[00:01:23]
>> GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE, AND WELCOME TO THE DECEMBER 9, 2025, CAROLINE COUNTY COMMISSIONER MEETING, WHICH IS NOW IN ORDER.
THIS MORNING, WE HAVE OUR INVOCATION BY REVEREND WILLIAM TARON, THE BLIND EVANGELIST, AND THAT'LL BE FOLLOWED BY A PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
REVEREND TARON THANK YOU, SIR.
>> GOOD MORNING, AND BLESSINGS TO EVERYONE FROM IT'S TIME FOR THE HARVEST MINISTRY.
THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING US THE PRIVILEGE TO BE HERE TO HAVE A PRAYER.
IF WE COULD JUST TAKE A MINUTE TO FOCUS ON OUR LORD AND SAVIOR AND BOW OUR HEADS AS WE PRAY, PLEASE.
PRECIOUS FATHER, WE THANK YOU THIS MORNING THAT WE CAN COME TO YOU AND
[Call to Order: Invocation— Rev William Tarbutton, The Blind Evangelist; Pledge of Allegiance; Agenda Review]
ASSEMBLE STILL IN THIS FREE UNITED STATES IN THIS GREAT COUNTY OF CAROLINE.FATHER, WE ASK THAT YOUR ANOINTING OF YOUR HOLY SPIRIT BE WITHIN THESE WALLS AND WITH EVERYONE WHO COMES IN AND WITH EVERYONE WHO DEPARTS.
FATHER, LET ALL THE DECISIONS AND DISCUSSIONS HERE BE MADE ACCORDING TO YOUR SCRIPTURE, LET EVERYONE BE BLESSED, AND WE WILL THANK YOU IN JESUS NAME, AMEN.
>> AMEN. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVIDUAL, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
>> I DON'T HAVE A DATE ON HERE, BUT WHEN WAS OUR LAST MEETING? DECEMBER 2. DURING THE DECEMBER 2, 2025, CAROLINE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING, THE COMMISSIONERS MEETING CLOSED SESSION UNDER GENERAL PROVISIONS ARTICLE 3-305 B7 AND B8 TO CONSULT WITH COUNSEL ABOUT ONGOING LITIGATION AND TO OBTAIN LEGAL ADVICE.
NO ACTION WAS TAKEN, AND THE BOARD RECEIVED GUIDANCE FROM COUNSEL
[President’s Closed Session Report Out]
AND DID PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF AS APPROPRIATE.OUR FIRST ITEM OF BUSINESS THIS MORNING IS ROBIN K. HALL, OUR HEALTH OFFICER, AND JOSH PARKER WITH THE MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH DISCUSSION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH FEE SCHEDULE.
[Robin Cahall, Health Officer & Josh Parker, Maryland Department of Health]
MORNING, ROBIN.>> THIS IS DEFINITELY A CONTINUED CONVERSATION FROM THE LAST TIME THAT WE WERE HERE.
HOPEFULLY WE DON'T TAKE UP AS MUCH TIME THIS TIME.
THE LAST TIME THAT WE MET IN REFERENCE TO THE FEE SCHEDULE, WHICH AGAIN HASN'T BEEN REVIEWED AND UPDATED SINCE 2005.
WE HAD SOME QUESTIONS THAT WE NEEDED TO GO BACK AND DO SOME FOLLOW UP ON.
I CREATED A DISCUSSION FOLLOW UP DOCUMENT THAT ACTUALLY HAS THOSE QUESTIONS.
I JUST WANTED TO GO THROUGH IT.
THE OTHER THING THAT I HAVE, THE OTHER DOCUMENT IS THE PROPOSED FEE SCHEDULE CHANGES, THE JUSTIFICATION FOR EACH OF THOSE CHANGES.
I THINK MY GOAL TODAY IS TO GET IN A GOOD SPOT OR REVIEW THESE ITEMS, FIGURE OUT LIKE OUR PATH FORWARD, WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE GOOD WITH THE FEE SCHEDULE CHANGES, MOVING TOWARDS A RESOLUTION TO PUT IT IN PLACE, OR IF WE HOLD, NOT REALLY KNOWING WHAT OUR FY 27 BUDGET IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE.
WE'RE FINE WITH HOLDING ON THAT IF WE FEEL THAT IT'S NECESSARY.
[00:05:03]
I DON'T HAVE THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT'S BUDGET FIGURES AS OF YET, AS WELL.I WANT TO BE ABLE TO KEEP THAT IN MIND.
MOVING THROUGH THE DISCUSSION FOLLOW UP DOCUMENT.
ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WAS ABOUT SOIL AND SITE EVALUATION APPLICATIONS, AND JOSH'S PROPOSAL TO MOVE TO AN ALL IN ONE FOR RESIDENTIAL.
ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WAS POSED WAS HOW MANY FAILED IN FY 25? WE DON'T REALLY USE THE TERM FAILED.
WE USE UNACCEPTABLE BECAUSE WE WANT A LOT OF TIMES ADDITIONAL WORK NEEDS TO BE DONE.
THERE'S STILL POTENTIAL FOR SOMETHING TO MOVE THROUGH AND BE ACCEPTABLE, IT JUST REQUIRES ADDITIONAL WORK.
IF THE PROPERTY OWNER IS ABLE TO AFFORD, OR THEY WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH FINDING A DIFFERENT PROPOSAL, WE LEAVE THAT OPTION OPEN TO THEM.
>> ONCE WE EXHAUSTED ALL OPTIONS, WHETHER BE POST TEST LOCATION, WE EXHAUSTED ALL THE OPTIONS, WE TESTED FOR CONVENTIAL, SAND MUN.
NOW IF YOU HAVE AN AREA THAT'S YOU HAVE LARGE PROPERTY, YOU OBVIOUSLY MOVE THE AREA.
SMALLER PROPERTIES, THAT'S WHAT RUNS INTO A PROBLEM.
>> JOSH DID RUN RUN SOME REPORTS FOR FY 25, WE HAD 22 SOIL AND SITE EVALUATION APPLICATIONS RECEIVED IN OFFICE, AND ON 24 TEST SITES WERE ESTABLISHED FROM THOSE 22 APPLICATIONS.
WE HAD ONE CANCELED, WHICH MEANT THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER DECIDED THEY DID NOT WANT TO MOVE.
THEN WE HAD THREE UNACCEPTABLE WITH SAND MOUND TESTING OPTION OFFERED.
WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT, AGAIN, IT WAS LISTED AS UNACCEPTABLE.
THE RECOMMENDATION WAS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH REVIEWING FOR THE SAND MOUND OPTION FOR THEM.
THEN WE HAD 14 LISTED AS UNACCEPTABLE.
THEY ALL NEED ADDITIONAL EVALUATIONS LIKE PAST THE SOIL ONLY.
DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO WHAT THAT MEANS?
>> JUST THE SOIL EVALUATION REALLY IS REALLY GOING OUT, LOOK AT THE DIRT.
WHAT WE DO WITH THAT IS ALMOST ALL OF OUR ALL OF OUR TESTS NEED WHAT SEASON EVALUATIONS.
I MEANS, WE GO BACK THAT SITE FOUR OR FIVE, SIX TIMES, JUST TO TEST THE WATER TABLES.
WE REVIEWED THAT WITH NVE, WE JUST DID THE SOIL EVALUATION.
COULD YOU FAIL IT, COULD YOU MAKE IT AN UNACCEPTABLE DETERMINATION JUST ON SEEING THE SOILS? THEY WOULD LOOK AT IT IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE WATER RESULTS AS BEING AN INCOMPLETE EVALUATION.
FOR AUDITING PURPOSES, WHEN THEY LOOK AT OUR RECORDS, IF WE DON'T HAVE A WATER TABLE RESULT IN THERE, NO MATTER HOW BAD THE SOIL LOOKS, IT'S AN INCOMPLETE EVALUATION IN THE IN THEIR EYES.
>> RESELLING. NOW, THERE WAS NO STATUTE CHANGE.
THIS IS A REGULATORY CHANGE OR AN ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE THAT THEY'VE MADE AT MDE?
>> WITH THE PROGRAM EVALUATIONS,.
>> THESE ARE ALL THINGS, AT SOME POINT, MOVING FORWARD, GOING THROUGH THIS, I'M NOT REALLY BIG ON RAISING THE FEES.
WE CAN CONTINUE THROUGH AND GO THROUGH, LIKE COMBINING AND TRUING THE FEES ACROSS.
BUT I REALLY, I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE YET.
I WANT TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH MDE ABOUT WHERE ALL THE STUFF IS COMING FROM AS WELL.
>> I THINK THE OTHER THING THAT I WANTED TO LET YOU GUYS KNOW IS THAT, MDE, THEY HAVE SOME PROPOSED REGULATORY CHANGES.
JOSH AND I BOTH SIT ON A SUBCOMMITTEE FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIRECTORS CONFERENCE, REVIEWING THOSE REGULATIONS.
WE JUST WE JUST SUBMITTED THE COMMENTS.
THAT GROUP JUST SUBMITTED THE COMMENTS TO MDE FOR REVIEW LAST WEEK.
ONCE THAT HAPPENS, THEN IT'LL MOVE TO THE HEALTH OFFICERS FOR COMMENT AS WELL.
BUT TO TRY TO CUT AND A LOT OF WHAT WE'RE WORKING THROUGH IT IS KOMAR AND HOW THIS TYPE OF THING IS LIKE IMPLEMENTED.
>> TO MAKE THE REGULATIONS MORE CLEAR FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE SOME SORT OF UNDERSTANDING.
PUT THEM IN A MORE LOGICAL ORDER WAS ONE OF OUR GOALS.
REDUCE THE REDUNDANCY, ADD A LOT OF DEFINITIONS, THE REGULATION IS MISSING A LOT OF DEFINITIONS.
SHORING UP PARTS OF THE REGULATION THAT HAS JUST BEEN PROBLEMATIC THROUGHOUT THE FULL STATE.
>> GETTING BACK TO THIS, THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT OR MDE IS NOW TELLING YOU THAT WITHOUT A ESSENTIALLY A WET SEASON TEST,
[00:10:01]
IT'S AN INCOMPLETE EVALUATION.>> THAT'S WHAT THEY BASICALLY SAID.
IF WE'RE LOOKING AT IT AND JUST TURNING IT DOWN ON SOILS, UNLESS THE SOILS ARE REALLY BAD? WHICH IS NOT ALWAYS THE CASE.
>> WHAT IF YOU'RE APPROVING IT JUST BASED ON THE SOILS?
>> IF YOU APPROVE IT BASED ON JUST THE SOILS, YOU DID AN INCOMPLETE EVALUATION.
HERE IN CAROLINE COUNTY, WE DON'T HAVE THE SOLES HERE WHERE PERSONALLY, I WOULDN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE DOING IT.
PREVIOUSLY, IN A DIFFERENT COUNTY, WE WOULD DO THE DOUBLE IF WE HAD EIGHT FEET OF TREATMENT ZONE AND NO SIGN OF WATER.
THAT WAS SOMETHING WE WOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH IN EVALUATION.
BUT HERE, WE DON'T HAVE WATER TABLES AT EIGHT FEET.
WE HAVE WATER TABLES IN THE THREE AND FIVE FEET RANGE.
WE DON'T HAVE THAT DEPTH OF MATERIAL HERE.
THERE'S ONE AREA THAT HAS REALLY GOOD DEEP MATERIALS.
THE OTHER PART OF IT IS WHEN YOU GO TO LOOK IN THE RECORDS, IF YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING, YOU'RE LOOKING FOR THOSE FOUR OR FIVE DATA POINTS ON A SHEET OF PAPER.
YOU'RE JUST OPEN IT UP AND THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR.
THAT'S THE INFORMATION YOU NEED TO MOVE FORWARD, AND IF SOMETHING'S MISSING, THEN THE QUESTION IS, WHY IS IT NOT THERE? WITHOUT ANY MORE DOCUMENTATION, THAT BECOMES ANOTHER ISSUE.
>> WE ALSO LOOKED AT FY 24, WE HAD 25 TEST SITES, AND NINE OF THOSE WERE UNACCEPTABLE OUT OF ALL OF THEM.
AGAIN, IN MOST OF THOSE CASES, THE TEST SITE WAS MOVED IN HOPES OF FINDING A BETTER, MORE SUITABLE LOCATION.
AGAIN, YOU KNOW, WORKING TO TRY TO FIND THE RIGHT SPOT FOR THAT TO HAPPEN.
YOU HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT PIECE?
>> THE NINE UNACCEPTABLE IN FY 24 DID NOT INCLUDE WET SEASON TESTING.
THOSE WERE JUST SOILS ONLY EVALUATIONS?
>> NO. I WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT ALL THOSE NINE, BUT THEY PROBABLY HAD SOME WATER TABLE DATA IN THERE TO BEGIN WITH.
>> WHEN WE TALKED TO CUSTOMERS AT THE DESK, THEY COULD STILL APPLY AND DS GET SOILS [OVERLAPPING].
WE'RE NOT TALKING A HUGE SUM OF MONEY HERE, EITHER.
I MEAN, YOU ONLY HAD 25 APPLICATION.
IF WE RAISED IT 100 BUCKS, YOU'RE ONLY TALKING $2,500.
THE PROPOSED FEE THERE IS THAT'S HOW IF YOU WERE TO GO THROUGH THE TESTING FROM START TO FINISH, THAT'S THE TOTAL NUMBER OF FEES YOU PAY.
WE FEEL YOU OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
WE FEED THE CUSTOMER. WELL, YOU DID THIS, NOW YOU DO THIS, AND IT'S ALWAYS ANOTHER CHECK.
I'D RATHER THIS BE OF AN UPFRONT FEE.
COVER IT ALL IN THAT WAY, WE DON'T HAVE TO SEND YOU OUT OF NOTICE, WE DON'T HAVE TO WAIT FOR YOU TO RESPOND, YOU KNOW, RP CAN SCHEDULE ALL THE TESTING NEEDED TO DO.
>> I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH DANNY ABOUT THIS AS WELL.
I BELIEVE AFTER THE LAST TIME WE SPOKE, THE PROPOSED ALL IN ONE FEE, THAT JUST SO I UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECTLY, THAT'S THE SOILS ONLY, THE WET SEASON ONLY AND THE MOUND TEST?
>> YES. IF YOU DIDN'T NEED THE MOUND TEST, THEN I KNOW THERE WAS TALK ABOUT CREDITING BACK, BUT WE DIDN'T WANT TO GET INTO ACCREDITING BACK SITUATION BECAUSE IT'S NOT EVERYONE IS NOT GOING TO NEED THAT MOUND TESTING.
IF I DIDN'T NEED A MOUND TEST, I WOULD PAY FOR IT AND NOT NECESSARILY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT TEST.
IF MY PROPERTY GOT APPROVED FOR A STANDARD SYSTEM.
THE OTHER POSSIBILITY IS WE ALREADY RUN THE MOUND TEST WHEN WE'RE OUT THERE.
WE HAVE THE DATA WHEN WE DO THE EVALUATION, AND NOW WE'RE JUST WAITING FOR THE WATER TABLE RESULTS TO COME IN TO SEE WHETHER YOU'RE CONVENTIONAL OR SAND MOUND.
IT'S ONE OF THOSE CASES WHERE WE HAVE THE DATA OUT FRONT, WE CAN MAKE OUR DECISION A LOT FASTER.
>> ONE OF YOUR TRIPS OUT THERE TO MONITOR THE POZOMETER, THE GROUNDWATER TABLE, YOU WOULD ALSO DO AN INFILTRATION TEST FOR THE SANDMUND, SO IT SAVES YOU A TRIP.
THAT'S THE THOUGHT PROCESS BEHIND IT.
>> THAT WOULD BE FOR EVERYONE.
>> EVERYBODY WOULD GET A MOUND AMOUNT TEST IT'S AN INTERESTING THOUGHT.
I'LL HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THAT ONE,.
>> I STRUGGLED WITH ADDING THE MOUND TEST PIECE IN THERE, AND WE WENT BACK AND FORTH A LITTLE BIT ABOUT IT.
[00:15:02]
DEFINITELY, LIKE I SAID, WE'RE PRESENTING BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THIS NEEDS TO BE A WELL THOUGHT OUT PROCESS.>> BUT THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME.
NOW I UNDERSTAND WHAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS YOU GO OUT THERE BASICALLY ONE TIME, YOU'RE GOING TO RUN ALL POSSIBLE TESTS, AND YOU'RE YOU'RE GOING TO GET AN UNACCEPTABLE OR WE'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU WE'RE GOING TO POTENTIALLY ISSUE YOU A CONSTRUCTION PERMIT TO BUILD EITHER A STANDARD SYSTEM OR MOUND.
>> THAT'S THE INTENTION. TO BASICALLY ADDRESS ALL OF OUR CONCERNS UP FRONT AND OUR FEES AND NOT NECESSARILY HAVE TO BURDEN THE PROPERTY OWNER AS MUCH WITH GETTING THESE LETTERS AND SENDING ANOTHER CHECK IN AND WELL, WE SENT OUT A LETTER, NOW WE'RE WAITING FOR A RESPONSE.
THAT'S ONE OF THOSE ISSUES WITH THE SEPTIC PERMIT STATEWIDE IS THE TURNAROUND TIME.
WHEN DOES THE APPLICATION START? WHEN DOES THE PROCESS START.
THE BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THE BETWEEN THE PUBLIC AND OUR OFFICES IS IT'S VERY HARD TO DESCRIBE TO ANYBODY THAT DOESN'T DO THIS ON A REGULAR BASIS.
>> THESE FEES WILL ONLY BE FOR NEW SYSTEMS. THAT'S ANOTHER PART OF THE [INAUDIBLE].
>> I KNOW IT'S FURTHER IN HERE, BUT ON THIS PAGE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW, THIS IS ONLY NEW.
FOR BASICALLY NEW CONSTRUCTION.
>> WHAT IS THE TURNAROUND TIME? WE TELL PEOPLE SIX TO 18 MONTHS DEPENDING ON WHEN THEY APPLY IN THE WEATHER.
THIS YEAR, WE HAVE A LOT OF APPLICANTS.
WE'RE WE'RE ALMOST FULL FOR THE WET SEASON PRO TESTING SEASON.
WE HAVE THAT MANY APPLICATIONS THIS YEAR.
IF YOU APPLIED IN DECEMBER, THEORETICALLY, YOU SHOULD HAVE SOMETHING BY THE SUMMER.
AS LONG AS THE WEATHER HOLDS OUT.
THIS YEAR, WE WE GOT WAY LATE BECAUSE IT WAS REALLY DRY SPRING.
YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T CONTROL THAT WEATHER ASPECT AS MUCH.
SOME COUNTIES OUT FURLOUGH ALL THE WET SEASON.
THEY DIDN'T DO ANY WET SEASON BECAUSE THEY JUST THEY DIDN'T GET THE WET SEASON NUMBERS IN THEIR MONITORING WELL NETWORK.
>> THEN THAT MEANS THAT THOSE APPLICATIONS MOVE TO THE NEXT ONE WET SEASON, CORRECT.
WHICH THAT ADDS ADDITIONAL TIME.
IT'S AS FRUSTRATING FOR US AS THE APPLICANT, BUT, YOU KNOW, WE CANNOT CONTROL THAT LEATHER.
>> ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT ONE? ONTO THE SOIL ONLY.
THE QUESTION WAS, CAN SOIL ONLY BE AN OPTION FOR NEW PERCS? GO AHEAD, JOSH.
>> I THINK WE WERE JUST GOING OVER THAT.
>> YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHEN THAT CHANGED?
>> THAT'S THE WAY IT'S ACTUALLY ALWAYS BEEN.
IT'S NOT BEEN APPLIED EQUALLY ACROSS THE STATE.
NOW, THERE ARE CASES, WE HAVE A PRIME EXAMPLE, WE HAVE ONE WE KNEW IT WAS GOING TO FAIL FROM THE GET GO BUT WE STILL HAD TO GO THROUGH THE STEPS.
THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS WELL AWARE THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE A HOLDING TANK SITUATION.
WE CAN'T MAKE ANY SETBACKS FROM PDA DITCHES.
THERE'S A WHOLE BUNCH OF OTHER ISSUES.
WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PERC TEST TO GET THE DATA TO TURN IT DOWN SO THAT WE CAN GET THE VARIANCE FROM MDE TO PUT A HOLDING TANK IN.
>> THAT WAS A REPLACEMENT. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A NEW CONSTRUCTION THEN.
>> WE'VE NEVER LOOKED AT IT FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION.
THERE ARE A CASES WHEN YOU WALK ON THE SITE, YOU AUTOMATICALLY KNOW.
WE WOULDN'T EVEN TEST THERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT 100 FEET AWAY FROM THE DITCH.
THE WHOLE PROPERTY IS 100 FEET WITHIN A DITCH.
>> THAT'S PROBABLY BEING DONE BECAUSE THE ASSESSMENT OFFICE IS ASSESSING AND A HAS A BUILDABLE LOT, AND THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS TO COME.
[LAUGHTER] WHAT GETS YOU TO PROVE THAT STUFF?
>> ON IT HAS A HOUSE ON IT AND IT'S LOUVIE.
>> WE HAVE NO RECORD OF. THERE'S A SYSTEM THERE.
IT IS FUNCTIONING NOT FILLING THE GROUND, BUT THEY DO NEED TO GET A BUILDING PERMIT AND, THEY'RE GOING TO END UP WITH A HOME TANK.
>> THEN THE TRANSFER, WHICH IS ON THE RESIDENTIAL SOIL SITE EVALUATION FEE SCHEDULE, THAT REFERENCES COUNTY CODE, AND WE GAVE THE ACTUAL IT'S 175-44 AND IN THE COUNTY CODE, TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS.
THAT'S WHAT THAT APPLIED TO. I THINK IT WAS JUST A QUESTION AS TO WHAT IT WAS RELATED TO.
[00:20:06]
>> JUST TO CLARIFY ON THAT ON, ROBIN.
IN ORDER TO SEND YOUR DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS OR TO A SENDING AREA BECAUSE IT'S BACKWARDS.
THE TDR SENDING AREA IS WHERE THE MORE DENSE DEVELOPMENT ACTUALLY TAKES PLACE.
THAT'S WHERE YOU CAN SEND YOUR DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS TO.
THE SENDING AREA IS PRETTY MUCH THE BIG PART.
IN ORDER FOR ME TO SEND MY DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS OFF OF A FARM THAT I HAVE TO A RECEIVING AREA, I HAVE TO PROVE THAT I HAVE FIVE LOTS THAT I COULD BUILD ON.
THIS IS THE FEE THAT THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT CHARGES TO VERIFY THAT I HAVE FIVE BUILDABLE LOTS OR A BUILDABLE LOT TO SEND, IS THAT RIGHT? IS THAT WHAT THIS IS?
>> IN TERMS OF THE WET SEASON TESTING, WHICH HAS TO BE DONE AS WELL.
>> I'M NOT 100% SURE, BECAUSE I'VE NEVER ACTUALLY HAD TO APPLY.
>> WE DON'T EVEN USE OUR TRANSFER DEVELOPMENT RATES ANYMORE.
>> WE'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT AN EXAMPLE.
>> TO ESTABLISH A LOT, YOU STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH A PERC TEST.
I DO KNOW WHEN YOU'RE DOING THIS, YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE STAGE TO PROVE THAT IT'S A FILLABLE LOT? YOU CAN'T JUST SAY I HAVE FIVE LOTS.
YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO PROVE THE LOT WAS THERE TO BEGIN.
>> I KNOW YOU POINTED TO THE CODE, AND I READ THROUGH THE CODE SECTION.
IT WAS ALL ABOUT THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND IT READS TO ME THAT BEFORE YOU CAN SEND YOUR DEVELOPMENT RATE, YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT YOU COULD ACTUALLY PERC?
>> THAT'S GOT TO BE WHAT THIS FEE IS.
>> YOU HAVE TO GO TO A WET SEASON AND EVERYTHING JUST TO PROVE THAT?
>> WELL IT SOUNDS MDE IS NOW SAYING EVERYBODY'S GOT TO DO WET SEASON.
>> THAT'S ABSURD. A LOT IS A LOT.
WHY WOULD YOU HOLD SOMEBODY BACK IF THEY HAVE A TDR.
THEY OBVIOUSLY CAN'T BUILD THERE, BUT SOMEBODY ELSE CAN BUILD.
WHY WOULD YOU HOLD THEM BACK IF YOU CAN'T BUILD THERE?
>> I UNDERSTAND FROM OTHER PROCESSES.
>> IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME.
>> NOT ONLY THAT, BUT THERE COULD BE SEWERS SOMEDAY SO INSPECTABILITY OF THEIR MATERIAL.
>> SOMEDAY? AT THE RATE THE STATES GOING.
IT'S NEVER GOING TO BE ANY DAY.
THEY KEEP COMING DOWN AND MORE RESTRICTIONS.
>> I DON'T KNOW. THAT IS IN OUR CODE THOUGH.
I THINK I BRIEFLY READ THROUGH THAT SECTION.
IT DOES REQUIRE HEALTH DEPARTMENT.
>> REVIEW, I THINK THAT SAYS THAT, THIS IS IN FACT A BUILDABLE TDR, BASICALLY, OR TABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHT.
YOU DON'T GET DEVELOPMENT RIGHT TO SELL UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE THAT THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT WILL ALLOW.
YOU CAN GO BUY A LOW FIELD SOMEWHERE THAT YOU'D NEVER BE ABLE TO PERC AND THEN SELL THE DEVELOPMENT RATES OFF OF IT.
>> I CAN SEE THE SOIL PART OF IT.
I JUST CAN'T SEE GOING THROUGH THE WET SEASON PART OF IT AND YOU'RE SAYING, THERE'S NOT ENOUGH WATER AND NOT ENOUGH RAIN.
THEORETICALLY, OVER TIME, WE HAVEN'T HAD ENOUGH RAIN.
>> THERE HAVE BEEN CASES LIKE JOSH SAID LAST YEAR WAS VERY QUESTIONABLE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WE WERE GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO IT.
>> IN THE PRIOR YEAR, WE ACTUALLY HAD WAY MORE RAIN.
WE WERE LOOKING IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION HOW HIGH OVER OUR NORMAL ARE WE COMPARED TO HOW LOW ARE WE?
>> WHEN I DID MINE YEARS AGO, WE DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH, SO I HAD TO GO TO THE MOUND STRAIGHT TO THE MOUND.
IT'S ALL A LOT OF IT'S ALL TIMING.
>> YOU'RE RIGHT. YOU MIGHT NOT HAVE NEEDED A MOUND.
>> WE ALSO IN TERMS OF MONITORING THE TEST SITES FOR THE WET SEASON, WE HAVE SOMEONE DEDICATED TO DOING THAT.
THAT'S HOW WE WERE ABLE TO DO IT LAST YEAR, AS OPPOSED TO MAYBE SOME OTHER COUNTIES WERE NOT ABLE TO DO THAT.
IT TAKES A LOT OF WORK TO DO THAT.
>> FOR THE TDR, I CAN UNDERSTAND GOING OUT THERE, YOU DIG A HOLE YOU DO A SOIL EVALUATION, AND YOU'RE LIKE, "HEY MAN YOU'RE CRAZY.
THERE'S NO WAY THIS IS BUILDABLE LOT." THEN YOU CAN DIG AND SAY, THIS IS YOU CAN GET A ROUGH IDEA A BIT OF.
[00:25:01]
>> WHAT I WAS SAYING MD'S NOT ALLOWING THEM TO MAKE THAT INITIAL.
>> I KNOW WHERE IT'S COMING FROM.
I'M NOT BLAMING YOU. I'M BLAMING THE STATE.
>> I THINK NEXT WAS THE SANITARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AREA, NEW OR REPAIR.
THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS IN REFERENCE TO SEPARATING THE FEES INTO TWO CATEGORIES, NEW AND OR REPAIR.
DO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHY THAT WE SHOULD NOT DO THIS.
A LOT OF OUR REPAIR WORK TAKES AS MUCH WORK AS PERC TEST. WE DON'T HAVE THE RECORDS.
THE STUFF IS OLD. IT'S JUST NOT THERE. THE RECORDS DON'T EXIST.
WE STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH A DO, BASICALLY A PERC BASICALLY A PERC TEST TO DO A SEPTIC REPAIR BECAUSE OF OUR GPR, WE HAVE A LOT MORE LENIENCY WITH A REPAIR.
WE CAN MOVE THOSE OVER A LOT FASTER, BUT THE WORK IS STILL A AS DIFFICULT AS A PERC TEST.
THE DEFINITION OF NEW THAT MDE IS ACTUALLY IS ANYTIME WE DO ANYTHING THAT REPLACE INCREASES FLOW IS STILL NEW.
IT'S A WAY TO INTERPRET WHAT YOU'RE DOING.
YOU'RE DOING A THREE BEDROOM TO A FOUR BEDROOM ADDITION, YOU'RE GOING TO DO A NEW PERMIT.
THAT'S THAT'S INCREASING FLOW.
THAT'S NEW. IT'S NOT A REPAIR ANYMORE.
HAVING A DIFFERENT FREEZE SOMETIMES REALLY IS THERE'S A LOT OF WORK INVOLVED, IF NOT MORE OF WORK INVOLVED WITH, IF YOU'RE REPLACING A SEPTIC AT A HOUSE THAT'S BEEN THERE FOR A LONG TIME AS THERE IS FOR DOING A BRAND NEW LOT.
>> YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT ONE? I'M TALKING ABOUT THE FEE SCHEDULE, AND I KNOW THAT WE'RE NOT MAKING DECISIONS TODAY IN REFERENCE TO THE CHANGES TO THE FEES.
DEFINITELY RECONSIDERING REDUCING OR CONSIDERING REDUCING OUR PROPOSED FEE FROM 480 TO 390, AND THAT'S A REDUCTION IN ONE HOUR OF THE SANITARIUM ONE HOUR OF ADMIN TIME FROM THE CALCULATION.
>> WE WOULD DO IT ACROSS THE BOARD. NEW AND REPAIR.
AGAIN, THAT'S SOMETHING FOR CONSIDERATION.
DO YOU HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PERMIT PIECE?
>> IF I'M AN ELDERLY PERSON AND MY SEPTIC FAILS.
IF I'M JUST REPLACING IT IN KIND, I UNDERSTAND WHAT JOSH'S SAYING, IF I'M AN EXPANDING FAMILY, I'M HAVING ANOTHER CHILD AND I WANT TO PUT A BEDROOM ON THE HOUSE, THEN I COULD SEE IMPOSING THE NEW FEE SOMEWHAT.
NOT REALLY BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO FEE, AND I THINK THIS IS TOO ONEROUS AND RIDICULOUS ANYWAY, AND IT'S A REASON WHY NOBODY CAN AFFORD A HOUSE, AND NOBODY CAN AFFORD TO ADD ON TO THEIR HOUSE, AND I'M NOT TAKING IT OUT ON YOU GUYS.
I THINK THIS NEEDS TO BE REVISITED. WITH MDE.
THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT HAS ALWAYS BEEN ENVIRONMENTAL [LAUGHTER] HAS ALWAYS BEEN A CONTENTIOUS ITEM, OUR DISCUSSION TOPIC IN THE COUNTY.
EVERYBODY, I INHERITED THIS LOT.
I WANT TO BUILD A HOUSE ON IT, AND I CAN'T, OR RECENTLY, THE SCENARIO I LAID OUT, MY WIFE AND I ARE HAVING ANOTHER CHILD, AND WE NEED TO ADD ON TO THE HOUSE AND IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO GET IT DONE.
IT'S A LONG OVERDUE CONVERSATION THAT WE NEED TO HAVE WITH MDE ABOUT WHAT DO THEY REALLY NEED TO BE REQUIRING AT THIS POINT AS OPPOSED TO IN THE PAST.
>> I THINK WE STARTED THE OPENING THAT LINE OF COMMUNICATION THROUGH PROMAKO.
WE DID THAT WITH THE DELEGATION AGREEMENT, PEACE AND I DO THINK THAT THAT NEEDS TO BE A CONTINUED CONVERSATION.
>> I THINK AS MORE COUNTIES ARE FORCED TO THE SAME LEVEL OF OF ENFORCEMENT OR ADMINISTRATION OF THESE REGULATIONS AS WE HAVE BEEN.
[00:30:04]
I THINK THAT'S GOING TO OPEN UP A LOT OF EYES AND A LOT OF OTHER COUNTIES AND PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SAY, THIS IS A PROBLEM, AS WELL.THESE REGULATIONS HAVE NOT BEEN EQUALLY ADMINISTERED ACROSS THE STATE.
IN LOOKING BACK, I THINK THAT CAROLINE COUNTY'S HEALTH DEPARTMENT HAS DONE A PRETTY GOOD JOB OF OF ENFORCING.
I THINK SOME COUNTIES HAVE BEEN VERY RELAXED.
I KNOW YOU JUST WENT THROUGH THE AUDITS, AND THEY FOUND SOME THINGS BUT NOT NEAR AS MANY AS OTHER COUNTIES.
>> I'M STILL DEBATING THE FINDINGS.
>> HEART BURN WITH SOME OF THE THINGS THAT THEY POINTED OUT.
WHERE ARE YOU GUYS AT WITH THE FEES? I'M JUST ONE PERSON.
WHEN WOULD WE MAKE THE CHANGE DURING THE BUDGET AT THE FEE TIME OR CAN THESE BE CHANGED AT ANY TIME THROUGH THE RESOLUTION?
>> THEY CAN BE CHANGED AT ANY POINT IN TERMS OF RESOLUTION.
MY RECOMMENDATION IS GOING TO BE THAT HAVING HEARD WHAT YOU TALKED ABOUT IN TERMS OF COMBINING FEES AS OPPOSED TO INCREASING FEES.
I THINK IF JOSH AND I GO BACK AND WE LOOK AT WHAT CAN BE COMBINED, WHICH WOULD HELP MOVE OUR PROCESSES AND OUR WORKFLOW A LITTLE BIT BETTER AS OPPOSED TO RAISING FEES RIGHT NOW.
THEN AND LOOKING AT IT, BECAUSE AGAIN, ANOTHER CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE WHEN OUR FY 27 BUDGET COMES OUT, IS IT TRULY NECESSARY AT THIS POINT IN TIME, CONSIDERING THE ECONOMIC IMPACT AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS, IS IT TRULY NECESSARY AT THIS TIME TO INCREASE FEES? LIKE I SAID, I DON'T KNOW WHAT OUR FY 27 BUDGET LOOKS LIKE FOR THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT, AND KEEPING IN MIND THAT WHEN I COME FOR OUR BUDGET REQUESTS FROM THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT, THE CORE FUNDING, ALL OF THAT PIECE, THAT IS WHAT PAYS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH.
WE DO GET SOME FUNDING IN TERMS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PIECE OF THE BRF GRANT FUNDS, TO ADMINISTER THAT GRANT, WE DO RECEIVE SOME FUNDING THERE, AND ALSO COLLECTIONS.
THIS IS WHAT COLLECTIONS IT'S THE FEE SCHEDULES.
I THINK IF WE DO THE COMBINATION OF SOME OF THE FEES THAT WE CAN TO MAKE THE WORKFLOW GO BETTER AND THEN HAVE A LATER CONVERSATION ONCE THE BUDGET AND THINGS, ALL THOSE FIGURES COME OUT TO US BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, I WANT THIS TO BE A VERY WELL THOUGHT OUT PROCESS.
NOT THAT I DON'T WANT IT TO BE REVISITED AND I WANT IT TO WAIT ANOTHER 20 YEARS TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION.
I THINK THAT IT SHOULD BE REVIEWED ON A REGULAR BASIS JUST TO MAKE SURE IT'S DOING WHAT IT NEEDS TO DO NOT 20 YEARS.
REVIEWING IT AND SAYING, IT'S FINE THE WAY IT IS AND MOVE ON. THAT'S GREAT.
WE CAN DO THAT BUT MY RECOMMENDATION AT THIS POINT IN TIME IS FOR JOSH AND I TO COMBINE THE FEES THAT WE CAN, COME BACK WITH THAT PRESENTATION AND REMOVE THE INCREASES.
WE'LL HAVE A FEE SCHEDULE THAT REFLECTS THAT TO PRESENT.
A COUPLE OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT I DID WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT COMBINING FEES, ARE SOME OF THE ONES THAT WE DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE.
>> I'M THINKING ABOUT GOING BACK TO THE SOILS ONLY AND THE WET SEASON ONLY.
I THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO COMBINE THOSE THEN.
IF MDE IS TELLING YOU THAT IT'S AN INCOMPLETE EVALUATION WITHOUT A WET SEASON TEST, JUST COMBINE THEM AND DO THEM.
WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HAPPEN IS WHEN I COME IN TO MAKE THAT APPLICATION I WANT TO TRY TO PERC THIS LOT HAVE YOUR STAFF SAY, DO YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND DO THE MOUND SEASON OR THE MOUND TESTING AS WELL, AND JUST SAY, WE CAN COMBINE IT ALL INTO ONE.
YOU MAY NOT NEED A MOUND, AND IT MAY BE $300 THAT YOU DON'T NEED TO SPEND, BUT IT MAY ALSO CUT SIX MONTHS OFF OF YOUR APPROVAL PROCESS.
DO YOU WANT, LEAVE IT UP TO THE APPLICANT? DO YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND DO THE MOUND TEST WHILE YOU'RE HERE?
>> HAVING BOTH THE OPTIONS AVAILABLE.
>> I THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO SAY SOIL AND WET SEASON,
[00:35:01]
ONE FEE, COMBINE IT DONE DEAL, AND THEN, JUST HAVE ONE LITTLE PARAGRAPH TYPED UP, TO JUST GIVE TO THE APPLICANT, SAY, "LOOK, WE'RE OFFERING FOR YOU TO PAY FOR A MOUND RIGHT NOW.IT COULD POTENTIALLY SPEED UP YOUR APPROVAL PROCESS IF YOU WANT TO DO IT."
>> IT'S NOT A BAD TEST TO HAVE.
IT ALSO TELLS YOU WHAT THE PERK RATE ON YOUR TOP LEVEL OF SOIL IS.
BASICALLY, THAT'S WHAT IT IS, A PERCULATION RATE TEST ON THE SURFACE.
>> IT'S A VERY SIMILAR TEST. A STANDARD PERK TESTS DOWN AND AT OUTSIDE WAYS [OVERLAPPING] WHERE IT'S JUST DOWN.
>> IT IS JUST DOWN ON THE TOP SOIL.
YOU JUST DO A TEST RIGHT ON TOP OF THE EXISTING TOP SOIL [OVERLAPPING].
MY THING WITH FEES HAS ALWAYS BEEN THAT THE FEES SHOULD BE REALLY COMMENSURATE WITH WHAT IT COSTS US TO PROVIDE THE SERVICE.
THAT'S GOING TO BE A DISCUSSION WE'LL HAVE LATER ON WITH SOME OTHER FEES.
WHAT DOES IT COST US TO COMPLY WITH THE REGULATIONS? WHAT DOES IT COST US TO SEND THE PEOPLE OUT? I CAN JUSTIFY THAT.
I CAN'T JUSTIFY IT IF IT'S WELL, YEAH, BUT IT REALLY DOESN'T COST THAT MUCH TO DO THAT.
THAT'S WHERE I'M COMPETED HERE.
>> THAT'S THE REASON WE START DOING THIS IS TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION WITH YOU MORE PROACTIVELY THAN [OVERLAPPING] PRODUCTIVELY.
>> I'M LOOKING AT THIS. IF WE ONLY HAD 25 APPLICATIONS, THE CURRENT FEE STRUCTURE, WE'RE NOT PAYING A THIRD OF ONE SANITARIAN SALARY OFF OF THAT.
[LAUGHTER] WE'RE NOT EVEN CLOSE.
BUT THESE ARE ALSO PROPERTIES THAT ARE PAYING PROPERTY TAXES.
BUT THE FEES, DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA ROUGHLY WHAT YOU'RE TAKING IN OFF OF THE FEES?
>> NO, I THOUGHT WE ACTUALLY PRESENTED ON THAT IN TERMS OF COLLECTIONS.
NOW, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT COLLECTIONS, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OVERALL, IT'S NOT SPLIT OUT INTO HOW MUCH WE COLLECTED FOR SOIL AND SITE EVALUATION.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OUR BRF FUNDING THAT COMES IN, WHICH NOT ONLY SUPPORTS THE ADMINISTRATIVE FEE PIECE, BUT DOES THAT ACTUALLY COME TO US?
>> THE BRF ADMINISTRATIVE FEE COMES STRAIGHT TO US.
THAT'S TO PAY FOR OUR ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSES.
THE HP12 GRANT FUNDING PAYS FOR THE REVIEW OF THE MAINTENANCE AND THAT COMES DIRECTLY TO US.
>> THAT GETS LOOPED INTO OUR COLLECTIONS.
FOR FY25, WE HAD A TOTAL OF ALMOST 357,000 IN COLLECTIONS, AND OUR EXPENDITURES WERE APPROXIMATELY 807 ALMOST 808,000 SO 44% OF THAT WAS COLLECTIONS.
>> BUT A BIG CHUNK OF THAT 357 IS PROBABLY BRF FUNDING.
>> YES, 100. NOW, WE DID HAVE ONE PROJECT THAT WAS SIGNIFICANT LAST YEAR THAT WE ACCOUNTED FOR COLLECTIONS.
THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN ON A REGULAR BASIS.
>> BUT THE BRF FUNDING THAT'S THE FLUSH TAX MONEY THAT COMES BACK.
IT'S OUR LOCAL APPROPRIATION FOR THAT.
>> HAS THAT BEEN ADJUSTED OVER THE YEARS OR DOES IT REMAIN SO?
>> WE'VE ADJUSTED OUR ADMINISTRATIVE FEES OVER THE YEARS.
>> BUT NOT WHAT'S COMING FROM THAT.
ACTUALLY, WE SOMEWHAT HAVE CONTROL OVER THAT.
IF WE KNOW, WE PRESENT TO THEM WHAT WE THINK WE'LL NEED FOR THE YEAR IN BRF FUNDING, AND THAT'S WHAT THEY SUPPORT.
THEY GENERALLY COME AROUND AGAIN.
THERE'S GENERALLY LIKE A ROUND TWO.
THEY WANT TO KNOW, DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL PROJECTS IN THE WORKS THAT YOU YIELD BRF FUNDING?
>> WHEN YOU SAY THEY, WHO ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?
>> YEAH, MDE. IT'S MDE THAT ADMINISTERS THAT GRANT AND THEY MANAGE IT.
MY QUESTION IS, IS THAT SOMETHING THEY CAN GET THEIR HANDS ON AND KEEP BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IN THE FUTURE?
>> IT'S AWARDED. PART OF IT IT'S IN STATUTE OF WHERE THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO PUT THE MONEY.
ACTUALLY, THE MONEY THAT WE GET FOR BRF IS I THINK THIRD OR FOURTH TIER ON THE LIST.
THERE'S OTHER THINGS OTHER THINGS OTHER THAN THE BRF MONEY THE LOCAL HEALTH DEPARTMENTS GET THAT ARE HIGHER ON THE PRIORITY LIST.
[00:40:05]
>> THE POINT I'M GETTING AT, THE FEES THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING TODAY ON THIS CHART ARE MAYBE 100,000 OF THE 357,000? PROBABLY NOT [OVERLAPPING].
>> I THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN THAT.
>> I BELIEVE IT'S A LITTLE MORE THAN THAT BECAUSE WHEN YOU ADD IN THE [OVERLAPPING] FEE LICENSING LIKE THE CONTRACTOR, THE HAULER LICENSE, THINGS LIKE THAT, IT BECOMES [OVERLAPPING].
>> A COUPLE OF OTHER THINGS THAT I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT ABOUT THE FEE SCHEDULE THAT I THINK WE SHOULD ADDRESS.
ONE IS CHARGING COUNTY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES FOR PERMIT REVIEWS.
WE CURRENTLY DO CHARGE, AND WHAT WE WOULD LIKE IS TO HAVE DISCRETION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE CHARGE THOSE PERMIT FEES TO OUR COUNTY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES.
I'LL I GUESS GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF RECREATION AND PARKS, WHEN THEY COME, THEY'RE APPLYING FOR A PERMIT.
THEY STILL NEED TO APPLY FOR THE PERMIT, BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO WAIVE THE FEE IN THOSE INSTANCES.
THE OTHER THING THAT I HAVE SEEN THE LAST TWO MONTHS, I'VE HAD THREE SITUATIONS WHERE AFTER THE FACT, PERMITTING FOR SEPTIC HAS BEEN AN ISSUE, MEANING THAT RIGHT NOW, IF SOMEONE WERE TO PUT IN A SEPTIC SYSTEM WITHOUT A PERMIT, WHAT HAPPENS IS THEY GET A NOTICE OF VIOLATION, AND THEN THEY HAVE TO WORK THROUGH THE PROCESS OF ACTUALLY GETTING THE PERMIT AND AFTER THE FACT SITUATION.
THEY JUST PAY THE REGULAR FEE.
THEY RUN THE RISK OF IT NOT BEING PASSING FOR PERMITTING.
THEY RUN THAT RISK AND HAVING TO PULL IT OUT AND DO SOMETHING ELSE.
BUT I FEEL LIKE WE REALLY DO NEED TO IMPLEMENT AN AFTER THE FACT FEE BECAUSE IT'S BECOMING LIKE I SAID, WE'VE HAD THREE IN THE LAST TWO MONTHS AND TWO OF THEM THEY WERE FOUND BECAUSE THERE WERE [OVERLAPPING].
>> SOMEBODY DROVE BY OR THERE WAS A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY THAT SOMEBODY WAS THERE DOING INSPECTION OR WHATEVER AND FOUND IT.
I THINK THAT WE PROPOSED IN TERMS OF AFTER THE FACT [NOISE].
WHAT WAS OUR PROPOSAL FOR THAT ONE?
>> I THINK IT'S THREE TIMES THE ORIGINAL TO MATCH WHAT PLANNING AND CODE DOES WITH OUR AFTER THE FACTS.
THE SAME FOR THE RESUBMITTAL FEES.
WE WANT TO ALSO IMPLEMENT THOSE FOR THE SAME REASONS.
AT A CERTAIN POINT, WE'RE BASICALLY GOING TO FOLLOW THE THREE STRIKE RULE.
WE'VE DONE WHAT OUR FEE SHOULD COVER, BUT YOU'RE NOT PROVIDING ENOUGH INFORMATION AND THERE'S JUST AS MANY EXAMPLES OF THAT GOING ON AS WELL.
>> I THINK THE FINAL THING THAT I HAD WAS TO REMOVE THE CREDIT CARD PROCESSING FEE.
WE ORIGINALLY REQUESTED, I DON'T KNOW, IT WAS [OVERLAPPING] 5 AND $10 BASED ON IT BECAUSE WE'RE USING LAMA, AND AFTER SPEAKING WITH CRYSTAL, THE CREDIT CARD COMPANY TAKES CARE OF THE PROCESSING FEE ON THEIR END.
I DON'T EVEN WANT THE CREDIT CARD PROCESSING FEE ON OUR FEE SCALE.
>> YES, I'LL REMOVE IT FROM THERE.
>> DANNY, WHAT ARE WE DOING? ARE WE CHARGING A 3% PROCESSING FEE IF ANYBODY COMES IN AND PAYS WITH A CREDIT CARD OR?
>> IT'S 3.5 AT THE COUNTER AND THAT GETS PASSED ON TO THE CUSTOMER.
WHEN WE PULL UP A RECEIPT FOR $100, THEY'RE GOING TO SEE 100 PLUS $3.50.
WE DO NOT RETAIN A SINGLE CENT OF THAT JUST LIKE PLANNING CODES OR RECREATIONAL PARKS BUT [INAUDIBLE].
>> BUT LAMA IS GOING TO DO THAT AUTOMATICALLY?
>> YEAH, I'LL CHARGE 3% THE AUTOMATIC FEE.
>> YOU'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE THE FEE, IT'LL JUST BE DONE AUTOMATICALLY?
>> IT'S NOT OUR FEE. IT'S THE CREDIT CARD PROCESSING COMPANY.
>> WE DON'T EVEN SEE IT ON OUR END.
>> WHEN I FIRST STARTED LOOKING AT THIS, THIS WAS DONE BEFORE WE EVEN TALKED ABOUT SWITCHING OVER LINES?
>> IT WAS PUT ON THERE AND IT WAS FOR POINTS OF CONVERSATION?
>> I'M GOOD WITH BOTH OF THOSE, THE WAIVING THE FEE IF THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO DO AND DOING AWAY WITH THE PROCESSING FEE.
[00:45:01]
THERE'S A GOOD CHANCE THAT IT WOULDN'T EVEN PERK.>> THOSE THREE THINGS THAT YOU'VE HAD COME UP, WERE THEY DWELLINGS, LIKE SOMEBODY BUILT A HOUSE OR WAS IT THEY REPLACED THE SEPTIC?
THEY GOT A BUILDING PERMIT TO DO A REPLACEMENT HOME USING THE EXISTING SYSTEM.
THIS IS A CASE WHERE WE'RE LOOKING AT SOMETHING YOU HAD LIKE A 30-YEAR-OLD SYSTEM IN IT.
THEY WERE GOING TO REPLACE THE SEPTIC TANK BECAUSE IT WAS TOO SMALL.
IT WAS A 30 PLUS YEAR OLD SYSTEM.
THEY GO OUT THROUGH THE INSPECTION JUST TO MAKE SURE THE TANK WAS INSTALLED PROPERLY AND THEN THEY CAN SEE WHERE THEY REDID ALL THE DRAIN FIELDS.
WITHOUT A PERMIT, WITHOUT APPROVAL.
>> THIS WAS A LICENSED CONTRACT THAT DID IT?
>> HOW DOES A LICENSED CONTRACTOR NOT KNOW?
>> FOR A REPARABLE BUILDER, TOO, SOMEBODY WE WORK WITH A LOT.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS JUST AN ADMINISTRATIVE OVERSIGHT OR WHAT MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED, BUT IN THAT CASE, THAT'S AN ISSUE.
>> WAS THERE ANY DOCUMENTATION INSINUATING THAT THERE WAS A NEW SYSTEM TO BE PUT IN OTHER THAN THE TANK? THERE WAS NO SPECS, TRENCH WIDTH, DEPTH? NOTHING?
>> WHAT DID THEY USE FOR THE TRENCHES? NO, THE CONTRACTOR. [LAUGHTER] WHAT DID THEY USE?
>> LINDON AND KATIE HAD TO GO OUT AND DIG UP SOME STUFF. FIGURE OUT WHAT THEY DID.
PROVE WHAT YOU BOUGHT YOU AND GIVE US SOME MORE DOCUMENTATION SO WE CAN SEE THAT YOU BOUGHT SO MUCH PIPE, SO MUCH STONE AND THAT'S HOW THERE IS.
>> THEY JUST MADE IT UP. THEY JUST GUESSED IT WAS AN 18 INCH WIDE TRENCH?
LOOK AT HAVING TO REDO AN ENTIRE LUCKILY, THAT WASN'T THE CASE.
THEN THE OTHER TWO, THEY WERE REPAIRS.
WERE THEY REPAIRS OR REPLACEMENTS?
>> I KNOW THE ONE ON SAN TOWN ROAD WAS A REPAIR AND EXISTING HOUSE.
WE WERE DOING A PARK ON THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, AND THAT'S WHEN THEY DISCOVERED.
>> THEY JUST HAD TO LOOK OVER.
>> FRESH GROUND. EVERYTHING WAS DUG UP.
>> THAT WAS A REPAIR, YEAH. THIRD ONE, I'M NOT RECALLING OF TOP OF MY HEAD.
>> THAT WAS AN EXISTING RESIDENCE THAT THEY WERE REDOING.
>> THAT'S THE HOLDING TANK ONE.
>> IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE A HOLDING.
>> THAT'S THE ONE WE DID THE PARK KNOWING THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO A HOLDING TANK BUT THEY WERE AFTER THE FACT, BUILDING APPROVAL OF AN EXISTING HOME.
>> WHAT DO YOU THINK IS A FAIR AFTER THE FACT?
>> [OVERLAPPING] I DIDN'T HEAR YOU SAY IT.
>> THAT MATCHES PLANNING AND CODES.
>> IS IT A [OVERLAPPING] DOUBLE? I WOULD PREFER TO MATCH PLANNING CODE.
>> I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE VERBIAGE SAYS IS WE'RE GOING TO MATCH THEIR POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.
>> I DON'T KNOW. IT'S ON A REPAIR.
WELL, NO, SO NEW HOME CONSTRUCTION, ONE OR TWO WOULD HAVE BEEN IN A REPAIR.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT JUST WHAT FEE WILL BE DOUBLE.
JUST THE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FEE?
>> RIGHT NOW, IT'S 200 BUCKS SO THEY'D HAVE TO PAY 400.
>> I THINK I'M FINE WITH THE TWO TIME FEE.
>> DO WE NEED TO DISCUSS ANYTHING ABOUT THE FOOD SIDE?
>> ON THE FOOD SIDE, IT WAS THE HIGH PRIORITIES, YOU DID HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ON THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF PERMITTING.
>> THE TEMPORARY FOOD EVENT PERMITS.
I WOULD BE ABLE TO COMMUNICATE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A MEDIUM AND A HIGH, I BELIEVE IT WAS.
>> I GAVE YOU SOME BAD EXAMPLES WHERE I WOULD BACK OUT SOME MORE INFORMATION TO SEE WHAT AN EXAMPLE.
>> LOW PRIORITY. WE WERE TALKING ABOUT STORES THAT HAD CHIPS AND CANDY BARS.
THEY ARE NOT CONSIDERED LOW PRIORITY.
YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY HAVE [OVERLAPPING].
>> A COMMERCIALLY PACKAGED POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS FOODS DIRECTLY TO CONSUMERS.
IT HAS TO BE A POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS FOOD IN ORDER FOR THAT.
[00:50:01]
>> THE MINIMUM IS, IF I WANTED TO PUT A HOT DOG RACK IN, I'M PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE TO GET LOW OR MEDIUM. [OVERLAPPING].
>> YOU'RE GOING TO GO TO MEDIUM.
>> TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA, THE LOW PRIORITY IS OUR GROCERY STORES.
THAT'S A LOW PRIORITY SIMPLY BECAUSE, THEY DON'T CUT ANYTHING.
THEY DON'T PREPARE ANYTHING. EVERYTHING'S [OVERLAPPING].
>> IT'S PREPACKAGED. BUT SOME OF THE FOOD THAT THEY SELL IS POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS SO YOU HAVE TO BE CAREFUL WITH THAT.
THEN OF COURSE, THE HAND DIPPED ICE CREAM IS ANOTHER ONE THAT'S LOW PRIORITY AS WELL.
>> BUT JUST SELLING PREPACKAGED STUFF AS AN ACCESSORY IN A STORE IT DOESN'T REQUIRE [OVERLAPPING].
>> DEPENDING ON WHAT IT IS SO LONG AS IT'S NOT A POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS FOOD.
IF THEY'RE SELLING PREPACKAGED HARD BOILED EGGS, THAT'S AN ISSUE. [LAUGHTER]
>> LIKE I SAID, I DON'T REALLY WANT TO RAISE THE FEES, BUT COMBINING THOSE RIGHT NOW, I THINK, MAKES SENSE.
I'M FINE WITH THE THREE THINGS THAT YOU POINTED OUT.
YOU HAD A RECOMMENDATION TO MAKE SOMETHING CONSISTENT. WHAT WAS THAT ON?
>> I WONDER THE OVERARCHING GOALS WAS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OUR TWO PROGRAMS. WE HAVE EQUALLY QUALIFIED PEOPLE DOING THE SAME AMOUNT OF HOUR WORK, BUT OUR FEES ARE DIFFERENT.
THAT'S SEEN IN THE PERMITTING FOR THE MDH SIDE OF STUFF COMPARED TO THE PER WORK SIDE STUFF.
THAT'S THE REASON WHEN I FIRST DID THIS.
I DID SOME RESEARCH, CAME UP WITH SOME HOURLY RATE SO THAT WE CAN BASICALLY MAKE HOW MANY HOURS DOES THIS ACTUALLY TAKE ON AVERAGE, INSPECTIONS SITE WORK.
ALSO, INCLUDE SOME ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSING TIME BECAUSE OUR ADMIN PEOPLE DO PROCESS THE PAPERWORK BACK AND FORTH.
THAT WAS AN OVERARCHING GOAL OF THESE PROPOSED FEES THAT WERE IN THERE.
IT BOUNCES OUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PROGRAMS AND THE AMOUNT OF HOURS THAT THEORETICALLY, IF YOU TAKE ONE SANITARIUM OF ONE SIDE OF PROGRAM AND PUT THEM ON THE OTHER.
>> IF THIS IS PRIVATE SECTOR, IT'S THE BILLABLE RATE? WHAT IS THEIR BILLABLE RATE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH OUR FEE SCHEDULES BECAUSE I HAVE NO CLUE HOW THEY ORIGINALLY ASSESSED THE FEES IN 2005.
EVEN THIS PROPOSAL GAVE A BASIS OF ASSESSING THE FEE.
THEORETICALLY, WE CAN ADJUST THAT RATE THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE THING AND COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT IS CONSISTENT.
>> I KNOW THE PLAT EVALUATION APPLICATION YOU HAD JUST MAKING IT 90 BUCKS A LOT.
>> ACROSS THE BOARD FOR EVERYTHING.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN KEEP IF YOU WISH TO DO THAT.
>> I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
THAT'S ON THE THIRD PAGE OF THE FEE SCHEDULE.
IF YOU WANT TO MAKE IT 100 EVEN OR I THINK YOU WERE PROPOSING WHAT? NINETY.
>> BUT FOR A MAJOR SUBDIVISION, IT WAS 150 A LOT.
> WHICH WE LIKELY WON'T SEE ON THOSE BUT ONCE EVERY 20 YEARS.
>> IF EVER. AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S A PIECE OF PROPERTY LEFT IN THE COUNTY THAT DOES THAT WOULD PER FOR THAT.
>> I THINK GOING BACK AND DOING A REVISION OF THIS AND THEN COMING BACK.
> I'M GOOD WITH TRUING THAT UP.
IF YOU WANT TO SPLIT, FIND, LIKE THE MEDIUM, IF IT'S 100, 110 AND MAKE IT EVEN TO RECOUP SOME FEES THERE.
I DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
THESE PLAT EVALUATIONS DON'T HAPPEN WHEN I'M DOING A REPAIR, IF MY SEPTIC FAILS AND I'M REPAIRING IT, PLAT EVALUATIONS DON'T GET INVOLVED WITH THAT.
>> WHAT IF I'M ESTABLISHING SRA.
[00:55:02]
> ESTABLISHING SRA WE DO A PLAT REVIEW.WE'RE REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH THAT.
THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WE KIND OF WANTED TO INCORPORATE INTO THAT ONE FEE UP FRONT.
AGAIN, THAT WAY, WE'RE NOT WAITING FOR A CHECK OR WHO COME HOLDING EVERYTHING UP WHO'S HOLDING UP WHAT WITH WHERE'S THE CHECK AT? SOME COUNTIES DON'T DO THAT THE SAME AS WE DO.
THERE'S A PROPOSAL, NEW REGULATION THAT THEY ALL SAND MOUNTS NO MATTER WHAT, WHAT TYPE OF PERMITS HAVE TO BE SURVEY LOCATED.
WE'VE BEEN DOING THAT NOW FOR LIKE 20 YEARS.
ACTUALLY, THAT'S ONE OF THE PROPOSALS THEY'RE PUTTING INTO THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS IS THAT, WE SURVEY LOCATE STUFF.
AND ACTUALLY, THE VERBIAGE MAY SURVEY LOCATE, SIMPLY BECAUSE THERE ARE CERTAIN PROPERTIES.
YOU DON'T NECESSARILY NEED TO.
YOU'RE ON 100 ACRE FARM RIGHT BY THE HOUSE.
YOU KNOW YOU'RE NOT IN OUR PROPERTY LINE.
PRIME EXAMPLE WHEN WE JUST CAME IN IS IT'S RIGHT ACROSS FROM CHOP TAG TRANSPORT THERE IN PRESTON.
THEY'RE ON A THREE QUARTER ACRE LOT.
THEY'VE ALMOST OVERBUILD ON IT.
WE'RE LIKE, HOW CAN WE VERIFY THAT WE'RE NOT PUTTING THE SEPTIC SYSTEM OVER THE LINE? SURVEY LOCATED.
BUT EVEN THEN, WE WOULDN'T THAT'S NOT A PLATE THAT'S A SURVEYOR FEE.
THAT DOES THAT DOES COME THROUGH OUR OFFICE, THOUGH.
THE OTHER THING THAT I DON'T WANT TO TOUCH ON IS WE'RE NO LONGER DOING THE DESIGNS, EITHER.
IT USED TO BE THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT.
YOU WENT IN, YOU GOT YOUR CONSTRUCTION PERMIT.
YOU GOT THE DESIGN. YOU GOT THE FIELD DRAIN LAYOUT.
YOU GOT EVERYTHING. MDE HAS STOPPED YOU FROM DOING THAT.
>> THAT'S AN ADDITIONAL COST ALSO THAT'S BEEN PUT ON A HOMEOWNER.
YOU HAVE TO GO OUT AND HIRE A CONSULTANT NOW PRETTY MUCH ON EVERY SINGLE JOB.
>> FOR CONVENTIONAL SYSTEMS, THERE'S NO REQUIREMENTS.
OUR CONTRACTORS CAN DESIGN A CONVENTIONAL SYSTEM, BUT MOST OF THE CONTRACTOR DON'T WANT TO DO IT.
SAM SAID IN OUR INTERNAL OFFICE POLICY, IF YOU HAVE THE QUALIFICATIONS AS A HOME OWNER TO INSTALL, YOU CAN INSTALL.
A HOMEOWNER CAN INSTALL THEIR OWN SYSTEM.
IF YOU HAVE THE QUALIFICATIONS TO INSTALL THAT OR SA MOD THEORETICALLY PRIORITY WORK WITH YOU TO BEGIN WITH.
YOU CAN INSTALL YOUR OWN SYSTEM.
>> BUT IF I'M BUILDING A NEW HOUSE, I HAVE TO HIRE A CONSULTANT.
I'M GOING AND HIRING SOMEONE MORE THAN LIKELY.
>> WE PROVIDE THAT. OUR OFFICE PROVIDES THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN.
IT ABSOLUTELY HAS TO BE DESIGNED.
THAT IS A SOURCE OF CONTENTION IN TERMS OF THE EVALUATION FROM MDE ABOUT THE DESIGN DESIGNING THE SYSTEMS. BECAUSE WE ARE CONSIDERED A REGULATORY AGENCY, OR A REGULATORY ENTITY.
WE ARE OVERSEEING THAT WE CAN'T DO THE DESIGN WORK IS WHAT THEY'VE TOLD US.
>> I THINK WE'RE WORKING THROUGH ONE NOW REAL QUICK, WHERE A GUY WANTS TO PUT A BATHROOM IN HIS POLE BUILDING THAT HE'S BUILT.
HE WANTS TO PUMP FROM THE BATHROOM TO HIS SEPTIC TANK.
WE'RE LIKE, GOING THROUGH THIS WHOLE RIGAMARO RIGHT NOW WITH SETBACKS OFF OF A POOL FOR THE FORCE MAIN, WHAT PUMP WE'RE USING REALLY GETTING INTO THE WEEDS WITH THAT'S WHO DEAL.
IS MDE PROVIDING CLEAR GUIDANCE ON THESE ATYPICAL SITUATIONS? WHERE YOU'RE PUMPING LIKE DISTANCES.
THEY DON'T HAVE REGULATIONS FOR EVERYTHING.
THE MAXIMUM DISTANCE YOU CAN PUMP.
>> YOUR MAXIMUM DISTANCE PUMP.
>> ONE OF THE THINGS WHEN WE DO OUR REVIEWS IS WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PUMPING IS MAKING SURE THEY LOOKING AT THE PUMP FLOW CHART AND MAKING SURE THE PUMP CAN PUMP THE DISTANCE OVER THE STATIC AND PRODUCE THE STATIC HEAD IT NEEDS TO PRODUCE TO GET IT FROM POINT A TO POINT B.
>> I THINK THE OTHER ISSUE WOULD BE THE CAPACITY OF THE ACTUAL TANK ITSELF AND WHAT WAS IT BUILT FOR.
>> WELL, THE DISCUSSION THAT WE'RE HAVING NOW IS, I THINK THE SANITARIUM WANTS US TO PUT A TANK IN.
YOU CAN'T GET TO THE BACK YARD.
IT'S ANOTHER THREE OR $4,000 THIS PROPERTY OWNER IS GOING TO HAVE TO PAY TO BUY A TANK BECAUSE YOU STILL NEED A PUMP.
>> I KNOW THE CASE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS WE DON'T WANT THE MASCADED WASTE HITTING THAT TANK BECAUSE IT'S A HIGHER LOAD.
WE'D RATHER HAVE THE GRAY WATER HIT THE TANK.
[01:00:03]
THAT WAY IT ALL SETTLES OUT, SO IT HAS ITS OWN TANK.THAT WAS ACTUALLY SOMETHING THAT CAME OUT IN DISCUSSION ABOUT SPECS IS THAT IN REGULATIONS, IT SAYS ONLY A CONCRETE TANK IN REGS.
BUT WE CAN ALSO USE POLY TANKS. BUT IT'S NOT IN REGS.
THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE ACTUALLY WORKING ON.
THAT'S ONE THAT ACTUALLY IN THE PROPOSAL TO TALK WITH MB ABOUT WAS LIKE, WHAT ARE WE DOING TO DO WITH POLY TANKS? BECAUSE WE DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE IT IN REGULATION.
>> BUT ALL I'M GETTING AT IS THIS IS WHY PEOPLE DIG A HOLE AND BURY A 55 GALLON DRUM AND RUN ALONG NOWHERE.
BECAUSE WE IS GETTING OUT OF CONTROL.
I JUST FEEL LIKE SOMETIMES WE'RE MAYBE SPLITTING HAIRS, A LITTLE BIT TOO MUCH HERE.
IT IS A BATHROOM IN THE DUDE'S GARAGE.
IT'S NOT LIKE SOMEBODY'S GOING TO BE OUT THERE. BURNING IT UP.
>> WE GET IN THAT SITUATION, AND IRONICALLY, IT'S THE STATE WIDEST.
SEVENTY PERCENT OF THE TIME, THAT'S WHAT THE PEOPLE WILL DO.
>> JOSH, WHAT I'M TELLING YOU IS.
THIS IS WHY PEOPLE BURY A 55 GALLON DRUM AND RUN A LINE OUT.
WE JUST GOT TO KEEP IT REAL, TOO.
I KNOW A LOT OF THIS NEEDS TO BE DISCUSSED WITH MDE AS WELL, BUT THE COST OF DOING THINGS, IT JUST CONTINUES TO GET HIGHER AND HIGHER AND TAKE LONGER AND LONGER, AND IT IS MORE DIFFICULT.
WE GOT TO FIND A WAY TO DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE TO TRY TO CUT THROUGH THAT AND STREAMLINE IT AND MAKE IT AS COST EFFICIENT AS WE CAN, AS WELL.
>> I THINK WITH CHANGING THE WAY THAT WE'RE DOING THINGS WITHIN THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT IS HELPING THAT AND IT'S GOING TO TAKE TIME.
WE'VE BEEN MULLING OVER THIS SITUATION FOR QUITE SOME TIME, AND WE'VE SEEN IMPROVEMENT, BUT I THINK THE CONVERSATIONS NEED TO CONTINUE.
I WILL SAY, I GOT TO GIVE PROPS TO OUR MDE REGIONAL CONSULTANT THAT WE HAVE, I DON'T KNOW, SHE'S BEEN WITH US FOR A YEAR NOW, WHO HAS REALLY BEEN A TREMENDOUS HELP IN TERMS OF THAT GUIDANCE PIECE.
BEING VERY CLEAR AND PROVIDING CONFIRMATION AND THINGS LIKE THAT WHICH HAS BEEN APPRECIATED.
JUST THE SCENARIO I'M LAYING OUT, YOU WANT TO ADD A BATHROOM IN YOUR POLE BELT AND PUMP IT OVER TO YOUR SEPTIC TANK.
IT CANNOT BE ADDRESSED AND REGULATE.
IT CANNOT. THAT SPECIFIC SCENARIO CAN'T BE.
YOU'RE LOOKING THROUGH [INAUDIBLE] AND PICKING IT, WELL, DOES THIS APPLY HERE?
>> THOSE ARE DIFFICULT SITUATIONS.
>> I TRY TO BE CONSISTENT ACROSS THE COUNTY, LET ALONE ACROSS THE REGIONS.
>> I THINK THAT THEY TRY TO ALSO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THAT PROPERTY OWNER IN THAT INSTANCE, IS THEY JUST WANT TO PUT A SINGLE BATHROOM IN THEIR POLE BUILDING, AND THAT COULD BE FINE FOR THAT MOMENT.
BUT 15 YEARS FROM NOW, WHEN THEY SELL THE PROPERTY, AND SOMEBODY DECIDES THAT, OH, IT ALREADY HAS A BATHROOM IN IT, NOW WE'RE GOING TO PUT A KITCHEN IN IT AND WE'RE GOING TO PUT THREE BEDROOMS IN IT, AND THAT'S WHERE THE PROBLEM PLAYS.
BECAUSE THEN WHEN IT IS AFTER THE FACT, AND THEIR SEPTIC IS COMPLETELY FAILING OR WHATEVER BECAUSE OF THAT ADDITIONAL I UNDERSTAND.
IT JUST IT GETS TO BE VERY COMPLICATED.
I DON'T LIKE TO DO THE WHAT IF? I LIKE TO DO THE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE AND NOW.
BUT WHEN THAT HAPPENS, AND PEOPLE ARE, THEY'RE LIKE, WELL, WE DIDN'T KNOW.
WE DIDN'T KNOW THIS. IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT CONVERSATION.
>> I WANT US TO BE AS CONSISTENT AS POSSIBLE THAT WAY WHEN YOUR PERSON COMES IN GET THE SAME ANSWER THAT WHEN FRANK COMES IN FOR THE SAME THING, HE GETS THE SAME ANSWER AND SAME WITH LARRY.
WHEN LARRY COMES IN AND DO THE SAME THING, HE GOT THE SAME ANSWER ALL THREE PLACES.
>> IF IT'S NOT THE SAME ANSWER, WE CAN EXPLAIN WHY IT'S NOT THE SAME ANSWER.
WE'LL GO BACK AND WE'LL DO SOME REVISIONS, AND THEN AND WE'LL PRESENT TO YOU.
>> ONE QUESTION I HAVE IS ON THE COMBINATION.
WE AGREED THAT WE'RE GOING TO COMBINE THE FEES FOR THE SOLE SITE EVALUATION AND THEN WE'LL AT BUDGET TIME, MAYBE POSSIBLY LOOK AT THE OTHER FEES.
WHAT WILL BE THE NEW FEE FOR THE SOLE SITE ABOUT? WOULD IT BE 1,230, 1,380.
>> NO. BECAUSE THAT 1,230 AND THE 1,380 WAS WHAT JOSH HAD PROPOSED BASED ON AN INCREASE.
>> SO IT WOULD BE LIKE 1,140 YEARS.
[01:05:01]
>> I'M GOING TO GET HIM TO A ON THE NUMBER [OVERLAPPING] PUT TOGETHER.
>> RIGHT NOW BASICALLY, I THINK IT'S LIKE 12 OR $1,300.
AS IT IS RIGHT NOW. IF YOU ADD UP ALL THE FEES RIGHT NOW, IF YOU HAD TO DO THE PLAT WET SEASON, I BELIEVE THIS $1,200.
>> WE'LL GET A FIRM NUMBER, BUT IT'S GOING TO BE BASED OFF OF THE CURRENT FEE THAT WE HAVE NOW.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE DIALOGUE.
>> WE DIDN'T DO TOO BAD. NOW I UNDERSTAND [LAUGHTER]
>> I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS. I'M SORRY.
>> NO YOU'RE GOOD. I APPRECIATE THAT.
>> YOU CAN ASK HIM AND NOT ASK.
>> MY FAVORITE THING TO DISCUSS.
>> ALL NEXT UP, LESLIE AND CRYSTAL.
[Leslie Grunden, Long Range Planner, Planning & Codes]
>> THANK YOU FOR [INAUDIBLE] US. WE REQUESTED THIS WORKSHOP BASED ON A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MADE AT THEIR NOVEMBER MEETING.
FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING WITH THEM A PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CODE TO ADD A PERMITTED USE TO THE VILLAGE CENTER ZONING DISTRICT TO ADD MINI STORAGE FACILITIES AS A PERMITTED USE.
THE RURAL VILLAGE ZONING DISTRICTS WERE CREATED IN 2012, AS PART OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CODE UPDATE.
THERE'S TWO, THERE'S VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD AND VILLAGE CENTER DISTRICT.
OF THE 12 RURAL VILLAGES WE HAVE, THREE ARE BASICALLY RESIDENTIAL WITH MAYBE SOME CHURCHES AND A PARK.
ZION, JONESTOWN, AND WILLISTON.
THEN THE OTHER NINE HAVE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES IN THEM.
THE TWO DISTRICTS WERE CREATED TO SUPPORT AND PROTECT THE EXISTING USES OF THE RURAL VILLAGES, WHETHER IT'S RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL.
MOST OF THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL USES IN THE RURAL VILLAGES ARE SIMILAR TO C1 LIGHT COMMERCIAL.
THEY SERVE MOSTLY THE VICINITY AND SURROUNDING AREA.
THEY'RE COMPATIBLE WITH ADJACENT LAND USES.
WHEN THE VILLAGE CENTER ZONING DISTRICT WAS CREATED, THE INTENT WAS TO MIRROR THE C1 USES, LOW INTENSITY COMPATIBLE USES THAT SERVE SURROUNDING AREAS.
IN THE C1 COMMERCIAL DISTRICT PERMITTED USES, MINI STORAGE IS ALLOWED BY SPECIAL USE EXCEPTION THROUGH THE BZA PROCESS.
WE'RE NOT SURE WHY IT WASN'T PICKED UP IN THE ORIGINAL CREATION OF THE ZONING DISTRICT BECAUSE IT IS A C1 USE, AND IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH MOST ADJOINING USES.
WE THINK IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN AN OVERSIGHT.
BUT THE DISCUSSION AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION LEVEL STEMMED FROM AN INQUIRY FROM CITIZEN ASKING IF IT WAS POSSIBLE TO DO A MINI STORAGE FACILITY IN THE VILLAGE OF TANYARD.
WHEN WE REVIEWED IT, AND WE LOOKED AT THE INTENT OF THE VILLAGE CENTER DISTRICTS, WHICH WAS TO SERVE A NEED LOCALLY AND IN THE SURROUNDING AREA THAT WAS A COMPATIBLE USE AND THAT COULD BE CONDITIONED THROUGH THE BZA DEPENDING ON THE CHARACTER OF THE RURAL VILLAGE IT WOULD BE PROPOSED IN.
WE THOUGHT AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGREED THAT IT WOULD BE A COMPATIBLE USE TO INCLUDE IN THE PERMITTED USES.
AT THEIR NOVEMBER MEETING, WE PRESENTED SOME POTENTIAL CONDITIONS THAT COULD BE APPLIED DURING THE DELIBERATION WITH BZA FOR AN APPLICATION FOR MINI STORAGE.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION MADE SOME EDITS, AND THEN RECOMMENDED THAT WE COME TO YOU ALL TO PURSUE ADDING THIS AS A PERMITTED USE IN THAT ZONING DISTRICT. THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE.
>> THIS PROPERTY IS CLOSE TO ACROSS FROM OLD CHANCES STORE.
I THINK THEY LOOKED AT DOING SOME TYPE OF COMMERCIAL LIKE RETAIL STORE OR SOMETHING THERE, AND IT WOULDN'T PER, I THINK.
>> WELL, ONE ADVANTAGE I THINK YOU WOULD HAVE FOR THIS IS IN THESE LITTLE VILLAGES, WE DON'T HAVE THE LOCAL STORE LIKE WE USED TO HAVE.
>> WE COULDN'T GET ACCEPTED PERMIT NOW.
>> IT DOES BRING SOME COMMERCIAL OPPORTUNITY TAX REVENUE. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN?
[01:10:02]
>> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE CHANGED OVER TIME, TOO, IS MINI STORAGE FIRST STARTED OUT WITH STORING YOUR PERSONAL ITEMS, WHETHER YOU'RE TEMPORARY STORAGE, OR MOVING, WHATEVER.
BUT WE'RE FINDING MORE AND MORE AS COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES ARE EXPENSIVE, THAT LOCAL CONTRACTORS NEED A MEANS FOR EXTRA STORAGE.
THEY CAN'T DO IT ON THEIR PERSONAL PROPERTY.
>> THEY'RE UTILIZING THE MINI STORAGE FACILITIES TO STORE THEIR BUSINESS ITEMS.
>> THESE ARE THE CONDITIONS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD DISCUSSED TO ALLOW THOSE IN TERMS OF SETBACKS AND BUILDING SIZES, HEIGHTS, ANY BUFFERING, BECAUSE WE DO HAVE THAT MIXED USE IN THE VILLAGES THAT YOU WOULDN'T HAVE IN THE C1 NECESSARILY.
TO PROTECT THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL.
THERE ARE SOME BUFFERING AND LIMITATIONS ON LONG TERM PARKING.
WE KNOW THAT MANY STORAGE ALSO ALLOWS FOR RV AND BOAT STORAGE.
WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS ADDRESSED AS WELL.
>> THIS WOULD GO BACK FOR LEGISLATION.
>> OUR REQUEST WOULD BE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH PREPARING A LEGISLATIVE BILL AND PRESENTING THAT FOR INTRODUCTION.
>> NO. TO THE COUNTY COMMISSION.
>> THIS IS THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION.
I'M GOOD WITH DOING THE LEGISLATION.
>>GOOD. THIS WILL BE THE TOUCH.
>> WHAT INPUT HAVE YOU? WE'LL HAVE TO HAVE A HEARING ON THIS.
>> I THINK WE'RE GOOD TO PREPARE THE LEGISLATION.
[• Discussion of Friends of Caroline County Recreation & Parks Articles of Incorporation]
OF RECREATION AND PARKS WITH A DISCUSSION OF THE FRIENDS OF CAROLINE COUNTY, RECREATION AND PARKS, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION.>> IT WAS PROBABLY ABOUT I DON'T KNOW, TWO YEARS AGO THAT WE SAT HERE AND I BROUGHT THIS NOTION TO YOU WITH RESPECT TO A FRIENDS GROUP SERVING RECREATION AND PARKS IN CAROLINE COUNTY AS A MEANS TO NUMBER 1, BE ABLE TO SEEK SOME FINANCIAL RESOURCES THAT ULTIMATELY GOVERNMENT ENTITY CANNOT SEEK.
ALL BROUGHT ON BY THE FACT THAT WE DO GET AN ANNUAL CONTRIBUTION TO CHESAPEAKE C CHARITIES ON OUR BEHALF FOR RECREATION AND PARKS IN CAROLINE COUNTY.
I ALWAYS CALL IT AN OFFSHORE ACCOUNT, BUT I'M SURE THAT THE EARS ARE PERK UP WHEN I SAY THAT, BUT IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO BE ABLE TO NAVIGATE THOSE MONIES, DIRECTLY IN CAROLINE COUNTY AND ALSO SEEK OTHER FINANCIAL RESOURCES.
AFTER A VERY LONG PERIOD OF TIME, I HAVE BEFORE YOU THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION AND THE BYLAWS.
THESE HAVE BEEN WORKED THROUGH.
I PROBABLY THE KEY POINTS ON THIS WOULD BE IT WOULD BE A NINE MEMBER BOARD.
FOUR OF THOSE WILL BE APPOINTED BY THE COMMISSIONERS.
IT SHOWS THE STAGGERED TERMS IN WHICH THE FRIENDS GROUP WOULD SERVE IN ITSELF.
IT'S REALLY A SITUATION FROM MY PERSPECTIVE OF WANTING TO GET YOUR BLESSING, A ON THIS, EVEN THOUGH IT'S AN INDEPENDENT FIDUCIARY, INDEPENDENT POLICY SETTING BOARD, IT BECOMES A QUESTION OF THEN WITH THE ADVISORY BOARD.
WHETHER IT LAYS IN WAIT, WHETHER IT'S DISSOLVED, WHETHER WE KEEP AN ADVISORY BOARD AND A FRIENDS GROUP, WHICH WOULD NOT BE MY RECOMMENDATION, BUT CERTAINLY IS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE COMMISSIONERS IN WHICH DIRECTION TO GO.
BUT REALLY THE NOTION OF US BEING ABLE TO HAVE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO FUND RAISE IN A UNIQUE WAY WITH OUR UNIQUE FINANCIAL TIMES.
[01:15:01]
THEN JUST ONE OTHER ITEM OF NOTE ON THAT, THE STATE RECENTLY IN THE HOUSE BILL THAT SUPPORTED OUR BEING ABLE TO UTILIZE PROGRAM OPEN SPACE, HAD A CONTINGENCY IN THAT BILL TO BE ABLE TO START THEIR OWN STATE LEVEL STATEWIDE NONPROFIT.THE STATES LOOKING AT THOSE OPPORTUNITIES AS WELL AS, YOU KNOW, GOVERNMENT FUNDING IS HARDER AND HARDER TO COME BY, AS WE KNOW.
THIS IS ANOTHER AVENUE FOR RECREATION AND PARKS TO BE SUPPORTED IN CAROLINE COUNTY AND NOT BY VIRTUE OF GOVERNMENT DOLLARS.
>> JAMIE, CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE BOARD, THE MAKEUP, HOW THE BOARD MEMBERS WOULD BE APPOINTED WHERE THAT PROCESS.
>> WHAT WOULD BE REALLY INTERESTING TO START WITH IS BECAUSE WE HAVE NINE MEMBERS ON THE CURRENT ADVISORY BOARD THAT WOULD BE WILLING TO SERVE, THE FIRST NINE WOULD ACTUALLY BE APPOINTED BY THE COMMISSIONERS.
AT THAT POINT, WE WOULD JUST NEED TO DISCERN AT WHAT INTERVALS YOU WOULD LIKE TO APPOINT THOSE COMMISSIONERS BASED ON THE TERMS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO SERVE.
THAT'S STILL TO BE WORKSHOPPED.
UNLIKE COMMISSIONER TERMS, THESE TERMS WOULD BE STAGGERED TO ENSURE THAT YOU ALWAYS HAVE SOME CONTINUITY OF PEOPLE SERVING.
BUT WE DEFINITELY HAVE ENOUGH OF THE CURRENT SITTING ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS THAT WISH TO SERVE ON AN INDEPENDENT NONPROFIT.
IT IS THEIR RECOMMENDATION AS WELL THAT WE'D BE VERY HARD PRESSED TO GET BOTH AN ADVISORY BOARD AND A FRIENDS GROUP WITH HAVING ENOUGH PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.
NOW, THAT DOESN'T MEAN TO SAY THAT THE FRIENDS GROUP CAN'T SERVE IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY, BUT I DON'T KNOW THE LEGALITY BEHIND HOW THE NON OR HOW THE ADVISORY BOARD IS IN CODE.
I THINK YOU CAN HAVE ONE, BUT I DON'T THINK YOU NECESSARILY HAVE TO HAVE ONE, AND CAN IT? AND I GUESS THE STEWART QUESTION, CAN IT JUST LAY THERE IN THE EVENT THAT THIS ALL CHANGES, AND YOU WANT THAT ADVISORY BOARD BACK AS IT STOOD BEFORE? IT'S REALLY A MATTER OF WHAT YOUR DESIRES AND WHAT YOU SEE IS IMPORTANT IN THIS DECISION MAKING.
>> THE ONLY OTHER FRIENDS GROUP THAT I KNOW IS FRIENDS OF THE LIBRARY.
TELL ME THE BIGGEST MAJOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE ADVISORY BOARD AND THIS BOARD.
>> POLICY SETTING AND FIDUCIARY.
THIS BOARD WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FUNDS WITH OUR SUPPORT SO THAT THEY WOULD HAVE MEETINGS WITH AN ACTUAL TREASURE TO GO OVER THE FUNDS THAT WERE AVAILABLE AND THE FUNDS TO DISTRIBUTE.
THEY WOULD MAKE THOSE INDEPENDENT DECISIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
NOW, WE'VE HAD THIS CONVERSATION MANY TIMES.
A FRIENDS GROUP COULDN'T DECIDE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO IN THE MIDDLE OF HAPS FIELD, PUT A GIANT, STADIUM.
THOSE TYPES OF FINANCIAL DECISIONS AND DECISIONS TO BUILD THINGS STILL COME BEFORE THE COMMISSIONERS.
THEY WOULD MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON THINGS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO USE THEIR MONEY FOR.
IT WOULD BE AN INDEPENDENT OF AN ADVISORY BOARD, WHERE THE ADVISORY BOARD ACTS DIRECTLY UNDER THE COMMISSIONERS.
BECAUSE OF THAT, THOUGH, IT'S ALSO ALLOWED TO ACCEPT MONIES THAT GOVERNMENT IS NOT ALLOWED TO ACCEPT, OR RATHER THAT SOMEBODY CANNOT GET A TAX BREAK FOR BY GIVING IT TO A GOVERNMENT ENTITY.
I THINK THE EASIEST WAY TO DO IT WOULD BE TO ESTABLISH THE FRIENDS OF CAROLINE COUNTY RECREATION AND PARKS AND ALSO ASSIGN THEM AT AN ADVISORY ROLE.
THAT'S HOW YOU COULD CONDENSE IT INTO ONLY HAVING TO ADMINISTER ONE BOARD.
>> THAT WOULD CERTAINLY BE WHERE WE WOULD RELY ON.
>> WE USED TO HAVE A ROADS BOARD.
>> THAT'S CORRECT. PROVIDED ADVISORY INFORMATION TO THE ROADS DEPARTMENT.
>> THEY ORIGINALLY ADMINISTERED THE MARINA BECAUSE I FOUND SOME OLD DOCUMENTS FROM THE ROADS BOARD ABOUT THE MARINA.
>> THEY WERE BASICALLY THEY SERVED IN THE SAME CAPACITY AS YOUR ADVISORY BOARD RIGHT NOW. I'M ASSUMING.
>> BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY,
[01:20:02]
THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE INVESTED IN RECREATION AND PARKS IN CAROLINE COUNTY, THEY HAVE THE BEST INTEREST OF THAT SUCCESS IN THEIR HEARTS, AND THEY STILL CERTAINLY CAN MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COMMISSIONERS ABOUT THINGS THEY FEEL ARE IMPORTANT.WHAT'S ADDED ONTO THAT, THEN IS, AGAIN, THE FIDUCIARY PART, WHERE WE CAN SEEK ENDOWMENTS, WHERE WE CAN SEEK THOSE UNIQUE FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES THAT CURRENTLY WE CAN WE CAN'T HAVE ACCESS TO.
>> YOU HAVE SOMEONE WHO WHO LEAVES MONEY IN AN ESTATE.
THE MONEY GOES THEY DESIGNATE THIS MONEY THAT THEY WANT TO GO TO PARKS AND RECREATION?
>> CORRECT. IT WOULD GO TO THIS FRIENDS OF THE LIBRARY.
>> TYPE GROUP. THEY WOULD DECIDE WHERE THAT MONEY GETS SPENT?
>> TELL ME HOW WE DON'T END UP WITH SOMETHING WHERE SOMETHING GETS SPENT SOMEWHERE, AND THEN WE HAVE PEOPLE SHOWING UP IN HERE SAYING, WHY DID YOU GUYS SPEND THIS MONEY OR I MEAN, WHERE DO WE KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON?
>> BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN CONCERT WITH RECREATION AND PARKS.
WE'LL BE AT THE TABLE AS AD HOC SUPPORT.
IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN ADVISORY AT MAKING REQUESTS NOW TO THE COMMISSIONERS.
I WOULD BE OR WHOEVER IS THE NEXT DIRECTOR, AND PRESUMABLY WOULD BE WITH THAT GROUP WORKING IN CONCERT WITH ONE ANOTHER.
>> IT'S NOT THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT THE PEOPLE CAN ADVISE US TO DO ON THINGS NOW, BUT THEY DON'T CONTROL WHERE THE MONEY GETS SPENT.
>> WE HAVE THAT SITUATION NOW WITH THE MONEY IN CHESAPEAKE CHARITIES.
I THINK THERE'S APPROXIMATELY 48,000 STILL IN CHESAPEAKE CHARITIES.
THAT'S USED PREDOMINANTLY FOR SCHOLARSHIPS.
>> I THINK WHAT LARRY'S GETTING AT IS IF THE FRIENDS BOARD WANTS TO BUILD A NEW PAVILION AT NORTH LET'S SAY MARYDE.
WE SAY, NO, WE DON'T WANT NEW WE WOULD STILL HAVE VETO AUTHORITY.
ABOUT. NO, BECAUSE WE GOT TO TAKEOVER MAINTENANCE OF THIS THING ONCE IT'S BUILT.
WE'RE NOT, IF YOU WANT TO TRIM SOME TREES BACK OR SOMETHING THAT'S NOT GOING TO REQUIRE AS MUCH MAINTENANCE WITH THE MONEY, WE'RE FINE WITH YOU DOING THAT, BUT WE'RE NOT BUILDING ANY NEW STRUCTURES THAT THE COUNTY WOULD HAVE TO TAKE OVER.
ANY VETO OF WHAT THEY ANY PROJECT THEY CAME TO US WITH, WE'D BE ABLE TO SAY, NO.
>> ANY CAPITAL PROJECT RIGHT LIKE THAT.
>> WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS YOU DON'T WANT ANY EXPANDED FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY PUT MORE ON THE COUNTY.
>> WE WOULD STILL HAVE CONTROL OVER THAT.
HOW MUCH CONTROL CAN WE HAVE OVER THE MAKEUP OF THE BOARD AND STILL MAINTAIN THE INDEPENDENCE TO BE ABLE THE WAY IT SOUNDS TO ME.
>> RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO APPOINT THE ORIGINAL BOARD MEMBERS, BUT AFTER THAT.
>> THERE'S FOUR MEMBERS SO THAT IT IS NOT A MAJORITY.
OF THE NINE, WE FELT LIKE THAT FOUR WOULD PASS THE SMELL TESTS OF THE IRS BECAUSE AT SOME POINT, THAT THAT QUASI PUBLIC, IF IT'S STILL UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE COMMISSIONERS, IT'S NOT AN INDEPENDENT NONPROFIT.
I DON'T THINK IT WOULD PASS THE SMELL TEST.
>> FOUR OF THE NINE MEMBERS ARE APPOINTED BY COMMISSIONERS.
THE OTHER FIVE LARGE. BUT HOW?
>> THE BOARD THEMSELVES MAKE THAT DECISION.
AGAIN, IT'S NOT AS THOUGH PEOPLE ARE RUNNING FORWARD FOR BEING SITTING ON BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.
>> YOUR ADVISORY BOARD RIGHT NOW IS COMPRISED OF PEOPLE WHO REPRESENT DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE [INAUDIBLE].
>> THIS COULD BE STILL DESIGNATED THAT SAME VERY SAME LIFE?
>> LOOK, I DON'T OBVIOUSLY MY CONCERN ONE OF MY CONCERNS WOULD BE THAT SOMEONE WOULD GET ON THERE AND SAY, I'M GOING TO PUSH FOR EVERYTHING, EVERY DOLLAR THAT WE GET TO BE SPENT IN THE NORTHERN END OF THE COUNTY.
I'M NOT GOING TO AGREE. I DON'T WANT ANYTHING SPENT OTHER THAN WHERE I AM RIGHT HERE.
AND THEN WE GET A GROUP OF PEOPLE SHOWING UP IN HERE SAYING, HOW COME YOU GUYS SPEND ALL THE MONEY UP HERE.
WE ALREADY HERE? THAT'S MY CONCERN.
>> WHAT FUNDING DO YOU ANTICIPATE WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO BE CONTROLLED BY THIS BOARD THAT WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO WHAT OUTSIDE FUNDING ARE YOU TALKING, GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE?
>> RIGHT NOW, THERE'S THE MONEY THAT SITS IN CHESAPEAKE CHARITIES.
IT'S ABOUT $48,000, AND THAT'S AN ANNUAL CONTRIBUTION THAT WE'LL
[01:25:02]
GET PROBABLY IN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS FROM THE STOCK DIVIDENDS.THERE'S FOUNDATION MONEY THAT CAN'T BE GIVEN THAT ONLY CAN BE GIVEN TO 501 THREES.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF GRANT OPPORTUNITIES.
WHEN WE RECENTLY APPLIED TO MSTE FOR A SUMMER CAMP, PS IT'S CALLED PENNSYLVANIA STATE OPPORTUNITY ENHANCEMENT GRANT THROUGH MSDE.
THAT HAD TO RUN EITHER THROUGH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OR THROUGH A NONPROFIT, AND HUMAN SERVICES COUNSEL TOLD US THEY WOULD NOT BE THE PASS THROUGH FOR THAT.
WE HAD TO RELY ON THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THAT CASE TO APPLY FOR THOSE GRANT FUNDS.
WE WERE NOT AWARDED, BUT IT STILL IS ONE OF THOSE SCENARIOS WHERE ANYTIME WE WANT TO GO BACK AND TRY TO APPLY FOR THOSE FUNDS, HAVING OUR OWN NON-PROFIT WOULD BE VERY ADVANTAGEOUS IN THAT REGARD.
I DON'T SEE THIS AS BEING SOMETHING THAT EVEN THOUGH IT IS A STANDALONE FIDUCIARY POLICY SETTING BOARD.
I DON'T SEE IT ACTING WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF CAROLINE COUNTY, EVEN FROM PERSPECTIVE OF HELPING DO THE BOOKS AND THE SUPPORT THAT IS ALWAYS NEEDED NON-PROFITS GO TO THE COUNCIL ALL THE TIME IN AND TRYING TO GET SUPPORT FROM THE COMMISSIONERS BECAUSE IT IS CHALLENGING TO RUN THOSE INDEPENDENT.
THE DIFFERENCE IN THIS CASE, IT IS NOT GOING TO BE SUPPORTING EMPLOYEES.
THIS PARTICULAR NON-PROFIT WILL NOT HAVE ANY EMPLOYEES.
>> THE COUNTY WOULD HAVE TO BE A SUB RECIPIENT OF ANY OF ANY FUNDS THAT ARE RECEIVED?
>> THAT BEING THE SUB RECIPIENT WOULD MEAN THAT THE COUNTY WOULD BE, AS WE ALWAYS ARE ON THE HOOK FOR ACTIONS THAT ARE TAKEN BY THIS GROUP?
>> IF SOMETHING NEFARIOUS WERE TO HAPPEN, THAT IS 100% ON A FIDUCIARY POLICY SETTING BOARD.
THIS BOARD OF DIRECTORS THAT WOULD BE APPOINTED AND OR BROUGHT IN TO THE NONPROFIT WOULD BE 100% RESPONSIBLE FOR ANYTHING.
ANY DECISIONS MADE ANY NEFARIOUS ACTIVITY, ANY GOOD DECISIONS MADE STRICTLY UNDER THAT BOARD OF DIRECTORS.
THEY WOULD, AND MY RECOMMENDATION TO THAT BOARD OF DIRECTORS WOULD ALSO THEN TO GET BONDED AS WELL.
>> THIS IS DEFINITELY SOMETHING TO CHEW ON BECAUSE THESE LINES ON PAPER STILL WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THE PROCESSES TO GET A NON-PROFIT, WHICH GENERALLY CAN TAKE 6-12 MONTHS.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S CHANGED.
SO THE GOVERNMENT HAS CHANGED.
>> THIS ORGANIZATION WILL HAVE ITS OWN EIN NUMBER 501 C3 STATUS.
FOUR OF THE NINE MEMBERS WILL BE APPOINTED BY THE COMMISSIONERS.
I'M THE ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER OF THIS BOARD RIGHT NOW.
CAN A COMMISSIONER BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD?
>> MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE NOT A COMMISSIONER.
A COMMISSIONER COULD BE A NON-VOTING [NOISE]
>> WHO SITS IN ON THE MEETINGS AND IS CONSIDERED, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE A CONVERSATION.
BUT A NON-VOTING MEMBER, WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS CONSIDERATION OF THE DIRECTOR OF RECREATION AND PARKS ALWAYS BEING A MEMBER.
BY VIRTUE OF YOUR POSITION, YOU ARE AUTOMATICALLY A MEMBER, AND YOUR SUCCESSOR IS AUTOMATICALLY A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS.
YOU'VE GOT THAT HAND ON THE TILLER.
I THINK THERE ALSO SHOULD BE A PROVISION IN THE BYLAWS WHERE THE CORPORATION AGREES TO INDEMNIFY BOARD MEMBERS.
A LOT OF BOARD MEMBERS OR POTENTIAL BOARD MEMBERS LOOK AT THE BYLAWS FOR THAT PROVISION SO THAT IF I STICK MY NECK OUT BY GETTING ON THIS BOARD, AND THIS BOARD SOMEHOW ENDS UP IN LITIGATION AT LEAST THE COMPANY IS GOING TO STAND FOR ME, PROVIDE A DEFENSE AND INDEMNIFY ME IF I'M STICKING MY NECK OUT.
THE OTHER THING IS PROBABLY IT SHOULD HAVE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL.
[01:30:03]
I KNOW THAT NOBODY WANTS TO HEAR THAT, BUT AT LEAST FOR THE PURPOSES OF SETTING THIS UP.>> THAT'S WHY IT'S TAKEN SO LONG 'CAUSE THIS IS A BIG, MEATY JOB FOR A FIRM TO DO, SO IT'S TAKEN SOME TIME TO GET TO THE TABLE.
>> ULTIMATELY, ANY ACCEPTANCE OF ANY FUNDS FROM THIS NEW ORGANIZATION WILL HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY THE COMMISSIONERS.
>> WELL, AS JAMIE WAS SAYING AND LARRY WAS, COMMISSIONER PORTER, A SUB RECIPIENT.
THE COUNTY BECOMES A SUB RECIPIENT FROM THE BOARD, IS IF I UNDERSTOOD YOU CORRECTLY.
>> WE CAN DO A VERY SHORT WRITTEN AGREEMENT, A SUB RECIPIENT OR SUB WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT A GRANT AGREEMENT, WHERE FUNDS THAT THE BOARD HAS ON DEPOSIT, THEY WANT TO EXPEND IT IN A CERTAIN WAY ON A CERTAIN PROJECT, AND YOU ALL AGREE IN WRITING, TO THE EXPENDITURE OF THEIR FUNDS FOR THIS PURPOSE.
IT'S YOUR LAND. THEY CAN'T DO IT WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION?
>> I TEXTED A FRIEND OF MINE A WHILE AGO, JUST ASKED THEM ABOUT THIS PROCESS.
DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER EXAMPLES OF ANY OTHER COUNTIES OR [INAUDIBLE] INFORM THIS ACTION AGAIN?
>> WE ACTUALLY GOT THE ORIGINAL BYLAWS FROM CECIL COUNTY.
>> THEY HAVE THIS, SO OTHER COUNTIES HAVE SET IT UP THIS WAY AS WELL?
>> IT WAS THE FIRST THING I WENT SCOURING FOR TO SEE IF ANYBODY HAD ANY AND CECIL COUNTY, I THINK BEEN IN EFFECT FOR ABOUT FIVE YEARS.
>> DID YOU SPEAK TO ANYBODY UP THERE?
>> WE EMAILED BACK AND FORTH BUT THAT WAS SOME TIME AGO.
>> DID THEY RELAY ANY, LIKE, WHAT TYPE OF MONETARY FUNDS, HAVE THEY BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN?
>> I CAN CERTAINLY REACH BACK OUT NOW AND ASK THOSE QUESTIONS.
>> YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH SUCCESS THEY'VE HAD IN GETTING FUND, STUFF LIKE THAT.
I TAKE IT, THEIR BOARD SET UP THE SAME WAY.
MAJORITY, NOT APPOINTED BY THE COMMISSIONERS?
>> I DON'T THINK THEIRS WAS COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT.
>> WHEN WE WENT TO APPROACH THIS, I FELT THE CONCERN FROM THIS BOARD WITH RESPECT TO MAKING SURE THAT BECAUSE IT IS ENGAGED WITH THE COUNTY THAT THERE IS SOME APPOINTING POWER OF THIS SITTING BOARD.
WE ADDED THAT FOR THIS PARTICULAR DOCUMENT BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IF WE DO THIS, THAT YOU CERTAINLY ALL FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH IT.
I MEAN, THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT 10 WELL-MEANING PEOPLE COULDN'T GO OUT TODAY DECIDE THAT THEY WANT TO SUPPORT RECREATION AND PARKS INDEPENDENT OF THE COMMISSIONERS AND RECREATION AND PARKS AND JUST WANT TO DO THIS BECAUSE IT CERTAINLY IS SOMETHING THAT A GROUP OF WELL-MEANING AND GOOD-INTENTIONED PEOPLE COULD DO AT ANY TIME.
>> THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT, IF THEY WENT IN THEIR PASSING, THEY WANT TO DONATE TO A LIBRARY GETS A LOT OF ENDOWMENTS.
I'M SURE THERE'S PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT WANT TO DO THE SAME APARTMENT WRECK, AS WELL. I WOULD.
>> WE HAD THIS HAPPEN AT HARMONY PARK, I THINK IT WAS THE LAST.
>> THOSE DONORS DIDN'T GET ANY TAX BENEFIT BY DOING THAT.
THEY PAID FOR AN IMPROVEMENT THERE THAT WE AGREED TO.
THIS WOULD GIVE THEM AN AVENUE SOMEONE TO DONATE IT TO THAT IS A 501 C3.
>> I THINK THIS IS A GOOD THING.
WE STILL HAVE VETO POWER OVER WHATEVER POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENT.
>> I MEAN, BY RIGHT, NOBODY SHOULD BE DOING ANY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS IN OUR PARKS WITHOUT OUR CONSENT.
[LAUGHTER] THERE COULD HAVE BEEN SHED THAT POPPED UP THAT.
>> YEAH. FOR OCCASIONAL BATTING CAGE [INAUDIBLE] OR.
>> IT'S WHY I GIGGLE IN THIS CASE, CERTAINLY.
WITH US BEING AT THE TABLE, PART OF THAT IS HELPING DIRECT THAT AND YOU KNOW, WORKING TOGETHER TO COME UP WITH THOSE AREAS WHERE WE'RE SHORT ON SOMETHING, BUT WE REALLY WANT TO MAKE SOMETHING HAPPEN.
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THAT, IT'S ALL THE TIME, EVEN AS WE LOOK AND WORRY ABOUT
[01:35:02]
PROGRAM OPEN SPACE AND BEING ABLE TO DO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, HAVING THIS BODY OF HUMANS THAT CAN AND ARE CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING RAISING FUNDS FOR US TO MAKE THOSE PROJECTS HAPPEN, IS REALLY IMPORTANT I THINK.>> I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT DOWN THE ROAD, WE DON'T END UP IN A SITUATION.
>> WHERE YOU HAVE A GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO SAY, WELL, THIS IS OUR MONEY.
THIS IS HOW WE'RE GOING TO SPEND IT.
WE DON'T CARE WHAT YOU GUYS WANT.
WE'RE ULTIMATELY GOING TO BE HELD OR WHOEVER SENDING THE RECEIPTS ARE GOING TO BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ANYTHING TO DO WITH PARKS AND RECREATION.
DON'T MATTER IF WE ARE OR NOT. THAT'S MY CONCERN.
>> I DON'T THINK THAT WILL HAPPEN, BUT [OVERLAPPING]
>> EXACTLY, IF THEY WANT TO BUILD A PAVILION AT A PARTICULAR PARK, AND THEN THEY WANT TO PUT A GOLD-PLATED BENCH AT THE SAME PARK, AND THEN THEY WANT TO PUT SOMETHING ELSE AT THE SAME PARK.
EVENTUALLY, THE BOARD HERE IS GOING TO HAVE TO SAY, NO, WE'VE APPROVED ENOUGH STUFF AT THIS FACILITY.
YOU NEED TO TAKE YOUR MONEY AND GO DO SOMETHING.
>> WELL, YOU HAVE A MASS PLAN TO PLAN.
>> FOR HOW PROPERTY AND FACILITIES ARE GOING TO BE DEVELOPED THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY.
>> I KNOW THAT WHAT WE ALWAYS TRY TO DO IS TO BE EQUITABLE ON WHERE THE MONEY IS SPENT, TRYING TO KEEP A BALANCE OF WHERE IT IS SPENT WITHIN THE COUNTY.
>> SO I DON'T THINK IT WILL HAPPEN, BUT MAN.
>> UNFORTUNATELY, ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE.
>> WHAT'S THE NEXT STEP ON THIS THEN? THIS IS AN INDEPENDENT ORGANIZATION, SO IT SHOULDN'T REQUIRE ANY APPROVAL FROM US, RIGHT?
>> CORRECT. BUT THE DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE ADVISORY BOARD AND THEN, I WOULD LIKE YOU ALL TO READ THESE IF THERE'S ANY ADDITIONS THAT YOU FEEL ARE IMPORTANT REVISIONS, ANY TYPES OF THOSE THINGS.
WE GET TO A POINT WHERE BOTH STEWART AND JESSE HAVE JUST REVIEWED IT.
THEN BEING ABLE TO FILE, GO AHEAD AND FILE, TO HAVE OUR ATTORNEY FILE THESE.
>> WELL, I CERTAINLY THINK IT'S REDUNDANT TO HAVE AN ADVISORY BOARD IN THIS BOARD.
I MEAN, THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ON THE ADVISORY BOARD, I'M ASSUMING, HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS.
ARE AWARE OF WHAT THEY'RE STEPPING INTO.
>> WHAT THEIR REQUIREMENTS ARE GOING TO BE AND WHAT ARE POTENTIAL PITFALLS ARE GOING TO BE.
>> MANY OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS BEFORE, I DID FINALLY ASK THAT THEY COMMIT OR NOT COMMIT.
>> I HAD A THOUGHT THAT INSTEAD OF AND I HAVE TO STUDY PAGE 2, THE SUBPARAGRAPH C ABOUT WHAT THE PURPOSES OF THE CORPORATION ARE, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME IT COULD ALSO BE THAT THERE MIGHT BE A NEED THAT POPS UP, NOT A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT, BUT PERHAPS A TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE OR PAYMENT OF SOME THIRD PARTY TO COME AND I PUT ON WHATEVER IT IS FOR RECREATION AND PARKS.
THAT WAS NOT IN THE BUDGET, BUT BOY, IT WOULD BE GREAT IF WE COULD DO IT.
MAYBE IT'S AN EXTRA PERSON ON YOUR STAFF FOR THE SUMMER, WHO KNOWS WHAT IT IS, BUT THAT THIS GROUP COULD NOT JUST BE BRICKS AND MORTAR, BUT IT COULD BE HELPING YOU WITH THOSE KINDS OF NEEDS?
>> WELL, CERTAINLY, BUT MY PREFERENCE IN THAT SITUATION WOULD BE TO HAVE THAT EMPLOYEE STILL UNDER RECREATION AND PARKS AND HAVE THAT MONEY GIVEN TO THE COUNTY ON BEHALF OF THAT EITHER ENTERTAINER EMPLOYEE SO THAT LIABILITY WISE.
>> ABSOLUTELY. THAT'S WHY SOMETHING IN WRITING PRESENTED TO THE BOARD AND PASSED PROBABLY ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
ANYTIME YOU'RE GOING TO SPEND MONEY LIKE THAT, THAT'S HOW YOU BRING IT UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.
>> WELL, THEN THAT WOULD CONTEND THE OPENING THE AND WORMS QUESTION.
LIKE, THE SCHOLARSHIPS THAT WE DO ANNUALLY, PROBABLY SOMEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF $8-9,000.
TWICE A YEAR, WE GATHER THE DATA OF WHAT WE'VE GIFTED INDIVIDUALS WHO PARTICIPATE IN OUR PROGRAMS,
[01:40:01]
AND IT'S A 50 PERCENT REDUCTION IN THE COST OF THE PROGRAM.TWICE A YEAR, I SEND A NOTICE TO CHESAPEAKE CHARITIES, AND DANNY HAS COPIED ON THAT AS WELL, AND WE ENCUMBER THE FUNDS ON BEHALF OF THOSE SCHOLARSHIPS.
ALTHOUGH IT IS THE COUNTY REQUESTING FUNDS OFFSHORE, AND WE'RE ALL AWARE OF IT, WE DON'T NECESSARILY PUT THAT IN WRITING ANYWHERE, ALTHOUGH IT'S NOT NECESSARILY TO SAY THAT WE SHOULDN'T.
I MEAN, DANNY HAS COPIED ON ALL OF THAT.
>> I THINK THE SIMPLEST THING TO DO WITHIN IF THE ADVISORY BOARD IS IN COUNTY CODE, THEN WE WOULD AMEND THE CODE SECTION REGARDING THE ADVISORY BOARD.
IF WE DO THIS, TO SAY THAT THE ORGANIZATION, FRIENDS OF CAROLINE, RECREATION AND PARKS WILL SERVE AS AN INDIAN ADVISORY CAPACITY TO THE DIRECTOR?
>> I BELIEVE SOME YEARS AGO, THERE WAS A A CHANGE IN CODE THAT DELETED THE ADVISORY BOARD COMPLETELY FROM CODE AND RECREATED IT IN THE FORM OF RESOLUTION.
>> I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE CURRENT STATUS IS.
WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST FOR THE MOMENT IS DON'T TOUCH.
>> DON'T DO ANYTHING? CORRECT.
>> DON'T DO ANYTHING UNTIL THIS THING PROCEEDS DOWN THE ROAD AND COMES UP AS WHAT WE HOPE IT WILL BE.
THEN LET US WORRY ABOUT [OVERLAPPING]
>> ADDRESSING IT THROUGH RESOLUTION.
BECAUSE THIS IS GOING TO TAKE SOME TIME.
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GET AN EIN NUMBER.
>> YEAH, IT HAS TO GO THROUGH THE STATE OF MARYLAND IRS.
>> WE'LL LOOK AT THIS AND GIVE JAMIE, ANY COMMENTS THAT WE HAVE ON THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION.
[NOISE] I BELIEVE YOU HAVE ONE OTHER ITEM?
>> I DO. WE'RE MOVING INTO MARINA SEASON,
[• Discussion of Boat Ramp Fee Schedule]
OBVIOUSLY, WE'RE THINKING ABOUT THE MARINA AND BOAT RAMPS A LOT.I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHY, BUT IT HAS BEEN ON MY MIND A LITTLE BIT LATELY.
WE STARTED LOOKING AT THE FEE SCHEDULE AND STARTING TO LOOK AT THE BOAT RAMP, THE PERMIT FEE.
DID SOME INVESTIGATING TALBOT'S BOAT RAMP FEE IS $45 AND QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY IS 40 AND OURS IS 25, WHICH IS NOT NECESSARILY A REASON TO RAISE YOUR FEES.
HOWEVER, WE DID JUST RECENTLY TAKE A GOOD CHUNK OF THAT OUT TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT.
TO BE ABLE TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT AT THE MARINA AND WE WANT TO BE COGNIZANT THAT WE DON'T JUST DELETE THOSE FUNDS AND DON'T HAVE A WAY TO BUILD THAT ACCOUNTS.
LOOKING AT CHANGING THE $25 FEE TO $30.
I GOT A SMILE FROM COMMISSIONER PORTER ABOUT RAISING FEES.
ONE OF THE OTHER ITEMS OF NOTE, WE THROUGH A TRANSFER, PAY BACK EMPLOYEES IN THE GENERAL FUND WHO MANAGE THE BOAT RAMP.
BECAUSE IT'S QUITE AN INDEPENDENT BUSINESS OPERATION WHERE WE HAVE MULTIPLE BUSINESSES THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY ON OUR BEHALF, SELL THE PERMITS.
IT'S NURTURING, IT'S GOING OUT AND DOING ALL THE DEPOSIT WORK.
WE DO TRANSFER APPROXIMATELY $7,800 ANNUALLY INTO THE GENERAL FUND ON BEHALF OF THAT WORK.
IT'S NOT JUST MONEY THAT'S LAYING THERE COLLECTING OVER THE COURSE OF TIME WITHOUT INTENT FOR BEING SPENT.
AGAIN, CURRENTLY, WE'RE USING PART OF THE RAMP MONEY AS MATCHED FOR THE DNR FUNDS THAT WE RECEIVED AT THE MARINA.
WE'RE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO INCREASE FROM 25 TO 30.
IN ADDITION, I HAD A CONVERSATION BASED ON COMMISSIONER BREEDING, A NICE CONVERSATION YESTERDAY, I THINK IT WAS EITHER URBAN LEGEND OR SOMEBODY HAD HEARD THAT WE COULDN'T CHARGE A NON-RESIDENT RATES, AND WE CAN.
WE COULD HAVE AN OUT OF STATE RATE.
CURRENTLY, TALBOT'S OUT OF STATE RATE IS 75 FOR BOAT RAMP PERMITS AND QUEEN ANNE'S IS 70.
I DIDN'T KNOW THIS WHEN I SUBMITTED THIS, BUT I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE DO A $50 FEE FOR OUT OF STATE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO USE THE BOAT RAMP IN CAROLINE COUNTY.
[01:45:02]
LAST YEAR, WE HAD 715 IN STATE APPLICATIONS PERMITS ISSUED AND 158 OUT OF STATE PERMITS ISSUED.THE OUT OF STATE WERE ISSUED AT THE SAME RATE AS IN STATE.
NOW THAT WE HAVE THAT DISTINCT ANSWER FROM DNR, AGAIN, IT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION TO INCREASE THAT TO A MINIMUM OF $50.
>> DORCHESTER DOESN'T CHARGE ANY OF THEM
>> DORCHESTER DOESN'T CHARGE FOR ANY OF THEM BUT BOTH QUEEN AND TALBOT DO OBVIOUSLY, MUCH MORE THAN WE DO.
>> YOU'RE GOING TO DO AWAY WITH A DAILY PERMIT.
[OVERLAPPING] THE DAILY PERMIT IS JUST NOT WORTH THE SQUEEZE.
WE'RE NOT SELLING MANY BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE EITHER RISKING IT FOR THE ONE DAY, NOT GETTING CAUGHT, OR THEY'RE BUYING THE ANNUAL.
>> YOU CAN BUY 30 BUCKS, AND THEN YOU CAN USE IT WHENEVER.
>> THAT'S CORRECT. FOR A YEAR AGO.
THEN IN THIS CASE WE'D BE ADDING THE OUT-OF-STATE FEE, WHICH, AGAIN, SEVERAL YEARS AGO, WE WERE TOLD WE COULDN'T HAVE A NONRESIDENT RATE.
BUT I THINK THAT MEANT A CAROLINE COUNTY VERSUS A TALBOT COUNTY AND NOT OUT-OF-STATE.
WE WERE REVIEWING THE OTHERS AND I SAW THE OUT-OF-STATE FEE, I WAS LIKE, WHY AREN'T WE CHARGING THAT? FOR SURE.
>> I AGREE WITH THE OUT-OF-STATE RATE.
>> KEEP IT AT 25 AND GO WITH THE 50 OUT-OF-STATE?
>> I'LL GO TO 30. I DON'T THINK THE $5, BUT WE'LL HEAR ABOUT IT. BUT I DON'T THINK THE $5.
>> THAT'S WHY I DIDN'T WANT TO JUMP IT THROUGH THE ROOF.
WE HAVEN'T CHANGED THIS SINCE 2018.
>> I THINK MY IMPRESSION IS THAT WE STILL HAVE PROBLEMS WITH PEOPLE ON THE RIVER.
I GET PHONE CALLS, I'M SURE YOU DO TOO, ABOUT PEOPLE GOING TOO FAST ON THE RIVER, AND WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS PROCESS, AND I THINK A LOT OF THAT IS PROBABLY OUT-OF-STATE PEOPLE.
>> ESPECIALLY THERE'S A LADY IN GREENSBORO.
>> SHE HAS A LEGITIMATE CONCERN. BUT I'M FINE.
>> ONE OF THE BIGGEST ISSUES WE HAVE EVEN THROUGH THAT PASSAGE IS SOMEBODY'S GOING TO NEED TO DREDGE AND OR CLEAR SOME OF THAT OUT.
WE GET CALLS ALL THE TIME ABOUT COMING AND CLEARING THE RIVER.
>> THEY WENT UP THERE ONCE AND THEY DIDN'T DO A VERY GOOD JOB AND WE'VE BEEN OUT HERE ALL THE TIME. DIFFERENT ONES.
>> WE GET REQUESTS TO DO IT, BUT ONE OF THE CONCERNS I HAVE IS LIABILITY.
IT TAKES A SPECIAL HUMAN BEING TO CLEAR A RIVER.
BE MORE INCLINED TO HAVE ALMOST SUB-BARGE LIKE BOAT THAT COULD COME IN AND PUSH.
>> WELL, THERE'S THE TREES THAT FELL DOWN AND YOU DON'T KNOW WHERE THE TREES ARE POPPING [NOISE].
IF THERE IS ANY DOWN IN THE RIVER.
THAT'S ONE OF THE BIGGEST CONCERNS I'VE BEEN TOLD ABOUT.
WE TALKED DNR SAID THEY'D COME UP THERE, BUT THEY DIDN'T DO A VERY ADEQUATE JOB WITH IT.
>> THIS FEE IS SET BY RESOLUTION.
THE RESOLUTION THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU IS OUR YEARLY FEE SCHEDULE, SO IT WOULD BE AN ADOPTED AMENDMENT OF THAT SCHEDULE TO INCLUDE JAMES' RECOMMENDATIONS.
>> WE WOULD NEED TO DIRECT STAFF TO PRODUCE A RESOLUTION.
>> I BELIEVE THE 2025-37. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I CAN SEE THE HEADLINE NOW OF COMMISSIONERS INCREASE BOAT FEES BY 40%.
>> I'M GOING TO BE KEEPING IT AT 25, JUST DOING IT OUT-OF-STATE.
>> YOU WANT TO KEEP IT [INAUDIBLE]
>> I'M FINE WITH DOING THAT AS WELL. ABSOLUTELY.
>> NO, I'M GOOD. LET'S DO 25 AND DO THE OUT-OF-STATE.
>> NO. WHERE IS THIS RESOLUTION?
>> MIGHT REDUCE THE IN-COUNTY.
>> I THINK I GOT CHRISTMAS CARDS IN HERE WITH GLITTER ON THEM OR SOMETHING [LAUGHTER] BECAUSE I'M GETTING COVERED IN GLITTER EVERY TIME I FLIP THROUGH IT.
[01:50:02]
>> WHAT NUMBER IS IT? YES, HERE IT IS.
>> WELL, WE HAVE TO ASSIGN A NUMBER. IT'S STAPLE BACKWARDS.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT RESOLUTION NUMBER?
WELL, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND ATTACHMENT A IN THIS PROPOSED RESOLUTION TO SAY THAT I'M GOING TO DELETE THE DAILY PERMIT AT 10:00.
WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE THE ANNUAL PERMIT TO $25, AND WE'RE GOING TO CREATE AN OUT-OF-STATE ANNUAL PERMIT OF $50.
>> MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> ALL THOSE OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT.
NOW I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AMENDED RESOLUTION 2025-037.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE.
>> ALL THOSE OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT.
>> SORRY FOR THE DELAY THERE, I HAD TO THINK THROUGH THAT ONE.
THANK YOU, JAMIE. CAN NOW, WE ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO GO IN A LEGISLATIVE SESSION.
[Legislative Session: Third Reading & Potential Amendment or Enactment]
>> MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT, AND I WILL TURN IT OVER TO MR. BARREL.
[• Legislative Bill #2025-014, Enactment of New Article XIV of Chapter 166 Taxation - Creation of a Tax Credit against the Caroline County Property Tax for Dwellings Owned and Occupied by Active Volunteer Firefighters]
>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. WE ARE HERE FOR THE THIRD READING AND POTENTIAL TO AMEND OR ENACT LEGISLATIVE BILL NUMBER 2025-014.
THIS IS A BILL WHICH DEALS WITH GRANTING A TAX CREDIT AGAINST THE CAROLINE COUNTY PROPERTY TAX FOR DWELLINGS OWNED AND OCCUPIED BY ACTIVE VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS IN CAROLINE COUNTY, ESTABLISHING ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCH TAX CREDITS AND GENERALLY DEALING WITH THE AMOUNT TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE TAX CREDIT.
A BRIEF BACKGROUND ON THIS IS THIS BILL WAS INTRODUCED BACK ON NOVEMBER 18TH.
THE PUBLIC HEARING TOOK PLACE ON THE 25TH OF NOVEMBER.
IF THIS BILL IS ENACTED TODAY, ITS EFFECTIVE DATE WOULD BE JANUARY 24TH OF 2026.
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY HAS ENACTED A STATUTE WHICH ALLOWS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SUCH AS YOURSELVES TO DEFINE WHAT IS A PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR THE PROPERTY TAX CREDIT.
WHAT THIS BILL DOES IS PROVIDES A DEFINITION OF PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER TO BE A DEFINITION REALLY OF AN ACTIVE VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER IN THIS COUNTY.
IF SO, THERE IS AN APPLICATION PROCESS AND A VERIFICATION PROCESS, WHICH IS IN THE BILL TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CREDIT IS ONLY GIVEN TO ACTIVE DUTY VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS.
WHAT THIS BILL STATES IS THAT INITIALLY, THE AMOUNT OF THE PROPERTY TAX CREDIT WILL BE $250 AND WILL INCREASE EACH YEAR BY $50 UNTIL IT AMOUNTS TO A $500 TAX CREDIT.
[01:55:12]
>> I DON'T HAVE ANY EXCEPT TO JUST CONFIRM WITH DANNY.
WE ARE CLEAR HERE ON HOW THE REPORTING WOULD BE DONE NOW AND WHO'S GOING TO SUBMIT THE INFORMATION AND WHO'S GOING TO SUBMIT THE DOCUMENTATION TO YOU TO QUALIFY THE INDIVIDUAL VERSION.
>> YES. THE MODEL THAT IS IN THE BILL AND WHAT'S BEEN DISCUSSED WITH THE FIRE AND THE MS ASSOCIATION FOLLOWS ESSENTIALLY WHAT THEY'RE COMPLYING WITH LOW STACK AND TIMES THAT OUT WITH THAT, SO YES.
>> THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE, I THOUGHT THE $50 WAS DISCRETIONARY EACH YEAR UPON THE BOARD.
>> THE WAY THE CURRENT LANGUAGE HAS IT, IT IS, I'M GOING TO SAY AUTOMATIC.
APOLOGIZE IF THE DIRECTION WAS DISCRETIONARY. I THINK THE WAY [OVERLAPPING]
>> I THOUGHT DISCRETIONARY UPON [OVERLAPPING]
>> IF I MAY, I THOUGHT THE INTENT OF THE BOARD WAS TO ELIMINATE THE NEED, IF YOU WILL, FOR LOBBYING TO TAKE PLACE EVERY YEAR AT BUDGET TIME AS TO WHETHER THE CREDIT SHOULD BE INCREASED OR NOT.
>> THAT WAS MY INTENTION. I WANTED TO BE SURE THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTOOD WHAT WE WERE GOING TO START AT, HOW MUCH IT WAS GOING TO INCREASE, AND WHEN IT WAS GOING TO CAP.
THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY SPECULATION ABOUT IT, AND WE WOULDN'T BE ARGUING ABOUT IT EVERY YEAR. THAT WAS MY INTENTION.
THIS CAN BE ADOPTED TODAY, CORRECT?
>> I ASSUME WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY.
>> YOU HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY PUBLIC COMMENT SINCE THE PUBLIC COMMENT.
>> JUST THE LETTER FROM THE BOARD OF REALTERS?
>> THEN, MR. PRESIDENT, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ADOPT LEGISLATIVE BILL 2025-014.
>> ALL THOSE OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE WORK WE'VE DONE ON THIS.
THANK YOU, DANNY. THANK YOU TO EVERYBODY.
>> ENTERTAINING A MOTION TO CLOSE THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION.
>> THE AYES HAVE IT. ONTO THE CONSENT AGENDA.
[Consent Agenda]
COMMENTS ABOUT THE CONSENT AGENDA? MR. BARKS? MR. PORTER.>> THE MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS SUBSCRIBER UPGRADE 1,000,479.
THAT IS JUST A, I WON'T USE THE WORD.
THIS IS THE FIRST PHASE OF THE RADIO REPLACEMENT SCHEDULE THAT WE DISCUSSED.
IT'S PROBABLY GOING ON MAYBE TWO, THREE MONTHS NOW.
THE LAST TIME WE WERE HERE DISCUSSING THIS, THE QUOTE CAME IN FOR THE FIRST YEAR, I BELIEVE, RIGHT AROUND $2 MILLION OR JUST NORTH OF THAT.
STEVE WORKED WITH MOTOROLA, THEY ALIGNED IT WITH THE STATE CONTRACT, AS WELL AS PUTTING IN A DISCOUNT AND GOT THAT DOWN TO ESSENTIALLY THE 1.479 NUMBER YOU SEE IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY.
STILL DOING THE FIRST PHASE, WHICH INCLUDES THE DISPATCH CONSOLES AND WHAT WE'RE GOING TO CONSIDER SOME OF THE MORE, EMERGENCY RELATED RADIOS, BUT THE SCOPE THAT WAS DISCUSSED AT THAT TIME IS WHAT THIS PO AND CONTRACT IS FOR.
>> IN THIS PHASE, ARE WE ALSO DOING THE FIRE DEPARTMENTS AS WELL?
>> CORRECT. JUST OUR DMS AND POLICE.
>> JUST OUR EMERGENCY SERVICES RELEASE.
>> I'M ASSUMING WE HAVE A EXTREMELY GOOD HANDLE ON WHO'S GETTING THEM, WHO'S USING THEM, AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY THAT ARE HANGING AROUND OUT THERE THAT WE DON'T NEED.
>> WE ACTUALLY GOT A FEW INVENTORY [INAUDIBLE]
[02:00:06]
>> DEAD SPOTS. WHERE DO WE HAVE ANY DEAD SPOTS?
>> [NOISE] A COUPLE OF SPOTS IN DIFFERENT PLACES IN THE SCHOOL, BUT IT SOME ON THE WEATHER DEPENDS ON THE ATMOSPHERE SOMETIMES, DEPENDS ON RADIO OR WIRELESS INTERFERENCE.
THE ONE THING, WE USE RADIOS THAT DOES ALLOW US TO USE THE WI-FI AS A SCHOOL SO THAT WE SHOULDN'T HAVE THAT PROBLEM.
WE'RE WORKING WITH THE SCHOOLS TO GET A DEDICATED WI-FI SET UP AND PASSWORDS TO HAVE PUT EVERY SCHOOL'S WI-FI PASSWORD INTO THE ALREADY PROGRAM [INAUDIBLE]
>> IN THE PAST, THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT DEAD SPOTS UP IN THE NORTHERN END OF THE COUNTY.
>> WE HAVEN'T BEEN MADE AWARE OF ANY OTHER SINCE OUR DISCUSSIONS.
THEY ASKED FOR [INAUDIBLE] THEY DO THEIR ANNUAL MEETINGS, THEY'VE DONE SOME OTHER WORK THERE AND [INAUDIBLE].
>> FOR 1,000,004, I SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO TALK TO ANYBODY WITHOUT EVEN HAVING A RADIO.
YOU BETTER MAKE SURE THEY WORK.
>> ROBIN, HOW MANY BIDS DID WE GET ON THE DELAWARE ELEVATOR OR ON THE COURTHOUSE ELEVATOR? MODERNIZATION IS JUST ONE OR?
>> I DIDN'T SEE IT IN THE PACKET WHAT THE OTHER TWO.
WERE THEY ALL CLOSE TOGETHER OR?
>> ONE WAS PRETTY HIGH AND THE OTHER ONE WAS [INAUDIBLE]
>> WHAT WOULD YOU THINK? DOUBLE THIS ONE WITH THE HIGHEST BID?
>> IS DELAWARE ELEVATOR OF THE COMPANY THAT SERVICES IT NOW?
>> [OVERLAPPING] CONTRACT [INAUDIBLE]
>> [INAUDIBLE] 40,000, WHICH BACKWARD WOULD HAVE BEEN CLOSE TO TWO YEARS [INAUDIBLE] $2,000, TWO YEARS LATER IT'S $40,000 [INAUDIBLE].
>> WE'RE GOING TO KEEP THE SAME COMPANY THAT SERVICES IT NOW?
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.
>> TEN MOTION SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> ALL THOSE OPPOSED. THE AYES HAVE IT.
>> I HAVE TWO ITEMS TO UPDATE YOU ON,
[County Administrator’s Report]
AND THEN I THINK DANNY ADMINISTRATOR FOX IS DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOX.IT'S GOING TO COME UP, AND HE'S GOT SOME THINGS FOR YOU, ALSO.
FIRST THING, REAL QUICK, THE CABLE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT THAT WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON FOR TWO YEARS, I THINK NOW.
AND I SAY WE, OUR ATTORNEYS HAVE BEEN WORKING ON IT, ARE OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS.
THEY'VE BEEN GOING BACK AND FORTH WITH A DRAFT WITH COMCAST, AND THEY HAVE JUST SENT US HOPEFULLY, WHAT'S NEARLY THE FINAL DRAFT FOR REVIEW AS OF, I THINK YOU GOT THAT YESTERDAY.
THEN THE SECOND ITEM I WANTED TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION IS JUST AN UPDATE ON DAY SPRINGS.
ON FRIDAY, THE DHCD, ONE OF THEIR ATTORNEYS, NOT MR. POLER, BUT ON BEHALF OF MR. POLER.
WE REQUESTED CHANGES TO THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE SUBMITTED.
MOST OF THEM ARE FAIRLY MINOR.
THERE'S ONE SPREADSHEET IN THERE THAT I THINK DANNY AND I ARE GOING TO WORK ON.
WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT EXACTLY HOW TO HANDLE THAT.
I KNOW STEWART STEPPED OUT FOR A MINUTE, BUT HE CAN PROBABLY UPDATE YOU ON WHERE HE IS ON THE DOCUMENTS.
SOME OF THEM, FOR EXAMPLE, WERE CHANGE DAY SPRING 1, SO THAT IT SAYS, DAY SPRING 1 AND 2 AND SOME THINGS LIKE THAT.
WITH THAT, DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING?
>> DO WE HAVE AN ESTIMATED CLOSING TIME?
>> HOLD THAT QUESTION. ALSO, THEY SENT THIS MORNING OR YESTERDAY.
I THINK IT WAS YESTERDAY AFTERNOON.
>> I THINK IT WAS LIKE 3,090 AROUND THAT NUMBER.
>> ALL IT IS IS EMAILS. THERE'S NOTHING ELSE.
[02:05:02]
>> CAN YOU CUT AND PASTE THAT IN? YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE TO TYPE EVERY ONE OF THOSE EMAILS.
>> IT'S AN EXCEL FILE THAT HAS EACH ONE IN ITS OWN.
>> WHAT'S THE PERIOD OF TIME WE HAVE TO WAIT ON THE RESPONSE FROM THEM?
>> THIRTY DAYS. IT SOUNDS LIKE JUST WE HAVE THE COMMENTS BACK ON THE LETTER.
IT'S NOW REALLY JUST STEWART NEEDS TOMBS THAT UP.
>> THEN WE CAN GET THAT SENT OUT.
>> THEN TO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT A CLOSING DATE, I DON'T KNOW.
>> BOTH PARTIES ARE ALLOWED, I THINK IT IS 90 DAYS OF DUE DILIGENCE, AND THEN IT WOULD BE SET POST THAT IF EVERYTHING IS AGREED UPON.
THERE ARE SOME SMALL ITEMS I BELIEVE LAST WEEK I REPORTED OUT ABOUT SOME OF THE EXHIBIT B THAT THE PROPERTY MANAGER WAS HAVING TO ESSENTIALLY PROVIDE.
THEY RESPONDED BACK YESTERDAY THAT SOMEBODY WAS IN THE OFFICE SICK AND THAT THEY WOULD BE GETTING IT BACK HOPEFULLY TODAY WITH THE REMAINING ITEMS. AGAIN, WE STILL HAVE SOME SMALL THINGS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO BUTTON UP, BUT POSITIVE NEWS ON THE BIG TICKET ITEMS.
>> STEWART, WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT DAY SPRING.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING ON THAT.
>> THEY RECEIVED THE LIST. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WERE THEY WERE JUST TALK KATHLEEN AND DANNY THEY GOT THE EMAIL LIST.
>> WE HAVE THE E MAIL LIST AND THEN THE COMMENTS FROM DEBRA LAST WEEK.
>> WHAT WERE THE COMMENTS? MINOR STUFF?
>> SOME MINOR, SOME NOT SO MINOR.
SOMETHING I'M PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE TO TALK TO DANNY A LITTLE BIT ABOUT.
PART OF IT. IT'S DOABLE. WE'LL GET IT DONE.
>> WE'RE WAITING ON THAT FINALIZATION OF THOSE COMMENTS BEFORE WE CAN SEND THE EMAIL TO EVERY ONE.
>> IT'S THE FIRST, TO START THE COUNT DOWN ALL THE OTHER.
>> THEN ONCE WE GET THE APPROVAL FROM DCD TO DISSEMINATE THE DOCUMENTS TO ALL THE INTERESTED PARTIES, THAT WAITING PERIOD WAS 30 DAYS.
30 DAYS. WE JUST HAVE TO GIVE THOSE 3,000 AND SOME EMAIL ACCOUNT AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND WITH INTEREST FOR 30 DAYS.
>> IF WE'RE GOOD ON DAVE SPRINGS.
STACEY AND I JUST WANTED TO TAKE A MINUTE OR TWO OF YOUR TIME THIS MORNING TO GO OVER WHERE WE'RE AT WITH THE OPIOID SETTLEMENT MONEY AND THE GRANT PROCESS THAT WE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD A MONTH OR SO AGO.
STACEY HAS BEEN WORKING DILIGENTLY ON THIS AND TAKING A LOT OF TIME TO OUTLINE A GRANT PROCESS.
IN THAT, THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT STEPS THAT HAD TO BE FIGURED OUT.
YOU HAVE ESSENTIALLY AN APPLICATION, YOU HAVE THE AGREEMENT THAT WOULD GO WITH IT.
YOU WOULD HAVE ALL OF THE REPORTING.
ALL OF THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON IN THE BACKGROUND WITH STACEY, THE HELP OF JESSE AS WELL TO IRON OUT THE LEGAL ASPECT OF IT.
WE'RE TO A POINT WHERE WE'RE READY TO ESSENTIALLY PUT THIS OUT TO THE PUBLIC.
WE'RE WORKING WITH, I BELIEVE JEN AND IT ON HOW THIS WILL GO OUT ON THE WEBSITE, HOW WE'LL MARKET THIS.
AGAIN, JUST WANTED TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD AND LET YOU KNOW THAT WE ARE PROGRESSING FAIRLY WELL WITH THIS WITH THE IDEA THAT HOPEFULLY BY THE END OF DECEMBER, BEGINNING OF JANUARY, THE APPLICATION WILL GO PUBLIC, AND WE WOULD HAVE ESSENTIALLY THE END OF WINTER SPRING TO REVIEW AWARD WITH INTENT TO ESSENTIALLY RELEASE THE FUNDS IN LINE WITH FISCAL YEAR 27 IN JULY.
WE HAVE A COUPLE SMALL THINGS THAT WE JUST WANT TO RECEIVE COMMENT ON.
WE'RE LOOKING TO ESSENTIALLY SET A MINIMUM AND A MAXIMUM FOR THIS FIRST YEAR.
WE DON'T WANT ONE ENTITY TO COME IN AND REQUEST $1 MILLION AND ESSENTIALLY EAT IT ALL, OR VICE VERSA, RECEIVE APPLICATIONS FOR $700, AND IT TURNS INTO A PAPERWORK NIGHTMARE FOR SUCH SMALL FUNDS.
WITH WHAT WE'RE SEEING OTHER COUNTIES DO FOR REALLY THEIR FIRST YEAR, WE'RE RECOMMENDING A MINIMUM OF 5,000 AND A MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF 75,000 THAT SOMEBODY COULD APPLY FOR.
SO ANYTHING IN BETWEEN AND THAT WE WOULD ONLY ALLOCATE UP TO $250,000 AS A COUNTY FOR THIS FIRST YEAR.
THAT'S REALLY ALIGNING IT WITH WHAT WE'VE BEEN TAKING IN.
I THINK STACEY HAS SOME NUMBERS ON WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE IN THE FUND NOW.
>> IN THE TAG FUNDS OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS, WE'VE RECEIVED A LITTLE OVER $800,000 SO FAR.
[02:10:01]
IT'LL SLOWLY DWINDLE A LITTLE BIT SMALLER EACH YEAR GOING FORWARD.AND THEN IN JUST THE LOCAL SETTLEMENT FUNDS OVER THE PAST FOUR YEARS SINCE 23, WE'VE RECEIVED A LITTLE OVER $460,000.
WE'RE SITTING ON OVER $1.2 MILLION CURRENTLY.
LIKE YOU SAID, INSTEAD OF DISPERSING IT ALL OUT UP FRONT, LET'S DO IT IN SMALLER INCREMENTS AND WORK OUR WAY THROUGH IT.
>> I GET IT. IF WE RECEIVE A FAVORABLE NOTION TODAY, WE'LL MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT.
THEN ALL OF THE AGREEMENTS, PROGRAMS, OBVIOUSLY HAVE TO COME BEFORE THIS BOARD TO BE AWARDED.
YOU'LL BE IN THE LOOP AND KEPT IN TUNED WITH THE PROCESS.
BUT AGAIN, BEFORE WE PUBLISH THAT PUBLICLY, WANTED YOU TO BE MADE AWARE AND PROVIDE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON ANYTHING THAT YOU.
>> IT'S FOR COUNTY DEPARTMENTS AND NONPROFITS OUTSIDE.
IT'S NOT JUST FOR OUTSIDE AGENCIES, EITHER.
>> COUNTY DEPARTMENTS, I DON'T KNOW WHAT KIND OF THINGS LIKE.
>> CORRECTIONS FOR EXPANDING THE MAT PROGRAM AND CERTAIN THINGS.
SHERIFF'S OFFICE IF THEY NEED MAYBE NARCAN OR THINGS, YOU KNOW, TRAINING OR SOMETHING.
>> DE MEDICATIONS RELATED TO AB MEDICATIONS RELATED TO OVERDOSE TREATMENT.
>> I THINK SPEAKING ON THE ADMINISTRATOR SIDE, WE WILL PROBABLY BRING THIS APPLICATION AND THE PROJECT TO THE DEPARTMENT HEAD MEETING.
THEN OBVIOUSLY, DO THE REACH OUT TO THE NONPROFITS THAT WE WORK WITH EVERY DAY THROUGH THE BUDGET PROCESS.
JUST TO GET IT OUT SO THEY KNOW WHAT IT IS.
OBVIOUSLY, WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, IF ANYBODY WANTS TO PITCH AN ID AND SEE IF IT ALIGNS WITH THE WAY WE SEE THE PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS.
>> I THINK YOUR PROCESS THAT YOU LAID OUT MAKES SENSE.
MY NEXT QUESTION IS GOING TO BE CANVAS.
>> IF THERE'S NO OTHER OPIOID QUESTIONS, I CAN CERTAINLY GIVE YOU AN UPDATE ON CAS.
>> FIVE TO 75 WITH THE MAXIMUM AWARD TOTAL 200,000.
>> I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE OSC AT THE STATE.
THEY HAVE SUBMITTED OR ARE DRAFTING THROUGH UPDATED LANGUAGE TO HOPEFULLY EXPAND AREAS THAT YOU CAN SPEND THE FUNDING ON.
I WAS GIVEN A DRAFT VERSION OF THAT.
I REACHED OUT TO PLANNING CODES AND WORKED WITH THEIR NEW GAS POSITION THERE.
THAT GENTLEMAN OUTLINED ALL OF THAT INFORMATION IN THE CENSUS TRACKS INTO A COUNTY MAP.
UNFORTUNATELY, FOR CAROLINE COUNTY, THERE IS ONLY ONE TEENY, TINY CENSUS TRACK THAT FALLS HERE IN DENTON THAT QUALIFIES.
>> I RESPONDED BACK WITH THAT INFORMATION TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND SAID, I DON'T THINK THIS REALLY HELPS CAROLINE COUNTY AS A WHOLE.
CAN WE PLEASE HAVE A CONVERSATION? CAN WE MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT DOING.
I HAD A FOLLOW UP CONVERSATION WITH JAMIE TALKING ABOUT DIFFERENT MAPPINGS THAT THEY USE FOR DIFFERENT GRANT OPPORTUNITIES AND THAT THEY SEE FROM THE STATE TO TRY TO RELAY TO THE STATE.
HOW CAN THEY PUT SOMETHING IN THAT HELPS US, SO WE'RE NOT SO SECLUDED IN ONE LITTLE AREA.
TRYING TO SCHEDULE A MEETING WITH OSC NOW TO GO OVER THAT IS WHERE WE'RE AT.
>> I'M GOING TO RESERVE MIN. THANK YOU.
>> COUNTY COMMISSIONER, I'VE BEEN DISCUSSION, PERIOD.
[County Commissioners Open Discussion Period]
LET'S GO FIRST. COMMISSIONER PORTER.>> WELL, IT'S THE HOLIDAY SEASONS, SO WE'VE BEEN DOING A LOT OF PARADES, AND WE ALL THREE ATTENDED THE FESTIVAL OF TREES, AND WE WERE ABLE TO MAKE THE PRESENTATION TO THE TOWERS FAMILY ON BEHALF OF BILL TOWERS.
THAT WAS A VERY WELL DESERVED PRESENTATION, AND I THINK VERY TOUGH, EMOTIONAL THING TO DO, BUT IT WAS A GOOD EVENT.
I THINK I DON'T HAVE ANY INFORMATION NOW ON WHAT THEY WERE ABLE TO RAISE, BUT I'M SURE THEY DID WELL.
THE COMPASS DID A GOOD JOB PUTTING THAT TOGETHER.
[02:15:01]
I JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION HERE, DANNY, ON THE CONTINGENCY INSPECTIONS THAT I MAY GET BACK WITH YOU.I JUST WANT TO THE TUITIONS AND THINGS THAT WE'RE PAYING.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I'D LIKE TO GET SOME WAY THAT WE COULD QUANTIFY WHAT WE'RE GETTING BACK FOR THESE TUITION INVESTMENTS.
MAYBE WE CAN SIT DOWN AND AND DO THAT AT SOME POINT BECAUSE I NOTICED THERE'S A LOT OF THOSE ON HERE.
OTHER THAN THAT, I MEAN, IT'S BEEN A REALLY TOUGH WEEK FOR THE NORTHERN END OF THE COUNTY WITH A LOT OF LOSSES OF VERY IMPORTANT PEOPLE DOWN THERE.
THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS GO OUT TO THOSE FAMILIES, AND IT'S BEEN A REALLY REALLY ROUGH WEEK DOWN THERE.
OTHER THAN THAT, THAT'S ALL I GOT. THANK YOU.
>> I JUST WANT TO REITERATE, MR. PORTER, I'M GLAD TO SEE CAROLINE COUNTY'S IN THE HOLIDAY SPIRIT.
EVERY EVENT HAS BEEN WELL ATTENDED THAT WE PARTICIPATED IN, SO I'M GLAD TO SEE PEOPLE OUT AND ABOUT AND JOIN ALL THE FESTIVITIES.
SHERIFF BAKER SAID HE ALWAYS TELLS US, HE'S LIKE, MAN, HE'S LIKE, IF PEOPLE ALWAYS SAY THERE'S NOTHING TO DO WITH CAROLINE COUNTY.
WELL, OBVIOUSLY, I THINK WE CAN ATTEST TO IT, AND I THINK ALL PEOPLE CAN TEST.
>> YOU THINK THAT LOOK FOR OFFICE.
>> IF YOU LOOK FAR ENOUGH, YOU CAN FIND SOMETHING, WHETHER IT BE A VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT DINNER OR SOME LITTLE FUNCTION HERE AND THERE.
MIGHT NOT BE WHAT YOU LOOK FOR ENTERTAINMENT, BUT THERE IS SOMETHING ALWAYS TO DO.
IT'S BEEN A VERY PRODUCTIVE WEEK, AND AGAIN, HEART SCREED OUT DOWN TO THE FELSBURG AREA.
>> WELL, FELSBURG HELD TO ITS TRADITION OF HAVING THE PARADE ON THE COLDEST NIGHT OF THE YEAR SO FAR.
IT WAS PRETTY COLD LAST NIGHT, BUT THEY HAD A MASSIVE TURNOUT, AS USUAL, A LOT OF FLOATS AND BIG CROWD, SO CONGRATULATIONS TO THEM ON HAVING ANOTHER SUCCESSFUL PARADE AND ALL THE OTHER MUNICIPALITIES AROUND THE COUNTY AS WELL FOR THEIR PARADES, LIKE BOTH COMMISSIONER SAID, ALL OF THOSE THAT WE ATTENDED SEEM TO DRAW BIG CROWDS.
WITH THAT, I GUESS WE'LL HAVE OUR CLOSING PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? DO NOT SEE ANYONE.
I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO GO IN CLOSED SESSION UNDER GENERAL PROVISIONS,
[Public Comment]
[Closed Session: General Provisions Article §3-305(b)(1), to discuss a personnel matter involving the appointment, employment, performance, compensation, or separation of one or more county employees. The purpose of this discussion is to discuss personnel and receive advice from staff as appropriate.]
ARTICLE 3-305 B1 TO DISCUSS A PERSONNEL MATTER INVOLVING A COUNTY EMPLOYEE.THEN ALSO UNDER GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE 3-35B7 AND EIGHT 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.
FURTHERMORE, THE COMMISSIONERS DO NOT WANT TO WAIVE ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE.
>> MAKE A MOTION. WE GO INTO CLOSE.
>> SECOND. ROLL CALL VOTE. COMMISSIONER PORTER.
>> THANK YOU, ROBIN FOR GETTING THIS.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.