADLINE, THEN I WOULD SAY IF WE COULD DELAY, MAYBE INTRODUCTION UNTIL NEXT WEEK. I PROMISE I'LL TRY TO GET THROUGH IT THIS WAY.

WHEN WAS OUR CURRENT ETHICS ORDINANCE PASSED? OH, PROBABLY WHEN THE STATE LAW FIRST REQUIRED IT IN THE 70S, I THINK.

OKAY. IT LOOKS LIKE I'M IN THE CODE SECTION OF THE WEBSITE WHERE IT LISTS HISTORY OF ANY AMENDMENTS.

SO, IT LOOKS LIKE COMMISSIONERS IN 2008 DID AN AMENDMENT AND THEN ALSO 2011.

SO, IT HAS NOT BEEN AMENDED OR TOUCHED AT LEAST SINCE 2011 BUT INTRODUCED PROBABLY.

HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN ON THE BOARD? NOTHING.

WELL, I CAME IN 2010. I THINK YOU WERE ON HERE.

YOU WERE ON THERE THEN. SO. REALLY? YEAH, I THINK SO.

SO. OKAY. I DON'T KNOW. I MEAN, I WOULD JUST GIVE A COUPLE MORE DAYS, AND THOSE AMENDMENTS WERE PROBABLY MANDATED BY STATE LAW. PROBABLY. YEAH.

YEAH. WELL, YEAH. AND I WOULD VENTURE TO SAY THAT IF YOU COME UP WITH A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE THAT YOU WANT TO MAKE HERE, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO. THEY'RE TELLING YOU WHAT IT NEEDS TO BE US.

[01:30:02]

SO WE'LL MOVE INTRODUCTION TO THIS, THE NEXT TUESDAY'S MEETING.

IS IT A LEGISLATIVE? THE 28TH. WE CHANGED TO THREE.

YEAH, RIGHT. SO THAT'S THE FOURTH TUESDAY. WELL, THE NEXT LEGISLATIVE, WE'LL DO IT.

THE NEXT AVAILABLE LEGISLATIVE DAY, WHETHER IT BE NEXT, I THINK NEXT TUESDAY SHOULD BE THE FOURTH.

TUESDAY IS THE ONLY TUESDAY. WHAT? WHAT'S THAT? IT IS THE FOURTH. OKAY, SO IT'S NOT I DON'T THINK IT IS A LEGISLATIVE DAY THEN.

SO IT WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE FIRST MEETING OF FEBRUARY.

SO OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WELL, THANK YOU FOR COMING IN.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE ON THE BOARD. AND THANK YOU.

YEAH. I'M GOING TO SNEAK OUT THE SNOW SHOVEL.

HEY. HAVE FUN. ALL RIGHT, SO DO I HEAR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE LEGISLATIVE SO MOVED. SECOND. OKAY. MOTION SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. THE AYES HAVE IT. LEGISLATIVE SESSION UPDATE COMMISSIONER PORTER PIO REIBLY.

[Legislative Session Update]

AND HE WANTS TO KNOW IF WE WANT TO DO IF WE'RE INTERESTED IN DOING A LETTER OF OPPOSITION OR IF WE WANT TO TESTIFY.

I DON'T THINK I'M INTERESTED IN TESTIFYING, BUT I THINK WE COULD PROBABLY REACH OUT TO DEREK, TO THE SUPERINTENDENT, BECAUSE THERE WERE SOME, SOME CONCERNS FROM THEIR TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT ABOUT IT WITH THIS BILL IS BASICALLY SAYING, I THINK AS OF ANY BUS THAT BUSTED IS PUT INTO SERVICE AFTER 2027.

WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THE SEAT BELT, YOU KNOW, SEAT BELTS INSTALLED.

SAME CONCERNS THAT WE HAD BEFORE, YOU KNOW WHO'S GOING TO MAKE SURE THEY DID.

THEY DID MAKE AN AMENDMENT AS FAR AS THE LIABILITY ABOUT WHO'S RESPONSIBLE, WHO'S LIABLE FOR MAKING SURE THE KIDS ARE BUCKLED IN.

THIS IS APPARENTLY THIS IS A PERSON, ONE OF THE DELEGATION.

IS THIS ONE OF THEIR BILLS THAT THEY'RE THEY WANT TO KEEP BRINGING BACK.

SO WE HAVE JUST GOTTEN INTO LAST NIGHT WAS THE, YOU KNOW, LEGISLATIVE BILL REVIEW.

THEN WE DO IT AGAIN ON WEDNESDAY, THEN WE DO IT ON THURSDAY.

SO, I MEAN, BUT THE BILLS THERE'S A LOT OF BILLS BEING DROPPED THERE, PRETTY EARLY AT THIS POINT.

THE OTHER ONE WAS WE HAD A LONG DISCUSSION ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF THE EMINENT DOMAIN BILL THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU WERE YOU HAD COMMENTED ON. YEAH, MAYBE WE ASKED STEWART ABOUT THAT ONE.

DID THE EMINENT DOMAIN BILL WAS PROHIBITING THE STATE OR COUNTY FROM TAKING LAND FROM EMINENT DOMAIN, BY TAKING LAND BY EMINENT DOMAIN IN AREAS THAT WERE PRESERVATION AREAS? IN THE BEGINNING, THAT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S SOMETHING WE WOULD ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT.

BUT THEN WE GO BACK TO A SITUATION I THINK THAT WE HAD WITH LONG WAS IT LONG SWAMP WHERE WE NEEDED TO DO THAT TO TAKE PROPERTY? BRIAN, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG HERE TO REPLACE THE BRIDGE.

WELL, WE DIDN'T USE EMINENT DOMAIN, BUT BECAUSE THE LANDOWNER IT WAS IN PRESERVATION WAS WILLING TO NEGOTIATED WITH IT, PUT IT IN SOME PRESERVATION PROGRAM AFTER WE HAD AN INITIAL DISCUSSION OF REPLACING THE BRIDGE.

SO, THE QUESTION IS DO SHOULD DO WE WANT TO DO WE WANT TO ADD SOME LANGUAGE IN THERE GIVING THE COUNTY THE, YOU KNOW IN THAT SITUATION THE RIGHT TO DO IT? I DON'T, I'M NOT SURE WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT EVERY DAY ABOUT, YOU KNOW, EACH DAY TOMORROW IS THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION IN PERSON.

BUT I THINK IT'S ONE OF THOSE DEALS WHERE IT SEEMS LIKE A SLAM DUNK.

BUT THEN YOU START, YOU GOT TO START TO THINK ABOUT IT. THIS APPARENTLY IS BEING GENERATED A LOT BY THE PIEDMONT, THE POWER LINE TRANSMISSION LINES CROSSING PRESERVED.

THERE WAS ANOTHER PROPERTY. THERE WAS ANOTHER BILL ABOUT TRANSMISSION LINES CROSSING ABOVE PRESERVED PROPERTY AS WELL.

SO, THERE'S A LOT OF THOSE A LOT OF THESE BILLS ARE COMING, ARE COMING ALONG.

BUT, YOU KNOW, I HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING AT THIS POINT.

THAT IS A MAJOR DEAL FOR US. THERE WILL BE. BUT PRELIMINARILY, YOU KNOW, THERE'S BEEN A COUPLE THAT WE'VE

[01:35:10]

I MEAN BUT AGAIN, A LOT OF ENERGY BILLS, A LOT OF, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THINGS COMING, COMING DOWN THE ROAD THAT WE'RE HEARING ABOUT. BUT NOTHING HAS BEEN OFFICIALLY DROPPED SO FAR.

BUT SO IF WE CAN, IF WE CAN REACH OUT TO TRANSPORTATION.

THEY DID A LETTER OF OPPOSITION LAST YEAR, I I MEAN, IT SOUNDS LIKE A BILL FOR SAFETY AND IT IS. BUT I MEAN, AGAIN, I JUST DON'T KNOW.

OH NO, I, WE OPPOSED IT LAST YEAR. I THINK WE WOULD DEFINITELY THE COST WOULD, WOULD BE.

BUT BACK BACK TO THE EMINENT DOMAIN BILL. I MEAN IT, YOU ALMOST HAVE TO HAVE A CARVE OUT IF IT'S CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE THAT NEEDS IMPROVEMENT. I MEAN, WE RUN A SITUATION LIKE THAT BRIDGE, WHERE ARE WE GOING TO CLOSE THE ROAD BECAUSE IT'S PRESERVED LAND NEXT TO IT AND WE CAN'T BUILD A NEW BRIDGE THERE. I MEAN, THERE HAS TO BE SOME TYPE OF CARVE OUT FOR COUNTIES, I WOULD THINK TO BE.

I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE SUPPORT WITH AMENDMENTS IS COMING FROM, WOULD COME FROM [INAUDIBLE].

BECAUSE INITIALLY [INAUDIBLE] WAS SUGGESTING AN OPPOSITION POSITION.

RIGHT. THAT'S WHY I KIND OF WENT WET BALL FORM.

YEAH. WAIT A MINUTE. WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. YEAH. AND THEN THEY EXPLAIN. YEAH.

AND YOU BROUGHT THAT UP? YEAH. I JUST BROUGHT UP THE LONG POINT SITUATION.

YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, IF WE NEED IT, WHY WOULD WE? WHY? YOU KNOW, BUT I UNDERSTAND THE PREMISE. THE PREMISE IS TO PREVENT FOR POWER LINES, TRANSMISSION LINES, FIBER OPTIC LINES, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS TO CROSS PRESERVE LAND OR SOLAR PANELS.

RIGHT. OR SOLAR? WELL, THAT'S MY CONCERN THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE WE'RE STILL WE'RE STILL DISCUSSING THIS, YOU KNOW, TWO MILE RADIUS LANGUAGE HERE OF WITHIN, YOU KNOW, OF TRANSMISSION LINES.

I JUST THINK IT'S A CAMEL'S NOSE UNDER THE TENT TO, YOU KNOW, START LOOKING AT THIS THING AND SAYING, OKAY, THAT'S STEP NUMBER ONE IN EMINENT DOMAIN.

I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING, YOU KNOW, YEAH, BUT I JUST THINK THAT THIS, THIS SESSION IS, FROM WHAT I GATHER, GOING TO BE THE MAJOR LEGISLATIVE, LEGISLATIVE FOCUS HERE IS GOING TO BE RENEWABLE ENERGY. THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF RENEWABLE ENERGY BILLS COMING DOWN THE ROAD, AND WE'LL SEE WHAT THE WHAT THE NEW FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION HAS TO WHAT EFFECT IT HAS. SO. WELL, I DID SEE IN THE GOVERNOR, I BELIEVE IT WAS IN THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSED BUDGET THAT THE RENEWABLE ENERGY SUBSIDIES THAT THE STATE THAT THAT HE'S PROPOSING THE STATE PROVIDE DOUBLE FROM 90 MILLION TO 180 MILLION.

I BELIEVE I SAW THAT. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, YOU KNOW, DANNY, DO YOU WANT TO RUN OVER WHAT THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET PROPOSES IN I GUESS EXPENDITURE SHIFTS FROM THE STATE TO THE COUNTY? YEAH, CERTAINLY. SO, TAKING A FIRST LOOK THROUGH AND THIS IS ALL ALSO ON [INAUDIBLE] WEBSITE, SOME OF THE MAJOR LOCAL IMPACTS THAT WE'RE SEEING.

I HAVE A LIST OF THEM HERE. WE'LL START WITH STATS.

SO CURRENTLY OUR LOCAL ASSESSMENT AND TAXATION OFFICE IS A STATE RUN DEPARTMENT.

WE SPLIT THAT 5050. THE GOVERNOR IS PROPOSING THAT TO GO TO 9010.

SO, WE'LL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR 90% OF THAT OFFICE.

AND THAT'S A STATE, THEY'RE STATE EMPLOYEES. THEY'RE STATE EMPLOYEES. FULLY STATE AGENCY. CORRECT.

STILL WORKING FROM HOME, STILL DOING MODIFIED SCHEDULES.

LET ME MAKE A COMMENT ABOUT THAT. I'VE ASKED JEN TO GET THE ASSESSMENT DIRECTOR IN HERE SO WE CAN TALK TO THEM IF WE'RE GOING TO PAY 90% OF THAT, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, ARE GOING TO WORK UNDER OUR GUIDELINES.

SO I'M JUST TELLING YOU, I MEAN, IT'S GOING TO BE A BATTLE IN HERE BECAUSE AND THEN YOU MENTIONED TO ME THE OTHER DAY THAT THEY'RE JUST BASICALLY REFERRING PEOPLE TO OUR TAX OFFICE IF THE. SO RIGHT NOW, IF NOBODY PICKS UP THE PHONE THEIR VOICE MESSAGE IS TO.

IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT YOUR TAXES TO CALL OUR OFFICE.

I THINK IN THEORY, YES, WE DO HANDLE TAXES. AND THE QUESTIONS THAT THEY HANDLE ARE CREDITS.

[01:40:04]

SO THAT SHIFT. WHAT'S THE ESTIMATED COST OF GOING 90/10 IF IT WAS OFF OF THIS YEAR'S PROBABLY ABOUT $140,000.

OKAY. SO THAT'S PLUS 140,000 COMING TO THE COUNTY THAT WE HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE COUNTY? YEP. NEXT ON THE LIST, ON THE EXPENSE SIDE. WE NOW OR THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES THE COUNTIES PICKING UP A LARGER SHARE OF TEACHER RETIREMENT. SO CAROLINE COUNTY WOULD BE $561,645.

THAT WOULD BE A NEW EXPENSE THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO BUDGET FOR AND PICK UP ON THE BACK END OF THAT.

WE ARE CURRENTLY RECIPIENTS OF A TEACHER RETIREMENT SUPPLEMENT THAT HELPS US PAY OUR ALREADY COMMITTED OBLIGATION.

SO OUR EXPENSE GOES UP BY THAT 561. AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE GRANT THAT WE RECEIVE IS GOING TO GO DOWN BY 342,000.

SO PUT THOSE TWO NUMBERS TOGETHER. YOU'RE AT ABOUT $904,000 TO THE NEGATIVE ON BOTH OF THOSE CHANGES.

SO ABOUT A MILLION BUCKS SO FAR. CORRECT. AND THEN NEXT WE HAVE REDUCTION IN DISPARITY GRANT.

SO, THERE ARE SOME CHANGES IN THE WAY THAT WAY THAT FORMULA IS GOING TO PAY OUT THIS YEAR.

DISPARITY AGAIN COMPARES THE COUNTIES TO A 75% STATE AVERAGE, AND THEN WE GET A SUPPLEMENT TO CATCH US UP TO THAT.

MY GUESS ARE THE NUMBERS THAT WE'RE SEEING SHOW A REDUCTION OF ABOUT $176,000 THERE.

SO THOSE FOUR MAJOR ITEMS THAT EVERYBODY IS KIND OF HITTING ON PUTS US ABOUT $1,220,000 IN THE NEGATIVE. AGAIN, WE'RE JUST STARTING THE BUDGET PROCESS.

I THINK ONE OF THE SCARIER NUMBERS THAT WE'RE SEEING OR HEARING COMES IN THE FORM OF THE BLUEPRINT AND OUR ALLOCATION TO THE LOCAL BOARD OF ED. ALL OF THE COUNTIES IN THE LAST WEEK WERE SENT A PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF THE LOCAL SHARE CALCULATION AND STATE SHARE CALCULATION.

WE ARE BASED OFF THOSE NUMBERS, WHICH I'LL PREFACE.

IT'S EARLY OR EARLY AND ARE NOT PROBABLY EXACTLY WHERE THIS IS GOING TO FALL.

SHOWS US ANYWHERE FROM 1.8 MILLION TO $2 MILLION INCREASE IN OUR LOCAL BOARD OF ED ALLOCATION.

THE EXCEL SPREADSHEET SAYS 2.1, RIGHT? I THOUGHT I CALCULATED IT.

OKAY. ONE EIGHT. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. SO AGAIN, COMPOUND ALL OF THOSE THINGS I'VE LISTED OFF.

AND WE'RE ABOUT 3 MILLION IN THE NEGATIVE. AND AGAIN, THOSE ARE ALL ITEMS OUT OF OUR CONTROL THAT WE HAVE NO SAY IN AT THIS POINT. SO DEFINITELY GOING TO BE A VERY INTERESTING LEGISLATIVE SESSION AS WELL AS BUDGET.

SO, ALL RIGHT.

AND OUR BOARD OF ED NUMBER LAST YEAR WAS, WHAT, TWO FOUR? SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO, SO. OUR BOARD OF ED NUMBER TO THEM WAS 18,496,000. THE PROPOSAL THAT'S INCLUDED IN THAT EXCEL SHEET HAS US GOING TO 20,370,000.

RIGHT. BUT I'M SAYING YOUR LAST FISCAL YEAR, WE SAW A $2 MILLION INCREASE IN MANDATORY CONTRIBUTION TO THE BOARD OF ED.

CORRECT? YES. SO IT WAS LIKE TWO, FOUR. TWO, FOUR.

YES. TWO. FOUR. 15. AND THEN THIS YEAR, WE'RE LOOKING AT ANOTHER 1.8 MILLION SEVEN THREE.

YEP. SO, THIS THIS IS UNSUSTAINABLE TO CONTINUE TO HAVE $2 MILLION INCREASES.

YES. WELL, JUST WHAT YOU TALKED ABOUT IN THE THREE MILLIONS.

ABOUT 12 CENT PROPERTY TAX, RIGHT? YES. AND HE'S REDUCED THE BUDGET, THE STATE BUDGET, BY PASSING IT ON TO THE BACKS OF THE COUNTIES.

THAT'S WHAT HE'S DONE. WHICH EVERYBODY KNEW THAT.

YOU KNOW, SO THERE'S PLENTY OF INTERESTING CHANGES IN THERE THAT ARE NOT DIRECTLY AFFECTING

[01:45:02]

BUT THERE'S TAXING OF DELIVERIES. DELIVERIES.

YEAH, SURE. LOOKING TO DO THE INHERITANCE TAX.

ESTATE TAX. YES. DO AWAY WITH INHERITANCE TAX I BELIEVE AND GO TO STRICTLY ESTATE TAX CORRECT, LOOKS TO ELIMINATE INHERITANCE AND GO TO THE ESTATE, BUT THE EXEMPTION WOULD LOWER FROM 5 MILLION TO 2 MILLION.

THEY HAVE INCREASE IN GAMING TAXES. SO, THAT'S SPORTS AS WELL AS TABLE GAMES.

CANNABIS TAX INCREASE. RIGHT NOW IT'S AT 9%. THEY WOULD LOOK TO GO TO 15% BY 2027.

AND THEN THIS REALLY ISN'T A BIG ONE FOR US. BUT REMOVE ENTERPRISE ZONE TAX CREDITS FOR CERTAIN BUSINESSES.

BUT THE CANNABIS TAX HAS STRINGS ATTACHED SO IT CAN'T BE USED TO FOR GENERAL FUND; RIGHT? YES AND NO. THE BULK OF IT IS STRINGS ATTACHED.

THE VERY SMALL PART THAT WE GET IF WE HAVE A DISPENSARY COME IN MAY NOT HAVE AS MANY STRINGS, BUT YEAH, EVERYTHING WE'RE GETTING TODAY STRINGS.

BUT THE CANNABIS RECOVERY MONEY IS, HAS, IS SPECIFIED INTO HOW IT CAN BE SPENT.

YES. OKAY. GOOD. BUCKLE UP. YEAH. JOY.

CONSENT AGENDA. ANY QUESTIONS? CONCERNS, COMMENTS ABOUT ANYTHING ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? MR. PORTER, MR. BARTZ. I HAVE NO CLUE. MAYBE I'M A LITTLE BIT NAIVE HERE.

[Consent Agenda]

WE'RE LOOKING TO PIVOT AWAY FROM OUR CURRENT PROVIDER, WHO? WE'VE HAD SOME STRUGGLES. I'VE NEVER EVEN HEARD OF IT.

YEAH. OKAY. GOT IT. ANYTHING? ALL RIGHT. I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.

SECOND. MOTION. AND SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. HI. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? YEAH. LET'S HAVE IT.

COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. THE BULK OF MY REPORT WAS GOING TO BE GOING OVER A LOT OF THE LEGISLATIVE CHANGES THAT WE'RE SEEING.

[County Administrator’s Report]

THEY'RE BEING SENT OUT TO DEPARTMENTS TO LOOK AT AS WELL AS FINANCE TO DO FISCAL NOTES ON ANYTHING THAT WE SEE.

REALLY ABOVE AND BEYOND THAT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

COUNTY COMMISSION OPEN DISCUSSION PERIOD. MR.

[County Commissioners Open Discussion Period]

VERY WELL ATTENDED. GAVE A LITTLE BRIEF SPEECH.

BUT IN REGARD TO THE WEATHER, IT WAS A PACKED HOUSE.

SO, IT WAS VERY WELL ATTENDED AND HAD A GOOD TIME.

SO THAT'S WHAT. ALL RIGHT, MR. PORTER.

I RECEIVED OR I SAW WHERE WE HAD SOME CONCERNS EXPRESSED ON SOCIAL MEDIA ABOUT YARD DAMAGE THAT HAD BEEN DONE TO YOU BY THE SNOWPLOWS.

SO ONE IN PARTICULAR PERSON ROBIN HAS REACHED OUT TO THEM.

I THINK WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE SOME MORE. BUT, YOU KNOW, IF WE CAN REACH BACK OUT TO THOSE PEOPLE, IF WE'VE DONE ANY DAMAGE, WE SHOULD, YOU KNOW, FIGURE OUT A WAY TO GO BACK AND REPAIR THOSE.

AND, AND YOU KNOW, I THINK FOR THE MOST PART, EVERYBODY WAS, YOU KNOW, APPRECIATIVE OF THE JOB THAT WAS DONE.

AND IT'S COLD. SO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S GOING ANYWHERE FOR THE NEXT COUPLE OF DAYS.

I FORWARDED A LETTER, AND I CLEARED STEWART AS WELL.

AND ABOUT THE TRI-GAS REQUEST. AND, I DON'T KNOW, I MET WITH I GOT A CALL FROM THE TRI GAS COMPANY ABOUT DIRT THAT THEY HAVE WHERE THEY ARE DOING SOME RE RECLAIMING OF A SITE WHERE THERE HAD BEEN SOME SPILLS OVER THE PERIOD OF YEARS THEY'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT.

AND THE QUESTION WAS COULD THEY PROVIDE THAT DIRT WHEN THEY HAVE TO GET TO EXCAVATE IT AS COVER

[01:50:08]

I MEAN, TO ME, THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE, YOU KNOW, YOU MADE A GOOD POINT.

WE MAY HAVE TO GET APPROVAL FROM THE THREE COUNTY.

CERTAINLY, FROM ME. YES. SO, I GUESS THE LOGICAL THING TO DO.

STEWART, DO YOU THINK WOULD BE TO REACH OUT TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, KIND OF REFER THEM TO MS. YES. ABOUT THAT. I MEAN, IF THERE'S A WAY THAT WE CAN WORK WITH THEM ON IT, THAT'S FINE.

BUT I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY'VE DONE SOME RESEARCH AND, YOU KNOW, GOTTEN IT DOWN, I THINK, TO WHERE THE AMOUNT OF CONTAMINATION IS VERY LITTLE.

AND THEY JUST WERE INQUIRING ABOUT WHETHER THAT THAT DIRT COULD BE, COULD BE UTILIZED.

SO, I DON'T KNOW, I DIDN'T I TOLD THEM THAT I FINALLY PUSHED HIM TO SEND IT IN THE FORM OF A LETTER THAT I COULD FORWARD ON TO EVERYBODY SO THEY COULD SEE IT. AND SO I THINK FROM THERE WE JUST DO THAT.

WE CAN CERTAINLY NOTIFY QUEEN ANNE AND, YOU KNOW, THE OTHER COUNTIES ABOUT IT, BUT I WOULD SAY MES WOULD BE THE CONTACT PERSON.

SO THAT'S ALL. PROBABLY NEED SOME TYPE OF ANALYSIS OF THE SOIL.

YEAH. I TURN INTO YES. AND I THINK THEY'VE GOT I THINK THEY'VE BEEN WORKING.

THEY HAVE BEEN WORKING ACCORDING TO THEM WITH AN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT WHO HAS ALL OF THAT INFORMATION ABOUT THE PERCENTAGE OF CONTAMINATION AND SO ON.

SO I THINK ALL THAT INFORMATION IS THERE. THAT'S I DIDN'T KNOW WHERE TO GO WITH IT EXCEPT TO JUST FORWARD IT AND LET IT FIND OUT WHERE I CAN REACH OUT TO ME AND TALK TO GARY AND TIM ON THEIR STAFF AND AT LEAST HAVE THEM DO A PRELIMINARY LOOK AT IT.

AND IF IT'S SOMETHING THEY WANT TO ENTERTAIN, THEN WE CAN CONNECT THE TWO TOGETHER AND THEN WE CAN INVOLVE THE OTHER COUNTIES.

I THINK, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, IN THAT LETTER, WITHOUT LOOKING IT UP, IT WAS LIKE 200 TONS OF DIRT.

SO, BUT IF WE CAN WORK WITH THEM SO WE CAN IF WE CAN'T.

YEAH, THAT'S ALL I HAVE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. OUR CLOSING PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.

IS THERE IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? OKAY.

[Public Comment]

[Closed Sessions: Discussion of Appointment, Employment, or Assignment of County Employee(s), and Authority: 2014 Md. Code, State Government 3-305 (b) (1)]

2014 MARYLAND CODE. STATE GOVERNMENT 3-305B1.

SO MOVED. SECOND. OKAY. MOTION AND SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OR I ACTUALLY NEED A ROLL CALL VOTE.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.