Oct 07, 2025 Caroline County Commissioners Meeting

>> IT'S NOT EXCLUSIVE, DON'T HAVE ANYONE AT THIS POINT?

>> CORRECT. THIS IS THERE'S NO TIME LIMIT ON THIS.

IF AT ANY TIME YOU DECIDE THAT YOU NO LONGER WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS, YOU CAN JUST SAY THAT YOU NO LONGER WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN IT AND PUT IT IN WRITING, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, AND THEN IT WOULD BECOME VOID.

>> THIS IS HOW PRETTY MUCH EVERYONE ELSE IS DOING IT.

THE ONLY OTHER OPTION IS TO OBTAIN A LIST OF ALL THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES IN THE STATE OF MARYLAND AND REACH OUT TO THEM INDIVIDUALLY.

>> WELL, THEY I DON'T THINK THEY'LL TAKE AN ASSIGNMENT OUTSIDE OF THEIR CENTRAL HEADQUARTERS.

I'M TRYING TO SAY THERE. THEY WORK FOR THAT OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS.

I DON'T THINK THEY'RE FREELANCING.

>> OR ANY RETIRED JUDGE.

>> THE RETIRED JUDGE, IF HE DOES IT, THEY'VE GOT AN ETHICAL RULING THAT SAYS THEY CANNOT SIT IN COURT TO MAKE MONEY.

THEY CAN ONLY DO THIS. THAT'S WHY THEY'RE NOT DOING IT.

>> IT'S VERY UNLIKELY.

>> THAT'S EXACTLY WHY I'VE HAD PROBLEMS TRYING TO RECRUIT A JUDGE TO BE APPOINTED AND SIT ON THE TRIAL BOARD THAT WE HAVE PENDING NOW.

THIS IS THE NEXT ROUTE THAT WE THOUGHT WE WOULD GO.

THEN, LIKE I SAID, WE ENDED UP SPEAKING WITH MR. COX OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, TOWN MANAGERS, THE ATTORNEYS.

SHERIFF SPOKE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND WE WENT OVER THIS CONTRACT KIND OF WITH THE FINE-TOOTH COMB AND MADE IT A WAY THAT IT'S TAILORED TO US SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS COUNTY.

>> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? NO.

>> I WANT TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN

[00:15:03]

THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS AND CAROLINE COUNTY, MARYLAND.

PROVIDE ME APPROVAL TO SIGN THE MOA.

>> WANT TO MAKE YOUR MOTION?

>> OH, I'M SORRY. MOVE.

>> ALL RIGHT.

>> I THOUGHT YOU MADE A MOTION.

>> I'LL SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> AS OPPOSED. LET'S HAVE IT.

>> THANK YOU. APPRECIATE YOUR TIME

>> SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER.

>> WHO GETS THIS? JEN. ALFA STEWART.

WE HAVE A SCHEDULED LEGISLATIVE SESSION, BUT CRYSTAL DADS, OUR DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND CODES, IS CURRENTLY TIED UP.

WE'RE GOING TO PUSH THAT. HOPEFULLY, SHE CAN GET HERE.

WE WILL DELAY THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION AND MOVE ON.

I SEE THE SHERIFFS HERE, SO LET'S GO TO THAT.

THE ACTION ITEM AGREEMENT FOR

[• Agreement for Law Enforcement Services (Town of Federalsburg)]

LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES WITH THE TOWN OF FLENSBURG. SHERIFF.

>> HOW ARE YOU?

>> GOOD.

>> CAPTAIN HOMER, HOW ARE YOU?

>> FUN FACT ABOUT THE TRIAL BOARDS.

FOR THE REASON WHY EVERYBODY IS GOING TO TRIAL BOARDS IS BECAUSE ONCE THE ACC MAKES A DETERMINATION, AND THE CHIEF CAN OR SHERIFF CAN RAISE THAT.

BUT ONCE IT COMES BACK FROM THE TRIAL BOARD, THE CHIEF OR SHERIFF USED TO BE ABLE TO RAISE THAT.

IF YOU WERE FOUND GUILTY, AND THE CHIEF OR SHERIFF WAS ABLE TO SET THE DISCIPLINE, BUT NOW IT'S SET BY THE TRIAL BOARD.

THERE'S NO REASON NOT TO GO TO TRIAL BOARD BECAUSE WHATEVER HAPPENS AT THE TRIAL BOARD IS THE ULTIMATE.

>> FINAL.

>> FINAL. IF THEY GO BELOW WHAT THE ACC SAYS, YOU'RE LUCKY.

IF THE ACC HAS ALREADY SAID IT TO THE TOP, THE TERMINATION OR SOMETHING ELSE, THEN THE TRIAL BOARD, IF THEY HAVE NO OTHER CEILING OR WINDOW TO GO TO, AND THAT'S WHAT IT IS.

THERE'S NO RAMIFICATION.

THERE'S NO REASON ENTICEMENT NOT TO GO TO TRIAL BOARD.

THAT'S WHY OUR BODY AROUND STATES TRIAL.

>> THERE'S ANOTHER SILLY THING ABOUT IT.

SUPPOSE THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY DISAGREES WITH WHAT THE ACC DID.

THE OFFICER GOES TO TRIAL BOARD.

THE DEPARTMENT THAT'S ON THE OFFICER'S SIDE IS SUPPOSED TO PRESENT THE CASE AGAINST IT. THINK ABOUT THAT.

>> WE CAN GO IN THERE AND PRESENT NO EVIDENCE, AND THEN IT'S DISMISSED. IT'S A SILLY PROCESS.

>> I MEAN, NEVER MIND.

>> IT'S JUST ANOTHER WAY TO COST A LOT MORE MONEY THAN IT NEEDS TO COST.

>> THERE'S BEEN ONE IN THE STATE ALREADY THAT'S COST $26,000 TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

>> THE THOUGHT IS THEN THAT PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING, EVERY DISCIPLINARY ACTION WILL PROBABLY GO TO TRIAL BOARD.

>> THE STATE FOP IS TELLING EVERYBODY TO BREAK THE BANK AND EVERYBODY TO GO TO THE TRIAL.

>> BREAK THE BANK OF THE GOVERNMENT.

>> ESPECIALLY IN BALTIMORE CITY, YOU HAVE 800 CASES A YEAR, AND YOU TAKE EVERY 800 CASES, YOU TO WHETHER IT'S A WRITTEN REPRIMAND OR WHATEVER, YOU TAKE THE TRIAL BOARD.

IT'S COSTING TIME, MONEY, AND YOU'RE JUST YOU'RE CLOGGING THE SYSTEM.

THERE'S REALLY NO PLEA BARGAIN ANYMORE.

THERE USED TO BE PLEA BARGAINS AS WELL, AND THAT'S BEEN TAKEN OFF THE TABLE, TOO.

THERE'S HOPEFULLY, THE LEGISLATURE WILL FIX IT THIS YEAR. I'M NOT OPTIMISTIC.

>> THEY'RE NOT GOING TO FIX ANYTHING.

>> I DON'T THINK THEY'RE GOING TO FIX ANYTHING BECAUSE IT'S NOT HAVING A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THEIR BUDGETS.

THE COUNTIES AND THE MUNICIPALITIES ARE THE ONES THAT ARE GOING TO HAVE TO COME UP WITH THE MONEY.

>> THERE STILL IS A STATE ACC, AND THEY HAVE TO HAVE STATE TRIAL BOARDS, SO WE'LL SEE, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY HAVE TO PAY THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGES BECAUSE THEY WORK FOR THE STATE.

THAT'S WHERE THE BIG COST IS.

>> YEAH

>> SHERIFF, I THINK WE ALL HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THIS.

THIS IS BASICALLY THE SAME DOCUMENT THAT WE ENTERED INTO WITH FLENSBURG.

RIDGLEY? SORRY. IT IS A LITTLE BIT LARGER BECAUSE RIDGELY, OUR O RIDGELY AGREEMENT IS FOR THREE OFFICERS, CORRECT? THEY PROVIDED THREE VEHICLES THAT THEY OWNED TO THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT.

>> I GUESS, WITH THAT, TURN IT OVER TO THESE GUYS.

[00:20:01]

TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS THEY MAY HAVE, COMMISSIONER PORTER, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING?

>> WELL, I THINK I ASKED I CONTACTED YOU, AND WE DISCUSSED.

I MEAN, MY CONCERNS WERE THE OVERALL CONCEPT HERE.

I'M VERY CONCERNED.

I THINK TO DRILL IT DOWN.

MY CONCERN WAS, HOW SOON ARE WE GOING TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THESE OFFICERS, HOW SOON ARE WE GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET PEOPLE TRAINED? I KNOW WE WE'RE PICKING UP ONE MUNICIPAL OFFICER.

I THINK YOU INDICATED TO ME THAT THE CERTIFICATION FOR A MUNICIPAL OFFICER WAS SIMILAR TO A DEPUTY FOR THE COUNTY, BUT THERE STILL HAD TO BE SOME ADDITIONAL SECOND.

>> WE STILL HAVE TO WORK WITH THE MO POLICE TRAINING COMMISSION TO GET ALL THE PROCESS THROUGH, BUT IT SHOULD BE PRETTY SEAMLESS.

THERE IS JUST ONE LEFT.

YES. THERE'S ONE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO UP STAFF THREE ADDITIONAL DEPUTIES TO FILL OUT THIS MOU.

>> MY OTHER MAJOR CONCERN WAS WITH THIS BEING A YEAR-TO-YEAR AGREEMENT.

WHAT HAPPENS IF ANOTHER GROUP OF COMMISSIONERS, EITHER FROM THE COUNTY OR THE MUNICIPALITY, COMES IN AND SAYS, NO, OR THE TOWN COMES BACK IN AND SAYS, WE WANT TO GO BACK INTO THE POLICING BUSINESS.

>> WHAT DO WE DO THEN?

>> THIS SEEMS TO ME TO HAVE TO BE A LONG-TERM THING.

I THINK IF YOU DO THIS, YOU'RE MAKING A MAJOR FINANCIAL COMMITMENT HERE.

YOU'RE HIRING DEPUTIES.

I'M SURE THAT IF THIS THING IF IT GOES AWAY, YOU'LL BE ABLE TO ABSORB THOSE, BUT AT THE COUNTY'S COST.

>> I MEAN, WE AVERAGE A LOSS OF AT LEAST ONE DEFINITELY A YEAR.

YES, I DO BELIEVE THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO ABSORB THE COST WITHIN THE BUDGET.

BUT AGAIN, YES, YOU'RE RIGHT.

IT WOULD BE A HUGE UNDERTAKING FOR THE TOWN OF FLENSBURG TO ENACT THEIR OWN POLICE DEPARTMENT.

I THINK THAT PROCESS WOULD TAKE AT LEAST A YEAR, WHICH WOULD GIVE US TIME TO DEFINITELY FIX THE ISSUES OF STAFFING AND TO READJUST.

>> WHO DECIDED THAT YOU WANTED TO DO THIS YEAR TO YEAR?

>> WELL, BASICALLY, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT MOST MOUS DEALING WITH FINANCE.

I CAN'T ENTER INTO AN MOU.

MULTI-YEAR BECAUSE I HAVE NO THE COUNT COMMISSIONERS FINANCE THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE.

I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU WANT TO STRAP DOWN THE COUNTY.

THE COUNTY WANTED TO EXIT TOMORROW BECAUSE WE COULDN'T FIND FOUR DEPUTIES TO PATROL THAT.

THEN I ALSO DON'T THINK YOU WANT TO STRAP THE COUNTY DOWN INTO THAT FINANCIAL BURDEN AS WELL.

EVERYTHING THAT I'VE RESEARCHED OR DONE IN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND TO SOME EXTENT, STEWART'S GUIDANCE, YOU DON'T WANT TO ENTER INTO MULTI-YEAR CONTRACTS; YOU WANT TO MAKE IT YEAR TO YEAR SO THAT THERE'S AVENUES OF EXIT FOR ALL PARTIES TO INCLUDE THE COUNTY AND THE SHERIFF.

I SEE IT AS A BENEFIT TO THE COUNTY AND NOT AS A HINDRANCE.

>> I THINK THERE WAS A STATEMENT IN HERE THAT SAID THAT THE COUNTY CANNOT ENTER INTO MULTI-YEAR AGREEMENTS WITHOUT LEGISLATION.

IS THAT CORRECT? START? FOR BUDGET.

>> OTHER WORDS.

>> BUDGET.

>> WELL, WE DON'T HAVE ANY BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS FOR THIS AGREEMENT RIGHT NOW.

BECAUSE ALL OF THE COST IS BORNE BY THE TOWN OF FLENSBURG.

>> THERE IS THE ONLY UNSEEN COSTS WOULD BE MANAGEMENT COSTS OF THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE IN THE COUNTY, CORRECT?

>> WHAT HAPPENED? BECAUSE OF THE COUNTY, SORRY, COMMISSIONER.

BECAUSE THE COUNTY IS A LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENTITY AND FUNDS THE SHERIFF, IT MAY NOT ENTER INTO MULTI-YEAR AGREEMENTS, AGREEMENTS THAT ARE THAT REQUIRE EXPENDITURES BEYOND THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR WITHOUT EITHER DOING SO AS THE ISSUANCE OF DEBT WITH ACCOMPANYING LEGISLATION OR BY INCLUDING A NON-APPROPRIATIONS CLAUSE IN THE CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT.

[00:25:03]

SHERIFF, HOW ARE WE CURRENTLY POLICING FLENSBURG, RIGHT NOW, CURRENT LAY OF LAND SITUATION, THE WAY IT STANDS?

>> WE ARE DOING IT WITH OVERTIME WITHOUT GIVING SPECIFIC DATES, AND I MEAN TIME.

WE'RE DOING IT WITH OVERTIME, AND THEN I DID WORK WITH MR. COX TO BOOST THAT OVERTIME BUDGET, PLUS, WE HAVE ALSO ON THE AGENDA TODAY THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED GRANT FUNDING FROM GOCCP TO ALSO IMPLEMENT THAT OVERTIME WHILE WE ARE TRYING TO GET UP TO FOUR DIFFERENT SAY LEVELS.

>> IF WE WERE GOING TO GO BACK, AND THIS WOULD BE SOME TYPE OF CALCULATION HERE THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE, BUT THE TOWN CURRENTLY RECEIVES A TAX DIFFERENTIAL BASED ON POLICE COVERAGE.

IF WE WERE TO GO BACK AND CALCULATE THE NUMBER OF OFFICERS THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO COVER THE TOWN BASED ON THAT TAX DIFFERENTIAL CALCULATION, DANY, DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MANY THAT WOULD BE?

>> A FORMULA BEING A FORMULA BRINGS THAT NUMBER TO LIKE 4.27, I BELIEVE, WAS OFF OF THE CONSTANT YIELD DATA THAT WE RECEIVED FOR THIS YEAR'S BILLING.

>> I WOULD SAY AT ONE POINT IN TIME IN THE TOWN OF FLENSBURG WAS AT 11 OFFICERS.

WE ARE DEFINITELY DOING A VERY MINIMUM.

>> THAT'S FOR SURE.

>> WELL, WHAT WAS THE WHAT'S THE DIFFERENTIAL COST?

>> THE CURRENT DIFFERENTIAL THAT THEY ARE RECEIVING IS ABOUT $150,000.

>> JUST A NICE AMOUNT OF NUMBERS.

>> WHICH THEY WILL LOSE?

>> WE CONTINUE WITH THE SAME MODEL THAT WE ARE USING FOR PRESTON AND RIDGLEY.

THEY'RE CONTRACTING WITH THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE WOULD ESSENTIALLY CONSIDER THEM PROVIDING HOURS BECAUSE THEY ARE VARYING THE COST, AND THEY WOULD CONTINUE TO RECEIVE THE DIFFERENTIAL.

THAT'S THAT'S HOW PRESTON AND RIDGELY HAVE BEEN USED IN THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS, WELL, AT LEAST WITH PRESTON AND RIDGELY UNTIL RECENTLY, WITH THE ENACTMENT OF THE MOU.

>> THEY ARE ALSO RECEIVING THEIR SAP MONEY, TOO, WHICH FLENSBURG IS LIKE 70,000, I BELIEVE.

>> FROM THE STATE. THEY'RE USING THAT MONEY TOWARDS PAYING FOR THE MOU.

WELL, WE HAVE TALKED TO THE STATE ABOUT THAT MONEY COMING DIRECTLY TO THE COUNTY, AND THE STATE BASICALLY TOLD US NO.

WE DID LOOK INTO THAT AS WELL, COMMISSIONER.

BUT WE DID WORK WITH THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE TO BRING GOCCP FUNDING IN FOR THIS PROJECT AS WELL.

THE $10,000 PLUS 14,000 FOR RECRUITING AND RETENTION, WHICH THEY WERE GOING TO TAKE AWAY GOCCP, BUT WE DID REACH OUT TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY, AND HE WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN GETTING THOSE FUNDINGS BACK.

>> IF THEY DON'T HAVE AN AUDIT DONE, ARE THEY STILL GOING TO BE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE THOSE FUNDS?

>> ALLY REACHED OUT TO DLS IN REGARDS TO AUDITS IN GENERAL AND FILING FOR ANY OF THE TOWNS.

THERE WAS RECENT LEGISLATION THAT WAS PASSED THAT ESSENTIALLY REQUIRES THEM, OBVIOUSLY, TO FILE THE AUDITS, BUT THE REPERCUSSION OF THAT IS A REDUCTION IN HIGHWAY USER REVENUE AND THE DISPARITY GRANT.

THE TOWNS DO NOT RECEIVE DISPARITY GRANTS.

THEY WOULD RECEIVE A REDUCTION IN HIGHWAY USER REVENUE.

I ASKED ABOUT THE OTHER FUNDING, AND THE BILL DOES NOT KEY IN ON THOSE.

IDEALLY LETTER OF THE LAW.

IT WOULD NOT AFFECT THAT.

WHAT A STEP DEEPER, AND SAID, WELL, IF WE GET IN THE SCENARIO WHERE A TOWN OR A COUNTY STARTS GOING FOUR OR FIVE YEARS, NOT THE TWO THAT TRIGGERS THAT.

THE ANSWER I GOT BACK WAS THEY DON'T FORESEE THAT BEING A PROBLEM THAT NO TOWN WOULD.

GET TO THAT. THEY REALLY HAVE NO SCENARIO TO PLAY OUT IN THAT.

>> SHERIFF, ARE WE ALTERNATING CALLS RIGHT NOW WITH THE STATE POLICE OR NOT?

>> WHERE THERE IS NO OFFICER IN TOWN, YES.

>> BUT WE DO FULL STAFF AND WE COVER 24 HOURS, THEN WE WILL HANDLE THE CALLS IN TOWN.

>>> WHAT'S THE CURRENT STATE OF ASSISTANCE WE'RE RECEIVING IN CAROLINE COUNTY FROM STATE POLICE? ARE THEY RESPONDING TO EVERY OTHER CALL FOR SERVICE?

>> LIKE THE ONE CALL.

WE'RE HANDLING ABOUT 80% OVER 80%, I WOULD IMAGINE, SOMEWHERE AROUND 85% OF ALL CALLS FOR SERVICE IN THE COUNTY.

>> WE ARE THE PRIMARY LAW ENFORCEMENT.

>> THEN THE ONLY REASON I ASKED IS BECAUSE THE GOVERNOR HAS RECENTLY SERVED STATE POLICE IN THE BALTIMORE COUNTY. BALTIMORE CITY.

THERE ARE HAVE YOU SEEN ANY REDUCTION IN OR ARE THEIR RESPONSE TIMES ADEQUATE?

[00:30:09]

WE HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING HOW LONG A CALL THAT THEY RECEIVE, HOW LONG IT TAKES THEM TO ACTUALLY RESPOND, CORRECT?

>> WELL, WE COULD GET THAT INFORMATION.

I WILL SAY THAT THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION AT THE EASTON BARRACK ARE REALLY GOOD PARTNERS.

>> CORRECT?

>> BUT YES.

THE STATE POLICE IS ALSO HAVING RECRUITING RETENTION PROBLEMS. THEY ARE ALSO HAVING TO DEAL WITH BALTIMORE CITY, AND THEIR CLOSEST OFFICE, WHEN THEY'RE NOT USING OUR OFFICE, WHICH WE DO SUPPLY, THAT WE DO ALLOW THEM TO USE PRISONERS, BRING PRISONERS AND EVERYTHING INTO OUR OFFICE.

THAT DOES KEEP TROOPERS IN THE COUNTY.

BUT WHEN THEY DO GO TO THE BARRACK, THEIR RESPONSE TIMES ARE DEFINITELY 20 MINUTES OUT PLUS.

>> BUT IF A 91 CALLS COMES IN FOR A BURGLARY AND PROCESS IN MARYDEE, AND IT'S STATE POLICE'S TURN IN THE ROTATION, REALLY, ARE THEY THE ONLY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY RESPONDING, OR YOU'RE RESPONDING, SIFFS DEPARTMENT IS RESPONDING AS WELL, CORRECT? BECAUSE IT'S IN PROGRESS.

WE FIRST AVAILABLE.

>> [OVERLAPPING] AND LOOK, IF THEY'RE IN EASTON, AND THEY CALL US AND SAY, HEY, OUR CLOSEST UNITS IN EASTON, CAN YOU RESPOND HOLD THE SCENE UNTIL WE GET THERE? OR CAN YOU GO AND HANDLE THE SCENE BECAUSE WE'RE BUSY ON A FATAL ACCIDENT SOMEWHERE? YES, THAT ABSOLUTELY DOES HAPPEN.

IF YOU'RE ASKING ME FOR NUMBERS OR HOW OFTEN IT HAPPENS, I DO NOT HAVE THAT RIGHT NOW.

RIGHT NOW, WE GET A CALL ROTATION FROM THE 91 CENTER, AND THEY'RE TELLING US THAT THE CALLS ARE ALTERNATING PROPERLY, AND STATE POLICE ARE HANDLING THEIR PHONE CALLS, AND I WILL SAY THAT, AGAIN, STATE POLICE REALLY DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION WITHIN TOWNS.

THE CHIEF OR THE TOWN HAS TO GIVE THEM JURISDICTION.

I HAVE PROVIDED THEM WITH JURISDICTION IN FLENSBURG, AND THEY HAVE GRACIOUSLY OFFERED TO HANDLE CALLS IN FLENSBURG, AND THEY HAVE MADE ARRESTS IN FLENSBURG.

I DO THAT FOR A FACT. I WILL SAY THAT.

>> THE STATE POLICE DON'T HAVE JURISDICTION.

>> NOT IN MUNICIPALITY.

>> ALLEYS AND POLICE DEPARTMENTS.

IT'S CRAZY OF THE LAW THAT THE STATE OF ALAINA.

AGAIN, THE CHIEF HAS TO GIVE THEM JURISDICTION IN THAT TOWN.

I HAVE GIVEN THEM AUTHORIZATION TO ENFORCE LAWS IN FLENSBURG. NOW, MR. METERS I MEAN, FELONIES, JUST NORMALLY TRAFFIC LAWS, THEY CAN ENFORCE IN TOWNS.

AGAIN, WE'VE GIVEN THEM JURISDICTION TO DO ALL THAT.

>> MAY I ASK DANNY A QUESTION?

>> WHAT'S THAT?

>> DANNY, HAVE YOU LOOKED AT FREDERICKSBURG'S FINANCES SUFFICIENTLY TO DETERMINE WHETHER WE CAN REASONABLY EXPECT THEM TO PAY $187,333 EVERY QUARTER?

>> IT'S AN EXCELLENT QUESTION.

>> THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY QUESTION. THANK YOU.

>> I'M GOING TO BE COMPLETELY HONEST AND FRANK.

IT'S VERY HARD TO ANALYZE ANYBODY'S BUDGET OR FINANCIALS WITHOUT HAVING AN AUDIT OR ANY DOCUMENT THAT SHOWS THE ACTUAL FIRST BUDGET.

I HAVE BEEN IN RECEIPT OF THE FY 2026 BUDGET.

THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT WE'VE GONE BACK AND FORTH ON THAT I BELIEVE THEY COULD CLEAN UP, AS FAR AS SOME OF THE REVENUE NUMBERS AND SOME BIG-TICKET ITEMS THAT THEY HAVE.

BUT UNTIL SOMEBODY CAN PRESENT ME WITH, LET'S SAY, FY 25 OR THE CURRENT BUDGET TO THE ACTUAL MODEL, IT'S VERY HARD TO SAY.

I KNOW THEY HAVE THE STAFFING ISSUES THAT ARE ONGOING THERE.

WITH ANY BUDGET JUST LIKE OURS, SALARY IN FRINGE IS GOING TO BE YOUR BIGGEST COSTS.

WITHOUT HAVING A FULLY STAFFED AGENCY OR TOWN, MORE THAN LIKELY, THEY'RE PROBABLY SAVING ON SOME OF THE EXPENSE SIDE.

BUT AGAIN, IT'S HARD TO ANALYZE A DOCUMENT OR A BUDGET THAT REALLY DOES NOT EXIST OR HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO US.

>> WE'RE VERY DIPLOMATIC WAY OF SAYING HE HAS NO IDEA. [LAUGHTER]

>> IF WE'RE ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH SOMEONE FOR $749,000 THAT WE DON'T KNOW IF THEY CAN PAY US.

>> I WOULD SAY, I GUESS.

COME OUT, SAY, I KNOW THEY HAVE ABOUT 22 POSITIONS ON ALL BUDGET.

FROM WHAT WE'VE BEEN TOLD, I THINK THEY'RE DOWN TO SIX EMPLOYEES OF THE 22.

JUST USING VERY GENERAL MATH, IF YOU HAVE A THREE-MILLION-DOLLAR BUDGET, AND THE BULK OF THAT BUDGET IS EMPLOYEES AND BENEFITS, AND YOU'RE ONLY RUNNING SIX OF 22 EMPLOYEES.

MORE THAN LIKELY, THEY HAVE A VERY POSITIVE CASH FLOW RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO EXPENSES.

I MEAN, THEY'RE TAKING MONEY IN AND THEY'RE PROVIDING LITTLE TO NO POLICE SERVICE.

THERE'S NO EMPLOYEES THAT THEY'RE SPENDING MONEY ON.

THEY'RE PROBABLY IN THE BEST CASH POSITION THAT THEY'VE BEEN IN FOR A WHILE NOW.

>> BUT THEY'RE IN THAT CASH POSITION BECAUSE THEY AREN'T FUNDING

[00:35:02]

POSITIONS THAT ARE NEEDED TO OPERATE TO TOWN?

>> THAT EVENTUALLY WILL BE FUNDED.

I WOULD HOPE THAT THEY WOULD GET TO A POINT WHERE THOSE POSITIONS ARE FILLED AND THEY'RE ABLE TO PROVIDE FULL SERVICE WITH ALL THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS THAT THEY SUPPORT.

PERSONALLY, IF WE'RE LOOKING AT A 12-MONTH PERIOD, I DON'T THINK THEY'LL HAVE ANY PROBLEM PAYING, PROBABLY OVER THE NEXT 12 MONTHS, BARRING ANY MAJOR CATASTROPHE THAT THEY MAY SEE.

IT REALLY STARTS KICKING THE YEAR 2, YEAR 3, AND THEN UP STAFFING AND BUILDING BACK IN THE TOWN AND MODEL.

AGAIN, I DO KNOW THERE'S GOING TO BE SAVINGS WITH THAT.

THERE'S SAVINGS THAT ARE GOING TO BE CREATED JUST BECAUSE OF THIS MOU, AND THE POLICE BUDGET THAT THEY'RE ORIGINALLY STAFFING WITH WAS 11 OR 12 OFFICERS.

>> THEY WERE EIGHT WHEN WE WENT IN THERE.

>> IDEALLY, WITH WHAT I KNOW, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO BUILD THIS IN FOR THIS YEAR.

BUT AGAIN, I WOULD HATE TO STICK MY NECK OUT THERE AND GO OUT ON A LIMB WITHOUT KNOWING EVERY LINE OF THEIR BUDGET AND THE BUDGET ACTUAL.

>> I WOULD SAY JUST ME DIVING INTO THEIR VEHICLE AND ISSUES, THEY WILL PROBABLY SAVE $100,000 A YEAR JUST WITH GETTING RID OF THEIR LEASE VEHICLES AND ACCOUNTING TAKING CARE OF THE INSURANCE BECAUSE FOR SOME CRAZY REASON, THEY'RE PAYING $50,000 A YEAR FOR LEASE VEHICLES AND ABOUT $50,000 A YEAR, AND INSURANCE COSTS, WHICH, THEY PAY $4,000 A MONTH.

THE COUNTY PAYS ABOUT $800 A YEAR FOR VEHICLES.

WHY THEY'RE PAYING SUCH AN EXORBITANT AMOUNT FOR INSURANCE MAKES NO SENSE TO ME WHATSOEVER, AND DANNY AND I TALKED ABOUT THAT.

>> WE'RE NOT TAKING OVER THAT COST.

THEY'RE PAYING IT, THEY'RE JUST PAYING REDUCED.

I KNEW THAT, BUT I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT [OVERLAPPING] THE PRESSURE THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET IS FROM THE REST OF THE COUNTY AND THE REST OF THE MUNICIPALITIES.

THE PRESSURE THAT WE HAVE TO PUT ON FEDERALSBURG, AND ON, UNFORTUNATELY, YOU GUYS, IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE COST IS BORNE BY THE TOWN OF FEDERALSBURG FOR THE ADDITIONAL POLICING.

THAT CAROLINE COUNTY IS NOT SUBSIDIZING THE POLICING BECAUSE SOMEBODY'S GOING TO COME UP AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE BODY, THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR RAISING THE REVENUE TO COVER ALL OF THESE COSTS, I HAVE TO BE ABLE TO ASSURE, AND I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER PORTER AND COMMISSIONER BARTZ WANT TO BE ABLE TO ASSURE ANYONE WHO CAME UP TO US AND SAID, WHY ARE WE SUBSIDIZING POLICING IN FEDERALSBURG NOW THAT WE CAN SAY, WE ARE NOT SUBSIDIZING POLICING IN FEDERALSBURG.

WE ARE PROVIDING POLICING IN FEDERALSBURG, BUT THE TOWN IS COVERING ALL OF THE COSTS FOR THAT ADDITIONAL POLICING.

>> IF THIS WAS A SITUATION WHERE THIS WAS SIMPLY A DECISION THAT WAS MADE BY A MUNICIPALITY, THAT THEY JUST SIMPLY WANTED TO GET OUT OF THE POLICING BUSINESS, THAT WOULD BE ONE THING.

THIS IS NOT THE SITUATION HERE, AND I HAVE A FEELING THAT THERE ARE GOING TO BE COUNTY BUDGET RAMIFICATIONS TO THIS.

I MAY TALK LATER ON, BUT I THINK WE ARE REACHING A POINT WHERE I NEED TO KNOW.

I'M NOT GOING TO SAY I NEED TO KNOW WHAT FEDERALSBURG'S PLAN IS MOVING FORWARD.

I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY HAVE ONE, BUT I'M INTERESTED TO HEAR IT BECAUSE THIS ISN'T JUST A SITUATION WHERE SOMEBODY SAYS, YOU KNOW WHAT, GUYS, AS ONE OF OUR FORMER SHERIFFS SAID ONE TIME, THE DAYS OF THE SMALL TOWN POLICE DEPARTMENTS BECAUSE OF REGULATORY PRESSURES.

THIS ISN'T THAT, THAT'S MY RELUCTANCE ON THIS SITUATION.

>> WELL, I DON'T THINK FEDERALSBURG IS, I THINK PART OF THAT IS, I THINK THAT THE COST OF POLICING HAS GONE SKYROCKETING, AND THAT IS PART OF THE PROBLEM WITH FEDERALSBURG, AS IT IS WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS.

I THINK THE COST OF EVERYTHING IS SKYROCKETING, AND THAT'S WHY FEDERALSBURG IS WHERE THEY'RE AT.

BUT I THINK THE WAY I LOOK AT IT, COMMISSIONER BREEDING IS, I DON'T LOOK AT IT AS FUNDING OR WE ARE MANAGING THE FEDERALSBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT. THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT IT IS.

WE'RE MANAGING LAW ENFORCEMENT IN FEDERALSBURG.

THIS IS THE WAY THAT I LOOK AT IT.

THEY ARE FOOTING THE BILL AGAIN.

I HAVE WORKED WITH DANNY KATHLEEN TO GET THIS.

I WILL TELL YOU THAT OFF THE GET-GO, THERE WAS SOME CRAZY STUFF THEY WANTED THIS MOU, AND I SAID ABSOLUTELY NOT.

I WAS GOING TO BE EXACTLY LIKE BRIGERY'S, AND WE WERE GOING TO GO THE SAME MODEL, AND WE WEREN'T GOING TO HAVE ANY EXTRAS IN THERE WHATSOEVER.

I DID PUSH BACK ON THEM, AND THEY DID GIVE ME A CLEAN COPY BECAUSE I KNEW THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE A START, AND I HAVE THE SAME CONCERNS AS THE COMMISSIONERS DO

[00:40:03]

ABOUT THE FINANCIAL STABILITY OF FEDERALSBURG.

I HAVE TALKED TO FINANCE DANNY QUITE A BIT ABOUT THAT TO INCLUDE VEHICLES AND EVERYTHING ELSE, HOW TO SAVE MONEY, WHERE TO SAVE MONEY, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, I KNOW THAT WHEN THAT 911 CALL COMES IN, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ANSWER ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

THAT'S MY BIGGEST ISSUE, MY BIGGEST CONCERN, AND THAT'S WHY WE ARE AT BARE BONES WITH FOUR, AND WE'RE GOING TO WORK WITH FOUR.

THAT'S WHY WE WORKED SO HARD WITH THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE TO TRY TO BRING FUNDING INTO THIS PROJECT, TO SAVE FEDERALSBURG MONEY, AS WELL AS TO TRY TO HAVE SOME EASE OF MIND THAT IF THINGS DO FALL APART, THERE IS SOME CASH THERE TO COME TO BRING BACK TO CAROLINE COUNTY.

>> BUT WE'VE HAD THIS RELATION NOW WITH BRIGERY FOR JUST OVER A YEAR.

THE FINANCE OFFICE, AS WELL AS THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, HAS BECOME PRETTY ACCUSTOMED WITH ITEMIZING AND ENSURING WE'RE PROPERLY ACCOUNTING FOR THE VERY SMALL COSTS TO THE BIG COST THAT'S ATTRIBUTED TO THESE TYPES OF OPERATIONS.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'LL HOLD IN AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ACCOUNTING FOR EVERY DOLLAR THAT'S BEING SPENT IN FEDERALSBURG AND MAKING SURE THAT THEY'RE ESSENTIALLY PAYING THAT BILL.

WE DON'T WANT ANYTHING ON LEASE.

>> EVEN IN THE REAL NEW WORLD, WE EVEN BROKE THAT DOWN TO HOW MUCH THE COUNTY'S PAYING, TO WE EVEN BREAK IT DOWN PER DEPUTY.

WE CAN CHARGE THEM PART OF THAT TO RUN THAT THERE.

THE FIBER THAT WE'RE GOING TO RUN THERE IS ALL BEING RUN BY THE COST OF FEDERALSBURG.

DANNY SAID, I'M A FISCAL HAWK, AND WE ARE MAKING SURE THAT AS I'VE HAD THESE CONVERSATIONS WITH ALL THREE COMMISSIONERS, THAT FEDERALSBURG IS PAYING THE FULL FREIGHT FOR WHATEVER IT IS, WHETHER IT'S CELL PHONE BILLS, WHETHER IT'S WHATEVER.

WE ARE ABSOLUTELY TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE PAYING EVERY DIME IS COMING OUT OF THE FEDERALSBURG BUDGET.

>> SHERIFF, I HAVE NO QUESTION ABOUT YOUR FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY.

WHO WOULD THIS INFORMATION COME FROM FROM FEDERALSBURG? WHO WILL PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION FROM THAT SIDE TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE PAYING? THAT'S MY CONCERN. DO THEY HAVE A FISCAL, DO THEY HAVE A TIME MANAGEMENT?

>> THEY'LL COME TO US. [OVERLAPPING].

>> WHO WILL COME FROM FEDERALSBURG?

>> THE MONEY, THE CHECK, THEY STILL HAVE IT, YES.

MISS WASHINGTON IS STILL THE TOWN TREASURER, SHE IS STILL.

I TALKED TO HER JUST THE OTHER DAY.

SHE TELLS ME, AND AGAIN, THAT THEY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY, I DON'T WANT TO SAY ON A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY IN THE BANK RIGHT NOW.

LIKE MR. FOX SAID, THEY'RE DOWN TO BARE-BONES MINIMUM STAFF, SO THEY ARE CASH-STRAPPED RIGHT NOW.

THE PROBLEM IS, MY BIGGEST CONCERN IN FEAR IS WHERE DOES THE MANAGEMENT COME IN? WHO ARE WE DEALING WITH? WHERE DO WE GO THROUGH, AND HOW DOES THAT GO ULTIMATELY?

>> BUT TO COMMISSIONER PORTER'S POINT, THEY'RE JUST SENDING US A CHECK, AND WE'RE MAKING SURE ALL OF THE EXPENSES ARE PAID.

>> CORRECT. ALL OF THE EXPENSE AND ACCOUNTING SIDE IS HANDLED THROUGH THE COUNTY.

ALL OF THE SALARY BENEFITS, COSTS FOR RUNNING THAT OPERATION IS ACCOUNTED FOR THROUGH OUR FINANCIALS.

WE PROVIDE THEM WITH A QUARTERLY STATEMENT.

BRIDGELY WILL CUT US A CHECK AT THE END OF THE QUARTER FOR THAT.

IF THEY HAVE QUESTIONS, WE CAN CERTAINLY GO BACK AND FORTH ABOUT INDIVIDUAL LINE ITEMS, BUT HONESTLY, MOST OF THE [OVERLAPPING]

>> ACCOUNTING IS DONE BY THE COUNTY.

>> I DON'T WANT TO SAY, BUT IT'S ALL OF THE OVERSIGHT, ACCOUNTING, AND REPORTING IS DONE BETWEEN OUR OFFICES.

>> WE HAVE THIS $700,000, I MAKE $100,000.

WE HAVE PUT A LOT OF BUFFER IN THERE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE WHAT WE NEED TO GET THE JOB DONE.

>> YOUR ADDITIONAL OFFICE EXPENSES AND YOUR ADDITIONAL OFFICE EXPENSES ARE PASSED ON TO FEDERALSBURG FOR THAT AS WELL.

>> JUST FOR THE RECORD, THE BUDGET IS BUILT WITH A SCENARIO IN MIND, BUT THE TOWN WILL ONLY REIMBURSE US OR BE BILLED FOR DOLLAR-FOR-DOLLAR COST.

>> ACTUAL COST.

>> WE GET DOWN TO JUNE, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE AN INFLATED NUMBER THAT GETS BILLED.

>> THE COUNTY'S NOT MAKING MONEY OR A [OVERLAPPING]

>> IT IS A DOLLAR IN, DOLLAR OUT.

WE'RE NOT CHARGING THEM 10% ON TOP OF ANYTHING.

WHAT WE SPEND IN INSURANCE, WHAT WE SPEND PER EMPLOYEE, IS WHAT THEY'RE PAYING, WHICH IS AGAIN, WHY ARE THOSE SAVINGS TO DO IT FOR A LOWER COST?

>> MAY I MAKE A SUGGESTION?

>> DANNY, ARE THERE ARE A COUPLE OF ASSURANCES THAT WE COULD PUT INTO THIS CONTRACT THAT REQUIRE THE TOWN OF FEDERALSBURG TO MEET CERTAIN MILESTONES IN A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME, SUCH AS THEY WILL HAVE THEIR AUDIT DONE BY SUCH AND SUCH A DATE? THEY WILL HAVE FILED WHATEVER THEY NEED TO FILE.

THE STUFF THAT YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT VERY EARLY ON HERE, THEY NEED TO DO THAT FOR THEIR OWN FINANCIAL STABILITY.

[00:45:03]

WE'RE STICKING IN A WAY OUR NECK OUT.

IS THERE SOMETHING WE CAN ASK THEM IN THIS CONTRACT TO TELL US THEY'RE GOING TO DO, AND ALSO PERHAPS OPEN THEIR BOOKS TO US YOU COULD SEE.

>> ONE THING I WOULD SAY IS THERE IS A 60-DAY CLAUSE, SO WE CAN GET OUT OF THIS AT ANY TIME THEY DON'T WANT TO.

ANYTHING THAT WE ADD TO THIS, I WOULD HOPE THAT WE WOULD ADD TO IT AS A PREAMBLE OR SOMETHING TOWARDS THE END, SO WE CAN SAY, LOOK, WE'VE ENTERED INTO THIS CONTRACT, BUT YOU NEED TO DO THIS X, Y, AND Z, BECAUSE AT THIS POINT IN TIME, OUR LETTER WITH THEM TO POLICE FEDERALSBURG, HAS EXPIRED.

WE'RE DOING IT, BASICALLY.

I JUST SAY THAT THIS IS LOW-HANGING, LIKE KEN WOULD SAY, THIS IS LOW-HANGING FRUIT.

I THINK WE NEED TO GET PAST THIS BECAUSE THE OTHER ISSUES THE COUNTY IS GOING TO HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IS THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT, THE SEWER PLAN, AND ALL THAT STUFF MOVING FORWARD, AND IF WE CAN GET THIS OFF THE PLATE, THEY CAN WORK ON THOSE OTHER THINGS, WHICH, IN MY OPINION, ARE GOING TO BE BIGGER, MORE COSTLY ENDEAVORS, THAT THE COUNTY COULD END UP WITH.

>> DID YOU SAY THE COUNTY HAS TO WORRY ABOUT THAT? [LAUGHTER].

>> WELL, NOT YET.

>> LET'S HOPE NOT.

>> COMMISSIONER BARTZ. THE VEHICLES, SHERIFF BAKER, I KNOW THEY'RE PROVIDING THE COSTS, BUT THE ONES YOU'RE GOING TO OBTAIN FOR YOUR OFFICERS, THEY'RE GOING TO BE LEASHED VEHICLES AT FEDERALSBURG, PAYING FOR?

>> ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS I MET WITH THE MAYOR THE OTHER DAY, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THEY HAVE TWO VEHICLES THAT ARE ABLE TO BE USED THAT ARE UNLEASHED, AND THEY ARE OWNED BY THE TOWN.

THEN WE HAD TALKED ABOUT SELLING TO OLDER SHERIFF'S OFFICE VEHICLES THAT ARE ALREADY EQUIPPED.

DANNY AND I WERE WORKING OUT PRICES FOR THOSE TO THE TOWN SO THEY CAN PAY THE COUNTY FOR THOSE VEHICLES, AND THEY WILL BE FULLY EQUIPPED, ALREADY STRIPPED, AND WE CAN PUT THEM IN FURNISH IN USE DOWN THERE AS WELL.

>> THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS INFRASTRUCTURE.

I'LL TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE INFRASTRUCTURE AS FAR AS INTERNET, WIFI, CAMERAS.

HAVE YOU GUYS TOOK THE RISK DOWN?

>> WE HAVE MET WITH CHRIS.

CHRIS IS WORKING ON FIBER RIGHT NOW, AND AS FAR AS THE CAMERAS, THEY HAVE DOWN THERE AND GETTING THEM HOOKED UP, AND WE'RE GOING TO USE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT THAT THEY HAVE NOW.

WE'VE ALREADY WORKED OUT THAT AGREEMENT, WHICH IS IN IT.

>> FEDERALSBURG TAKES CARE OF ALL THAT.

>> FEDERALSBURG WILL TAKE CARE. IT'S ALREADY BUILT INTO THE COST OF EVERYTHING, AND ALMOST $800,000.

>> HOW MUCH?

>> ALMOST $800,000.

>> SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY.

>> YEAH, 750.

THAT'S ALMOST IN HER TO ME.

>> EVERYTHING ELSE. YOU GUYS ALREADY ASKED, SO THAT'S THE ONLY TWO I HAVE.

>> VEHICLES.

>> WELL, SHERIFF, I'VE GONE BACK AND FORTH ON THIS AND BEEN VERY SKEPTICAL ON THAT.

THE COST, I'VE SPOKEN TO DANNY, SPOKEN TO YOU.

YOU BOTH HAVE ASSURED ME THAT ANY OF THE COSTS AND RD THAT ANY OF THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH US PROVIDING POLICING IN FEDERALSBURG IS GOING TO BE COVERED.

WE'RE NOT TAKING TAX DOLLARS FROM OTHER RESIDENTS.

I'VE STRUGGLED BECAUSE CRIME DOESN'T STOP AT THE STATE LINE, IT DOESN'T STOP AT THE COUNTY LINE, AND IT DOESN'T STOP AT THE TOWN LINE.

IF POLICING IS NOT PROPERLY DONE IN OUR MUNICIPALITIES, THE CHANCE THAT AN OFFENDER IN A MUNICIPALITY ALSO OFFENDS IN THE COUNTY IS VERY HIGH.

THE SITUATION IN FEDERALSBURG, RIGHT NOW, WHERE YOU'RE WORKING ON OVERTIME, PUSHES OUR HANDS A LITTLE FASTER HERE THAN I LIKE TO BE PUSHED.

MY MAIN CONCERN IS THIS IS THAT THE TOWN OF FEDERALSBURG EITHER DOESN'T PAY US OR THEY DECIDE NOT TO RENEW THE AGREEMENT OR ENTER INTO THE AGREEMENT ANYMORE.

WE'RE TALKING FOUR, POSSIBLY FIVE.

SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S BARE-BONES STAFFING, SO REALLY, IT SHOULD BE A HIGHER NUMBER THAN EVEN THAT.

>> EVENTUALLY, AGAIN, I THINK THAT WE'RE TAKING AWAY THE MANAGEMENT COSTS OF SOME OF THOSE POSITIONS.

I THINK FEDERALSBURG HAD TWO POSITIONS THAT WERE MANAGEMENT.

>> JUST MANAGEMENT.

>> WE CAN DEFINITELY SCALE THAT BACK.

AGAIN, WE'RE TRYING TO SAVE THEM MONEY, SAVE THE COUNTY MONEY, SO THEY CAN FILL POTHOLES IN FEDERALSBURG.

>> POTENTIALLY SAVE THE TOWN AND SAVE THE COUNTY FROM HAVING TO COME IN AND TAKE OVER.

>> [LAUGHTER] DO ALL THE OTHER STUFF.

[NOISE] I'VE GONE BACK AND FORTH, I WOULD SAY THE COMMISSIONER PURCHASE POINT WITH THE VEHICLES.

IF WE DO SELL, HOW LONG ARE WE KEEPING THE PATROL VEHICLES NOW, $150,000?

>> 160,000 IS [INAUDIBLE] YOUR RECOMMENDATION.

>> IF YOU GUYS CAN GET 160,000.

WHAT I WOULD DO IS COME UP WITH SOME TYPE OF FORMULA OR STRUCTURE, KEEP IT SIMPLE BECAUSE WHO YOU'RE DEALING WITH AND WHO'S CHAIR HERE.

THAT IF IT'S $160,000, IF WE'RE $80,000 INTO THAT LIFE, I DON'T KNOW THAT 50% OF THE VALUE OF THE VEHICLE IS FAIR,

[00:50:03]

BUT SOMEWHERE CLOSE TO THAT.

I WOULD DEFINITELY ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH THEM THAT WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BUY IT BACK, APPLYING THE SAME FORMULA SHOULD THEY DECIDE TO STOP POLICING.

>> IT WOULD BE THE OPPOSITE WAY AROUND.

WHAT WE DID WITH RIDGELY IS THE RIDGELY'S VEHICLES WE PURCHASED FOR A DOLLAR.

FEDERALSBURG WOULD PAY THE COSTS OF THE VEHICLES, [OVERLAPPING] BUT WE WOULD SELL THEM BACK TO THEM FOR A DOLLAR IF SOMETHING WERE TO HAPPEN, SO YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? THEY HAVE THE FULL COST OF THE VEHICLES AND ALL SERVICES RENDERED, SO WE WOULD SELL THEM THE VEHICLES, BUT THEY WOULD STAY REGISTERED TO THE COUNTY. YES.

>> ESSENTIALLY, YOU'RE DEDICATING THE USE OF THAT [OVERLAPPING] VEHICLE TO FEDERALSBURG, SO WE STAY IN OWNERSHIP. I GOT YOU.

>> YOU'RE GOING TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH THEM SAYING, BASICALLY, WE'LL SELL YOU THESE, BUT IF YOU DROP OUT OF THIS WE'RE KEEPING THEM.

>> THEY'LL KEEP.

>> YOU'RE JUST BASICALLY PAYING US AN UPFRONT COSTS FOR THE USE OF THE VEHICLES.

>> YES, BECAUSE AGAIN, [OVERLAPPING] THEY'RE NOT GO TO SAVE $100,000 A YEAR IF THEY LEASE VEHICLES.

>> WHEN YOU NEED A NEW ONE, YOU'RE GOING TO GO TO THEM AND ASK THEM FOR IT.

>> YES. [LAUGHTER].

>> EXACTLY. IT'S THE EXACT SAME THING.

>> HAVE FUN. YOU'VE GOT THREE [OVERLAPPING]. [LAUGHTER]

>> THEY'RE SAVING $100,000 A YEAR ON VEHICLES.

THEY SHOULD HAVE FUN.

>> WHEN WE HAD THE MEETING DOWN THERE, THEIR BUDGET WAS $1.2 MILLION.

YOU'RE ALREADY AT 400,000 FOR SAVINGS TO GET GO.

>> YES. BUT HERE'S THE THING, THEIR BUDGET WAS $1.2 MILLION.

THEY HAD HOW MANY OFFICERS ON STAFF?

>> THEY HAD NINE BUDGETED AT ONE TIME.

THEY HAD EIGHT WHEN WE TOOK OVER.

>> THEY WERE UNDER?

>> THEY WERE UNDER.

>> ALL OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT WE JUST LAID OUT, [OVERLAPPING] THE MINIMUM STAFFING, THEY WERE DOWN ON STAFFING LAST YEAR.

>> BUT THEY STILL HAD TO COME TO US AND ASK US FOR A PROPERTY TAX DISBURSEMENT EARLY.

I'M WITH COMMISSIONER PORTER HERE, I'M VERY SKEPTICAL ABOUT THEIR ABILITY TO PAY REGARDLESS OF STAFFING LEVEL BECAUSE SOMETHING WEIRD IS GOING ON.

>> AT LEAST MY COMMENT ABOUT SOMETHING DISASTER.

>> AND THERE ONE PUMP STATION BREAKING.

>> CORRECT, YES.

>> THEY ARE ONE MAJOR MISHAP AT A WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OR A WATER TOWER AWAY AND THE WELL IS DRY AT THIS POINT.

THERE'S NOWHERE ELSE TO GO TO GET ANY MORE MONEY.

SO MY FINAL STATEMENT IS, [LAUGHTER] IF THAT SITUATION HAPPENS, DON'T COME TO US LOOKING US TO PICK UP 750,000.

PLEASE DON'T WRITE CHECKS FOR US TO HAVE TO GO, I MEAN, WE GOT PLENTY OF OTHER AGENCIES THAT DO THAT FOR US.

I LOVE THE BOARD OF [INAUDIBLE].

[LAUGHTER] MY WIFE IS AN EMPLOYEE THERE, BUT THEY'RE ALREADY DOING IT.

WE DON'T NEED THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT DOING IT.

>> YOU'RE RIGHT. TRUST, WE KNOW.

AGAIN, WE HAVE DISCUSSED THIS.

I'VE DISCUSSED WITH ALL THREE OF YOU WITH THE STAFF HERE, THAT'S WHY WE ARE A BARE BONES MINIMUM AND I THINK THAT WE CAN GET THIS.

>> WELL, TO BE HARD, WHAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO.

IF THAT SCENARIO HAPPENS, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COME BACK AND SAY, LOOK, SHERIFF, WE CAN MAYBE TWO OF THESE POSITIONS.

>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE STATE DOES THOSE MIGHT BE ONE.

I DON'T KNOW. BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.

I DON'T THINK A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IS GOING TO HAVE A HARD TIME FINDING A JOB RIGHT NOW.

[OVERLAPPING] MAYBE THROUGH ATTRITION RELATIVELY QUICKLY, YOUR DEPARTMENT COULD WORK THAT OUT BUT I THINK WE GOT TO PREFACE THIS JUST BY SAYING, IF DOOMSDAY DOES HAPPEN DOWN THERE, IT'S A HEAVY LIFT TO EXPECT US TO JUST ABSORB A $750,000. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN?

>> YEAH, I AGREE 110%.

I THINK THAT THERE ARE AGAIN, WE GO THROUGH THE ATTRITION AND HOW MANY DEPUTIES WE LOSE A YEAR.

I THINK THAT WE WILL BE FINE.

I THINK THAT, AGAIN, MY HOPE IS TO TRANSITION AT LEAST TO HAVE TWO DOWN THERE.

SO WE ACTUALLY WILL SAVE THE COUNTY BUDGET BECAUSE WE WILL TRANSFER THEM TO FEDERALSBURG BUDGET, RIGHT OFF GET GO, HAVE TWO, AND THEN TRY TO WORK WITH TWO WITH OVERTIME UNTIL WE GET TO [INAUDIBLE] THE ACADEMY.

AGAIN, I THINK THAT WE WILL DEFINITELY OPERATE AS GOOD STEWARDS OF THE COUNTY TAX DOLLARS.

>> NO, I KNOW THAT.

THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT.

IT'S JUST I'M TRYING TO LOOK AHEAD AT ALL THE DIFFERENT STUFF DOWN THE ROAD OF IT THAT DIFFERENT THINGS.

>> I WAS UP 4:30 THIS MORNING, SO.

[LAUGHTER] AGAIN, I DO THAT PRETTY MUCH ON A DAILY BASIS.

>> YEAH, THIS IS, TO ME, AGAIN, IS JUST A PART OF A MUCH LARGER PROBLEM.

THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT YOU HAVE BEEN THROUGH THIS WITH A FINE TOOTH COMAN.

[00:55:03]

I THINK EVERYTHING YOU'VE LOOKED AT HERE MAKES SENSE TO ME, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE THINGS WE CAN'T CONTROL AT THIS POINT.

IT'S LIKE LENDING SOME OF MY RELATIVES MONEY WHEN YOU KNOW THEY'RE NOT GOING TO PAY BUT THERE IS GOING TO BE I'M AFRAID A DOOMSDAY SCENARIO HERE.

I HOPE THERE ISN'T. BUT WE HAVE REACHED A POINT HERE, AND I HAVE NOT HAD ANY DIRECT CONVERSATIONS WITH ANY OF THE TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS AT THIS POINT.

WE'RE RAPIDLY REACHING A POINT HERE WHERE MY SUGGESTION IS GOING TO BE AT SOME TIME SOON, MAYBE TODAY.

THAT WE CONTACT THEM AND ASK THEM WHAT THEIR PLAN IS TO MOVE FORWARD.

I THINK IT'S REASONABLE TO SAY, LOOK, WE'RE TRYING TO WORK AROUND THIS SITUATION.

WE'RE TRYING TO COME UP WITH SOLUTIONS HERE, WHAT'S YOUR SOLUTION TO GET YOURSELF OUT OF THE JAM YOU'RE IN.

IF YOUR SOLUTION IS TO CUT COSTS AND USE THIS SAVINGS TO HELP YOUR BUDGET, OKAY, BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED IN THE PAST.

I'M LIKE YOU, I'M CONCERNED THAT WITH ALL OF THESE SUPPOSED SAVINGS, THEY STILL HAD TO HAVE MONEY AHEAD OF TIME.

THAT'S MY CONCERN.

I'M SURE I'M GOING TO HEAR ABOUT THIS FROM PEOPLE DOWN THERE. THAT'S FINE.

BUT MY JOB HERE IS TO LOOK OUT FOR THE BENEFIT AND THE WELFARE AND THE FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR PEOPLE IN THE REST OF THE COUNTY AS WELL.

I'M PERFECTLY ON BOARD WITH COMMISSIONER BREEDING.

IF I WALK IN SOME OF THE FOOD LINE, SOMEBODY COMES UP, I GOT TO HAVE AN ANSWER FOR HIM.

MY ANSWER HAS TO BE BASED ON THE INFORMATION WE HAVE, BUT WHAT INFORMATION DO WE HAVE? BECAUSE IF YOU WANTED TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THIS AND SAY, WELL, LET'S GO BACK AND LOOK AT THEIR AUDIT. MAY I HAVE AN AUDIT.

>> TO MR. BARROW'S POINT, I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS IS THE AVENUE THAT WE USED TO STRONG ARM THEM INTO DOING A AUDIT BECAUSE WHAT'S OUR LEVERAGE TO FORCE THEM? OUR LEVERAGE WOULD BE TO PULL OUT OF THIS AGREEMENT IN 60 DAYS AND HAVE TO ABSORB THE OFFICERS AND GO BACK TO NOT HAVING ANY POLICING IN FEDERALSBURG, WHICH IS GOING TO AFFECT EVERYBODY.

>> I APPRECIATE YOUR SENTIMENT THERE, SEWER, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S VERY PROACTIVE.

>> GIVE THEM EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO GET THEIR AUDITS DONE AND UP TO DATE, BUT WE GOT TO FIND SOME OTHER WAY TO START LEVERAGING THEM.

>> I'VE SPOKE WITH ONE TOWN COUNCIL MEMBER, AND THEY SAID THAT THEY WERE ON BOARD WITH DOING THE AUDITS AND MOVING FORWARD WITH UP IN THE ORDER FEES AND MAYBE [OVERLAPPING] THAT'S JUST ONE OF FIVE.

SO THAT'S JUST ONE OF FIVE.

>> WELL, I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY HAVE ANY CHOICE.

[LAUGHTER]

>> THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY SOMEBODY TO COME IN AND COMPILE ALL THE DOCUMENTATION THAT THEY NEED TO ACTUALLY GET THE AUDIT DONE.

[OVERLAPPING] THE PROBLEM IS NOT THE AUDIT ITSELF.

THE PROBLEM IS THE $100,000 WORTH OF WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO ACTUALLY DECIPHER ALL OF THE FINANCIAL INFORMATION THEY HAVE, CODE IT PROPERLY, COMPILE IT, AND SEND IT OFF TO THE AUDITOR BECAUSE THE AUDITOR CANNOT GENERATE THE DOCUMENTS THAT ARE AUDITED.

THAT WOULD BE A CONFLICT.

>> THIS PERSON SAID THAT THERE WAS A PLAN. [OVERLAPPING].

>> THEY'RE GOING TO GET SOMEBODY IN THERE TO DO THIS?

>> WELL, THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO KNOW.

>> [OVERLAPPING] I DON'T KNOW. I'M JUST TELLING YOU WHAT I WAS TOLD.

>> [OVERLAPPING] TO STOP BLEEDING EMPLOYEES.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE PLAN IS AND I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT IT IS IN DETAIL AND IN WRITING, AND IN SOMETHING THAT WE CAN GO BACK AND KEEP TRACK OF TO SEE IF THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE DOING.

>> I THINK THE PLAN IS WHAT I WAS TOLD FROM THIS COUNCIL PERSON WAS THE PLAN THAT MR. DECKER LAID OUT FOR THEM, THEY WERE PLANNING ON INITIATING THAT PLAN SO THAT'S WHAT IT IS.

BUT I'M SAYING YOU STILL GOT TO EXECUTE THE PLAN THOUGH.

YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? THEY GOT A PLAN, BUT YOU STILL GOT TO EXECUTE.

>> WELL, LET'S DO THIS. DO EITHER ONE OF YOU GENTLEMEN HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR SHERIFF?

>> I DON'T. THANK YOU, SHERIFF.

>> LET'S DO THIS A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY THAN WE NORMALLY DO IT.

[01:00:01]

I'M ASSUMING THE MOTION IS GOING TO BE TO APPROVE THE AGREEMENT SO LET'S DISCUSS POTENTIALLY HOW WE'RE GOING TO VOTE BEFORE WE DO IT? YOU ALL RIGHT WITH THAT?

>> MR. BARTZ, YOU WANT TO GO FIRST? WHAT'S YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE AGREEMENT? ARE YOU GOOD?

>> I'M GOOD. LIKE I SAID, I'VE TALKED TO SHERIFF BAKER, I'VE TALKED TO THE COUNCIL MEMBER, I'VE TALKED TO DANNY A LITTLE BIT. I THINK I'M FINE.

>> COMMISSIONER.

>> I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE MUCH CHOICE AT THIS POINT.

THE DEVILS IN THE DETAILS, BUT I THINK WE HAVE COME UP WITH A I THINK A REASONABLE WE, YOU HAVE COME UP WITH A REASONABLE MOU HERE.

BUT AGAIN, I WILL VOTE TO APPROVE THIS AGREEMENT, BUT THIS IS PART OF A LARGER PROBLEM THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TACKLE SO YES, I WILL.

>> I HAVE GONE BACK AND FORTH ON THIS, BUT I'M ALSO A YES RIGHT NOW JUST BECAUSE OF THE CURRENT STATE OF POLICING THERE AND THE BENEFIT TO THE ENTIRE COUNTY.

AT LEAST FEDERALSBURG, WILL KNOW THAT THIS $750,000 IS BEING SPENT PROPERLY SO THAT'S ANOTHER PLUS TO THIS.

THE MAJOR CONCERN IS THE TWO THAT I LAID OUT, WHICH WERE THE REST OF THE COUNTY SUBSIDIZING.

YOU ALL HAVE ASSURED ME THAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO EVERYTHING YOU CAN TO MAKE SURE THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN.

THE POTENTIAL WHAT HAPPENS TO THESE POSITIONS IF THEY DO GO INSOLVENT, CAN'T PAY OR DROP IT OR DECIDE NOT TO BUT THAT'S A HYPOTHETICAL.

WE'VE DISCUSSED IT.

YOU GUYS UNDERSTAND OUR POSITION, AND WE'LL JUST TAKE IT FROM THERE.

>> I WANT TO REITERATE, TOO. I HAD GREAT RESERVATIONS HERE, BUT I THINK LIKE COMMISSIONER PORTER SAYS, AT AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT'S [INAUDIBLE] CONSTITUENTS TOO AND FEDERALSBURG.

>> WELL, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO SIGN OR ACCEPT THE AGREEMENT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES BETWEEN THE CAROLINE COUNTY SHERIFF, THE CAROLINE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL, THE TOWN OF FEDERALSBURG.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> MOTION AND SECOND.

>> THE AYES HAVE IT. THANK YOU.

>> WHILE I'M HERE, I WILL SAY THAT I AM VERY APPRECIATIVE TO THE COMMISSIONERS, YOUR STAFF.

JEN WAS GREAT HELPING US WITH A PRESS RELEASE THE OTHER DAY.

I REFERENCED THE INCIDENT RIGIDLY, AND YOU GUYS HAVE A GREAT STAFF.

I JUST WANT TO REITERATE AGAIN. THANK YOU.

>> THANKS, SHERIFF. THANK YOU.

>> CAPTAIN HOMER.

>> THANK YOU. [LAUGHTER]

>> THANK YOU, CAPTAIN HOMER. [BACKGROUND]

>> I KNOW IT'S TAKEN A LOT FOR YOU.

[LAUGHTER] YOU'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS A LOT.

NOW WE ARE GOING TO THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION.

I BELIEVE CRYSTAL IS HERE.

[• Legislative Bill #2025-010—To modify the Composition of the Committee of Agricultural Reconciliation Committee.]

DO I HEAR A MOTION TO GO INTO LEGISLATIVE SESSION?

>> SO MOVED.

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

>> ALL THOSE OPPOSED. THE AYES HAVE IT.

WE HAVE THE SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS.

I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MR. BARROW.

>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. WE ARE HERE, AS YOU SAID FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON LEGISLATIVE BILL 2025-010, WHICH IS CHAPTER 149, RIGHT TO FARM.

THIS BILL WAS INTRODUCED BACK ON SEPTEMBER 23RD.

A NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS PUBLISHED ON SATURDAY, OCTOBER 4TH IN THE STAR DEMOCRAT.

I WILL NOW READ THE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE CAROLINE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON LEGISLATIVE BILL 2025-010, AND ACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF REPEALING SUBSECTION B OF SECTION 149-4, CREATION OF CAROLINE COUNTY, AGRICULTURAL RECONCILIATION COMMITTEE 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.

[01:05:04]

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 VOCAL LAW FOR ALL PURPOSES.

THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THE ABOVE ITEM ON OCTOBER 7TH, 2025, BEGINNING AT 9:15 AM IN ROOM 106 OF THE CIRCUIT COURTHOUSE, LOCATED AT 109 MARKET STREET, DENTON, MARYLAND 21629, TO SUBMIT COMMENTS IN WRITING, EMAIL, THE ADDRESS IS GIVEN, VISIT THE WEBSITE IS GIVEN OR MAIL TO 109 MARKET STREET ROOM 123 DENTON, MARYLAND 21629.

PERSONS WITH A DISABILITY NEEDING REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION TO SUBMIT TESTIMONY, SHOULD CONTACT THE COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE AT 410-479-0660.

>> AGAIN, HAVE WE RECEIVED ANY PUBLIC COMMENT?

>> I THINK WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY [INAUDIBLE].

>> REALLY QUICKLY. BASICALLY, ALL WE'RE DOING IS REMOVING ANY REQUIREMENTS OR MOST REQUIREMENTS FOR MEMBERSHIP ON THE AGRICULTURAL RECONCILIATION COMMITTEE.

WE'RE OPENING UP. WE'RE FREEING THE COMMISSIONERS TO PRETTY MUCH APPOINT ANYONE FROM THE COUNTY WHO'S LIVED HERE FOR THREE YEARS TO SERVE ON THE BOARD AS OPPOSED TO HAVING A REALTOR AND ALL THE OTHER STUFF.

>> SHOULD BE EASIER TO FILL THE POSITION.

>> NEED A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, SO MOVED.

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

>> PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN.

WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY COMMENT, AND NO ONE HAS SIGNED UP, BUT IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? DO NOT SEE ANYONE.

I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

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

>> ALL THOSE OPPOSED. AYES HAVE IT.

HEARING IS NOW CLOSED. MOVING ON.

>> BRINGS US TO LEGISLATIVE BILL 2020 5-011.

THIS BILL WAS ALSO INTRODUCED ON SEPTEMBER 23 OF THIS YEAR, AND THE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING WAS PUBLISHED IN THE STAR DEMOCRAT ON SATURDAY, OCTOBER 4, SO WE ARE HERE FOR THE SECOND READING AND THE PUBLIC HEARING.

I WILL READ THE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE CAROLINE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON LEGISLATIVE BILL NUMBER 2020 5-011, AND ACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CREATING A FUND TO RECEIVE PAYMENTS OF COMPENSATORY PRESERVATION CONTRIBUTIONS TO CAROLINE 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 THE METHOD OF CALCULATING THE AMOUNT OF THE COMPENSATORY PRESERVATION CONTRIBUTIONS, TO PROVIDE THAT MONEY IN THE PURCHASE 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 FOUNDATION, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF TITLE 2 SUBTITLE FIVE OF THE AGRICULTURE ARTICLE OF THE ANNOTATED CODE OF MARYLAND.

THAT ALL MONEY IN THE AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION FUND MAY ONLY BE USED WITH THE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CAROLINE COUNTY.

THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THE ABOVE ITEM ON OCTOBER 7, 2025, BEGINNING AT 9:15 A.M.

IN ROM 106 OF THE CIRCUIT COURTHOUSE, LOCATED AT 1:09 MARKET STREET, DENTON, MARYLAND 21629, TO SUBMIT COMMENTS IN WRITING, EMAIL, THE ADDRESS IS GIVEN, VISIT, THE WEBSITE IS GIVEN, OR MAIL TO 109 MARKET STREET, ROOM 123 DENTON, MARYLAND 21629.

PERSONS WITH A DISABILITY NEEDING REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION TO SUBMIT TESTIMONY SHOULD CONTACT THE COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE AT 4:10 4790660.

THEN HAVE WE RECEIVED ANY PUBLIC COMMENT?

>> NO ONE SIGNED UP, SO THIS HAS CHANGED SUBSTANTIALLY FROM THE INTRODUCTION.

>> YES. INTRODUCTION, THE BILL WAS TO CREATE THE FUND IN THE TAXATION CHAPTER,

[01:10:04]

AND AFTER DISCUSSION DURING THE INTRODUCTION, THAT THAT WAS NOT THE APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR THAT TO BE IS THIS IS NOT A TAX.

MR. BARROW HAS CREATED A NEW CHAPTER OF THE COUNTY CODE, AND DISCUSSION WAS THAT EVERYTHING RELATED TO THE COMPENSATORY FUND SHOULD BE IDENTIFIED AND LOCATED IN THAT CHAPTER AND NOT PIECEMEALED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BECAUSE IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE, WE ARE INDICATING THAT FOR THE SOLAR, YOU WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PAY THE COMPENSATORY FUND.

WE DIDN'T HAVE LAID OUT HOW THAT METHOD WAS CALCULATED, AND THAT SHOULD BE PLACED WITHIN THIS BILL.

>> WE WERE GOING TO INCLUDE ALL THAT IN THE SOLAR LEGISLATION THAT WE'RE WORKING ON, BUT NOW WE DECIDED TO JUST PUT IT IN THIS, SO WE'RE SPLITTING IT UP SO WE CAN ALL OF US, AND THE PUBLIC CAN DIGEST THIS A LITTLE BETTER.

>> CORRECT. WHAT THIS BILL DOES IS CREATE THE FUND DEFINES THE TERM OF COMPENSATORY PRESERVATION FUND, WHAT WE HAVE CONSIDERED TO BE THE PROJECT AREA.

IT DEFINES THE SOLAR ENERGY GENERATING SYSTEMS, SMALL SCALE, AND LARGE SCALE, WHAT WE HAVE DEFINED VITAL FARM LAND TO BE, WHICH IS THE PRIME FARM LAND AND THE FARM LAND OF STATEWIDE IMPORTANCE.

IT ALSO TALKS ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF WHEN THAT IS REQUIRED TO BE PAID, AND THEN THE IMPORTANT PART IS HOW WE CALCULATE IT.

THE DISCUSSION WHEN WE WERE DOING THE SOLAR BILL WAS THAT IT WOULD FOLLOW.

WHAT QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY WAS PROVIDING FOR, WHICH WAS 50% OF THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS DETERMINED BY THE MUTH SETTLEMENT EASEMENT PROCESS, AND TRYING TO DIGEST THAT AND FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT LOOKED LIKE AND HOW WE WOULD APPLY IT NEEDED TO BE DISCUSSED AND IRONED OUT BEFORE WE MOVED FORWARD WITH THE BILL.

WHAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU IS UNDER THE PROPOSED SECTION 75-4 IS THE AMOUNT OF THE CONTRIBUTION WOULD BE CALCULATED, IF WE WERE FOLLOWING SUIT WITH HOW THE MOUTH PROCESS WORKS, THAT THE COUNTY WOULD CALCULATE THE CONTRIBUTION USING 75% CALLED THE AVERAGE.

>> JUMP IN. LET'S TALK ABOUT LOCATION FIRST CAUSE STULL HAVE SOME QUESTION ABOUT THAT, SO THE CHAPTER 75, A NEW CHAPTER.

DO WE HAVE A CHAPTER NOW THAT IS LAND PRESERVATION?

>> BUT WE DO, YES. [LAUGHTER] YES.

>> WE DON'T.

WE'LL HAVE TWO LAND PRESERVATION CHAPTERS.

RIGHT? IS THAT WHAT WE'RE SAYING NOW? ESSENTIALLY. I'M JUST JUST CURIOUS DANNY.

YOU WANT TO COME UP? GET BACK UP HERE IN THE HAVE A SEAT.

>> I THINK THE VARYING ANSWERS IS BECAUSE THEY'RE A LITTLE BIT OF DIFFERENT CHAPTERS, BUT TITLING IS VERY SIMILAR, SO WE CURRENTLY HAVE CHAPTER 74, WHICH IS TITLED AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION.

THERE IS NO FUND ON THE END OF IT, SO IF MEMORY SERVES ME CORRECT BECAUSE THAT'S AN OLDER CHAPTER THAT WE REALLY?

>> YES. IT WAS CREATED IN THE 1980S AND HAS NOT BEEN AMENDED SINCE THAT TIME?

>> IT HAD TO BE CREATED BY STATE LAW IN ORDER FOR OUR A TRANSFER TAX TO GO INTO OR NO?

>> NO. MY UNDERSTANDING IS READING THROUGH CHAPTER 74, IT REALLY DOES NOT HIT ON THAT.

IT'S DESIGNATING DISTRICTS AND MAPPING FOR [INAUDIBLE].

I THINK THE QUESTION YOU WERE GOING DOWN, WHICH IS A QUESTION THAT I HAD THAT I'D PROBABLY DIRECT TO COUNSEL, IS THERE A NEED TO ABOLISH 74, IS IT APPLICABLE TO ANYTHING THAT WE'RE DOING NOW?

>> IF YOU SAY DISTRICTS, THEN IT WAS PROBABLY TO SET UP THE MOUTH ADMINISTRATOR PROGRAM TO TIE UP TO THE STATE.

>> TIE UP, AND THAT'S HISTORICALLY WHERE I HAVE A REFERENCE.

>> THEN BECAME TON DISTRICTS, AND NOW THE DISTRICTS ARE GONE SO THE LANGUAGES TO CONNECT IT TO THE STATE TO THE M PROGRAM LIKE AN ENABLING.

>> AGAIN, I HAD THIS SAME QUESTION AND WANTED TO THROW THAT OUT THERE AS WELL.

I THINK THERE'S ENOUGH DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN TWO TO A DEGREE, BUT WE WILL AT SOME POINT, SHOULD ADDRESS 74 RIGHT.

>> YES, BECAUSE WE HAVE INDICATED IN THIS PROPOSED BILL THAT WE WOULD UTILIZE THAT FUND MONEY TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION EASEMENTS, BUT NOT EXCLUSIVELY THROUGH THE MUTH PROGRAM.

IT COULD BE THROUGH ORAL LEGACY OR ANOTHER PROGRAM THROUGH ESLC.

>> IT DOES THAT MAKES SENSE. THANK YOU.

[01:15:01]

>> WE DIDN'T LIMIT.

SO IT DOES MAKE SENSE TO SEPARATE TWO BECAUSE I'M THINKING, WHY ARE WE HAVING TWO CHAPTERS DEALING WITH THE SAME SUBJECT?

>> WE CAN GO BACK AND REVISIT THAT LATER.

RIGHT NOW, THE BEST THING.

EVERYONE'S RECOMMENDATION IS THE BEST THING TO DO IS CREATE A NEW CHAPTER, BASED OFF.

>> YES. READING THROUGH THIS.

>> [LAUGHTER] HOW ARE WE CALCULATE.

ARE WE CALCULATING THE FUND.

>> I WE WERE TO FOLLOW THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS DETERMINED BY THE MUTH EASEMENT PROCESS, WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE UNDER 75-4 A, PAGE FIVE OF THE BILL, THAT THE COUNTY WOULD CALCULATE THE CONTRIBUTION USING 75% OF AVERAGE FAIR MARKET VALUE PER ACRE, AS DETERMINED ANNUALLY BY MUTH FOR SOILS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA THAT WE CLASSIFY AS VITAL FARMLAND.

WE DID NOT KNOW TILL AS RECENT AS YESTERDAY THAT MUTH DOES HAVE AN AVERAGE NUMBER EACH YEAR OF FAIR MARKET VALUE, AND WHAT THEY DETERMINE TO BE FAIR MARKET VALUE IS LAND ONLY, NOT STRUCTURES.

WHERE THAT AVERAGE NUMBER IS BASED OFF, WHETHER IT'S SALES, IT'S THE NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS THAT CAME IN, AND BECAUSE A FAIR MARKET VALUE IS DONE AS PART OF THOSE APPLICATION PROCESSES, I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER TO THAT.

>> SOME OF IT IS BASED ON WHAT THE APPLICANT ASKED FOR?

>> I THINK A LARGE AMOUNT OF IT IS BASED ON WHAT THE APPLICANT SAYS, THIS IS WHAT I WANT TO PUT MY LAND IN ACT PRESERVATION, AND THIS IS HOW MUCH I WANT TO DO THAT.

>> IF THEY SUBMIT AN APPRAISAL.

>> YES. THEY DO CONSIDER THAT.

>> THE FAIR MARKET VALUE IS ONE PART OF THAT FINAL EASEMENT VALUE DETERMINATION IT'S THE FAIR MARKET VALUE.

THEY ALSO DO AN AG LN VALUE TO GET TO THE ULTIMATE EASEMENT VALUE.

>> MY CONCERN WITH THE MOUTH PROCESS IS IF THEY FACTOR IN WOODLAND.

IF THAT REDUCES THE APPRAISED VALUE BECAUSE WOODLAND IS WORTH LESS THAN FARMLAND, CORRECT?

>> IT IS. NORMALLY, BUT I THINK IN TODAY'S WORLD.

>> HERE'S WHAT I'M THINKING IS IF THE WOODLAND VALUE IS LESS, IT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR SOLAR DEVELOPMENT ANYWAY, SO YOU WOULD WANT TO REMOVE THAT BIAS FROM THE FINAL NUMBER AND BASE IT SOLELY ON JUST TILLABLE LAND OR PRODUCING? YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? THAT WOULD BE MY CONCERN ABOUT WITH USING THE MOUTH PROCESS AS OPPOSED TO A TRUE APPRAISAL OF THE VALUE OF THE LAND.

>> TO ADDRESS COMMISSIONER PORTER'S CONCERN WAS, ALSO, IF WE ARE USING THIS NUMBER FROM MUTH, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THAT NUMBER IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE OR THERE'S NO FUNDING THEN WHERE DO WE GET OUR NUMBERS FROM? THIS WAS WRITTEN IN A WAY THAT IF WE USE THE MOUTH BASED CALCULATION, AND IT NO LONGER BECOMES AVAILABLE, WE COULD MOVE TO OPTION 2, WHICH IS THE APPRAISAL BASED CALCULATION, WHICH YOU DID TALK ABOUT PRIOR TO, WHICH IS THE COUNTY WOULD RETAIN TWO INDEPENDENT APPRAISERS TO DO APPRAISALS.

THE SOLAR COMPANY WOULD PAY THE COST OF THOSE APPRAISALS, AND THAT APPRAISAL WOULD DETERMINE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE AREA THAT THEY'RE UTILIZING FOR THE SOLAR PROJECT, AND THAT APPRAISAL WOULD BE BASED ON THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THE LAND FOR RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, OR SOLAR DEVELOPMENT.

WE'RE LOOKING FOR THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THAT AREA.

THERE'S ALSO ONE ADDITIONAL LINE ADDED THERE THAT STATES IF THE PROJECT AREA DOES NOT CONSIST ENTIRELY OF VITAL FARMLAND, THE APPRAISALS SHALL VALUE THE VITAL FARMLAND USING THE HYPOTHETICAL CONDITION THAT IS A SEPARATE PARCEL WITH GRANITE LEGAL ACCESS TO A PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY.

IF I GET THIS CORRECT, STEWART, THAT MEANS THAT IF WE'RE TAKING OUT, THE EXAMPLE IS, YOU HAVE A PARCEL THAT'S 100 ACRES IN SIZE, THE SOLAR WANTS TO UTILIZE 50 OF THOSE ACRES.

IF WE WERE TO LOOK AT THAT 50 ACRES AS A STANDALONE PARCEL THAT YOU'RE SUBDIVIDING OUT, THERE IS THE POTENTIAL THAT THAT COULD BE LANDLOCKED.

THIS WOULD BE TREATED AS IF IT HAD ILLEGAL ACCESS SO THAT THERE'S NO ARGUMENT THAT IT'S LANDLOCKED, WHICH WOULD DECREASE THE VALUE OF THAT LAND THAT WOULD BE THE REASON FOR THAT STATEMENT, AND THEN ULTIMATELY OF THE 50 ACRE AREA THAT THE SOLAR WANTS TO UTILIZE, IF 35 OF THOSE ACRES ARE DETERMINED TO BE PRIME OR STATEWIDE IMPORTANT SOILS,

[01:20:01]

THAT WE WOULD ONLY BASE IT ON THOSE ACRES, SO IF IT WAS ONLY 35, THE 15 WOULD BE EXCLUDED.

>> THHIS VERSION DOESN'T HAVE THE MOUTH PROCESS IN IT.

I DON'T THINK OCTOBER 6 REVISION THAT WAS SENT OUT YES YESTERDAY.

>> AFTER YOU AND I SPOKE LAST TIME.

>> HE PULLED IT OUT, SO YOU GUYS AREN'T SEEING THAT PART, SO THE VERSION THAT I SAW YESTERDAY HAD AN AD OR, AND I FOUGHT IN TALKING WITH CRYSTAL THAT IT WAS JUST EASIER TO JUST DO THE APPRAISAL PROCESS BECAUSE WE DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND HOW THE MOUTH NUMBER IS GENERATED.

THIS WAY, WE'RE GETTING TWO APPRAISERS TO LOOK AT THE PROPERTY AND TELL US WHAT THE PORTION OF THAT PROPERTY THAT'S GOING TO BE AFFECTED BY SOLAR IS WORTH.

>> IT BE CLEARER TO JUST ELIMINATE THE MOUTH PROVISION?

>> THAT'S WHAT WE DO.

>> I WANT TO YOU WANT TO LEAVE IT?

>> PUT THE OPTIONS OUT THERE.

>> I WANT TO LEAVE MOUTH OUT BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUTURE OF IT'S GOING TO BE, AND I WOULD I DON'T I'M NOT I DON'T WANT TO USE THE STATE.

I WANT US TO DO OUR OWN BECAUSE I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE UNIQUE TO THIS COUNTY, AND I THINK IT WILL SIMPLIFY THINGS SO YOU CAN'T HAVE SOMEBODY COME BACK AND SAY, THIS IS WHAT MALP SAYS.

I I DON'T I'D LIKE TO SEE US JUST ELIMINATE THE MOUNTAIN.

>> IN TERMS ADDRESS IT BY ONLY APPLYING THAT FAIR MARKET VALUE TO THE PRIME AND STATEWIDE IMPORTANT SOIL, SO YOU THE COUNTY IS COVERING THE AG VALUE ESSENCE IN THE SAME WAY THAT MLP IS, BUT WE'RE DOING IT OUR OWN WAY BY ONLY APPLYING IT TO THE HIGHEST AG SOIL.

>> MY ONLY QUESTION WOULD BE NOT MY ONLY, ONE QUESTION WOULD BE EVEN IF YOU HAVE 50 ACRES AND 35 ACRES IS PRIME FARMLAND, YOU'RE ALSO GOING TO BE IMPACTING THE POTENTIAL USE OF THOSE OTHER 15 ACRES.

THEY'RE GOING TO BE RUNNING TRANSMISSION LINES.

THEY'RE GOING TO BE DOING THINGS THAT WON'T BE COVERED WITH SOLAR PANELS, AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO WITH THE REMAINING ACREAGE.

>> IN OTHER WORDS, DON'T APPLY IT ONLY TO THE PRIME APP TO THE WHOLE, WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY AN OPTION.

>> AGAIN, I GO BACK TO Y 75%, WHY NOT 100%.

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR DECISION.

>> IF WE'RE TAKING 100% OF THIS, IF YOU TAKE ONE ACRE AND WE'RE TAKING THAT ONE ACRE OF LAND OUT OF POSSIBLE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION.

THEN WE OUGHT TO BE RECEIVING MONEY FOR THE FOR WAY.

JUST REMEMBER, THIS STARTED BECAUSE WE HAD ORIGINALLY PROPOSED TO DO WHAT QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY WAS DOING, WHICH I BELIEVE THEY WERE AT 50% FOLLOWING THE MUTH FAIR MARKET VALUE.

>> BUT THEY WERE ONLY ON TIER ONE SOILS, WHICH IS EVEN SMALLER MUCH SMALLER THAN THESE AREAS.

>> YES, I THINK LESLIE RAN SOME NUMBERS YESTERDAY TO SEE WHAT THAT LOOKED LIKE ON A FARM IN CAROLINA.

>> TO ME IT'S AN ACRE FOR ACRE.

>> WELL, I THINK MOST OF WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS GOING TO HAVE ONE OF THESE EITHER OF THESE TWO DESIGNATIONS, ANYWAY.

THE ONLY MAYBE LOW LYING AREAS WOULDN'T HAVE A CLASSIFICATION.

>> IF YOU HAD TO 50 ACRES AND 35 ACRES IS VITAL FARMLAND.

BUT IF YOU SAY SUBTRACT TO 15 ACRES, BUT IF YOU KEPT TO 50 ACRES WHOLE AND LEFT THAT AT 75%.

I THINK YOU WOULD BE FAIR.

IN OTHER WORDS, TAKE WORDS LIKE YOU SAID, EVERYTHING'S IMPACTED.

NO WORDS, EVERYTHING'S AFFECTED BY THAT THING.

KEEP THE ACRES WHOLE WITH JUST SAY 50 ACRES AS THE NUMBER WE'RE USING.

FORGET ABOUT THE VITAL FARM LAND ASPECT OF IT, IT'S 50 ACRES.

BUT IF YOU TAKE 75% OF THAT 50 ACRES APPRAISAL, THAT WOULD KEEP YOU FAIR ALL THE WAY AROUND.

I AM I WRONG FOR SAYING THAT OR DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?

>> THAT MAKES SENSE.

>> I DON'T CARE. I DON'T WANT TO COMPROMISE.

>> WE DO THE WHOLE THING.

>> BUT THE 75% IT'S OFFSETTING THE OTHER 15 ACRES.

YOU'RE STILL GETTING SOMETHING FOR SOMETHING, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN?

>> WELL, BUT MY POINT IS, THEY'RE COMING IN AND TAKING FARM LAND OUT OF PRODUCTION.

WE SHOULD BE I DON'T I'M NOT LOOKING TO COMPROMISE WITH THE SOWER COMPANY.

THEY SHOULD BE PAYING THE AMOUNT THAT THEY'RE TAKING OUT OF PRODUCTION.

THAT'S 100%. I MEAN, IF THEY TAKE AN ACRE OF LAND AND PUT SOLAR PANELS ON 75% OF LAND.

>> WELL, THE THOUGHT IS YOU COULD PURCHASE AN EASEMENT ON SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY FOR PROBABLY 50% OF THE ACTUAL SALE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.

THE 75 GIVES US A LITTLE CUSHION.

[01:25:02]

THEORETICALLY, USING THAT, IF YOU COULD PURCHASE SOMEONE'S EASEMENT, WHERE THEY RETAIN OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY, THEY JUST COMMIT TO NEVER TAKING IT OUT OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO PURCHASE THAT RIGHT FOR 50% OF THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.

I MEAN, IF WE AT 75, IT GIVES US A LITTLE CUSHION.

IF WE GO TO 100, WE'RE BASICALLY SAYING TO THE STATE FOR EVERY ACRE YOU TAKE OUT OF PRODUCTION, WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO PRESERVE TWO ACRES.

THE PERCENTAGE THE WAY I'M BREAKING THE PERCENTAGE DOWN IS, WHAT DO WE WANT TO DO? DO WE WANT TO PRESERVE TWO FOR EVERY ONE THAT'S TAKEN OUT IS A ONE FOR ONE ENOUGH.

THAT'S THE METHODOLOGY I'M USING TO LOOK AT THE PERCENTAGE THAT WE'RE APPLYING.

AS FAR AS THE ACREAGE, MY ONLY CONCERN IS WITH THE PROJECT AREA, IF IT DOESN'T HAVE A VITAL FARMLAND DESIGNATION, HOW DO WE KNOW THAT IT WAS IN AGRICULTURE? I'M JUST TRYING TO LOOK AT THIS FROM SOMEONE WHO'S GOING TO POKE HOLES AT IT, POTENTIALLY DOWN THE ROAD, IS, WELL, YOU'RE CHARGING ME AG LAND PRESERVATION ON 15 ACRES THAT WASN'T EVEN FARMED AT THE TIME.

I DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH PUTTING THIS TOGETHER, IT'S OVER THERE, BUT AND LOOKING AT IT, THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT I'M THINKING THROUGH. WHAT ARE THEY? MORE THAN LIKELY, IF YOU'VE GOT 35 ACRES TILLED AND THEY'RE PUTTING OR IF YOU'VE GOT 50 ACRE PROJECT AREA, THEY'RE PROBABLY GOING TO BE USING ALL AG LAND.

>> I MEAN, YOU HAVE THE SITUATION NOW WHERE TWO FARMS THEY TORE DOWN THE DWELLINGS THAT THOSE AREAS WERE NOT FARMED AT THE TIME AND PUT SOLAR THERE.

>> THREE ACTUALLY [OVERLAPPING] IT'S THREE OF THEM.

>> YOU'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE SOIL, RIGHT? WHEN YOU SAY VITAL FARMLAND?

>> THE OTHER 15 ACRES MOST LIKELY IS FARMED.

IT'S JUST NOT VITAL FARMLAND.

>> I DON'T KNOW. HAS ANYONE LOOKED AT A MAP OF THE USDA OR STATE DOES IT IN THAT CASE, THAT CRYSTAL JUST LAID OUT, DOES IT COVER WHERE THE HOUSE AND ALL WAS AS WELL? IS THAT ACTUALLY DOESN'T.

>> YOU MEAN SOIL SURVEY?

>> I MEAN, THE SOIL SURVEY.

>> DOESN'T ACCOUNT FOR STRUCTURES.

>> STRUCTURES. RIGHT.

I MEAN, IT'S A SOIL SURVEY DOESN'T KNOW THERE'S A STRUCTURE THERE.

BUT WHY THE MAL FORMULA, THEY TAKE AN ACRE OUT OF THAT SOIL GROUP WHERE THE HOUSE.

>> FOR EACH STRUCTURE.

>> YES. THEY HAVE AN ACTUAL CALCULATION BASED ON PRODUCTIVITY.

THAT'S ANOTHER REASON WHY NOT TO USE.

>> IT'S VERY COMPLICATED.

>> WHY WOULDN'T WE UTILIZE? WHY WOULDN'T WE PUT THE COMPENSATION NUMBER ON THE AMOUNT OF LAND THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BUY OR LEASE?

>> LIKE A HUNDREDS.

>> THEY'RE NOT GOING TO LEASE LAND UNLESS THEY NEED IT.

THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BUY LAND UNLESS THEY NEED IT AND ARE GOING TO USE IT.

>> SOME LAND OWNERS SAY, HEY, YOU TAKE IT ALL OR NOTHING.

>> NO, HEY, I'VE GOT 100 ACRES HERE.

YOU TAKE A WHOLE HUNDRED ACRES OR YOU'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE 50 AND THEN LEAVE ME WITH ANOTHER 50 BECAUSE IT'S WORTHLESS WHAT I MEAN? YOU'RE SAYING, LARRY, OUT OF 100 ACRE PARCEL, THE WHOLE HUNDRED ACRES AT THE WHOLE HUNDRED PERCENT, IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?

>> AND I THINK THE REASON THE VITAL FARM LAND CAME INTO DISCUSSIONS IS LAST YEAR WHEN WE WERE PROVIDING TESTIMONY TO THE STATE THAT WE WERE REALLY STRESSING THE IMPORTANCE OF THESE ARE SOILS THAT ARE PRIME FARMLAND OR STATEWIDE IMPORTANCE, AND I THINK THAT'S WHY WE STRUCTURED IT ON THAT.

THAT THOSE WERE THE SOILS THAT WERE MOST IMPORTANT THAT WE.

>> TO ME, I JUST LIKE TO LOOK AT THINGS SIMPLY.

IF I'M GOING TO GO IN AND LEASE THIS LAND OR PURCHASE THIS 100 ACRES.

AND MY PLAN IS GOING TO BE TO USE IT FOR A SOLAR FACILITY, THEN THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE TAKING OUT OF OUT OF PRODUCTION, AND THAT'S WHAT THEY SHOULD BE COMPENSATING US FOR ON TO PRESERVE FARMING.

I DON'T CARE WHAT PERCENTAGE THEY USE, I DON'T CARE WHAT PERCENTAGE MUTH SAYS.

YOU TAKE AN ACRE OUT, YOU SHOULD PAY FOR US TO BE ABLE TO PRESERVE AN ACRE. THAT'S ALL.

>> BASICALLY THE WAY YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT IS FOR EVERY ACRE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO COVER IN SOLAR YOU GOT TO PAY THE FEE ON?

>> EVEN IF YOU IF YOU BUY 100 ACRE FARM, THEY'RE GOING TO USE 50 ACRES OF IT, YOU'RE STILL PAYING FOR 100 ACRES.

>> BASICALLY.

>> YEAH. AND 100% PER.

THAT'S WHAT'S LARRY SAYING?

>> NO. THE 50 THAT YOU'RE USING.

>> 50 YOU'RE USING.

>> OKAY. BUT IT COULD BE 50 IN WOODS.

[01:30:02]

50 FARMLAND. YOU KNOW WHAT I'M MEANING.

>> IF THEY'RE GOING TO GO TO A FARMER AND SAY, I NEED 50 ACRES.

I NEED THIS PARCEL TO PUT A SOLAR FACILITY ON.

I WANT TO BE COMPENSATED FOR WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO PUT THAT FACILITY ON.

IF THERE'S 50 ACRES OF WOODLAND, IF THEY WANT TO GO LEASE THAT 50 ACRES FOR SOME REASON OR IF YOU SAY IF THE FARMER SAYS, NO, I'M ONLY GOING TO GIVE THIS TO YOU IF YOU TAKE THE WHOLE THING.

THEN I WOULDN'T DO THE DEAL IF I WAS WITH THE SOLAR COMPANY.

>> I WOULDN'T EITHER.

>> I'M LOOKING FOR A ONE TO ONE FOR EVERY ACRE OF FARM LAND THAT IS TAKEN OUT OF PRODUCTION.

I WANT ONE ACRE OF COMPENSATION PAID.

>> FOR THE PROJECT AREA, WHATEVER IS DEEMED TO BE THE PROJECT AREA, WHICH WE HAVE DEFINED. THAT'S EVERYTHING.

>> THAT'S INVOLVED IN THE SOLAR.

>> I DON'T WANT IT TO BE A PERCENTAGE.

I WANT IT TO BE A FULL AMOUNT.

>> ALL RIGHT.

>> WHAT I MEAN, WHAT THE APPRAISER SAYS.

>> I MEAN, LARRY WHERE IS THE PORTERS [INAUDIBLE].

>> BUT TO COMPLICATE THIS EVEN MORE.

IF THE PROJECT AREA IS 50 ACRES AND ONLY AND NONE OF IT HAS A DESIGNATION OF VITAL FARMLAND OR A DESIGNATION STATE OR FEDERAL.

ARE WE STILL CHARGING THE FEE?

>> YES. THAT'S WHAT COMMISSIONER PORTERS PROPOSAL.

>> NOW, ONE ACRE OF THE 50 DOES GO AHEAD AND CHARGE IT ON THE FULL 50.

I GOT THAT, BUT IF NONE OF IT.

>> I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE COLLECTING FOR THE PROJECT AREA.

FOR EVERY ACRE THAT IS BEING LEASED OR SOLD FOR A SOLAR FACILITY, FEE SHOULD BE CHARGED PER FOR EVERY ACRE OF THAT DEVELOPMENT.

>> YOU'RE SAYING TAKE OUT THE VITAL FARMLAND ALTOGETHER, IS JUST AG LAND FOR AG LAND, IN OTHER WORDS, I MEAN, SOLAR LAND FOR AG LAND?

>> HE'S SAYING TAKE OUT THE VITAL FARMLAND.

ASPECT OF IT. AND IF IT'S ALL AGRICULTURE LAND, THEN IT'S.

>> THE QUESTION WOULD BE, WHAT IF YOU HAVE SCENARIOS, LIKE WE DID WITH CHERRYWOOD THAT HAD THREE RESIDENTIAL HOMES ON IT IN AREAS THAT WERE NOT TILLED.

>> IT'S IN PROJECT AREA, WE'RE CHARGING FOR IT.

>> ANY PROJECT AREA. OKAY.

>> I MEAN, IF THE PAYING IS TO GO DOWN ON.

>> MY ONLY CONCERN WITH TAKING OUT THE VITAL IS HOW ARE WE GOING TO ESTABLISH THAT IT'S IN AGRICULTURAL USE? WHAT IF SOMEONE STOPS TILLING IT OR DOING ANYTHING FOR A YEAR LEADING UP TO IT FOR YEARS.

>> WELL YOU WOULD GO BY THE MAP.

>>STILL AG LAND.

>> YEAH. I MEAN, SOIL USING [OVERLAPPING].

>> VITAL FARMLAND IS VITAL FARMLAND ACCORDING TO THE MAPS, NOT ACCORDING TO WHAT THEY'RE USING IT FOR.

>> ALL RIGHT.

WE DOESN'T CHANGE WHETHER IT BE A COUNTY VAL OR NOT.

RIGHT. [OVERLAPPING] 70,000.

>> AND THIS IS JUST A CURIOSITY QUESTION, STEWARTS, I KNOW QUEEN ANNE HAD DIVED INTO THE TEARS AND SO STRIKING OUT VITAL AND ESSENTIALLY SAYING ACRE PER ACRE.

THE LEGALITY OF THAT JUST.

WHAT LEG DO WE HAVE TO STAND ON.

THAT'S WHAT I'M WORRIED ABOUT. THAT'S THE CORRECT.

IT'S LIKE ME CAUSE IF I'M JUST THINKING BACKSIDE OF THIS DEVIL'S ADVOCATE.

MEAN IF I'M THE SOLAR COMPANY AND I COME IN AND WANT TO BUY THIS 100 ACRE PARCEL, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO PAY THE HOMEOWNER THE VALUE FOR 100 ACRES. HERE'S YOUR CHECK.

AND I'M HAVE TO GO TO THE COUNTY, GET MY PERMIT AND HAVE US DO A APPRAISAL FOR 100 ACRES AND PAY THE COUNTY THE SAME THING.

I MEAN, THEY'RE GOING TO ARGUE.

AND AGAIN, I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S WRONG FOR THEM OR WRONG FOR US TO DO BY ANY MEANS, BUT I MEAN, ARE THEY GOING TO FIGHT AND TRY TO PURSUE IT LEGALLY BECAUSE NOW THEY'RE GOING TO ESSENTIALLY HAVE TO PAY TWICE FOR EVERY ACRE IN THE COUNT.

NOT ARGUING THAT IT'S WRONG. CORRECT.

>> IF YOU WANT TO TAKE VALUABLE FARM LAND IN THIS COUNTY AND COVER IT WITH SOLAR PANEL, THEY GOT TO PAY WHAT THEY GOT TO PAY.

>> TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THE LEGALITY OF IT IS JUST MY QUESTION.

>> MUTH PAYS FOR NON PRIME FARMLAND AND NON.

I MEAN, THEY ASSESS A VALUE TO ALL THE SOIL TYPES.

THE CLASS ONE IS OBVIOUSLY THE HIGHEST VALUE, BUT THEY PAY FOR EASEMENTS FOR.

[01:35:02]

>> TWO AND THREE.

>> ALSO SPREAD OF ALL THE SOIL TYPES.

IT'S LOWER THE LESSER THE SOIL.

YOU WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE ASSESSING THEM FOR ALL THE SOIL TYPES IN YOUR IN THE SAME WAY THAT MUTH DOES BECAUSE THE CLASS ONE AND CLASS TWO SOILS ARE HIGHER THAN THE LOWER CLASS SOILS.

BUT THE PAYMENT IS FOR ALL OF THEM.

THAT'S CONSISTENT, I THINK.

>> PREFERENCE IF YOUR FARM CONNECTS TO A FARM MAJORITY IN MUTH.

>> THERE'S A COUPLE OF OTHER FACTORS.

AND THE FARMER DOESN'T STOP TILLING WHERE THE PRIME FARMLAND STOPS.

HE GOES THROUGH THE WHOLE FIELD.

YOU CAN MAKE THE CASE THAT THAT IS STILL PRODUCTIVE FARMLAND.

THE DIFFERENCE IN PRODUCTIVITY IS THE SOILS.

>> WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME THESE MAPS WERE UPDATED?

>> THE SOIL SURVEY MAP?

>> THAT WE WOULD BE USING TO DETERMINE.

>> THEY NEVER CHANGED.

>> VERY RARELY. IT'S AN ONLINE SOIL SURVEY THAT USDA HOSTS.

SO IT'S ALL USDA SOIL SURVEY MAPS, AND IT'S.

>> THEY WOULD BE.

>> CONTINUOUS. I MEAN, WHATEVER THE LATEST SOIL MAPS.

>> WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO BACK TO TO THOSE MAPS TERM.

>> I MEAN, YOU CAN GO BACK TO THE ONE, THE OLD MAP WHERE IT WAS THAT THICK AND YOU OPEN IT UP AND YOU PUT THE MICRO-FILM ON IT OR WHATEVER.[LAUGHTER] I MEAN, I KNOW.

>> BUT IT'S ONLINE NOW.

>> IT DOESN'T CHANGE.

>> IT DOES A LITTLE. IT'S SURPRISING OVER TEN YEARS, THERE'S BEEN SOME SLIGHT, BUT IT'S PRETTY CONSISTENT.

IT'S SOIL, IT'S NOT CHANGING MUCH.

WELL, YOU CAN CHECK IT ALL THE TIME. IT'S ALWAYS UPDATED.

>> FOR A DEFENSIBLE STANDPOINT AND JUSTIFICATION AND BEING REASONABLE, WHERE I'M FINE WITH CHARGING THE SUM FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT AREA, AS LONG AS THE PROJECT AREA CONTAINS SOME VITAL FARMLAND.

SO IF IT HAS ANY VITAL FARMLAND IN IT INSIDE THE PROJECT AREA, THEN WE CHARGE FOR THE ENTIRE THING.

I THINK WE'RE SPLITTING HAIRS, AND THAT PUTS US REALLY IN THE SAME POSITION AS WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING, BUT IT'S MORE JUSTIFIABLE.

I THINK, ON 75-4 CALCULATION OF THE COMPENSATORY PRESERVATION CONTRIBUTION IN PARAGRAPH THREE DOWN IN THE LAST SENTENCE, IT SAYS, IF THE PROJECT AREA DOES NOT CONSIST ENTIRELY OF VITAL FARMLAND, THE APPRAISAL SHALL APPRAISE THE LATTER AREA USING THE HYPOTHETICAL CONDITION THAT THIS IS A SEPARATE PARCEL OF GRANTED LEGAL ACCESS TO A PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY.

JUST SAY SOMEWHERE ELSE.

I WOULD JUST PUT SOMETHING IN, MAYBE CHANGE OR ADD OR MAYBE THE SENTENCE SHOULD STAY, BUT THAT WE WOULD JUST SAY THAT IF THE PROJECT AREA.

>> WE COULD REWORD THREE TO STATE THAT THE APPRAISAL WILL DETERMINE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE IF THAT PROJECT AREA HAS ANY VITAL FARMLAND IN IT.

>> RIGHT. OR WHEREVER.

>> THE HYPOTHETICAL CONDITION.

>>WELL, I UNDERSTAND THAT, TRAVIS, BUT I MEAN, MY PROBLEM IS I'M TIRED, FRANKLY, OF TRYING TO BE FAIR AND REASONABLE WITH THE STATE OF MARYLAND.

I WANT TO KNOW THE LAST TIME THE STATE OF MARYLAND EVER WAS FAIR AND REASONABLE WITH US.

THEY CAME IN AND THEY TOOK WE HAD AN ORDINANCE.

THEY CAME IN AND PASSED LEGISLATION TO OVERRIDE OUR ORDINANCE AND INCREASE BY FOUR TIMES THE AMOUNT OF LAND THAT CAN BE USED FOR SOLAR.

I DIDN'T HEAR C. T WILSON UP THERE TALKING ABOUT BEING FAIR AND REASONABLE TO ANYBODY.

THEY CAME IN AND SAID, WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS BECAUSE WE CAN DO IT.

AND SO MY GOAL HERE IS TO I DON'T CARE ABOUT BEING FAIR AND REASONABLE TO THE STATE OF MARYLAND.

WELL, I CARE ABOUT BEING FAIR AND REASONABLE TO THE PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTY.

>> IF THEY'RE GOING TO COME IN AND OVERRIDE OUR AUTHORITY AND PASS LEGISLATION THAT'S GOING TO COMPLETELY TAKE AWAY ANY CONTROL WE HAVE OVER THIS, THEN WE HAVE TO DO WHAT WE HAVE TO DO TO BE ABLE TO PRESERVE FARMLAND HERE.

>> I MEAN, I HATE TO SAY THAT, BUT I'VE BEEN AROUND HERE FOR A LONG TIME.

I'VE YET TO SEE ANYBODY AT THE STATE SAY, HEY, LET'S BE FAIR AND REASONABLE TO THESE PEOPLE IN THE COUNTY. I HAVEN'T HEARD IT.

WE CAN WORD IT HOWEVER WE WANT TO WORD IT, BUT I WANT TO JUST MAKE SURE FOR EVERY ACRE OF FARMLAND THAT'S BEING TAKEN, WE GET AN ACRES COMPENSATION BACK TO BE ABLE TO SAVE AN ACRE.

THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING. WORD IT HOW YOU WANT.

>> THE PROBLEM IS, IF YOU DON'T USE THE SOIL TYPES, YOU REALLY HAVE NO WAY TO DETER.

[01:40:01]

YOU CAN'T JUST SAY AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION BECAUSE THEY MAY NOT BE USING IT FOR AG.

[NOISE]. AT THAT POINT, YOU JUST SIT ON IT FOR TWO YEARS.

>> THEY GO AFTER IT BECAUSE IT'S AGRICULTURAL LAND, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BUY COMMERCIAL LAND.

YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? AG LAND IS CHEAPER THAN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY.

YOU DON'T SEE HIM OUT HERE BUYING A COMMERCIAL LAND.

>> IT'S NOT AS EASY TO DEFINE AGRICULTURE. HOW ARE WE GOING TO DEFINE IT?

>> I'LL GIVE AN EXAMPLE, JUST IN DOVER.

THERE'S A SOLAR DEVELOPER WHO'S BOUGHT PAR THREE GOLF COURSE, AND THEY WANT TO PUT SOLAR ON IT.

WOULD THAT BE CONSIDERED AG? AGAIN, JUST ASKING.

>> THAT'S MANAGING. IT'S ALMOST IN USE.

>> THEY WOULD NOT PAY ANY FEE IF THEY WERE TO BUY SOMETHING LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO I MEAN WE'RE TRYING TO PRESERVE GOLF COURSES.

>> NO. BUT AGAIN, THE GOLF COURSE [OVERLAPPING] COULD FALL INTO A NON-AGRICULTURAL.

>> TAX MAP SAYS IT'S AGRICULTURAL LAND.

WE HAVE IT ZONED ALREADY AS AG LAND.

>> WE DON'T HAVE AGRICULTURAL ZONING, SO THE TAXES HAVE AN AGRICULTURAL USE CLASSIFICATION.

>> WHICH HAS ITS OWN FUNKY DEFINITELY.

>> BUT AGAIN, I'M NOT TRYING TO BE SMART, BUT I'M JUST SAYING THAT OUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT HERE EVERY TIME WE'VE EVER TALKED ABOUT THIS IS THE USE OF PRIME AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR SOLAR.

I DON'T WANT TO SEE THEM USE COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL LAND.

ALTHOUGH THEY HAVE USED INDUSTRIAL THEY HAVE TRIED TO USE INDUSTRIAL LAND.

I KNOW IN GREENSBORO, THEY HAD A PROJECT AND I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE STATUS OF THAT IS.

I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN GO BACK NOW AND SAY, WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT IT.

AGRICULTURAL LAND IS WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO PRESERVE, SO AGAIN, THAT'S MY CONCERN ABOUT THE MAPS BECAUSE WE'RE EVENTUALLY GOING TO HAVE TO GO BACK.

SOMEBODY'S GOING TO COME IN IF I'M A SOLAR PERSON, I'M GOING TO COME IN AND SAY, SHOW ME [NOISE] THAT'S WHERE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO BACK TO OUR MAP DOCUMENTATION AND IT'S LISTED AS PRIME AGRICULTURE OR THE OTHER CLASSIFICATION?

>> WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO HERE IS ALSO PREVENT FROM HAVING TO TOTALLY REWRITE THIS DAMN THING AGAIN.

DO YOU GUYS WANT THEM TO REWRITE THE WHOLE THING OR WE CAN GO 100%, AND WE CAN SAY THE ENTIRE PROJECT AREA, BUT IT'S GOT TO HAVE VITAL FARMLAND, AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO REWRITE EVERYTHING. YOU GUYS GOOD WITH THAT?

>> ANY PERCENTAGE OF VITAL FARMLAND? LIKE IF ANY PERCENTAGE OF THE PROPERTY HAS VITAL FARMLAND, IT'S APPLICABLE TO THE WHOLE THING.

>> THANK YOU. WE'RE TALKING PROJECT AREA.

>> I MEAN PROJECT AREA.

BUT SO EVEN IF THERE'S LIKE ONE ACRE OF PRIME, THEN THE WHOLE THING GETS IT.

THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE HARD TO DO.

>> IT'S MOST OF THE COUNTY ANYWAY OR THEY GOT TO REWRITE IT GO TAX MAPS OR GOES DOWN SOME OTHER RAVE AND WE'LL NEVER GET THIS THING PASSED.

YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE THIS WORK CAUSE WE'VE BEEN KICKING IT AROUND FOREVER, TOO.

>> IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE IN AGREEMENT THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO USE THE MOUTH-BASED CALCULATION, SO WE CAN STRIKE A.

>> STEWART'S ALREADY DONE THAT, SO THAT'S GOOD.

THAT'S TAKEN CARE OF IN THIS VERSION.

>> WE DO B.

>> THE MOTION TO AMEND IS GOING TO BE TO RAISE THE COMPENSATORY PRESERVATION CONTRIBUTION SUM EQUIVALENT 75-100.

WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE THAT AND MAKE IT 100%, AND WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE THE CALCULATION METHOD TO SAY THE ENTIRE PROJECT AREA IF IT HAS ANY LAND WITH A VITAL FARMLAND DESIGNATION.

>> WE PAY FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT AREA? 100%, SO THAT WOULD BE TO AMEND THREE TO STATE THAT AND CHANGE FOUR TO 100% AND STRIKES.

>> OR HERE'S THE OTHER OPTION.

IF YOU GUYS WANT TO DO IT, I'M FINE WE GO TO ANYTHING.

IS THAT FEASIBLE TO GO TO WITH AN ASSESSMENT FOR AGRICULTURAL LAND?

[01:45:01]

>> MY ANSWER WOULD BE NO.

BECAUSE THE STATE DETERMINES THAT YOU COULD HAVE SOMEBODY WHO HAS A TEN ACRE.

PARCEL AND I JUST HAVE NEVER SUBMITTED TO BE CONSIDERED AG BECAUSE I DON'T DO X, Y, AND Z IN THE STATE'S DEFINITION.

>> WE'RE INVOLVING THE STATE AGAIN, IF WE'RE GOING THERE?

>> CORRECT. IT'S NOT A PERFECT DEFINITION.

>> I'M FINE WITH THE LAND WITH THE LANGUAGE YOU JUST STATED.

>> YOU GOOD? HOW ELSE ARE YOU GOING TO DESIGNATE AN AGRICULTURE? YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? WE'RE NOT RIDING AROUND THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A GRAY AREA WHERE SOMEONE COULD SAY, IT WASN'T AGRICULTURAL USE. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN?

>> IT SAYS FALLOW-UP FOR, AND THEN WE'RE IN THAT FIGHT.

>> I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT ON THAT.

I DO LIKE THE IDEA OF RETAINING THE VITAL FARMLAND DESIGNATION AS PART OF THE FORMULA.

>> JUSTIFICATION.

>> BECAUSE THE THEORY IS THAT IF YOU'RE A SOLAR DEVELOPER, YOU KNOW ABOUT THIS LAW IN CAROLINE COUNTY, BEFORE YOU ENTER INTO LEASES OR BUY LAND UP, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO ASK THE QUESTION.

WHAT SOILS ARE ON THAT FARM? AM I GOING TO GET STUCK WITH HAVING TO PAY THE COUNTY A FEE? IF THEY ARE FORCED TO START LOOKING AT OUR SOIL MAPS AND GO, MAYBE I SHOULDN'T GRAB THE PRIME FARMLAND OVER THERE.

I'LL GO OVER HERE AND LEASE THIS LAND BECAUSE I'LL ESCAPE THE FEE, OR AT LEAST IT'LL BE A REDUCED FEE BECAUSE IT'S STATEWIDE OR WHATEVER.

THEY'VE GOT SOME AT LEAST SOMETHING THAT THEY HAVE TO THINK ABOUT.

RIGHT NOW, THEY ARE MINDLESSLY GRABBING FARMLAND BECAUSE IT'S FLAT AND EASY TO BUILD ON REGARDLESS OF THE SOIL.

>> BUT THAT WOULD MEAN WE GO BACK TO ONLY APPLY THE COST TO THE PRIME A.

>> TIERED SYSTEM. I DON'T THINK YOU GUYS DON'T WANT TO DO.

>> LET ME ASK YOU THIS QUESTION EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT WE HAVE IN HERE AS OPPOSED TO PRIORITY PRESERVATION AREA LAND?

>> THE PRIORITY PRESERVATION AREA IT'S PREDOMINANTLY THE R RURAL ZONE, AND THEN ANY OF THAT THAT FALLS IN A MUNICIPAL GROWTH AREA IS BACKED OUT EVEN IF IT'S ZONED R. WE IT'S ESSENTIALLY THE R ZONE OF THE COUNTY MINUS AREAS THAT ARE DESIGNATED FOR FUTURE GROWTH.

>> BECAUSE THE SENATE BILL 931 GIVES CONTROL TO THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION FOR 5% OF THE PRIMARY PRESERVATION AREA.

>> IN OUR CASE, THE TOTAL OF OURS, WE STARTED OUT WITH ABOUT 175,000 ACRES WHEN IT WAS FIRST DESIGNATED IN 2010, AND THEN I KNOW SIX OR SEVEN YEARS AGO, MAYBE A LITTLE BIT LONGER.

WHEN WE DESIGNATED THE VILLAGE DISTRICTS, VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD AND VILLAGE CENTER, FROM R TO DC, AND N, THAT TOOK OUT PROBABLY 10,000 ACRES, MAYBE A LITTLE MORE? WE SOME OF THE TOWNS HAD EXPANDED THEIR GROWTH AREAS, SO THAT WAS ADDITIONAL ACREAGE TO COME OUT OF THE PRIORITY PRESERVATION AREA.

RIGHT NOW WE'RE SITTING AT ABOUT 126,000 ACRES PRIORITY PRESERVATION AREA.

>> LESLIE, WHEN THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION GETS AN APPLICATION FROM A SOWER COMPANY.

DO THEY DETERMINE IF WHERE THAT SOLAR COMPANY WANTS TO LOCATE IS IN A PRIMARY PRESERVATION AREA, HOW IS THAT DONE?

>> I THINK THEY HAVE NOT DONE THAT PROCESS YET.

RIGHT NOW, WE'RE WORKING WITH MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TO GIVE THEM GIS SHAPE FILES OF THE DESIGNATED PRIORITY PRESERVATION AREA.

OUR ASSUMPTION, AND WE'LL FIND OUT OVER, I ASSUME THE NEXT FEW MONTHS FROM MDP, MDP IS TASKED WITH THE TALLY.

MY GUESS IS SOLAR COMPANIES, WE'LL HAVE TO SEND THEM SHAPE FILES GIS SHAPE FILES OF THE PROPERTIES THAT THEY'RE PUTTING THE SOLAR ON.

THEN MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING WILL HAVE OUR GIS SHAPE FILE OF THE PRIORITY PRESERVATION AREA, AND THEY CAN SIMPLY DROP IT IN AND SEE, IS IT IN IT THEN PULL THAT ACREAGE THEY CONTROL.

THEY RUN THE TALLY, AND AT SOME POINT, OUR QUESTION IS, WHEN ARE WE GOING TO KNOW.

WE'LL BE DOING OUR OWN TALLY QUITE FRANKLY.

BUT IS THE STATE I WANT TO MAKE SURE OUR TALLY AND THE STATE'S TALLY ARE ALWAYS IN.

>> IF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS NOT IN THE PRIMARY PRESERVATION AREA.

>> WE DON'T KNOW. WE CRYSTAL AND I WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS YESTERDAY.

[01:50:01]

NOT ONLY THAT, BUT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU HIT YOUR 5%.

CAN WE SAY NO TO EVERYBODY AFTER THAT?YE, NO.

ARE WE DONE? I DON'T KNOW THAT ANYBODY KNOWS THAT ANSWER.

>> REALLY THINK ABOUT IT.

>> THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PRIORITY PRESERVATION AREA AND PRIME FARMLAND IS THE PRIORITY PRESERVATION AREA IS BASED ON ESSENTIALLY OUR RURAL ZONING DISTRICT REGARDLESS OF SOIL.

VITAL FARMLAND IS SPECIFIC SOIL TYPES WITHIN THAT ZONE.

>> I KNOW THIS IS GOING TO DRIVE YOU NUTS, I JUST WANT TO PASS IT. I'M NOT GOING NUTS.

>> [OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER] WISER TO IDENTIFY A PRIORITY PRESERVATION AREA IN THIS?

>> YOU MEAN YOU'RE RESTRICTED TO THAT? I THINK THE ANSWER TO THAT DEPENDS ON WHAT THE STATE SAYS HAPPENS AFTER YOU HIT YOUR 5%.

IF YOU CAN SAY, WE'RE DONE.

>> I THINK THAT'S THE IMPLICATION.

>> YOU NEED TO DO ANYTHING BUT THE PRIORITY PRESERVATION OR CAN THEY GO OUTSIDE OF THE PRIORITY PRESERVATION AREA AND HIT YOU, IN WHICH CASE?

>> THEN DO YOU GO EVERYWHERE? OR IF THEY REACH THAT PRIORITY PRESERVATION NUMBER, DOES ANY PROJECT REVERT BACK TO OUR CONTROL IN SITE APPROVAL?

>> WE DON'T KNOW.

>> OR IF IT'S OUTSIDE THE PRIMARY PRESERVATION AREA, DO WE THEN HAVE CONTROL OVER THE SITE?

>> I DON'T KNOW. DID THE STATE DECLARE THE PRIORITY PRESERVATION AREA THE ONLY PLACE WHERE [INAUDIBLE]

>> THE ISSUE IS THERE IS A LIMIT ON WHAT CAN GO ON THE PRIORITY PRESERVATION AREA? THERE IS NO LIMIT ON I CAN GO OUTSIDE OF IT.

WE HAVE NO AUTHORITY IN OR OUT.

>> IF THIS IS YOUR PRIMARY PRESERVATION AREA, AND SOMEBODY SAYS, I WANT TO BUILD OUT HERE.

I KNOW BUT WE DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER TO THIS.

IF THEY WANT TO BUILD OVER HERE, WHO CONTROLS THE SITE APPROVAL PROCESS ON THAT?

>> THE STATE.

>> WE HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO.

THE ONLY THING I GET IT NOW.

THE ONLY THING THE STATE IS LIMITING IS YOUR PRIORITY PRESERVATION AREA BECAUSE YOU'VE ESTABLISHED THAT IS WHERE YOU WANT TO PRESERVE.

THEY'RE STILL LETTING THEM GO IN THERE, BUT THEY'RE LIMITING THEM TO 5% IN THERE.

>> YOU MEAN SOMEBODY CAN BUILD A SOLAR PROJECT OUTSIDE OF THE PRIMARY PRESERVATION AREA, AND WE STILL DON'T HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER THE SITE APPROVAL PROCESS?

>> CORRECT. BUT MOST OF OUR 126,000 ACRES IS OUR PRIORITY PRESERVATION AREA, AND WHAT ISN'T IS EITHER A DEVELOPED TOWN GROWTH HERE.

>> LIKE THE CHAPTER PRIOR PROJECT NEAR FEDERAL COURT?

>> CORRECT. OR A PRIORITY FUNDING AREA.

IT'S ALL DESIGNATED FOR SOME DEVELOPMENT, SO PHYSICALLY I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COULD GO OUTSIDE OF THE PPA BECAUSE THERE'S NOT A LOT OF OPEN LAND OUTSIDE.

>> WE DID HAVE THE ONE WE HAD THE CHAVERTON PRIOR WAS IN A MUNICIPAL GROWTH AREA.

>> WAS IN A MUNICIPAL GROWTH ARES OR RINGED AROUND THE TOWN IN A DESIGNATED GROWTH AREA, PFA.

THAT'S JUST NOT THOSE AREN'T IN OUR PRIORITY PRESERVATION AREA BECAUSE THE PRIORITY PRESERVATION AREA WAS TO PRESERVE AGRICULTURAL LAND.

WE DIDN'T DECLARE AN URBAN OR PRIORITY FUNDING AREA TO BE THAT BECAUSE THAT'S NOT THE INTENT THERE IS DEVELOPED.

>> WE GOT TO DO A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS REAL QUICK AS WELL, BUT LET'S DO THE AMENDMENT FIRST.

I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE AMEND THE DRAFT THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US TO CHANGE THE COMPENSATORY PRESERVATION CONTRIBUTION SUM EQUIVALENT TO 100%, AND ALSO CHANGE THAT THE FEE WILL BE CHARGED ON THE ENTIRE PROJECT AREA IF IT CONTAINS ANY VITAL FARM LAND.

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

>> ALL THOSE OPPOSED. AYES HAVE IT.

IS THAT MANAGEABLE ENOUGH? CLARIFICATION TO CHANGING IT.

NEXT UP, PUBLIC HEARING.

NOW AMENDED VERSION, WHICH WE HAVE ONE MORE CHANCE TO AMEND AT THE END BEFORE WE ENACT.

WE CAN CHANGE, SO YOU GUYS CAN STILL THINK ABOUT IT, AND WHATEVER ELSE WE HAVE WE CAN CHANGE.

I HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

SECOND. MOTION SECOND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> ALL THOSE OPPOSED. THE AYES HAVE IT.

PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN ON LEGISLATIVE BILL 2025-011.

WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY COMMENT.

NO ONE HAS SIGNED UP.

WOULD ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE LIKE TO SPEAK? NONE SEEN. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

[01:55:03]

>> MOVE.

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

AYES HAVE IT. THANK YOU ALL.

>> ALL THOSE OPPOSED.

[LAUGHTER] THIS HAS TAKEN A LOT FOR WORKING A LOT.

>> LESLIE [INAUDIBLE].

>> EASY FIX. IT IS YOU WANT TO GET IT.

>> YOU DO, ABSOLUTELY.

BUT I HAVE YOU GOT THREE VOTES UP HERE.

[LAUGHTER] I HAVE ONE QUICK QUESTION AGREEMENT WITH GREENSBORO.

>> WITH OSG? YES.

>> LET'S CLOSE THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION.

>> MOVE TO CLOSE LEGISLATIVE SESSION.

>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> PUMPING STATION.

>> THE ONLY THING THAT I WAS LOOKING FOR WAS BEFORE WE DO ANYTHING, GREENSBORO HAS TO APPROVE MOVING FORWARD, CORRECT?

>> YES. THEY HAVE THE SAME DOCUMENTS THAT YOU ALL WILL BE GETTING, THE COOPERATION AGREEMENT, AND THEN THE CERTIFICATION THEY ALSO HAVE TO DO.

>> I GUESS I'M LOOKING AT TIME FRAMES.

SHOULD THERE BE ANY TIME THAT WE GIVE THEM TO DO THAT OR ARE YOU PRETTY CONFIDENT THAT THEY'RE GOING TO MOVE?

>> THEY'VE ALREADY DONE THE BASIC AGREEMENT WITH US TO SAY WE WANT TO DO THIS.

>> BECAUSE I KNOW THESE THINGS ARE TIME SENSITIVE.

I JUST DIDN'T WANT IT TO DRAG ON.

>> THEY HAVE DONE THEIR WRITTEN COMMITMENT AND THEN THE NEXT LEVEL IS THE SAME THING.

YOU GUYS WILL BE DOING IN THE NEXT TIME.

>> THAT WAS ALL I HAD. THANK YOU.

>> THAT'S GOOD. THANK YOU.

>>CAN WE TAKE A FIVE MINUTE?

>> TAKE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS.

[02:03:19]

>> THERE YOU GO.

>> GOOD. I'LL CALL THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER.

MOVING ON. I BELIEVE WE'RE AT OUR CONSENT AGENDA NOW.

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

>> THE ONLY ONE WAS THE MEDCO.

>> THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING MY QUESTION, GOOD IDEA. WHAT'S YOUR QUESTION.

>> WELL, I JUST WANTED MORE DETAILS ON IT.

>> BOB I YOU DON'T MIND. THANK YOU.

>> SURE. IN ADDITION TO THE SUMMARY I PROVIDED, WHICH I BELIEVE YOU HAD, I DON'T WANT TO REHASH THAT TOO MUCH.

BUT ESSENTIALLY, WHAT THIS IS IT'S A FUNDING OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A SITE CHARACTERIZATION STUDY DONE AS WELL AS AN ENGINEERING REPORT.

THE ENGINEERING REPORT, WE NOW KNOW, IS GOING TO BE AN EXTENSION OF THE REPORT WE RECEIVED ON WATER AND SEWER JUST OVER A YEAR AGO, RK&K IS GOING TO DO A FURTHER REPORT ON THE STATE OF ALL OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE THERE.

YOU CAN THINK OF THAT AS MORE OR LESS HALF OF THE GRANT OPPORTUNITY, ROUGHLY $5,000 THAT MEDCO IS COVERING.

THE OTHER REPORT WE ARE GOING TO RECEIVE IS A MARKETING STUDY.

THE MORE IMPORTANT THING, IN MY MIND, IS NOT SO MUCH THE STUDY AS MUCH AS WHO IS CONDUCTING IT.

IT'S THE STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT GROUP.

[Consent Agenda]

THEY HAVE OFFICES ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.

THE REPORT IS ULTIMATELY SUPPOSED TO BE SHOPPED BY THIS GROUP, NATIONALLY, IF NOT, POSSIBLY INTERNATIONALLY.

[02:05:05]

THROUGH THIS GRANTS, MEDCO IS CONTRACTING THIS SITE SELECTOR GROUP TO NOT ONLY CREATE THIS REPORT, BUT TO HAVE IT IN HAND TO HELP MARKET THE PROPERTY.

THE VERY SAME FOLKS THAT, CALL SCREENING THE ULTIMATE INTEREST, LOOKING AT PROPERTIES HERE, THAT IS WHERE THIS REPORT WILL ULTIMATELY GO, OR SO I'VE BEEN TOLD.

I'M THINKING OF IT AS A GREAT FUNDING OPPORTUNITY.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT I'VE WANTED TO DO ANYWAY.

WE'RE DOING IT THANKS TO A GRANT.

MY HOPE IS THAT WE GET EYES ON THE TECH PARK THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY AND GENERATE SOME INTEREST.

IN TWO WORDS, I'M CALLING IT DUE DILIGENCE.

WE'RE MARKETING THE TECH PARK THROUGH THIS GRANT.

>> JUST FOR A LITTLE MORE CONTEXT, I KNOW SOME OF THE LAST CONVERSATIONS WE'VE HAD AS FAR AS THE TECH PARK IS OUR DEALINGS WITH COMMERCE AND TRYING TO HE DIDN'T GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE CAN SELL THE PROPERTY.

I DON'T WANT TO STEAL BOB'S THUNDER, BUT HE'S REQUIRED TWO SEPARATE APPRAISALS AT THE DIRECTION OF THE BOARD IN COMMERCE.

HE IS IN THE PROCESS OF REACHING BACK OUT TO COMMERCE TO SET UP A MEETING FOR US TO ESSENTIALLY GO OVER THE APPRAISALS AND CONTINUE TO ARGUE ABOUT THE REPAYMENT OF THE LOAN VERSUS THE ACTUAL APPRAISAL VALUE.

WHEN THIS CAME UP, AND BOB AND I KIND OF TALKED ABOUT THE OPPORTUNITY HERE.

IT'S $10,000, BUT IT'S $10,000 NOT OUT OF GENERAL FUND POCKET, AND DECIDED TO GIVE IT A TRY.

>> YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. WHEN I SAY DUE DILIGENCE, I MEAN IN GENERAL, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO SHOW THE MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE THAT WE ARE ACTIVELY MARKETING THIS PROPERTY AS BEST WE CAN, AND THIS IS JUST A DIFFERENT AVENUE TO DO THAT.

>> THAT'S ALL.

>> THE ENGINEERING STUDY, IS THAT INCLUDED IN THIS $5,000 GRANT?

>> YES. WE'RE GETTING TWO DIFFERENT REPORTS.

ONE OF THEM WILL BE ENGINEERING, AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT ENGINEERING REPORT IS GOING TO FEED THAT OTHER REPORT AS WELL.

>> THEY'RE LOOKING INTO ELECTRIC FIBER, ANY OTHER UTILITIES THAT ARE AVAILABLE OUT?

>> THAT'S THE IDEA. YES. WE, FOCUSED OURSELVES LAST YEAR ON THE WATER AND SEWER, AND, THANK GOODNESS MEDCO IS FLEXIBLE.

WE WERE ABLE TO JUST GO DIRECTLY TO RK&K AND SAY, CAN WE DO THE REST OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE THERE AS WELL.

WE ALL AGREED THAT LAST YEAR'S WATER AND SEWER REPORT WAS FRESH ENOUGH AND RELEVANT ENOUGH THAT THEY'RE GOING TO DEDICATE THEIR TIME AND ENERGY AND THE FUNDS THEY'RE RECEIVING TO ALL THE OTHERS.

>> THE OTHER ORGANIZATION IS GOING TO COMPILE ALL THAT INFORMATION, PUT IT TOGETHER IN A BROCHURE, AND THEN DISTRIBUTE IT, MARKET IT ACROSS THE WORLD, BASICALLY.

>> THE NATION, PERHAPS THE WORLD.

>> IT'S A START.

>> YEAH. I'VE BEEN TOLD THAT MARYLAND IS MIMICKING WHAT OTHER OUR NEIGHBORS ARE DOING AS FAR AS MARKETING SITES. THEY'RE MARGINALIZED.

>> MARKETING THEM, BUT TRYING TO DRIVE EVERYBODY ALL THE BUSINESSES OUT OF THE STATE AT THE SAME TIME, SO OKAY.

>> THE ONLY THING I'M GOING TO SAY, I APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS IN THIS.

>> I JUST APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS BECAUSE I BELIEVE YOU THERE.

>> WE SPEAK IN TERMS OF DUE DILIGENCE IN GOOD FAITH EFFORT.

>> I MEAN, AS FAR AS ENGINEERING.

AS FAR AS ENGINEERING GOES, I'M NOT AN ENGINEER BY EVEN CLOSE STANDARDS BY WAY STANDARDS AND I CAN PRETTY MUCH SUM UP A REPORT OUT THERE ABOUT AGREEMENTS.

>> BUT I UNDERSTAND. IT'S GOT TO LOOK GOOD.

I UNDERSTAND. I GET IT.

>> WE MIGHT NOT LOVE EVERY BIT OF INFORMATION WE RECEIVE THIS GRANT, BUT IT'S GOING TO ESTABLISH A NEW BASELINE TO MOVE FORWARD.

>> WE'RE GOOD. I'D LIKE TO SAY I APPRECIATE ALL YOU'VE DONE SO FAR UP TO THIS POINT.

>> YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN?

>> TO ATTEST TO YOUR EFFORTS, I'M HOPING YOU GET IT SOLD BECAUSE OF ALL YOUR EFFORTS THAT YOU PUT INTO THIS.

>> I TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY AGREE WITH DANNY.

WE ARE PREPARING OURSELVES TO MOVE FORWARD WITH NEGOTIATIONS WITH ANY INTERESTED BUYER, AS WELL AS THE MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE.

>> DID THE APPRAISALS COME IN CLOSE TOGETHER?

ONE OF THEM WAS JUST AN OVERALL APPRAISAL FOR THE WHOLE SITE.

DIFFERENT, HOWEVER.

THE OTHER NOT ONLY GAVE US AN OVERALL APPRAISAL FOR THE WHOLE SITE, BUT ALSO THE INDIVIDUAL PARCELS AS THEY ARE PARCELED NOW.

>> IS VALUE HIGHER THAT WAY OR FOR OVERALL SITE?

[02:10:03]

>> IT IS ACTUALLY SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAT WAY.

I DO WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS MORE.

[OVERLAPPING] WE'RE TALKING LAND TRANSACTIONS.

I WANT TO MEET WITH YOU BEFORE WE MEET WITH COMMERCE IN CLOSE SANCTIONS, BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REAL ESTATE.

>> BUT I WILL SAY HERE THAT MY INITIAL THOUGHT IS BASED ON, THE WAY THE PARCELS ARE SUBDIVIDED NOW DON'T NECESSARILY MAKE SENSE FOR THE SAKE OF USING THE PARKING LOT THAT'S THERE.

THE PARCELS PREDATE BEFORE THE COUNTY EVEN OWNED THE TECH PARK.

THE WAY THAT THEY DID THIS OTHER APPRAISAL WHICH WE JUST RECEIVED, WHICH I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE, IT'S 126 PAGES.

I LOOKED AT MAYBE SEVEN OF THOSE PAGES, THE BOTTOM LINE.

>> WE MIGHT WANT TO HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT RE-LAYING OUT THE PARCELS, COMBINE ONE AND INTO DIFFERENT PIECES AND TRYING TO SELL IT THAT WAY.

>> CAN YOU DO THAT?

>> IT'S INTERESTING TO SEE THE PARCELS AND HOW THEY ARE LAID OUT CURRENTLY, AGAIN, I WAS NOT HISTORICALLY HERE WHEN THE LAND WAS RIGHT.

>> TAKE ALL THE PARCELS, PUT THEM INTO ONE AND REDO THEM.

>> CAN DO THAT, BRISTOL.

>> WHAT'S THAT?

>> YOU CAN DO THAT? [OVERLAPPING]

>> I'M SORRY.

>> THEY CAN ABOLISH THE LOT LINES BETWEEN THE PARCELS AND THAT BACK INTO ONE PARCEL.

>> BUT IF YOU SUBDIVIDE AND THEN ABOLISH LOT LINES, YOU CAN'T, RIGHT?

>> IF YOU SUBDIVIDE.

IT GETS TRICKY WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS.

YOU GENERALLY HAVE FREE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS IN THE RULE ZONE.

>> BUT THIS IS IN TOWN, SO NONE OF THAT APPLIES.

>> YOU CAN EDUCATE ME ON THAT LATER.

[LAUGHTER]

>> I'M SURE WE TAKE A COUPLE OF HOURS.

[LAUGHTER]

>> I DON'T WANT TO GO TO HAVE ANOTHER RABBIT HOLE [LAUGHTER].

>> SOON, NOT TODAY [LAUGHTER].

>> GO AHEAD. WE CAN ERASE THEM AND REDO THEM.

>> THEY GOT SOME.

>> BASED ON THIS SECOND APPRAISAL WHICH WE JUST RECEIVED, AND THE FACT THAT [OVERLAPPING].

>> MIGHT BE BETTER JUST [OVERLAPPING].

>> [INAUDIBLE].

>> INTERESTED PARTIES WOULD WANT SOMETHING.

>> WELL, AND PART OF ME IS LEANING TO THAT.

I THINK A LOT OF THE WOULD BE DETERMINED ON THE POTENTIAL BUYER AND WHAT THEY NEED AND WHERE THEY WANT TO HAVE ACCESS ON AND OFF THE PROPERTY, SO [OVERLAPPING].

>> BUT THE FACT THAT IT APPRAISED MUCH HIGHER PER PARCEL THAN THE TOTAL LANDS, IT IS ENCOURAGING TO ME, BUT IT COULD BE A WHOLE LOT MORE WORK.

>> DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE FROM BOB? NO. THANKS, BOB.

THE GRANTS THAT WE'RE GIVING CAPTAIN HOMER, ARE THEY CONSISTENT WITH LAST YEAR, ARE YOU SEEING ANY REDUCTIONS IN THOSE?

>> SO THE POLICE RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION GRANT.

WHEN WE INITIALLY APPLIED FOR THAT, I ACTUALLY APPLIED FOR IT UNDER THE WRONG GRANT.

STATE NEVER SAID ANYTHING TIL AFTER THE FACT.

THEY WERE GRACIOUS ENOUGH WHEN WE TALKED TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR PUBLIC SAFETY TO REOPEN THAT SO WE COULD USE SOME OF THAT FUNDING TO TRY TO HELP WITH RECRUITMENT AS WE TAKE ON THIS ENDEAVOR WITH THE TOWN OF FEDERALSBURG.

OF THE GUN VIOLENCE REDUCTION GRANT.

THAT'S A NEW ONE FOR US.

THE TOWN OF FEDERALSBURG WAS ORIGINALLY AWARDED THAT GRANT.

WITH THEM NOT HAVING POLICE SERVICES ANYMORE, THEY COULDN'T ACCEPT THAT GRANT, TOOK THAT BACK, REOPENED IT FOR US TO APPLY.

WE WE WERE AWARDED $10,000, WHICH WE'RE GOING TO USE FOR OVERTIME FUNDING TO DO PROACTIVE OPERATIONS IN THE TOWN OF FELLOWSBURG, TO REDUCE VIOLENT CRIMES AND GUN REDUCTION IN THAT ACCOUNT.

>>THAT GRANT WAS ACTUALLY SOMETHING THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT WASN'T EVEN ELIGIBLE FOR.

GOT YOU. ALL RIGHT. GOOD INFORMATION THERE. THANK YOU, CAPTAIN HOMER.

>> I WOULD MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. SECOND.

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

>> AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED.

THE AYES HAVE IT. ALL RIGHT.

COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS REPORT.

>> I HAVE A FEW THINGS FOR YOU.

I SPOKE TO CHUCK HUSTER AT

[County Administrator’s Report]

MARYLAND RURAL DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE LIBRARY ROOF REPAIRS AND REIMBURSEMENT OF THE DOLLARS THAT THE COUNTY SPENT ON THAT.

HE ADVISED ME THIS MORNING THAT THEIR REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT WAS APPROVED ON FRIDAY, OCTOBER 3, SO LAST FRIDAY.

SO EVERYTHING'S BEEN APPROVED ON THEIR END, AND THEY'RE JUST WAITING FOR THE MONEY TO BE TRANSFERRED TO THEM FROM

[02:15:01]

THE STATE SO THAT THEY CAN PAY BACK THE COUNTY.

ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT, COMMISSIONER BOARD? OKAY. MOVING ON.

JEN HAS THE FIRST MEETING OF THE COMPENSATION COMMITTEE SET UP FOR, I BELIEVE NOVEMBER 23, FYI, THEY ARE STARTING TO MEET.

THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO MEET TOO MANY TIMES.

AS YOU KNOW, I WAS AT THE ADMINISTRATORS MEETING LAST THURSDAY, AND FRIDAY.

IT WAS MACO ADMINISTRATORS MEETING.

A LOT OF TALK ABOUT STATE BUDGET, HOUSING, COMING DOWN THE PIPE FOR NEXT LEGISLATIVE SESSION AND ALL OF THE USUAL THINGS.

ONE INTERESTING THING THAT I'M NOT PROPOSING WE DO, BUT WHAT I THOUGHT WAS INTERESTING ANYWAY, WAS HOWARD COUNTY IS GOING TO AI ASSISTED PERMIT REVIEWS, SO THAT SOMEBODY APPLY A PERMIT ONLINE, AND THEY'LL ACTUALLY GET AN AI REVIEW THAT STAFF THEN HAS TO REVIEW AND SAY WHETHER OR NOT IT LOOKS GOOD.

BUT GIVEN THE COMPLEXITIES OF ALL THE PERMITS THAT COME IN, I'M CURIOUS TO SEE HOW THAT PLAYS OUT.

BUT I GUESS THEY'RE GOING LIVE WITH THAT IN HOWARD COUNTY IN DECEMBER.

DANNY AND I HAVE BEEN CLOSETED IN THIS ROOM DOING HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR INTERVIEWS FOR THE LAST WEEK OR TWO, I'M NOT EVEN SURE.

WE WILL BE FINISHING THAT UP THIS WEEK, AND THEN JUST, I GUESS, SITTING DOWN AND PUTTING OUR HEADS TOGETHER AND MAKING A RECOMMENDATION.

AND LAST TIME I LOOKED IN THE SYSTEM, THERE WERE 37 TOTAL APPLICATIONS.

WE HAD A GOOD RESPONSE.

AND THEN THE LAST THING, JAMIE BEECHEY RECREATION AND PARKS DIRECTOR, JUST SENT ME AN EMAIL THAT I JUST WANT TO SHARE WITH YOU REGARDING NORTH COUNTY PARK.

SHE'S TRYING TO GET THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS FINALIZED AND RAN INTO AN ISSUE WITH CIVIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT ABOUT A NON TIDAL WETLAND NEAR THE ENTRANCE ROAD.

SHE IS WORKING THROUGH THAT PROCESS.

THERE IS NO WETLAND THERE PER WETLAND DELINEATION, SO SHE NEEDS TO GET AN UPDATED LETTER.

THEN SHE CAN GET THAT PROJECT SIGNED OFF OR THAT PLAN SIGNED OFF BY BOTH MDE AND S AND TRISTA.

SHE JUST WANTED ME TO GIVE THAT UPDATE TO YOU. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

>> WHO WANTS TO GO FIRST? MR. REPORTER.

>> A COUPLE OF THINGS I HEARD.

I GOT A MESSAGE BACK FROM MIKE DETMER, BASICALLY SAYING THAT CONGRESSMAN HARRIS'S OFFICE HAD

[County Commissioners Open Discussion Period]

RECEIVED A RESPONSE BACK ON THE MRDC EARLY HEAD START ISSUE, AND THEY'RE WORKING ON A RESPONSE, AND THAT IT WOULD BE RECEIVED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

HOWEVER, THE GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN IS AFFECTING THEIR ABILITY TO RESPOND, OF COURSE.

I ATTENDED THE 4H AG EVENT LAST WEEK, THAT WAS A VERY GOOD EVENT.

HAD KIDS COMING FROM DIFFERENT CLASSES.

SECRETARY ADDIS WAS THERE AND IT WAS PRETTY WELL ATTENDED.

I THOUGHT THAT WAS GOOD.

LUNCH WAS PROVIDED FOR THE KIDS, AND THEY HAD STATION SET UP SHOWING THEM DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF AGRICULTURE.

I'LL JUST FOLLOW UP AND MAKE A QUICK STATEMENT HERE AND ABOUT FEDERALSBURG.

I THINK THAT WE HAVE REACHED A POINT WHERE WE NEED TO AT LEAST ESTABLISH SOME COMMUNICATION TO FIND OUT WHERE THEY'RE HEADED.

I'M GOING TO FEEL A LOT BETTER IF I KNOW THAT THERE'S A PLAN IN PLACE, WHAT THEY INTEND TO DO.

THEY HAD A SITUATION WHERE THEY HAD SOMEONE COME IN TO GIVE THEM SOME ADVICE AND COME UP WITH, I THINK, A POTENTIAL PLAN.

THAT PERSON IS NOT THERE ANY LONGER.

I THINK THAT THE DIALOGUE REALLY NEEDS TO START TO AT LEAST TO TRY TO DETERMINE FROM AN OVERALL STANDPOINT ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT GOING FORWARD HERE.

WE'VE TALKED TODAY ABOUT A LOT OF MONEY, A LOT OF SAVINGS IN THIS AND SAVINGS IN THAT.

BUT I'M STILL VERY CONCERNED BECAUSE ULTIMATELY WHAT THE COUNTY IS GOING TO BE LOOKING AT IS WHAT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY AND WHAT FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES AND OBLIGATIONS ARE WE GOING TO HAVE IF THE TOWN IS NOT ABLE TO BRING EVERYTHING TOGETHER.

[02:20:01]

I WOULD JUST LIKE TO MENTION THAT, HOWEVER WE WANT TO DO IT BY EMAIL, BY MEETINGS, WHATEVER, IF THEY HAVE A PERSON THAT THEY WANT TO COME AND SPEAK.

I'M FINE WITH THAT.

I THINK THERE ARE SOME SITUATIONS WHERE THEY'RE JUST TRYING TO PRETEND THIS PROBLEM IS NOT THERE, HOPE IT GOES AWAY.

I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO. THAT'S ALL I HAVE ON THAT, SO THANK YOU.

>> MR. BARTZ.

>> LAST THURSDAY, I ATTENDED THE DENTON TOWN COUNCIL MEETING AND SPOKE ON BEHALF OF THE MOU FOR DOUBLE HILLS ROAD.

THEY WERE VERY RESPONSIBLE, THANKFUL.

THEY EVEN MENTIONED THE SHARP ROAD PROJECTS, HOW HAPPY THAT'S TURNING OUT.

OVER SHARP ROAD, THEY ARE GOING TO BUILD, FIRST IT'S TWO PHASES, A PLAYGROUND.

THEY'LL START WITH ONE PLAYGROUND, THEN ADD ANOTHER PLAYGROUND.

THEY WERE VERY COOPERATIVE WITH THE MOU FOR DOUBLE HILLS ROAD AND LOOK FORWARD TO WHAT OUR PLANS ARE OUT THERE. THAT'S ALL.

>> THANK YOU. I RECEIVED AN E MAIL THIS MORNING FROM HEATHER GREY AT COMPASS HOSPICE.

SHE EXTENDED AN INVITATION FOR US TO PRESENT A PROCLAMATION FROM THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO BILL TOWERS AND FAMILY AT THE LIGHTING OF THE TREE EVENT, SO ARE YOU BOTH OKAY WITH THAT?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> JIM WILL WORK ON GETTING THAT PROCLAMATION TOGETHER FOR US, AND IF WE COULD ALL PUT IT ON OUR CALENDARS OR IF YOU COULD HAVE CINDY PUT IT ON OUR CALENDARS FOR AS MANY OF US THE THREE OF US TO ATTEND, LOOKS TO ME LIKE IT'S DECEMBER 5.

WHICH THAT'S IN THE EMAIL.

IF YOU GUYS PENCIL DECEMBER 5 FOR THAT.

RECEIVED A CALL FROM SOMEONE DOWN AT CHOPTANK MARINA.

APPARENTLY, THE CHRISTMAS TREE THAT THEY USED FOR THEIR CHRISTMAS TREE LIGHTING HAD DIED AGAIN, AND THEY WERE REQUESTING THAT WE PUT ANOTHER ONE IN.

I TALKED TO JAMIE. I THINK JAMIE'S GOING TO TAKE CARE OF THAT.

IT'S ON OUR PROPERTY.

IT'S ON CHOPTANK MARINA, I THINK, OVER BEHIND THE BUILDING FACILITY THAT'S THERE, THE BATHROOMS, AND THE STORAGE FACILITY.

TALKED ABOUT MAYBE TRYING TO FIND A TREE THAT'S A LITTLE MORE RESILIENT TO SALTWATER INTRUSION THAT MAY BE GOING ON THERE.

THEN MAYBE THAT'S WHY IT'S SINE.

OR EVEN, I DON'T THINK THE COMMUNITY DOWN THERE WOULD GO FOR IT, BUT EVEN ONE OF THOSE POLES WITH THE LIGHTS, THAT LOOKS LIKE A TREE.

BUT WE CAN ASK.

MAYBE IF IT DIES AGAIN THIS TIME.

APPARENTLY, THEY ONLY LAST LIKE TWO YEARS, AND THEN THEY'VE BEEN DYING.

SOMETHING TO KEEP IN THE BACK OF OUR MINDS.

ALSO RECEIVED, I'M NOT SURE IF EVERYONE RECEIVED THIS FROM BRIDGET PETERS AT DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE.

LOOKS LIKE SECRETARY HARRY KOKER JUNIOR IS COMING OCTOBER 16.

YOU DIDN'T GET THAT?

>> I GOT IT., I THINK. BOB, , DID YOU MENTION IT TO ME?

>> IF YOU CAN MAKE SURE CINDY PUTS THAT ON OUR CALENDARS, AGAIN, IT'S AT THE WARS OF CHOP TANK, JOCK WALSH VISITORS AND HERITAGE CENTER ON OCTOBER 16 AT 9:00 A.M.

I BELIEVE THAT'S ALL I HAD.

>> CAN YOU PLEASE MAKE SURE WE GET THE FESTIVAL TREES THING? WHAT'S THE DATE OF THAT?

>> DECEMBER 5.

>> THEY ALWAYS HAVE THE GOP FUN CHRISTMAS PARTY.

>> IT'S NOT ON MINE. DECEMBER 5.

I DON'T SEE IT ON MINE.

IF YOU'LL RESEND IT.

CAN I ADD ONE MORE THING.

WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT CERTAINLY BILL TOWERS NEEDS TO BE RECOGNIZED.

I KNOW HE DID A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF WORK, NOT ONLY IN ALLOWING HIS FACILITY TO BE USED FOR THE FESTIVAL OF TREES, BUT BEYOND THAT, WE'VE TALKED OVER THE YEARS ABOUT RECOGNIZING PEOPLE AND I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE

[02:25:06]

US CONSIDER IDENTIFYING PEOPLE AND MAYBE DOING IT AT A COMMISSIONER MEETING, AND EVEN IF WE DO IT ALL AT ONE TIME, INSTEAD OF STRETCHING IT OUT, HAVE THEM ALL HERE.

WE HAVE SOME DECEASED MEMBERS, AND THEN WE HAVE OTHER MEMBERS THAT WE WANTED TO RECOGNIZE, SO IF WE CAN PLAN THAT, AND SEE IF WE CAN GET THAT MOVING FORWARD.

>> YES. FOR THAT, WE'LL HAVE OUR PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.

IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD? NONE SEEN, AND I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO GO INTO CLOSE SESSION UNDER GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE 3-305B, SUBSECTION SEVEN TO CONSULT WITH COUNSEL TO OBTAIN LEGAL ADVICE REGARDING A SPECIFIC POTENTIAL SALES AGREEMENT.

WE ARE CLOSING THE MEETING TO DISCUSS THIS TOPIC BECAUSE THE COMMISSIONERS DO NOT WANT TO WAIVE THE ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE, AND ALSO UNDER SUBSECTION 8 TO CONSULT WITH STAFF.

CONSULTANTS OR OTHER INDIVIDUALS ABOUT PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION.

WE ARE CLOSING THE MEETING TO DISCUSS THIS TOPIC BECAUSE PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY THEORIES OF IMPOSING LIABILITY OR INTERPOSING DEFENSES, AND NEXT STEPS WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE COUNTY'S POSITION IN LITIGATION.

FURTHER, THE COMMISSIONERS DO NOT WANT TO WAIVE THE ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE.

>> MOVE.

>> MOTION TO SECOND, NEED ROLL CALL VOTE. COMMISSIONER PORTER?

>> COMMISSIONER BREEDING.

>> COMMISSIONER BARTZ.