Sep 23, 2025 Caroline County Commissioners Meeting

>> MIGHT WE GET A PHOTO WITH YOU.

>> YEAH. DID YOU GUYS WANT TO SAY THAT?

>> I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR EVERY YEAR, WE DO THIS, AND IT'S GREAT. WE DO THIS.

MENTAL HEALTH, I THINK SINCE I'VE BEEN IN OFFICE, WE'VE ALWAYS TRIED TO DO MORE FOR MENTAL HEALTH. YOU CAN NEVER DO ENOUGH.

NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO I KNOW CAROLINE COUNTY STRUGGLES WITH MENTAL HEALTH, WE'LL CONTINUE TO PROVIDE SERVICE AS MUCH AS WE CAN.

I THINK THE STEPS THAT WE MADE TO COME TO TELEHEALTH, I THINK THAT'S IMPROVING, ESPECIALLY FOR THE MENTAL HEALTH ASPECT OF IT BECAUSE OF THE PRIVACY ISSUE, PEOPLE SEEING YOU GOING HERE AND GOING THERE.

HOPEFULLY THAT WILL HELP TOO.

PEOPLE YOU CAN USE THAT RESOURCE AS WELL.

I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU.

THAT WAS VERY IMPORTANT.

ESPECIALLY IN THE YOUTH BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE IT STARTS, AND IF THEY DON'T GET TO PROPER CARE, ONCE THEY GET TO ADULTHOOD, IT'S HARD TO MANAGE. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU FOR COMING IN FOR ALL SEASONS AS A GREAT ORGANIZATION. SAY HELLO TO BETH.

>> SURE WILL.

>> TELL HER TO KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK.

[00:10:02]

[BACKGROUND] THANK YOU.

>> NEXT UP, WE HAVE DR. DEREK SIMMONS, SUPERINTENDENT OF CAROLINE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, AND BILL MANGLE, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS.

I DON'T RECOGNIZE THE OTHER GENTLEMEN.

I'LL LEAVE IT YOU TO [OVERLAPPING].

[Dr. Derek Simmons, Superintendent & Bill Mengel, Director of Operations]

>> MORNING, PRESIDENT BREEDING, VICE PRESIDENT PORTER AND COMMISSIONER BARTZ.

WE ARE HERE TODAY TO REVIEW THE FY-27 CIP CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND SEEK THE COMMISSION'S APPROVAL TO MOVE FORWARD.

AS MR. MANGLE WILL WALK THROUGH THE CIP AND WHERE WE ARE WITH THAT WORK, WE DO HAVE WITH US, DR.

LEVER, AND WE'LL STEAL HIS THUNDER AS HE INTRODUCES WHY HE'S WITH US.

THIS CIP FOCUSES HEAVILY ON THE LOCKERMAN PROJECT, AND THIS LITERALLY JUST MAKES THE FIRST STEP IN WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DESCRIBING AS A MARATHON.

WE'RE AT ABOUT MILE 3 AT BEST, OF A LONG WAY TO GO.

BUT THIS IS THE NEXT STEP AND THAT PROCESS AS WE WORK WITH THE STATE TO SEE THIS PROJECT POTENTIALLY TO FRUITION IN THE NEXT HOPEFULLY A COUPLE OF YEARS, BUT DEPENDING ON HOW THINGS GO, WE'LL SEE HOW LONG IT TAKES.

BUT WITH THAT I WANT TO PASS TO MR. MANGLE, OUR DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, WHO HAS BEEN WORKING TO PULL THE CIP TOGETHER AND IS HANDLING THIS PROJECT FOR US.

>> THANK YOU DR. SIMMONS.

GOOD MORNING, COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.

>> MORNING.

>> I COME TO YOU SEEKING A LETTER SUPPORT FOR THE FY-27 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR CAROLINE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

THIS LETTER IS NEEDED FOR THE IEC PROJECT AND FUNDING APPROVALS.

ON SEPTEMBER 2ND, THE BOARD OF EDUCATION DID APPROVE THE FY-27 CIP.

I'D LIKE TO REVIEW WITH YOU, FORM 102.4 AND EXPLAIN WHAT THAT MAY LOOK LIKE FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS GOING OUT.

BUT FIRST, I DO WANT TO INTRODUCE DR. DAVID LEVER.

HE IS FROM EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES PLANNING LLC.

HE IS ONE OF OUR CONSULTANTS.

HIM AND HIS CONSULTANTS DO A REALLY GOOD JOB OF HOLDING MY HAND EVERY OTHER WEEK OR SO, GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS.

OF COURSE, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS DR. DEREK SIMMONS IS HERE AS WELL.

WE ARE ENTERING YEAR 2 OF THE MIDDLE SCHOOL BUILD.

AS DR. SIMMONS SAID, THIS IS A MARATHON.

IT'S A FIVE YEAR MARATHON.

IF THERE'S ANYTHING AS REAL AS THAT.

SUCCESSFUL YEAR 1 WAS GREAT.

WE ACCOMPLISHED THE WORK WITH THE IEC.

WE DEVELOPED THE ESPCS.

WE DEVELOPED A SPACE SUMMARY REPORT, AND FROM THERE, WE'RE ABLE TO DEVELOP A COMPLETE A FEASIBILITY STUDY.

FROM ALL OF THIS, THE BOARD OF EDUCATION WAS ABLE TO VOTE TO PLACE THIS BUILD ON NORTH CAROLINA HIGH SCHOOL PROPERTY.

WE ARE ALSO EXCITED TO BE ENTERING INTO AN MOU AT THE MARYLAND STADIUM AUTHORITY.

THEY ARE GOING TO PROVIDE BENEFICIAL GUIDANCE SUPPORT WITH US FOR THE BUILD FOR CCPS.

ACTUALLY JUST GOT WORRIED ABOUT THAT TWO DAYS AGO, SO THAT'S REALLY NEW UPFRONT.

I'M REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THAT OPPORTUNITY TO PARTNER WITH THEM.

FROM THE FY-27 CIP, WE'RE ONLY REQUESTING STATE PLANNING APPROVAL IN THE FORM OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING DESIGN IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,8221,000.

THE STATE SHARE WOULD BE $ [INAUDIBLE].

THE LOCAL WOULD BE $1,432,000.

UPON STATE APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT AND BEGINNING IN FY-28, WE WOULD BEGIN REQUESTING LARGER FUND AMOUNTS FOR THE ACTUAL BILL ITSELF.

FUTURE COSTS ARE SOMEWHAT SPECULATIVE AT THIS POINT, AS THE A&E DESIGN HAS NOT REALLY BEEN ON BOARD YET, AND WE DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND HOW THAT IS GOING TO LOOK AT THE FINAL RENDITION OF THE BUILD AND THE PROPERTY.

BUT WE'RE HOPING TO GET THERE PROBABLY IN THE SPRING AND START DEVELOPING THAT PART OF THE BUILD.

THE GOAL IS TO HAVE THE PROJECT COMPLETE, JUNE OF 2029, WITH OCCUPANCY OCCURRING BY THE START OF SCHOOL YEAR OF AUGUST OF 2029, WHICH I BELIEVE IS FY-30.

I DO WANT TO BE FORWARD WITH THE COMMISSIONERS, AND TO LET YOU GUYS KNOW WHAT YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO EXPECT COMING FORWARD THE NEXT FEW CIPS DOWN THE ROAD.

FY-28, WE'RE GOING TO BE ASKING FOR CONSTRUCTION FUNDING.

THE AMOUNT, AND THESE ARE ESTIMATED DOLLAR AMOUNTS, $41.1 MILLION.

THE STATE SHARE WOULD BE $33 MILLION.

[00:15:02]

LOCAL SHARE WOULD BE $8.1 MILLION.

IN FY-29, WE'LL BE ASKING FOR FURTHER CONSTRUCTION FUNDING AND THE AMOUNT OF $51.4 MILLION THE SHARED COSTS WOULD BE $35.9 MILLION, AND THE LOCAL WOULD BE $15.5 MILLION.

FY-30 IS THE FINAL CONSTRUCTION AND TRANSITION FUNDING.

LOOKS LIKE IT'S GOING TO BE ABOUT $1.5 MILLION.

AS OF TODAY, I'M TOLD THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE PICKED UP BY THE STATE.

THERE SHOULD BE NOTHING COMING FROM LOCAL, AS OF TODAY, BUT WE'RE ALL CHANGE ISSUE NOW.

THE TOTAL ESTIMATE OF THE BUILD IS GOING TO BE BETWEEN 100 MILLION AND 105 MILLION.

THIS REPRESENTS THE HIGH END OF THIS BUILD.

THIS IS PREDICATED BASED ON THE IECS FORMULA FOR SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT WAS DERIVED FROM THE SPACE SUMMARY REPORT AS WELL AS THE FEASIBILITY STUDY.

AGAIN, I DO EMPHASIZE THAT THIS IS THE HIGH DOLLAR AMOUNT.

WE WILL BE WORKING HARD TO NEGOTIATE THOSE COSTS DOWN, BUT WHY WE DON'T WANT TO IMPACT THE SPACE NEEDS FOR THE SCHOOL, WE ARE GOING TO BE FIGHTING THAT.

THIS IS THE TIME WHEN THE CONSTRUCTIVE ARGUMENTS START COMING IN BETWEEN THE IEC AND CCPS.

>> THERE ARE TWO OTHER PROJECTS ON THE CIP, FY30 AND FY31.

THEY ARE BOTH INVOLVED THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS.

THIS IS NOTHING NEW TO THE IEC, AS THIS WAS ON THE CIP OF LAST YEAR, SO THEY ARE WELL AWARE OF THIS.

BOTH PLANTS ARE BUILT IN 1968.

BOTH PLANTS ARE 57-YEARS-OLD, AND THEY ARE AGING.

WE DID HAVE MCCRONE ENGINEERING COME OUT THIS SUMMER TO LOOK AT THE PLANT ON NORTH CAROLINA HIGH SCHOOL, AND THEY DID DEEM IT THAT IT CAN HANDLE THE NEW BUILD.

HOWEVER, IT IS AGING.

THE COST OF A NEW POTENTIAL PLANT RIGHT NOW TODAY'S NUMBERS IS ABOUT $1.3 MILLION.

I CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT THE COST SHARE WOULD BE IN FY30 AND FY31 WHEN THOSE PROJECTS WERE TALLY PLANNED TO HAPPEN.

BUT I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU WHAT WE WERE IN NOW, WHICH IS A VERY GENEROUS 973 SPLIT THE STATE.

IF WE WERE TO DO THAT THIS YEAR, THE LOCAL WOULD BE $40,000.

I'M ALSO TRYING TO WORK WITH THE IEC TO SEE IF THEY CAN SEE THE VALUE THAT I SEE OF LET'S GET THE PLANT DONE AT NORTH CAROLINA AND INFUSE THAT INTO THE BUILD ITSELF.

NOTHING IT'S GETTING CHEAPER.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THESE PLANS ARE GOING TO COST FIVE, SIX YEARS DOWN THE ROAD, IF NOT LONGER.

SO I HOPE THAT ICCS THE VALUE, THE LONG TERM VALUE THAT I'M THINKING ABOUT, AND WE CAN COME TOGETHER AND PULL THIS TOGETHER.

THAT'S MY PLAN, TRYING TO GET TWO BIRDS WITH ONE STONE THERE.

THE LAST ONE IS THE DENTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ROOF.

WE'VE TRIED PUSHING THIS OFF AS LONG AS WE COULD, AND WE CAME TO THE DECISION LATE THIS SUMMER THAT WE NEED TO GET A NEW ROOF ON THAT BUILDING.

IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

IT IS NEEDED TO HAPPEN.

IT IS NOT CIP ELIGIBLE.

IN THE PAST, IEC HAD A WONDERFUL FUNDING SOURCE CALLED HEALTHY SCHOOL FACILITIES FUND, WHERE A LOT OF THE SYSTEMIC AND ROOFING TYPE PROJECTS WERE EASILY PULLED FROM TO FUND THOSE PROJECTS.

THAT SUN HAS SET ON THAT PROGRAM AS OF LAST SPRING.

IT HAS ALL THE COUNTIES, BE HONEST WITH YOU.

SCRAMBLING RIGHT NOW IS LIKE WHERE'S THE FUNDING GOING TO COME FROM THE SYSTEMIC PROJECTS? THE CONVERSATION I HAD TO IEC TWO WEEKS AGO, THEY DID SAY THAT, THEY ARE LOOKING TO ROLL OUT A NEW FUND.

IT'S CALLED PRIORITY FUNDING PROGRAM, AND THEY WILL BE VOTING UPON THAT AS EARLY AS OR BY APRIL OF 2026.

I'M PRESSING THEM TO SEE IF THEY CAN PUSH THAT UP A MONTH, MAYBE TWO, JUST TO GIVE US MORE TIME TO ACTUALLY DO THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS FOR THE ROOF.

OUR ROOFING GENERAL CONTRACTOR, GARLAND DBS INCORPORATED, HE IS ALL READY TO GO.

HE HAS THE COSTS, HE HAS THE SCHEMATIC DESIGNS, HE HAS THE DRAWINGS, HE HAS THE NARRATIVES THAT IEC REQUESTS. WE'RE READY TO GO.

[NOISE] WE'RE JUST A HOLDING PATTERN AND WHEN THAT FUNDING PROGRAM IS GOING TO BE APPROVED, AND I HOPE IT'S APPROVED SOONER THAN LATER.

OTHERWISE, WE WILL BE SCRAMBLING TRYING TO GET THIS PROJECT DONE THIS SUMMER.

HIS NUMBER HE'S COMING UP WITH IS FIVE MILLION DOLLARS IN THAT ROOF.

THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT WE'RE STILL BEING A 973 COST SHARE SPLIT THIS SUMMER AS WELL AS THE FOLLOWING SUMMER IF WE CAN'T GET IT DONE THIS NEXT SUMMER, SO THAT THE LOCAL COST WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY $150,000.

THAT IS THE FY27 CIP PRESENTATION.

I'M SURE YOU HAVE QUESTIONS.

>> COMMISSIONER PORTER.

>> WELL, I'M JUST DOING SOME QUICK CALCULATIONS.

SO IT LOOKS LIKE THE TOTAL COST FOR LOCKMAN, IS ABOUT 53 MILLION, THAT SOUND RIGHT?

>> NO. WE JUST GOT ACTUALLY SOME UPDATED NUMBERS ABOUT A WEEK AGO, AND IT HAS COME UP TO ABOUT 104 MILLION.

>> GREENSBORO.

>> GREENSBORO WAS MID 50S?

[00:20:04]

>> YEAH. WE DO 50.

>> WE DOUBLE COSTS HAVE GONE UP TREMENDOUSLY? WELL, TREMENDOUSLY DON'T COVER THE DOUBLE, RIGHT?

>> YES. RIGHT NOW WE'RE FOR DOLLAR PER SQUARE FOOT, F25, F28 WILL BE AT $450 PER SQUARE FOOT.

>> FY27.

>> YEAH. ONE OF THINGS WE'RE COMMITTED TO.

OBVIOUSLY, WE'LL BE WORKING WITH THE IEC TO MAKE OUR POINT THAT WE SHOULD RECEIVE A HIGHER STATE SHARE FOR SOME OF THE FUNDING ALLOCATIONS.

THERE'S A DIFFERENCE IN WHAT WE FEEL AND WHAT THEY FEEL.

PART OF THAT WORK IS WHAT WE WILL DO OVER THE NEXT YEAR AND ARTICULATE THE FUNDING STREAMS. DOCTOR LEVER HAS BEEN ABLE TO IDENTIFY SOME OF THOSE AS WELL, WHERE WE THINK THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO INCREASE THE STATE LEVEL OF FUNDING TO MAKE THE PROJECT HAPPEN AND MAKE IT MORE AFFORDABLE.

WE UNDERSTAND THE POSITION THE COUNTY'S IN.

WE TEND TO BUILD PRETTY MUCH WHERE THE FORMULA SAYS WE SHOULD FALL, BUT WE'RE IN THAT PENDING THE APPROVAL AS WE WILL THEN BE IN THE I WOULD SAY DEBATE PHASE.

WE THINK THERE SHOULD BE A HIGHER STATE SHARE ON SOME ITEMS, AND WE THEN START THAT PIECE BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD, OBVIOUSLY WITH ANY ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION.

BUT WE START NAILING THAT DOWN WITH ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING DESIGN.

BUT THEN ALSO, AGAIN, WE FEEL THERE'S SOME OPPORTUNITY THERE THAT WE CAN ARTICULATE WHY THE FUNDING FORMULA SHOULD BE ADJUSTED A LITTLE BIT MORE IN OUR FAVOR.

>> WITH THE STATE OF THE STATE, WHAT ARE THE ODDS OF THAT?

>> GREAT. YOU WERE VERY SUCCESSFUL IN ARGUING FOR AN INCREASE OF SQUARE FOOTAGE PER STUDENT FOR GREENSBORO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.

IT REQUIRED A GREAT DEAL OF DETAILED ANALYSIS BY THE FORMER CFO, I'M SURE YOU ALL KNOW.

WE'LL BE USING SOMETHING OF THE SAME METHOD TO ARGUE FOR A GREATER SQUARE FOOT PER STUDENT.

YOUR PERCENTAGE, WE THINK IS ALREADY GOING TO BE AT 100% OF ELIGIBLE ITEMS. NOW, ELIGIBLE ITEMS DOESN'T COVER THE ENTIRE BUILDING AS KNOW.

RIGHT NOW, BASED ON THE FEASIBILITY STUDY, THERE'S ABOUT 6,000 SQUARE FEET, WHICH GOES BEYOND THE STATE FORMULA.

WE'RE GOING TO BE TRYING TO FIGHT THAT DOWN.

ONCE WE GET THE ARCHITECTS ON BOARD AND REALLY START WORKING TO LOOK AT EFFICIENCIES IN TERMS OF THE DESIGN ITSELF, THERE ARE LOTS OF WAYS THAT WE CAN APPROACH THAT.

I'M VERY MUCH INVOLVED IN KENT COUNTY MIDDLE SCHOOL RECONSTRUCTION RIGHT NOW, THE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, AND WE HAVE DONE A LOT OF WORK TO FIGHT THAT DOWN.

STADIUM AUTHORITY ALSO IS EXTREMELY GOOD ABOUT THIS OF KNOWING WAYS TO TAILOR PROJECT TO MEET A BUDGET REQUIREMENT.

THOSE GIVE US REASONS FOR CONFIDENCE, BUT THEN THERE ARE ALSO A LOT OF UNCERTAINTIES.

I'M SURE YOU'RE AWARE. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ECONOMY IS GOING TO BE DOING.

THERE'S GOING TO BE RESPONSE TO THE TARIFFS IN TERMS OF MATERIAL SUPPLIES AND SO FORTH.

WE DON'T KNOW WHERE ALL THAT IS GOING.

WE'RE WORKING WITH THE BEST INFORMATION WE HAVE RIGHT NOW.

>> WELL, GREENSBORO WAS NEGOTIATED UNDER A DIFFERENT ADMINISTRATION?

ANYBODY HAS ANY IDEA WHERE WE'RE GOING TO BE WITH THE STATE BUDGET AT THIS POINT AND IN COMING YEARS. I THINK I KNOW.

>> I JUST DON'T KNOW.

>> I AGREE. IT'S A LOT OF UNCERTAINTY.

>> THAT'S GOOD. COMMISSIONER BARTZ.

>> I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. I'M JUST ANALYZING THE DATA HERE.

I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF WHAT IFS.

WE'RE ON THE EARLY STAGES HERE.

I DO HAVE CONCERNS WITH THE STATE COMMISSIONER PORTER DOES, BUT THAT'S THAT'S ANY TIME, ANYWHERE IN CIRCUMSTANCE.

I JUST SAY WE CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD AND TRY TO GET THE NUMBERS DOWN THE BEST WE CAN WHICH I KNOW YOU GUYS ARE DOING.

>> THE 6,000 SQUARE FEET THAT'S IN DEBATE RIGHT NOW, YOU COULD POTENTIALLY REDUCE, YOU THINK THROUGH DESIGN EFFICIENCIES, YOU COULD REDUCE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE NECESSARY FOR THE BUILDING?

>> OR MAKE AN ARGUMENT THAT IT IS NEEDED THE FUNDING SPLIT.

WHAT IS THE SPLIT? I KNOW ROUGH MATH LOOKING AT IT, IT'S ABOUT A 25, 75.

>> THAT'S WHAT I WAS GETTING, THIS YEAR IT DOES SEEM TO CHANGE THE PERCENTAGE OR TWO ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

BUT I THINK THE LANGUAGE TERMS RIGHT NOW, 75, 25 IS PROBABLY THE SAFE.

>> TO COMMISSIONER PORTER'S POINT, WHAT ARE WE HEARING RIGHT NOW AS FAR AS OTHER SCHOOL PROJECTS BEING FUNDED?

[00:25:03]

I KNOW THE KENT COUNTY MIDDLE SCHOOL IS BEING HELD UP BECAUSE THE KENT COUNTY CAN'T INCUR AS MUCH OF THE COST AS THE STATE WOULD LIKE THEM TO.

THEY'RE TRYING TO GET TO THE STATE TO PICK UP A LARGER PORTION OF THE SHARE.

>> I THINK WE'VE REACHED THE LIMIT OF WHAT THE STATES GOING TO OFFER ON THAT PROJECT.

RIGHT NOW, IT COMES DOWN TO THE FREE GENTLEMEN UP THERE WHO ARE IN YOUR POSITIONS, AND THE DECISION THEY'LL MAKE ABOUT SUPPORT FOR THE PROJECT. THE LOCAL SHARE.

BUT ACROSS THE STATE, WE ARE SEEING PROJECTS THAT WHERE COSTS ARE GOING UP, AND SO OTHER PROJECTS HAVE TO BE DELAYED TO GET CRITICAL PROJECTS GOING FIRST, LARGER SCHOOL SYSTEMS THAT HAVE SEVERAL PROJECTS IN LINE.

NOW, PROJECTS ARE GETTING PUSHED OUT BECAUSE OF THE RISING COSTS AND SOME UNCERTAINTY ABOUT THE FUNDING AS WELL.

WE JUST DON'T KNOW.

THE STATE FUNDING VARIES SO MUCH FROM YEAR TO YEAR THAT IT'S VERY HARD TO SAY AT THIS TIME OF YEAR WHAT IT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO BE IN FY 2027.

I THINK THAT WAS A POINT THAT YOU WERE RAISING, SIR.

>> YES. WHERE DOES THE STATE SHARE COME FROM? IS IT JUST GENERAL REVENUE? IS IT COLLECTED OUT OF CERTAIN REVENUE STREAMS?

>> IT'S BOND PROCEEDS FOR THE MOST PART AND BASED ON PROPERTY TAX.

MARYLAND WELL, UNTIL VERY RECENTLY HAD AN EXCELLENT BOND RATING.

SO VERY GOOD RATES.

THAT HAS GONE INTO SOME QUESTION NOW.

BUT NOT BECAUSE OF ANY BAD PRACTICES, BUT FOREVER REASONS, EXTRANEOUS REASONS THAT HAVE AFFECTED WALL STREET'S VIEW.

THERE IS SOME PAY GO MONEY, BUT IN MY OWN EXPERIENCE, IT HASN'T BEEN A LARGE SHARE COMPARED TO WHAT COMES THROUGH THE BOND ISSUE.

>> WE HAD HEARD OR I HAD READ REPORTS OF THE STATE ASKING LOCAL JURISDICTIONS TO FRONT FUND OR FUND, IS THAT STILL HAPPENING?

>> SO IT IS.

I HAVE BEEN VERY A POINT WITH THE IEC THAT THAT'S REALLY AN OPTION WE CAN'T GO DOWN HERE IN CAROLINE COUNTY.

WE NEED TO COME TO A DIFFERENT SOLUTION ON THE WHOLE THING.

THEY WANT TO BRING IT BACK AND I KEEP PUSHING BACK.

THAT'S PROBABLY NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

>> HOW LONG HAS IT TAKEN THOSE JURISDICTIONS TO RECOVER THE FRONT FLOOR?

>> I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER WHICH SUPERINTENDENT I SPOKE TO RECENTLY, BUT I BELIEVE THEY WERE ON A SIX YEAR REPAYMENT FOR THEIR SHARE AND IT WAS A SET DOLLAR AMOUNT EVERY YEAR FOR SIX.

I DON'T WANT TO QUOTE. BUT I KNOW THAT WAS A CONVERSATION WE WERE HAVING PROBABLY WITHIN THE LAST WEEK OR TWO, KNOWING THIS PROJECTS COMING ON THE HORIZON IN SOME SCHOOL SYSTEMS IN A SIMILAR POSITION AS US, WHERE COUNTY'S JUST NOT SITTING ON A PIECE WHERE YOU CAN FRONT 100 MILL.

BUT LARGER AREAS MAY ON PAPER APPEAR THAT THEY CAN.

>> DOCTOR LEAR, YOU'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS FOR A LONG TIME.

YOU'RE A FAMOUS GUY, I FORGET NAME.

>> OH, DEAR. I'M NOT SURE I LIKE TO HEAR THAT. [LAUGHTER]

>> WELL, IN A VERY POSITIVE WAY.

WHAT IS YOUR CRYSTAL BALL TELLING YOU? JUST BASED ON YOUR KNOWLEDGE, WHAT ARE YOU SEEING?

>> IT'S TELLING ME THAT COSTS ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO RISE AND UNCERTAINTY IS GOING TO PREVAIL.

WE HAVE SEEN IN MY CAREER, I'VE SEEN A HUGE DIP IN COSTS WHEN WE HAD THE 2008 RECESSION.

COMPETITION WAS SO INTENSE FOR CONSTRUCTION JOBS THAT WE HAD OFFICE BUILDERS FROM WASHINGTON, DC WERE COMING ACROSS TO DO SCHOOL PROJECTS, WHICH IS ALMOST UNHEARD OF.

THEN WE'VE ALSO SEEN THE COSTS GO UP DRAMATICALLY, AND THE RECOVERY FROM THE 2008 RECESSION.

I GUESS IT WOULD BE ABOUT 2011, 2012.

WE WERE SEEING COST ESCALATION AT 15% PER YEAR IN SOME CASES AS CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES WERE COVERED.

IT'S THE WILD WEST OUT THERE, FRANKLY, IN TERMS OF WHAT COSTS CAN BE.

LABOR SUPPLY HAS A HUGE IMPACT ON THE COST MATERIALS.

NOW, GOODS FROM CANADA, WHICH PROVIDES A LOT OF THE MATERIALS.

WE HAVE A LOT OF UNCERTAINTY.

WE DO THE BEST WE CAN.

WHAT I DO WANT TO SAY IS THAT THE COSTS THAT WE'RE PRESENTING TO YOU ARE BASED ON THE FEASIBILITY STUDY, AS DOCTOR MENTIONED, AND THEY BROUGHT IN ONE OF THE BEST ESTIMATORS IN THE STATE, FREA TO DO THE ESTIMATE, BASED ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT WAS BEING SHOWN IN THE FEASIBILITY STUDY, THE SITE CONDITIONS IF THEY IDENTIFIED.

IT'S A DEGREE OF ACCURACY, WHICH IS A STEP FORWARD FOR US.

EVERY STAGE AS A DESIGN DEVELOPS, YOU GET INCREASING ACCURACY, BUT THEN IT ALWAYS COMES DOWN TO BID TIME.

I THINK STADIUM AUTHORITY, THEY HAVE A REPUTATION WELL DESERVED OF REALLY FIGHTING TO BRING PROJECTS IN ON TIME, ON BUDGET.

[00:30:02]

THEY ALSO, AND THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT.

THEY KNOW HOW TO GO OUT AND BEAT THE BUSHES TO GET COMPETITION ON SAY, ELECTRICAL, ROOFING, MASONRY, ALL THE THINGS THAT GO INTO A BUILDING.

COMPETITION MAY BE THE SINGLE BIGGEST FACTOR.

THAT CAN DRIVE COSTS DOWN ONCE YOU HAVE A DESIGN IN PLACE.

>> I KNOW IN GREENSBORO, WE REALLY WORKED HARD ON THE LOCAL CONTRACTORS TRYING TO USE THE, I'M BLANKING ON THE TERM FOR THE WAGES.

>> PREVAILING WAGE?

>> PREVAILING WAGES. THAT WAS WHAT YOU PAY ELECTRICIAN HERE ISN'T WHAT YOU PAY THEM ON THE WESTERN SHORE.

I THINK WE WERE SUCCESSFUL IN DOING THAT HOPEFULLY.

IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, THE STATE DOESN'T COVER FF&E.

>> IT DOES.

>> IT DOES COVER.

>> AS ITS SHARE.

IT DOESN'T COVER ALL OF IT, BUT SHARE.

YES, IT DOES, NOW. IT ALSO COVERS DESIGN WHICH IT DIDN'T DO IN MY DAY WHEN I WAS WITH THE STATE.

>> THEIR SHARE OF THE DESIGN.

WE'RE STILL RESPONSIBLE FOR I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT WORKED OUT TO BE 25% ROUGHLY?

>> WELL, IT'S 100% OF ELIGIBLE, AND DESIGN FF&E ARE ELIGIBLE, BUT ONLY UP TO A CERTAIN DOLLAR AMOUNT.

IF LET'S SAY, WE GET THE 6,000 SQUARE FEET DOWN TO 4,500, THAT STILL WOULD BE 100% ON THE LOCAL DOLLAR.

THE FURNITURE FURNISHINGS AND EQUIPMENT FOR THAT WOULD ALSO BE THE LOCAL DOLLAR AND SO FORTH.

THAT'S WHY WHEN YOU PUT EVERYTHING TOGETHER, YOU COME OUT WITH A 75 25 SPLIT.

YOU'LL SEE ACROSS THE STATE.

ANNA RUNDLE COUNTY, FOR INSTANCE, IS 50 50 ON ELIGIBLE ITEMS. THE RULE OF THUMB OVER THERE IS THAT STATE WILL END UP PAYING SOMEWHERE BETWEEN ABOUT 35-40% OF A TOTAL PROJECT ONCE ALL THE INELIGIBLE ITEMS ARE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.

>> WELL, MY MAJOR REQUEST WOULD BE THAT WE KEEP THE DESIGN AS PRACTICAL AS POSSIBLE.

THESE ARCHITECT FIRMS WANT TO RUN OFF AND CREATE WORKS OF ART.

SALES PITCHES.

LOOK AT THIS BEAUTIFUL BUILDING.

I'M NOT ASKING FOR A BRICK RECTANGLE WITH A FLAT ROOF, BUT I THINK WE'RE A PRACTICAL COMMUNITY AND LET'S BUILD A PRACTICAL FACILITY. STEVENS?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> EASILY ADDED TO AND MAINTAINED BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE WE'RE GOING TO EXPERIENCE SOME POPULATION GROWTH.

I THINK THE ABILITY TO EXPAND RELATIVELY EASILY SHOULD BE A MAJOR PRIORITY AS WELL.

DON'T BUILD A TAJ MAHAL, PLEASE.

>> [LAUGHTER] NINE OUT 10 FOR NOW.

>> WE'RE PAST PRACTICE FOR NOW. COMPLETELY AGREE.

>> YEAH. WELL, THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN.

GOOD. I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO DRAFT A LETTER.

DO WE HAVE A DRAFT LETTER OR DO WE NEED TO DRAFT A LETTER OF SUPPORT?

>> WE HAVE A TEMPLATE.

>> WELL, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO DRAFT AND SEND A LETTER IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN.

>> I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> KEEP UP TO DATE. SEE YOU DOCTOR.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> NEXT UP, WE HAVE CHARLES HUSTER,

[NOISE]

[Charles Huester, Executive Director, Maryland Rural Development Cooperation]

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF MARYLAND DEVELOPMENT CORP, WITH A DISCUSSION OF THE EARLY HEADSTART FUNDING MORNING. GOOD MORNING.

ABBY. [INAUDIBLE] WE RECEIVED YOUR BRIEFING, WENT THROUGH ALL OF THAT.

THE FUNDING SUNSETS AT THE END OF THIS MONTH.

IF YOU WANT TO TOUCH ON WHAT THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THAT?

>> WELL, SO THERE WON'T BE AN EARLY HEADSTART IN CAROLINE OR CECIL COUNTY.

I DOESN'T IMPACT OUR HEADSTART PROGRAM.

IT DOESN'T IMPACT OUR WEATHERIZATION OR HOUSING PROGRAM, AND IT DOESN'T IMPACT OUR CIRCLE RIDER PROGRAM, BUT IT DOESN'T IMPACT EARLY HEADSTART.

WHAT WE HAD OVER ONE MILLION IN FUNDING, WE APPLIED FOR THREE MILLION IN FUNDING.

ESSENTIALLY, WHAT WE LEARNED IS HAD WE CONTINUED AS A SUB RECIPIENT WITH [INAUDIBLE] FAMILY NETWORK,

[00:35:04]

WE PROBABLY WOULD HAVE HAD FUNDING.

IT WOULD HAVE BEEN AN ISSUE. BUT BECAUSE WE CHOSE TO APPLY AS A DIRECT RECIPIENT, WE DIDN'T RECEIVE FUNDING.

I THINK ULTIMATELY AT THE END OF THE DAY, NO UNDERSTANDING THAT AT THE TIME MAY HAVE IMPACTED OUR DECISION MAKING.

I THINK GOING FORWARD, IF THAT OPPORTUNITY FOR EXPANSION CAME BACK, WE WOULD NEED TO CONSIDER WHETHER WE WANTED TO BE A PART OF MFNS NETWORK OR NOT.

I'M NOT REALLY SURE WHY THE STRUCTURE IS THE WAY IT IS, BUT IT'S BEEN THAT WAY FOR A VERY LONG TIME.

THEY HAVE 11. WELL, WE WOULD HAVE BEEN 11TH SUB RECIPIENT.

THEY HAVE TEN OTHER SUB RECIPIENTS UNDER THEM.

THEY GET THE DIRECT FUNDING FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES. OF SET START.

THROUGH HELP FROM YOU GUYS, AND I APPRECIATE THAT.

WE ESCALATED THROUGH POLITICAL CHANNELS AND THEN REACHED OUT TO THE CONGRESSMAN HARRIS'S OFFICE.

HE SENT A LETTER TO THE OFFICE OF HEADSTART, AS FAR AS I KNOW, HAS BEEN REPLIED TO.

I'M NOT REALLY SURE THE PRACTICE OF OFFICE OF HEADSTART NOT REPLYING TO ANYONE.

WE FOUND OUT THROUGH A THIRD PARTY DIRECT COMPETITOR FOR FUNDING, ACTUALLY.

MAR FAMILY NETWORK LET US KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON.

WE'VE NEVER BEEN GIVEN ANY KIND OF OFFICIAL ANYTHING FROM THE OFFICE OF HEADSTART.

THERE'S LIKE A DISCONNECTING COMMUNICATION, YOU KNOW, ON THE SURFACE.

BUT ULTIMATELY, THE PARENTS THAT ARE AFFECTED BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO WORK, THE CHILDREN THAT ARE AFFECTED BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOWHERE TO GO AT THIS POINT.

SOME OF THE THINGS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, SOMETHING I'M REALLY NOT REALLY UNDERSTANDING OF IT YET, BUT WE'RE LOOKING AT IT.

IT'S CALLED A PATTY CENTER.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT ACTUALLY MFN CAME TO US ABOUT AND SAID, MAYBE THIS IS AN OPTION.

WE ALSO LOOKED AT LIKE A FEE STRUCTURED THING WHERE WHAT COULD PEOPLE AFFORD TO PAY AND COULD WE AFFORD TO ACTUALLY KEEP A CENTER OPEN BECAUSE WE HAVE SPACE TO DO IT IN GREENSBORO AND A FEDERALSBURG.

BUT WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO REALLY DIG INTO THAT AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE A BIT OF A STEP BACK AND KIND OF DECIDE.

OUR IMMEDIATE FOCUS WAS ON HELPING THOSE DISPLACED EMPLOYEES FIND EMPLOYMENT, WHICH I THINK WE'VE DONE A PRETTY GOOD JOB OF.

THE NEXT STEPS WOULD BE KIND OF LOOK AT SOME A FEASIBILITY OF WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN PROVIDE A SERVICE, SOME KIND OF FEE BASED FEE SCALE TO GO FORWARD?

>> WAS THE DECISION TO APPLY INDEPENDENTLY, WAS THAT A BOARD DECISION?

>> I DON'T KNOW THAT QUESTION.

>> IT WAS A BOARD DECISION.

>> WE ARE IF I MAY.

WE'RE THE PRIMARY RECIPIENT OF OUR HEADSTART GRANT, WHERE WE SERVE 221 KIDS THROUGHOUT THREE COUNTIES.

>> YOU RECEIVE THAT DIRECTLY FROM.

>> YOU'RE A DIRECT RECIPIENT.

IT'S NOT LIKE YOU'RE NOT USED TO DEALING WITH THE S. WE WANTED TO GO WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO WAS GO TO A BIRTH THROUGH FIVE MODEL, WHERE IT WOULD BE MORE SEAMLESS, SO YOU GET A KID THAT WOULD START AT BIRTH, AND THEN WE WORK WITH THEM AND FOLLOW THEM UNTIL THEY HIT SCHOOL.

IT WAS A DIFFERENT MODEL, OUR BOARD APPROVED IT AND WAS AWARE OF THE WE WERE LOCKSTEP THE WHOLE WAY.

IT JUST DIDN'T GO THE WAY WE WANTED IT TO.

WHAT WE STRUGGLE WITH UNDERSTANDING IF IT WASN'T US AND IT WAS SOMEONE ELSE, WE WOULD HAVE GLADLY WORKED WITH THEM TO SHEPHERD THROUGH THE PROCESS, BUT WE JUST HAVEN'T HEARD.

>> I GUESS A LITTLE BIT CONFUSING TO ME BECAUSE I'M NEW TO IT.

BECAUSE ULTIMATELY WE KNOW THAT CAROLINE COUNTY, PARTICULARLY IS MOVING TO A MODEL WHERE THEY'RE TAKING THE 3-5 YEAR OLDS, WHICH IS GOING TO ULTIMATELY IMPACT US ANYWAY.

WOULDN'T IT BE LOGICAL TO USE THAT MONEY FOR ZERO TO THREE? I MEAN, IT JUST DOESN'T IT MAKES COMMON SENSE, RIGHT? LIKE, WE HAVE THE EXPERTISE, WE UNDERSTAND HOW TO DO IT.

WE HAVE GOOD RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE SCHOOL.

I WOULD MAKE SENSE THAT WE COULD HAVE THOSE HANDSHAKES AND HANDOFFS BUILT IN.

THAT I DON'T THINK ANY OF THAT WAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.

AGAIN, IT'S A GAP IN COMMUNICATION FROM THE OFFICE OF HEADSTART SIDE.

THAT'S A TRADITIONAL. THAT'S WHAT THEY DO.

IT'S FUNNY ONLY HEADSTART SIDE, NOT EARLY HEADSTART BUT ON THE HEADSTART SIDE, WE HAVE CONSTANT COMMUNICATION.

AS A DIRECTOR RECIPIENT, BUT AS A SUB RECIPIENT, YOU HAVE NO COMMUNICATION.

>> THE MARYLAND FAMILY NETWORK.

WHAT LOCATIONS DO THEY PROVIDE ON THE EASTERN SHORE? I MEAN, WHAT SERVICE LOCATIONS DO THEY PROVIDE?

>> JUST A PASS THROUGH.

>> THAT'S ALL THEY DO. THEY'RE JUST SKIMMING THEIR MANAGEMENT FEE OFF.

I MEAN, YOU GUYS TRIED TO GO GET THE FULL GRANT WARD AS OPPOSED TO THEM HAVING AN ADMINISTRATIVE FEE.

>> THEY ALSO PUT A LAYER OF THEY'RE IN THE OLD MONTGOMERY WARD BUILDING WITH MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.

[00:40:03]

>> I BELIEVE THEY'RE IN WITH [INAUDIBLE] WHICH IS ANOTHER HEADSTART AGENCY, AND I THINK THEY'RE IN TALBOT AND DOWN IN DORCHESTER, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY CLASSROOMS THEY HAVE.

>> AS A PASS THROUGH.

>> ALL AS ES A PASSTHROUGH EVERYTHING.

>> WHAT THEY BASICALLY GET IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE FEE.

AND THEN THEY LAYER THAT WITH WHAT WE ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS POLICIES, REGULATIONS THAT ARE SPECIFIC TO THEIR ORGANIZATION.

THAT'S HOW THEY MANAGE.

>> THAT ADDITIONAL LAYER WAS A LOT WE DID THIS WHOLE BIRTH THROUGH FIVE MODEL.

THAT EXTRA LAYER MADE IT VERY DIFFICULT IN OUR ORGANIZATION TO NAVIGATE BOTH.

THERE'S ALSO A REASON THE SCHOOL SYSTEM WAS WITH THEM.

CECIL COUNTY WAS WITH THEM, AND THEY'RE NO LONGER WITH THEM AS WELL.

IT'S IT WAS A CHALLENGING SITUATION.

>> THE HUNDRED HOW MANY FAMILIES IN CAROLINE COUNTY WERE DIRECTLY AFFECTED?

>> THIRTY ONE.

>> HOW MANY EMPLOYEES?

>> TWENTY SIX.

>> TOTAL?

>> WELL, 26 TOTAL. WHEN WE LOOKED AT IT, WE JUST TOOK THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK ORGANIZATION WIDE WHEN WE HAD TO REDUCE THAT COUNT.

THE LARGE PERCENTAGE CAME FROM CAROLINE?

>> THIRTY ONE YOU HAD 101 NUMBER OF UNSERVED FAMILIES, SO OF THAT 101 31 ARE IN CAROLINE?

>> MOST ARE PROBABLY CECIL.

>> OF THE 26 EMPLOYEES

TENANT PROBABLY 505050.

REALLY IT'S ABOUT 13.

>> WHAT WAS THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF MONEY?

>> THE CONTRACT WITH MFM WAS, I THINK 1.3 MILLION.

THEN WHAT WE APPLIED FOR WAS OVER 3 MILLION BECAUSE WE WERE GOING TO EXPAND THAT OPPORTUNITY BECAUSE WE HAVE A CLASSROOM IN GREENSBORO.

WE HAVE A CLASSROOM IN FEDERALSBURG.

WE DIDN'T NEED TO JUST BE IN DENTON.

WE HAD AN ADDITIONAL CLASSROOM IN ELTON AS WELL.

WE HAD ROOM TO TAKE ONE MORE.

>> BUT MARYLAND, DID MARYLAND FAMILY NETWORK REACH OUT AND SAY, HEY, WHERE'S YOUR APPLICATION FOR THIS CYCLE OR?

>> THEY WERE AWARE WE WERE GOING VERY COMMUNICATIVE WITH THEM, THE WHOLE PROCESS THROUGH.

THEY IT WAS MUTUALLY DECIDED THAT WE SHOULD APPLY SEPARATELY.

>> I THINK THAT FOR ME, SO JUST TO GIVE I MEAN, I'VE BEEN HERE SIX MONTHS.

WHEN THE APPLICATION WENT IN, IT WAS PRIOR TO MY TIME.

BUT FROM LOOKING AT IT FROM THE OUTSIDE LOOKING IN, 30,000 FOOT VIEW, WHEN YOUR DIRECT COMPETITOR COMES TO YOU AND TELLS YOU THE FATE OF YOUR GRANT APPLICATION AS OPPOSED TO THE ACTUAL SOURCE THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG.

>> I MEAN, THIS IS RIDICULOUS.

I MEAN, THE FACT THAT YOU HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY COMMUNICATION FROM THE PEOPLE WHO HANDLED THE MONEY.

>> WHEN NORTH COUNTY PARK, WE PUT A REQUEST IN AND IT TOOK, WHAT, 60 DAYS.

I THINK THAT'S WHAT CONGRESSMAN HARRIS'S OFFICE SAID IT'S GOING TO TAKE IT'LL TAKE THE AGENCY 60 DAYS TO RESPOND.

>> JANUARY 5, WE HAVE SUBMITTED THE APPLICATION.

>> HE ONLY I MEAN, THEY SENT YOU A RECEIPT THAT THEY RECEIVED IT, BUT THAT WAS IT.

THAT WAS THE LAST CORRESPONDENCE.

>> THE PROCESS FROM HOW IT WAS EXPLAINED BY MFN IS, THEY WILL THEN REACH OUT TO YOU AND SAY, HEY, LET'S NEGOTIATE.

THEY MAY HAVE REACHED OUT AND SAID, HEY, WE DON'T HAVE THREE. WE'LL GIVE YOU TWO.

THAT NEVER HAPPENED. AS A RESULT OF THAT NOT HAPPENING, THAT THAT WAS THE FIRST RED FLAG.

THAT'S BASED THIS IS ALL BASED ON, AGAIN, MFN EXPLAINING THAT TO US.

WE DIDN'T GET AN OFFICIAL LIKE, HEY, THIS DIDN'T HAPPEN UNTIL AUGUST 22, AND THAT DIDN'T COME FROM, AGAIN, IT DIDN'T COME FROM THE GRANT.

THE AGENCY AGENCY ITSELF, IT CAME FROM MFN, AND WE MADE THE DECISIONS WE MADE BASED ON THE INFORMATION WE HAD BECAUSE WE REALIZED THAT WE NEEDED TO GIVE FOLKS AS MUCH LATITUDE AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE WE WERE TRYING TO ENROLL FOR THE NEW YEAR.

I HAD TO GIVE THE PARENTS AND FAMILIES ENOUGH TIME TO FIGURE SOMETHING OUT.

THEN ALSO THE EMPLOYEES TO TRY AND HAVE SOME LATITUDE BECAUSE THEIR CONTRACT RAN THROUGH THE 29TH, AND WHAT WE ASKED THEM TO DO WAS TO WORK HARD AT TRYING TO FIND ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR THEMSELVES OVER THE COURSE OF THAT MONTH.

THEN THEY HAD WE HAD TO DO SOME EXTRANEOUS THINGS AT THE ACTUAL CENTERS, P. THE PRIMARY FOCUS WAS WE WERE ABLE TO GIVE THEM AT LEAST A MONTH'S NOTICE.

WE WERE ABLE TO RETAIN SOME?

>> WE HAD OPEN WRECKS AND WE OFFERED ROLES.

>> WHERE IS MFN HEADQUARTERED IN THE MONTGOMERY WARD BUILDING?

>> WHERE'S THAT THE BALL.

>> IN BALTIMORE?

>> YEAH, IMAGINE THAT.

>> THE MONTGOMERY WARD WAREHOUSE, I GOOGLED THEM THIS MORNING AND LOOKED IT UP.

I WAS LIKE, THAT'S INTERESTING.

I READ AN ARTICLE IN THAT BUILDING BEING REPURPOSED.

>> OUR CONTACT WAS FAITH MILLER.

SHE WAS OUR DIRECT CONTACT.

SHE SAID THIS THE WAY IT'S BEEN FOR 30 YEARS?

[00:45:02]

THAT IF YOU DON'T WRITE WITH THEM, YOU DON'T GET MONEY? IS THE WAY IT IS.

>> YOU WEREN'T OBLIGED THAT THAT WOULD HAPPEN? LIKE THEY DIDN'T SAY YOU DON'T PLAY BALL, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET.

>> BUT THIS WAS A RELATIVELY NEW PROGRAM.

IT WAS ONLY A COUPLE OF YEARS OLD, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> NO. THE EARLY HEADSTART PROGRAM, THE SCHOOL SYSTEM ACTUALLY HAD THE CONTRACT IN THE DUTY CENTER HERE IN FEDERALSBURG.

I'M NOT SURE HOW MANY YEARS, BUT TERESA FRENCH, THAT WAS HER CONTACT TRACT.

IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING AS THE SCHOOL SYSTEM WANTED TO TRANSITION OUT BECAUSE OF PENSIONS AND THEY COULDN'T AFFORD THE PROGRAM.

BUT THE DYNAMIC WITH THEY EXPERIENCED A SIMILAR DYNAMIC THAT WE DID WITH MFN AND CECIL COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE, THEY ALSO HANDED IT OFF TO US BECAUSE IT WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE TO THEM EITHER.

>> BECAUSE THEY HAD TO PAY THEIR EMPLOYEES SO MUCH MORE AND THE ANCILLARY COSTS.

>> THEY ALSO DON'T HAVE THE ADMINISTRATIVE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE OVERSIGHT AND PERA GOOD MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE.

BECAUSE YOU'RE GIVEN THAT MONEY TO MFM WHEN THEY CUT THEIR PIECE BEFORE YOU GET YOUR SE.

THE OTHER THING IS IS THAT JUST TO KEEP IN MIND OF THE IMPACT OF IT, BASED ON MY UNDERSTANDING IS CAROLINE AND CECIL COUNTY, WERE TWO OF THE FIRST COUNTIES IN THE STATE OF MARYLAND TO HAVE ARE HEADSTART.

THEY WERE SO YOU W TWO BOILER PLATE OR COUNTIES AND JUST THROW THEM TO THE WAY.

IF THERE'S NO EXPANSION, THERE IS NO MONEY.

THAT'S VERY CLEAR THAT UNLESS THE DEPARTMENT DOES SOME AN EXPANSION, WE DON'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ACTUALLY RECEIVE GRANT FUNDS AGAIN.

>> THE REASON WE HAD THIS OPPORTUNITY WAS MFN ACTUALLY WENT INTO RECOMPETITION ON THEIR GRANTS, SO IT WAS OPEN.

THE GRANTS ARE FIVE YEARS, RIGHT, WHERE THEY WANT YOU THEY'RE NON COMPETE FOR FIVE YEARS?

>> WELL, HOPEFULLY, YOU GET A RESPONSE BACK FROM THE OFFICE OF HEADSTART, AND SOMETHING CAN BE DONE.

>> WHO IS THE CURRENT CONTACT PERSON FOR THEM?

>> LAURA WELREER, IS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.

>> OF WHAT MARYLAND FAMILY.

>> I KNOW WHAT MARYLAND FAMILY.

>> THE HEADSTART?

>> IT'S SOMEONE ACTING ACTUALLY, BUT WE CAN GET THAT TO YOU.

>> I CAN FORWARD YOU A LETTER FROM THAT THE CONGRESSMAN'S OFFICE SENT.

I THOUGHT EVERYONE WAS COPIED ON IT, BUT THEY'RE NOT I FORWARDED.

>> I DON'T RECALL.

>> I DO KNOW THE OFFICE OF HEADSTART HAD 11 REGIONAL OFFICES FOR BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF OVERSIGHT IN THESE GRANTS, AND THEY WHITTLED IT DOWN TO THREE.

I THINK THEY'RE IN A LITTLE BIT OF A CLUSTER THEMSELVES. IT'S FAIR TO SAY.

>> BUT THEY RE ORGANIZED. I MEAN THE LACK OF COMMUNICATION PIECE OF IT IS I JUST DON'T SEE HOW ANY I DON'T KNOW HOW I MEAN.

LIKE I SAID, I'M NEW TO THIS. I CAME FROM CORPORATE BANKING AND THAT YOU JUST, P MORGAN IS NOT GOING TO CALL CITY BANK AND TELL HIM THEY DIDN'T GET A CONTRACT.

>> THAT'S JUST NOT GOING TO APPEN THE REORGANIZATION IS NOT ANY EXCUSE FOR SOMEONE.

IT DOESN'T TAKE THAT LONG TO PICK UP THE PHONE OR, SEND AN EMAIL TO TELL YOU.

THAT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE. IT'S JUST NOT.

>> BUT YOU'RE USED TO DEALING WITH THE OFFICE A HEADSTART.

IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S A DIFFERENT OFFICE YOU'RE ALREADY DEALING WITH.

IT'S JUST DIFFERENT PEOPLE INSIDE OF THAT DEPARTMENT.

>> I GUESS THEY'RE SEGREGATED ORGANIZATIONALLY FROM THE STRUCTURE OF THE ORGANIZATION, BUT BECAUSE IF WE REACH OUT TO OUR HEADSTART FOLKS, THEY'RE GOING TO JUST BE LIKE.

>> WE KNOW NOTHING.

>>THEY DO THIS.

>> BUT I DO SAY THAT I WILL TELL YOU THIS.

LIKE I SAID, FROM A 30,000 FOOT VIEW, LOCAL SUPPORT, I APPRECIATE THAT, REACHING OUT, ASKING, MR. PORTER, YOU REACHED OUT AND ASKED SOME QUESTIONS.

I APPRECIATE THAT. YOUR SUPPORTS APPRECIATED, AND WE KNOW THAT IT'S A VALUABLE SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY, AND WE'D LIKE TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO DO IT IF WE CAN DO IT.

BUT IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO REQUIRE REVENUE, AND THEN HOW DO YOU GAIN THAT REVENUE IF YOU CAN'T GET IT FROM GRANTS AND WHAT'S YOUR OTHER MEANS.

BUT I WILL TELL YOU, THOUGH, WE HAVE A MEETING WITH LICENSING TO BETTER UNDERSTAND WHAT'S REQUIRED.

ONE OF THE BENEFITS OF THIS COULD BE POTENTIALLY FROM A COST PERSPECTIVE.

AUSTIN HEADSTART HAS A WHOLE LOT OF RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT COST MONEY, WHICH WE WOULD NO LONGER BE SUBJECT TO.

PATTY CENTERS HAVE VERY LITTLE REGULATION AS WELL, NOT THAT WE WANT TO GO ALL CRAZY OFF, BUT WE COULD MAYBE STRUCTURE SOMETHING THAT WORKED THAT PROVIDED SERVICE.

THE IDEA OF THE PATTY CENTER BASED ON WHAT I UNDERSTAND IT IS TO HELP THE FAMILY AS A WHOLE.

[00:50:03]

THE FAMILY COULD COME ON SITE, MAYBE DO RESUME BUILDING, LOOK FOR JOBS, SET UP A WORK CENTER FOR THE MOTHER OR THE FATHER.

THEN WE WOULD LOOK AFTER THE CHILDREN FOR THAT PERIOD OF TIME.

THAT'S LIKE THE CONSTRUCT OF IT.

>> [INAUDIBLE] .

>> IT'S STILL HOLISTIC AND HELPING.

IT'S JUST A MATTER OF THE FEASIBILITY OF IT ECONOMICALLY.

>> THE JUDY CENTER, I'M FAMILIAR, VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE ONE IN GREENSBORO.

YOU HAVE SPACE THERE TO INCORPORATE THE PATTY.

>> WE DON'T HAVE SPACE THERE, BUT IN OUR CLASSROOMS, WE HAVE TWO CLASSROOM ROOMS RIGHT NOW FUNCTIONING IN AN EMPTY CLASSROOM. THAT'S WHERE WE DID.

WE HAVE AN EMPTY CLASSROOM IN FEDERAL HBURG, EMPTY CLASSROOM IN GREENSBORO THAT WE CAN UTILIZE.

IN FEDERALSBURG, WE'RE GOING TO MEET WITH HEATHER HARDING IN FEDERALSBURG, TO GET AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE PATTY CENTER REALLY IS.

SHE HAS A BETTER UNDERSTAND.

I ASKED HER EMAILED HER AND JUST SAID, HEY, CAN YOU GIVE SOME INSIGHT INTO THIS SO THAT WE UNDERSTAND BETTER WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.

WE HAVE THE RESOURCES IN TERMS OF WE HAVE COMPUTERS AND WE CAN SET UP WE HAVE PLENTY OF DESKS AND WE COULD SET SOMETHING UP TO HELP FOLKS.

WE HAVE INTERNET OBVIOUSLY, AND SO I'M NOT SURE ABOUT IF IT'S LIKE GED OR I KNOW WE WERE DOING ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE TYPE OF CLASSES THROUGH WAS A CHESAPEAKE COLLEGE.

BUT YOU KNOW MY THOUGHT IS IS THAT EVEN IF IT'S JUST HOW TO WRITE A COVER LETTER, HOW TO, YOU KNOW, APPLY FOR A ROLE, HOW TO GET ON LINKED IN, THINGS LIKE THAT, WE COULD PROVIDE THOSE SERVICES JUST TO HELP THE PARENTS LESS JUST FIGURE OUT A WAY FORWARD TO TRY AND REENGAGE THE COMMUNITY.

>> ULTIMATELY, TO BE CLEAR THAT EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THAT HEADSTART STILL FUNCTIONING AND WE'RE IN A GOOD SITUATION THERE.

IT'S JUST A MATTER OF FIGURING OUT THE YOUNGER KIDS.

FUTURE STATE WE COULD ASK TO CHANGE OUR SLOTS TO EARLY HEAD START SLOTS.

WE COULD TAKE OUR EXISTING SLOTS AND THEN AT SOME POINT DOWN THE LINE, ASKED TO CONVERT THEM TO EARLY HEADSTART.

IF THE MODEL GROWS WITH THE COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM, MAYBE THAT'S AN AVENUE THAT WE EXPLORE AS WELL.

BUT THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY WAY TO PROVIDE IT UNTIL THERE'S EXPANSION THROUGH HEADSTART.

>> THE OTHER THING THAT WE ARE WORKING WITH, WE WORK VERY WELL WITH THE SCHOOL SYSTEM, BUT WITH MSDE, WE HAVE FOUR BLUEPRINT CLASSROOMS. WE'RE THAT PRIVATE PIECE.

WE HAD ONE CLASSROOM IN, CAROLINE LAST YEAR, BUT IT'S NOW MOVED UP TO ABERDEEN JUST BECAUSE IT'S STAFFING DYNAMICS.

BUT WE PLAN TO GROW THAT ASPECT AS WELL.

THAT WOULD OPEN AT LEAST MORE 3-YEAR-OLD CLASSROOMS AS THE BIRTH THE 3-5 MODEL GROWS WITH THE SCHOOL SYSTEM AS WELL.

THEY'VE BEEN GREAT PARTNERS.

>> WELL, SEND US THE LETTER TO THE CONGRESSMAN HARRIS' OFFICE WROTE.

IF YOU CAN GET IT TO JEN AS WELL, JEN, CAN YOU SEND THAT TO BOTH SENATORS REPRESENTATIVES AS WELL.

KIM AND ALISSA?

>> IS ALISSA.

>> SORRY.

>> SO THAT THE SENATORS OFFICES BOTH KNOW ABOUT THAT AS WELL.

IF YOU NEED US TO DO ANYTHING, YOU JUST.

>> WE'LL BE MEETING WITH CONGRESSMAN HARRIS HERE SOON.

WE'LL STAY ON TOP OF HIS GUYS, MIKE DETMER AND KEITH GRAPHS TO GET A RESPONSE.

>> APPRECIATE IT.

>> I WOULDN'T IMAGINE THAT CONGRESSMAN WOULD WAIT TOO LONG TO GET A RESPONSE, BUT WE'LL PUSH.

>> ANYTHING ELSE. LET US KNOW. THANK YOU.

>> APPRECIATE IT.

[Legislative Session: First Reading & Introduction]

>> WE HAVE A LEGISLATIVE SESSION NEXT. YOU GUYS GOOD.

KEEP GOING. MOTION TO MOVE IN LEGISLATIVE SESSION?

>> SO MOVED.

>> MOTION, SECOND, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE.

>> ALL THOSE OPPOSED. THE AYES HAVE IT.

>> MR. BARTZ.

>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. WE'RE HERE FOR THE THIRD READING WITH THE POTENTIAL TO ENACT OR AMEND LEGISLATIVE BILL NUMBER 2020 5-009 CHAPTER 18 COMMISSIONERS.

THIS IS AN ACT TO CREATE THE CAROLINE COUNTY COMPENSATION REVIEW COMMISSION.

THIS BILL WAS INTRODUCED ON SEPTEMBER 9.

WE HAD THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING ON THE 16TH, AND THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY TO COMPLETE THE PROCESS.

THIS IS AN ACT TO REPEAL AND REENACT WITH AMENDMENTS, SECTION 18-5 COMPENSATION OF CHAPTER 18 COMMISSIONERS FOR

[00:55:03]

THE PURPOSE OF CONFIRMING THE CURRENT RATES OF COMPENSATION AND ALLOWANCES FOR THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CAROLINE COUNTY AND ESTABLISHING A COMPENSATION REVIEW COMMISSION TO UNDERTAKE A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE RATE OF CURRENT COMPENSATION AND ALLOWANCES FOR THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION AND ALLOWANCES IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE AND LOCAL LAWS.

PROVIDING FOR THE STAFFING, POWERS, DUTIES, AND APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE COMPENSATION REVIEW COMMISSION, AND GENERALLY RELATING TO COMMISSIONER COMPENSATION AND THE COMPENSATION REVIEW COMMISSION, AND PROVIDING THAT THIS TITLE BE DEEMED A FAIR SUMMARY OF THIS PUBLIC LOCAL LAW FOR ALL PURPOSES.

I DO NOT BELIEVE THERE HAS BEEN ANY PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED ON THIS BILL.

>> WE CAN WAIT TILL JEN GETS BACK.

DID YOU HAVE ANY CONCERNS, COMMENTS? NO.

WELL, THIS LEGISLATION WOULD GO INTO EFFECT 45 DAYS FROM TODAY, CORRECT?

>> THAT IS CORRECT. THAT WOULD BE SATURDAY, NOVEMBER THE 8TH.

>> THE COMMITTEE HAS TO REPORT BACK BY DECEMBER 15? I BELIEVE. IT WAS IN THE LEGISLATION.

>> THE IDEA IS THAT THEY WOULD STUDY COMPENSATION FROM OTHER JURISDICTIONS.

THEY WOULD ALSO TRY TO GET A FEEL FOR THE TIME THAT YOU ALL INVEST IN BEING GOOD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE CONSTITUENT SERVICES, THE MEETINGS YOU HAVE TO ATTEND, THE CONFERENCES, THE PUBLIC EVENTS, THAT SORT OF THING.

I THINK THE INTENT IS NOT TO DO WHAT THEY DO IN SOME OF THE WESTERN SHORE COUNTIES WHERE THESE ARE CONSIDERED FULL TIME.

IT'S THE ONLY JOB THAT YOU HAVE.

YOU GET ELECTED TO OFFICE.

YOU DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER OCCUPATION. WE'RE NOT THAT WAY.

>> WELL, I WOULD WITH NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ENACT LEGISLATIVE BILL 2025-009.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> MOTION AND SECOND.

>> ALL THOSE OPPOSED. THE AYES HAVE IT.

I'LL CHECK WITH JEN TO MAKE TO SEE IF WE HAD ANY COMMENT HERE, BUT WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT LEGISLATIVE BILL.

>> VERY GOOD. WE'RE HERE FOR THE INTRODUCTION AND THE FIRST READING OF LEGISLATIVE BILL NUMBER 2025 010, CHAPTER 149 RIGHT TO FARM, AND ACT TO AMEND SUBSECTION B OF SECTION 149-4, WHICH IS ENTITLED CREATION OF CAROLINE COUNTY AGRICULTURAL RECONCILIATION COMMITTEE TO MODIFY THE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE.

A FAIR SUMMARY OF THE ACT IS THAT THIS IS AN ACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF REPEALING SUBSECTION B OF SECTION 149-4 OF CHAPTER 149 RIGHT TO FARM OF THE CODE OF PUBLIC LOCAL LAWS OF CAROLINE COUNTY, MARYLAND, AND REENACTING THE SAME WITH AMENDMENTS TO MODIFY THE REQUIRED COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE BY DELETING THE REQUIREMENTS THAT TWO MEMBERS BE FROM THE AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITY.

AT LEAST ONE MEMBER BE FROM A MUNICIPALITY, AT LEAST ONE MEMBER BE FROM THE CAROLINE COUNTY BOARD OF REALTORS, AND ONE OTHER MEMBER FROM THE COMMUNITY NOT ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN AGRICULTURE.

ADDING THE REQUIREMENT THAT ALL MEMBERS MUST BE RESIDENTS AND CITIZENS OF CAROLINE COUNTY, AND PROVIDING THAT THIS TITLE BE DEEMED A FAIR SUMMARY OF THIS PUBLIC LOCAL LAW FOR ALL PURPOSES.

THE NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING WOULD BE ADVERTISED IN THE STAR DEMOCRAT ON SATURDAY, OCTOBER 4.

THE SECOND READING AND THE PUBLIC HEARING IS TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR TUESDAY, OCTOBER 7.

THE THIRD READING WITH THE POTENTIAL TO AMEND OR ENACT WOULD BE ON 14 OCTOBER.

THE EFFECTIVE DATE IS ANTICIPATED TO BE SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 29.

>> THIS BOARD HAS NOT BEEN CONVENED IN YEARS, PROBABLY WHAT, S TO SAY FIVE YEARS, KATHLEEN.

SINCE THIS BOARD HAS BEEN CONVENED LAST FIVE OR SIX YEARS.

>> MORE THAN THAT.

>> LONGER.

>> JUST TRYING TO THINK PROBABLY TEN YEARS.

[01:00:04]

>> THIS CONVERSATION WAS SPURRED ON DUE TO A COMPLAINT WITH IRRIGATION, SPRAYING ON COUNTY ROADS AND POTENTIALLY OTHER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY.

WE STARTED TO INVESTIGATE THE MAKEUP OR CONSTITUTION OF THE BOARD THAT WOULD ADDRESS THOSE TYPES OF COMPLAINTS, AND WE DECIDED THAT IT WOULD BE MUCH EASIER AND CLEANER IF THE COMMISSIONERS DID NOT HAVE STIPULATIONS TIED TO WHO COULD BE APPOINTED THAT WE COULD JUST PICK FIVE OF THE BEST PEOPLE THAT WE THOUGHT WERE WILLING TO VOLUNTEER TO BE ON THE BOARD, THAT THAT WAS THE BEST ROUTE.

THIS IS JUST CLEANING UP THAT LANGUAGE AND GIVING THE COMMISSIONERS MORE FLEXIBILITY TO APPOINT VOLUNTEERS.

>> I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. SECTION 2B1 ON PAGE 3, NUMBER 2 SAYS, HAVE DEMONSTRATED QUALIFICATIONS IN AGRICULTURE, BUSINESS OR A PROFESSIONAL FIELD.

I'M ASSUMING THAT WE'RE GOING TO SAY AN AGRICULTURAL BUSINESS? THAT BUSINESS WOULD BE OR PROFESSIONAL FIELD WOULD BE RELATED TO AGRICULTURE, CORRECT?

>> I WAS THINKING PROFESSIONAL FIELD WAS A LITTLE WIDER THAN THAT.

PROFESSIONAL FIELD BEING IT COULD BE A PHYSICIAN.

IT COULD BE AN ACCOUNTANT, PERHAPS A LAWYER.

THAT'S WHAT I ENVISIONED WITH THAT.

THIS IS JUST SUGGESTED LANGUAGE, RIGHT.

CERTAINLY CAN BE MODIFIED IN ANY WAY YOU WISH TO.

>> I MAY HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THAT.

BECAUSE I THINK WE WANTED TO GEAR THIS TOWARD AGRICULTURE, SO I'LL THINK ABOUT THAT. THANK YOU.

>> DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING MR. BROOKS?

>> I WOULD THEN MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE OFFICIAL INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATIVE BILL 2025-010 AND PROCEED WITH THE PROPOSED SCHEDULE LEGISLATIVE CALENDAR.

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

>> ALL THOSE OPPOSED. YOU GUYS HAVE IT.

JEN, JUMPING BACK, DID WE RECEIVE ANY COMMENT ON THE CAROLINE COUNTY COMPENSATION REVIEW COMMISSION?

>> NEXT, WE HAVE THE INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING OF LEGISLATIVE BILL NUMBER 2025-011 , CHAPTER 166 TAXATION.

>> NO COMMENT.

ENACTMENT OF NEW ARTICLE 6, ENTITLED AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION FUND, AND NEW SECTION 166 DAY SEVEN, CREATION OF AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION FUND FOR CAROLINE COUNTY.

IT'S AN ARTICLE WITH A NEW SECTION 100.

SUMMARY OF THIS IS, IT IS AN ACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CREATING A FUND TO RECEIVE PAYMENTS OF COMPENSATORY PRESERVATION CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE COUNTY, WHEN SOLAR ENERGY GENERATING STATIONS AND ENERGY STORAGE DEVICES ARE DEVELOPED ON AGRICULTURAL LAND, WHICH IS CLASSIFIED BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AS EITHER PRIME FARMLAND, SOIL WITH THE HIGHEST PRODUCTIVITY FOR PRODUCING FOOD CROPS, AND THUS OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE FOR PRESERVATION AS FARMLAND, OR FARMLAND OF STATEWIDE IMPORTANCE, THE SECOND HIGHEST LEVEL OF PRODUCTIVITY, SOIL, WHICH IS OF STATEWIDE IMPORTANCE FOR FOOD PRODUCTION.

TO PROVIDE THAT MONEY IN THE AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION FUND MAY ONLY BE USED FOR THE PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS ON AGRICULTURAL LAND IN CAROLINE COUNTY THROUGH THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION EASEMENTS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THOSE ACQUIRED BY THE MARYLAND AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION.

PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF TITLE 2, SUBTITLE 5, OF THE AGRICULTURE ARTICLE 0F THE ANNOTATED CODE OF MARYLAND, AND THAT ALL MONEY IN THE AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION FUND MAY ONLY BE USED WITH THE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CAROLINE COUNTY.

THIS IS SCHEDULED FOR A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO BE ADVERTISED IN THE STAR DEMOCRAT ON SATURDAY, OCTOBER 4,

[01:05:02]

WITH A SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 7, WITH A THIRD READING AND THE POTENTIAL TO ENACT OR AMEND IT ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14.

IT'S ANTICIPATED EFFECTIVE DATE WOULD BE SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 29.

IF I MAY, THE BACKGROUND OF THIS IS THAT WE ARE IN THE COURSE OF DRAFTING A NEW SOLAR ORDINANCE, WHICH WE'RE GOING TO BE WORK-SHOPPING TODAY.

A COMPONENT OF THAT PROPOSED ORDINANCE IS THE IMPOSITION OF A AGRICULTURAL BASICALLY, A COMPENSATION CONTRIBUTION TO THE COUNTY TO OFFSET THE LOSS OF THIS HIGHLY PRODUCTIVE FARMLAND AND TO PROVIDE A FUND FOR THE COUNTY TO ACQUIRE EASEMENTS OVER AGRICULTURAL LAND IN CAROLINE COUNTY TO HELP PROTECT WHAT WE HAVE.

SINCE THIS IS A TAXATION, MATTER BECAUSE OF THE FUND BEING CREATED, IT IS NOT GOING TO BE IN THE SOLAR BILL ITSELF BECAUSE OF THE ONE SUBJECT RULE IN DRAFTING ORDINANCES, YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE LIKE THREE OR FOUR OR FIVE DIFFERENT SUBJECTS IN ONE ORDINANCE BECAUSE THE PUBLIC LOSES TRACK OF WHAT ACTUALLY IS GOING ON HERE.

IT'S CALLED THE SINGLE SUBJECT RULE.

THAT'S WHY THIS IS A STANDALONE BILL AND NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE SOLAR ORDINANCE.

>> THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE, DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO PUT IT IN THE TAXATION SECTION? BE BECAUSE IT IS A I GUESS AN IMPACT, IT'S LIKE AN IMPACT FEE.

WHERE IS THE IMPACT FEE FOR DEVELOPMENT RIGHT NOW? IS IT IN OUR TAXATION SECTION? IT IS NOT.

>> THE TAXATION SECTION OF THE CODE ONLY CONSISTS OF REAL BUSINESS, HOTEL, I'M GOING TO SAY, TRUE TAXES.

WHEN WE DID THE DEVELOPMENTAL IMPACT FEE, IT'S ACTUALLY CARVED OUT AND I BELIEVE CHAPTER 17 DEVELOPMENTAL IMPACT FEE.

I JUST WANT TO BRING THE LIGHT THAT.

CAN WE PUT IT THERE?

>> YOU COULD. ACTUALLY, JUST BY WAY BACKGROUND, THIS IS THE EXACT PLACE THIS FUND WAS UNTIL IT WAS ABOLISHED.

>> WHAT YEAR WAS IT ABOLISHED?

>> THE IMPACT FEE WAS TAX.

>> THIS FUND ALWAYS EXISTED RIGHT THERE.

WHERE I'M PUTTING IT NOW.

I THOUGHT THAT WAS A NATURAL.

>> WELL, IT WASN'T EXCISE. IT WAS IT WAS CONSIDERED AN EXCISE TAX AT THAT TIME, AND THEN WE RELABELED IT.

>> EIGHTEEN EXCISE TAX IMPACT FEE.

>> CORRECT.

>> YOU CAN'T MOVE IT.

>> SO I KNOW IT'S KIND OF SEMANTICS.

WE'RE KIND OF IN THE HAIRS.

BUT WHY DID IT GET MOVED? WHAT WAS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR MOVING THE EXCISE TAX TO AN IMPACT FEE? WHY DID WE CHANGE THE NAME AND MOVE IT?

>> I WAS NOT PART OF THE CONVERSATION BACK IN 2018 ON THAT.

IT ENDED UP TURNING INTO A FLAT FEE.

>> THE EXCISE TAX WAS CHARGED IF YOU HAD A PIECE OF PROPERTY AND YOU DIVIDED IT INTO BUILDING LOTS.

THERE WAS AN EXCISE TAX, I THINK IT WAS $5,000.

>> FOR CREATION OF A NEW LOT?

>> THE PROBLEM WITH THAT WAS THAT FOR EXAMPLE, IN A TOWN, YOU COULD HAVE ONE PARCEL THAT COULD BE NOT SUBDIVIDED, BUT COULD BE DEVELOPED INTO 100 APARTMENTS.

YOU WOULDN'T RECEIVE ANY FROM THERE.

WE WENT TO THE PER-UNIT IMPACT FEE AND THAT MONEY GOES TOWARD SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION.

I THINK WE PUT SOME EXCEPTIONS IN THERE SO THAT IF IT WAS A FARM WHERE A PARCEL WAS GIVEN DIRECT TO A SON OR DAUGHTER, BUT IT WAS TO CLARIFY GETTING THE MONEY TO PUT TOWARD THE SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION FUND FOR PROPERTIES THAT WERE GENERATED MORE STUDENTS?

>> IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE STATE PLAYS A ROLE.

THIS IS OFF OF MY RECOLLECTION OF WHEN WE DID IT, SO IT'S BEEN A WHILE, BUT EXCISE TAX VERSUS IMPACT FEES, AND I THINK WE HAVE TO HAVE ONE OR THE OTHER, WE CAN'T HAVE BOTH.

BUT THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT IMPACT FEES CAN BE USED

[01:10:02]

FOR BY STATE REGULATIONS AND SOME THINGS THAT THEY CAN'T BE USED FOR.

ALL OF THAT PLAYED A ROLE INTO WHY THE COUNTY WENT FROM EXCISE TAX TO IMPACT FEES, AND DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS HAVE ONE OR THE OTHER, BUT YOU CAN'T HAVE BOTH.

THAT'S MY MEMORY FROM THAT CONVERSATION.

[NOISE] IF YOU WANT TO PUT IT IN THE IMPACT FEE SECTION, IT MIGHT BE SOMETHING WE NEED TO LOOK INTO AND MAKE SURE THAT THIS FALLS UNDER SOMETHING THAT'S ALLOWABLE FOR AN IMPACT FEE. I DON'T KNOW.

>> CORRECT. WHEN THIS FIRST CAME UP, I THINK THAT WAS A GENERAL QUESTION I HAD WAS WHETHER THIS WAS GOING TO BE CONSIDERED AN IMPACT FEE.

I THINK THE TITLE NOW IS THE COMPENSATORY PRESERVATION.

>> CONTRIBUTION.

>> CONTRIBUTION. THANK YOU.

AGAIN, A LITTLE BIT OF SEMANTICS OF WORDING, BUT THE IMPACT FEES ARE VERY NARROW OF WHAT THE STATE ALLOWS US TO HAVE.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I PERSONALLY DON'T THINK IT'S A TAX, I THINK NEEDS TO FIND A HOME ELSEWHERE, BUT WHETHER IT'S CONSIDERED AN IMPACT FEE IS STILL A QUESTION.

I DO WANT TO CALL OUT AND JUST BRING UP.

WE DO HAVE CURRENTLY CHAPTER 74, WHICH IS TITLED AGLAND PRESERVATION.

WE DO HAVE AN EXISTING CHAPTER IN THE CODE TITLED AGLAND PRESERVATION THAT OUTLINES WHAT WE CONSIDER PRESERVATION, AND OUTLINES DISTRICTS, DIFFERENT THINGS.

WITH ALL OF THIS INCLUDING, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT HAVING CONFLICTING SECTIONS AS WELL AS WE CURRENTLY HAVE AN AGLAND PRESERVATION FUNDS THAT WE AUDIT AND HAVE ON THE BOOKS EVERY YEAR AS A FUND 23.

>> THAT IS SUPPLEMENTAL TO THE STATE [OVERLAPPING] PROGRAM.

>> YES. COMMISSIONER PORTER WOULD REMEMBER THE $20,000 THAT THE BOARD HAD PUT TOGETHER INTO THAT FUND FOR MANY YEARS IS EXISTING CURRENTLY.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT CREATING SOME DIFFERENT PIECES THAT AREN'T ALL TIED TOGETHER.

I CAN CERTAINLY ASSIST IN DOING ANY RESEARCH ABOUT THE IMPACT FEES AND WHETHER IT SHOULD GO UNDER THERE, WHETHER IT SHOULD HAVE ITS OWN CHAPTER AND BE TIED INTO SOMETHING 274.

BUT THAT WAS A COUPLE OF THOUGHTS THAT I HAD WHEN I READ THROUGH THIS THIS MORNING.

>> WELL, THE QUESTION I THINK THAT I HAVE IS, AGAIN, ARE WE GOING TO USE THIS TO SUPPLEMENT THE MOUTH PROGRAM, WHICH IS SUSPENDED AT THIS POINT, OR WILL BE, OR DO WE USE THIS AS OUR OWN STANDALONE PROGRAM?

>> WELL, THIS WORDING ALLOWS BOTH EITHER OR.

>> IT DOES?

>> CORRECT. SECTION B ESSENTIALLY CALLS OUT THE FUND AND THAT THE COUNTY MAY ONLY USE THIS MONEY TO PURCHASE DEVELOPMENTAL RIGHTS, AND THEN IT NAMES THE MOUTH PROGRAM OR ANY OTHER PROGRAM THAT THE COUNTY MAY WANT TO.

>> BECAUSE WE'RE USING THE MOUTH PROGRAM ALSO TO ESTABLISH [OVERLAPPING] IN THE PROPOSED.

>> I THINK THERE'S BEEN SOME SECOND THOUGHTS ON THAT WITH TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, I BELIEVE CRYSTAL HAS ACTUALLY TALKED TO NDA ON THIS, AND IT SEEMS LIKE THAT MAY BE A TROUBLESOME PROCESS TO TRY TO GO THROUGH AND FIGURE OUT WHAT ACTUAL VALUES ARE ASSOCIATED WITH CERTAIN FARMS. AS A GROUP, WE'VE DISCUSSED THAT OFFLINE A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT MAY BE THE EASIEST WAY.

I ULTIMATELY DON'T THINK WE'VE LANDED ON ANYTHING.

>> LET'S DO THIS FOR THIS THEN WE'LL MOVE FORWARD WITH THE INTRODUCTION.

CAN WE CHANGE THE LOCATION AFTER THIS INTRODUCTION? COULD BE AS SIMPLE AS CHANGING THE CHAPTER NUMBER.

I FEEL LIKE IT SHOULD PROBABLY GO IN THE AGLAND PRESERVATION CHAPTER THEN BECAUSE THE IMPACT FEE KATHLEEN BROUGHT UP SOME PRETTY GOOD POINTS THERE.

WE MAY BE RESTRICTING THAT BECAUSE IT'S FOR SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION [OVERLAPPING] EMERGENCY SERVICES LIKE CERTAIN THINGS.

TO KEEP IT CLEAN, MY ONLY CONCERN WITH MOVING IT THERE OUT OF TAXATION IS THIS COULD POTENTIALLY BE TARGETED BY THE LEGISLATURE DOWN THE ROAD.

THE LOCATION IN OUR CHAPTER DOESN'T MAKE IT ANY EASIER.

THEY WANT TO COME IN AND PREEMPT OUR ABILITY TO DO THIS, IT DOESN'T MATTER IF WE'RE CALLING IT A TAX OR A FEE.

>> IT WON'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE.

>> WHERE IT'S LOCATED. THAT'S MY ONLY CONCERN.

I WOULD SAY WE LOOK AT WHAT YOU SAID WAS CHAPTER 74?

[01:15:04]

>> 74.

>> YEAH. I THINK IT'S 74, I NOTED [OVERLAPPING].

>> YOU WOULD HAVE TO CREATE A NEW ARTICLE, HOWEVER MANY ARTICLES, YOU WOULD JUST HAVE TO ADD ANOTHER ARTICLE FOR THIS INSIDE OF THAT CHAPTER.

>> YES. I DON'T KNOW WHEN THE LAST TIME 74 HAS REALLY BEEN LOOKED AT.

IT LOOKS LIKE IT WAS ADOPTED IN 1980.

SOME OF THE LANGUAGE IN THERE MAY ALSO BE AGED.

>> I CAN TRY CLEAN IT UP.

>> CLEANING THAT UP AND PUTTING IT IN ONE SEPARATE CHAPTER FUNCTION MAKES A LITTLE MORE SENSE.

>> PUTTING IT IN THAT CHAPTER, WOULD THAT RESTRICT THIS MONEY TO ONLY BE ABLE TO BE USED THROUGH THE MOUTH PROGRAM, OR WOULD WE STILL HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO CREATE OUR OWN PROGRAM?

>> STILL HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY.

>> I THINK AS LONG AS YOU'RE USING LANGUAGE THAT STILL PRESENTED HERE, YOU WOULD HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY.

>> WOULD YOU CALL IT MOUTH OR CAROLINA COUNTY AGRICULTURE PRESERVATION FUND?

>> WE CURRENTLY LABEL IT JUST AS AGLAND PRESERVATION AS A BROAD SCOPE.

THEN INSIDE OF THAT, YOU'RE ALLOWED THE AUTHORITY TO PIECE TO THE DIFFERENT ONES.

>> I JUST WANTED TO GO INTO THE SAFEST PLACE.

>> YEAH. I AGREE.

>> I AGREE. I HAVE A FEELING THAT SOMEONE'S GOING TO COME BACK AND SAY, YOU CAN'T DO THIS.

>> WE'RE GOING TO DO IT.

>> I THINK DEFINITELY IT SHOULDN'T GO IN IMPACT FEE SECTION BECAUSE THIS IS IN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ARTICLE.

THE IMPACT FEES ARE SET TO FINANCE ANY OF THE CAPITAL COSTS OF ADDITIONAL OR EXPANDED PUBLIC WORKS.

IMPROVEMENTS AND FACILITIES REQUIRED TO ACCOMMODATE NEW CONSTRUCTION OR DEVELOPMENT, SO I DON'T THINK THIS FALLS INTO THAT CATEGORY.

>> NO. THIS IS PRESERVATION. THIS IS PREVENTING THIS.

[LAUGHTER] [OVERLAPPING] THIS IS THE OPPOSITE OF THAT.

>> GOOD WAY TO SAY.

>> THEN I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE INTRODUCTION, MOVE FORWARD WITH THE SCHEDULED AND THE LEGISLATIVE CALENDAR.

KNOWING THAT, WE'RE GOING TO INVESTIGATE MOVING IT TO CHAPTER 74 SO THE NEXT TIME WE MAY SEE THIS, IT COULD BE GOING TO CHAPTER 74 AND HAVE A DIFFERENT ARTICLE NUMBER.

BUT WE GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> MOTION AND SECOND.

>> AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE.

>> LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS HERE, AND THEN WE WILL DO THE WORKSHOP FOR THE CAROLINE COUNTY SOLAR ENERGY BILL.

DID YOU SHUT IT ALL?

>> IT'S OKAY. WE'RE BACK.

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

>> ALL THOSE OPPOSED. THE AYES HAVE IT.

NOW, WE'LL TAKE A RECESS. SORRY.

[01:26:23]

>> I'LL CALL THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER AND MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM,

[01:26:28]

WHICH IS CRYSTAL DADDS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & CODES, WITH A WORKSHOP FOR THE CAROLINE COUNTY SOLAR ENERGY BILL.

WE ALSO HAVE ADAM SMITH FROM FIRST STATE INSPECTION WITH A DISCUSSION OF NFPA 855 STANDARD FOR ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS. I GUESS WE COULD START THERE WITH OUR INCLUSION OF NFPA 855 IN ANY POTENTIAL SOLAR ENERGY BILL LEGISLATION THAT WE MAY HAVE OR THAT WE MAY PASS.

ADAM, DID YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT STANDARD? DID YOU DO THE INSPECTION ON THE ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM DOWN IN RELIANCE?

>> NO, I DID NOT. THAT IS THE ONLY ONE THAT I KNOW OF.

IT IS RIGHT AT THE END OF THE ROAD, THERE ON THE LEFT.

>> VERY CLOSE TO THE DELAWARE LINE.

>> FIRST STATE AGENCY DID.

>> I PERSONALLY DID NOT DID NOT.

INSPECTION, MY COMPANY DID, YES.

>> I GUESS I'M THE CULPRIT HERE ON THIS THING.

ADAM, LET ME JUST WITHOUT GOING THROUGH A WHOLE LOT OF DETAILS HERE.

WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS SINCE 2017, AND THE CONCERN HERE IS THAT THE DANGER THAT THE BATTERY STORAGE COMPONENTS, BOTH AS ACCESSORIES TO THE SOLAR FARMS AND AS STAND ALONE.

WE'VE HEARD ALL ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE HERE ABOUT, IF THEY MALFUNCTION OR CATCH ON FIRE, WHAT DO YOU DO? DO FIRST RESPONDERS RESPOND TO IT? IF THEY DO, HOW DO THEY PUT THEM OUT? WE WERE TOLD AT ONE POINT THAT THE NFPA 855 CODE WAS GOING TO BE REVISED, WHICH WOULD INVOLVE REQUIREMENT OF SELF CONTAINED FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS. THAT WAS GOING TO BE DONE BY THE MARYLAND STATE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE OR THE [INAUDIBLE] OR SOMEONE.

THEN WE HAD KEN BUSH COME BACK IN AND SAY, NO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT BECAUSE THE NEW ADMINISTRATION HAS PULLED IT AND HAS SAID WE'RE NOT GOING TO.

NOW, I THINK WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE HAVE BEEN SOME REVISIONS TO IT, BUT NO ONE REALLY COULD UNDERSTAND WHAT IT MEANT BECAUSE SOME CODE REFERRED TO ANOTHER CODE.

MY QUESTION IS, WHAT DOES THE CODE CURRENTLY SAY? AND HOW SHOULD WE IMPLEMENT THAT INTO THIS PROPOSED CODE THAT WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO IMPLEMENT?

>> THIS IS A FAIRLY NEW DOCUMENT, CONSIDERING THE LIFE OF NFPA.

THE FIRST EDITION, I THINK WAS ACTUALLY THE 2020 EDITION.

[01:30:02]

THIS IS THE SECOND EDITION.

THEIR FINAL DRAFTING OF THE '26 IS GOING TO BE AVAILABLE HERE AT THE END OF THE YEAR? THIS CURRENT EDITION HAS A LOT OF STANDARDS, LIKE YOU SAY, THEY REFER TO OTHER DOCUMENTS, WHETHER IN NFPA ECOSYSTEM OR OTHER DOCUMENTS THAT EXIST.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THIS DOCUMENT DOES IS IT DOES REFERENCE SPRINKLER.

NFPA 13 SAYS THAT SPRINKLER SYSTEMS SHALL BE PROVIDED BASED ON SIZE, LOCATION, WHETHER IT'S IN A BUILDING, OUTSIDE OF A BUILDING, THOSE TYPE OF THINGS.

THERE ARE SOME POSITIVE ENFORCEMENT LANGUAGE IN THERE.

BUT THEN THEY ALSO LEAVE IT OPENED UP TO FUTURE WHERE THEY SAY ANY OTHER UL LISTED, I THINK IT'S 9450 OR SOMETHING, TYPE OF FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM COULD ALSO BE ACCEPTABLE.

LIKE MOST OF THE NFPA DOCUMENTS, THEY GIVE THEMSELVES THAT OPEN ENDED FOR FUTURE DISCUSSIONS.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS CURRENTLY DEALING WITH, I THINK IN A LOT OF PLACES IN THE COUNTRY IS THAT THEY'RE REALIZING THAT SELF CONTAINED, LIKE THE ONE IN RELIANCE, IT'S BASICALLY C CONTAINERS, THAT HAVING A SPRINKLER SYSTEM INSIDE THERE IS NOT THE BEST IDEA BECAUSE YOU HAVE ONE BATTERY THAT FAILS, AND THEN SPRINKLER COMES ON, AND IT ACTUALLY CREATES A SITUATION WHERE IT MAKES THE OTHER BATTERIES FAIL BECAUSE NOW THEY'VE GOT MOISTURE IN THEM.

THERE'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE CASE STUDIES THAT ARE GOING TO CHANGE, BUT RIGHT NOW, THIS DOCUMENT HAS GIVEN US THE ABILITY TO REQUIRE A LOT OF INFORMATION AT THE TIME OF PERMIT, HAZARD MITIGATION ANALYSIS, SOME TYPE OF APPROVAL REGARDING THE SPRINKLER OR SOME TYPE OF OTHER APPROVED FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM FROM, IN OUR CASE, IT WOULD BE THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL OFFICE BECAUSE THAT'S WHO WE RELY ON HERE IN THE COUNTY FOR FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM APPROVALS.

I GUESS TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, YES.

THIS DOCUMENT HAS A LOT OF REQUIREMENTS FOR INFORMATION DURING THE PERMITTING PROCESS THAT HAVE TO DO WITH HOW THE FIRES ARE CONTAINED, DEALT WITH, THE COMMISSIONING OF THEM, THE DECOMMISSIONING AND SO FORTH.

>> IF WE HAVE AN APPLICATION THAT COMES IN AND SOMEONE SAYS, WE WANT TO PUT A BATTERY STORAGE COMPONENT AS AN ACCESSORY DWELLING, AS AN ACCESSORY TO A SOLAR FIELD OR A SELF CONTAINED.

WHAT WOULD YOU AS THE INSPECTION PERSON REQUIRE?

>> IF WE ADOPTED THIS, IF WE DIDN'T, IT MEANS THAT WE DON'T HAVE THIS ADOPTED RIGHT NOW, WHAT I WOULD REQUIRE WOULD BE THE BASIC INFORMATION THAT WE REQUIRE FOR JUST YOUR STANDARD BUILDING PERMITS, WHICH WOULD ALSO INCLUDE, THERE'S OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR FIRE SUPPRESSION FOR THESE TYPE OF SYSTEMS IN NFPA 13.

JUST LIKE A HOUSE OR A COMMERCIAL BUILDING, A STRUCTURE LIKE THIS, THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE SUBMITTALS TO THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE, AND THEN PART OF MY REVIEW WOULD JUST BE TO VERIFY THAT THAT PROCESS BY THE TIME THE PROJECT IS OVER HAS BEEN COMPLETED.

IT'S ONE OF OUR, BASICALLY, CHECKPOINTS IS, IS THERE A FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM THAT'S BEEN INSTALLED PER THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE?

>> WHAT TYPE OF FIRE SUPPRESSION WOULD BE USED? I GUESS THAT'S MY QUESTION BECAUSE I KNOW THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, A CAR, ELECTRIC VEHICLE, I'VE ASKED A NUMBER OF PEOPLE, YOU CAN'T PUT THEM OUT.

I GUESS THIS ALL GOES BACK TO MY POINT OF SAYING, YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE THIS COMPARTMENT AND YOU'RE GOING TO LOAD IT WITH LITHIUM BATTERIES.

HOW DO YOU PUT THEM OUT? YOU CAN HAVE ALL THE CODES YOU WANT, BUT WHAT SYSTEM IS GOING TO EXTINGUISH THE FIRE OR MALFUNCTION OF THOSE BATTERIES CURRENTLY?

>> THIS IS AN OPEN.

GOOGLE, YOUTUBE, THERE'S TONS AND TONS OF VIDEOS OUT THERE TO WATCH, AND THERE IS NO DEFINITIVE ANSWER.

SOME ARE COMPLETELY AGAINST SPRINKLER SYSTEMS BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT ONE RUNAWAY BATTERY COULD TURN INTO ALL OF THEM BEING RUNAWAY BECAUSE NOW THEY GOT WET.

[01:35:02]

THERE'S SOME PROPONENTS OF SPRINKLER SAYING THAT SPRINKLER SHOULDN'T BE PUT DIRECTLY ON THE BATTERIES, BUT SHOULD BE MISTED INTO THE ATMOSPHERE SO THAT THE VAPORS DON'T GET TO IGNITABLE TEMPERATURE.

THERE'S JUST A LOT OF DIFFERENT SCENARIOS.

ONE THING I WAS READING WAS ABOUT THE CITY OF PHOENIX.

THEY ARE COMPLETELY AGAINST SPRINKLERS IN C CONTAINER STYLE SYSTEMS LIKE THAT BECAUSE OF THAT RUNAWAY AND DAMAGE TO THE BATTERIES.

THEIR MORE THOUGHT WAS, WILL MIST IT, KEEP THE AREA WET, KEEP THE MOISTURE LEVEL UP AROUND IT, AND THEN HAVE ENUNCIATOR, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT'S EVIDENTLY NEW TO THIS ADDITION, IS THAT A REMOTE ENUNCIATOR IS REQUIRED TO HAVE TEMPERATURE SENSORS, DIFFERENT TYPES OF GAS DETECTION THAT A FIRE DEPARTMENT CAN LOOK AT REMOTELY AWAY FROM IT.

SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO OPEN THE DOOR BECAUSE I GUESS SOMEBODY.

THEY THOUGHT IT WAS OUT, THEY OPEN THE DOOR.

>> LOOK, I CAN TELL YOU AS NO VOLUNTEER FIREMEN, WE DON'T HAVE THAT EQUIPMENT.

WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT.

THIS ALL FOLDS FILTERS BACK TO WE HAVE A MORATORIUM ON THEM RIGHT NOW.

AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, MORATORIUM STAYS UNTIL SOMEBODY CAN SAY, NO, HERE'S WHAT YOU GOT TO DO TO PUT THESE OUT.

I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT ARIZONA IS DOING OR I DON'T KNOW WHAT CALIFORNIA IS DOING.

I JUST THINK THE FACT THAT YOU SIMPLY CAN SIT HERE AND SAY, WE DON'T KNOW HOW TO DEAL WITH THESE, THEY SHOULD NOT BE HERE.

>> I AGREE. THERE IS NO DEFINITIVE ANSWER FOR ANY ONE SYSTEM.

>> WHEN WE WENT OVER TO TESTIFY AGAINST THE SENATE BILL 931, WHICH WAS THE ENERGY GENERATION BILL, IN THE TWO MINUTES THAT I HAD, ONE OF MY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS WAS, HOW ARE WE GOING TO DEAL WITH THIS? AND THE ANSWER I GOT WAS, IT'S ALL BEING ADDRESSED IN THE NFPA 855.

WELL, IT'S NOT BEING ADDRESSED IN THE NFPA 855.

THAT'S MY PROBLEM, IS THAT FROM 2017 ON, I'VE BEEN TOLD NOT TO USE THE WORD, BUT I'LL SAY WE'VE BEEN MISLED BECAUSE I THINK THEY WANT THESE THINGS TO COME.

THEY WANT THEM TO BE INVOLVED.

THE GREEN ENERGY PEOPLE WANT ALL OF THESE THINGS, BUT THEY DON'T WANT TO HEAR THESE PROBLEMS. THEY DON'T WANT TO HEAR WHAT THE CONCERNS ARE.

AND THE ANSWER ALWAYS IS, WE'RE JUST GOING TO ADDRESS IT.

WELL, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO ADDRESS IT? THAT'S WHY I WANTED YOU HERE TODAY.

>> I AGREE WITH YOU THAT THERE IS NO 100% DEFINITIVE ANSWER THAT A 10 MEGAWATT BATTERY, THIS TYPE OF BATTERY, AND THIS CONTAINER NEEDS X FIRE SUPPRESSION.

I DON'T THINK THEY HAVE THAT. THIS DOCUMENT REQUIRES THE AHJ, WHICH WOULD BE US TO HAVE THEM SUBMIT ALL OF THIS INFORMATION, BUT IT'S VERY VAGUE ON WHO'S PROVIDING THE INFORMATION, WHO'S CREATING THE INFORMATION.

IS IT A FIRE SUPPRESSION GROUP? IS IT THE MANUFACTURER OF THE BATTERY? IT'S STILL VERY VAGUE.

>> AND IF THERE'S NO, HOW DO YOU KNOW, HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THEY'RE USING THE RIGHT ONE?

>> EXACTLY.

>> THAT'S THE PROBLEM. I KNOW EVERYBODY'S TIRED OF HEARING IT, BUT I JUST RECALL IN NUMBER OF YEARS AGO, WE HAD A PERSON FROM THE SOLAR INDUSTRY WHO SAID, IF ONE OF THOSE THINGS CATCHES ON FIRE, YOU BETTER GET PEOPLE OUT OF THERE RIGHT AWAY.

WE DON'T HAVE PLUME DETECTION SYSTEMS. I'M TRYING TO LISTEN, BUT I'M NOT HEARING ANYTHING THAT TELLS ME THAT IF YOU HAVE SOMEONE COME IN AND SAY, WE WANT TO PUT ONE OF THESE SYSTEMS IN, WE WOULD BE DEFINITIVE ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO SAY, OKAY, WELL, THEN HERE'S WHAT KIND OF SYSTEM YOU NEED.

[01:40:01]

I DON'T KNOW WHO'S DETERMINING THAT.

YOU MENTIONED THAT THE FIRST CODE YOU TALKED ABOUT WAS IN THE PROCESS BY THE END OF THIS YEAR.

IS THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING PART?

>> THEY'RE DONE WITH THE THIRD REVISION OF PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF IT.

NFPA, THEY'RE USUALLY DONE BY JULY.

THEN AT THIS POINT, THEY USUALLY HAVE IT READY AND OUT.

IT'S ADOPTED AND THEN PUBLISHED USUALLY BY THE END OF THE YEAR.

LIKE THIS 2023 BOOK WAS OUT AT THE END OF NOVEMBER 2022.

OUR 26TH EDITION OF THIS NFPAS EDITION WILL BE AVAILABLE AT THE END OF THIS YEAR.

I PERSONALLY HAVE NOT LOOKED AT IT AT ALL, THE 2026.

I'VE SPENT SOME TIME IN THE 23.

LIKE A LOT OF CODE BOOKS, THEY HAVE ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS AND THEN REQUIREMENTS FOR PERMITTING.

THAT'S WHAT I'VE FOCUSED MOST OF MY KNOWLEDGE ON THIS BOOK IS, IF SOMEBODY CAME TO US AS A COUNTY AND SAID, WE WANT TO DO THIS, WHAT INFORMATION IS THE MINIMUM REQUIRED BY THIS? BUT THEN WHAT DO WE DO WITH THAT? THIS BOOK DOES NOT.

>> BUT WE WOULD BE RELYING ON THE COMPANY THAT IS GOING TO DO WE WOULD BE RELYING ON THE COMPANY THAT'S GOING TO PROVIDE THESE TO TELL TO TELL US.

>> I DON'T SEE, I DON'T BUY THAT.

>> THE APPROVAL FROM THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE, LIKE WE DO WITH ALL OF THE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS. THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING WE WOULD BE LOOKING FOR.

THEY WOULD HAVE TO SUBMIT, JUST LIKE FOR THIS BUILDING, THEY SUBMIT A FIRE SUPPRESSION PLAN.

FIRE MARSHAL LOOKS AT IT TO MAKE SURE IT'S THE RIGHT GUIDANCE SUBMITTED, AND SO FORTH.

BUT AGAIN, WHO'S THE EXPERT?

>> WHO'S THE EXPERT IN THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL?

>> WHO'S THE EXPERT? IT'S AN EVOLVING THING.

THIS IS CERTAINLY A LIVING DOCUMENT THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE MANY TIMES.

BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, THERE'S NO DEFINITIVE IN ANY OF THE NFPA.

>> I UNDERSTAND THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE EMERGENCY NUMBERS.

THAT IS ALL STANDARD PROCEDURE, BUT WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO IT, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYBODY AT THE STATE FIRE MERCHANT'S OFFICE WHO'S AN EXPERT AT THIS.

I DON'T KNOW WHO'S GOING TO MAKE THAT CALL, BUT WHOEVER MAKES THAT CALL, WHOEVER IS THE PERSON WHO'S GOING TO SIT THERE AND SAY, HERE'S THE KIND OF SYSTEM YOU NEED FOR THIS.

THEY BETTER BE READY TO EXPLAIN IF SOMETHING HAPPENS BECAUSE, AS WE'VE SAID ALL ALONG, THIS IS ALL GOING TO BE WELL AND GOOD UNTIL SOMETHING HAPPENS, SOMEBODY DIES.

AT THAT POINT, SOMEBODY'S GOING TO COME BACK AND SAY, WELL, WAIT A MINUTE, WHO DECIDED THAT THAT WAS THE KIND? WHO DECIDED THAT THAT WAS WHAT? SO WHOEVER'S GOING TO MAKE THAT CALL, THEY BETTER BE.

>> WELL, THANK YOU. I THINK THAT THERE'S NO ANSWER AT THIS POINT.

>> IT IS UNDEFINED AND LIKE A LOT OF OUR ALL THE CODES THAT WE ADOPT ARE THE MINIMUMS. THIS IS THE MINIMUM STANDARD.

THEY'RE SAYING YOU'VE GOT TO PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION LIKE THIS HAZARD ANALYSIS.

THEY'RE NOT TELLING YOU WHAT TO DO WITH IT.

THEY'RE SAYING THE HJ JUST IS REQUIRED TO HAVE IT SUBMITTED TO THEM, THEY'RE NOT.

>> BUT IF YOU DO A FIRE PLAN FOR THIS COURTHOUSE, YOU KNOW THE MATERIALS THAT ARE IN THIS COURTHOUSE AND YOU KNOW THAT WATER CAN PUT THEM OUT.

>> EXACTLY. WE KNOW THE BUILDING TYPE.

>> THE PROBLEM IS WHEN YOU HAVE SOME COMPONENT OF THAT YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'LL PUT IT WHAT WE DO, THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

I UNDERSTAND ALL THAT, BUT UNTIL SOMEBODY CAN COME ALONG AND SAY, AND PLUS, I DON'T AGREE WITH THE FACT THAT WE'RE GOING TO LET THE COMPANY TELL US.

I'M NOT SAYING ANYBODY WOULDN'T TELL YOU THE TRUTH, BUT I MEAN, IT WOULD BE EASY TO SAY, WELL, THIS WILL PUT IT DOWN.

>> I AGREE. WE DEAL ALL THE TIME WITH EQUIPMENT THAT IS MET MINIMUM STANDARDS BY A NERDLE LIKE UL.

THINGS COME IN, THESE BATTERIES COME IN, THEY'VE GOT A UL STAMP ON THEM.

[01:45:02]

THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THAT C CONTAINER WITH ALL OF THOSE UL COMPONENTS AND ALL THE PIECES AND PARTS HAD BEEN LOOKED AT AS ONE THING.

SO YOU END UP WITH A FIELD EVALUATION.

BUT WHAT ARE THEY EVALUATING AND WHAT ARE THEY TESTING TOO.

IT SEEMS LIKE THE INDUSTRY IS SO NEW STILL THAT THERE'S JUST NOT THAT DEFINITIVE ANSWER IS NOT THERE.

>> THEY'RE TRUE BELIEVERS.

THEY DON'T WANT TO HEAR ANYTHING BAD, AND THEY DON'T WANT TO HEAR THAT THERE ISN'T AN ANSWER.

THEY JUST WANT TO MOVE FORWARD AND SAY, WELL, LET'S JUST DO IT AND WORRY ABOUT ALL THAT LATER.

>> CRYSTAL, SO WHAT WE'VE GOT A WORKSHOP ALSO SCHEDULED FOR THIS NEW LEGISLATION.

SO DID YOU NEED FURTHER SCANS FROM US?

>> I'LL JUST GO OVER WHAT WE INTERNALLY TALKED ABOUT BECAUSE THERE HAS BEEN INFORMATION FROM MACO THAT THEY ARE LOOKING TO PRESENT A BILL THIS SESSION FOR SOME AMENDMENTS TO SENATE BILL 931.

I THINK THEY'RE MINOR.

THEY HAVEN'T BEEN IDENTIFIED YET, BUT THERE'S DEFINITELY UNANSWERED QUESTIONS, THERE'S LANGUAGE IN THAT BILL THAT IS CONFLICTING, MAKING IT DIFFICULT FOR US TO TRY TO PUT THAT INTO OUR OWN CODE LANGUAGE.

SO TAKING A STEP BACK, THE ORIGINAL BILL THAT WE INTRODUCED HAD LAID OUT THOSE PROVISIONS THAT WERE LISTED UNDER SENATE BILL 931, AND WE INSTEAD OF REPLICATING THAT IN OUR COUNTY CODE, THE DECISION IS TO REFER TO IT.

SO IF THERE ARE CHANGES THIS SESSION AND CONTINUING CHANGES IN THE FUTURE, WE'RE NOT HAVING TO GO BACK AND AMEND OUR CODE.

SO WHAT WE DID WAS REVISE THE 46.1 SECTION, WHICH IS THE NEW SECTION WE WANT TO ADD TO THE ZONING CHAPTER THAT WILL REGULATE ONE MEGAWATT OR GREATER, AND THAT IS THE AREA THAT WE ARE PREEMPTED BY THE STATE AND WOULD FOLLOW THEIR PROCESS.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE SPELLED OUT THERE THAT WE POINT THAT BACK TO THE STATE WHERE WE'RE NOT EXPRESSLY PREEMPTED BY THAT MARYLAND PUBLIC UTILITIES ARTICLE, THE CPCN OR THE MARYLAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, AND WE DID ALSO STATE THAT THE SOLAR WOULD STILL BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH ANY AND ALL OTHER COUNTY CODE REQUIREMENTS WHERE WE'RE NOT PREEMPTED IN TERMS OF STORMWATER, SEDIMENT EROSION CONTROL SITE PLAN PROCESS AND THOSE THINGS, WE WOULD STILL RETAIN OUR ABILITY TO DO THAT UNLESS WE WERE PREEMPTED.

AND WE WOULD ALSO INCLUDE THE CONTRIBUTION TO THE AGLAND PRESERVATION FUND, AND I WANT TO CIRCLE BACK TO THAT.

BUT I'LL JUST GO THROUGH THE CHANGES.

AND THEN WE WOULD BE AMENDING OUR CURRENT SOLAR PROVISIONS THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE NOW TO IDENTIFY THEM AS BEING APPLICABLE TO LESS THAN A MEGAWATT, WHERE WE DO RETAIN OUR AUTHORITY TO REGULATE.

BASED ON OUR LAST DISCUSSION WHEN WE INTRODUCED A BILL, THE ONE THING THAT WE WERE TAKING OUT WAS THE 2000 ACRE CAP FOR THOSE.

SO THAT WOULD BE REMOVED.

AND WE ALSO HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT AMENDING OUR 17585, THAT WAS THE ACCESSORY GROUND MOUNTED SOLAR, WHERE WE HAD PROVISIONS TO STATE, WE CONSIDERED THEM ACCESSORY, EVEN IF THEY WERE WHAT IS CALLED NET METERING.

YOU'RE PLACING THE SOLAR ON ONE PROPERTY THAT'S GOING TO GENERATE POWER FOR MULTIPLE PROPERTIES TO ALLOW OUR FARMS THE ABILITY TO DO THAT, AND WE DO HAVE ONE OF THOSE IN THE COUNTY THAT IS UTILIZING THAT.

THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT REMOVING THAT.

AND THEN LOOKING IN SENATE BILL 931, THE NET METERING REALLY IS NOT CLEAR.

AND WHEN YOU READ IT SEVERAL TIMES, THE N'S AND THE O'S MATTER.

AND THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, IT APPEARS THAT IF YOU ARE ONE MEGAWATT ABOVE AND NET METERING, YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW THE SIGHTING STANDARDS OF THE STATE.

WE DIDN'T REQUIRE THAT.

SO IF YOU LOOK BACK TO, THERE WAS A BILL IN 2023 REGARDING NET METERING, AND WHEN READING THAT, THEY WERE ENCOURAGING NET METERING FOR AGRICULTURAL PROPERTIES, FOR GOVERNMENTS TO DO NET METERING.

I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY DID WHAT THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE GOING TO DO IN THE BILL AND PLUGGED IN THE NET METERING, THINKING THEY WERE ALLOWING IT, BUT THEY WERE PUTTING IT UNDER THE SECTION THAT REQUIRED THEM TO FOLLOW THE SIGHTING REQUIREMENTS.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT MIGHT BE A CHANGE THAT'S COMING NEXT SESSION, BUT IN LIEU OF THAT, OUR PROPOSAL WAS TO REMOVE THAT FROM THE CODE.

WE'RE GOING TO PUT IT BACK IN THERE SO THAT WE WOULD STILL TREAT THAT AS ACCESSORY, UNLESS FOR SOME REASON, THE STATE SAYING, NO, IT HAS TO FOLLOW OUR SITING STANDARDS.

SO WE WOULD LEAVE THAT AND THEN ADD A NEW SECTION FOR THE ENERGY STORAGE DEVICES

[01:50:03]

THAT THE BILL REFERS TO THE DEFINITION OF ENERGY STORAGE DEVICES AS DEFINED IN THE PUBLIC UTILITIES ARTICLE, BUT THROUGHOUT THIS SECTION, THEY ONLY TALK ABOUT FRONT OF THE METER.

SO THESE ARE CRAFTED AND REFERRING TO FRONT OF THE METER, AND ONE OF THE THINGS IS IT STATES IN THERE IS THAT YOU ARE ONLY IF THE LOCAL JURISDICTION REQUIRES SCREENING, DO YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE SCREENING? SO I ADDED IN THERE THAT WE WOULD REQUIRE SCREENING FOR THOSE, BUT THE STATE STILL SETS THE STANDARDS, WHICH IS A MINIMUM OF 25 FEET AND FOUR SEASON VISUAL SCREENING.

BUT UNLESS WE PUT THAT IN THERE, THERE WOULD BE NO REQUIREMENT FOR SURE.

>> LET ME GO BACK FOR A SECOND TO NUMBER 3.

A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH NFPA 855 ISSUED BY THE AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION.

>> I PUT THAT IN THERE BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHO THE AUTHORITY IS THAT WOULD HAVE THAT JURISDICTION.

>> THAT'S MY QUESTION.

>> BECAUSE IT'S NFPA, RIGHT NOW, ALL OF THOSE FALL UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE FIRE MARSHAL.

BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE OUR OWN FIRE MARSHAL.

LIKE QUEENSLAND COUNTY HAS ITS OWN FIRE MARSHAL.

SO WITH ALL OF OUR CONSTRUCTION IN THE COUNTY, BE IT RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL, ALL OF THOSE THE STATE REQUIRES THE INSTALLERS FOR THOSE FIRE SUPPRESSION UNITS TO BE DONE BY A COMPANY THAT'S LICENSED BY THE STATE, THEY HAVE TO SUBMIT PLANS TO THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE WHO REVIEWS AND APPROVES THEM, AND IN TURN THE FIRE MARSHAL CONDUCTS ALL OF THE INSPECTIONS AND PROVIDES A FINAL COMPLETION TO US BEFORE WE WOULD GRANT OCCUPANCY.

SO I CRAFTED THAT TO FOLLOW THAT SAME WITHOUT STATING WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY.

SO UNLESS THE STATE IS TELLING US THAT THE FIRE MARSHAL HAS THE AUTHORITY, THAT WOULD BE US.

>> WELL, THAT WOULD BE YOU.

>> THAT WOULD BE THE COUNTY, YES.

>> SO WHO'S COMFORTABLE WITH DOING THAT?

>> NO. NOT MY SHOP.

AND I DON'T KNOW THAT FIRST STATE WOULD BE COMFORTABLE IN MAKING THAT DETERMINATION.

[NOISE] AGAIN, THIS IS ONE OF THE AREAS THAT WE CLEARLY NEED TO ADDRESS IS THE BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE AND THE FIRE SUPPRESSION.

ALSO PUT IN THE CONTRIBUTION TO THE AGLAND PRESERVATION FUND FOR BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE AS WELL, AND CREATING DEFINITIONS FOR THE ONE MEGAWATT AND GREATER, LESS THAN ONE MEGAWATT, OR ACCESSORY STORE AND FRONT OF THE METER ENERGY STORAGE DEVICE AND THE COMPENSATORY PRESERVATION CONTRIBUTION.

SO WE NARROWED THAT DOWN TO TAKE OUT ALL OF THE REFERENCES INDIVIDUALLY TO THE CITING STANDARDS IN THE STATE BILL.

WHAT I ALSO WANTED TO TALK ABOUT IS, WE HAVE THE CONTRIBUTION TO THE AGLAND PRESERVATION FUND IS HOW DO WE DETERMINE WHAT THAT CONTRIBUTION IS? THE WAY WE HAD IT WORDED WAS THAT IT WOULD FOLLOW THE MUTH SETTLEMENT PROCESS.

THAT WAS FOLLOWING WHAT QUEENSLAND COUNTY DID IN THEIR BILL, WHICH WAS 50% OF THE FAIR MARKET VALUE FOLLOWING THE MUTH SETTLEMENT PROCESS.

WE TALKED ABOUT 100% WHEN WE INTRODUCED THE BILL.

BUT LOOKING AT THE MUTH PROCESS, THIS IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT BECAUSE WITH MUTH, YOU'RE COMING IN WITH A FARMER WHO IS GIVING YOU A NUMBER AND IN TURN, THE DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES AT THE STATE HAS A TEAM OF APPRAISERS.

THEY FARM THAT OUT TO TWO INDEPENDENT APPRAISERS.

THEY HAVE I WOULD ASSUME A LIST OF WHO THEY EVALUATE AND APPROVED AS THEIR APPRAISERS THEY WOULD USE.

THEY WOULD PROVIDE THEM BACK WITH TWO APPRAISALS.

AD THE COUNTY ALSO PARTICIPATES IN THAT VALUATION.

THEY RELY ON THE COUNTY TO HELP WITH THE AG VALUE LOOKING AT THE SOILS AND THINGS LIKE THAT TO DETERMINE AN AG VALUE.

SO THE APPRAISALS ARE GOING TO COME BACK WITH A FAIR MARKET VALUE, AND THE STATE DETERMINES FAIR MARKET VALUE TO BE LAND ONLY, NOT STRUCTURES.

SO THE FAIR MARKET VALUE WILL BE STRUCTURED LAND ONLY.

THE COUNTY WOULD ASSIST IN DETERMINING THE AG LAND VALUE AND WHAT THAT LOOKED LIKE PER ACRE, AND THEN MUTH CAPS IT AT 75% OF THE FAIR MARKET VALUE.

WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT IF WE'RE GOING TO REQUIRE THIS CONTRIBUTION.

[01:55:01]

WHAT IS THAT NUMBER GOING TO BE AND HOW ARE WE GOING TO DO IT? BECAUSE IF WE FOLLOWED MUTH'S PROCESS, THAT MEANS WE WOULD BE LOOKING TO THEM TO PROVIDE THESE APPRAISALS.

>> COULD WE DO SOMETHING LIKE A LOOK AT THE AVERAGE OF THE LAST THREE YEARS THAT HAD BEEN AWARDED?

>> THAT IS SOMETHING WE COULD DO, BUT IF WE'RE DOING THAT MOVING FORWARD, AND IT'S ALWAYS BASED ON THE THREE YEARS, AND WE'RE AT A PAUSE RIGHT NOW WITH FUNDING AND EASEMENTS BEING GRANTED, WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? WE WOULDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO BASE IT ON IN THE FUTURE IF THAT WERE TO GO AWAY.

>> SO WHY CAN'T WE JUST DO APPRAISAL PROCESS ON OUR OWN?

>> AND THEN I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S PROPRIETARY INFORMATION ON WHAT THOSE NUMBERS ARE IF WE COULD EVEN GET HER HANDS-ON THOSE NUMBERS FF THE OFFERS.

>> I THINK THE CLEANEST WAY TO DO IT IS TO REQUIRE AN APPRAISAL BY AN APPRAISER APPROVED BY THE COUNTY, WHICH THE APPLICANT WOULD PAY FOR.

AND WE PICK A PERCENTAGE OF WHAT THAT APPRAISAL IS.

>> FOR THE LAND ONLY.

>> YOU COULD DO THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND ONLY.

YOU COULD EVALUATE IT FOR THE AGLAND VALUE AS WELL.

THERE IS A FORMULA, AND THE STATE SAID THAT IT IS COMPLICATED, BUT THEY WERE WILLING TO SHARE WITH US THEIR FORMULA THAT THEY USE TO DETERMINE THAT VALUE.

THERE IS A FORMULA THAT THEY ARE USING.

>> EVERYTHING ELSE.

>> PARITY AND EVERYTHING ELSE.

>> TO ME, THE CLEANEST THING IS JUST REQUIRE AN APPRAISAL BE DONE BY THE APPLICANT.

AND THE COUNTY HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPROVE THE APPRAISAL.

>> PAID FOR BY THE APPLICANT.

>> PAID FOR BY THE APPLICANT, AND WE WOULD IMPOSE A FEE 50% OF THE APPRAISED VALUE.

I THINK THAT'S THE CLEANEST WAY TO GET YOU IN LINE WITH ONE MUTH IS OR 100% OF THE APPRAISED VALUE FOR THE LAND ONLY BEING AFFECTED BY THE SOLAR DEVELOPMENT.

>> WELL, MUTH SAY IT'S 75.

>> THEY CAP THEIRS AT 75%.

BECAUSE THEY ALSO TAKE WHEN THEY'RE DETERMINING THAT AG VALUE, THEY TAKE INTO WHAT IS THE LAND BEING RENTED FOR, WHAT'S SOMEONE WILLING TO PAY FOR THE RENT BASED ON THE SOILS, ALL OF THAT.

THAT'S WHERE THAT COMPLEX FORMULA COMES IN.

I DID ASK, AND MUTH WAS WILLING TO FIND OUT IF THERE WAS ABILITY WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT KNOWING THAT THIS MONEY IS BEING SET ASIDE FOR E.

>> EVERYBODY MUTH DOING NOW THAT THE PROGRAMS BEEN READY NOW.

>> I DON'T KNOW. GOOD JOB YOU DID.

>> BUT THEY SAID THAT THERE COULD BE AN MOU BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND THE STATE TO BE ABLE TO UTILIZE THEIR SERVICES FOR THE APPRAISAL.

>> AT THE EXPENSE OF THE APPLICANT.

>> BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THEY I SAID, ULTIMATELY, WHO PAYS FOR THOSE APPRAISALS THAT YOU'RE GETTING? THEY SAID, WELL, THE COUNTY DOES, YOU JUST DON'T SEE IT BECAUSE IT COMES OUT OF THE TOP OF THAT MONEY.

SO THEY ARE GETTING REIMBURSE FOR THAT.

>> WE WANT TO GO THROUGH MUTH OR?

>> WE WANT TO GIVE THAT MONEY TO A LOCAL COMPANY OR PRIVATE COMPANY.

>> AND ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT WE ALSO INCLUDED IN THE LANGUAGE THAT IN THE EVENT, MUTH'S NOT AN OPTION ANYMORE.

WE COULD USE THAT MONEY.

BUT AGAIN, FOR AG PRESERVATION, IF WE WANTED TO DO OUR OWN PROGRAM OR CONTRIBUTE TO RURAL LEGACY OR SOMETHING OF THAT MEANS TO PRESERVE LAND.

>> EASTERN SHORE CONSERVANCY.

>> YES. ALL OF THOSE AS AN OPTION IF THAT WERE NOT AVAILABLE.

SO WE WEREN'T CIRCLING BACK AT A LATER DATE TO HAVE TO CHANGE THAT IF THERE WASN'T THE ABILITY TO USE IT FOR MUTH.

>> WHICH THAT'S COVERED IN THE LEGISLATION WE JUST TALKED ABOUT.

IT'S OPENED. IT COULD GO TO EASTERN SHORE LAND CONSERVANCY HERE OR WHOEVER.

RIGHT. SO WHAT'S YOUR THOUGHTS GO THROUGH MUTH OR REQUIRE AN INDEPENDENT APPRAISAL?

>> INDEPENDENT APPRAISAL.

>> WOULD WE WANT ONE OR WOULD WE WANT TWO?

>> I'D SAY YOU LEASE 12.

>> TO KEEP IT FAIR.

>> TWO APPRAISALS APPROVED BY APPROVED APPRAISERS BY THE COUNTY.

IT WOULD JUST BE THE AVERAGE.

>> I CAN CERTAINLY ASK TWO AND AVERAGE.

>> REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS HAVE TO BE LICENSED.

>> I COULD ALSO FIND OUT IF YOU AS WELL.

>> WESTERN IT'S NOT FAMILIAR.

>> THEY'RE GOING TO USE DATA ANYWAY, I DON'T THINK THEY'RE GOING TO.

>> WE'D BE THE ONES HIRING. NOT THE APPLICANT.

[02:00:03]

>> BUT YOU HAD TO PUT SOME TYPE OF LANGUAGE IN THERE.

IF YOU'RE REQUIRING TWO, YOU GO WITH THE HIGHER OF THE TWO OR AN AVERAGE OF THE TWO.

>> IT'S USUALLY BED.

>> AVERAGE OF THE TWO?

>> SEVENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF THAT VALUE IS WHAT THE FEE WOULD BE?

>> THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS AMEND THAT LANGUAGE WHERE WE SAID WE WERE GOING TO FOLLOW A MOUTH SETTLEMENT PROCESS TO THIS.

>> I THINK WE WANT TO UTILIZE [NOISE] LEGACY.

>> YES. I'VE BEEN OPEN TOO.

>> [INAUDIBLE] OUR OWN APPLICATION.

>> SOMETHING'S ALREADY ESTABLISHED.

>> WHO RUNS THE RURAL LEGACY PROGRAM.

IS THAT EASTERN SHORE LINE CONSERVANCY OR?

>> I THINK SO. THE RURAL LEGACY.

>> I'M NOT SURE.

>> THERE'S ALREADY EXISTING OPPORTUNITIES.

>> WELL, IT ALL DEPENDS ON HOW MUCH MONEY WE HAVE.

IF WE GET COVERED UP IN SOLAR PANELS, WE GET ALL 8,000 ACRES, AND WE'RE SITTING ON A FLOOD OF MONEY, AND MAYBE WE WANT TO CONSIDER SETTING UP OUR OWN.

>> I HOPE WE DON'T HAVE TO USE IT.

>> I HOPE NOT EITHER.

>> BUT THE INTENT WOULD BE THAT THAT'S WHAT THAT MONEY WOULD BE USED FOR.

>> RIGHT. HERE'S THE OTHER THING.

HE HOW WOULD A BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE FIT INTO THIS? THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN, IT'LL BE REQUIRED FOR [OVERLAPPING].

>> THEM AS WELL.

>> ANY RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECT THAT HAS AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON AGRICULTURE OR WHATEVER.

THE BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE PART, DOES THAT FALL UNDER OUR BUSINESS PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX? THAT'S NOT POWER GENERATION, THAT'S POWER STORAGE.

ARE THEY GOING TO WIGGLE OUT OF PAYING BUSINESS PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX ON ANY POTENTIAL BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM?

>> I DON'T KNOW.

>> UNDERSTANDING IS, JUST LIKE THE ONE ON RELIANCE THAT IS REPORTED IN THE YEARLY REPORTS OF THE STATES [INAUDIBLE]

>> I'M JUST BRINGING THIS UP.

IS THIS SOMETHING WE NEED TO ADDRESS IN OUR BUSINESS PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX?

>> NO. IT'S REALLY WHAT THE STATE DEFINES AND I CAN CONFIRM WITH THE COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE IF THAT'S INCLUDED, BUT WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THE DELAYED REPORTING FOR THE RELIANCE FOR [OVERLAPPING].

>> THAT WAS INCLUDED, AND STILL IS INCLUDED IN THE REPORT.

>> BUT WE'RE AT THE MERCY OF THE COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE AND THEIR INTERPRETATION.

WE CAN EXTEND BUSINESS PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX TO ANYTHING WE WANT TO.

RIGHT NOW, IT'S POWER GENERATION EQUIPMENT.

WE USED TO CHARGE IT ON EVERYTHING.

>> CORRECT. YES.

>> CAN WE EXTEND IT TO SAY BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE DEVICES AS WELL?

>> WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE AND ENSURE DUPLICATING ANYTHING THAT THE STATE'S ALREADY DOING.

>> OR CONTRADICTING.

>> OR CONTRADICTING CORRECT.

MY UNDERSTANDING [OVERLAPPING].

>> RIGHT NOW.

>> THEY ARE DOING IT.

>> IN THE FUTURE, WE MAY [OVERLAPPING].

>> POWER GENERATION EQUIPMENT AND ENERGY.

ALL I'M SAYING IS SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT.

I DON'T WANT TO GET CAUGHT BEHIND THE EYE BALL HERE.

MARK, ARE WE MISSING ANYTHING ON THE NFPA 55, IS THERE ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE? LOOK, WE'RE PREEMPTED BY THIS.

THE ONLY THING WE CAN DO IS REQUIRE THE MOST STRENUOUS CODE LANGUAGE TO ENSURE THAT A DEVELOPER IS PUTTING SAFE EQUIPMENT IN OUR ACCOUNT.

>> ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS I WANT TO MENTION TOO, WHILE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ENERGY STORAGES COMMISSIONER PORTER BROUGHT UP WAS A POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTION TO THE FIRE COMPANIES, AND IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU WANT TO CONSIDER IN THIS AS WELL?

>> CERTAINLY THE FIRE COMPANY SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE TAC REVIEW.

>> UNTIL THERE'S A BILL THAT CAN BE PASSED PROVIDING SOME TRAINING, I THINK THEY SHOULD START CONTRIBUTING [NOISE].

>> OUR INTENTION IS FOR THIS TO FOLLOW OUR SAME PROCESS, WHETHER IT'S FOR SOLAR FACILITY OR BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE FACILITY THAT THEY WILL BE SUBMITTING TO US A SITE PLAN, WHICH HAS TO COMPLY WITH THE SITING REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE ALREADY SPELLED OUT BY THE STATE.

BUT WE WILL TAKE IT THROUGH OUR REVIEW PROCESS AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS REQUIRED TO DO.

I CAN'T REMEMBER IF THERE WERE TIMELINES IN HERE OR NOT.

>> HOW DO WE IMPOSE A FEE [OVERLAPPING].

>> IT WOULD GO THROUGH TAC AND THEN ONTO THE PLANNING BOARD.

>> HOW DO WE IMPOSE A FEE FOR TRAINING? IT WOULD BE JUST FOR BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE.

ARE YOU DOING [INAUDIBLE] STORAGE?

[02:05:03]

>> WE'VE A SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT THAT I DON'T EVEN THINK HAS BEEN DEVELOPED.

MARK OR ADAM.

>> IT'S ALWAYS EVOLVING.

YOU'RE GOING TO LET IT BURN, IS WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO RIGHT NOW.

YOU'RE GOING TO EVACUATE PEOPLE AND YOU'RE GOING TO LET IT BURN ITSELF OUT.

THAT'S THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

NFPA, 855 MAY HAVE SOME TYPE OF SUPPRESSION SYSTEM.

>> ARE THERE ANY STORAGE DEVICES THAT YOU [OVERLAPPING].

>> I DON'T KNOW OF ANY BATTERY [INAUDIBLE] I KNOW IT'S PROBABLY A TOPIC OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THE SOLARS LIKE WE'RE HAVING, BUT I DON'T KNOW [INAUDIBLE]

>> THERE TWO SOLAR FARMS, AND IN THE WORK BEING BUILT [INAUDIBLE]

>> NOT AWARE OF THAT.

>> THE PROBLEM IS THAT, Y'ALL HAVE [INAUDIBLE] DONE STUDIES, AND THEY'LL TELL YOU THAT'S WHY SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS WE ARE BUILDING ARE SO GREAT.

I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU STUDY [INAUDIBLE]

>> IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SUPPRESSING, THEN WHAT TYPE OF SUPPRESSION DO YOU USE? THAT'S THE QUESTION?

>> WE KNOW [INAUDIBLE]

>> WELL, I THINK THEY GOT THEY'VE GOTTEN BETTER AT COMPARTMENTALIZING THE INDIVIDUAL BATTERIES.

IF A RUNAWAY DOES HAPPEN, IT DOESN'T SPREAD TO YOU.

I THINK THE EARLY SYSTEMS, THEY DIDN'T COMPARTMENTALIZE IT.

THEY JUST STACKED THEM ALL TOGETHER.

ON WENT, THE WHOLE THING WENT.

NOW THEY'VE GOT TO A POINT WHERE THEY'VE ISOLATED EACH INDIVIDUAL BATTERY.

ONE RUNS AWAY, IT DOESN'T IGNITE THE REST.

BUT I DON'T KNOW. THE FEE.

HOW DO WE IMPOSE A TRAINING FEE? I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT AN AVERAGE SHIPPING CONTAINER, HOW MANY MEGAWATTS OF STORAGE THAT IS OR HOW TO EVEN GO ABOUT IMPOSING A FEE.

>> WHAT WOULD THE FEE BE FOR?

>> TRAINING OF FIRE DEPARTMENTS OR EQUIPMENT, WHATEVER.

WE WANTED TO USE IT FOR TRAINING.

WE WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR EITHER TRAINING OR EQUIPMENT. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?

>> I THINK WITH ANY FEE. YOU HAVE TO KEEP IT BROAD ENOUGH TO COVER TRAINING FEES, WHATEVER SEEMS APPLICABLE AT THE TIME.

BUT THE HARD THING IS HOW DO YOU BASE THAT FEE OFF SOME LOGICAL STRUCTURE OR BANNER.

IS IT SIZE, MEGAWATT, CAPACITY? THAT'S THE THING OR IS IT JUST A ONE FOR ONE YOU DECIDE TO HAVE A BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM OF THIS LOCATION.

YOU CHECK THAT BOX HERE'S THE X AMOUNT OF FEE BECAUSE YOU WANT TO HAVE THAT.

>> VALUE OF EQUIPMENT? PERCENTAGE OF THE VALUE OF THE PROPOSED EQUIPMENT THAT THEY'RE DEVELOPING?

>> I THINK WE HAVE TO INVOLVE FIRE COMPANIES.

>> I DO TOO.

>> FOR DISCUSSION.

>> IF I MAY, MY THOUGHT WAS, I'LL BE IN MY THIRD TERM BY THE TIME WE GET THIS THING PASSED AT THE RATE WE ARE GOING.

>> YOU DON'T HAVE TO [OVERLAPPING].

>> IF I KEEP GETTING REAL [LAUGHTER].

>> YOU DON'T HAVE TO WAIT TO HAVE ALL THE THINGS IN HERE.

>> I WOULD ADOPT AT A MINIMUM PRESERVATION STUFF.

>> GET THE PRESERVATION STUFF.

>> THAT'S JUST MY OPINION, BUT IT MAY TAKE US A LOT TO WORK OUT WHAT THE FEE WOULD BE AND WHAT THE FIRE COMPANIES WOULD ACTUALLY NEED.

MAYBE YOU ADOPT THIS AND HOLD THAT OPEN WHILE WE WORK THAT OUT.

>> IT COULD BE ANOTHER WAY TO BYPASS IT IS TO MAKE IT A CONDITION OF THEIR PERMISSIONS FROM THE COUNTY THAT IN THEIR APPLICATION, THEY HAVE TO ATTACH A LETTER WRITTEN CONFIRMATION FROM THE CHIEFS OF THE TWO CLOSEST FIRE COMPANIES TO THE PROJECT, STATING THAT THE FIRE COMPANY HAS BEEN ADEQUATELY TRAINED AT THE EXPENSE OF THE APPLICANT AND HAS THE NECESSARY EQUIPMENT IN THE EVENT OF AN EMERGENCY.

THE EMERGENCY PLAN THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IN THE ORDINANCE WOULD HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY SERVICES, THE EVACUATION PLAN, OR WHATEVER.

WE'RE TYING COUNTY STUFF IN.

IT TAKES THE COUNTY OUT, BECAUSE ONCE WE GET THE MONEY, WHAT DO WE DO WITH IT? I'D RATHER HAVE THEM REQUIRED TO GO CONTACT OUR FIRE COMPANIES,

[02:10:03]

AND THOSE CHIEFS ARE TELLING THEM, OKAY, WE NEED THIS KIND OF EQUIPMENT, BECAUSE WE'VE SEEN WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN FROM WHAT YOU'VE GIVEN IN THE WAY OF YOUR EMERGENCY PLAN.

YOU NEED THIS AND THIS, AND WE NEED OUR GUYS TRAINED THIS WAY, AND MAKE THEM DO IT BEFORE THEY CAN GET AN APPROVAL FROM THE COUNTY.

I DON'T CARE WHAT THE EXPENSE IS AT THAT POINT.

THE FIRE COMPANY'S IN CHARGE OF SAYING, YES, WE'RE EQUIPPED NOW, OR WE'RE ADEQUATELY TRAINED.

>> MARK, WHEN WE DID THE RELIANCE INVESTIGATION OR NEGOTIATION, WHATEVER THAT TURNED INTO, DID THEY GIVE US ANY INFORMATION ON WHAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE ADMITTED IF IT DID CATCH ON FIRE.

WHAT CHEMICALS OR ANYTHING, OR WHAT EFFECTS IT WOULD HAVE ON THE NEIGHBORS? REALLY ALL WE GOT WAS CONTACT INFORMATION, IF IT CATCHES ON FIRE, WHO DO WE CONTACT?

>> [INAUDIBLE] WHAT THEY TOLD US WAS, OBVIOUSLY YOU LET IT BURN, AND THEN MONITOR AIR [INAUDIBLE]

>> WHO HAS AIR MONITORING EQUIPMENT.

RIGHT. THERE'S THERE'S A LOT OF RESIDENTS AROUND DORCHESTER COUNTY RESIDENTS AND SUSSEX COUNTY, MAINLY.

I DON'T THINK THERE'S MANY CAROLINE RESIDENTS IN THAT AREA BECAUSE IT'S DOWN IN THE POINT.

>> I'D LIKE TO KEEP IT MOVING AND KEEP THAT, AND LIKE KATHLEEN SAID, WORKING ALONGSIDE THAT.

THE LAST THING I WANTED TO MENTION IS WE'VE BEEN REALLY FOCUSED ON THE BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE AS IT RELATES TO THE SOLAR.

THE SENATE BILL TALKS ONLY ABOUT FRONT OF THE METER.

I'LL LEAVE THAT TO ADAM TO DETERMINE FRONT OF THE METER, BEHIND THE METER BECAUSE NOBODY REALLY DEFINES IT.

THEY JUST THROW IT IN HERE, BUT IT'S NOT DEFINED ANYWHERE.

BUT THERE IS POTENTIAL FOR BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE BEHIND THE METER, AND THERE ARE NO REGULATIONS CURRENTLY AT THE STATE LEVEL OR AT THE COUNTY LEVEL.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE IN THE FUTURE.

THAT COULD BE ANYTHING AS SIMPLE AS AN ED CHARGING PATIENT AT HOME THAT HAS BATTERY OR A COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS THAT HAS SOLAR GENERATING POWER AND WANTS TO STORE ON SITE THAT MIGHT HAVE A LARGER FACILITY.

BUT SOMETHING TO CONTINUE TO THINK ABOUT THAT'S NOT ADDRESSED HERE, BUT WE MAY HAVE THAT POTENTIAL FOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

>> WELL, I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT THEM RIGHT NOW, I'M ONLY WORRIED ABOUT THE COMMERCIAL ONES.

LET'S GET THAT BEHIND US.

LIKE I SAID, I'LL BE IN MY THIRD TERM BEFORE WE GET THAT FIGURED OUT, PROBABLY.

BUT THE BACK OF THE METER STUFF IS GOING TO BE SMALLER.

IT'S ONLY GOING TO STORE ENOUGH ENERGY FOR THE FACILITY THAT'S THERE. YOU THINK.

>> I GUESS WHAT AFFECTS THE FIRE COMPANIES MORE IS THE BACK OF IT.

>> MOST OF THAT IS GOING TO BE IN THE MUNICIPALITIES.

WHAT ARE WE DOING? ARE WE CUTTING OUT? ARE WE JUST PASSING THE AG LAND PRESERVATION FUND AT THIS POINT THEN? IS THAT WHAT WE'RE DOING?

>> YES, WE'RE JUST WORK SHOPPING RIGHT NOW.

WE'VE INTRODUCED THE BILL.

THESE WOULD BE REVISIONS TO THE BILL WE'VE INTRODUCED.

>> WOULD THAT MOVE TO PUBLIC HEARING NEXT?

>> WELL, I THINK IF WE'RE DOING A MAJOR OVERHAUL, IT SHOULD BE REINTRODUCED

>> RE INTRODUCED.

>> WE GOT ANOTHER THING TO DEAL WITH, WHICH IS WHAT CRYSTAL IS TALKING ABOUT, THE ACCESSORY USE OR NON ACCESSORY USE FRONT OF THE METER, BACK OF THE METER, WHATEVER.

HOWEVER YOU WANT TO REFER TO IT? MY OPINION IS IF THE POWER IS GOING TO BE USED ON THE PROPERTY THAT THE GENERATION EQUIPMENT IS LOCATED ON METER STANDARD SETBACKS WITH NO SCREENING, THE WAY IT IS RIGHT NOW.

IF THE POWER IS GOING TO BE USED ON ANOTHER PARCEL, I THINK YOU SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO MEET ALL THE STATE STANDARDS, THE SCREENING REQUIREMENTS OF [OVERLAPPING].

>> PUTTING THAT BACK IN?

>> THE STATE. WELL, WHAT DO YOU HAVE RIGHT NOW?

>> WE CURRENTLY ALLOW THE NET METERING.

YOU CAN HAVE YOUR GENERATING STATION ON ONE PARCEL TO POWER SEVERAL OTHER PARCELS THAT YOU OWN.

GENERALLY, THAT'S A FARM SITUATION THAT WE HAVE.

WE WERE LOOKING TO REMOVE THAT.

YOU CAN'T DO THAT, YOU CAN'T DO NET METERING.

YOU WOULD HAVE A SOLAR FACILITY AT EACH LOCATION.

THE STATE BILL ALLOW FOR [OVERLAPPING].

[02:15:06]

>> YOU COULD STILL DO IT. I'M NOT SAYING YOU CAN'T.

WE CAN'T BAN NET METERING.

>> BUT IF YOU DO NET METER, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SCREEN IT AND MEET THE REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE IT COULD GET HUGE.

>> RIGHT NOW, YOU'D ONLY MEET OUR MINIMUM SETBACK STANDARDS.

YOU WOULDN'T FOLLOW ANY SORT OF SCREENING OR [OVERLAPPING].

>> FOR NET METERING.

>> WHAT DO WE WANT TO DO WITH THAT? DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THE [OVERLAPPING].

>> IN TERMS OF THE METER [OVERLAPPING].

>> QUESTION [OVERLAPPING].

>> I DON'T I GET IT.

>> REGARDLESS OF THE [OVERLAPPING].

>> YOU GOT TO USE THE POWER ON MULTIPLE PARCELS THAT YOU OWN.

IF YOUR OWN PARCELS, IF YOU'RE NOT SELLING IT WHATSOEVER, BUT YOU'RE GOING TO USE IT.

THAT COULD BE EXTENDED TO A MAJOR MANUFACTURER.

A MAJOR MANUFACTURER IN AN INDUSTRIAL PART, COULD BUY A FARM, PUT A SOLAR ARRAY ON IT AND POWER THEIR PLANT IN TOWN WITH IT.

WE WOULDN'T REQUIRE ANY SCREENING THE WAY WE HAVE IT DRAFTED RIGHT NOW.

>> IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCESSORY SOLAR.

>> NO SCREENING REQUIRED, SO SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

>> IF I HAD A HOUSE AND I OWNED THREE OTHER RENTAL HOUSES OR IF I OWN A FARM AND I OWN THREE RENTAL HOUSES, I COULD HAVE COVERED THE FARM WITH PANELS AND POWER THE THREE RENTAL HOUSES WITH IT.

>> I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S HOW THAT'S WRITTEN.

>> I THINK THIS IS AGRICULTURE.

>> WHERE WE WOULD ONLY. YOU SEE WHAT [OVERLAPPING].

>> [LAUGHTER] THAT'S JUST MAKE IT [OVERLAPPING].

>> AS FAR AS [OVERLAPPING].

>> SUPER CONFUSING.

>> THE STATE IS CONCERNED, IF IT'S A MEGAWATT OR GREATER, IT'S GOING TO FOLLOW [OVERLAPPING].

>> ONCE YOU HIT THAT, YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW [OVERLAPPING].

>> YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW THE STATE.

I DON'T THINK THAT WAS IN [OVERLAPPING].

>> THAT'S THE MAXIMUM THAT WE CAN IMPOSE.

WHAT I'M SAYING IS, JUST LOOK, IF YOU'RE GOING TO GENERATE THE POWER AND USE IT ON THE PARCEL THAT THE GENERATION EQUIPMENT IS ON, MEET OUR STANDARD SETBACKS.

IF IT'S BEING USED ON ANOTHER PIECE OF PROPERTY, YOU GOT TO SCREEN.

>> IMPOSE A STATE STANDARD.

IT'S NOT LIKE THEY'RE THAT ONEROUS.

THEY TOOK EVERYTHING AWAY ANYWAY.

>> TWENTY-FIVE FEET IN FOUR-SEASON SCREENING.

>> I'M FINE WITH THAT.

>> I'M AFRAID THAT IF WE TRY TO BE TOO ACCOMMODATING, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOMEBODY COME IN AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT, AND WE'RE GOING TO PUT 100 ACRES SOMEWHERE AND SAY, WELL, I'M USING IT ALL FOR MY [OVERLAPPING].

>> PLAY.

>> WE'LL TAKE IT BACK OUT.

>> THINKING ABOUT IT, I KNOW THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE PROBABLY A SMALL ARRAY AND THEY WANT TO POWER THEIR MOTHER IN LAW'S HOUSE AND THEIR HOUSE AND SOMEBODY ELSE.

>> BUT I AGREE WITH YOU SOMEBODY THAT COME IN [OVERLAPPING].

>> IT'S EITHER THAT OR WE'VE GOT TO COME UP WITH A LINE OF SIZE OF THE FACILITY AND CUT IT OFF THERE.

>> THE WAY THE CODE IS WORDED, IT'S NOT JUST AGRICULTURE, IT'S WHERE PROPERTY OWNER OWNS MULTIPLE PARCELS, THE ELECTRICITY PRODUCED IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPERTY MAY INCLUDE ALL PARCELS.

THE STATE REGS KICK IN AT ONE MEGAWATT, WHICH IS ABOUT FIVE TO SEVEN ACRES.

THIS WOULD APPLY ONLY TO FIVE TO SEVEN ACRES OR LESS.

>> IN SIZE.

>> THAT'S THE SIZE THAT COULD BE ACCESSORY THAT MIGHT [OVERLAPPING].

>> WOULD HAVE [OVERLAPPING].

>> TO HAVE SCREENING.

>> UP TO FIVE TO SEVEN ACRES.

ANYTHING ABOVE THAT IS ALWAYS GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE SCREENING BECAUSE IT HAS TO COMPLY WITH STATE.

>> WE DO HAVE ONE PROPERTY OWNER [OVERLAPPING].

>> THEY STILL HAVE TO DO THE REQUIRED [OVERLAPPING].

>> RIGHT. NOW, IF YOU'RE GOING TO USE IT ON YOUR FARM THERE, THEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO [OVERLAPPING].

RIGHT. THAT'S AN ACCESSORY INSTALLER THAT IF YOU'RE NET METERING ACCESSORY REG STORE [OVERLAPPING].

>> DOWN THE ROAD, IF WE HAVE A BUNCH OF PEOPLE CALL AND SAY, HEY, THERE'S A COMPLAINT, THEN WE SAY, ALL RIGHT, WELL, WHAT SIZE? LET'S LOOK AT IT. HOW MANY MEGAWATTS ARE YOU PROPOSING? WE HAVE A CUT OFF LINE WHERE WE SAY, WE WILL ALLOW IT FOR NET METERING UP TO THIS MANY MEGAWATTS.

BASED ON A K, WE CAN ALWAYS GO BACK AND CHANGE OUR ORDINANCE DOWN THE ROAD IF WE'RE PREVENTING A LOT OF PEOPLE FROM BEING ABLE TO DO SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE BENEFICIAL.

>> IT SOUNDS LIKE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS IN THAT SECTION OF THE CODE DELETING THAT SENTENCE THAT SAYS, WHERE A PROPERTY OWNER OWNS MULTIPLE PARCELS.

THE ELECTRICITY PRODUCED IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPERTY MAY INCLUDE ALL PARCELS.

IT WOULD ONLY APPLY TO THE PARCEL THAT THEY SOLAR RAYS ON.

>> I THINK WE CAN DELETE THAT WHOLE SECTION.

BECAUSE IT WAS WRITTEN FOR THAT.

WE ALREADY ALLOW ACCESSORY SOLAR.

>> I THINK WE JUST DELETE THE WHOLE SECTION 85.

[02:20:05]

>> IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE I'M MISSING WE NEED CLARIFICATION ON?

>> IF I MAY I WANT TO ASK ADAM.

ADAM, I'M THINKING ABOUT THE APPLICATION WHEN IT COMES IN, AND WE'RE ASKING THEM TO DESCRIBE BASICALLY THEIR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FIRE CODE.

WE DON'T HAVE IN HOUSE ANYONE WHO IS CAPABLE OF INTERPRETING WHAT THEY'VE SUBMITTED AND WHETHER IT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW.

IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOUR FIRM WOULD BE ABLE TO TAKE THE ROLE OF AND WE CHARGE THE APPLICANT ACCORDINGLY FOR YOUR SERVICES?

>> BECAUSE MOST OF THE PLACES THAT WE OPERATE IN, THIS FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE HAS THE HJ FOR FIRE SUPPRESSION AT NFPA 13 REQUIREMENTS.

WE HAVE A FEW VERY BASIC RESIDENTIAL GUYS THAT CAN LOOK AT THE SYSTEMS AND SAY, YEAH THE GALLONS PERMIT REQUIRED FOR THIS SIZE HOUSE, BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE IN MY COMPANY TO SAY, YES, THIS MEANS NFPA 13 FOR THE [OVERLAPPING].

>> DO YOU KNOW OF ANYBODY OUT THERE THAT WOULD BE [OVERLAPPING].

>> STATE FIRE MARSHALS WOULD BE THE BEST ONE TO DO IT.

THEY HAD MORE RESOURCES THAN ANYONE.

>> THAT'S WHAT WE RELY ON IN ALL CASES CURRENTLY.

IF THIS COURTHOUSE WAS BEING BUILT, AS FAR AS WE WERE CONCERNED, WE WOULD LOOK TO MAKE SURE THAT THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE HAD APPROVED THE FIRE SUPPRESSION PLAN.

>> SHOULDN'T WE HAVE THAT IN OUR CODE THEN?

>> THE QUESTION IS, IS THE FIRE MARSHAL GOING TO DO IT?

>> WELL, LOOK, THE STATE IS MAKING US ALLOW THESE DEVELOPMENTS.

>> THEY HAVE PREEMPTED US, SO WE ARE TAKING THIS STEP OF SAYING, STATE, YOU'RE MAKING US DO IT, SO WE WANT, IN OUR ORDINANCE TO MAKE THE DEVELOPER APPROACH YOU, THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL, AND GET APPROVAL THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE SAFE.

WE'RE KICKING IT BACK ON A STATE.

I THINK WE'RE DOING THE MAXIMUM THAT WE CAN, TO FORCE THE DEVELOPER TO GO BACK TO THE STATE AND SAY, ''ALL RIGHT, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING DOING.''

>> THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE ISSUED BY THE MARYLAND STATE FIRE MARSHAL.

THAT'S ONE PART OF THEM GETTING OCCUPANCY.

>> CAN WE SAY THAT THEN THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GET A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH NFPA 55 FROM OF THE STATE FARM.

>> WE'LL JUST TAKE OUT AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION AND SAY, IT'S THE OFFICE OF THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL.

>> OR SAY ALL APPLICABLE CODES.

FIRE CODE.

>> WE PUT IT BACK ON THE DEVELOPER BEFORE WE ALLOW IT TO HAPPEN THAT THEY'VE GOT THE OKAY FROM THE STATE.

>> THEY'RE GOING [OVERLAPPING].

>> THE STATES WILL SAY [NOISE], WE HAVE NO MECHANISM TO DO THAT.

>> WELL, THE STATE [OVERLAPPING].

>> WE'VE GOT MECHANISM OF APPROVING IT.

>> BUT REMEMBER THE PSC IS ALSO ADOPTING [OVERLAPPING].

>> WE THINK.

>> THEY PASSED IT THROUGH, SO NOW IT'S GOT TO THE NEXT LEVEL, BUT IF THEY ARE [OVERLAPPING].

>> GOT TO GO, WHAT'S THE NAME OF THE REGULATION COMMITTEE, THE JOINT COMMITTEE FROM DELEGATES AND SENATORS, DO YOU REMEMBER?

>> I DON'T.

>> THE AL.

>> SOMETHING LIKE THAT, LA.

>> PRESUMABLY, IF THEY'RE PUTTING [OVERLAPPING].

>> ADMINISTRATIVE LEGISLATIVE.

>> I WOULD THINK THAT, AND I HAVEN'T TALKED TO THEM, BUT THE INTENT OF THEM ADOPTING 855 OR PROPOSING THAT THAT BE IN THE REGULATIONS WOULD MEAN THAT THE FIRE MARSHALS GOING TO TAKE CARE OF THEM ANYWAY.

>> BECAUSE AS ADAM SAID, THAT'S WHAT THE FIRE MARSHAL DOES WITH ALL THE OTHER, WE [OVERLAPPING].

>> THAT'S WHAT WE DO NOW.

>> WHEN THIS BUILDING IS BUILT, I DON'T LOOK AT THE FIRE SUPPRESSION, I LOOK AT FIRE BLOCKING AND DRAFT STOPPING AND ALL THE BUILDING REQUIREMENTS.

>> BUT I LOOK FOR HIS STICKER AT THE END OF THE JOB TO SAY [OVERLAPPING].

>> HE SAID, IT'S GOOD, AND THAT'S WHAT WE GO OFF OF.

>> CAN I ASK ADAM ONE OTHER QUESTION?

>> ADAM, THERE'S A STATUTE WE'RE LOOKING AT A BURN ORDINANCE, AND IT GETS US INTO THE IDEA OF A FIRE PREVENTION CODE, LOOKING AT THIS.

THERE'S A STATUTE THAT SAYS, THE COUNTIES CAN ADOPT BY ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION OF FIRE PREVENTION CODE BY INCORPORATING AN EXISTING CODE, A STANDALONE CODE SOMEWHERE ELSE.

CAN YOU MAKE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS TO CAROLINE AS TO PORTIONS OF THE STATE FIRE PREVENTION CODE OR ANY OTHER CODE THAT WE COULD INCORPORATE INTO AN ORDINANCE HERE.

BY THE WAY, THERE'S SPECIAL PROVISIONS IN THE STATUTE, WHICH I'VE LUCKILY STUMBLED ON, BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO ANYTHING WITH FIRE PREVENTION,

[02:25:02]

IT'S GOT A DIFFERENT SET OF REQUIREMENTS.

IT'S NOT AN ORDINARY ORDINANCE.

>> I CAN LOOK INTO THAT. I DON'T HAVE [OVERLAPPING].

>> HOWEVER YOU WANT TO BREAK IT DOWN, CRYSTAL, BUT I THINK THE BEST PATH FORWARD TO GET SOMETHING GOING.

MY FRUSTRATION IS NOT DIRECTED AT ANYBODY, IT'S DIRECTED AT THE COMPLEXITY OF THIS CONVERSATION.

GOT TO HEAR TRAVIS HAS TICKED OFF, THEY SAID IT'S GOING TO BE HIS THIRD TERM.

IT'S JUST THE COMPLEXITY OF THIS THING.

BUT TO SIMPLIFY ALSO FOR US, WHY DON'T WE COME BACK WITH JUST SOMETHING WITH THE AG LAND PRESERVATION FEE AND A SEPARATE ONE THAT ADDRESSES THE ADOPTION OF THE STATE LAW BY REFERENCE. CAN WE DO THAT?

>> WE CAN.

>> THEN WE CONTINUE THIS CONVERSATION.

THE MORATORIUM IS STILL IN PLACE, AND THEN WE CONTINUED THE CONVERSATION ABOUT NFPA 55.

THE TRAINING FEE AND ALL OF THAT STUFF. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?

>> YOU GUYS GOOOD WITH THAT?

>> YOU WANT TO REMOVE THE ENERGY STORAGE AND THE COMPENSATORY CONTRIBUTION WITH JUST THE SOLAR.

>> DON'T DELETE IT.

>> THE ONE GREATER AND THE LESS THAN.

>> DON'T DELETE IT, JUST MOVE IT [LAUGHTER].

>> TAKE IT OUT OF THIS ONE FOR THE RECORD.

>> KEEP IN FOR THE ONE MEGAWATT AND GRATER AND THE UNDER MEGAWATT AND THE NET METERING FOR SOLAR.

>> WE'LL REMOVE THE ENERGY STORAGE.

>> WHEN ARE WE MOVING THE AG PRESS FUND STUFF.

YOU DIDN'T SAY THAT, DID YOU?

>> HOWEVER YOU GUYS WANT TO DO.

IF YOU WANT TO DO IT IN SEPARATE BILLS OR IF YOU WANT TO DO IT ALL IN ONE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S THE CLEANEST WAY?

>> BECAUSE I THINK WE HAVE CLEAR DIRECTION ON THAT. IT'S JUST [OVERLAPPING].

>> APPRAISAL, AND THEN THE AVERAGE.

>> YEAH. JUST KEEP THAT IN, ADOPT THE STATE CODE BY REFERENCE AND ADDRESS THE ONE MEGAWATT OR THE NET METERING ISSUE.

>> IN A BILL. THEN WE'LL DEAL WITH NFPA 55, AND ALL THAT.

>> WE'LL PULL OUT THE ENERGY STORAGE AND LEAVE THE REST AND MAKE THE AMENDMENTS.

>> BECAUSE MORATORIUM, HOWEVER FLIMSY IS STILL IN EFFECT.

>> BECAUSE AGAIN, THE ENERGY STORAGE WILL BE A NEW SECTION IN THE ZONING CHAPTER THE WAY WE'VE CRAFTED IT, SO WE'LL JUST PUT THAT ON HOLD.

>> I'M FINE WITH THE PUTTING THE RESPONSIBILITY ON THE MARYLAND STATE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE FOR ISSUING THAT COMPLIANCE.

>> KICK IT BACK TO THEM. IF THEY'RE THE ONES FORCING US TO DO IT, LET'S FIND A WAY TO PUT THE PRESSURE BACK ON THEM TO ACTUALLY ISSUE SOME TYPE OF APPROVAL OR ACCEPTANCE FOR SAFETY.

>> I'M FINE.

>> BUT I'D BE WILLING TO BET YOU.

>> THAT THEY'RE GOING TO COME BACK AND SAY IT.

>> MARK, COULD YOU GIVE US AN IDEA ON WHAT TRAINING IS AVAILABLE AND WHAT KIND OF COST THAT WOULD BE ASSOCIATED WITH IT?

>> YOU MAY NEED SOME SPECIAL SELF CONTAINED BREEDING APPARATUS.

SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I DON'T KNOW.

OR TO BUY SOME OF THOSE.

>> [INAUDIBLE].

>> MAYBE AIR MONITORING EQUIPMENT, A COST ON THAT, A COST ON TRAINING ON HOW TO USE IT BECAUSE I'M SURE YOU GOT TO BE TRAINED ON HOW TO USE IT, COST ON EQUIPMENT, JUST TO GIVE US AN IDEA.

THEN WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO IMPOSE THAT ON A DEVELOPER.

>> I ALSO THOUGHT WE WOULD REQUIRE OF AN APPLICANT LIABILITY INSURANCE.

WHICH I DON'T THINK IS BEING ADDRESSED.

UNLESS THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DOES, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER SEEING THEM EVER DO THAT.

BUT I THINK THAT'S A VALID LOCAL REQUIREMENT THAT THEY CARRY.

>> IF A NEIGHBOR HAD TO BE EVACUATED AND HAD TO BE PUT UP IN A HOTEL SOMEWHERE, THAT INSURANCE WOULD COVER THE COSTS?

>> HOSPITALIZED.

>> RIGHT. HOSPITALIZED.

>> OR FIREFIGHTER.

>> OR A FIREFIGHTER. FIRST RESPONDER.

>> I THINK LIABILITY INSURANCE IS ANOTHER LOCAL REQUIREMENT BEFORE THEY GET A PERMIT.

>> WELL, WE CAN ADDRESS ALL THIS AND THE OTHER STUFF. LET'S GET THE [OVERLAPPING].

>> WE'LL MOVE THAT AND WE CAN REINTRODUCE ON THE FOURTH.

OCTOBER 4 BE [OVERLAPPING].

>> THAT'S NOT A LEGISLATIVE DAY.

>> IT'S NOT, OKAY.

>> THE SEVENTH.

>> SEVENTH. THEN WE CAN REINTRODUCE ON THE SEVENTH.

>> SOUNDS GOOD. THANK YOU FOR WORKING ON THIS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> BEN QUITE THE CONVERSATION.

>> EVERY TIME YOU READ IT, YOU READ IT THREE MORE TIMES AGAIN.

>> YEAH. [BACKGROUND].

>> CONSENT AGENDA.

ANY QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS? FOR ANYTHING ON THE CONSENT AGENDA?

>> WE'RE BACK TO STRIKER.

>> IT'S BEEN A WHILE HERE.

>> THAT'S MAINTENANCE.

[02:30:01]

>> IT IS.

>> $6,000. THEY GOT TO DO OIL, PUT OIL ON [OVERLAPPING].

>> WE WERE THERE TODAY.

>> OILING, CHECKING AMOUNT, MAKING SURE THEY'RE SAFE FOR PATIENTS.

>> THEY BETTER DO A LOT OF OIL FOR 46,000 [LAUGHTER].

>> THAT'S ACTUALLY DEEPER THAN IT'S BEEN.

THEY HAVE GOT NO EQUIPMENT.

>> DID YOU WANT TO ASK? GOOD ON THAT?

[Crystal Dadds, Director, Planning and Codes]

>> NO. I JUST [OVERLAPPING].

[Consent Agenda]

>> I'M GOOD.

>> GOOD?

>> I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

>> I MOVE WE APPROVED THE CONSENT AGENDA.

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

[County Commissioners Open Discussion Period]

>> AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS REPORT?

>> I DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO.

>> COUNTY COMMISSIONER OPEN DISCUSSION PERIOD, COMMISSIONER BARTZ, YOU WANT TO GO?

>> I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING.

>> GOOD.

>> MR. REPORTER.

>> I'LL JUST MENTIONED THAT WE ALL ATTENDED THE FIELD DEDICATION ON SATURDAY.

JAMIE, THANK YOU FOR ALL THAT WORK THAT YOU DID, AND I THINK IT WENT VERY WELL.

SEE A LOT OF POSITIVE COMMENTS FROM PEOPLE ABOUT IT.

I THINK BOTH FAMILIES WERE VERY APPRECIATIVE, SO THANK YOU.

IT WAS A BUSY DAY, BUT I THINK WE ALL WERE AT DIFFERENT THINGS ALL DAY, SATURDAY, BUT THAT WAS A GOOD FUNCTION. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

>> I DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING EITHER.

AT THIS TIME, WE WILL HAVE OUR PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.

IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK THIS MORNING?

>> JANICE ISENBERG, TOWN COMMISSIONER FOR PRESTON.

>> I JUST WANTED TO COME TODAY, I'VE NEVER BEEN TO COUNT COMMISSIONER MEETING BEFORE.

I JUST WANTED TO SEE WHAT WAS ALL ABOUT.

HOPEFULLY I WILL BE ABLE TO COME TO OTHER MEETINGS IN FUTURE.

>> WELL, THANK YOU, AND WELCOME.

>> CONGRATULATIONS.

IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING, IF I CAN FIND MY NOTES HERE, THAT WE NEED TO HAVE A SHORT CLOSED SESSION.

I CAN'T FIND MY NOTES, SO I'LL SHOOT FROM THE CUFF HERE.

UNDER OUR GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE-305B14 BEFORE A CONTRACT IS AWARDED, SPECIFICALLY FOR DAY SPRING TOWN HOMES.

DID I HEAR A MOTION TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION?

>> MOVE.

>> MOTION AND SECOND, ROLL CALL VOTE, COMMISSIONER PORTER.

>> COMMISSIONER BREEDING, AYE, COMMISSIONER BARTZ.

[Meeting Adjourns]