[00:03:05]
>> WELCOME TO THE MARCH 25TH, 2025 CAROLINE COUNTY COMMISSIONER MEETING, WHICH IS NOW IN ORDER.
THIS MORNING, WE HAVE OUR INVOCATION BY REVEREND DENZIL CHEEK OF THE CHURCH OF BRETHREN MINISTRIES, AND THAT'LL BE FOLLOWED BY THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
REVEREND, CHEEK. THANK YOU, SIR.
>> LET'S PRAY. LOVING LORD, WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR LOVE, GRACE, AND HOPE FOR EACH OF US.
YOU'RE THE ONLY HOPE FOR BEING FREE FROM THE EVILS THAT ARE NOW SO VERY PRESENT IN OUR WORLD.
[Call to Order: Invocation, Rev. Denzil Cheek, Church of the Brethren Ministries; Pledge of Allegiance; Agenda Review]
GIVING HONOR AND PRAISE TO YOU FOR YOU ARE CERTAINLY WORTHY.YOU'RE THE SOURCE OF ALL THAT IS GOOD IN ALL OF US, AND THE SOURCE OF ALL THE MANY BLESSINGS THAT WE RECEIVE EACH AND EVERY DAY OF OUR LIVES.
WE THANK YOU FOR ALL THE GIFTS AND TALENTS THAT YOU HAVE GIVEN TO EACH OF US, YOUR HUMAN CREATION.
WE ASK FOR YOUR PROTECTION AND BLESSING ON THOSE WHO ARE SERVING OUR COUNTRY ALL AROUND THE WORLD TO KEEP US SAFE.
WATCH OVER OUR LOCAL POLICE AND THE FIRST RESPONDERS.
WE THANK YOU NOW FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME TOGETHER HERE THIS MORNING, AND WE ASK THAT YOUR BLESSING BE UPON THIS MEETING, AND THAT EVERY PERSON GATHERED HERE TO LISTEN OR TO SPEAK.
WE ASK THAT YOU GUIDE AND DIRECT THIS MEETING SO THAT IT WILL BE FULL OF WISDOM, KNOWLEDGE, PRODUCTIVITY, AND VERY RESPECTFUL FOR EACH ONE OF US.
THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR GUIDING THE COMMISSIONERS TO ACCOMPLISH EACH ITEM OF BUSINESS THAT IS SCHEDULED BEFORE THEM THIS DAY, AND ALSO THAT THEY'LL HAVE IN THE FUTURE.
LORD PROTECT THEM, GUIDE THEM, HELP THEM TO REACH THEIR GOALS FOR THE GOOD OF ALL THE PEOPLE OF CAROLINE COUNTY.
LORD HELP US TO KNOW THAT IN GOD WE TRUST REALLY MEANS AND WHAT IT MEANS, AND WE ASK IT IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST, AMEN.
[00:05:01]
>> AMEN. [OVERLAPPING] I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
DURING THE MARCH 18TH COMMISSIONER MEETING, THE COMMISSIONERS MET IN CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS THE HIRING PROCESS AND TO GO OVER
[President Report Out]
JOB APPLICATIONS FOR AN [INAUDIBLE] EMPLOYEE UNDER GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE 3-305B, SECTION 1.THEY ALSO REVIEWED LEGAL UPDATES ON PENDING LITIGATION UNDER GENERAL PROVISIONS ARTICLE 3-305B7.
THE ATTENDEES WERE THE COMMISSIONERS, ATTORNEY BARROLL, ADMINISTRATOR FREEMAN, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, FOX, AND PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, REIBY.
WE'LL NOW HAVE OUR OPENING PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.
IS THERE ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC? YES, SIR.
[Public Comment]
MR. FALSTAD. COME ON FORWARD.>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS. JAY FALSTAD.
[NOISE] THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING AN OUTSIDER INTO YOUR COMMISSION ROOM.
I'M THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF QUEEN ANNE'S CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION.
CELEBRATING OUR 56TH YEAR AS THE EASTERN SHORES OLDEST LAND USE AND CONSERVATION ORGANIZATION.
I WANT TO COME HERE TODAY TO THANK YOU FOR ALL OF YOUR SUPPORT AND EFFORTS IN OPPOSITION TO HOUSE BILL 1036 AND SENATE BILL 931.
AS I'VE SAID BEFORE, AND I'LL SAY HERE PUBLICLY, THESE TWO BILLS REPRESENT THE SINGLE GREATEST THREAT TO MARYLAND'S EASTERN SHORE, I THINK IN STATES HISTORY.
FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME IN MY MEMORY, IT'S ALLOWING PRIVATE ENTITIES TO ACT AS A PUBLIC UTILITY, AND COMPLETELY ELIMINATING ANY LOCAL ZONING CONTROL AND TAXING CONTROL AS IT RELATES TO SOLAR PROJECTS AND BATTERY STORAGE UNITS.
IT'S ONE OF THE MOST GROSSEST OVERREACHES OF GOVERNMENT THAT I THINK I'VE EVER SEEN, AT LEAST AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.
I WANTED TO COME HERE AND SAY THANK YOU FOR ALL OF YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS IN STANDING WITH QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY AND ALL THE OTHER COUNTIES ON THE SHORE.
WE NEED TO FIGHT IT TOGETHER, AND HOPEFULLY THIS WEEK, WE'LL SEE IF THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE'VE OFFERED MAKE THE CUT.
BUT THIS IS NOT THE LAST OF IT, BECAUSE I ASSURE YOU AFTER THIS, WE'RE GOING TO BE DEALING WITH DATA CENTERS AND TRANSMISSION LINES, AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT'S CONNECTED TO THESE TWO BILLS.
WITH THAT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I APPRECIATE THE TIME, AND I'M GLAD THAT WE'RE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER ON THIS ONE. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, JAY. JAY, IF YOU DON'T MIND, STAY HERE FOR A SECOND.
WE DID RECEIVE THAT EMAIL FROM YOU, HAVE YOU GOT ANY RESPONSE FROM ANY OF THE OTHER COUNTIES?
>> I HAVE. JUST THIS MORNING, I WAS SPEAKING WITH COMMISSIONER FITHIAN OF KENT COUNTY.
HE SAID THAT HIS BOARD HAS FULL UNANIMOUS SUPPORT ON IT.
JIM MORAN HAS ALSO RESPONDED AND SIGNED THE LETTER AS THE AT LARGE COMMISSIONER.
I HAVE NOT HEARD FROM ANY OF THE OTHER COUNTIES YET, BUT KEEP IN MIND, WE JUST PUT THAT OUT YESTERDAY AFTERNOON.
BUT I APPRECIATE THE QUICK TURNAROUND ON YOUR PART AND ALSO ON THE OTHER COUNTIES.
>> WELL, I THINK THE DELEGATION HAS BEEN VERY VOCALLY OPPOSED TO THIS.
WAS YOUR INTENT TO SEND A LETTER JUST TO THE EASTERN SHORE DELEGATION OR WERE YOU GOING TO SEND IT TO EVERY?
>> JUST THE EASTERN SHORE DELEGATION.
WHAT WE HEARD YESTERDAY FROM SOME OF THE STAFF PEOPLE ON THE VARIOUS COMMITTEES, IS THAT IT WOULD BE VERY IMPORTANT FOR DELEGATES AND SENATORS ON THE FLOOR TO RAISE SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE, AND THAT YOU-ALL HAVE, TO MAKE SURE THAT'S ON THE RECORD.
THAT WAS THE INTENT BEHIND THE LETTER, IS JUST TO STRONGLY ENCOURAGE THEM TO NOT SIT THIS ONE OUT.
THE ISSUE IS JUST SIMPLY TOO IMPORTANT.
>> HAVE YOU HEARD ANYTHING ON THE AMENDMENTS? WE HAVEN'T HEARD A THING.
>> IT'S SCARY THAT WE HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING.
>> IT IS SCARY THING. I HAD A CONVERSATION JUST YESTERDAY WITH WITH THE MACO REPRESENTATIVE AND THINGS WERE STILL VERY FLUID GOING BACK AND FORTH.
>> JAY, THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THIS.
I THINK YOU'VE BEEN ON TARGET ON EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT AS WELL.
[00:10:03]
>> [NOISE] MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE COMING TO A VOTE, WHEN WILL THE VOTE BE?
>> I DON'T KNOW. I'VE HEARD THE SAME THING, BUT I AM ANTICIPATING THAT IT WILL BE THIS WEEK.
>> I GUESS TO FOLLOW UP, WHAT I WOULD LIKE US TO DO AND WHAT I THINK WE WILL PROBABLY DO LATER ON TODAY, ONE OF US CAN MAKE A MOTION TO SUBMIT THIS LETTER.
WE WOULD DO IT ON OUR LETTERHEAD AND INDIVIDUALLY FROM THIS COUNTY.
IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A JOINT THING.
I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY TOO MUCH TO COORDINATE AND PULL TOGETHER AT ONE TIME.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT, BECAUSE IT IS GOING TO BE TRYING TO [INAUDIBLE].
>> MY QUESTION AGAIN WAS GOING TO BE AMENDMENTS, BECAUSE WE HAVE ASKED SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE TAXING AND THE DECOMMISSIONING.
I KNOW THAT THERE WERE AMENDMENTS THAT WERE PROPOSED BY MACO, BUT STILL NOTHING AT THIS POINT.
>> COMMISSIONER, IF I CAN JUST ADD ONE THING.
>> ONE THING THAT HAS NOT BEEN DISCUSSED ON ANY OF THIS IS THE BATTERY STORAGE IN THAT DIMENSION.
AS YOU MAY KNOW, I THINK IT'S THE UNITED STATES FIRE MARSHALS ASSOCIATION OR SOME ASSOCIATION OF FIRE MARSHALS, STILL HAS NOT FULLY FLESHED OUT THE SAFETY GUIDELINES FOR BATTERY STORAGE UNITS.
IN EFFECT, THE LEGISLATURE COULD BE VOTING ON SOMETHING WHERE THEY DON'T KNOW OF ANY UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES THAT MAY COME DOWN THE PIPE.
>> IT'S NOT PROPERLY REGULATED AT THIS POINT.
THEY MAY BE APPROVING SOMETHING THAT'S A HAZARD TO THE COMMUNITY.
>> AS YOU KNOW, IN MY TESTIMONY, DELEGATE CHARKOUDIAN PUSHED BACK VERY STRONGLY WHEN I BROUGHT UP THE BATTERY STORAGE CONCERNS.
SHE SAID, THAT'S ALL BEING ADDRESSED.
[OVERLAPPING] IT'S COVERED. WELL, WE DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S BEING COVERED.
SHE WAS VERY ADAMANT THAT THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM. I THINK IT IS.
I WILL TELL YOU THAT WE HAVE A MORATORIUM ON BATTERY STORAGE IN THIS COUNTY, AND IT'S IN EFFECT, AND IT'S GOING TO REMAIN IN EFFECT.
NOW, WE CAN FIGHT, WE CAN GO TO COURT, WE CAN DO WHATEVER WE WANT TO DO, BUT I WON'T AGREE TO ALLOW THEM UNTIL I AM CLEAR ABOUT WHAT THE FIRE SUPPRESSION REQUIREMENTS ARE GOING TO BE.
>> MR. BARSON AND I BOTH AGREE WITH THAT.
WE'RE NOT ALLOWING THESE THINGS IN THE COUNTY IF WE DON'T HAVE ASSURANCES THAT THEY'RE PROPERLY REGULATED.
>> WE WERE TOLD THAT, JUST FOR EVERYBODY'S EDUCATION, THERE WAS A BILL THAT WAS INTRODUCED.
THE BILL WAS PULLED BACK REGARDING SAFETY REQUIREMENTS.
THE BILL WAS PULLED BACK AND IT WAS PULLED BACK WITH THE ASSURANCE THAT THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE WAS GOING TO REVISE NFPA 855, WHICH IS THE SECTION OF THE FIRE CODE THAT WOULD COVER THIS.
THEN WE HAD A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE, SACRIFICIAL LAMB, WHO GOT SENT IN HERE TO TELL US THAT THE NEW STATE POLICE CORPORAL, UNDER THE MOORE ADMINISTRATION, COLONEL, HAD PULLED BACK AND SAID, NO, THEY WERE NOT GOING TO REVISE IT.
THAT'S WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW.
FRANKLY, I AM NOT GOING TO GO BACK AND READ THOUSANDS OF PAGES OF DOCUMENTS AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT PART OF THAT CODE APPLIES.
WE'RE GOING TO KNOW CLEARLY AND DISTINCTLY, WHAT PROVISIONS ARE BEING MADE FOR BATTERY STORAGE.
I THINK WE'RE PROBABLY HEADED DOWN THE ROAD FOR A FIGHT HERE, BUT IT'S A FIGHT THAT WE'RE WILLING TO HAVE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT SENDING OUR VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANIES, FIRST RESPONDERS INTO A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE PUTTING THEM IN DANGER, EVEN MORE THAN THEY ALWAYS ARE.
>> OR PUTTING A NEIGHBOR IN DANGER OF THE TOXIC FLUMES.
>> OR EVACUATION IN THE COUNTY AND ALL THIS STUFF. WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT.
LOOK, THERE'S COMING A TIME VERY CLEARLY IN THIS COUNTY AND IN THIS STATE WHERE THERE ARE GOING TO BE SOME THINGS THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO, AND WE'LL JUST HAVE TO FACE AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS AT THAT POINT.
BUT THIS IS ONE OF THEM, BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS ISSUE SINCE 2017.
2017, I RAISED THIS POINT AT A MACO MEETING OF RURAL COUNTIES.
THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT I RAISED IT, AND THIS IS 2025, AND WE STILL DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER.
I'M NOT GOING TO LISTEN TO ALL OF THIS, IT'S ALL TAKEN CARE OF.
>> I'M WITH YOU, COMMISSIONER. [LAUGHTER]
[00:15:01]
>> SORRY. IT'S IT'S A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH.
THIS ISN'T A, WE'LL COLLECT THIS MUCH MONEY OR THAT, THIS IS LIFE AND DEATH WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
IT'S EMBARRASSING FOR THE STATE, TO ME, TO HAVE PUSHED THIS THING DOWN THE ROAD AND TRIED TO COVER IT UP.
IT'S GET IT'S GETTING SCARY, WHAT'S GOING ON.
>> HAVE YOU BY CHANCE SEEN THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS? WE HAD A DOCUMENT LAST WEEK THAT WAS SENT TO US, BUT IT WAS VERY HARD TO FOLLOW.
IT JUST REFERENCES STRIKE THIS IN THIS LINE AND INSERT THIS.
WITHOUT SPENDING AN HOUR OR TWO HOURS GOING THROUGH THE BILL, AND EVEN THEN, IT'S NOT THE EASIEST TO FIGURE OUT [LAUGHTER] WHAT THEY'RE INSINUATING.
THE AMENDMENTS THAT I SAW ADDED A DEFINITION FOR PRIORITY PRESERVATION AREA.
BUT MY QUESTION WAS, DID THEY REFERENCE THE PRIORITY PRESERVATION AREA ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE BILL? WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF DEFINING SOMETHING IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO ACTUALLY REFERENCE IT IN EITHER CAP OR ATTACH SOME TYPE OF FEE TO DEVELOPMENT.
>> THEY ADDED THE DEFINITION FOR NO REASON, ESSENTIALLY, UNLESS THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE FURTHER CONVERSATIONS ABOUT SOMETHING.
>> LET ME TAKE THAT IN PIECES, IF I MAY.
YES, I HAVE SEEN THE AMENDMENTS, AT LEAST THE ITERATION THAT WAS PRESENTED.
>> A WEEK OR SO AGO, TWO WEEKS?
[OVERLAPPING] THE AMENDMENTS WERE BETTER THAN ANYTHING THAT I'VE SEEN SO FAR.
THEY MAYBE DIDN'T FULLY ADDRESS THE CONCERNS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE, OR THE CONCERNS I MIGHT HAVE, BUT IT WAS DEFINITELY A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION IN THAT IT DID BRING BACK SOME LOCAL CONTROL IN TERMS OF SCREENING, BUFFERING, AND SETBACKS.
>> THE PRIORITY PRESERVATION DIMENSION THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, THAT ISN'T CONTAINED WITHIN EVERY COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND FOCUSES PRINCIPALLY ON ITS AGRICULTURAL AREA AND SO TO THE EXTENT THAT IT WAS NOT FULLY DEFINED.
>> WELL, I THINK IT WAS DEFINED, BUT IT WAS NEVER REFERENCED TO A FEE OR A CAP OR ANYTHING.
IT JUST GAVE A DEFINITION FOR A PRIORITY PRESERVATION AREA, WHAT IT WAS.
BUT THEN IN THE BILL LANGUAGE, IT NEVER REFERENCED ANY STRINGS ATTACHED TO DEVELOPMENT INSIDE OF THAT PRIORITY PRESERVATION AREA.
>> IF YOU'LL GIVE ME JUST A MINUTE HERE, I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHERE THE CONFUSION IS.
IN THE LETTER THAT I PRESENTED TO YOU AS A DRAFT, I DID INCLUDE A CAP AND I DID INCLUDE THE PRIORITY PRESERVATION AREA.
THE REASON THAT I DID THAT WAS BECAUSE THOSE TOPICS HAVE BEEN ON THE TABLE AS PART OF THE DISCUSSIONS AND THE NEGOTIATION.
THE CAP THAT I'VE HEARD HAS BEEN AS HIGH AS 5% AND BEYOND THAT.
>> IF YOU TAKE JUST THAT NUMBER WITHIN CAROLINE COUNTY'S PRIORITY PRESERVATION AREA, THAT WOULD MEAN LITERALLY. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I THINK WE HAVE ABOUT 200,000 ACRES.
>> WELL, NOT IN YOUR PPA, BUT IT WOULD MEAN CLOSE TO 10,000 ACRES IN CAROLINE COUNTY BY ITSELF.
I THINK I HAVE THAT MATH RIGHT.
BUT WHATEVER IT IS, IT'S WAY MORE THAN.
>> FOR QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY, THERE ARE OVER 120,000 ACRES IN OUR PPA.
YOU CAN DO THE MATH, EXTRAPOLATE IT OUT, AND JUST IT'S POTENTIALLY THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF ACRES OF SOLAR PROJECTS AND IF THAT WERE TO HAPPEN, IT WOULD COMPLETELY TRANSFORM AND POTENTIALLY RUIN THE EASTERN SHORE.
AS A FINAL NOTE, AND THEN I'LL BE QUIET, FOR ANY OF YOUR AUDIENCE MEMBERS, I REALLY URGE YOU TO FOLLOW THESE TWO BILLS, HOUSE BILL 1036 AND SENATE BILL 931, AND REACH OUT TO YOUR DELEGATES AND SENATOR TODAY AND LET THEM KNOW THAT THIS IS SIMPLY TOO MUCH AND SURE CAN'T ABSORB WHAT WAS BEING LITERALLY FORCED DOWN OUR THROATS.
>> WELL, IT'S A FOOD SECURITY, IT'S A NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE BECAUSE WE'RE IN THE ATTEMPT TO REMEDY ONE PROBLEM, WHICH IS ENERGY PRICES,
[00:20:01]
WHICH THIS FALSELY ADDRESSES ANYWAY, WE'RE GOING TO CREATE ANOTHER PROBLEM, WHICH IS GOING TO BE FOOD PRODUCTION, FOOD SECURITY PROBLEMS, AND IT'S GOING TO MAKE US MORE RELIANT ON OTHER COUNTRIES.WE SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING AROUND THE WORLD RIGHT NOW.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE FOOD SECURITY HERE, AND WE'RE NOT GENERATING ANY MORE FARMLAND IN THE UNITED STATES SO WE DO HAVE A OBLIGATION TO PRESERVE WHAT WE DO HAVE.
>> IT'S INTERESTING TO ME THAT THIS MORNING, I HEARD, WE'RE LOOKING AT ABOUT A 1.8 BILLION DOLLAR TAX INCREASE IN THIS STATE RIGHT NOW, MAYBE MORE.
THE ONE ITEM THAT I'VE SEEN THEM PUT ANY TYPE OF CAP ON WAS TAXING OF SOLAR, AND THAT WAS IN THIS BILL.
OF ALL THE THINGS THAT ARE TAXES THAT ARE BEING RAISED IN THIS STATE, SOLAR WAS CAPPED ON WHICH YOU COULD TAX THEM, SO THAT TELLS YOU WHERE WE ARE.
>> COMMISSIONER, YOU WANT TO HEAR THE GREATER IRONY IN ALL THIS.
LAST YEAR, THE MARYLAND GENERAL ASSEMBLY PASSED A BILL, I CAN'T REMEMBER THE NUMBER, THAT ADDED TO EVERYBODY'S ELECTRIC BILL.
EVERYBODY THAT'S SITTING IN THIS ROOM, IF YOU LOOK AT YOUR DELMARVA POWER ELECTRIC BILL AND YOU SEE THE TRANSMISSION CHARGE, THAT IS THE PART THAT HAS INCREASED SINCE JANUARY 1.
CONTAINED WITHIN THAT DISTRIBUTION CHARGE IS MONEY THAT GOES DIRECTLY TO THE SOLAR COMPANIES AS A SUBSIDY, IT'S CALLED THE SOLAR RENEWABLE ENERGY CREDIT [NOISE] WHICH THESE GUYS ARE NOW USING TO CREATE THIS DISPROPORTIONATE ADVANTAGE IN GETTING UP FARMLAND AND SO EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM IS PAYING TO BASICALLY CUT THEMSELVES OFF AT THE KNEES IN TERMS OF OUR FARMLAND.
IT'S A DOUBLE BARRELED PROBLEM IN THAT ONE, WE NEED TO TRY AND KILL THESE BILLS BUT TWO, WE NEED TO GO BACK AND SOMEHOW REMEDY THAT PART SO THAT THESE COMPANIES ARE NOT RECEIVING THESE EXCESSIVE SUBSIDIES THAT PUT FARMERS OUT OF BUSINESS AND THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT'S AT STAKE.
>> WELL, THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE IS A ATTORNEY AND A MOUTHPIECE FOR THE SOLAR COMPANY AND IT'D BE INTERESTING TO SEE HOW MANY LEGISLATORS TOOK MONEY FROM SOLAR COMPANIES.
>> THAT'S A STORY FOR ANOTHER DAY.
>> DO YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING?
>> THANK YOU, MR. FALSTAD, FOR YOUR ADVOCACY IN THIS.
THE SCARY THING IS, WE ALL KNEW THIS WAS COMING, BUT WE DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS GOING TO BE THIS BIG OF A, WE DID, BUT THIS BIG OF A FIGHT.
WE'VE BEEN MEETING WITH DELEGATES WAY BACK FROM LAST YEAR AND MET WITH [INAUDIBLE] BEGINNING OF THE YEAR AND TRYING TO HIT THIS OFF.
>> IT JUST STEAM ROLLED. GETTING STEAM ROLLED.
>> STEAM ROLLED. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, IT'S ALL ONE SIDED.
IT'S ALL STACKED AGAINST EVERYBODY.
THE ONLY THING YOU DO IS CONTINUE TO FIGHT.
WE APPRECIATE YOUR ADVOCACY AND BRINGING THIS ATTENTION TO EVERYTHING.
I GET AGGRAVATED WHEN PEOPLE SAY, WHAT'S GOING ON? WELL, I ALWAYS SAY IF YOU SEE IT GOING ON, IT'S TOO LATE.
YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? IT'S JUST PEOPLE JUST NEED TO BE EDUCATED.
WE REACHED OUT TO THE FARMING COMMUNITY SAYING, HEY.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE AWARE, WE SENT THEM OUT A LETTER STATING, HEY, DO YOUR DUE DILIGENCE, DO THIS, DO THAT, JUST TO TRY TO GET AHEAD OF IT.
BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONLY WAY YOU'RE GOING TO STOP IT IS DO EDUCATION AND GETTING THE FARMING COMMUNITY TO SAY, HEY, NO, WE'RE NOT DOING IT.
>> YOUR IDEA WAS SO GOOD THAT OTHER COUNTIES THEN FOLLOWED YOUR LEAD IN DOING THE SAME THING, QUEEN ANNE'S BEING ONE OF THEM.
>> STUART BARREL, ATTORNEY, HE WAS THE HEAD OF THAT SO HE PUT THAT THROUGH.
>> BUT THERE'S A LOT OF PROPAGANDA GETTING PUSHED TOO.
I THINK WHEN WE WERE OVER TESTIFYING SOMEONE FROM SIERRA CLUB OR ONE OF THE OTHER ENTITIES STATED THAT IT WOULD ONLY TAKE 1%.
IT WAS PROJECTED TO TAKE 1% OF THE STATE'S FARM LAND SO THERE'S A LOT OF MISINFORMATION PROPAGANDA BEING THROWN AROUND HERE IN AN ATTEMPT TO QUIET THE OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL AND GET IT PUSHED THROUGH.
WHEN I SAY STEAM ROLLED, THE GLOVES ARE OFF AND THEY'RE FIGHTING HARD TO GET AS MUCH OF THIS THROUGH THIS YEAR AND I THINK WHATEVER THEY DON'T GET THROUGH THIS YEAR WILL PROBABLY COME BACK FOR AGAIN NEXT YEAR.
I THINK THIS IS JUST GOING TO BE A CONTINUED BATTLE EVERY SESSION.
BUT I THINK WE SHOULD PROBABLY ADD IN A COUPLE OF NOTES TO THIS LETTER, PROBABLY BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE, NOT BEING PROPERLY.
[00:25:02]
WE HAD AN OPPOSITION LETTER WE SENT SO MAYBE WE COULD TAKE ALL THOSE OPPOSITION POINTS ADDED IN BECAUSE NONE OF THE AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN FINALIZED AT THIS POINT.>> I CAN DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT LATER TONIGHT.
>> THEN WE'LL SEND SOMETHING TO THE ENTIRE EASTERN SHORE DELEGATION AND MAYBE CIRCULATE THAT WITH ALL THE COUNTIES ON THE SHORE, INCLUDING [INAUDIBLE] SOMERSET, WORCESTER, DORCHESTER, ALL OF THEM, CECIL.
>> TO CLOSE, FOR ME, I THINK MY CONCERN HERE IS WE CURRENTLY HAVE ABOUT 1,600 ACRES OF LAND THAT IS CURRENTLY GOING TO BE IN SOLAR PANELS.
I BELIEVE IN THIS COUNTY, THIS IS JUST MY PERSONAL OPINION, BUT I BELIEVE THE LOW HANGING FRUIT HAS BEEN PICKED.
IN OTHER WORDS, THE FARMERS I THINK WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THIS HAVE DONE IT.
MY PROBLEM IS, IF THERE ARE MANDATES AS FAR AS PERCENTAGES THAT ARE SET UP, WHAT'S GOING TO BE THE METHOD TO REACH THOSE PERCENTAGES IF YOU HAVE UNWILLING FARMERS.
IF THEY COME ALONG AND SAY, WELL, 5% OF YOUR COUNTY HAS TO BE USED.
IF THERE AREN'T 5% OF THE FARMERS IN THIS COUNTY THAT WANT THEIR LAND USED FOR SOLAR PANELS, HOW DOES THAT 5% GET REACHED? IT GETS REACHED BY TAKING LAND THROUGH EMINENT DOMAIN? THAT'S MY CONCERN.
THE BATTLE WE HAVE FOUGHT UP HERE FROM DAY 1 HAS BEEN TRYING TO NOT INFRINGE ON THE RIGHTS OF FARMERS WHO WANT TO SELL OR LEASE THEIR LAND.
BUT I AM REALLY WORRIED ABOUT THIS, WHEN THESE PERCENTAGES OF MANDATES ARE GOING TO BE IMPLEMENTED, HOW DO WE GET TO THOSE IF WE RUN OUT OF FARMERS WHO WANT TO PUT THEIR LAND INTO SOLAR.
WHAT HAPPENS WITH THAT GAP? THAT'S WHERE I'M REALLY CONCERNED.
THE FACT THAT THE MARYLAND ENERGY ADMINISTRATION TESTIFIED AND OPPOSED THE BILL THAT WOULD PROHIBIT THE STATE FROM TAKING LAND FOR SOLAR THROUGH EMINENT DOMAIN IS A VERY TELLING FACT.
THAT TELLS ME WHERE WE'RE HEADED.
THANK [OVERLAPPING] YOU VERY MUCH.
>> YOU TAKE 1,602,000 ACRES OUT AND PUT THAT IN SOLAR, THE CROPS THAT YOU'RE LOSING, THE WILD LIFE, THE DEER, OR WHATEVER, HAVE TO MOVE FROM THERE TO ANOTHER FARMER SO THE IMPACT THE NEXT FARMER IS GOING TO HAVE, IT'S GOING TO AFFECT EVERY FARMER AROUND BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO LOSE PRODUCTION, AND IT'S GOING TO LOSE COST, THEY'RE GOING TO LOSE MONEY ON BUSHELS.
IT'S AFFECTING EVERYBODY ELSE.
JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE PUTTING THIS FARMING IN SOLAR, IT'S GOING TO AFFECT THE NEXT FARMER THAT DOESN'T HAVE SOLAR, AND HIS CROPS ARE GOING TO BE DEVASTATED.
THE INSURANCE COMPANY WILL BE AFFECTED.
IT'S JUST GOING TO BE A SNOWBALL EFFECT THAT THEY DON'T SEE COMING, BUT THAT'S JUST WHAT I WANT TO ADD SO THANK YOU.
>> THANKS VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE IT.
>> I THINK WE SHOULD PROBABLY ALSO SEND IT TO DELEGATE CORMAN AND SENATOR FELDMAN TOO.
>> ADDRESS IT TO THEM. CHRIS CORMAN CAME HERE. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT WILSON.
I DON'T THINK YOU'RE REACHING HIM.
I THINK FELDMAN MAY BE A LITTLE MORE WILLING.
>> I HAVE A MEETING TODAY ON THIS SENATE REFER.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [NOISE]
>> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE, THE PUBLIC?
>> CAN I JUST MAKE A STATEMENT?
>> MY WIFE AND I WAS RIDING UP THE ROAD HERE SEVERAL TIMES NOW AND WE SAW THE THINGS ARE BEING MARKED OUT AND COMING FROM A FARMING BACKGROUND BACK IN MISSOURI, THE FIRST THING IT STRUCK MY HEART.
ALL THE LAND HAS BEEN PRODUCING GOOD STUFF FOR OUR COUNTY, NOW IT'S TALKED ABOUT CLOSING IN.
WHAT IS THIS GOING TO DO TO OUR PRODUCING PART WITH ALL THESE FOR FEEDING THE PEOPLE? ON THAT DAY, WE STARTED MAKING METHOD TRAIL TO US THAT WAS A HORRIBLE SITUATION TO SEE ALL THAT GOOD LAND BECOMING INTO SOLAR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
NEXT UP, WE HAVE OLIVIA AND LESLIE WITH
[00:30:03]
OUR DEPARTMENT PLANNING CODES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE. GOOD MORNING.[Department of Planning & Codes Comprehensive Plan Update]
>> THANK YOU. YOU GOT LIKE CHRIS WILL HANG OUT IN THE BACK.
>> GIVING HER BEST. WHAT WE WANTED TO, FIRST OF ALL, I INTRODUCE OLIVIA WIDADO IS OUR NEW PLANNER.
IT ONLY TOOK ABOUT 100 YEARS TO FIND HER [LAUGHTER] BUT SHE'S HERE.
>> WELL, THANK YOU FOR CHOOSING CAROLINE COUNTY.
>> I AM REALLY VERY HAPPY TO BE HERE.
>> SHE HAS 30 YEARS EXPERIENCE IN THE CALVERT COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT, SO SHE COMES WITH A REALLY GOOD HISTORY BEHIND HER.
KATHLEEN WAS OUR LAST OTHER PLANNER, SO IT'S BEEN A WHILE.
[LAUGHTER] BUT NOW THAT SHE'S ON BOARD, AND SHE'S LEARNING THE ROPES AND EVERYTHING ABOUT CAROLINE COUNTY, WE CAN PICK UP WHERE WE LEFT OFF FOR OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE.
SHE'S HERE TO WALK YOU THROUGH.
WE'RE GETTING THE SCHEDULE LAID OUT AND DETERMINING THE PACE OF THE UPDATE, AND SHE'LL WALK YOU THROUGH THAT.
GOOD MORNING, EVERYBODY. AGAIN, I AM VERY HAPPY TO BE OVER HERE.
AT THE MARCH 12 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, WE PRESENTED INFORMATION ON THE SCHEDULE FOR THE 2025 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE, AND WE'RE HERE NOW JUST TO GO OVER THAT QUICKLY WITH YOU ALL AND GET ANY ADDITIONAL DIRECTION OR RECOMMENDATIONS.
JUST A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND.
EVERY JURISDICTION HAS TO DO A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
IT USED TO BE EVERY SIX YEARS, NOW IT'S EVERY 10 YEARS.
THE LAST PLAN ADOPTED FOR CAROLINE COUNTY WAS IN APRIL OF 2010 WITH SOME LATER AMENDMENTS WITH THE SEPTIC TIERS AND THE MINERAL RESOURCES THAT WERE INCLUDED WITH THIS UPDATE.
WHAT SLOWED EVERYBODY DOWN WAS A COMBINATION OF THE COVID PANDEMIC, STAFFING, EVERYWHERE HAS STAFFING SHORTAGES, AND THEN THERE WAS ALSO THE DELAY WITH THE 2020 CENSUS DATA.
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING IS EXPECTING THAT ALL THE COUNTIES AND JURISDICTIONS ARE GOING TO BE TURNING IN AT LEAST DRAFT PLANS BY THE END OF THIS YEAR, SOMETIME INTO EARLY OF 2026.
PART OF DOING COMPREHENSIVE PLANS IS OUTREACHING TO THE PUBLIC.
BACK TWO YEARS AGO, I BELIEVE, THERE WAS A SURVEY THAT WAS DONE AND SENT OUT.
WE ARE LOOKING OVER ALL OF THAT, GETTING THE RESULTS FROM THAT TOGETHER.
WE MAY DO ANOTHER UPDATED SURVEY, IT DEPENDS, AND AGAIN, AS YOU'VE ALREADY BEEN TALKING ABOUT, WE'LL SEE WHAT COMES OUT OF THE LEGISLATION IN APRIL.
WE WILL BE GOING TO DIFFERENT EVENTS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY, THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE YEAR TO GIVE OUT FLYERS, BE THERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
WE HAVE A DESIGNATED EMAIL ADDRESS SPECIFICALLY FOR THE COMP PLAN.
IT IS COMPPLANUPDATE@CAROLINEMD.ORG.
I'VE BEEN WORKING A LOT WITH THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, AND SHE IS WONDERFUL.
WORKING ON FLYERS AND DIFFERENT AVENUES FOR THE PUBLIC TO BE ABLE TO COMMENT, GET INFORMATION, ASK QUESTIONS SO IT WILL BE A VERY LONG, BUT EXCITING PROCESS, AND I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO IT.
WE'RE BASICALLY LOOKING FOR ANY ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS OR QUESTIONS THAT YOU ALL MAY HAVE.
FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT I CAN'T ANSWER, I KNOW LESLIE WILL HELP ME.
BUT I GET TO PULL OUT THE NEWBIE CARD FOR A LONG TIME UNTIL SET.
[LAUGHTER] I DON'T KNOW. I'M NEW.
BUT ANYWAY, ANYTHING THAT YOU ALL NEED, WE'RE HERE.
>> THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF NEW ISSUES THAT WE'LL HAVE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION, THE MINERAL RESOURCE PLAN.
THOSE WERE ALL THINGS THAT WERE PUT IN AND A LOT HAS CHANGED IN THE LAST 10 YEARS IN DEVELOPMENT. WE HAVE A LOT MORE [OVERLAPPING].
>> WELL, IN THE PRESERVATION AREA, A NEW MANDATE FROM THE STATE IN OUR LAST PLAN SO THAT'S GOING TO BE AN INTERESTING TO WORK BACK.
>> WHAT IS IT THE PRIORITY FUNDING AREAS, ALL OF THOSE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN JUST THROWN HERE OR THERE JUST BECAUSE A LOT OF THAT, I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A VERY INTERESTING AND IMPORTANT PROCESS TO GO THROUGH.
I THINK WE HAVE A GOOD BOARD OVER AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION NOW TO REALLY TAKE A LOT OF STUFF INTO CONSIDERATION, A LOT OF DIFFERENT WALKS OF LIFE THERE FROM CONTRACTORS TO.
>> FARMERS, VOLUNTEERS, COMMUNITY VOLUNTEERS.
I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A REALLY GOOD PROCESS.
THIS STUDY THAT YOU WERE REFERRING TO, IS THAT THE ONE THAT SAID LIKE 20 PEOPLE SAID NO MORE PIZZA PLACE.
>> EVERYBODY WANTS A STEAKHOUSE, NO MORE PIZZA.
>> THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT.
[00:35:01]
>> WE GOT TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO THAT IN THE CONCEPT.
>> THAT ONE CRACKED ME UP BECAUSE PIZZA IS MY KRYPTONITE.
I'M LIKE, WHAT DO YOU MEAN NO MORE PIZZA PLACES.
>> APPARENTLY, NOT IN CAROLINE COUNTY. WE GOT TO KNOW.
>> JUST A COUPLE OF QUICK THINGS.
I'M GLAD TO HEAR YOU EMPHASIZE THE PUBLIC OUTREACH.
BECAUSE, I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MANY TIMES, PARTICULARLY IN MY PRIOR LIFE IN THE MUNICIPALITY, THAT WE WOULD HAVE PEOPLE WHO WOULD SAY, MY LAND WAS REZONED AND I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW IT OR MY LAND WAS.
I THINK IT'S CRUCIAL THAT WE USE EVERY TOOL WE HAVE TO LET PEOPLE KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING WORSE THAN HAVING SOMEBODY COME IN AND THINK THAT THEIR LAND IS ZONED ONE THING AND FIND OUT THAT IT'S BEEN CHANGED AND WHEN WAS IT DONE? NORMALLY, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IN YEARS PAST WOULD BE SOMEBODY WOULD POINT TO A LITTLE LEGAL NOTICE IN THE PAPER AND SAY, WHAT WAS ADVERTISED RIGHT HERE? WELL, NOBODY READS.
SORRY, BUT NOBODY READS LEGAL NOTICES.
BUT WE SHOULD AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR THAT.
IN MY CRITICAL AREA COMMISSION DUTIES, I HEAR ABOUT CRITICAL AREA UPDATES FROM COUNTIES, WHERE WOULD THAT BE INCLUDED IN THIS OR IS THAT A SEPARATE?
>> IT'S A COMPONENT OF THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION CHAPTER.
CRITICAL AREA AND SENSITIVE AREAS AND REGULATORILY PROTECTED LANDS.
I KNOW THAT WE'RE WORKING ON OUR ORDINANCE.
WHATEVER THE RESULTS OF THAT WILL BE PART OF THE DISCUSSION OF THE CRITICAL AREA AND THE COMP PLAN.
>> ARE WE ON TIME WITH THAT? OR I MEAN, I KNOW THEY NEVER SPECIFICALLY POINT OUT COUNTIES, BUT I MEAN, I KNOW THERE'S DEADLINES TO SUBMIT THAT. ARE WE.
>> WE HAVE GOT IT DONE BY 2028.
>> IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHAT WILL MOST LIKELY HAPPEN IS WE'LL BE DISCUSSING THAT AS PART OF THE CRITICAL AREA SECTION, THAT IT'S IN THE PROCESS OF BEING UPDATED THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A NEW UPDATED ORDINANCE.
BUT IT'S NOT ACTUALLY ADOPTED AS PART OF THE PLAN.
>> THE CRITICAL AREAS IS DEFINED, I GUESS, MAINLY BY THE CRITICAL AREA COMMISSION.
I MEAN, WHERE THE CRITICAL AREAS ARE.
>> IT'S WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF TITLE.
>> YES. THEN WE HAVE TO INCORPORATE THAT AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE FOLLOWING THEIR GUIDELINE.
>> GOOD. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I GOT. WELCOME.
>> JUST REAL QUICK, ON THE EDUCATIONAL PART, IT IS VERY IMPORTANT AND KEY.
WHAT I'M FINDING OUT AROUND HERE, ESPECIALLY THE TOWNS ARE THEIR OWN MUNICIPALITIES.
WHENEVER ANYBODY HEARS UPDATES WITH CAROLINE COUNTY, THEY THINK IT'S DENTON OR ONE OF THE TOWNS, AND IT REALLY ISN'T.
I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT TO GET OUT FOR THE PUBLIC, BUT ALSO MORE PEOPLE COME OUT WHEN YOU START TALKING ABOUT YOUR ZONING CODE UPDATE.
BUT YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS YOUR MAP, AND THAT'S WHAT DRIVES THE ZONING CODE UPDATE.
IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO GET THE INPUT IN NOW AND THAT THEY UNDERSTAND.
HEY. TELL US WHAT YOU NEED, WHAT YOU WANT AND YOUR OPINIONS HERE BECAUSE BY THE TIME WE GET TO THE ZONING CODE UPDATE, IT ALREADY NEEDED TO BE HERE.
>> THE ZONING CODE UPDATE WILL FOLLOW THE COMPLETION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE?
>> A LOT OF MDE REGULATIONS HAVE CHANGED TOO SINCE 2010, AND US BEING A JURISDICTION THAT DOES NOT HAVE A MUNICIPAL SEWER SYSTEM IN OUR COUNTY.
I THINK THAT PUTS A LOT OF LIMITATIONS ON ANYTHING YOU CAN DO INDEPENDENT OF ZONING.
WE CAN ZONE SOMETHING ONE WAY, BUT IF YOU CAN'T GET AN ON SITE DISPOSAL PERMIT, IT'S WORTHLESS TO CHANGE THE USE.
I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'VE GOT TO NAVIGATE TO IN THIS PROCESS IS, WHERE ARE THE SOILS THAT COULD POTENTIALLY HANDLE ON SITE THAT NEEDS TO BE FACTORED IN WITH HOW WE ZONE THINGS AS WELL.
>> WELCOME AND THANK YOU FOR COMING TO CAROLINE COUNTY.
JUST LOOK FORWARD TO WHAT WE COME UP WITH.
>> ME TOO. WE'LL BE COMING BACK WITH UPDATES AS WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
>> I'LL BE THERE. HOPEFULLY, ONCE BASEBALL SEASON IS OVER, PLANNING COMMISSION.
ARE WE STARTING NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION? ARE WE STARTING WORK?
>> WE'LL BE STARTING WITH GOING BACK OVER THE SURVEY, DISCUSSING IF WE WANT TO REISSUE ANOTHER ONE,
[00:40:01]
TALKING ABOUT HOW LEGISLATIVE CHANGES, IF WE KNOW BY THEM COULD DRIVE A NEW SURVEY.THEN IN MAY, WE'LL BE DOING OUR FIRST CHAPTER REVIEW.
IT'S A PRETTY AMBITIOUS SCHEDULE.
>> BUT AGAIN, IT IS AN UPDATE OF AN EXISTING PLAN, SO WE'RE NOT ENTIRELY REINVENTING THE WHEEL.
I THINK THE LAND USE CHAPTER BECAUSE OF ALL OF THE PREEMPTION HAPPENING AT STATE LEVEL IS GOING TO BE DENSE.
REALLY, THAT IN THE HOUSING CHAPTER THERE'S SO MUCH WRITING ON THIS LEGISLATIVE SESSION THAT WE'LL SEE WHAT THE RESULTS OF THAT IS.
BUT I THINK THOSE ARE GOING TO BE THE BIGGEST MOMENTOUS CHANGE.
>> THE GOVERNOR'S HOUSING BILL IS A HIDDEN THING THAT NO ONE'S PAYING ATTENTION TO.
>> WHEN HASN'T IT BEEN A BUSY YEAR? THERE HASN'T SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE. THANK YOU.
>> MOVING ON. WE HAVE A LEGISLATIVE SESSION.
NOW HERE A MOTION TO GO ON A LEGISLATIVE SESSION?
>> MOTION AND SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> THE AYES HAVE IT. COUNTY ATTORNEY BARROLL.
>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. CRYSTAL IS COMING UP TO HELP DISCUSS THESE BILLS.
THE FIRST BILL THAT WE ARE INTRODUCING TODAY IS LEGISLATIVE BILL NUMBER 2025-003.
[Legislative Session: First Reading & Introduction:]
[• Emergency Bill #2025-003 Chapter 175 – Zoning – Article XX – Board of Zoning Appeals - § 175–171, Creation; Membership and Terms; Vacancy and Removal]
THIS IS AN ACT TO REPEAL AND REENACT WITH AMENDMENTS, SECTION 175-171 OF ARTICLE 20 OF CHAPTER 175 ZONING OF THE CODE OF PUBLIC LOCAL LAWS OF CAROLINE COUNTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELIMINATING TERM LIMITS FOR MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, AND ALSO MODIFYING LANGUAGE OF THE ORDINANCE TO CONFORM TO CHANGES IN THE ANNOTATED CODE OF MARYLAND AND MAKING THIS ACT AN EMERGENCY BILL. CRYSTAL, DID YOU WANT TO?>> THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID DISCUSS THIS AT THEIR LAST MEETING AND MADE A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION THAT DUE TO THE DIFFICULTIES IN FINDING MEMBERS WHO ARE WILLING, NUMBER 1 TO VOLUNTEER THEIR TIME TO SERVE ON A BOARD, BUT THE SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF KNOWLEDGE THAT THEY NEED TO HAVE WHEN THEY'RE REVIEWING APPLICATIONS FOR SPECIAL USE EXCEPTIONS AND VARIANCES, BY THE TIME THEY FEEL COMFORTABLE AND WELL VERSED IN THE COUNTY ZONING REGS, THEY'RE TERMED OUT.
IF WE HAVE CITIZENS WHO ARE WILLING TO CONTINUE TO SERVE, THEN WE'D LIKE THEM TO HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT.
ONE OF THE OTHER DISCUSSIONS DURING THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS THAT WE ALSO HAVE TERM LIMITS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
FOR THE SAME REASONS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO RECOMMENDED THAT THE COMMISSIONERS CONSIDER REMOVING THE TERM LIMITS FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS WELL.
>> COULD THAT BE AN AMENDMENT TO THIS BILL, OR WOULD IT HAVE TO BE A SEPARATE BILL?
>> DID YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
>> I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
>> WE'VE GOT TWO MEMBERS WHO'VE DONE A GOOD JOB, THAT WANT TO RE UP AND DO IT AGAIN.
IT'S HARD TO FIND PEOPLE TO APPOINT TO THESE BOARDS.
I THINK THE KNOWLEDGE THAT THEY BOTH HAVE IS VERY IMPORTANT TO THE COUNTY.
>> THIS BILL IS BEING INTRODUCED TODAY, THE 25TH OF MARCH.
IT WILL BE SCHEDULED FOR A SECOND READING AND A PUBLIC HEARING ON TUESDAY, APRIL THE 8TH.
THE THIRD READING WITH POTENTIAL TO AMEND OR ENACT WILL BE ON TUESDAY, APRIL THE 15TH.
>> DO I HEAR A MOTION TO OFFICIALLY INTRODUCE OR ACCEPT THE INTRODUCTION OF THIS BILL AND THE SCHEDULE AS PROPOSED BY MR. BARROLL.
>> MOTION AND SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> THANK YOU. THE NEXT BILL WE HAVE FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION IS BILL NUMBER 2025-004.
[• Emergency Bill #2025-004, Amendment to the Caroline County Table of Use Regulations, 175 Attachment 3:4 - of Chapter 175 – Zoning, to prohibit non-accessory wastewater treatment facilities in the R, Rural District, and to continue to allow certain wastewater treatment facilities in certain Districts as a permitted use subject to special use exception.]
THIS IS A BILL.I'LL READ THE INTRODUCTION FOR IT.
IT'S AN ACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SPECIFYING THAT FOR A FACILITY TO MEET THE DEFINITION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY.
THE PURPOSE OF THE FACILITY MUST BE FOR THE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL, ALL THREE OF CERTAIN WASTES, AND CHANGING THE CLASSIFICATION OF NON ACCESSORY WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES FROM A PERMITTED USE SUBJECT TO A SPECIAL USE EXCEPTION
[00:45:04]
IN THE R RURAL DISTRICT TO A NON PERMITTED USE.WHILE ADDING THE CLASSIFICATION OF ONE ACCESSORY WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES AS A PERMITTED USE SUBJECT TO A SPECIAL USE EXCEPTION IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS, AND TWO NON ACCESSORY WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES AS A PERMITTED USE SUBJECT TO SPECIAL USE EXCEPTION IN THE I2 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND MH MOBILE HOME DISTRICTS BY AMENDING IN CHAPTER 175 OF THE COUNTY CODE, THE COUNTY TABLE OF USE REGULATIONS 175 ATTACHMENT 3-4 TO SO REFLECT THE CHANGE IN MAKING THIS ACT AN EMERGENCY BILL.
>> QUESTION ON THIS ONE, THE DEFINITION OF TREAT AS TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL.
LET'S SAY WE A STORAGE AND DISPOSAL, BUT NO TREATMENT COMPONENT, WOULD THAT FACILITY FALL UNDER THIS?
>> NO. CURRENTLY, THE WAY THE DEFINITION IS WRITTEN IS TO IT'S AN OR INSTEAD OF AN AND.
THAT MEANT YOU COULD DO ANY OF THE THREE ITEMS WITHOUT ALL THREE? THAT WAS ONE OF THE CONCERNS IS THAT YOU COULD DO STORAGE ONLY WITHOUT TREATING IT, WITHOUT DISPOSING OF IT OR STORE IT AND DISPOSE OF IT WITHOUT ANY TREATMENT OF IT.
THAT'S WHAT WE WANTED TO CLEAN UP TO SAY THAT THE INTENTION OF THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY IS FOR ALL THREE COMPONENTS.
LET'S TAKE THIS INTO CONSIDERATION.
WE HAVE A SMALL RURAL COMMUNITY.
HARMONY, BETHAM, JONESTOWN, THAT'S ON WELL AND SEPTIC.
EVENTUALLY, THOSE SEPTICS START TO FAIL, AND WE HAVE TO PUT A MUNICIPAL SYSTEM IN SOME TYPE OF COLLECTION SYSTEM THAT WOULD GO TO MORE THAN LIKELY SPRAY IRRIGATE ON A FIELD SOMEWHERE.
HOW WOULD THIS ORDINANCE AFFECT SOMETHING LIKE THAT? YOU WOULD HAVE TO PURCHASE A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT WOULD COLLECT ALL OF THE WASTEWATER FROM THAT RURAL VILLAGE, TREAT, STORE, AND THEN SPRAY IRRIGATE, WOULD THIS ALLOW THAT?
>> IT DOESN'T STATE WHERE IT WOULD BE DISPOSED OF.
IT JUST SAYS THAT YOU ARE TREATING, STORING IT, AND DISPOSING OF IT IN ORDER TO BE CLASSIFIED AS WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY? WHAT WE'VE CARVED OUT IN THE TABLE OF USES IS A ACCESSORY WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY, MEANING IT IS SERVING THE USE ON THE PROPERTY THAT'S GENERATING THE WASTE, AND THEN WE HAVE THE NON ACCESSORY MEANING, THE USE THAT'S GENERATING THE WASTE IS NOT ON THE SAME PROPERTY, WHERE THE FACILITY IS LOCATED? WE'VE ALLOWED THE ACCESSORY WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY.
FOR ANY OF OUR VILLAGES THAT MAY EVENTUALLY SEEK TO DO A WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY, THAT WOULD BE PERMITTED IN THOSE ZONING DISTRICTS SUBJECT TO A SPECIAL USE EXCEPTION.
>> COMMISSIONERS, THIS BILL IS ON THE SAME SCHEDULING TRACK AS THE PRIOR BILL.
IT WILL BE READ FOR A SECOND TIME ON TUESDAY, APRIL THE 8TH WITH A PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR THAT DATE.
THAT ADVERTISING IS GOING TO BE IN THE SUNDAY STAR DEMOCRAT ON THE 6TH OF APRIL.
THE THIRD READING AND POTENTIAL FOR AMENDMENT OR ENACTMENT WILL BE ON THE 15TH OF APRIL.
IF YOU WILL ALLOW IT TO PROCEED.
>> I'M SORRY. I MAY BE ASKING THE SAME QUESTION AGAIN.
>> I'M A LITTLE DENSE AT TIMES.
TO CLARIFY FOR TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL, SHOULD IT BE OR DISPOSAL OR SHOULD WE LEAVE IT AS AND? DO WE WANT TO PROHIBIT THE STORAGE AND DISPOSAL AS AN ACCESSORY USE IN THE RURAL AREA AS WELL.
RIGHT NOW, THIS WOULD ONLY PROHIBIT TREATMENT STORAGE AND DISPOSAL?
[00:50:03]
>> THIS WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY.
ON PAGE 3, THAT'S THE DEFINITION OF A WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY, WHICH IS ANY FACILITY FOR THE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL OF INDUSTRIAL WASTE, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THINGS LIKE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS, LAND APPLICATION OF WASTE PRODUCTS, LAGOONS, SLUDGE STORAGE, SLUDGE PRODUCED ON SITE, BUT THE DEFINITION DOES NOT INCLUDE THE SEASONAL LAND APPLICATION OF SLUDGE AND OTHER WASTE PRODUCTS TO AGRICULTURAL LANDS.
IT ALSO DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY FACILITY FOR PRIVATE RESIDENCES.
THAT WOULD BE YOUR STANDALONE SEPTIC SYSTEMS FOR PRIVATE RESIDENTS, ARE NOT CLASSIFIED AS WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES.
RIGHT NOW IT CURRENTLY SAYS A WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY IS ONE OF THOSE THAT CAN EITHER TREAT, STORE, OR DISPOSE.
NOW WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS IN ORDER TO BE CLASSIFIED AS A WASTE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY, YOU MUST HAVE ALL THREE COMPONENTS.
YOU'RE DOING ALL THREE COMPONENTS.
>> WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT OFF.
I FEEL LIKE IT SHOULD PROBABLY STAY OR.
>> YOU THINK IT SHOULD STAY THE SAME?
>> YEAH. BECAUSE A TREATMENT COMPONENT, IF YOU WERE JUST GOING TO DISPOSE OF WASTE AND YOU JUST WANTED TO STORE AND NOW APPLY AS AN ACCESSORY USE, THAT WOULD STILL BE PERMITTED, BECAUSE YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A TREATMENT COMPONENT, THE WAY THIS BILL IS DRAFTED RIGHT NOW.
YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A TREATMENT COMPONENT.
>> WELL, IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, THE TERM ITSELF HAS THE WORD TREATMENT RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF IT.
IF IT'S NOT TREATING WASTEWATER, IT CAN'T BE A WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY.
>> SO AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT YOU'RE THINKING OF WOULD BE [OVERLAPPING]
>> WELL, THE OLD HANDOVER OPERATION, THEY DIDN'T TREAT ANYTHING.
THEY PROCESS IT IN RIDGELY, TOOK THE VEGETABLE WATER, PUMPED IT OUT INTO A POND, AND THEN JUST SPRAY IRRIGATED IT.
THERE WAS NO TREATMENT COMPONENT THAT I'M AWARE OF.
IF THERE WAS ANY, IT WAS DONE IN THE PLAN ITSELF BEFORE IN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF RIDGELY.
THEN THE ENTIRE OPERATION IN THE COUNTY WOULD HAVE JUST BEEN STORED AND DISPOSAL.
THAT'S WHERE I'M HANGING UP A LITTLE BIT IN THAT PARTICULAR EXAMPLE.
>> WOULD YOU BE OKAY WITH JUST STORAGE AND DISPOSAL IN EITHER AS AN ACCESSORY USE WHERE IT'S GENERATED ON SITE OR A NON-ACCESSORY USE RIGHT NOW WE'RE SAYING FOR A NON-ACCESSORY USE, THAT WOULD ONLY BE ALLOWED IN THE COMMERCIAL OR MOBILE HOME DISTRICTS?
>> DO YOU GUYS THINK ABOUT AND GET BACK TO US ON? WE CAN GO AHEAD AND INTRODUCE A BILL AND AMEND IT BASED OFF OF THAT.
BUT YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M GETTING INTO.
>> SOMEONE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE OFFICIAL INTRODUCTION AND THE SCHEDULE IS OUTLINED BY MR. BARROLL.
>> MOTION AND SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THANK YOU. ALWAYS GOT TO BE DIFFICULT. CRYSTAL, I'M SORRY.
>> KATHLEEN'S LAUGHING, SHE KNOWS BETTER.
>> [LAUGHTER] LET'S TAKE FIVE MINUTE RECESS.
[00:57:57]
I NOW CALL THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER, AND I GUESS WE NEED A MOTION, ACTUALLY TO GO OUT OF LEGISLATIVE SESSION.DO I HEAR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION?
[Fiscal Year 2026 Budget Workshop: FY2026 Operating & Capital Requests]
>> MOTION, SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS A FISCAL YEAR 2026 BUDGET WORKSHOP, FY 2026 OPERATING AND CAPITAL REQUESTS UPDATE. GOOD MORNING.
>> GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS.
BEFORE YOU THIS MORNING, STACY AND I WANT TO GO THROUGH THE FEE SCHEDULE THAT WE ADOPT EACH YEAR.
IF YOU REMEMBER LAST WEEK, WE TOOK A PRETTY GOOD RUN THROUGH CAPITAL AND OPERATING.
BOTH OF THOSE VERSIONS HAVE BEEN SHARED, PUBLISHED AS WELL.
BUT RIGHT NOW, WITH THE CURRENT STATE OF THE STATE, WE FEEL IT'S BEST TO LEAVE THAT AS IS UNTIL WE HAVE A LITTLE MORE CLARITY ON SOME ITEMS THERE.
WE REALLY WANTED TO GET INTO THE FEE SCHEDULE TODAY AND HIGHLIGHT A COUPLE ITEMS THAT WE KNOW THE BOARD HAS BROUGHT UP IN CONVERSATION THROUGH PAST MEETINGS THAT THEY WANTED TO EITHER LOOK AT OR POSSIBLY CHANGE.
UP ON THE BOARD FOR THE PUBLIC, AS WELL AS PAPER HANDOUTS TO EVERYONE HERE IS OUR DRAFT 2026 FEE SCHEDULE.
THIS IS ESSENTIALLY A COPY AND PASTE OF OUR 2025 WITH THE DATES CHANGED.
EVERYTHING INSIDE OF IT CURRENTLY ARE THE CURRENT FEES AS OF JULY OF LAST YEAR.
IF YOU FLIP THROUGH, YOU'LL START TO SEE WHERE STACY AND I HAVE HIGHLIGHTED A COUPLE OF THE FEES BASED OFF AGAIN, CONVERSATIONS THAT WE HAVE HAD.
IF YOU WANT, WE CAN JUMP RIGHT TO THOSE AND THEN ADDRESS ANY OTHERS THAT YOU MAY WANT TO LOOK AT OR DISCUSS AFTER THE INDIVIDUAL ONES.
THE FIRST ONE THAT WE HAVE HIGHLIGHTED IS UNDER PLANNING AND CODES, AND IT LIVES UNDER BOARD OF LICENSE LIQUOR COMMISSIONERS.
IF YOU TAKE A LOOK STARTING ON,
[01:00:03]
IT LOOKS LIKE PAGE 3 OF THE HANDOUT, YOU'LL SEE THIS SECTION AND INSIDE OF IT, AND SOMETHING THAT I KNOW CRYSTAL HAS SPOKEN TO BEFORE, A BULK, IF NOT, JUST ABOUT THE MAJORITY OF THE LICENSES AND FEES THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THE LIQUOR COMMISSION, ARE SET BY STATE LEGISLATION.THERE'S A NOTE INDICATING THAT, AS WELL.
IN CONVERSATION WITH CRYSTAL, THERE REALLY ARE ONLY A COUPLE LINE ITEMS THAT THIS BOARD CAN CHANGE THROUGH OUR NORMAL FEE SCHEDULE AND BUDGET ADOPTION, AND THOSE ARE HIGHLIGHTED THERE.
THE FIRST ONE IS THE APPLICATION FEE.
THIS IS FOR ANY NEW APPLICATION OR TRANSFER OF APPLICATION, ADVERTISING COST, AND THEN WE HAVE A LINE FOR THE TIPS ALCOHOL AWARENESS CERTIFICATION CLASS.
AGAIN, BOTH OF THOSE ARE SHOWN THERE.
CRYSTAL DID SOME LEG WORK THE OTHER DAY AND SURVEYED A LOT OF THE SURROUNDING COUNTIES AND COMPARISON OF WHAT OUR CURRENT APPLICATION FEE IS.
I'LL JUST READ THOSE OFF FOR CONTEXT, AND THEN YOU GUYS WILL HAVE THAT.
WE HAVE TALBOT IS LISTED AT EITHER 200 OR 100 DEPENDING ON THE CLASS OF LICENSE.
QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY IS $300, BUT THAT INCLUDES THE ADVERTISING COSTS WHERE WE'RE CHARGING SEPARATE TO COVER THE ADVERTISING.
DORCHESTER IS 200 OR 150 DEPENDING ON CLASS.
KENT IS 100, CECIL 600, AND WORCESTER 600, AS WELL.
THEY DEFINITELY RANGE, AND AGAIN, SOME OF THEM ARE BASED OFF THE LICENSE TYPE AND JUST HOW THEY STRUCTURE THAT.
NOT TO GET INTO A TON OF DETAILS.
I THINK THE REASON FOR BRINGING THIS UP IS REALLY LOOKING AT THE MONEY THAT'S BEING BROUGHT IN FROM THE LIQUOR LICENSE.
FIRST, WHAT THE OPERATION IS COSTING US.
WE'RE BUDGETING TO TAKE IN ABOUT $60,000.
BUT LAST YEAR, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, WE SPENT ABOUT $99,000 TO OPERATE THE BOARD.
THERE'S ABOUT A $40,000 GAP THERE THAT IS BEING MADE UP BY THE GENERAL FUND TO COVER THAT.
AGAIN, THESE ARE THE THREE-LINE ITEMS WE CAN CHANGE AND DISCUSS THROUGH OUR PROCESS.
THE OTHER WOULD HAVE TO BE INTRODUCED IN A BILL.
>> CRYSTAL, WHAT KIND OF REVIEW DOES THE APPLICATION REQUIRE? DO WE ACTUALLY SEND A PERSON OUT TO INSPECT THE FACILITY?
>> WHEN AN APPLICATION COMES IN, THEY HAVE PRETTY MUCH A PAGE-AND-A-HALF TO TWO-PAGE LIST OF ITEMS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED.
WE HAVE TO VET THAT FOR MAKING SURE THEY MEET RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS, VOTER REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS.
OFFICE OF LAW HAS TO REVIEW ANY OF THEIR LLC OR CORPORATE DOCUMENTS TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE LEGALLY SUFFICIENT.
WE ENSURE THAT THEY HAVE ALL THE PROPER LICENSES, WHETHER IT'S COMMUNICATION WITH COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE FOR SALES TAX LICENSES, ALL OF THOSE COMPONENTS THAT GO WITH AN APPLICATION.
IT ALSO THAT FEE IS COVERING THE STAFF TIME TO DO ALL THE REVIEW, MAKE SURE THE LEGAL ADVERTISEMENTS ARE PLACED IN THE PAPER THAT COVERS THE COST OF THE BOARD HEARING TO HEAR THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE BOARD, AND THEN THE FOLLOW THROUGH OF THAT APPLICATION AFTERWARDS, WHICH IS MAKING SURE ON YOU FOLLOW UP GETTING REMAINING DOCUMENTS THAT THE BOARD WOULD HAVE REQUIRED AFTER GRANTING APPROVAL AND THEN ISSUING A LICENSE.
THE LICENSE FEE, OUR MOST EXPENSIVE ONE IS $1,600, WHICH THE MAJORITY OF OUR LICENSE HOLDERS HAVE IN THE COUNTY, WHICH IS THE OFF PREMISE TO GO LICENSES.
THAT $1,600, THEY PAID ANNUALLY FOR THE LICENSE FEE, AND THAT'S GOING TO COVER THE INSPECTORS TIME THROUGHOUT THE YEAR TO DO ROUTINE, COMPLIANCE CHECKS ON THOSE BUSINESSES AND THE COST FOR PROCESSING THE RENEWAL APPLICATION.
THE BOARD HOLDS A HEARING EVERY YEAR TO REVIEW THOSE APPLICATIONS.
STAFF SPENDS TIME MAKING SURE RENEWALS GET MAILED OUT.
AGAIN, ALL THE DOCUMENTS, EVERYTHING IS CHECKED WITH TAXES TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE PAID.
THAT LICENSE FEE EVERY YEAR WOULD BE COVERING THE INSPECTORS COSTS FOR INSPECTIONS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR AND THEN THE ACTUAL RENEWAL PROCESS.
THE $175 IS COVERING THAT INITIAL APPLICATION WHEN THEY FIRST COME TO THE BOARD FOR A NEW ONE OR A TRANSFER.
>> SO IT'S NOT EVEN COMING CLOSE TO COVERING THE EXPENSE?
>> THE $175 DOESN'T COVER [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT'S NOT EVEN COVERING LEGAL REVIEWING IT.
IF I WANTED TO COME IN AND HAVE A FUNDRAISER FOR [OVERLAPPING], THAT'S DIFFERENT.
[01:05:02]
THAT'S NOT RAISING THE FEE FOR NON-PROFITS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT?>> FOR PROFIT BUSINESSES THAT ARE COMING IN FOR A BRAND NEW LICENSE OR THEY'RE PURCHASING AN EXISTING BUSINESS AND WANT TO TRANSFER LICENSE.
THERE ARE TEMPORARY LICENSES FOR NON-PROFITS, THAT FEE IS SET IN THE STATE.
>> IF YOU HAD TO GUESS HOW MANY TOTAL HOURS DO YOU THINK STAFF HAS IN REVIEWING AN APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER OR NEW APPLICATION? YOU'VE BEEN DOING IT LONG ENOUGH, YOU CAN SPEAK ALL SOME.
>> IT'S BROKEN UP THROUGHOUT THE TIME, BUT YOU'RE LOOKING AT EIGHT HOURS SPENT BETWEEN PREPARING LEGAL ADS, REVIEWING DOCUMENTS AT A MINIMUM.
DEPENDS ON HOW MUCH BACK-AND-FORTH YOU HAVE TO HAVE WITH THE CUSTOMER AND HOW DETAIL TO WHAT THEY GIVE YOU INITIALLY.
>> FOUR OR $500 WOULDN'T BE OUT OF LINE TO COVER?
>> IT'S VERY SIMILAR TO OUR PROCESS FOR THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, WHEN SOMEONE APPLIES FOR A SPECIAL USE OR A VARIANCE APPLICATION, WE'RE BRINGING STUFF IN.
THEY'RE PREPARING ADS FOR THE PAPER ON THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OUR FEES THERE AND OUR SPECIAL USE EXCEPTION IS $500.
I DON'T EVEN THINK IT COMES CLOSE TO COVERING THE COST.
WE HAVE THE TIME SPENT AT THE HEARINGS PLUS TIME SPENT BEFORE AND AFTER THE HEARINGS IN PREPARATION, SO KEEPING IN LINE WITH OTHER APPLICATIONS OUR OFFICE DOES, $500 IS WHAT WE CURRENTLY DO FOR OUR SPECIAL USE WITH CA IN A SIMILAR FASHION.
>> WHERE WOULD YOU HAVE TO BE TO BREAK EVEN IN?
>> I'M GOING TO BE HONEST, WE DID NOT GO BACK THROUGH.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OF THESE WE HAVE COME THROUGH.
>> WITH THESE THREE, WE'RE NOT GOING TO RAISE THE DIFFERENT.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE STATE LEGISLATURE AND THEY ASK THEM TO RAISE THE FEE.
>> THEY HAVE FIVE NEW BUSINESSES AND A COUPLE OF TRANSFERS A YEAR.
IT JUST REALLY DEPENDS ON THE ECONOMY AND WHAT'S GOING.
I'M NOT A TAX IN SPENDER FEE PERSON, BUT I THINK THE FEE SHOULD COVER THE EXPENSE.
>> [OVERLAPPING] APPLICATION AND THEN WE CAN TALK ABOUT NEXT YEAR AS FAR AS THE FEES AND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.
>> BUT I'M GOOD WITH GOING UP TO 500 KNOWING THIS.
>> YEAH. I WANT TO BREAK EVEN.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO LOSE MONEY GIVING LICENSE.
JUST A QUICK QUESTION, WHERE DOES THE CANNABIS LICENSING FEE FIT INTO?
>> THE STATE. THAT'S ALL THROUGH THE STATE.
>> WE DON'T DO ANY INSPECTIONS OR DO ANY LICENSING FOR CANNABIS.
WE JUST GET THE TAX BACK TO THE COUNTY FOR THAT PERCENTAGE.
>> TO THAT, WE DO RECEIVE DISBURSEMENTS FROM THE COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE IN REGARDS TO WHAT THEY CALL THE APPLICATION OR CONVENIENCE FEES THAT ARE APPLIED FOR.
SO THAT OVERARCHING FORMULA THAT SAYS THIS PERCENT OF THIS PERCENT COMES DOWN TO THE COUNTIES AT THAT WE DO EVERY SIX MONTHS OR SO GET A DISBURSEMENT FOR IT.
>> IS THAT INCLUDED IN THE MONEY THAT WE GET THAT THEY CAN'T FIGURE OUT HOW TO TELL US TO SPEND IT?
>> WE STILL DON'T KNOW HOW TO SPEND THAT MONEY THAT THEY GIVE US?
>> YES. WHY WE'RE ON THIS TOPIC, IF YOU DON'T MIND.
STACY AND I ACTUALLY HAD A PRETTY GOOD MEETING YESTERDAY WITH THE OWNERS OF CAROLINE PHARMA, WHICH IS THE ONE LICENSED DISTRIBUTOR HERE IN THE COUNTY THAT IS STANDING UP SHOP IN THE TOWN OF FEDERALSBURG.
THEY HAVE BEEN IN COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE STATE AND THE STATE IS POINTING THEM TO A SUBMITTED SENATE BILL THAT WE STARTED LOOKING AT YESTERDAY.
IN THAT IS SOME CLEANUP OF THAT LANGUAGE FROM WHAT WE CAN INITIALLY TELL.
IT REALLY CHANGES THE DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACTED AREA TITLE AND STARTS REALLY LABELING IT ALL IS LOW INCOME COMMUNITIES AND THEN DRIVING, I BELIEVE, A TO H SPECIFIC ITEMS THAT YOU CAN SPEND THE MONEY ON OR BEFORE IT'S REALLY OPEN TO INTERPRETATION.
WE'LL SHARE THAT BILL WITH THE BOARD.
>> SEND US THE MEAT AND POTATOES PART OF IT.
>> SAY WE GOT THAT LATE YESTERDAY AFTERNOON, THEY ACTUALLY STOPPED IT TO THE WINDOW.
>> WE WERE PROBABLY FOR ONE TIME WISE TO WAIT.
>> BECAUSE IF WE HAD SPENT THAT MONEY, IT'S VERY WELL MAY HAVE BEEN SPENT SOMEWHERE WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO CALL IT BACK.
>> I WOULD HATE TO SAY INCORRECTLY OR IN A WRONG AREA.
[01:10:03]
I THINK GETTING THE CLEAR GUIDANCE THAT WE'VE BEEN WAITING ON IS THE RIGHT MOVE AND SHOULD HELP US.>> I THINK I TALKED TO DANNY WHILE WAS GOING, IS IT THIS PERSON'S POSITION WHO HAS THIS LICENSE THAT SOME OF THAT MONEY SHOULD BE ALLOCATED TO THEM?
>> YES. THEY CERTAINLY WOULD LIKE TO PURSUE THAT MONEY.
ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT IS CLEARLY IDENTIFIED IS WORKFORCE TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT, AND THE STATE HAS PUSHED THE INDIVIDUAL LICENSEES TO THE COUNTY SAYING THE COUNTY IS RECEIVING THAT MONEY, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO APPLY TO THEM AND RECEIVE THAT.
THE ONE GENTLEMAN WHO I BELIEVE IS ONE OF THE PARTNERS OR INVESTORS IN THE OPERATION IS INVOLVED WITH ONE IN HARTFORD COUNTY OR THEY WERE SPEAKING ABOUT HARTFORD COUNTY, OFFERING THAT AND THEY WERE WORKING THROUGH THE PROCESS WITH THEM AS WELL TO TRY TO RECEIVE MONEY.
>> IT WOULD BE LIKE COVERING THE TIPS TRAINING OR SOMETHING THROUGH THE TAX FUND? IS THAT THE EQUIVALENT WOULD BE?
>> AGAIN, OUR 30 MINUTES REVIEW OF IT YESTERDAY RIGHT AT THE END OF THE DAY WHEN THEY LEFT AND THEIR INTERPRETATION IS, WE COULD MAKE GRANTS TO THEM FOR ON BOARDING NEW EMPLOYEES THAT NEED IN REFERENCE, LIKE A TIPS TRAINING.
>> COULD. THEY WERE EVEN GOING ON EXPLANATION OF THEY WERE HAVING TO INSTALL CAMERAS AND HAVING TO DO.
>> I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE ANY MONEY OFF OF IT, THE SALE?
>> THERE IS A REQUIREMENT OF THE LICENSE HOLDERS.
>> YOU GUYS GOOD WITH 500 FOR THE APPLICATION FEE? YOU'RE GOOD?
>> CRYSTAL, REAL QUICK WHILE YOU'RE THERE, THE TIPS.
THAT'S A CONTRACTOR THAT DOES THAT?
>> NO. OUR LIQUID INSPECTOR IS A CERTIFIED TRAINER, SO WE OFFER THAT SERVICE FOR OUR BUSINESSES IN CAROLINE COUNTY AT A LITTLE BIT CHEAPER RATE THAN IT WOULD BE IF THEY WENT TO A TRAINER OUTSIDE OF THE COUNTY.
>> VERIFICATIONS AND EITHER CODE.
>> YOU GO FOR THAT FEE, THAT COVERS THE COST.
>> THAT WAYS THE COUNTY'S NOT IN COMPETITION WITH OTHER TRAINERS THAT ARE OUT THERE AND WE DON'T TRAIN EVERYBODY FROM EVERY OTHER COUNTY.
IT'S FOR OUR BUSINESSES AND LINKS.
I KNOW IN AGAIN, CONVERSATION LAST WEEK, JONESTOWN WATER SYSTEM WAS ANOTHER LINE ITEM THAT WAS DISCUSSED, ESSENTIALLY IN THE SAME PRINCIPLE OR CONCEPT THAT THE MONEY GENERATED FROM THE FEE OF USING THE WATER SYSTEM IS NOT COVERING THE OPERATION OF THE WATER SYSTEM.
I KNOW ROBIN'S HERE TODAY, HIS STAFF OVERSEES THE WATER SYSTEM, AND THERE'S JUST MORE TO IT EVERY YEAR AS FAR AS ONGOING COMPLIANCE.
WE'VE HAD TO DO SURVEYS, OUTREACH THAT ARE NOW REQUIRED BY MDE, AND IT JUST IS CONTINUING TO PUSH THAT FUND INTO A LITTLE BIT OF A BIGGER HOLE.
>> WE'RE NOT PUTTING ANY MONEY AWAY FOR IF SOMETHING HAPPENS, WATER MAIN BREAK.
>> 100%. THAT FUND IS OPERATING AT NET ZERO EVERY YEAR AND HAS NEVER TURNED ANY MONEY SET ASIDE TO LOOK FORWARD TO THAT OR LOOK TOWARDS THAT.
BASED OFF THE 52 USERS THAT ARE IN THE SYSTEM, AND SOME QUICK MATH THAT WE CALCULATED ON LAST YEAR'S OPERATION, THE FEE WOULD HAVE TO BE ABOUT $476 TO BREAK EVEN.
JUST FOR REFERENCE, WE RARELY HAVE ANY CONNECTION FEES OR ANYBODY APPLYING TO GET ON THE SYSTEM, IT'S REALLY WHAT'S THERE.
>> YOU'RE SAYING JUST FOR CONNECTED THAT'S OUR BREAK EVEN.
THAT'S IF WE LEFT THE UNCONNECTED PROPERTIES AT 150.
IF I OWN A LOT IN JONESTOWN AND IF I DON'T HAVE A HOUSE ON IT, JUST A STUB ONTO THAT PROPERTY, THEY'RE BEING CHARGED $150 A YEAR FOR THAT?
>> NO. WHAT IS THE UNCONNECTED PROPERTY FEE?
>> SOMETHING THAT WAS ADOPTED WHEN THAT WAS INITIALLY PUT AND IT'S BEEN A COPY AND PASTE OVER.
NO ONE'S GETTING CHARGED THAT CURRENTLY.
IT'S REALLY THE ONE IN FOCUS IS THE 52 CONNECTED TO THIS.
ROBIN, YOU'RE NOT AWARE OF ANY MUNICIPALITY THAT CHARGES WATER AND SEWER THAT'S NOT USING WATER AND SEWER. YOU HAVE A LOT, REALLY?
[01:15:02]
>> IT'S CALLED AN AVAILABILITY CHARGE AND IT'S VERY COMMON.
THE FACT IS IF YOU LIVE ON A CORNER LOT, YOU GET CHARGED FOR BOTH SIDES.
I MEAN, WELL, IF YOU LIVE ON CORNER LOT, THEY HAD.
>> VACANT EMPTY LOT AND YOU'VE GOT A CORNER LOT, AND YOU GOT AVAILABILITY CHARGE ON BOTH STREETS.
>> I ADDRESSES LIKE DEBT SERVICE.
>> IT'S AVAILABLE TO YOU, SO THEY CHARGE YOU FOR IT.
>> THAT SEEMS A LITTLE SKETCHY.
>> BUT LET ME JUST GIVE A 1 MINUTE SYNOPSIS HERE.
BACK I WAS HERE WHEN THIS CAME AROUND AND THIS AREA, I SAY IT WAS UNDER CONSENT, BUT I KNOW IT WAS A PRIORITY FUNDING AREA.
THIS WHOLE ISSUE COULD HAVE BEEN SOLVED BY SIMPLY INSTALLING WELLS.
ONE TIME, YOU COULD HAVE HAD THE WELLS PUT IN, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE HAD TO HAVE A WATER SYSTEM.
YOU WOULDN'T HAVE HAD TO HAVE A PERSON TO MAINTAIN THE SYSTEM AND ALL THAT STUFF.
AT THAT TIME, USDA SAID, I WAS EARLY ON, I WAS NEW AND I MENTIONED IT, AND THEY CAME BACK AND SAID, WELL, IF YOU DO THAT, YOU GOT TO PAY BACK ALL THE MONEY THAT'S BEEN SPENT TO GET TO THIS POINT.
>> SOMETHING THAT WAS INHERITED.
>> EXACTLY. I DISTINCTLY REMEMBER SETTING UP HERE AND HAVING PEOPLE FROM JONESTOWN COME IN AND SAY, THIS IS A PLOT BY THE COUNTY TO CHARGE PEOPLE FOR WATER WHO THE COUNTY KNOWS CAN'T AFFORD IT.
YOUR WHOLE GOAL HERE IS TO HAVE THEM RUN UP THESE WATER BILLS, AND THEN YOU'RE GOING TO COME TAKE THEIR HOUSES? THAT WAS THE FEELING.
I DON'T THINK THAT THIS FEE HAS BEEN INCREASED IN HOW MANY YEARS EVER.
>> NEVER BEEN INCREASE SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE AND LOOKING BACK FROM THE ADOPTION OF THE FEES, I CAN'T SEE WHERE IT'S EVER BEEN CHANGED FROM THE ORIGINAL.
>> IT'S BEEN 10 YEARS BEEN. IT'S BEEN 10 YEARS.
FOR 10 YEARS, THIS FEE HAS NOT BEEN INCREASED.
I WOULD VENTURE TO SAY THAT IF YOU WENT INTO OUR MUNICIPALITIES, THEIR FEES HAVE GONE UP IN THE LAST 10 YEARS.
>> I DON'T THINK WE CAN JUMP ALL ONE TIME.
>> NO. BUT I THINK WE HAVE GOT TO START COMING UP WITH SOME TYPE OF A GRADUAL INCREASE HERE THAT WE ARE GOING TO AT LEAST START RECOVERING SOME OF THIS MONEY BECAUSE WE CANNOT CONTINUE TO OPERATE A SYSTEM ON THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY EVERY YEAR.
LET'S COME UP WITH A REASONABLE.
>> I THINK IT'S SOMETHING WE CAN THINK ABOUT AND REACH OUT AND LET PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS WHY.
BECAUSE THE FIRST THING WE'RE GOING TO HEAR IS, HERE YOU GO.
>> THEY'VE NEVER BEEN CHANGED?
>> BECAUSE WHEN IT WAS ADOPTED, EVERYBODY SAID, YOU'RE GOING TO DO IS PUT IT AT $100 AND YOU'RE GOING TO RAISE IT EVERY YEAR. IT'S NEVER BEEN RAISED.
LOOK, THESE THINGS WERE IMPLEMENTED IN GOOD FAITH.
WE'VE GOT TO STAY TO THAT, BUT I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S REASONABLE TO THINK THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO DO IT.
I WOULD SUGGEST WE THINK ABOUT THIS AND IMPLEMENTED AS PART OF OUR BUDGET AND PUT A REASONABLE NUMBER IN, BUT IT'S GOING TO BE AN INCREASE. WE'RE GOING TO HEAR ABOUT IT.
>> WELL, I THINK WE NEED TO SEND A LETTER PROBABLY TO ALL THE PROPERTY OWNERS THERE AND JUST SAY, LOOK, THIS IS THE NUMBER.
THIS IS WHAT IT'S COSTING US TO OPERATE THIS.
>> THE INTENTION HERE IS CERTAINLY TO NOT DRIVE COSTS TO WHERE WE'RE GOING TO TAKE.
>> BUT I THINK WE NEED TO INCLUDE IN THAT LETTER THAT IT'S COST IN THE COUNTY $476, AND WE'RE STILL ONLY GOING UP TO 330 OR WHATEVER WE AGREE TO GO UP TO.
>> AGAIN, I THINK THE FEE SCHEDULE, THE BUDGET, ARE ALL HELD IN THE SECOND PUBLIC HEARING DURING THE PROPOSED WE POINT.
>> WE'RE PAYING THE ELECTRIC BILL FOR THE PUMP.
[01:20:01]
I MEAN, THE ELECTRIC HASN'T GOTTEN ANY CHEAPER IN THE LAST 14 YEARS. ALL THE.>> CHEMICALS. THE CHLORINE OR WHATEVER THAT GETS PUT IN.
>> LIKE YOU SAID EARLIER, I MEAN, THERE'S NO CAPITALS RESERVE FUND.
>> WE'VE BEEN PAYING OUT OF POCKET.
>> WE COULD HAVE A MAJOR ISSUE THERE, AND IT'S GOING TO COME OUT OF OUR POCKET WITH NOTHING.
I MEAN, THERE'S VERY FEW THINGS IN THIS COUNTY I CAN THINK OF THAT WE DON'T HAVE A CAPITAL.
>> BUT IT'S A DIFFICULT SUBJECT BECAUSE THIS WAS FORCED ON THE PEOPLE.
IT WAS. I MEAN THEY WEREN'T FIGHTING FOR A WATER SYSTEM THERE.
>> WELL, THE PROPERTIES WERE GOING TO BE CONDEMNED.
IF NOT, BASICALLY, OR THEY WERE GOING TO PUT A HOLDING TANKS AND THAT WOULD BE A LOT MORE EXPENSIVE THAN THE WATER.
>> THE COUNTY WAS GOING TO START FACING LEGAL FEES AND THINGS ABOUT WHY WE WEREN'T DOING ANYTHING BUT LET'S THINK ABOUT IT AND INCORPORATED IN A FAIR.
I THINK THE BIGGEST THING TO DO IS TO DO IT IN A FAIR WAY.
>> RIGHT NOW, WE'RE AROUND SUBSIDIZING 9,000?
>> I THINK IT WAS LIKE NINE AND CHANGE.
THAT'S ON A NORMAL OPERATING YEAR.
SOME YEARS HAD BEEN LARGER BECAUSE WE'VE HAD A PUMP FAILURE OR AN ISSUE THAT WE'VE HAD TO COVER OUT OF POCKET.
>> THAT STUFF IS REACHING A POINT WHERE IT'S PROBABLY GOING WE BE HAVING MORE OF THOSE.
>> DO YOU WANT TO THROW ANYTHING OUT THERE AS A STARTING?
>> I THINK 50 BUCKS IS FAIR, BUT YOU SAID 10 THAT'S $30.
I THINK 50 BUCKS IS JUST START.
>> GO TO 350 AS OPPOSED TO THREE.
>> 350, JUST START THE CONVERSATION.
>> WE CAN CERTAINLY WORK WITH JEN TO DRAFT A LETTER AND GET THAT OUT AND GET THAT.
>> WE JUST WANT TO DO AWAY WITH THE UNCONNECTED PROPERTIES CHARGE BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T BEEN CHARGING IT.
>> I THINK IT'S CLEANER TO TAKE IT OUT.
>> I'M FINE WITH DOING AWAY WITH THAT.
>> THAT'S A LITTLE MISLEADING THERE.
>> IT IS, AND THAT'S I JUST WANTED TO.
>> MAKE SURE EVERYONE WAS ON BOARD.
>> WELL, WE'RE NOT GOING TO CHARGE IT, WE NEED TO TAKE IT OFF THE SCALE.
>> I THINK AT THE TIME THERE WAS SOME THOUGHT THAT WHEN THAT SYSTEM WENT IN, THAT PEOPLE WERE GOING TO BUILD SOME HOUSES ON AVAILABLE LOTS.
>> I DON'T THINK THAT'S HAPPENED.
>> THERE'S SOME WORK GOING ON THERE NOW.
THERE'S A COUPLE OF HOUSES BEING FIXED UP.
>> IRONICALLY, THE ORIGINAL 52 THAT WERE HOOKED UP DURING CREATION ARE STILL THE EXISTING 52.
WE'VE NEVER HAD AN ADDITIONAL HOOK UP.
WE HAVE HAD SOME REACH OUT THE PUBLIC WORK.
>> THE SMALL PERMIT AND THEN THERE'S NO IMPACT FEES.
IT'S THEY PAY THE CONTRACTOR TO DO THE INSTALLATION THAT NO IMPACT FEES.
>> THAT WAS BASED OFF THE INITIAL CREATION OF THE LANGUAGE FOR WHEN IT WAS CREATED AND WHAT WE COULD DO AT THAT TIME AND NOT CHARGE AND CHARGE BECAUSE.
>> USDA WASN'T GOING TO GIVE YOU THE MONEY AND THEN LET YOU CHARGE SOME BIG CONNECTION FEE?
>> CORRECT. I WOULD HAVE TO DOUBLE CHECK, BUT I BELIEVE IT'S LIKE THAT IN OUR CODE AS WELL UNDER THE WATER SYSTEM, SO.
>> WELL, THAT'S WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND WITH THE MUNICIPALITIES.
I MEAN, I KNOW THEY GOT TO COVER COSTS, BUT THEY GET THAT ON THE SERVICE.
YOUR SERVICE FEE SHOULD BE HIGH ENOUGH.
DO YOU WANT DEVELOPMENT OR DON'T YOU WANT DEVELOPMENT? BECAUSE THEY ACT LIKE THEY WANT DEVELOPMENT AND THEN THEY CHARGE REG I'M NOT JUST PICKING ON ONE. IT'S EVERYWHERE.
THEN THEY CHARGE EXORBITANT COSTS TO HOOK UP TO SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE GOING TO PAY FOR ONCE YOU GET HOOKED UP.
IT JUST SEEMS RIDICULOUS TO ME.
BUT I'M NATURAL. SOME OF THEM THAT CHARGE YOU FOR WATER.
I MEAN, I RUN WATER MEANS TO EXTEND MUNICIPAL WATER MEANS.
I'M NOT GOING TO CALL THEM OUT BECAUSE THIS IS NEW, AND IT'S THE ONLY ONE I KNOW OF.
IT'S NOT IN CAROLINE COUNTY, BUT IT'S CLOSE.
IT'S A NEIGHBORING COUNTY WHERE YOU RUN THE WATER MAIN DOWN THERE RIGHT AWAY SO YOUR PROPERTY CAN HOOK UP.
THEN THEY CHARGE YOU OR CHARGE ME AS THE CONTRACTOR FOR THE WATER THAT I PUT INTO WATER MAIN THAT THEY'RE GOING TO TURN AROUND AND RESELL AND CHARGE FOR ONCE IT GOES THROUGH THE METER.
[01:25:07]
THEY GET TO SELL THE WATER TWICE.>> SOMEBODY ELSE HADN'T THOUGHT. OF THAT
>> WELL, MAYBE I'VE LET THE CAT OUT OF THE BAG NOW.
>> CONTINUING ON THE BOTTOM OF THE SAME PAGE THERE, WE HAVE JUST MISCELLANEOUS FEES, SURCHARGE, SUBSCRIPTIONS, AND INSIDE OF THAT LIVES THE OFFICE OF FINANCE ADMINISTRATIVE FEE TO TOWN GOVERNMENTS FOR TAX COLLECTION.
THIS IS THE FEE THAT THE COUNTY CHARGES FOR THE OFFICE OF FINANCE TO CONDUCT ALL TAX COLLECTION OR PROPERTY TAX COLLECTION FOR THE MUNICIPALITIES AND ESSENTIALLY COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE STATE REGULATIONS, HOLD THEIR REQUIRED TAX SALES, LETTERS, DELINQUENCIES, ALL OF THE TOP TO BOTTOM OPERATION THERE.
IT'S 1% OF TAX REVENUE COLLECTED, AND THEN WE CURRENTLY HAVE A CAP NOT TO EXCEED $15,000.
AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, CERTAIN TOWNS REQUIRE LITTLE TO NO INTERACTION, AND IT'S REALLY JUST A MONTH TO MONTH PROCESS AND PAYMENT.
SOME OF THE LARGER TOWNS REQUIRE A LOT MORE ATTENTION AND INTERACTION.
IN DISCUSSION, WE FEEL THAT THE $15,000 NOT TO EXCEED IS A LITTLE TOO LOW CURRENTLY.
RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE TWO OF THE LARGER TOWNS THAT ARE HITTING THAT CAP.
AGAIN, IT IS THE OFFICE'S RECOMMENDATION THAT WE RAISE THAT TO 20, 22.5.
THIS HAS BEEN SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN ADJUSTED OVER THE YEARS.
IT WAS ORIGINALLY 10 BACK WHEN CATHY WAS HERE.
I THINK SHE CAME BEFORE AND REQUESTED TO GO TO 15 AGAIN.
>> WHY DO WE NEED A CAP? WHY SHOULDN'T IT BE 1% OF WHAT YOU DO?
>> EXCELLENT QUESTION. I THINK I'LL JUST THROW IT OUT THERE.
LIKE THE TOWN OF DENTON, OBVIOUSLY BEING THE BIGGEST TOWN IN THE COUNTY.
THEY ARE WITHOUT A CAP, WOULD BE JUST AROUND $30,000 FOR THEIR PROCESS.
AGAIN, THEY ARE THE BIGGEST TOWN, SO THEY REQUIRE A LOT MORE ATTENTION.
>> SHOULD THEY BE DOUBLE WHAT SOMEBODY LIKE A FEDERALS BURG WOULD BE AT MAYBE A 17 OR 18? I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE DOUBLE THE WORK.
I THINK THAT'S WHY THE CAP WAS THERE.
IT'S REALLY ONCE YOU GET TO A CERTAIN SIZE.
BUT THEY SAY IT DOES REQUIRE A LOT MORE WORK, BUT DOUBLE 30.
>> IF YOU DID IT AT 1%, WHAT WOULD IT BE? LIKE IF YOU TOOK OUT NOT TO EXCEED AND JUST S 1%.
>> THE ONLY TWO WOULD CHANGE OR THE TOWN OF DENTON AND TOWN OF PETERSBURG?
>> YOU SAID PETERSBURG WOULD BE LIKE 17. [OVERLAPPING]
>> AND DENTON WOULD BE LIKE 30.
>> SO I'M FINE WITH GOING UP TO 20.
>> I'M FINE WITH DOING AWAY WITH THE CAP.
>> IT'S BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT YOU DO.
WHAT DIFFERENCE IS IT THAN WHAT WE JUST FINISHED TALKING ABOUT? WE REALLY SHOULDN'T BE PROVIDING SERVICES, THAT'S COSTING US MONEY TO PROVIDE.
I DON'T WANT TO GOUGE ANYBODY.
>> BUT IF IT'S COSTING US A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY TO PROCESS THESE BILLS, WE ALREADY GIVE A DIFFERENTIAL TO THE TOWNS.
WE ALREADY PROVIDE SIGNIFICANT SERVICES TO THE TOWNS THROUGH OUR PLANNING OFFICE WE ALREADY SET UP POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY BOARDS FOR THE TOWN.
I LIVE IN TOWN, BUT I'M JUST SAYING WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GET AWAY FROM THIS SUBSIDIZING SERVICES PROCESS HERE, IF WE'RE GOING TO GO FORWARD WITH BALANCING THIS BUDGET.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT ENDS UP BEING LESS THAN $15,000 OR LESS THAN WHAT WE'RE CHARGING, THAT'S FINE WITH ME.
I JUST THINK WE'VE GOT TO GET TO A POINT HERE WHERE WE'RE GOING TO START COVERING OUR CALL.
>> MAKING WHOLE NOT EXCEEDING. I'M BETTING NOT TO EXCEED IT OUT, JUST LEAVE IT AT 1%.
[01:30:03]
>> I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU. I JUST WOULD RATHER PHASE IT IN LIKE WE'RE DOING WITH JONESTOWN AS OPPOSED TO HITTING THEM.
I KNOW NOBODY CARES ABOUT HITTING US ALL AT ONCE, BUT TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT.
I KNOW THE STATE DOESN'T CARE, BUT 15 GRAND TO TOWN OF DENTON'S BUDGET MIGHT BE A BIG DEAL TO THEM.
I WOULD JUST SAY IF WE PHASED IT IN OVER A FEW YEARS.
>> IF WE WANT TO PHASE IT IN, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH DOING THAT.
I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH PHASING IT IN OVER A THREE YEAR PERIOD.
JUST SAY, HERE'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO.
YOU CAN MAKE IT EFFECTIVE NEXT YEAR.
LET THEM I DON'T WANT TO AFFECT THEIR BUDGET NOW.
THEY'RE IN THE BUDGET PROBS THAT'S LIKE WE ARE.
>> BUT THAT WOULD ALSO GIVE THEM A CHANCE.
WHAT'S THE ALTERNATIVE? THEY DO THEIR OWN?
>> CORRECT. THEY COULD INDEPENDENTLY DO ALL OF THEIR TAX COLLECTION, TAX SALE, STATE REPORTING, ALL OF THE INTERACTIONS WITH SDAT AS FAR AS UPLOADING CREDITS AND DOING THAT PROCESS, AND WE COULD TOTALLY BE HANDS OFF AND THEY COULD TAKE THAT OVER.
>> WE ALREADY HEARD EARLIER THIS YEAR THAT THERE WERE SOME PROBLEMS WITH SDAT OF SOME TOWNS NOT REPORTING WHEN NEW CONSTRUCTION TOOK PLACE?
>> IF THEY WANT TO TAKE THAT ON THEMSELVES, THAT'S THE CHOICE THEY HAVE TO MAKE?
>> TO CLARIFY. I I'M FINE WITH IMPLEMENTING THIS NEXT YEAR, BUT LETTING THEM KNOW THAT THE CAP IS GOING TO BE PHASED OUT.
AND THEY ARE GOING TO NEED TO ADJUST THEIR BUDGETING FOR TO COVER THIS COST.
IF THEY WANT TO TAKE IT ON THEMSELVES, THAT CERTAINLY
>> IT'S GOING TO BE A TIPPING POINT FOR THEM.
I'M SURE THE TOWNS ARE GOING TO LOOK AT IT AND SAY, HOW MUCH WOULD IT COST US TO DO IT? CAN WE SAVE SOME MONEY DOING IT OR SO?
>> I JUST HOPE THEY GET IT RIGHT IF THEY DO IT.
AT LEAST RIGHT NOW WE'VE GOT CONTROL SOME EYES ON WHAT'S HAPPENING BECAUSE IT DOES DIRECTLY AFFECT OUR TAX RECEIPTS.
I DO LIKE THE COUNTY STILL HAVING TO GET SOME INVOLVEMENT TO MAKE SURE IT'S DONE.
>> WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE SOME COLLECT THE STATE AND THE COUNTY'S PORTION.
WE WOULD AS A DENTON RESIDENT, YOU WOULD JUST GET TWO BILLS, YOU'D GET THE TOWN'S PORTION [LAUGHTER] AND THEN THE COUNTY AND STATE BILL FROM US.
TO ME, IT MAKES SENSE TO ALL BE IN ONE PLACE.
BUT TO YOUR POINT COMMISSION PORTER, ARE LICENSING OUR SOFTWARE.
THAT STUFF THAT'S GOING UP 5-10% EVERY YEAR.
WE'RE SPENDING, I THINK, PROBABLY CLOSE TO 50 GRAND NOW JUST ON THE SOFTWARE A YEAR TO MANAGE TAXES.
THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS IS DEFINITELY GOING UP ON OUR HALF, AND I THINK THIS JUST HAS TO GO WITH THE TIMES AND MAKE OURSELVES WHOLE SO.
>> I'LL FOLLOW THE PHASING IN, BUT HERE'S THAT WE GO BACK TO THE JONESTOWN ISSUE AND THE PHASING IN.
WHAT HAPPENS IS OVER TIME, YOU DON'T PHASE ANYTHING IN.
BY THE TIME YOU PHASE IT IN, BY THE TIME YOU GET TO WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE PHASED IN.
>> JUST START YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PHASE IT IN AGAIN.
THE TIME YOU PHASE YOU GET 22.5-30,000, IT WOULD BE 40,000.
>> [OVERLAPPING] THEN YOUR 1%.
>> WELL, IF YOUR TAX ASSESSMENTS GO DOWN, 1% MAY NOT BE ENOUGH TO COVER ANYMORE, THAT'S,.
>> I'M FINE WITH THE PHASING. YOU GOT TO GIVE THEM SOME TYPE OF.
>> I JUST HATE TO AND HIT HIM WITH 15 GRAND ONE PAIR. [OVERLAPPING]
>> BUT THE PHASING THING [OVERLAPPING]
>> EVEN THOUGH I WANT TO PREFACE THAT, EVEN THOUGH NOBODY GIVES ABOUT US GETTING PHASED IN AT THE STATE.
>> WE DON'T GET PHASED IN. [LAUGHTER] LOOK AT THE TEACHERS PENSION.
THEY DON'T EVEN PHASE THAT IN.
>> HERE YOU GO. WE'RE IN TROUBLE.
HERE YOU GO. HERE'S TEACHER PENS.
[OVERLAPPING] YOU DON'T HAVE NO SAY IN IT EITHER.
AT LEAST YOU ARE GIVING THEM SOME VOICE HERE AND SAY, HEY, WE'RE WARNING YOU AND IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ALL COMMON COMIC HURTS.
>> WERE YOU LOOKING AT MY PAPER?
>> WERE YOU LOOKING AT MY PAPER? THAT'S WHAT I WROTE DOWN.
I SAY MY RECOMMENDATION PROBABLY 22.5 MEET THE MIDDLE AND THEN ADVISED THE FOLLOWING YEAR AFTER THAT THAT THE CAP WOULD GO AWAY AND YOU SPLITTING IT IN HALF OVER TWO YEARS.
>> WE'RE SAYING THE CAP WOULD BE 22.5 THIS YEAR FOR THE GO AWAY COMPLETELY.
>> WHICH WE GOT ONE MORE YEAR IN OFFICE.
ANYWAY, SO WE CAN BE DOING. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT'S DURING YEAR. [LAUGHTER]
>> I DON'T THINK THE STATE IS EVER GOING TO LET THE ASSESSMENTS GO DOWN.
THE MARKET DRIVES ACT, BUT PROBABLY WRONG.
[01:35:04]
>> SUPPOSED TO BE MARKET DRIVEN, RIGHT?
>> I DON'T RECALL MINE EVER GOING DOWN AFTER THE LAST SPACE.
>> THAT IS THE LAST HIGHLIGHTED SECTION THAT WE HAD FOR THE FEE SCHEDULE.
IF THERE ARE ANY OTHERS THAT YOU WANT TO DISCUSS TODAY, WE CAN CERTAINLY TOUCH ON THOSE, BUT THOSE ARE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE GET MESSAGES FROM TOWN? [LAUGHTER]
>> ANYTHING ON BUDGET BEFORE WE.
>> DID YOU GET THE CHANCE TO READ THAT PAPER WE TALKED ABOUT THAT.
>> I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER FEE.
IS THERE ANY OTHER DEPARTMENT HEADS THAT WANT TO BRING UP ANY FEES TO HAVE NO ONE ELSE HAS REACHED OUT TO YOU ON ANY FEE?
>> CORRECT. WE SEND IT OUT TO THE DEPARTMENT HEADS AND AT THIS POINT, NOBODY HAS REACHED OUT.
>> I THINK THEY'RE MEANT TO COVER THE COST OF EITHER THE SERVICE WE'RE PROVIDING OR THE REVIEWS THAT STATUTORILY HAVE TO BE DONE.
AS LONG AS WE'RE MEETING THAT, I DON'T WANT TO USE THESE AS A REVENUE GENERATOR, I JUST WANT TO COVER THE COST.
I THINK AS LONG AS WE'RE DOING THAT, WE'RE GOOD.
>> NEXT WEEK, ARE WE GOING TO GO BACK TO THE SPREADSHEETS FOR EXPENSES?
>> WHAT I CAN DO IS WE DO. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'LL SAY WE HAVE ANY ANSWERS?
WE'LL DO A FISCAL NOTE ON SOME OF THESE FEE CHANGES, INCORPORATE THAT INTO THE OPERATING BUDGET, JUST THE SMALL AMOUNT THAT THAT WILL ADJUST.
WE HAVE THE SHEETS AT THE CURRENT VERSION BASED OFF THE LAST MEETING THAT WE'VE MET.
THERE ARE A COUPLE ITEMS THAT I THINK WE HAD THREE DIFFERENT DECISIONS ON OR OPINIONS OF THAT WE'LL NEED TO CLARIFY.
BUT AT THIS POINT, IT LOOKS LIKE THE UPDATED GOVERNOR'S BUDGET IS HOLDING 50% AT TEACHER RETIREMENT FOR OUR SIDE.
I KNOW THAT WAS ONE OF THE BIG NUMBERS THAT WAS UP IN THE AIR OF WHETHER WE WERE GOING TO BE AT 100.
THEY HAVE CHANGED THE OR RECOMMENDED SOME OF THE CHANGES FOR THE INCOME TAX STRUCTURE FOR STANDARDIZED DEDUCTIONS, INCREASING THAT, WHICH HAS A NEGATIVE EFFECT ON OUR INCOME TAX COLLECTION.
MY UNDERSTANDING FROM JUST READING SOME OF THE ARTICLES AND NOTES, IS IT IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN THE ORIGINAL SUBMISSION.
>> IT MAY NOT BE THE FULL 1.1 MILLION.
>> THAT WE HAD IN THE CURRENT BUDGET.
>> YES. THERE MAYBE SOME RELIEF THERE TO WHAT LEVEL, I DON'T KNOW.
I IMAGINE THE OFFICE OF BUDGET REVENUE AND ESTIMATES WILL BE COMING OUT WITH AN UPDATED DOCUMENT, UPDATING COUNTIES ON HOW THEY SEE THAT PLAYING OUT.
RIGHT NOW, THE WAY WE LEFT LAST WEEK REALLY IS ABOUT AS SOLID AS I DO AS OF TODAY.
NEXT WEEK, WE CAN COME BACK TO IT.
>> DO YOU NEED TWO OF US IN UNISON BY NEXT WEEK OR DO WE HAVE ANOTHER WEEK OR TWO BEFORE YOU HAVE TO ADVERTISE IT FOR THE NEXT PUBLIC YEAR?
>> LET ME PULL UP MY DATES HERE. I APOLOGIZE.
I HAD TO LOSE UP. I BELIEVE WE HAVE A LITTLE TIME BASED OFF OF.
>> FROM MY NOTES OF THE CURRENT SCHEDULE THAT'S BEEN PUBLISHED, WHEN WE LEAVE HERE ON THE 22ND APRIL, WE WILL HAVE TO HAVE SOME AGREEMENT OF ZERO.
WE HAVE A BUDGET WORKSHOP FOR THE 8TH, 15TH, AND 22ND.
DURING THOSE NEXT THREE MEETINGS, WE CAN HAVE THERE.
>> WHEN IS THE CHESAPEAKE COLLEGE?
>> I DON'T KNOW. THERE COULD THERE MAYBE SOME MOVEMENT ON THAT BUILDING.
DEPENDING ON WHAT HAPPENS IN THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET, I MEAN, THAT.
>> IT'S STILL IN THERE, BUT I DON'T KNOW.
>> WELL, AND FROM THAT MEETING, WE'LL ALSO HOPEFULLY HAVE A DECISION ON THE 5% INCREASE FOR CHESAPEAKE COLLEGE.
I KNOW CAROLINE COUNTY AS WELL AS DORCHESTER HAVE TWO OF THE LARGER HITS THERE.
IF THAT GETS AMENDED OR VOTED DOWN BY THREE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> OUR NUMBER IS BIGGER THAN FIVE BECAUSE OUR ENROLLMENT PORTION WENT UP.
IT'S A 5% INCREASE PLUS A FORMULA INCREASE BECAUSE OF MORE ENROLLMENT.
>> YES, AND THEY SAY DORCHESTER HAS THE SAME THING HITTING THEM.
I THINK WE WERE 202,000 AND THERE ARE ABOUT 190,000.
[01:40:02]
>> YOU KNOW WHAT PERCENT INCREASE THAT WAS FOR US?
>> I CAN TELL YOU REAL QUICK, I GOT THE SHEET UP HERE.
>> THE CAPITAL FORMULA IS BASED ON POPULATION.
THE OPERATIONS CONTRIBUTION FORMULA IS BASED ON ENROLLMENT?
>> SO LIKE THE TECHNICAL BUILDING WOULD NOT CHANGE PERCENTAGES.
>> DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH ENROLLMENT.
THAT'S JUST STRICTLY OFF POPULATION.
>> FOR CAROLINE COUNTY, CHESAPEAKE COLLEGE NUMBER IS INCREASING BY 12.1%.
>> IT'S GOOD PEOPLE ARE USING IT.
>> WE HAVE HAD, I THINK THE PAST THREE YEARS, AN INCREASE IN COUNTY RESIDENT USER SHIP, WHICH IS A GREAT THING.
>> THANK YOU. NEXT UP, WE HAVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.
ANY QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS, WITH ANYTHING ON THE CONSENT AGENDA?
THE LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR JONESTOWN.
IT'S GOING TO BE A GENERAL COMMENT.
I AM NOT GOING TO BE PREPARED TO DO ANY MORE OF THESE ONE DAY NOTICE LETTERS OF SUPPORT.
[Consent Agenda]
THE PEOPLE WHO REQUEST THESE SHOULD HAVE THE TIMELINE.THEY SHOULD KNOW WHEN THEY NEED THEM TO SEND IN A REQUEST IN HERE.
PRIOR TO US EVEN HAVING A MEETING TO TALK ABOUT IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
ANY OTHER ORGANIZATIONS WHERE WE NORMALLY RECEIVE THESE REQUESTS, WE MIGHT WANT TO DROP THEM A LITTLE NOTE AND SAY, I'M NOT GOING TO GET SOMETHING ON A MONDAY NIGHT TELLING ME THEY'VE GOT TO HAVE IT BY THE NEXT DAY.
I'LL AGREE TO THIS ONE. BUT THIS IS IT.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE TIME TO READ THESE.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE TIME TO LOOK AT THEM AND DISCUSS WHAT THEY INVOLVED.
WITH THAT, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING BEFORE WE?
>> YOU ARE GOOD. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE?
THE NEXT ACTION AGENDA ITEM I'M GOING TO STEP
[Action Agenda]
OUT OF THE ROOM FOR AND TURN THE MEETING OVER TO COMMISSIONER PORTER.>> THE NEXT AGENDA IS A PURCHASE ORDER 2025-0481, ACCOMPANYING CONTRACT FOR RICHARD BREEDING EXCAVATION COUNTY WIDE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR $350.
>> IS THAT PROBABLY BETWEEN ROBIN AND I? WE CAME TO THE POINT IN TIME.
DURING OUR NORMAL CONTRACT CYCLE, WHERE HAD MULTIPLE CONTRACTORS UP FOR BID.
ROBIN'S SHOP, ALONG WITH THE PURCHASING COORDINATOR IN MY OFFICE, ISSUED THREE BIDS.
ONE BEING THE PIPE BID THAT YOU SEE HERE TODAY, THE TWO OTHERS WERE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR TAR AND CHIP AND HOME OVERLAY.
ALL THREE BIDS HAD, PRETTY EXTENSIVE RESPONSE AND INVOLVEMENT FROM DIFFERENT BUSINESSES IN THE COMMUNITY.
BASED OFF THE PRICE THAT WAS SUBMITTED, WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT UNDER THE ACTION AGENDA, THE PO TO RICHARD BREEDING EXCAVATING BE ISSUED SOLELY ON THE PRICE AND THAT'S REALLY.
>> WE USED FIVE CRITERIA AND WHEN WE EVALUATED THE BIDS FOR THE PIPE AND BREEDING CAME IN
[01:45:02]
THE LOWEST ON THOSE AND IS A CONTRACTOR WE'VE USED IN THE PAST AND SO WE APPROVED THAT.>> CONTRACT AND THEN WHAT WE'VE DONE HERE IS WE TOOK CAPITAL FUNDS THAT WE HAD BECAUSE WE HAD CAPITAL FUNDING FOR PAVING AND TAR AND CHIP, BUT WE'VE GOT PIPES THAT ARE FAILING UNDER THOSE ROADS THAT WE'RE PUTTING NEW BLACKTOP AND TAR AND CHIP OVER.
WE WANTED TO PULL SOME OF THOSE FUNDS THAT I WALKED INTO AS LEFTOVER CAPITAL FUNDS AND CREATE THE THIRD PO IN ORDER TO FIX SOME OF THESE PIPES BEFORE WE UTILIZE TOWNSHIP AND BLACKTOP OVER TOP OF THOSE ROADS.
>> THE VALUE FOR ALL THREE CONTRACTS ARE BASED OFF OF THE REMAINING MONEY THAT WE HAVE FOR THE END OF THIS FISCAL YEAR.
>> TO SPEND IT BY THE END OF THIS FISCAL YEAR, SO DANNY WILL BE HAPPY.
>> THEN ANY NEW MONEY THAT THE BOARD APPROVES FOR FY26 WOULD BE ISSUED IN THE NEW PO STARTING JULY 1.
IT'S JUST OUR CONTRACT CYCLES START AND STOP IN APRIL, FOR SOME REASON WHEN THIS WAS INITIALLY DONE.
AGAIN, THE POS ARE JUST FOR THE VALUE FROM NOW TO THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR.
WE'RE HOPING TO GET THAT ALL SPENT OUT SOON.
>> THE FUNDS THAT YOU'VE APPROVED IN A PREVIOUS BUDGET.
>> THESE ARE THESE ARE CROSS PIPES FOR ROADS?
>> THIS IS NOT INVOLVED IN TAX DITCH.
>> NOT FOR ANYTHING LIKE THAT?
>> NOT THE PIPE IN THE COUNTY YARDS.
>> WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN THAT FAR YET.
>> NO, TRAVIS HAS NOT BEEN COMMUNICATING ABOUT IT.
>> HOW MANY ROUGHLY YARD THERE? DO YOU KNOW OR IS THIS JUST A BROAD SPECTRUM OR THIS IS BASED ON SOMETHING GOES OUT, YOU HAVE TO GET IT DONE.
>> THIS MONEY HERE WILL COVER WE HAVE PROBABLY ENOUGH PIPES THAT WE NEED TO FIX TO COVER THIS, AND THEN OUR GOAL PLAN IS TO TAKE THE MONEY THAT YOU'LL APPROVE IN THE 2026 BUDGET AND CREATE FUNDS AS WELL FOR PIPE AND START TO HIT A FEW OTHERS BECAUSE DANNY'S BEEN USING ARPA FUNDS AND OTHER FUNDS AT THIS POINT TO HELP US COVER THOSE REPAIRS.
>> ACCORDING TO THIS ONE LETTER, SOMEBODY QUESTIONED THIS OR SOMETHING OR YOU HAD A RESPONSE LETTER TO ONE INDIVIDUAL?
>> DURING THE CONTRACT PORTION. WE CLARIFIED THAT.
BASICALLY, I MEAN, WE HAD THE ANSWERS TO THEIR QUESTIONS WERE AND WHICH CRITERIA.
BECAUSE SOME CONTRACTORS, IF WE BROKE IT DOWN AND WE PROBABLY HAD 14 DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF.
>> SAY ONE PERSON ONE INDIVIDUAL COMPANY QUESTIONED.
>> THEN WHAT SOMETIMES WHAT YOU SEE IS IF YOU USE THE WHOLE THING, THEY'LL TAKE THE ONE ITEM THAT THEY FEEL AS THOUGH THEY WON'T USE THAT MUCH AND CHARGE $1 FOR THAT.
THEN THEY ARE THE LOW BIDDER, AND WE USED HISTORICAL DATA ON WHAT PROCESSES WE USED MOST TO PICK THOSE FIVE OR SIX CATEGORIES TO DETERMINE THE OVERALL CONTRACT AND LEFT OUT THE OTHERS.
BUT THE OTHERS WERE IN FOR AN OPTION, IF WE'RE MIDWAY THROUGH A PROJECT AND THIS NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED, WE STILL HAVE A NUMBER TO PUT TO THAT FOR THAT ADDITIONAL REPAIR OR WHATEVER IT MAY BE.
>> OBJECT TO MOTION. WE APPROVE THE ACTION AGENDA, PO2O25-O48L.
>> OH, I DON'T HAVE MY GLASSES O481.
I LOST MY READERS. GOT A HORSE SOME MONEY.
>> I'LL SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THIS WILL INVOLVE PROBABLY ROAD CLOSURES TO REPLACES AND WE'LL PUT THEM OUT PRETTY GOOD JEN LOOKING REALLY GOOD WITH JEN. WE SENT OUT WE HAVE AN EMAIL THAT'S SPECIFIC TO DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS, THE SCHOOL SYSTEM GETS THE EMAIL.
EMS GETS THE EMAIL, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
WE TRY TO MAKE SURE ALL THOSE DEPARTMENTS ARE CONTACTED.
>> I'LL GLADLY TURN THE MEETING BACK OVER TO.
>> GO AHEAD. YOU WANT TO SEE IT THROUGH?
[County Administrator’s Report]
[01:50:08]
>> COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS REPORT.
>> I HAVE SEVERAL ITEMS I WANT TO DISCUSS OR BRING UP WITH YOU.
I'VE BEEN LOOKING AT THE PRIORITY PROJECTS DATABASE TO SEE WHERE WE ARE WITH PROJECTS.
I'LL GIVE YOU SOME BRIEF UPDATES ABOUT THAT.
BEFORE I FORGET THE TOMORROW, AT 1:00 IS THE MONTHLY DIRECTORS MEETING.
ONE OF YOU CAN ATTEND, IF YOU'RE SO INCLINED.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY, I'M GOING TO SAY WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING EXCITING ON THE AGENDA.
WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT NEO GOV AND THE BUDGET, BUT I'M GUESSING YOU'RE DOING BASEBALL.
>> I DO HAVE A GAME TOMORROW, BUT I MIGHT I MEAN.
>> LET'S DO TO THE THREE VIEWS.
>> THEY USUALLY GO ONE 1-3, 1-4 SOMEWHERE THERE.
I MAY HAVE A VIEWING TO ATTEND AT 12, BUT I CAN PROBABLY GET THERE AFTER DEPENDING ON HOW LONG IT'S GOING TO TAKE TO GET THROUGH THAT, BUT I CAN TRY TO GET THERE.
>> I PROBABLY GOT SOMETHING TO DO.
>> I MAY NOT BE EXACTLY AT ONE, BUT I'LL.
>> YES. HAPS BUILDING IN THE CONFERENCE ROOM DOWNSTAIRS.
>> I HAD A VERY BRIEF EMAIL EXCHANGE, NOT A CONVERSATION, BUT EMAIL EXCHANGE YESTERDAY WITH BOTH COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS, SHELLY YELLER AND TODD MON.
REGARDING THE MIDSHORE REGIONAL DETENTION CENTER AND PER THAT CONVERSATION, THE SHORT OF IT IS THEY ARE STILL WORKING ON THE BUDGET PIECE TO COME BACK WITH SOME DETAILED INFORMATION.
THERE WAS SOME QUESTION BECAUSE THE DESIGN MEETING WAS CANCELED ABOUT A WEEK AGO, BUT APPARENTLY THAT WAS DUE TO AN ILLNESS ON SOMEBODY WHO WAS INTEGRAL IN THAT PROCESS.
COMMISSIONER PORTER, YOU'LL PROBABLY HEAR MORE ABOUT THIS AT THE DIRECTORS MEETING TOMORROW, BUT WE'RE WORKING MOVING FORWARD ON THE NEO GOV HUMAN RESOURCES SOFTWARE IMPLEMENTATION.
IT'S GOING VERY WELL RIGHT NOW, WE'RE IN THE EVALUATION MODE WHERE WE'RE ENTERING IN THE EVALUATIONS AND THE EVALUATION PROCESS FOR ALL STAFF.
I'VE MADE IT VERY CLEAR TO ALL THE DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS THAT NEXT YEAR, IF THERE ARE MERIT AND STEP INCREASES, EVALUATIONS WILL HAVE TO BE DONE OR THOSE INCREASES WON'T HAPPEN FOR EMPLOYEES.
WE DEFINITELY WANT TO USE THE TOOL AND MAKE SURE WE'RE DOING THE RIGHT THING FOR BOTH OUR STAFF AND FOR OUR BUDGET.
AN UPDATE. A GREAT UPDATE, ACTUALLY.
BOTH I BELIEVE BOTH THE OFFICE OF LAW AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ARE FULLY MOVED INTO THEIR NEW QUARTERS.
MAYBE NOT FULLY MOVED IN, BUT YOU'RE OVER THERE, MAYBE YOU DON'T HAVE ALL THE BOXES PACT. [LAUGHTER]
>> BUT BOTH OF THOSE OFFICES HAVE MOVED.
THE SPACE IN THE IT BUILDING IS PROBABLY ALSO BEING WORKED ON FROM CHRIS'S SIDE FOR HIS NEW STUFF.
I DID SPEAK TO DPW DIRECTOR ROBIN EATON ABOUT THE HIGH SCHOOL BATHROOMS. THAT'S BEEN JUMBLING RIGHT ON THE BACK OF MY MIND WHAT THE STATUS OF THAT IS.
ROBIN IS WORKING AND MAKING PROGRESS ON THAT NOW.
JUST YESTERDAY WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE PERMITTING PROCESS AND WHAT PERMITS MIGHT BE REQUIRED.
IT'S A SINCE IT'S A SCHOOL FACILITY.
THEY'RE NOT REALLY OBLIGATED TO OBTAIN PERMITS FROM THE COUNTY.
HOWEVER, TYPICALLY, THE BOARD OF ED WANTS TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND HAVE ALL THE INSPECTIONS DONE, WHICH IS A SMART MOVE.
I THINK ROBIN AND CRYSTAL ARE GOING TO TALK IF THEY HAVEN'T ALREADY ABOUT THE PERMITTING PROCESS AND WHAT THAT WILL LOOK LIKE.
BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S MOVING AHEAD PRETTY FAST AT THIS POINT.
>> IT COULD BE ON THE AGENDA NEXT WEEK IF ROBIN GET TO ME TODAY.
>> PRIOR TO THE MEETING, ONE OF YOU ASKED ABOUT CHESAPEAKE COLLEGE, THE NEW BUILDING AND SUPPORT OF KENT COUNTY WITH THE UPCOMING MEETING AND COMMISSIONER BREEDING NOT BEING ABLE TO ATTEND.
SHELLY YELLER HAS ADVISED VIA TEXT THAT THEY ARE IN FULL SUPPORT OF THE NEW BUILDING AT THIS TIME.
SOMETHING I WANT TO BRING YOUR ATTENTION TO.
[01:55:01]
I MIGHT HAVE TALKED TO ALL THREE OF YOU ALREADY.I ATTENDED THE POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD MEETING.
TODAY'S TUESDAY, I GUESS IT WAS LAST WEEK.
THERE WAS SOME CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY THE BOARD ABOUT THE DRAFT ORDINANCE THAT YOU'RE CONTEMPLATING.
THERE WAS QUITE A BIT OF BACK AND FORTH WITH THE CHAIR WHO'S ACTUALLY SINCE THEN RESIGNED.
BUT ALSO SOME CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY BRANDY JAMES, FEDERALS BURG COMMISSIONER, WHO'S ALSO ON THAT BOARD, AND SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE TERM LIMITS AND WHY THE CHANGES WERE BEING MADE.
HOPEFULLY, I ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THOSE QUESTIONS AT THE BOARD, BUT I DID ENCOURAGE THEM TO ONCE A FINAL DRAFT IS COMPLETED, THAT THIS BOARD IS SATISFIED WITH.
WE WILL SHARE THAT AND INVITE THEM TO MAKE COMMENT ON THE ORDINANCE, ALSO.
I THINK THEY WERE CONCERNED OR THERE WAS SOME CONCERN THAT WE HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THAT.
BOTH SHERIFF BAKER WAS ALSO IN ATTENDANCE, AND I TALKED ABOUT THAT THAT WAS A FIRST DRAFT WORKSHOP, AND IT IS CERTAINLY WITHIN THE PREROGATIVE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO TAKE A LOOK AT THEIR ORDINANCES, AND YOU NEED TO DO SO.
ANYWAY, THAT MEETING HAPPENED.
>> PARDON ME. MAY I ADD TO THAT? WE ARE PRESENTLY SCHEDULING A MEETING WITH THE SHERIFF AND THE POLICE CHIEFS AND HOPEFULLY WITH EITHER YOU OR DANNY TO GO OVER THE ORDINANCE. THE DRAFT.
>> YEAH, THAT'LL BE GOOD. NOW BECAUSE WE DID RECEIVE, I THINK SOME COMMENTS FROM ONE POLICE CHIEF THAT I KNOW OF.
LET'S SEE. LOOKING AT THE PRIORITY PROJECT, I'LL JUST HIT ON A COUPLE OF THESE THAT I HAVEN'T HIT ON YET.
DAY SPRING APARTMENTS, THE TRANSFER DAY SPRING.
WE'VE CONTRACTED WITH THE REAL ESTATE AGENT.
I THINK JUST MAYBE YESTERDAY, SHE CAME BACK WITH SOME QUESTIONS OR SOME THINGS THAT SHE NOTICED, AND DANNY'S BEEN HANDLING THAT.
UNLESS YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD, I MEAN, WE'RE MOVING FORWARD.
>> WE'RE JUST BE COMMUNICATION.
SHE'S A COUPLE ORDINARY QUESTIONS, BUT THAT SEEMS TO BE PROGRESSING FORWARD.
>> RIVER ROAD COMPLETION OF THAT PROJECT AND THE PIPING WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IN THE PAST MEETING THAT WE'RE GOING TO WAIT UNTIL AFTER THE END OF THE SCHOOL YEAR TO COMPLETE THE PAVING.
WELL, LET'S SEE. WHAT ELSE ON THE LIST THAT I HAVEN'T HIT.
THAT MAY BE ALL OF THE ITEMS THAT I WANTED TO GO OVER.
YES. THAT'S ALL I HAVE, UNLESS YOU HAVE QUESTIONS.
>> NO, NOTHING. ANYTHING? QUESTION?
>> I ATTEND FOR THIS? OH, NO. NO. I THOUGHT YOU WERE AGING.
>> GOOD. COUNTY COMMISSIONER PEN DISCUSSION PERIOD. GO AHEAD.
>> OH, I ATTENDED THE UP SHORE AGING MEETING
[County Commissioners Open Discussion Period]
LAST WEEK AND THEY WERE DISCUSSING THEIR BUDGET.THE GOVERNOR APPARENTLY HAS CUT THEIR BUDGET THIS YEAR, NOT NEXT YEAR, BUT THIS YEAR AND THEY'RE TRYING TO FIND MONEY FOR THAT.
THE REASON WHY THEY WERE ASKING FOR THE 40,000 FOR NEXT YEAR IS BECAUSE THAT'S PART OF THE MONEY THEY'RE CUTTING.
BUT THEY ACTUALLY CUT THE MONEY THIS YEAR FOR THE MEALS ON WHEELS, 40,000, AND THE UPPER SHORE AGENT GOT A GRANT FROM A PRIVATE FAMILY IN CAROLINE COUNTY TO COVER THE DIFFERENCE.
THAT'S WHY THEY DIDN'T ASK US FOR THE MONEY.
THEY ASKED TALBOT COUNTY FOR THE MONEY AND THEY WENT IN AND PAID IT, BUT THAT'S WHY THEY DIDN'T ASK US BECAUSE THEY HAD IT COVERED BY SOME GRACIOUS ORGANIZATION IN THE COUNTY TO COVER.
THE GOVERNOR REALLY COME IN AND HIT THEY HIT THEM STATEWIDE SHORE AGENT.
I GAVE THE PAPERWORK THE DANNY SO HE CAN ANALYZE IT AND THE REASON WHY UP-SHORE AGENTS GETTING HIT BECAUSE THERE ARE A THREE COUNTY ENTITY, AND THEY LOOK AT IT DIFFERENTLY AND THEY DIDN'T FUND THEM EQUALLY LIKE THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO.
I GAVE THE DANNY THE PAPERWORK, HE CAN GO OVER IT.
THEY'RE GOING TO THE AGING DEPARTMENTS FOR SENIORS, THEY'RE GOING TO GET HARD THEY GOT HIT HARD THIS YEAR AND NEXT YEAR.
JUST SOMETHING WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT GOING FORWARD IN THE BUDGET BUDGET.
>> THANK YOU. WELL, I WAS GONE LAST WEEK AND THANK YOU FOR MAKING THE ADJUSTMENT.
[02:00:05]
I'M GOING TO MENTION A COUPLE OF THINGS.WE'VE HAD SOME IT'S BEEN A PRETTY TOUGH TOUGH WEEK IN CAROLINE COUNTY IS LOST A VERY SPECIAL LADY UP IN GOLDS FOR MISS.
JENNY K HALL. LONG TIME GOLDSBORO RESIDENT AND I THINK, INCREDIBLE LADY.
I WANT TO MENTION THAT. WE ALSO GREENSBORO TOWN COMMISSIONER AND DES MEMBER, PETE BILAS WIFE, PATTY PASSED AWAY.
THAT SERVICE IS TOMORROW, SO I'LL TRY TO MAKE THAT MEETING AFTER THAT.
I LEARNED YESTERDAY THAT REVEREND PAUL DEER PASSED AWAY.
I DON'T KNOW, A LOT OF PEOPLE MAY NOT REALLY UNDERSTAND OR REMEMBER THE IMPACT THAT REVEREND DEER HAD, BUT HE WAS THE THE FOUNDER AND DRIVING FORCE BEHIND THE WESLEYAN CENTER, WHICH IS NOW UNDER A DIFFERENT NAME, BUT THE NURSING HOME ASSISTED LIVING DEVELOPMENT AT THE AT THE WESLEY OUT BY THE WESLEY CAMP.
MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY YEARS AGO, I WORKED WITH REVEREND DEER TO SEE THAT PROJECT, AND I'M GOING TO TELL YOU WHAT.
IT WAS DONE SIMPLY BY HIS WILL AND HIS FAITH AND HIS COMMITMENT TO DOING THAT.
I WAS VERY SORRY TO HEAR ABOUT HIM PASSING AWAY, BUT I'LL TELL YOU HE WAS A FORCE TO BE RECKONED WITH AND HE WAS A VERY INFLUENTIAL AND IMPORTANT PART OF THIS COUNTY FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS.
I JUST WANTED TO MENTION THOSE NAMES AND PRAYERS GO OUT TO THE FAMILIES OF THOSE PEOPLE. THANK YOU.
LESLIE GUNTON ACTUALLY GOT BACK TO ME AND SAID THAT JUST FOR THE RECORD, OUR PA PRIORITY PRESERVATION AREA IS 176,000 ACRES.
JUST WANTED TO GET THAT ON THE RECORD FOR OUR EARLIER CONVERSATION.
LAST WEEK, WE HAD OUR HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL LOCAL MANAGEMENT BOARD MEETING TO DISCUSS OUR FUNDING PRIORITIES THIS YEAR.
THE GOVERNOR HAS FLAT FUNDED THE LMBS, WHICH, I GUESS, FALLS UNDER THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE FOR CHILDREN.
>> INSIDE OF THAT FLAT FUNDING.
EVEN THOUGH HE HAS PROPOSED FLAT FUNDING, THE LMBS, HE HAS DIRECTED THAT SOME OF THAT MONEY BE SPENT IN CERTAIN AREAS, WHICH I THINK HISTORICALLY HAS NOT HAPPENED BEFORE.
I THINK IT'S TWO DIFFERENT KEY AREAS THAT HE HAS DIRECTED LMBS MUST FUND.
THEY HAVE TO MAP ALL THE DIFFERENT FOOD BANKS AND OTHER COMMUNITY RESOURCES INSIDE THE COUNTY.
LMBS HAVE TO FUND THAT MAPPING, AND I BELIEVE THE THE OTHER ITEM WAS, SHE ESCAPES ME NOW.
>> BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB HAVE TO BE FUNDED TO THE TUNE OF $24,000.
THEY HAVE TO GIVE AT LEAST 24,000.
>> I SUGGESTED THAT THEY GIVE AT LEAST $24,000.
>> STRONGLY SUGGESTED, I BELIEVE.
>> WAS IT GIRLS CLUB OR TO BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS.
>> NO. BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB, THE ORGANIZATION.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE WERE ON LOCAL CONTRIBUTION THEN.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT MADE IT THROUGH THE CUP, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THAT THE GOVERNOR HAS IMPOSED BASICALLY A NOT SO VOLUNTARY REQUEST THAT EACH LMB FUND BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNTIES.
WE ALSO DISCUSSED THE AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM.
BECAUSE OF THE FLAT FUNDING AND BECAUSE OF THE MANDATED SPENDING NOW FROM THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE, THERE IS A REDUCED AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT COULD GO TO AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAMMING.
[02:05:03]
THAT THROUGH COMMUNITY SCHOOLS FUNDING THAT THEY ARE RECEIVING, THAT THEY CAN STAND UP THEIR OWN AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM WITH INSTRUCTIONAL ASSISTANTS AND TEACHERS AND SCHOOL STAFF PRIMARILY RUNNING THE OPERATION, WHICH THAT HAS IMPLICATIONS FOR JAMIE AND OUR RECREATION AND PARKS DEPARTMENT.I ENCOURAGE BOTH OF YOU TO REACH OUT TO JAMIE AND GET BRIEFED ON WHAT THOSE IMPLICATIONS ARE SO YOU'RE INFORMED WITH THIS POTENTIAL SHIFT.
I HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH DR. SIMMONS.
HE BELIEVES THAT USING COMMUNITY SCHOOLS FUNDING TO FUND THAT AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM WOULD POTENTIALLY INCREASE THE NUMBER OF SLOTS AVAILABLE.
IT SHOULDN'T REDUCE THE NUMBER OF AVAILABLE SPOTS FOR CHILDREN TO STAY AFTERSCHOOL, AND IT SHOULD PROVIDE A HIGHER LEVEL OF INSTRUCTION, NOT TAKING ANYTHING AWAY FROM WHAT RECREATION AND PARKS IS DOING, BUT WITH INSTRUCTIONAL ASSISTANTS AND TEACHERS, HE BELIEVES THAT THAT THEY COULD RECEIVE ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTION OVER AND ABOVE WHAT RECREATION AND PARKS DOES AT THIS TIME.
WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE.
OTHER THAN, I THINK, IT WOULD CLEARLY BE FUNDED AND MANAGED AND ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM, AND POTENTIALLY THEY MAY WANT RECREATION AND PARKS TO HELP WITH ACTIVITIES AND THAT THING IF RECREATION AND PARKS WANTS TO EVEN BE A PARTICIPANT.
IT'S A CHANGE, AND I JUST ENCOURAGE BOTH OF YOU GUYS TO TALK TO JAMIE AND EVEN DR. SIMMONS TO UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING.
THERE IS POTENTIAL THAT WE COULD RECEIVE COMPLAINTS IF KIDS THAT HAD BEEN USING THE AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM GOT TURNED AWAY, AND MY RESPONSE WOULD BE THIS IS A BOARD OF ED.
IF IT ENDS UP BEING AN INCONVENIENCE TO A PARENT, THE GRAPE WOULD BE WITH THE BOARD OF EDUCATION, BUT I THINK YOU GUYS SHOULD BOTH DO A LITTLE.
I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN IN ON THIS CONVERSATION IN THE PAST FEW YEARS.
THE LMB HAS NOT OFFICIALLY VOTED TO DO THIS YET.
I BELIEVE WE HAVE A MEETING SCHEDULED LATER THIS WEEK TO OFFICIALLY VOTE ON THIS PROPOSITION.
>> I'M GOING TO DISCUSS A LITTLE BIT [OVERLAPPING]
>> I ALSO HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH DR. SIMMONS.
IT IS OBVIOUSLY HIS POSITION THAT AT LEAST TWO OF THE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS WILL HAVE AMPLE FUNDING, THAT'D BE FEDERALSBURG AND GREENSBORO, AND THAT IS HIS DESIRE NOT TO UNILATERALLY MAKE THE DECISION TO FUND RECREATION AND PARKS PROGRAM AND AFTERSCHOOL.
BECAUSE OF HOW COMMUNITY SCHOOLS ARE DESIGNED, THEY ARE TO EACH DO A NEEDS ASSESSMENT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE NEEDS OF THEIR PARTICULAR SCHOOL IN THE OUT OF SCHOOL TIME SPACES AND WHAT TYPE OF NEEDS THAT THEIR STUDENTS AND FAMILIES HAVE, AND THROUGH THOSE NEEDS ASSESSMENT, DECIDE THEN HOW TO SPEND INDEPENDENTLY THEIR OWN SCHOOL MONEY.
IT IS HIS BELIEF THAT POTENTIALLY FEDERALSBURG AND GREENSBORO COULD CONTINUE TO SUPPORT RECREATION AND PARKS AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM OR THE NOTION THAT THEY WILL STAND IT UP ON THEIR OWN.
>> BUT THAT PRESENTS SOME CHALLENGES FOR YOU BECAUSE THEY MAY WANT DIFFERENT PROGRAMMING IN DIFFERENT SCHOOLS.
>> WELL, PART OF THE HARDSHIP, I THINK, AND IT PROBABLY IS ONE OF THOSE.
THE STANDING UP OF NEW PROGRAMS IS NOT AN OVERNIGHT EVENT.
WE'RE PLANNING NOW FOR AFTERSCHOOL NEXT CALENDAR YEAR FOR THE SCHOOL.
WE'RE ACTUALLY A LITTLE LATE TO THE TABLE AND BEING NOTIFIED THE FUNDING IS NOT THERE BECAUSE WE WILL BE HIRING PEOPLE, WE'LL BE PLANNING THE EVENTS, IT'LL BE TRANSPIRING.
THE NOTION THAT SOMETHING IS GOING TO BE STOOD UP BY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN SEPTEMBER OF NEXT YEAR.
[02:10:04]
>> THEN STAFFED BY YOU IS NOT LIKELY.
>> WELL, IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN WHAT THE DECISION IS AND WHAT THE SCHOOLS ACTUALLY DESIRE.
[NOISE] CURRENTLY, THEIR COMMUNITY SCHOOLS PEOPLE AT EACH SCHOOL WORK TILL 4:00 PM, SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE THE CONTRACTS OF ALL THOSE PROVIDERS TO BE IN THE OUT OF SCHOOL TIME UNLESS THEY HIRED ALL NEW PEOPLE.
TYPICALLY, IT HAS BEEN BENEFICIAL FOR RECREATION AND PARKS TO HIRE THOSE STAFF SO THAT THERE ARE NO CONTRACT IMPLICATIONS WITH THE CURRENT STAFF.
TEACHERS ARE CONTRACTED BY THE SCHOOLS AND THEN ADDING ON HOURS AFFECTS THEIR CONTRACT.
THE IAS THAT WORK IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM, THERE MIGHT BE IMPLICATIONS TO THEIR EARNINGS BECAUSE THEY'RE WORKING FOR THE SCHOOL, AND IF THE SCHOOL IS GOING TO PAY THEM TO DO THESE EXTRA HOURS, THERE MAY BE IMPLICATIONS TO THAT.
WE RIGHT NOW HAVE 256 CHILDREN ENROLLED IN AFTERSCHOOL.
IT COSTS US ABOUT $100,000 PER SCHOOL TO RUN THOSE LOCATIONS.
THEY HAVE ONE ADDITIONAL CLASS AND TRANSPORTATION COSTS A LITTLE BIT MORE BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THE FOOTPRINT IS A LITTLE BIT BROADER.
BUT I THINK IT'S INTERESTING THAT THE SCHOOL IS NOT GOING TO MAKE A UNILATERAL DECISION TO DO THIS WITHOUT A PLAN IN PLACE TO PROVIDE FOR THOSE CHILDREN NEXT YEAR.
>> ONE QUESTION I HAD IS, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT YEARS DOWN THE ROAD, WHAT HAPPENS IF THE SCHOOL DON'T HAVE THE MONEY, AND THEY'RE GOING TO COME BACK TO PARK AND RECS, SAY HEY, NOW IT'S YOURS AGAIN?
>> WELL, WE'VE PROBABLY BEEN IN THE AFTERSCHOOL SPACE AT LEAST 15 YEARS.
AGAIN, EVERY YEAR, IT'S LOOKING AT WHAT WE DO AND HOW TO BUILD ON IT.
OF COURSE, IT HASN'T BEEN THE MOST PLEASANT EXPERIENCE ALWAYS LOOKING FOR MONEY.
I WILL TELL YOU PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST DIFFICULT PARTS OF BEING IN RECREATION AND PARKS IS THAT'S WHAT WE DO.
WE'RE ALWAYS HANDOUT LOOKING BECAUSE WE KNOW IF WE GET THESE FUNDS, WE'RE ABLE TO PROVIDE THESE INCREDIBLE OPPORTUNITIES.
IT'S BEEN A LABOR OF LOVE, EVEN THOUGH IT'S BEEN A LITTLE SISYPHEAN AT TIMES.
IT'S VERY MUCH THAT, AND THIS IS VERY MUCH PROFESSIONALLY A CYCLE THAT WE EXIST IN.
WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS OR THIS GROUP WILL TAKE CARE OF THIS, AND AND TRY AS IT MAY, THEN PRIORITIES CHANGE, FUNDING STREAMS CHANGE.
AS WITH ANYTHING THESE DAYS, OF COURSE, THERE'S NO TELLING THAT THE STATE WILL CONTINUE TO FUND COMMUNITY SCHOOLS AS WELL.
I THINK IT IS ALWAYS VERY CYCLICAL IN NATURE, BUT I ALSO THINK IT IS VERY SHORT SIGHTED TO THINK THAT SOMETHING COULD BE STOOD UP BY SEPTEMBER.
AS COMPREHENSIVE IT'S WHAT WE OFFER, BUT I BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE AN INCREDIBLY PROFESSIONAL OUTFIT THAT HAS BUILT THIS PROGRAM OVER MANY YEARS TRIAL AND ERROR, AND THERE ARE ALSO OTHER IMPLICATIONS.
BECAUSE OF THE AFTERSCHOOL TIME, WE ALSO ARE ABLE TO PROVIDE CHILDREN WITH RESOURCES AND ACCESS TO BOTH MENTAL HEALTH PROVISIONS AND MEDICAL HEALTH PROVISIONS, DINNER SERVICE, ACCESS TO OTHER RESOURCES, SOME OTHER WRAPAROUND SERVICES IN THE AFTERSCHOOL TIME.
MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS, WHAT TRANSPIRES THEN.
I THINK THAT THE SCHOOL HAS THE ABILITY TO MAKE THIS UNILATERAL DECISION, AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO ASK THEM TO DO SO. THANK YOU.
>> I THINK AT BEST, IF WE STUCK WITH THE LMB FUNDING THIS, IT WOULD SEE A MASSIVE REDUCTION.
>> IN THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT COULD GO TOWARDS THE PROGRAM.
>> IT MIGHT BE. WHEN THE LMB WAS STARTING TO SCALE BACK IN THE ORIGINAL GRANT TOWARDS, WE STARTED PAIRING THAT WITH MONEY THAT THE SCHOOL HAD.
FOR EXAMPLE, WE GOT SCALED SIGNIFICANTLY BACK, BUT GREENSBORO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL THROUGH THEIR TITLE I FUNDING, PICKED UP MOST OF THE TRANSPORTATION.
IT WOULD BE A SITUATION WHERE IF WE WERE JUST STAFFING AND THE SCHOOL PICKED UP THE TRANSPORTATION PIECE, WHICH IS A SIGNIFICANT DOLLAR VALUE.
I THINK THIS YEAR'S TRANSPORTATION IS GOING TO AMOUNT TO ABOUT 74 OR $75,000 FOR THOSE THREE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS,
[02:15:02]
AND THAT'S ONLY ONE TRIP, SO IT'S HOME.BUT IT'S 90 DAYS OF PROGRAMMING.
AGAIN, IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN WHAT WHAT WILL TRANSPIRE, BUT IT'S A REALLY LATE WINDOW TO TRY TO PICK THAT ALL UP.
>> HOW WILL THIS AFFECT THE CONCERNS THAT WE'VE BEEN RECEIVING REGULARLY ABOUT THE ONE ON ONE SERVICES THAT WERE PROVIDING THE SPECIAL NEEDS?
>> WELL, FROM A SCHOOL PERSPECTIVE, THEY WOULD BE MANDATED TO PROVIDE THAT SERVICE.
>> THEY WOULD HAVE TO PICK UP THAT COURSE.
SO FAR, WE'VE SEEN THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET FROM MY ESTIMATE, HAS BEEN CUT TO SPECIAL NEEDS, DISABLED PEOPLE, ELDERLY PEOPLE, AND KIDS.
THAT'S A GOOD GROUP TO CUT FUNDS FROM.
>> IT STILL HAVE THOSE MANDATES TO SERVE, SO UNFUNDED MANDATES IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE.
>> JUST TO SHOW HOW RIDICULOUS THIS IS.
>> THE SPECIAL NEEDS ISSUE THAT WE HAD THAT THAT WAS RELATING TO SUMMER CAMP [OVERLAPPING]
>> DIFFERENT PROGRAM. THAT'S DIFFERENT FUNDING SOURCE, VERY SIMILAR MODELS, CORRECT? JUST DIFFERENT FUNDING SOURCES, DIFFERENT RULES.
>> THE 21ST CENTURY SUMMER CAMP IS ACADEMIC BASED.
THERE ARE OUTCOMES RELATED TO ACHIEVEMENT AND OR NOT LOSS OF ACHIEVEMENT IN THE SUMMERTIME.
THE AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM HAS BEEN GEARED MORE TOWARDS WHILE IT'S STILL EDUCATIONALLY BASED, ITS OUTCOMES ARE RELATED TO ABSENTEEISM.
THE MORE WE ARE FOCUSING ON THE CHILD IN THE FAMILY, AND IN THEIR INTERESTS AND NEEDS, WE BELIEVE THAT THE DATA WILL SHOW THAT THE ABSENTEEISM IS REDUCED BY VIRTUE OF THOSE PROGRAMS, BUT IN TWO VERY DIFFERENT FUNDING SOURCES. THANK YOU.
>> THOSE WERE THE ONLY TWO ITEMS THAT I HAD.
[Public Comment]
WITH THAT, WE CAN HAVE OUR CLOSING PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? NONE SEEN.
WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO GO IN THE CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS THE APPOINTMENT,
[Closed Session: Discussion of Appointment, Employment, or Assignment of County Employee (s), General Provisions Article § 3-305 (b)1]
EMPLOYMENT, OR ASSIGNMENT OF COUNTY EMPLOYEES UNDER GENERAL PROVISIONS ARTICLE 3-305(B) (1).>> MOTION AND SECOND. ROLL CALL VOTE. COMMISSIONER PORTER.
>> THE AYES HAVE IT. WE'LL TAKE A 5-10 MINUTE RECESS.
>> THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.