[8:35] Good morning. Welcome to the open session for the Keralkanic Commissioners for July 3, on the day before July 4, which I'm sure everybody will mention.

[8:47] And like we always do, we'll start with the pledge of allegiance and...

[8:50] I'm going

[9:00] to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

[9:29] And I think we start on the left.

[9:32] Okay,

[9:35] just want to share a happy 4th of July for all of our community, make it a happy

[9:46] and healthy and safe 4th of July.

[9:53] That's my priority right now.

[9:55] So, thank you.

[9:59] Well, good morning everybody.

[10:00] I'd like Commissioner Ross, you know, wanted to offer a couple of thoughts and reflections

[10:03] on the Fourth of July, for my priority, Carol today, with Independence Day being tomorrow

[10:10] and you want to state that you know, really I'm proud to be an American, and I'm so privileged

[10:13] to live in this country and this county, there is something quite different and quite unique

[10:19] about that combination of being an American and being a Carol County.

[10:23] And you know, part of it is certainly the American values that we've hold that were reflected

[10:27] in our Declaration of Independence, you know, our faith in God, from which everything else

[10:31] or natural rights, or liberty, all find their foundation.

[10:34] And these translated into values of faith,

[10:36] the family, community, compassion, hard work,

[10:39] all these different things form a part of what we know as home.

[10:42] Our founding fathers and all the members

[10:44] of that founding generation saw home the way that we see it.

[10:47] And they did not come to their decision

[10:49] to break off from great Britain easily,

[10:51] even with the overwhelming reasons to do it.

[10:54] And they knew from history that revolutions could

[10:56] and usually without exception did,

[10:58] bring about consequences far worse

[11:00] than what they were intended to alleviate in the first place.

[11:04] In their own lifetimes, for example, they saw what had happened in France with the terror

[11:07] and the Jacobins and the rise of Napoleon, and the wars that were reverberated for decades

[11:11] thereafter across Europe.

[11:13] But for our founders, through their education, their experiences, their understanding, they understood

[11:18] that it was moral truth, values, beliefs, things held in common, and recognizing human nature

[11:24] for what it was, it meant that the revolution was not enough, that the destination here was

[11:29] to matter just as much as the journey, and the Declaration of Independence wasn't just a signal

[11:34] to the world that we were stepping off from Great Britain on our own, but it was a record

[11:39] of why of enshrining the truths, the principles, the things that despite human nature and human

[11:43] differences, it would help not only unite and guide us, but keep us united and keep us guided

[11:48] together. And these things that are reflected, these things we find reflected in the nature and order

[11:55] of our constitution and our system of government, you know, that we have here really is truly

[12:00] unique.

[12:00] And it was because our founders recognized that all of these things about home mattered

[12:04] and they understood that there was an intervening working of divine providence and that,

[12:09] you know, we didn't descend into what the ancient Greece called, Anosyclosis, where the constant

[12:13] tumult that was brought about by frequent revolutions.

[12:17] You know, we really do owe our founding fathers, our founding generation and debt, and it is

[12:22] debt that each generation has to seek to settle, there's such a debt really can never truly

[12:27] be satisfied. You know that we are able to self-determine to self-correct, that we have the

[12:32] freedom to seek to be better than who we were the day before, while consistently sustaining

[12:37] our order is exceptional. It really hasn't happened much in the history of the world and the way

[12:41] that we've done it really has been unique. And despite that, it is very tenuous. It depends on us

[12:48] on each of us take hold of the responsibility to understand and to maintain.

[12:53] In our history as a country we have been a force for good, as each generation of Americans

[12:57] is taking hold of that responsibility and have extended our founding dream through the very

[13:02] course of time.

[13:04] You know, I really am proud to be a Carol County and really am proud to be an American

[13:08] and I would not have it any other way.

[13:11] So happy birthday America and God bless.

[13:13] That's it for me this morning.

[13:16] Mr. Garden.

[13:17] Good morning.

[13:18] Thank you.

[13:20] Following my colleagues comments, one of which everybody happy and say fourth, just be careful

[13:25] out there.

[13:25] Obviously, don't want to see too many people get injured with fireworks or any other situations,

[13:30] but please just be careful.

[13:32] Do you want to mention real quickly that sort of a follow-up from the incident that

[13:37] I occurred at the hospital yesterday.

[13:40] There were several individuals that had been treated due to an asphalt collapse.

[13:44] I want to send a heartfelt thanks to both our first responders and also the medical personnel assisting those injured.

[13:51] Fortunately, it was not as severe a situation it could have been and just truly grateful for that and want to thank all those involved.

[13:59] As we are very fortunate it was not much more significant.

[14:03] Also, one to mention, just briefly recently had joined Ryan Millhorn, the Supervisor's

[14:09] Secondary Schools, our social studies and educators visiting a number of historic sites,

[14:15] including Historical Society of Carol County.

[14:18] We met with the former students and friends of Robert Moten, and also visited the

[14:23] Elzeroth Cemetery.

[14:24] I think it's wonderful that Carol County Public Schools does what they do so best, which

[14:29] is including the living history in our community with our educators so it can be shared with

[14:35] the students and it's not just dates and facts but actually living history within the

[14:40] communities.

[14:40] I just wanted to thank them for being included with that.

[14:44] Also just wanted to congratulate Dr. Patricia Dorsey on being named the recipient of the

[14:51] 25 Joseph R. Baylor Award for McDaniel College.

[14:55] It's quite a recognition, so just wanted to congratulate.

[15:00] And also wanted to mention that one of Carol County's own has been added to Governor Moore has put assistant chief of EMS Air Exainey appointed to Governor Moore from the Maryland Metro Fire Chief's representation for statewide emergency medical services advisory council, so just wanted to congratulate Chief Zainey on that.

[15:24] and obviously he'll do both the state and also Carroll County proud.

[15:28] And last but certainly not least for those interested

[15:32] that have agricultural properties the years now opening

[15:35] for the agricultural land preservation program

[15:38] is accepting new applications for the cycle

[15:40] and are beginning July 1 through August 30th, 2025.

[15:45] So good opportunity if you're looking

[15:46] to consider that for your agricultural property.

[15:49] And that's all for me this morning.

[15:50] Thank you.

[15:54] Good morning, Carroll County.

[15:55] Yeah, happy Independence Day. Tomorrow we'll start the countdown to our 250th anniversary, and it'll be a privilege to be sitting up here on this board as we get ready for that event.

[16:07] This evening looks like great weather, so if you're down in the mountain area, you're looking forward to this fireworks, which are always very, very good.

[16:14] It's also volunteer firemen carnival, volunteer fire company carnival season, and wind fields starts July 7th, that's a Monday, so I hope to see everybody out there.

[16:26] And then lastly, I hope if you've hope everybody can try to tune in and catch my podcast from last week.

[16:33] It was a podcast that turned into a video cast.

[16:36] I hosted the Carroll County State's Attorney Haven Schumaker for a really, I really enjoyed having him over here, and I want to thank him for the time.

[16:43] So if you've got a chance please go ahead and check it out on social media on our county website or county YouTube channel, and that's all for me

[16:51] Thank you guys

[16:53] Yes, and July third

[16:56] And I always like to say I love Carol County and

[16:59] Needless to say I love

[17:01] the United States also we're going through some good times and

[17:09] It'll be interesting

[17:10] thing. We did meet with Carol Health Department, we do a monthly meeting there which helps

[17:17] our communication.

[17:21] They mentioned carnivals and volunteer fire companies. Manchester is

[17:27] going on this week. I think Mount Ayrie got hit with some rough weather. Manchester was

[17:34] okay except Parade night. They did cancel the parade and they canceled the carnival that

[17:39] tonight, tonight's their fireworks, and so yet please support them, they, all the volunteer

[17:52] fire companies need every penny they can get for volunteer services they provide us, and

[18:00] it's a shame, and the weather can't be perfect, but between the heat and then the thunderstorms

[18:06] been rough on on this year so far. Fourth of July tomorrow, a great national holiday, a great

[18:14] family day and for the the Kyler family we just we took to the airport yesterday the last two

[18:23] granddaughters to fly back to Denver so Mimi Summer Camp is over we had all six of them different

[18:30] time periods, and did a lot of activities with them, rock climbing, carnivals, all kinds

[18:37] of stuff, so it's, and I think Commissioner Gordon already mentioned it, have a safe

[18:45] holiday tomorrow, have a great family day and a great celebration day, fireworks can be

[18:50] dangerous, driving.

[18:54] We've seen that a lot of accidents in the last week or so, Sullivan Road seems to be an ugly

[19:00] intersection and a couple others. It's it's multiple accidents at the same locations and

[19:10] as much as I'd like to bang on intersections and traffic lights and traffic circles and various things

[19:19] state highway or Carroll County highway. Some of it is just patience. Sullivan Road seems to have

[19:31] both ways and be patient pulling out, and I think people aren't, and that's a shame because

[19:39] vehicles can wreak havoc.

[19:42] So thank you very much.

[19:45] And now we want to talk about the HUD five-year plan and annual plan.

[19:58] Morning, everybody.

[20:00] Good.

[20:01] Good.

[20:01] Good morning, commissioners.

[20:03] and happy Fourth of July to all of you as well.

[20:09] I am Celine Steckle on the Director's Citizen Services

[20:11] with Carol County Government.

[20:12] And Danielle Yates is our Bureau Chief of Housing and Community Connections

[20:16] and Paul Moffitt is our Housing Manager.

[20:18] They're joining me today as we are here

[20:21] requesting approval to display our public housing

[20:24] authorities five year plan in fiscal year,

[20:26] for fiscal year's 2025 through 2025,

[20:29] as well as our previously approved annual plan

[20:32] for fiscal year 25.

[20:34] And we are seeking public comment for a 45 day period as well.

[20:38] And we're also requesting to schedule the public hearing

[20:40] at the end of that comment period.

[20:43] I know you all have been privy to us

[20:45] before you regarding our annual housing plan

[20:48] and the five year plan that accompanies that on this past year.

[20:52] We are just back before you today as a requirement

[20:56] had has noted that in order for them to approve

[20:59] are plan, they noted that they're requiring us to complete a step this step again, because

[21:04] they said that our advertisement did not specifically note the words five-year plan. It surrounded

[21:10] the annual plan wording, and they wanted to make sure that we advertise this correctly.

[21:15] There are no changes to what we had done. We are just back before you to ask that we go

[21:19] out again for a 45-day period and advertise this in except public comment. The five-year

[21:24] plan has been advertised in the past on our website, but we will do this step again to make

[21:29] or that we're meeting other advertisement requirements for the plan.

[21:34] And Danielle has a couple more pieces she wants to add for detail.

[21:37] Thank you.

[21:37] Good morning, commissioners.

[21:38] So, silly notes, we're here today to receive permission to post the 45 day notice of public hearing for public housing authorities five year plan, which is for here,

[21:46] 2025 to 2029.

[21:49] The five year plan outlines the agency's goals, strategies and policies for providing affordable housing and addressing the needs of our low income families in our community.

[21:58] The five-year plan is to strategic document that outlines the long-term goals and objectives of our public housing authority for over a five-year period.

[22:08] Our agency has reviewed an updated current submission goals and objectives to ensure that they align both with current federal and state regulation as well as our local government.

[22:18] Carol County Housing and Community Developed's mission is to promote adequate and affordable housing

[22:24] economic opportunity and suitable living environments for free of discrimination to eligible

[22:30] low and moderately low income families who live or work in Carol County, Maryland.

[22:36] Carol County Housing serves, strives to encourage economic self-sufficiency among participating families

[22:42] managing resources efficiently. With your permission today we will

[22:47] get post the five year plan for the year 2025 to 2029 along with our

[22:52] streamlined annual plan for the fiscal year 2025 for public review and

[22:58] comment with the public hearing set for August 28th of 2025. Are there

[23:03] additional questions that you may have we could answer for you today?

[23:08] Or should you, I'm sorry.

[23:10] The family slips through the cracks because you have to now make this five-year plan, I mean.

[23:16] It was always a five-year plan and this is the first year of the new updated five-year plan.

[23:23] But when we put the advertisement into the newspaper, that advertisement didn't specifically have the five-year wording in it.

[23:32] So, Greg Maglain, I mean, nobody's really affected.

[23:36] So, but we have a formal denial on the plan until we make the step and correct it.

[23:45] Motion to approve the display of the HUD-5-year plan for fiscal year 2025 to 29,

[23:50] and the annual plan for fiscal year 2025 for public review and comments.

[23:54] And now, it's the public hearing prior to August 28, 2025 to consider approval

[23:57] to submit the 5-year plan FY-2025 to 29, which includes the FY-25 annual plan to HUD.

[24:03] Second, I have a motion in a second, any further questions or discussion?

[24:08] All those of favor?

[24:09] Aye.

[24:10] Opposed.

[24:11] Thank you.

[24:13] Excellent.

[24:14] Thank you, guys.

[24:16] Now, approval to purchase Lenko Barricott,

[24:35] morning gentlemen.

[24:40] The Office of Procurement and Cooperation with the Bureau of Fleet Management and Warehouse

[24:43] Operations for Coesture approval to purchase one Lenko Barricott G3 Tactical Armored Vehicle from

[24:50] Lenko Armored Vehicles for the Carroll County Sheriff's Office.

[24:53] and the amount of $449,422.

[24:57] This purchase will be made utilizing an HGAC by contract,

[25:02] which was competitively but this amount is approved

[25:05] in the fiscal year 26 budget.

[25:11] Good morning.

[25:12] So this Armored Vehicle is a replacement

[25:16] of an Armored Vehicle that we've had in our fleet

[25:19] for almost 20 years now.

[25:22] It's been very problematic.

[25:24] And any time we want to go use it almost, it seems like it gives us some issues.

[25:29] But we do, we do get a good use out of it, and we do need something for this in the future.

[25:34] And that's why the Sheriff's Department is looking for a new one.

[25:37] How long do we figure the new one would come in before you launch?

[25:41] How many?

[25:41] 18, 18, 18 months.

[25:45] Motion to approve the purchase of one Lenko Barricad G3 Tactical Armored Vehicle from Lenko

[25:49] Armored Vehicles, or the Carol County Sheriff's Department, in the amount of 449,400

[25:54] two dollars. Second.

[25:58] I have a motion. Do I have a second? Second.

[26:02] I'd like to mention one thing.

[26:09] We make these motions. We look at purchasing things. And sometimes we do it very quickly. Sometimes

[26:16] we discuss it more. But most of these items were discussed for many minutes during the budget

[26:24] session to decide that it would be in the budget so this could happen. So I know we get a couple

[26:30] emails on like, well, you know, you guys just quickly voted on that. Well, we've discussed it

[26:36] for months. You're a very good point commissioner. Very good. Any further discussion or questions?

[26:43] All those in favor? Aye. Opposed. Thank you. Thank you. Now a contract approval for commissioning

[26:52] services

[26:56] morning morning the office of procurement and cooperation with the Bureau of Building

[27:03] Construction and Requesture approval to award a contract for the construction phase commissioning

[27:09] services for citizen services family shelter to RMF engineering and the amount of 51,10144 dollars

[27:16] in 18 cents. This purchase will be made via caro county term contract 1210 that was competitively

[27:24] this purchase is within the fiscal year 26 approved budget.

[27:29] Good morning commissioners.

[27:30] So this is for the family shelter, which I know you're all aware of.

[27:33] This is just standard construction practice.

[27:37] We are rocking them all over there.

[27:39] So the contractor hasn't told December, but right now we're looking to hopefully open a couple of months sooner.

[27:44] So this is perfect timing to bring our commissioning agent on and just

[27:48] make sure the mechanical electrical and plumbing systems are all running smoothly

[27:51] before we move into the space.

[27:57] Motion to approve the contract for the construction phase

[27:59] commissioning services to R&F engineers in the amount of $51,1014 and $18.

[28:04] Second. Have a motion in a second. Any questions or discussion?

[28:09] All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Thank you. Thank you. Now we're going to discuss

[28:16] Approval to purchase seven four trucks morning again morning again

[28:23] The office procurement and cooperation with the Bureau of Fleet Management and warehouse operations

[28:27] Request your approval to purchase seven

[28:30] 2025 Ford F-150 trucks from hertric fleet services in the amount of

[28:36] 342,547 dollars. This purchase will be made from a Howard Coward and the contract that Carol County will utilize

[28:44] It's about is within the fiscal year 26 proof budget.

[28:49] These seven units consist of six pursued rated vehicles and one civilian rated up 150.

[28:55] They are all replacement vehicles and they have been upgraded from the vehicles that

[29:01] they are replacing to be a little bit more versatile for pursuit and special usage.

[29:09] They will replace five explorers, one Tahoe, one Chevy 2,500 long bed pick-up.

[29:16] They're for the critical response team, the warrant unit, the drone unit, the crime scene, and the investigators unit.

[29:23] And then the last ones for commercial vehicle enforcement to do special events and camp cops.

[29:29] The pursuit rate of pick-ups will be utilized for daily specific patrol functions with the ability to carry equipment

[29:35] for that's required for specialized usage.

[29:39] Specifications have been carefully analyzed to upgrading

[29:44] and getting more usage out of the vehicles.

[29:47] Once the current units are decommissioned,

[29:49] they are expected to bring $5 to $7,000 of option.

[29:55] Motion to approve the purchase of 720.25F.

[29:58] Ford F-150 shrubs on her church.

[30:30] The

[30:34] office of procurement cooperation with the Division of Solid Ways for Quest Board Board of Commissioners approval.

[30:40] of an FY26 environmental monitoring program

[30:43] work order with Maryland environmental service

[30:46] in the amount of $339,934 and $14.

[30:51] Work includes permit and regulatory required environmental monitoring

[30:55] at northern landfill, landfill, and foreclosed landfills.

[31:00] Funds are included in the approved FR-26 SWF operating budget.

[31:05] No additional funds will be necessary.

[31:07] Good morning, commissioners.

[31:08] Merlin Environmental Service was created by the Merlin General Assembly in 1970, with the

[31:14] purposes of helping jurisdictions with solid waste, water waste, water, water, and other

[31:19] environmental management programs.

[31:21] MES has been performing routine and on-call environmental monitoring services for Carol

[31:26] County since 1996 under an intergovernmental agreement that was updated in 2024.

[31:33] The services performed under that IGA include permit and regulatory required sampling, analysis

[31:39] reporting for groundwater, surface water, and pretty much everything in environmental

[31:43] are more than landfill and are for closed landfills.

[31:48] They also provide support services related to this program should they be required.

[31:52] The fiscal 26 program to be performed by MES, as James has said, is 339,000, 934 dollars,

[31:59] 14 cents. It's about a 7% decrease from fiscal 25 primarily to a reduction of PFAS monitoring costs.

[32:09] Funds are included in the approved fiscal 26 budget, and we respectfully request approval.

[32:16] Motion to approve a work order with Maryland Environmental Service in the amount of 339,000, 934 dollars and 14 cents or FY26 environmental monitoring service.

[32:25] the Northern Hoodsville, John O'Wings Park Hill, and Hodges Landfills.

[32:29] Second, have a motion of a second. Any questions or discussion? All those in favour?

[32:35] I oppose. Thank you. Now, contract renewal for engineering services.

[32:44] The Office of Procurement Cooperation with the Division of Solid Ways requires your approval to renew the

[32:49] yearly solid waste engineering services contract with the Northeast Maryland Ways disposal authority.

[32:54] In the amount of $255,277 in 28 cents services provided are for landfill gas system operations,

[33:03] monitoring and maintenance funds for the scope of work are approved in the FY26 budget.

[33:08] Okay, in 2023, the Northeastern Maryland Ways disposal authority solicited proposals for consultants

[33:14] to perform solid waste and environmental engineering on behalf of member jurisdictions.

[33:19] That is, contract work includes providing term and on-call services on an as needed or an ongoing basis.

[33:27] 12 engineering consultants were retained by the authority over that procurement for us jurisdictions to use.

[33:34] So in fiscal 23, we engaged with Stern's Conrad and Schmidt, otherwise known as SES engineering,

[33:40] through that above mentioned contract to perform landfill gas, system operations, maintenance, and monitoring

[33:46] at Northern landfill, hoods mill and John Owings landfills.

[33:51] Those are the three landfills that have active gas collection systems.

[33:55] SES has performed that work for the county for well over ten years.

[33:59] They're a recognized technical expert in the field of landfill gas management

[34:03] and have been a wonderful partner for us.

[34:06] Therefore, respectfully request Board approval to renew the contract for fiscal 26

[34:10] in the amount of $255,277 in 28 cents, and as noted the funds are approved in the fiscal

[34:17] 26 budget.

[34:20] Motion to renew the solid waste engineering services contract for Northeast and Maryland

[34:23] waste disposal authority for FY 2026 in the amount of $255,277 in 28 cents.

[34:31] I have a motion and a second. Any questions or discussion? All those in favor?

[34:37] I oppose.

[34:39] Thank you.

[34:40] And now we're going to talk about approval to purchase pavement testing and re-election recommendations.

[34:52] Good morning and morning.

[34:53] Good morning.

[34:56] The Office of Precurement and Cooperation with the Bureau of Engineering request you're approval to use the existing term contract with a connole and Lawrence incorporated to evaluate and provide pavement testing and rehabilitation recommendations in the amount of 77,220 dollars.

[35:14] Conno and Lawrence Incorporated was previously awarded a term contract that was competitively bid the amount is approved in the FY26 budget

[35:25] This evaluation of 63

[35:27] roadways totaling 32 miles

[35:30] Will consist of visual condition surveys non-destructive testing pavement courting material sampling and subgrade soil

[35:38] classification and some laboratory testing of soils if needed the final report

[35:44] is what we use to develop our pavement repair strategies for next year's paving projects.

[35:50] And we expect to have that report in the fall of 2025.

[35:55] Motion to approve the Department of Public Works to utilize term contract with O'Connell

[35:58] and Lawrence Incorporated for FY26 pavement testing and rehabilitation recommendations in the

[36:03] amount of $77,220.

[36:06] Second.

[36:06] I will motion in a second. Any questions or discussion? I have one question. And I assume

[36:15] this 77,000 saves us money and design and picking what we're going to do at each

[36:21] road and make some less longer or what's what's the worthwhile?

[36:27] Yeah, even if we added, if we paved an additional inch of asphalt where we didn't need to

[36:33] based on the soil classifications that would save the 77,000

[36:37] or vice versa.

[36:38] If we didn't pay that inch that we needed to,

[36:41] or add the additional inch, the patching

[36:43] that we would have to go back and repairs

[36:45] would cost more than $77,000.

[36:49] Thank you.

[36:50] Any further questions, discussion?

[36:52] All those favor?

[36:53] Aye.

[36:53] Opposed?

[36:54] Thank you.

[36:55] Thank you.

[36:59] Now for the Board of Elections,

[37:02] Approved what a purchase furniture?

[37:15] Good morning.

[37:17] The office of procurement and cooperation with the Board of Elections requests your approval

[37:22] to purchase furniture for the new Board of Elections warehouse and office from Duran

[37:26] Incorporated in the amount of 265,194 dollars and 95 cents.

[37:33] This purchase will be made via a Atlantic purchasing team cooperative contract that was competitively

[37:38] bid.

[37:38] The amount is within the FY26 budget.

[37:42] Yep, so our bureau is working with Board of Elections to fit out the new space.

[37:46] So this is the furniture package.

[37:48] We did our final punch walk a couple weeks ago, so they should be moving in the next couple

[37:53] weeks, a couple of months, kind of a scattered move in, but we're ready to go for them.

[37:59] Motion to approve of the purchase of furniture for the new Board of Elections of Warehouse

[38:02] and Office from Doron Incorporated in the amount of 265,194 dollars and 95 cents.

[38:07] second. Have a motion in a second. Any discussion or questions? All those in favor?

[38:16] Aye. Opposed. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Now a approval purchase at

[38:23] a House of Warbearance Maintenance, Warren, a concrete floor installation.

[38:32] Morning, gentlemen. Good morning, person. Morning.

[38:38] The Office of Procurement and Cooperation with the Department of Recreation and Parks

[38:42] request your approval to purchase the installation of a concrete floor for bare branch

[38:47] nature center from Superior Facility Management Services LLC in the amount of 48,876 dollars.

[38:55] The amount is approved in the FY206 budget. The present floor of the barn is dirt and it's never

[39:04] conducive for clean and efficient materials vehicle and equipment storage. So we wish to put

[39:14] in the concrete floor.

[39:18] Motion to approve the purchase for the installation of a concrete floor for

[39:21] bare branch and nature center from Superior Facility Management Services LLC and the amounts of 48,000

[39:26] in the 76 dollars.

[39:28] Second, have a motion of second, any questions or discussion?

[39:33] All those in favor?

[39:34] Aye.

[39:35] Opposed.

[39:36] Thank you.

[39:37] Thank you.

[39:39] Now, contract renewal for our maintenance and support for the Mitchell Humphrey Financial Management

[39:44] System.

[39:54] We're in.

[39:55] Good morning.

[39:56] How are you?

[39:56] Good.

[39:57] Good.

[39:59] Good.

[40:00] of procurement and cooperation with technology services requests you're approval to renew the contract

[40:05] for maintenance and support for the Metro Humphrey Financial Management System in the amount of

[40:10] 66,115 dollars. The amount is approved in the FY26 budget.

[40:17] So FMS is the, is used by every department to track and manage the expenditures and is used for

[40:22] all county government financial accounting functions. Motion to approve the contract renewal for

[40:28] and support for the Mitchell Humphrey Financial Management System in the amount of 66,115 dollars.

[40:35] Have a motion and a second. Any questions or discussion?

[40:39] All those in favour?

[40:41] Opposed.

[40:42] Thank you.

[40:44] Now contract renewal for PDS, VISTA, Maintenance and Licenses.

[40:50] The Office of Recurment and Cooperation with the Department of Technology Services

[40:54] request your approval to renew the contract with PDS for VISTA maintenance and licenses in the

[41:00] amount of $36,898.71. PDS is a current term contractor. The amount is within the FY26 adopted

[41:10] budget. So, VISTA is the enterprise software application that supports the county's payroll, employment,

[41:16] benefits, recruiting, and other human resources functions. Again, like with the previous one,

[41:21] All county agencies and government partners are included with benefits of administration for

[41:26] library and the main society also provided in VISTA.

[41:31] Motion to approve the contractor newwealth PDS for VISTA maintenance and licenses in the

[41:35] amount of 36,898 dollars in 71 cents.

[41:39] Have a motion in a second.

[41:40] Any questions or discussion?

[41:43] All those in favor?

[41:45] Opposed?

[41:47] Thank you.

[41:48] Now we'll talk about court smart support services contract renewal.

[41:54] The Office of Recrement and Cooperation with the Department of Technology Services

[41:59] Request your approval to renew the contract with court smart for system support services

[42:04] and the amount of $46,122.45.

[42:09] This amount is approved in the FY26 budget.

[42:12] So, the court smart is Carroll County Circuit Court's additional recording system.

[42:15] Court Smart is used in every district court, as well as the majority of circuit courts throughout the state of Maryland.

[42:22] Motion to renew the contract with Court Smart for System Support Services in the amount of 46,122 dollars and 45 cents.

[42:30] Have a motion the second. Any questions or discussion?

[42:34] All those in favor?

[42:35] Aye.

[42:35] Opposed.

[42:37] Thank you.

[42:38] Now contract renewal for a teletime system annual support.

[42:44] The Office of Procurement and Cooperation with the Department of Technology Services request

[42:49] your approval to renew the contract for a teletime system annual support with a teletime

[42:55] system's corporation in the amount of $31,710 in eight cents.

[43:00] The amount is approved in the FY26 adopted budget.

[43:04] So, in teletime system's corporation is the provider of our time and attendance software

[43:09] known as VTI. VTI is major component of the payroll HR system, currently undergoing implementation.

[43:16] The annual support includes support for software upgrades, patches, bug fixes, as well as support

[43:21] for hardware, batteries and integration.

[43:25] Motion to renew the contract for IntelliTimes System Annual Support with IntelliTimes System's

[43:29] Corporation in the amount of $31,700 and $8.

[43:33] Second.

[43:34] Have a motion in a second. Any questions or discussion?

[43:37] All those in favour?

[43:39] Aye.

[43:40] Opposed.

[43:41] Thank you.

[43:42] Thank you.

[43:44] Thank you.

[43:45] Now, renew of commercial insurance policy for, uh, essentially the fire stations.

[43:58] Morning again.

[43:59] Morning again.

[44:00] Morning.

[44:01] The office procurement cooperation with risk management requires your approval to renew the commercial insurance policies,

[44:12] which

[44:12] services in the amount of 734,425 dollars. This amount is approved in the FY26 budget.

[44:20] This insurance policy covers all of our, just like he said, the property, the buildings,

[44:28] the vehicles, as well as a second policy for the accident and health coverage for volunteers.

[44:35] In case they would be injured in the line of duty.

[44:41] Motion to approve the renewal of the

[44:45] on property vehicles and liability to aligned insurance services in the amount of 734,425 dollars.

[44:52] Second.

[44:52] Have a motion and a second.

[44:55] Is this a new vendor for this or same as you've been using?

[45:00] This is a new vendor for the premiums that we're in towards, yeah, a new vendor.

[45:07] Is it a one year contract?

[45:10] Yes, it's going to be, it's a one year contract. We did piggyback this contract off of a Montgomery County one.

[45:16] And they have one year remaining. I'm not too sure if they have any more renewals. I'd have to look, but they do have one year contract.

[45:24] So we'll have to re-bid it again next year.

[45:27] Correct. Yeah. Okay. Any other questions or discussion?

[45:32] All those favor? I posed. Thank you.

[45:39] Now we're new of commercial insurgency for volunteers employees at the stations.

[45:47] I'm sorry. This is for county employees. This is work runs.

[45:51] Right. Yeah, work runs come for county employees. Sorry.

[45:54] Yeah. Move in so fast.

[45:57] the office of procurement cooperation with risk management requires your approval to renew the

[46:03] excess workers compensation coverage policy for care accounting employees to RCM&D in the

[46:07] amount of $345,772. This amount is approved in the FY26 budget.

[46:14] So this policy covers the excess coverage. We are self-insured for the first 650,000. Once

[46:21] claim reaches that amount than the excess policy, which is this policy picks up that amount.

[46:27] This is the first year that we are covering fire EMS for our self-insured policy,

[46:31] starts July 1st. So those employees will be covered under this policy, as well,

[46:36] if the claim reaches that amount.

[46:40] Motion to approve the renewal access workers compensation

[46:43] coverage policy to RCM and D in the amount of 345,772 dollars.

[46:48] Second, I have a motion in a second, and I'm sorry if I confused by reading the last

[46:55] agenda item.

[46:55] But this is for counting employees that are not law enforcement or EMS.

[47:05] It covers them, it covers them all, so this is all counting employees.

[47:10] All counting employees, correct?

[47:12] The last one was actually volunteer coverage.

[47:15] Yes, yes, for the volunteers, but now this covers everybody.

[47:19] I didn't use to be the first started fire EMS.

[47:25] We were not authorized for self-insurance for workmen's comp.

[47:29] We now are, and so this umbrella excess coverage covers now all staff.

[47:39] So, the self-insurance applies to everybody else so now.

[47:43] Correct.

[47:43] They were covered fire EMS was previously covered under a commercial policy, so that has

[47:48] discontinued as of June 30th.

[47:54] Any questions discussion? All those

[47:56] favour? I proposed. Thank you.

[48:02] Now, spending authority for funding claims

[48:05] processing account. The Office of Percurement Cooperation with Risk Management

[48:10] Request your approval to spend up to but not to exceed 140,000 to RCM&D for

[48:14] funding the claims processing account this amount is approved in the FY26 budget.

[48:20] So, this is a pre-fund account where we fund the money, our CMD pays medical bills for

[48:29] a claimant.

[48:30] So, the injured worker, those claims go directly to our CMD, they pay those doctor bills,

[48:36] the medical bills, whatnot, and this is the fund that funds that.

[48:40] And we will have to refund after the 140 is up, then we will have to refund that account.

[48:47] So it's basically a pass through.

[48:49] So it's not like a time period to refund.

[48:52] It's when it gets to the dollar amount.

[48:55] When the 140 gets to a lower amount,

[48:58] whatever, like 30,000 or something,

[49:00] then they'll send us an invoice and say,

[49:02] we need refunding of that amount.

[49:04] It's basically to get the invoices paid faster

[49:06] to the doctors and primary care, whatever it is.

[49:12] Radiology.

[49:13] Motion to approve the spending authority

[49:15] for funding the claims processing account in the amount of $140,000.

[49:19] Second.

[49:19] Have a motion a second.

[49:21] Any discussion or questions?

[49:23] All those in favor?

[49:24] Aye.

[49:25] Opposed.

[49:26] Thank you.

[49:27] Thank you.

[49:28] Thank you.

[49:29] Now this briefing and discussion and a decision on plan review fees.

[49:45] Warning to you both.

[49:46] Morning, Chris.

[49:47] Morning.

[49:53] So yes.

[49:54] So we're here this morning to talk about plan review fees as a quick reminder, plan review fees are fees paid by developers who are developing sites or subdividing properties and so on.

[50:11] And the purpose of these fees is to offset those costs associated with the development review process, which involves multiple agencies reviewing those and those proposed development plans.

[50:24] and ensuring that what is being proposed meets all of the county and state and federal regulations regarding that development.

[50:35] So the development review structure was established back in 1995.

[50:40] Was reviewed again in 2004 and then went through another substantial review in 2019-2020.

[50:49] The structure of the review fee program is such that we seek to cover the cost of salaries,

[50:58] only not benefits and so on.

[51:00] Salaries only have staff that are involved in the review fee process in certain agencies.

[51:07] And those are development review, engineering reviews, stormwater management,

[51:10] force conservation and floodplain management.

[51:13] When we went through the process and back in 2019, 2020,

[51:16] There was a resolution that was passed that set that new structure and as part of that resolution it indicated that

[51:23] The fee schedule could be evaluated regularly to ensure that 100% coverage of those agencies that

[51:30] That were looking to cover the cost of so at this point we have not done any review since that 2020

[51:38] Set of schedule

[51:40] Be schedule so we're here today to talk about that and answer any questions you may have and

[51:46] if you wish potentially adjust that schedule.

[51:52] So what's in front of us today would cover 100% of the salary related cost for these services.

[51:58] And that is based on the resolution that you've listed on the second page, terms are the first resolution number 10 65 2020 that says that we have to ensure 100% salary recovery.

[52:09] And so the 20 point, I'm sorry, the 20 point, 20 point six percent will account for the change in the salary.

[52:21] And I would imagine that, I mean, so it's not like there is, how do I explain this?

[52:30] It's based on the services in the amount of time that's going to determine the fees that are collected,

[52:37] based on the time for the salary that's involved?

[52:40] I'm not quite.

[52:42] If I may, I'll explain the costs and the fees, and hopefully that'll explain.

[52:47] I'm sorry.

[52:48] That's quite right.

[52:51] So, as I said, we're looking to balance here.

[52:54] We're trying to balance the costs associated with the salaries of those individuals and those specific agencies that perform their reviews.

[53:01] Balance those with the fees that we collect.

[53:03] So we're balancing the cost versus the fees.

[53:08] So there, this next slide indicates two ways

[53:10] we could look at at the costs.

[53:12] One is, I've talked with human resources,

[53:15] and we looked at the salary increases

[53:21] that all employees have realized from 2019 to 2024.

[53:25] And when you look at those and the accumulating percentages

[53:28] and so on, the average county employee that's worked

[53:31] that duration is earning 28.1 percent more in 2024 than they did in 2019. So you can imagine

[53:38] a 5% than a 5% on top of that and so on. We're at 28.1 percent. Another way we could

[53:46] look at this is looking specifically at those review staff that we're trying to offset the salary

[53:51] increases. Now, please note this is not just a salary increase, it's also a staffing change.

[53:57] So we have added review staff specifically for storm water, so we're talking more people, so that's why there's a greater increase.

[54:04] So if we look at 2019, the salary cost for those agencies that we're looking to cover was 568,544.

[54:14] In 2024, looking at a similar comparison, that number is now 776473, which is a 36.6% increase.

[54:22] So, those are two ways of looking at the increasing cost that the county has experienced.

[54:28] Now, to balance that, we're looking at the fees.

[54:32] And here's a table that lists for five years, the fees collected that are intended to offset those costs.

[54:40] Now, obviously, FY20 with the pandemic and so on, that's kind of an outlier.

[54:46] And then, also, I would say, FY21, we were still in recovery from that.

[54:49] So my recommendation is that we look at an average of 22 to 24.

[54:55] We don't necessarily want to look at one particular year,

[54:58] because any one year could be an outlier.

[55:01] A lot more development or a lot less development that's initiated

[55:03] were fees are collected.

[55:05] So I think looking at an average over several years

[55:08] and my recommendation would be three years.

[55:10] So from FY22 to FY24,

[55:13] we've seen an average of 644,000,

[55:16] $134 in fees collected.

[55:17] So if you go back to the previous slide, and FY24, salary cost was 776473 in order to get the fees to balance that cost, we will be looking at a 20.6% increase in fees.

[55:35] And yes, I was going to wait till the end, but we're well we're on this slide.

[55:39] So, in 2004, we collected 740, and the cost of salaries was 776, we were only 30,000

[55:50] short.

[55:52] But you're saying we should do the averages.

[55:58] I don't quite understand why for only 36,000 short, why we need a 20% increase.

[56:08] And I know volume can change every year,

[56:14] but it's just, and that's why you're saying a three-year average would be better than a one year,

[56:21] but it just seems like we were pretty close.

[56:24] And I get concerned, I see our fees on some of this review cost taxpayers, probably taxpayers, maybe somebody from out of the county.

[56:37] almost more than their design fees, and I understand we need to cover our salaries, but

[56:45] 20% of big increase.

[56:48] Yes, like I said, there are many ways we can look at this, and I presented two ways of looking

[56:55] at the costs, looking at what our fees collected.

[56:59] Yes, I mean, we could take an average over five years, we could look at one year, who knows

[57:05] what this year is going to bring, we may be back down to the 500,000

[57:08] sum with a number of plans coming in.

[57:11] That's the difficulty in this.

[57:13] There's a lot of fluctuations, so we're making our best estimate.

[57:18] So that was kind of where I was trying to go,

[57:21] trying to figure out how these were calculated.

[57:24] And I certainly understand wanting to cover the cost

[57:27] of the service of the salaries that are extended, right?

[57:29] But I guess maybe part of the difficulty that I'm having

[57:34] looking at this is that you're talking about we're looking at like a percentage increase versus

[57:38] you know some hard numbers if this is what this would become this is what this would

[57:42] become and so maybe for me that's part of where I'm getting confused is that okay well

[57:46] the we're talking about increasing the the fees to 20.6% but what did that translate into an

[57:52] actual numbers sure yeah so one of the difficulties in this is that the metrics that we use

[57:58] to try and and make the fees appropriate for the development because every development is different

[58:03] Is that the metrics that we look at are things like acreage, number of lots, whether there's a floodplain there or not, things like that.

[58:13] Those metrics will stay consistent.

[58:17] Market forces don't change those metrics.

[58:19] If you're developing a seven-lot subdivision on 20 acres,

[58:22] that the market doesn't change that.

[58:24] And so the way we calculate the fees don't change unless we change the rate.

[58:28] And so what we're looking to do is change the rate, we charge per those metrics to try and stay in line with how inflation and so on increased costs.

[58:44] So, and I apologize because either, I'm just not getting it or we haven't gotten to that point in the discussion yet, so I apologize about that point.

[58:51] you don't think I had again. So if, so with respect to, okay, so if I know absolutely nothing

[58:59] about this and I'm coming in and I need engineering or survey done or something or stormwater

[59:03] management review and I have two storm ponds and my property, right? The amount of time and

[59:13] and correct me if I'm wrong, the amount of time to review each of those ponds does not necessarily

[59:20] change. But it's the amount of the salary and the amount of everything else associated with

[59:30] the cost for the salary that's increased. Even though the amount of work itself may not

[59:36] necessarily change. It's all the other contributing cost factors that have changed. That would

[59:41] require some kind of a recession or you would recommend, I should say, some kind of salary.

[59:48] I'm sorry, sorry. We're fee increase. Yes, following that. Yes. Yes. So the fees aren't

[59:56] based on the amount of staff time. We don't.

[1:00:00] We don't say, we don't track that this project took me five hours and this other project took me 10 hours. The fees are based on the type of project and it's to Chris said, whether this is an off-convance versus a full-blown site plan with stormwater management or somewhere in between and they all have their all unique and they're all a little different.

[1:00:30] the fees are calculated just based on those metrics.

[1:00:34] Yes, so if you like, I can give you an example.

[1:00:39] I created a couple test projects and then through our metrics to calculate how those

[1:00:46] would change for as an example for you.

[1:00:48] So if you had a hypothetical site plan that you were looking to develop and it was two

[1:00:54] of disturbance, it was non-residential, so this will say a sheet or something like that.

[1:01:02] It had a certain type of entrance being added, so brand new entrance onto a county road,

[1:01:11] and there was a FEMA floodplain but no impact.

[1:01:15] So those are the metrics that we use that influence the cost for that site-plan development.

[1:01:20] Under our current rates, the development review fees and total would be 14,229 dollars.

[1:01:32] What we're looking to do is revise those and increase those unit rates across those different metrics that all can fluctuate based on the type of site,

[1:01:40] and that would go up to 17,000, so that would be a 19 and a half percent increase.

[1:01:45] So when we say a recommended 20% we're generally 20% because there are many different rates that all factor into this and so we're adjusting all of them we're recommending adjustment of all of them about 20% when it all calculates out it would be a 19.5% increase for that site development review.

[1:02:05] And so what are some of the contributing factors that would necessitate the increase I mean is it is it.

[1:02:14] You know, maybe the design system we're using has increased the cost for renewal is it, you know,

[1:02:21] what are the contributing factors that would necessitate the increase?

[1:02:24] So they're simply the salary cost. So again, the fees are trying to offset the salary

[1:02:28] cost that we've realized over the past five years.

[1:02:31] Okay, because the resolution is merely refers to salary.

[1:02:35] Okay, so, yeah, we're discussion earlier about inflation and other things I shouldn't,

[1:02:39] I shouldn't take into consideration, or...

[1:02:43] you talk a little bit. Well, all of that's related to why there have been salary increases.

[1:02:48] Okay, all right. Is that based? Yes. I'm just trying to make sure that I have a good

[1:02:52] grass with this. I see you packed there. It might be helpful to back away from plan

[1:02:58] review just to a more conceptual idea of fees. Anywhere we're going to charge a fee.

[1:03:05] The basic ideas we're saying instead of general taxpayers paying the cost of providing this service,

[1:03:12] We want some part of this to be paid by the people directly receiving the service.

[1:03:19] Now, you could say, nope, we don't want to do that.

[1:03:23] Taxpayers pay for it and there are no fees.

[1:03:26] Or, you could say, we want the person receiving the service to pay the total cost of this.

[1:03:32] But as Chris is showing you, even saying the total cost,

[1:03:35] there's no way to get the right number, all you can do is try and get something that's in the vicinity.

[1:03:41] a former board as a way of approaching this said we're not going to say 25% of the cost or 50% of

[1:03:51] the cost we're just going to say whatever the salaries are related to this that's what we want the

[1:03:56] fees to cover. So Chris is here just saying if that's the way we're approaching it here's what salaries are

[1:04:04] here's what that does to fees. Okay now now I understand thank you very much. So Chris you actually

[1:04:11] it allows you job explaining it. I did. I was able to make it very clear for her. Yes, I

[1:04:17] had a beer too. You have a beer of four-five,

[1:04:22] but I'm sure I don't like that.

[1:04:26] Yeah, fees never go down. I mean, historically we've never lowered our fees. The what will

[1:04:38] going down over time is these projects, we only have so much property, you know, so

[1:04:48] that's like a given.

[1:04:52] Or these fees put into the vision of the master plan and this is what

[1:05:02] education should be just in a kind of, I'll say an abstract way, but just understanding the path

[1:05:11] going forward that either expectation should be that fees will stay consistent with

[1:05:21] changes of salaries, you know, kind of like where Ted was going, it doesn't matter.

[1:05:27] If it's this fee or that fee, it's, you know, we're increasing fees, should there be an expectation of that?

[1:05:36] Or is this a one shot? Let's do it in way five more years and it just fees?

[1:05:44] So I wouldn't say that we've looked at a direct correlation between what we're discussing in the master plan and these fees.

[1:05:50] But I would disagree that the amount of development and so on will taper off to nothing at some point because there's always redevelopment that's always going to happen and that redevelopment that will go on forever.

[1:06:05] And so I think I don't I don't envision a decrease for Laura and her staff ever.

[1:06:11] Okay, no, no, that's great, and I stand corrected on that, because that makes perfect sense.

[1:06:20] So,

[1:06:24] in consideration of, you know, increasing these fees,

[1:06:29] again, if that is the case with Laura and your team,

[1:06:33] I mean, it will, in additional, you know,

[1:06:38] person or persons be like a path forward to getting things done in a quicker amount of time

[1:06:48] and therefore fees will be going down or I mean it's time of part of this at all when

[1:06:55] something is expected and allowed or not.

[1:06:59] Now I think we just need to have a regular review of these fees and see what the market is

[1:07:06] And certainly if development does taper off and the desire of the board is to decrease the rate or make some sort of change, we certainly could do that at any time.

[1:07:22] Historically we've looked at these review fees in the structure every 10, 15 years.

[1:07:27] It just happens that, in this case, it's been within the past five years that we made the last change and the resolution that was passed in 2020 allowed in theory for, and we could look at this every year if you desired.

[1:07:43] So, we're happy to make any adjustment that you like, down, as had mentioned, there is a wide spectrum of how we could recoup these costs and how much of these costs you'd like the developer to recoup versus the general fund.

[1:07:59] I mean, looking at it every year makes sense from a

[1:08:05] stas perspective to ensure we're like in the right path when it comes to fees,

[1:08:13] making decisions on adjusting fees every year.

[1:08:18] I don't think it's a good idea because we've got to settle somewhere.

[1:08:23] the communities got to be settled on this is what's going to take to spend this because

[1:08:32] people don't just typically make a decision on a piece of property and the next day

[1:08:40] they're acting on it. It's years in planning and development and saving money and investing

[1:08:48] and whatever the project may be,

[1:08:53] that, you know, and I don't want everything to be DRA at all.

[1:09:00] You can know, I mean, that's not.

[1:09:02] But, you know, if somebody's like, BD probably making a decision, develop this very large parcel,

[1:09:11] and then all of a sudden we're changing our office and then we change our fee structure in the middle of it.

[1:09:17] I mean,

[1:09:20] you know, do they have to act quickly to get certain things in so they don't, yes, you know?

[1:09:26] Does this make sense?

[1:09:27] Absolutely, absolutely.

[1:09:29] I just want, I want to say a calm, but a calm in the community, in their understanding how fees will be decided and increased,

[1:09:45] where it's not every year we're looking at this in a, okay, let's raise fees, now let's raise fees.

[1:09:54] But we can't wait too long because, you know, as we learned, when it comes to water and sewer, if we wait and we put things off, then all of a sudden it's sticker shock.

[1:10:04] So we've got to balance that, that change of sticker shock, you know, with these large

[1:10:12] increases, you know, to, hey, this is the path forward.

[1:10:17] Yeah.

[1:10:17] So we haven't looked, you know, as Chris said, we haven't looked at this and I six

[1:10:20] whatever.

[1:10:21] Yeah.

[1:10:22] And I did look at not that what other jurisdictions do needs to influence what

[1:10:27] we do, but I did check Frederick County and Frederick County as of July 1, a couple

[1:10:33] days ago increased their fees by 25% and they set those four fiscal years 26, 27, 28.

[1:10:41] So they basically established that for the next three years, these are their review fees,

[1:10:45] but they did increase them by about 25% of what they had before.

[1:10:48] Now, I have nothing against Frederick County, but I do want consistency and I wanted where

[1:11:00] there's no surprises but it's very clear that this is going to be the cost associated with

[1:11:09] whatever development and you know you and your teams do it very well because you're out front

[1:11:15] with them so maybe I'm just kind of like working this through in my head should we be looking at

[1:11:26] You know, the last number or should we be, you know, putting them all together and then doing the average, it looks like it's more sense to look at the last three years, as opposed to last year, and certainly if you wanted to provide direction that in two years, we come back and provide a report and you decide to take action.

[1:11:54] or in three years or next every year, we're happy to do whatever,

[1:12:05] but that's the extent of what

[1:12:07] I had to present. As I said, there's various ways you can look at what the salary cost increase

[1:12:13] have been and we recommend just a 20% increase because we feel that that covers both the salary

[1:12:20] increases but also the market fluctuation that we've seen in the past three years.

[1:12:27] So I did a little bit of quick math because I was curious and if you include FY21 and I left

[1:12:32] 20 out of it because that was an awful year anyways.

[1:12:35] So if you take 21, 22, 22, 23, 24 and then you average those out between the four of them,

[1:12:41] the difference between what would be being collected and what had been on average for those

[1:12:46] four years was like 177, 177, 177, 177, 1787, so that is a pretty significant difference between

[1:12:54] that two.

[1:12:57] That would be coming out of the general fund to cover what is not been collected by people

[1:13:01] who are looking for the service,

[1:13:05] so.

[1:13:05] On your slide, it says 20% on the decision paper,

[1:13:10] it says 20, yes, I noticed that I apologize.

[1:13:15] We submitted the briefing paper, and that

[1:13:18] got into your books, and then we had some further discussions

[1:13:20] and said, rather than 20.6, we would make a 20%.

[1:13:25] So that's when I changed the slide, too,

[1:13:26] but your briefing paper still says 20.6.

[1:13:29] So what is your recommendation?

[1:13:30] Recommendation is 20%.

[1:13:32] But obviously, it could be anything at all that you all wish.

[1:13:35] No, I just want to be, yep, clear.

[1:13:38] And I think you're saying you're somewhat okay with this being reviewed every other year.

[1:13:45] Absolutely.

[1:13:47] It was that I think that should probably be part of the motion.

[1:13:52] I agree.

[1:13:52] I still struggle with the 20%, but I mean sooner or later this, and it's like it's

[1:13:59] somewhere to water sewer, there are still taxpayers paying water sewer, if this were

[1:14:06] residential subdivision, every homeowner is paying, yes. And I still, I struggle with

[1:14:16] our state, saying they want more affordable housing when everything's going up way

[1:14:21] more than inflation. You can't have affordable housing. Maybe I'm curious how our

[1:14:28] Mr. Plain would look, but I think that's what it all probably ought to say is we can't

[1:14:33] do affordable housing in Carroll County, sorry, because we can.

[1:14:39] And I guess maybe on a somewhat related note, I mean, I understand completely commission

[1:14:44] or collars concerns about raising fees, also the concern about having to take it out of the

[1:14:50] general fund.

[1:14:51] I mean, looking at our budget for the next couple of years, we're going to need every

[1:14:54] sense that we have. And on that note, and Ted, if you don't have an answer for me, right?

[1:15:00] This second. I don't we have like a year-end review or something coming up soon of our fiscal year 25 budget.

[1:15:09] Yes. Cool. Thank you very much.

[1:15:20] I move the Board of County Commissioners direct staff to adjust plan review fees to account for an average 20% increase in side recalls.

[1:15:27] Second.

[1:15:32] With the understanding, we're going to review it every other year.

[1:15:36] Yes.

[1:15:38] You have to amend the motion to include that.

[1:15:41] I can.

[1:15:41] Staff direction.

[1:15:43] Yeah.

[1:15:44] There we get a second.

[1:15:48] I'm sorry.

[1:15:49] Yes.

[1:15:50] So any further questions or discussions?

[1:15:54] Always in favor.

[1:15:55] Aye.

[1:15:56] Opposed.

[1:15:57] And I will oppose it.

[1:16:01] So commissioners, if I may ask one further question now that you've approved this change.

[1:16:05] There is a question then of implementation time.

[1:16:10] So when you would like this to become effective.

[1:16:13] So we could certainly make it effective today

[1:16:16] or some other future date.

[1:16:18] The one additional thing that I would throw out there is that

[1:16:21] there are mechanisms in place regarding Asala

[1:16:25] and we're going, as you know, we're going through

[1:16:27] the Tyler conversion and so on

[1:16:31] that these type of changes could be implemented into.

[1:16:34] And so, we have to open the hood as it were to make this change to the rates.

[1:16:40] What I would ask is that could say an October 1st implementation date, or effective date,

[1:16:48] of these rates that would give us some time to work with our IT staff and so on to programmatically

[1:16:53] put these in place as compared to an effective date of today or whatever you would wish.

[1:16:59] So, let me, I guess, get to the foundation there.

[1:17:03] What would be the most convenient thing given all those

[1:17:06] containing circumstances?

[1:17:07] What would be the easiest?

[1:17:08] October 1st.

[1:17:11] And what happens if a project is in the system?

[1:17:15] Is anybody grandfathered or, or if, if I'm on my third review

[1:17:20] and that happens in November, I get, I pay the new fear

[1:17:24] to I pay the old fee?

[1:17:25] So whatever, whatever fees in place at the time that you have to pay the fee.

[1:17:32] So for example, with site plans, you pay it at the beginning, and that's the only fee you pay the whole thing.

[1:17:37] So even though fees may change, you've already paid your fees.

[1:17:41] You're done. We're not going to go after and you're trying to pay the difference, right?

[1:17:44] But for a subdivision project, for example, their fees paid at different steps.

[1:17:50] So concept preliminary and final.

[1:17:51] So if you're moving on to final and a new fee structures in place, you would pay the new fee structure just for the finals when when you're paying it.

[1:18:00] Yes, and I I'm no problem with October. Why didn't you put that into the decision?

[1:18:10] I didn't want to presume that you wanted to make a change.

[1:18:14] I apologize. I mean, I'm not really good of a good of a margin.

[1:18:16] you know he's being very polite regardless I'm just saying why not just have it

[1:18:22] there and say in effect whatever get what you agree with you I'm just

[1:18:30] do we feel like somebody should make a motion that these these fees will be

[1:18:34] effective if we want to wait no question motion of the revised fees will be

[1:18:41] effective on to over first second okay any further discussion or questions

[1:18:46] There's a favor. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any other presumptions or questions?

[1:18:53] Add-ons? I would not presume. Now we're going to talk about the approval of resolution to shine the study for the Pani Run Watershed.

[1:19:05] Yes, so this should be hopefully pretty quick. I've been before you several times to discuss the Pani Run Dam

[1:19:11] and the work that we've done with NRCS,

[1:19:15] the Natural Resource Conservation Service over the past couple of years.

[1:19:20] For a little bit of history,

[1:19:22] Pymie Run Dam was constructed in the early 70s

[1:19:25] as part of the collaboration between the county and NRCS.

[1:19:29] In 1973, a watershed work plan was a agreement was put in place

[1:19:35] and signed by the county commissioners.

[1:19:37] And it basically outlines certain roles and responsibilities

[1:19:40] of the different entities that were involved in it, things like the county agrees not to sell

[1:19:45] the dam or the property associated with it that we agree that we're going to own to maintain

[1:19:50] it and so on and so forth. Over the past five years we've been working with NRCS to revise

[1:19:56] that watershed plan based on the requirements that Maryland Department of the Environment has given

[1:20:01] to us. And so we have, we're at the end of that process. And so now NRCS needs us to sign a new

[1:20:08] agreement. And the agreement has similar sort of information about that we won't sell the

[1:20:13] dam. In this case, the lifespan of the dam is estimated to be 100 years. So 100 years

[1:20:19] from now, maybe we're going to be revisiting this again. So essentially, NRCS has asked you

[1:20:25] to pass a resolution to agree to the watershed plan. And then once you agree to that, then Commissioner

[1:20:33] highly consign the agreement and we'll close out this phase of the of the work.

[1:20:39] No, we all sign. You would all sign the resolution. The actual agreement only has

[1:20:45] Commissioner Kyler since the day of the day. Sorry. So, Commissioner Figliai has to read

[1:20:50] the entire resolution. You can read the whole resolution. That's much better than reading

[1:20:56] in the 675 page work plan.

[1:20:59] Do you want me to read that lab?

[1:21:03] Motion to approve the resolution to sign the Piny and Run Watershed Study.

[1:21:07] I have a motion and a second.

[1:21:09] Any questions or discussion?

[1:21:14] I'll use a favor.

[1:21:15] Opposed.

[1:21:16] Thank you.

[1:21:17] All right. Thank you.

[1:21:19] Now we're going to discuss the request for public hearing for the spring amendment of the

[1:21:27] or a master plan, morning to you, morning, morning.

[1:21:32] I'm here with Andrew Gray, who is going to give you an overview

[1:21:36] of the spring cycle of amendments to the Keralkan water

[1:21:41] and sewer master plan.

[1:21:44] As you know, we do this twice a year.

[1:21:46] We have a spring cycle.

[1:21:47] We have a fall cycle.

[1:21:49] The idea is that we're amending the water and sewer master plan

[1:21:53] that's updated every three years, so that things

[1:21:56] can be put into the right service category and receive service between those three year updates.

[1:22:05] We're here to request your approval to proceed with the public hearing on these amendments

[1:22:11] and I'll turn it over to Drew to give you an overview of what's contained in this cycle

[1:22:16] of amendments.

[1:22:17] Good to have a spring water cycle.

[1:22:21] No one got it.

[1:22:22] Spring water?

[1:22:23] I tried, I tried, I tried, I tried.

[1:22:26] Stop, stop.

[1:22:27] Good morning, commissioners.

[1:22:28] Good morning.

[1:22:31] As Ms. Daily mentioned, I am here to present the spring amendment

[1:22:37] to the 2023 Carol County Water and Sewer Master Plan.

[1:22:42] Why are we amending the Water and Sewer Master Plan?

[1:22:45] Number one, to keep the plan current,

[1:22:48] and also to make needed changes to the plan

[1:22:51] that affect the timing of new development in the county.

[1:22:56] Four municipalities for the spring 2025 amendment are proposing a change to their system.

[1:23:03] That is, the town of Union Bridge is proposing to change their water and sewer service

[1:23:09] area map, demands table in text, hamstered is proposing to change their water and sewer service

[1:23:16] area maps. New Windsor is proposing to change their water and sewer service demands table and

[1:23:24] text, and lastly, but not least, Tony Towns is proposing to change their sewer service

[1:23:32] area map and demand stable. Starting with Union Bridge,

[1:23:39] Bureau of Comprehensive Planning

[1:23:40] received a request from the town of Union Bridge to amend their water and sewer maps to

[1:23:47] were spawned with the updated revision to their 2024 townmaster plan review of their 2008

[1:23:58] Union Bridge and Advanced Community Comprehensive Plan.

[1:24:02] As a result, many changes were proposed to the water and sewer service area maps, resulting

[1:24:09] in a recalculation of the entire water and sewer service area, just to note that these water

[1:24:16] And sewer calculations were based off of current flows and the bill to the land inventory.

[1:24:23] So essentially, with Union Bridge, and New Windsor that I'll mention here shortly,

[1:24:30] we came at this like a Tri-annual update with updating the numbers.

[1:24:36] Also, just to note that, after the review of the Tri-annual report, the plan capacity numbers

[1:24:45] were double counted. And thus, the numbers are for Union Bridge, 208,000 gallons per day for

[1:24:55] existing priority and future water service.

[1:24:59] So when you said the numbers are double counted, you mean that they should not be 208 or

[1:25:04] they were reduced from what they were to 208.

[1:25:08] as a wonderful question commissioner that number there was a well that was double counted

[1:25:15] the original number was well there was the well that was counted and that number that was double

[1:25:23] counted was about 42,300 gallons per day so seeing that error and wanting to correct that to

[1:25:30] make it show what's actually allocated that's why that correction was made wonderful question thank

[1:25:39] Thank you.

[1:25:43] And the maps shown here are going to be the updated Union Bridge Water and Sewer Service

[1:25:49] Area Maps.

[1:25:52] For Hamstead, Hamstead contacted the Bureau of Comprehensive Planning to clear up any

[1:25:59] potential concerns with Maryland Department of the Environment's Review of the Hamstead

[1:26:05] PFAS Treatment and Centralization Project.

[1:26:09] The first update has a property off of upper-forward lane, and that is to update the

[1:26:18] hamster water map from no-plan service to existing.

[1:26:24] Also a property off of Maryland Route 88, Lower Beckley'sville Road, by the skate park.

[1:26:32] Update the map from no-plan service to priority W3.

[1:26:36] And property around the radio tower, the large radio tower, update the water map from

[1:26:44] priority to existing W1, and then this same general location, there's also going to be

[1:26:50] two sewer amendments, updating both from future to priority.

[1:26:56] And just to give some context, the one property I believe is the county water treatment facility

[1:27:06] and the other property is hamstered well property.

[1:27:12] So for new Windsor, so changes were made by the town, the town's buildable land inventory,

[1:27:18] and gallons per day calculation, multiplier resulting in a recalculation of their entire water and sewer service area.

[1:27:28] Water and sewer calculations were based off of current flows and build a land inventory data.

[1:27:35] And then for Tony Town, updating the Tony Town sewer map and demand calculations moving a property from long-range service to priority sewer service area.

[1:27:47] and that property is off of Harni Road.

[1:27:51] And also this amendment will correct a calculation error

[1:27:55] for total demand.

[1:27:59] Where are we now in the process?

[1:28:01] The municipal planning and zoning commissions

[1:28:04] I presented information to all four of them.

[1:28:07] And they approved

[1:28:13] consistency

[1:28:14] with their master plans on the dates on the slide.

[1:28:18] Also, the Carol County Planning and Zoning Commission approved consistency and agreement to move forward to this body on June 17.

[1:28:30] So, for the Board of County Commissioners today, we are here to brief the board and also request the public hearing.

[1:28:38] Then, if you approve for a public hearing, we will request that you adopt the spring 2025

[1:28:49] amendment to the Water and Suer Master Plan after taking all evidence and testimony into

[1:28:55] consideration.

[1:28:56] And then if that happens, as you all probably know, that information will be pulled together

[1:29:05] and sent to Maryland Department of the Environment for final review and approval.

[1:29:10] So our staff recommendation before you today is planning staff recommends the Board of

[1:29:15] County Commissioners proceed with a public hearing for the 2025 Spring Amendment to the

[1:29:21] 2023 Carell County Water and Sewer of Master Plan.

[1:29:25] And if you have any questions, we are here.

[1:29:28] Thank you.

[1:29:33] Motion for seat of the public hearing for the 2025 Spring Amendment to the Carell County

[1:29:36] water and sewer master plan. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any questions or discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed. Thank you. Thank you commissioners. Thank you. Thank you. I'm 21 discussion decision for possible budget transfer for MPRP litigation.

[1:30:05] Before we start the meet of it, I have a couple of concerns I want to mention. Last meeting,

[1:30:16] on my opinion, just fact, we violated the public open meetings act.

[1:30:26] I think we need to talk about not today.

[1:30:30] I'm not sure any motions should be made in party care.

[1:30:34] It's a lot easier to get the cameraman and the public here if you tell them not to

[1:30:38] clock, but that should be in admin open.

[1:30:43] It was compared.

[1:30:50] It would be nice.

[1:30:52] It was compared to the motion for the 13 million for the

[1:31:00] They were here, they were presenting.

[1:31:02] It had nothing whatsoever to do with a priority,

[1:31:07] carol motion.

[1:31:10] So I don't know why that comparison was made.

[1:31:14] And my big concern is the Maryland Open Meetings Act.

[1:31:18] If somebody turns it in, we violate it.

[1:31:22] They smack your fingers.

[1:31:24] So I don't know if I care so much about that.

[1:31:27] What worries me, A, should I have not allowed us to vote on it?

[1:31:36] My thinking at the time was, it was obviously three people talked about it ahead of time.

[1:31:42] And if three of the five of us want something to happen, I struggle with the fact,

[1:31:47] we're all equal up here regardless of President Vice President, should I really stop something from happening that the majority of us want?

[1:31:56] I was concerned that staff didn't say, guys, you've got to stop, you're violating the Maryland Open Meetings Act.

[1:32:08] Nobody did.

[1:32:09] We talked about it, but we never really did it.

[1:32:14] So I'd strongly suggest if you really don't understand the Maryland Open Meetings Act,

[1:32:22] there are online things, there are classes available, we could set up the attorney to give a

[1:32:30] little class on it. If you fully understand it and just don't give a shit, then I'm not sure

[1:32:35] what we do about that. That's disappointing at best. The other problem I have with what we did,

[1:32:45] we made a motion, a Dalton Pony Show, on X amount of dollars going to MPRP. I'm not sure,

[1:32:51] And hopefully we'll learn today,

[1:32:55] A, that's modifying the budget, which totally upsets the

[1:33:00] apple card on how we handle budget in this group.

[1:33:04] But more importantly, I'm not sure legally what we can spend that money on.

[1:33:09] We already are spending money on stuff to fight that.

[1:33:15] And I'm not sure what we're allowed to do, so I would hope that today, if we are still

[1:33:23] inclined to spend a hundred grand, I think we need to get a clue what we're spending it on and

[1:33:29] is that legal. And I'm sorry, I'm like I say I'm disappointing myself, I'm not sure if I

[1:33:35] should have stopped things when they became a cluster, whatever you call it,

[1:33:45] if Trump can say

[1:33:46] that word. Why can't I? But I don't feel it was appropriate that I stop it. But if anybody

[1:33:54] here doesn't understand that we broke the open meetings act, then you definitely need

[1:34:00] to take the class and get a clue. Thank you for you. I don't know if anybody else wants

[1:34:06] to say anything, but I just felt like I needed to bring that up before we started this

[1:34:12] I appreciate your comments, Commissioner Kyler.

[1:34:16] To your points, one, I'll bring up your comment about legal representation.

[1:34:22] County Attorney Burke did not speak up in any way, shape, or form to stop that.

[1:34:27] And you and I are in agreement on that.

[1:34:29] I'm not in any way bringing that up, but then just a question,

[1:34:33] policy and procedure when it comes to that, because typically in a meeting of any sort.

[1:34:38] And correctly if I'm wrong.

[1:34:40] Mr. Burke, Ms. Windom will speak up and either correct the information or give us additional insight on that.

[1:34:47] I may. If I had been here, I would have said something. I was not here.

[1:34:50] Okay.

[1:34:51] And if this would have been my prior life in care of kind of public schools, I may have asked the attorney.

[1:34:58] Aren't we violating that because again, I've had three or four classes on it and unfortunately I've had attorneys.

[1:35:06] I want me about it, too, but go ahead, but yeah, you're right, like I say, I feel guilty that

[1:35:12] maybe I should have initiated something, but you're correct.

[1:35:15] Nobody staffed it, not.

[1:35:17] So to your point on that, we agree on that.

[1:35:21] I do have one question, though, and this is not directed that you, this is directed Mr.

[1:35:25] Burke, since he's obviously the county attorney.

[1:35:30] if that conversation violated the Open Meetings Act because it was brought up on a non-agenda item and that's my understanding on this correct me if I'm wrong.

[1:35:41] Would that not be the exact same situation when the five of us voted unanimously the other year to put a to go forward with a solar moratorium that was not on the agenda that day as well?

[1:35:56] because I don't I'm I'm just asking for because what would be the difference between two items not on the agenda

[1:36:02] every item should be on the agenda I don't recall the circumstances. I brought up the solar agenda and I probably was wrong I probably violated the act

[1:36:11] so let's just do it every let's violated every. I'm not suggesting here and said to 13 million was similar and

[1:36:20] No way and hell was it even close now we want to go back to two years on a solar thing

[1:36:27] You know, I'm not I'm not looking to hear if I might it doesn't matter we violated it and if you don't understand that

[1:36:35] I can print you out stuff and you can read it, but it's specifically says we owe it to the public that it's an agenda

[1:36:43] I'm when we're screwing with a budget. Let's look now. I don't remember the

[1:36:48] the motion on solar, but if that was that we intend to talk about something, then maybe

[1:36:56] that's different too, I don't want to get into split in hairs. We violated the open meetings

[1:37:02] like no question. We violated that. If somebody complains, we'll get her finger smacked.

[1:37:09] Now, did we violate it six other times in the last maybe? I don't know, but I don't care.

[1:37:15] I care about this this type, but no, I understand that and I'm not being disagreeable with it.

[1:37:19] I'm just asking Mr. Burke for clarification on that. That's all I'm asking.

[1:37:24] You can go to the internet and get clarification on it.

[1:37:27] I was just asking our county attorney.

[1:37:28] I mean, it's a liability to do that.

[1:37:30] Nicely put my grandkids would understand it if they read it.

[1:37:34] So I don't need an attorney to tell me that, but we you just said, every item needs to be on a

[1:37:42] But I think we went a step further because we screwed with a budget also, without an agenda item.

[1:37:49] Well, each meeting you said in a agenda for the next week, there's nothing wrong with saying I'd like to put this on the agenda next week, or I'd like to talk about it.

[1:37:58] There's nothing wrong with that doing that in open administrative session.

[1:38:02] What I tried to do last week was to steer you into putting it on this agenda so that we could avoid an actual vote and any problems.

[1:38:11] already questions like that.

[1:38:15] Okay.

[1:38:19] Time were you still going? What's that? Were you still? No,

[1:38:22] I'm still. I do have a couple of things. Well, no, no, one point on what he just said. We probably

[1:38:29] could have altered the agenda even after it was out. Maybe whatever. We get it Friday, we could

[1:38:37] order it before Thursday.

[1:38:40] Yeah, I try to, unless it or emergency things because of notice requirements, I try not to do it on as late as Wednesdays but certainly sometimes we do even as late as Tuesday.

[1:38:52] But if it's an emergency, we can do it later.

[1:38:56] So that was part of last week's conversation because I remember sharing that that we could do it.

[1:39:06] put on the agenda and do it the next day,

[1:39:10] sorry, Sunday, Monday, whatever prior to today.

[1:39:14] So, because I agree that we should not be voting,

[1:39:19] and we should allow the community to engage

[1:39:22] and know what we're voting on, especially when it comes to resources,

[1:39:28] and in this case, money.

[1:39:31] I like to note, does anybody know who that camera was

[1:39:34] photographer. I had no idea. That was like just and just curious who's in the room.

[1:39:41] So did anybody know? Because I didn't see much coverage. I mean, you don't know?

[1:39:49] No, I mean we had what was at Fox 45 here the one time I didn't even know. No, I don't know

[1:39:53] thing in general. I don't know about Fox 45. I'm saying I'm Thursday. Does anybody know

[1:39:57] who is a camera, the video guy, and the young lady with the camera, who they were representing, nobody knows.

[1:40:07] I assume it was Carol Magazine, because I didn't have the logo of Channel 45 that I have no idea.

[1:40:14] But again, I do.

[1:40:16] Okay.

[1:40:16] So nobody knows who they were.

[1:40:25] You know, at least in my view over the time I've been here, is try to lessen the political views and politicize from the dice.

[1:40:44] I know that's just me, others have other priorities and other ways of conveying their thoughts

[1:40:53] and it could be conceived as politicizing or gesturing from the diocese opposed to figuring

[1:41:01] out how we, and I've always taken this, how we apply our resources, our time, our people,

[1:41:09] money and I was not clear besides the open means and and being completely caught off guard because I

[1:41:19] I had no clue what was going to be shared. I think the biggest concern now moving forward is

[1:41:32] What is the problem that we're trying to solve with this gesture, with this $100,000,

[1:41:42] it's not clear to me, and I feel that we do have roles somewhat legislative, somewhat judicial,

[1:41:54] mostly executive. I mean, that's really what our roles are. Not saying we don't have

[1:42:02] opportunity to be legislative and judicial,

[1:42:06] but as an executive, what is the problem I'm

[1:42:10] trying to solve with applying resources? Is it legal fees towards somebody? I mean, I

[1:42:23] don't want this project to move forward. And I do I applaud the community. I, you know,

[1:42:32] applaud us in getting out in front of it, working with the governor, with his staff, with our

[1:42:39] legislators, with the community, with PSE and PGM and anybody else that's willing and PSE

[1:42:47] keep in those communications open and getting in front of them every opportunity we can

[1:42:54] sharing with, you know, the state, what activities happening, so they are aware, oh and our

[1:43:04] colleagues to the right and left, Baltimore County and Frederick County.

[1:43:10] So I do, I applaud

[1:43:12] that all of that come in together, and I'm trying to think what else can we do,

[1:43:21] and a gesture

[1:43:23] that turns into an executive motion of executing $100,000, whether we either market or allocated

[1:43:36] or execute it, I mean, we are identifying a number that is our taxpayers dollars towards something

[1:43:48] that I don't know what that something is, so, you know, and again, and I said this last

[1:43:55] week, should it be $100,000 or $100 million? I don't know, because I don't know what is

[1:44:01] going towards. If it's $100,000 or we're looking at trying to give $2,000 to every property

[1:44:08] owner, or we're trying to give it to somebody for legal fees, or we're trying to use it

[1:44:13] for our own legal fees, I don't know. So just objectively, if no one knows who the camera

[1:44:24] and photographer were last week, I'd like to find out exactly who they were,

[1:44:33] and what

[1:44:34] problem we're trying to solve,

[1:44:38] and you know we hit the open meetings act which is difficult,

[1:44:43] but that's the side, and then let's continue the conversation from there.

[1:44:50] So, well if I might have the floor for just a minute or two, I mean, I'm certainly not

[1:44:54] infallible, and I'm certainly now without error. Tim, I would be very happy to sit down with you

[1:44:58] to refresh myself on the open meeting squirt.

[1:45:00] Members are taking a several, several of them over the years. I'm going to be happy to sit down to do a review with you.

[1:45:06] So, that aside, I think probably the way that I would like to begin the discussion on what we are talking about today is that over the course of the last year, all of us, all five of us, along with staff, along with numerous citizens, groups, our delegation.

[1:45:20] We've all done any number of things in the attempt to stop MPRP from happening. All of us, all of us in different ways, shapes and forms.

[1:45:28] Commissioner of Rossing and Commissioner Kyler routinely talk about how all five of us approach

[1:45:34] The work up here that we do from very different perspectives and from very different life experiences

[1:45:40] You know what we all have our strengths. We all have our our specialties and we've used those and brought those to bear in whatever ways

[1:45:47] We can as part of a united group against this thing now the motion last week, right?

[1:45:53] I understand concerns about being out of order and whatnot to my mind

[1:45:57] It was a motion of intent that we wanted to do something, because the second motion that we

[1:46:02] made, which was unanimous, was to put the actual mechanic to the actual thing on the agenda

[1:46:07] for this week.

[1:46:09] So questions about opening meeting aside, that's where we are right now is having discussion

[1:46:13] about what if anything we do.

[1:46:15] So in my mind, going specifically to the heart of the issue before us today, the idea of

[1:46:21] appropriating $100,000 for anti-NPRP efforts from the county side of things for me.

[1:46:27] I'm looking at this and I'm saying, okay, well, this is being able to demonstrate to our citizens

[1:46:32] that we are taking a, what, another, another concrete action in our efforts against this.

[1:46:39] And so by putting aside $100,000 for me, I'm looking at legal fees, I'm looking at communications,

[1:46:45] I'm looking at perhaps salaries over time that might be associated with the efforts that we pose against

[1:46:52] NPRP, you know, by specifically designating portion of our reserve or contingency for this, you know,

[1:47:00] and to Commissioner Rawls seems point, if we were to go back into the budget, and so in my mind,

[1:47:04] I would want to create a specific line item in the budget.

[1:47:08] I don't know what we would call it, anti-NPRP efforts, whatever.

[1:47:12] You know, that would open up the budget process again.

[1:47:14] And yes, we would have to have a public hearing and Commissioner Rawls seems concerns about having

[1:47:18] members of the community come in to talk about this, you know, would be of help because we

[1:47:22] would have a hearing to see whether or not our citizens were interested in us pursuing

[1:47:28] this.

[1:47:28] Those are concerns.

[1:47:30] I don't have concerns.

[1:47:32] I just have, that's the process that we would do.

[1:47:36] It's not, I don't have any concerns in a negative way.

[1:47:39] I'm just, I just, you know, I apologize I've used the wrong language that didn't mean

[1:47:43] in a negative way because I think it's, it's, it's, it's justified.

[1:47:46] So in my mind, that was how I would approach this hundred thousand dollars creating a new

[1:47:52] line item in the budget transferring funds from reserve for contingency to that item and

[1:47:57] specifying that these are for these are for legal fees or communications with our citizen

[1:48:02] salaries over time, whatever the case might be in our efforts against MPRP and at least that's

[1:48:07] where I am with this.

[1:48:12] So a couple comments. First of all, I mean, I know there's been a couple, there's been some discussion about the cameras.

[1:48:19] Our meetings are stream live every single Thursday and anybody can go back and watch them.

[1:48:25] So the fact that cameras are here are not, makes no difference to me.

[1:48:29] We've got one back there and it's on right now.

[1:48:32] This issue of open meetings act.

[1:48:33] I'd like to get your official ruling on that.

[1:48:37] But it sounds like, if there's an issue that should be an agenda item, or is already an agenda item,

[1:48:47] we shouldn't be discussing it or litigating it, however you want to put it, legislating

[1:48:53] executive actions during priority peril.

[1:48:56] And if that's the issue, we have done it before.

[1:49:01] And last week wasn't the first time, but if we're not supposed to do that,

[1:49:03] Well, then we need to hear from Mr. Burke and you can put that in writing and absolutely we should follow this guidelines.

[1:49:11] I didn't feel as though what we did last week was particularly controversial at all.

[1:49:17] And I think what we're supposed to be doing today is discussing that transfer from the river of contingencies,

[1:49:24] not taking any money out of the FY26 budget per se, but adding that additional money.

[1:49:29] What we will spend it on? I don't know.

[1:49:32] This, our county budget, we're giving probably about $4.3 million this year to non-profits.

[1:49:39] We're giving probably about $100,000 to different organizations like the Carroll County Arts Center

[1:49:44] and the Historical Society.

[1:49:46] It's much of the same.

[1:49:48] And in this particular case with MPRP, you've got 70 plus families who are looking at basically

[1:49:56] intrusions upon their own property in a quasi-government agency, it's the best way I can put it,

[1:50:04] telling them what they can and can do with their property.

[1:50:06] So to me, I don't understand really what the controversy is, how we got here, there's certainly

[1:50:11] disagreement, but I am in favor of taking this money, transferring an out of reserve

[1:50:17] contingencies, what we do with it, I don't think we can decide today, but I think this

[1:50:22] is a serious enough issue that really directly affects

[1:50:26] Carroll County residents, Carroll County taxpayers,

[1:50:30] that it's worth doing.

[1:50:31] In this other instance, as I mentioned,

[1:50:33] we really know where that money is going.

[1:50:35] Is it going to Carroll County residents?

[1:50:37] I don't know.

[1:50:39] Is it going to people that are even citizens of the country?

[1:50:41] I don't know.

[1:50:42] We don't seem to really drill down on that a whole lot.

[1:50:45] I just think that this is a tangible gesture, if you will.

[1:50:49] I guess it's a bit of an oxymoron.

[1:50:51] But this is a tangible action from the board to transfer money in there and have it in there when and if we need it

[1:51:00] And I would be surprised if we don't I either way I think we're going to end up having this conversation at some point anyway

[1:51:06] So all all how we got us you know how we got here aside and Mr. Burke you're going to help us with that going forward

[1:51:13] I think the question on table right now is

[1:51:16] Do we do we vote to move that money over or not?

[1:51:20] and

[1:51:21] Mr. Zelensky, you are here because we're talking about money.

[1:51:26] I don't know if it now is appropriate time to get your thoughts on how we would do this before we try to vote on it.

[1:51:31] I'd like to share a few things before.

[1:51:34] And I'd like to share just a few things.

[1:51:36] One, I just don't know what non-citizens, what were you referring to?

[1:51:41] I said what I was saying earlier is I was making the point.

[1:51:44] This is our Carroll County FY20 suit budget.

[1:51:46] I think it's about $4.3 million going to nonprofits.

[1:51:49] Great.

[1:51:49] We don't question where that money goes, per se.

[1:51:51] We don't know if it's going to people that are citizens of the country.

[1:51:54] We don't even know if it's going to people who are residents of the county.

[1:51:57] So I'm simply making the point that in this action here, we know where this money is going.

[1:52:02] These are going to, you know, hardworking, concerned, carell county residents, many of them are farmers.

[1:52:08] That's where we're all county.

[1:52:09] So that's the point I was trying to make.

[1:52:10] No, okay.

[1:52:11] No, I just apologize, I didn't catch where that non-citizens.

[1:52:17] We do know where we're putting our nonprofit dollars and we've identified specific amounts to the

[1:52:25] nonprofits and their stated goals and objectives and envision and we agree to whatever dollar amount

[1:52:34] we're sending to a specific nonprofit for that and those nonprofits are established.

[1:52:45] 501C3s, if this is an intent to provide dollars to the 501C3, that's established with

[1:52:54] stop MPRP, then that needs to be specified.

[1:52:58] If it's to provide dollars to the 70 families with $100,000, I mean, why not just take all

[1:53:07] our reserve of contingency and apply it because this is a massive undertaking. We all agree

[1:53:17] we don't want this, but yeah I'm not sure about non-citizens and non-profits. I don't

[1:53:23] know.

[1:53:24] My only point, the only point I was trying to make that in this particular case, we know

[1:53:29] exactly who the money is going and who it's trying to help.

[1:53:33] But we don't. We don't always have this. Well we do, because we know the families

[1:53:37] that are affected. So you're saying apply the money to the families. Well, I'm only I'm only stating that in this particular case

[1:53:44] We we actually know who we're going to help. So I think that's a luxury that we usually don't have so so we're talking about you're saying take

[1:53:55] all

[1:53:55] this taxpayer money and go towards the 70 families. Well, to support those 70 families. No, not not not not not not a money transfer to those families the money

[1:54:05] This effort would be to go to help those families obviously and that that's the only point

[1:54:10] I'm not going to have all the answers exactly how we're going to spend the money if we go ahead and vote to do it

[1:54:15] But I think it's important to have it there and I think at some point we're going to have this discussion either way

[1:54:20] So that's why

[1:54:21] We're having this so

[1:54:24] No, I'm still going so sorry, so there's some new family. I got that and non-citizens

[1:54:29] Maybe associated with nonprofits. I'm not sure, but I do know

[1:54:33] And I've been doing this for the six years, which is in a whole long time, but we, during

[1:54:42] the budget process, determine whatever amount of dollars we are providing to allocating

[1:54:51] and the next-secuting to specified nonprofits, 5133s, not, you know, process where we

[1:55:03] focusing our attention on 70 families. I'll be that is extremely important and we have put

[1:55:10] a lot of time and a lot of effort into focusing our attention on those 70 families by reaching

[1:55:17] out to the state, by reaching out to the counties to the right and left, by reaching out

[1:55:25] PSEPJM, PSENG, the governor, everyone we can touch and say, don't let this happen to our legislators.

[1:55:35] You know, so our focus has been on those 70 families from day one and will continue to be.

[1:55:43] Asking about the cameras, yes, you're right.

[1:55:45] We are always televised and we should be because this is an open session.

[1:55:48] I was just curious if anybody here knew who the specified specific cameraman and photographer

[1:55:55] I just didn't know that they were here, so if nobody here knows what organization they represented or who they were that's fine

[1:56:06] I just I didn't know and I thought somebody here knew, but obviously we don't

[1:56:13] I just don't think that it's understood the intent of this and it's understood the gesture of this and I'm not doubting that.

[1:56:25] I believe there is a appropriate method to doing the things we should be doing and appropriate process and this is not the appropriate way of doing it.

[1:56:37] Because unless we know $100,000 will buy us this or will be used for that, why not make it $1,000, or $10,000, or $50,000, $50,000.

[1:56:55] Why not shut down programs, take that $4,000, whatever million we give to not probably.

[1:57:00] Just shut them all down because if there's a threat that there's people there, we don't want

[1:57:05] support and let's take that away and put it towards this. Those are decisions that I think

[1:57:13] we should openly have and discussions. And in front of the public and say, this is why

[1:57:20] we want to move these money. I do agree we need a statement on whether in legal opinion we

[1:57:28] file the open meetings act. I think that's appropriate. And you know I don't disagree

[1:57:36] with that. I understand the intent. You know that, you know, from our big

[1:57:44] reality, you said, I think it's the same intent we all have. I just don't

[1:57:48] understand what 100,000 dollars is going to do, I think, and I believe if we are to put money

[1:58:03] somewhere, then we know how much money and where it should go and hold it in a specific area

[1:58:13] a specific action.

[1:58:16] I think our taxpayers, I mean, are looking for us being good stewards of

[1:58:22] those dollars. I mean, why not raise taxes and increase revenue to increase dollar amount

[1:58:34] to stop in the NPRP? I mean, that's an action we could take. I don't agree with that action.

[1:58:40] I'm not recommending that at all, but that is another way to bring in revenue to go after this project.

[1:58:49] I mean, there's lots of different ways of doing this.

[1:58:52] A hundred thousand dollars off the cuff on a party carol with no conversation, at least I didn't know of any, to the community.

[1:59:06] I think definitely was not the way we should have gone there or gone here.

[1:59:13] This is not just about this one action.

[1:59:17] There's a lot of discussion that needs to occur for possibly budget transfer

[1:59:24] for MPRP litigation as it's raining in the agenda.

[1:59:31] So, I apologize, you want to talk to them?

[1:59:34] No, no, no, that's all right.

[1:59:35] So, if I may, I understand that we are talking about

[1:59:38] 70-some properties in the county, and there's certainly

[1:59:40] our important, I don't disagree with that, but I think it also

[1:59:43] goes to the heart of a larger issue as well, and it affects

[1:59:47] the county as a whole.

[1:59:49] You know, it affects the county as an entity.

[1:59:51] It's our laws, our zoning, our community, our local control.

[1:59:55] And that's what the NPRP strikes at the heart of all around.

[2:00:00] So in my mind, the $100,000 would affect the, I guess, something of a placeholder for the time being. Maybe when we get through the process, we haven't had to expend any of it. Maybe we have to add more to it.

[2:00:11] We've done it before. We've transferred money before. We've had left over money from areas in the budget before.

[2:00:18] As far as, you know, it's good to ask about specifics, right? So again, in my mind, I'm looking at maybe legal fees, salaries over time, communication.

[2:00:29] I brought up about Open's meeting violation.

[2:00:34] I think we need to let Ted do whatever presentation he wanted to do.

[2:00:38] Again, I don't know if we legally can pay other people's legal fees.

[2:00:42] We need to know that before we keep talking about it.

[2:00:45] But my concern is, the motion was made was out of order.

[2:00:49] Should I have done something?

[2:00:50] It was a violation of open meetings act, a chimpanzee knows that, and that's the only point

[2:00:58] I wanted to make, and then we, and I'm all for us doing something for MPRP, I don't

[2:01:03] know if we need to transfer, I don't care if we have a line item and a budget, but we need

[2:01:09] to discuss that, but I was more concerned on just talking about the last meeting before

[2:01:15] we started that discussion, but I think we need to, we need to get in.

[2:01:19] And I voted against it because I thought it was out of order and violating open meeting.

[2:01:25] I voted for that let's put it on the agenda because that's what we should have done to begin with.

[2:01:31] And that's my situation on this.

[2:01:33] And I'm all for us to want something.

[2:01:35] I do question, just like non-profits, just like, I mean, we cut Ag Brez the one year.

[2:01:41] Do is it fair for taxpayers, county, why, to pay for a problem with 70 properties?

[2:01:47] And right now, it's not even 70 properties because it's only the ones in the federal court.

[2:01:54] But, you know, we need to adjust as we go.

[2:01:56] And then I wanted, if I had interrupted you, you were talking about the last meeting.

[2:02:01] If you have any more to say about that, then I think we need to move on with what we want to do with MBRP money.

[2:02:08] Well, just a couple of quick things, and I don't really recall where exactly I was when you spoke up.

[2:02:14] But yes, it's less than 70 properties or whatever the current number is today.

[2:02:18] But I think all of us, whether we can collectively agree or disagree at times, I think

[2:02:24] all of us can come to the realization that it might be 70 properties this time.

[2:02:29] This isn't going to be a one and done.

[2:02:30] We all know this.

[2:02:32] And I think the public knows this.

[2:02:34] So I think the challenge for us and Commissioner Rossing has some very valid points as

[2:02:39] well.

[2:02:40] How do we want to approach this?

[2:02:41] Where do we want to go?

[2:02:42] great questions. I think the public is I hate to use the word hope. I think they have faith in us

[2:02:50] that we're going to help them and step up because the reality is to put this on the backs of

[2:02:55] whether it's 60 properties or whatever. It's going to affect this entire county be it

[2:02:59] county properties, private properties, and so forth. Now you mentioned obviously we've mentioned

[2:03:07] up here about various nonprofits, where does that money go, et cetera, et cetera. Obviously that

[2:03:11] is allocated commissioner Ross Dean has a bear you know I agree with his point there

[2:03:15] about that how that's allocated um into your point about ag press yes the other year

[2:03:18] we did cut it but then this year we've put it back and we've strengthened that quite a bit

[2:03:22] given what's going on on the state level where they've been cutting that away and eroding that

[2:03:27] but to your point I think Mr. Burke had something he wanted to say and I don't want to

[2:03:32] continue on if he had something he was about to say. I think and I just make a suggestion

[2:03:37] go ahead. We are currently involved in this litigation. We're a party. As Commissioner

[2:03:43] Gary said, there's over a hundred parties involved in this litigation. Some of them

[2:03:47] have money, some of them don't, some of them represent themselves, some of them are represented.

[2:03:53] It's inevitable during this case that there has to be collaboration between the hundred of us.

[2:03:59] The ones that are on the same side, otherwise we're going to be duplicating our efforts

[2:04:03] stepping all over each other and repeating the same stuff over again.

[2:04:08] I could imagine, Carol County, if we have the resources, stepping up in this litigation

[2:04:14] to say, all right, maybe we'll fund an expert, or when maybe we'll fund this particular

[2:04:18] study as opposed to everybody having their own expert, everybody doing that study.

[2:04:23] The way the 59th board did it, and I hate to keep going back to them, they called it a

[2:04:32] legal fees fund for use in the litigation, and that may be a vehicle to, to park that

[2:04:39] money, to use it to fight the case and to help the citizens by taking some of their

[2:04:45] burden off of them as far as funding the case itself, the experts, whatever we're going to

[2:04:50] need.

[2:04:53] That's my thought.

[2:04:59] From the budget perspective, what can we do?

[2:05:02] What can we do?

[2:05:03] What do you want to tell us?

[2:05:04] We're all ears.

[2:05:06] I came with no presentation or really to say anything in particular.

[2:05:12] I mean, I think my role here is if the board decides that you want to do something with some money

[2:05:21] to help you figure out mechanically how do we make that happen.

[2:05:28] I don't think anybody could listen to this conversation and have any doubt that the board

[2:05:32] is against the power lines.

[2:05:38] I'm not sure that I see moving a hundred thousand dollars from one place to another as significantly changing that perception.

[2:05:49] I think my suggestion would be to do nothing right now.

[2:05:54] And if at some point you decide there is something we want to spend money on.

[2:05:59] Once we know what that is, then we can do whatever we need.

[2:06:05] And even right now, if we do want to get involved in something that costs us for legal purposes,

[2:06:12] every year we budget some money in Tim's budget for outside council.

[2:06:17] I mean, that's already there.

[2:06:19] Now, if you decide to go somewhere that exceeds that money, we can address that once we know.

[2:06:27] I don't know if you recall how much money you have now.

[2:06:30] Budget 150, we generally spend about 60 to that.

[2:06:35] So we exceed $150,000, and we think we're looking at another $50,000, then we can act on that.

[2:06:45] Now, if you say thanks for the thought, Ted, but that's not what we want, then we can look at some options.

[2:06:52] This one would be to put additional money into Tim's budget for outside legal counsel.

[2:07:00] Part of the problem here for me is it's not clear what this money would get spent on.

[2:07:06] So maybe that's not an appropriate place.

[2:07:08] What if next week, somebody says, I think we ought to rent a billboard on 140 and

[2:07:18] stop MPRP and that's going to cause 10,000. Whether we've set aside 100 grand or not, we can

[2:07:29] do that or not do that. If we say we want to buy a whole bunch of signs and give them

[2:07:34] to people, if we want to, if we want to do stuff non-legal fee, how can we do that and we

[2:07:42] don't want to tie our hands.

[2:07:45] Well, with small amounts of money, we could find places to say, okay, here's $2,000 to

[2:07:53] make that happen. Again, if you don't want to figure that out when it comes, if you want to

[2:08:02] know money sitting there, and we're less sure what we're going to spend it on, and maybe

[2:08:05] it's a billboard, another possibility would be for us to move money into the commissioners

[2:08:11] budget, so it's not anybody else's hands to do something with, but it's available for you if you

[2:08:16] need to decide to. And then the other thing that's been talked about is a new line item,

[2:08:24] stop MPRP. I understand the motivation for doing that mechanically, that's the most difficult

[2:08:32] one to pull off. And I'm not sure it's really worth going through what we would have to do that.

[2:08:40] unless the board is committed to, we want to be able to show somebody the budget and say there it is.

[2:08:48] Should we do a work session on this where we talk about things we want to do and things and are they legal and are they can we do it or is that premature?

[2:09:00] It's what I struggle with, this is going to move quickly.

[2:09:07] Now that they have to, or they're going to be to follow their contracts, so how quickly can we?

[2:09:14] Is there anything we can do today that helps us move quickly to fight this?

[2:09:22] I don't think not acting today, it gets in the way of you doing something.

[2:09:30] But yes, I mean, there'll be some, if it's that of $150,000 to them has $200,000,

[2:09:35] and you decide you want to spend $200,000.

[2:09:37] dollars, it's there, and you can go directly to spending that money, but you can do that

[2:09:46] next week.

[2:09:47] We have no good money.

[2:09:48] We have no good money.

[2:09:49] We have no good money.

[2:09:49] No.

[2:09:50] No.

[2:09:50] That's just, that's business as usual.

[2:09:52] That's a transfer like any other transfer.

[2:09:54] In fact, we have the money, so we don't have to park money somewhere, it's there.

[2:10:02] We have money. If we make a determination to

[2:10:07] allocate execute all in same breath

[2:10:10] dollars, we can do that.

[2:10:14] Yes, that's in your hands and there's always in your hands.

[2:10:17] That's right. So ways they have to be open session

[2:10:20] conversation of course.

[2:10:22] About spending it. The only difference would be if you don't transfer money to let's say

[2:10:27] it were for that expert. If you don't transfer

[2:10:30] enough money to cover that. You'd have to have two actions. You'd have to have the transfer

[2:10:37] and then the spending. If you transfer it today, or before, then you just have the spending

[2:10:46] action. Does that make sense? We need to put something on the agenda for MPRP for future meetings.

[2:10:53] Can we assume that in admin session open, we can always talk about new things we want to do?

[2:11:00] How do you always talk about new things you want to do, but you shouldn't spend money that way, but yeah, yeah, I'm yeah

[2:11:09] So the simplest mechanical way because I'm I'm in favor of actually

[2:11:14] Designating $100,000, right and I

[2:11:17] take Ted's point about the difficulties

[2:11:20] mechanically of reopening the budget.

[2:11:22] So I take that point.

[2:11:24] So then with the easiest and most flexible way to do this,

[2:11:28] we'd add $100,000 to the commissioners' budget.

[2:11:31] And then if the five of us decide,

[2:11:33] we need to spend X on, you know,

[2:11:36] litigation, or we need to spend X on over time

[2:11:39] for Tim or something.

[2:11:40] We have that ability to discuss this in open

[2:11:42] and pull from that transfer to the commissioners' budget.

[2:11:44] I think the more likely, that's fine, the more likely thing that you're going to spend additional money on relates to the litigation.

[2:11:54] So my suggestion would be, you put the bulk of the money in the county attorneys, outside the legal council line item.

[2:12:02] And then if you want to put some money toward, you know, communications or overtime or something, then, you know, then I would,

[2:12:13] I wouldn't worry about over time.

[2:12:15] Yeah, I've got it.

[2:12:16] Yeah, I've got it.

[2:12:16] I've got it.

[2:12:17] I've got it.

[2:12:17] Yeah, I've got it.

[2:12:18] That's a bad thing.

[2:12:22] Legification.

[2:12:23] Legal action.

[2:12:24] That's a topic we can discuss in closed admin correctly.

[2:12:29] Yes, you can discuss potential litigation matters or receive legal advice.

[2:12:35] But if we need to increase funding for him, then that needs to be an open.

[2:12:39] Yeah, right.

[2:12:40] Not closed admin, you can do it in a closed legal session.

[2:12:44] So, do we go into that?

[2:12:45] So why don't we, instead of $100,000, make it a million dollars?

[2:12:53] I mean, what's the difference?

[2:12:57] Except another zero.

[2:13:01] So, yeah, I'll make a motion that a million dollars be moved

[2:13:09] into outside litigation into the legal office?

[2:13:14] I'll second that for conversation,

[2:13:16] but I do want to bring up a point

[2:13:17] to Commissioner Kyler made that I don't know if you feel

[2:13:19] like you've gotten the answer, I don't think you have.

[2:13:22] And that's not taken away from Mr. Burke or Mr. Zelensky.

[2:13:25] You would ask the question from a legal perspective,

[2:13:29] where can we and where can't we spend money?

[2:13:32] So I guess my question, Mr. Burke,

[2:13:34] would be if we were to take whatever amount of money.

[2:13:36] And now let's say we chose to assist the nonprofit MP stop MPRP, are we as a government entity, able to take that fund, that funding, and then pass that along to assist in the litigation with them, or was it to be strictly litigation that we ourselves would have to cover?

[2:13:56] You cannot just authorize money to anybody.

[2:14:01] You have to have statutory authority to make a contribution to Ark, for example.

[2:14:05] I could point to state law that says you can fund Ark.

[2:14:10] Another example is CCV, so there's also a statute to authorize.

[2:14:16] You couldn't authorize money to the Tim Burke 501C3 because you have no statutory authority to do that.

[2:14:23] Nor can you give money to individual individuals?

[2:14:26] Sure.

[2:14:27] Individual property owners.

[2:14:32] But.

[2:14:32] Yes, we're back.

[2:14:33] Is there anything that we can do to if we switch money to commission or to legal to whatever?

[2:14:39] Does that make it easier for us to do something in the future?

[2:14:42] Or we still got to come in here and have an agenda item.

[2:14:45] If we want to spend 20 grand for whatever.

[2:14:50] I would say you still have to come in here to have an agenda item to spend the money.

[2:14:53] and that do, but what's...

[2:15:00] That makes it easier as it's one action versus two if the money is sitting in the proper line item.

[2:15:06] But we're guessing.

[2:15:07] That makes sense.

[2:15:07] At this point, what that line item is.

[2:15:12] Because we're making it easier.

[2:15:14] We're making it easier.

[2:15:14] Yeah, but we're making it educate guests on what that money is going to be used for.

[2:15:20] As opposed to billboards or signs or something else that the commissioners want to get.

[2:15:27] We're making an educate guest that is going to go towards litigation and therefore we should

[2:15:35] Move money to legal to legal so it'll be one action as opposed to two actions

[2:15:40] Well, and I was you know legal and maybe if you want communication things, I would suggest

[2:15:46] Our office as well, but I think you guys just said most years

[2:15:51] There's 150 in legal and you spend about 60 so there's 9-year 100 grand there

[2:15:57] already. So until we use much of that, we don't need to add money. Correct? That's what

[2:16:05] you're saying. That is correct. Yes. And we don't know how much legal fees would

[2:16:13] be. So it could be $100,000 or it could be $1 million. So I'm like, okay, let's throw

[2:16:20] million and we're not thrilled but put a million out of it and if we don't think that's necessary

[2:16:26] then we'll draw that motion.

[2:16:30] So, you know, as I listen to the conversation, I'm still left with if you need money, we

[2:16:38] have money available.

[2:16:41] The board has not actually determined what you want to spend money on or how much you

[2:16:45] want to spend.

[2:16:46] I would still argue for just leave the budget alone for now, and if the board gets to a point

[2:16:53] where you say we want to spend 10,000 or 100,000 or whatever on billboards or attorneys,

[2:17:03] we can act when we get there.

[2:17:05] So with that advice, I will withdraw that motion.

[2:17:09] Does somebody, is it worthwhile to somebody want to make a motion today that we have the money?

[2:17:17] We're hearing we have the money.

[2:17:18] We want to get more aggressive than we've even been fighting this, or we want to continue to.

[2:17:24] How do we want to say, guys, we're serious about this?

[2:17:27] So I think that's an interesting question, because again, I'm Mr. Burke, and I need more time to take a look at this.

[2:17:34] But it seems as though you might have mentioned exactly what we need to be doing.

[2:17:40] This is such a huge issue and it's not going away and it's moving very fast and transmission

[2:17:47] lines get potentially changed.

[2:17:49] There's suddenly you've got people in the crosshairs who thought they were off the hook

[2:17:53] so to speak.

[2:17:54] But you mentioned almost like a program management office function, like a coordinator function

[2:18:01] that wouldn't necessarily maybe have to be a lawyer, maybe it could be a parallel legal.

[2:18:06] Something of that effect to help serve as a force multiplier, if you will, in the county's attorney's office,

[2:18:14] to liaison with the various different legal efforts going on in Carroll County.

[2:18:20] It sounds to me like that might be exactly what we want to do on a very,

[2:18:32] So I understand that, but we did go to the outside legal counsel to assist us in navigating the public service commission issues with the solar.

[2:18:42] Now, again, I know that is different, but it doesn't take away from the fact that it sounds like you might have hinted on exactly what we need to do.

[2:18:52] And I think it would probably involve hiring somebody.

[2:18:55] maybe it's a contract or something that's sort, they work right out of your office, but I still

[2:19:01] believe that this is a big enough issue, it's a critical issue enough that Warren's some sort

[2:19:07] of action like that. But I know you haven't really had a chance to think that through, but it sounds

[2:19:14] to me like that's exactly maybe what we need to be doing and that's going to cost money.

[2:19:17] And good point on solar because there's outside attorneys for a couple, but your office,

[2:19:23] various staff has been very active in making sure we're on a meeting, we can co-host a meeting.

[2:19:30] You're spending time doing that that we're not really, that's just like your job.

[2:19:36] And you have the money, so it's good to do what Commissioner Giron is asking to do.

[2:19:41] You have it in that line, I mean, for outside to bring in somebody or to do something.

[2:19:48] We do have someone from the outside and I'm going to introduce them to you in the next couple of weeks and to speak to you about this and we have discussed it's time to collaborate with all the other parties

[2:19:58] That doesn't necessarily mean up my office.

[2:20:01] They're role particularly the represented parties that make sense for all them to get together and instead of duplicating legal fees divide and conquer I guess if you will.

[2:20:11] You handle this will handle this.

[2:20:13] Yeah, but because what Commissioner Karen said, because I agreed that that's what we should be doing and that is what we're doing and if you need more, then you have that money.

[2:20:26] Yes.

[2:20:26] For the side.

[2:20:27] So that's what that's what the outside council does for you.

[2:20:31] So so we're we're doing exactly what that.

[2:20:34] Your office will handle that and charge us.

[2:20:37] But I would suggest much more.

[2:20:42] to find effort by somebody in your office to do this.

[2:20:46] I mean, almost creating an office of MPRP coordination, if you will, to help us navigate

[2:20:53] through the next, however, years we're going to have to deal with this.

[2:20:56] And I would be surprised to hear you say that you've got enough money for that.

[2:20:59] So that sounds like to me what we need to be doing, and I don't know if that has to be

[2:21:05] or not, but I would want the county, the county's office to review what that might look like.

[2:21:14] It's almost like a program management type role where you're trying to coordinate all these

[2:21:18] different efforts. That's going to cost money. You tell us how much that's going to cost and

[2:21:22] that's how much we're going to transfer over to you. That sounds to me like a sort of a tangible

[2:21:27] way to move forward. And it gives you more flexibility because you're going to need somebody else

[2:21:34] your office for this. I would imagine.

[2:21:38] Can you give staff an opportunity to talk about this and think this through?

[2:21:41] Oh, absolutely. That's what I was suggesting. It wouldn't be fair to put you on the spot with that right now.

[2:21:47] That wasn't what I was asking.

[2:21:50] So you really wouldn't need a motion for that.

[2:21:52] It's something I don't have to brainstorm and see if we can come up with something that would work.

[2:21:56] Yeah, if that needed to be on the agenda put it on.

[2:21:59] But yeah, it's like we're getting more and more emails from both sides of the fence

[2:22:05] And what I've done is, I try to forward it to commissioners, but I copy you, even though

[2:22:12] you're already on it, so you know we have it too, in case you got to tell us something.

[2:22:18] But yeah, I don't, I think you need to decide, do you, do you want to designate somebody else

[2:22:24] that goes to or you're fine, you get it, and you distribute it to whoever you need to, you know?

[2:22:29] But yeah, and this is going to get quick I think which is why I don't regret that we're having this discussion

[2:22:36] I don't regret that it's only a agenda

[2:22:38] It sounds like we have managed to get to a place where we needed to get to and I just I just think it's going to be much more than just

[2:22:47] Another function of your office, but I could be wrong. You'll let us know

[2:22:51] But we do have the money there and this is not going away and again just remember

[2:22:57] It's not just families involved that are being impacted.

[2:22:59] It's businesses as well and we always do

[2:23:03] what we can to step up for current county businesses.

[2:23:06] So how can we find out rumor would have it that people were

[2:23:13] offered a thousand dollars, two thousand dollars,

[2:23:16] maybe more, to let people come under their property?

[2:23:20] And I've heard rumors that 15 or 20 took it.

[2:23:24] When you said business and made me think of it,

[2:23:26] because I think some of the business farming groups for property they farm, you know,

[2:23:34] I can understand why they take it and have a contract saying you fix any damage.

[2:23:40] But I think, how do we learn?

[2:23:42] I reached out to, no, I reached out to PSNG in her governmental gentleman, Mr. Gilroy,

[2:23:49] And he told me that it was $5,000 and he were doing it in increments of thirds starting from the east to the west.

[2:24:00] And he said that 22 properties, this was a couple of weeks ago.

[2:24:07] That 22 properties had agreed to let the surveyors, which is, I believe it's two surveyors, he said,

[2:24:16] and four additional, like a team of six,

[2:24:19] because they're concerned with security.

[2:24:22] They're owned security, I guess.

[2:24:25] And it's contracted.

[2:24:26] I don't know who's contracted with.

[2:24:28] But he said that they are going on properties.

[2:24:31] And it's really the two servers doing the work

[2:24:33] and then leaving the property.

[2:24:36] And that he said they have given money to people.

[2:24:38] Well, he said 22 properties had already gone through this now.

[2:24:43] How much money was given? I don't know it could have been before the $5,000 it could have been

[2:24:51] I that I don't know we can definitely reach out to PSNJ

[2:24:55] Did he say whether they were all in Carroll or was okay?

[2:24:59] Yeah, he's been from other property. Absolutely. Yeah, I think

[2:25:03] he would be

[2:25:05] Looking at the entire path and not and I I would expect he's looking at Baltimore counties

[2:25:12] Is that, is that public information?

[2:25:15] Do you think?

[2:25:16] Well, now it is.

[2:25:17] I mean, Mr. Goeroy is open to all of us.

[2:25:21] Oh, I know.

[2:25:22] I know.

[2:25:22] In your government, I think liaison.

[2:25:26] He's receptive, I call, and he will call back.

[2:25:31] And I tell him every time that we're talking,

[2:25:35] that he can attribute anything I'm saying to me.

[2:25:39] So when he talks to his folks,

[2:25:41] that they know that it's I'm asking the questions and I'm not asking I'm

[2:25:47] behalf of us I'm asking because I met with him and we built a relationship I

[2:25:54] think three or four of us have already met with him actually all of us have

[2:25:57] because we we've been same place and he's like yet calling time if you have a

[2:26:04] question, but that was, I don't know, maybe a week or two of them, and it was shared last week

[2:26:12] I thought.

[2:26:14] So, yeah.

[2:26:15] And so, is it public information?

[2:26:17] Yes.

[2:26:18] It's public information.

[2:26:21] Yep.

[2:26:23] Do we want to do anything else?

[2:26:26] Do we need a motion for this motion for the county attorney to see if that?

[2:26:33] review the possibility of a off-sacordination for MPRP related activities, because that's what

[2:26:41] we're asking.

[2:26:44] Where's it just staffing?

[2:26:45] Yeah, to see if there's, would be a benefit to staffing, a kind of an effort.

[2:26:52] Where's it just general consent from the board saying, please check into it?

[2:26:55] I get the impression, I don't hear any cry, he and cry that no one wants that, so yeah, we can

[2:27:01] come back with that information.

[2:27:03] Thank you.

[2:27:07] And I also want to compliment all four of my colleagues

[2:27:10] if you're while we have just a brief second.

[2:27:13] This is a very wide-ranging conversation.

[2:27:16] I think we came to a pretty good point of communication

[2:27:21] and agreement on how to possibly move forward with this.

[2:27:25] I'm very grateful for the productive discussion

[2:27:27] that we had today about this and the decision.

[2:27:31] Great point.

[2:27:32] And I think we've proven over whatever it's been two and a half years.

[2:27:37] We don't always agree, but we pretty much can discuss anything.

[2:27:41] And you've only cursed once.

[2:27:46] Oh, my.

[2:27:47] Why did you bring that up?

[2:27:49] Are we done this item?

[2:27:50] Are we fact checking that point?

[2:27:54] Maybe we got to swear jar for the commissioner.

[2:27:56] Yeah, yeah.

[2:27:58] Do we have any public comment either on the phone or physically here?

[2:28:02] I have no one on the phones, sir.

[2:28:05] And you have no cards.

[2:28:10] Edman open.

[2:28:12] Do we have any other items we want to discuss?

[2:28:15] Yeah.

[2:28:17] Motion to approve the closed minutes for land acquisition and legal advice from June 24th.

[2:28:27] Uh, 2025.

[2:28:28] Second.

[2:28:29] Have a motion a second to approve the closed minutes?

[2:28:33] Um, is it was at the 26th?

[2:28:35] Oh, I don't know.

[2:28:36] I think it was it.

[2:28:37] I can't reach 10 to 26 first.

[2:28:40] Sauce if you've deny it, isn't it?

[2:28:42] We can reach your hand.

[2:28:42] Everyone tuned 26 eight nehn um a glasses.

[2:28:44] Still needs glasses.

[2:28:46] Um, I have a motion in a second.

[2:28:48] All those in favor.

[2:28:50] Oh.

[2:28:50] Oh, thank you.

[2:28:52] Any other stuff for admin?

[2:28:54] Open.

[2:28:56] Mr.

[2:28:57] Augent to reveal?

[2:28:58] So,

[2:29:01] thank

[2:29:05] you.

[2:29:06] Hello, one.

[2:29:07] I want to.

[2:29:11] Okay.

[2:29:12] Monday July 7 shows nothing.

[2:29:15] Tuesday July 8.

[2:29:16] Shock trauma board.

[2:29:18] Commissioner Raustine at 8 a.m.

[2:29:20] Community solar hearing.

[2:29:21] Northwest Middle School cafeteria.

[2:29:23] Commissioners.

[2:29:24] Collar and Vigliati.

[2:29:28] 7 p.m.

[2:29:29] Agboard meeting.

[2:29:30] Commissioner Kyler.

[2:29:31] And I will talk to them and tell them that.

[2:29:35] Because they've even been starting a lower early and just tell them I may not make it.

[2:29:41] On Wednesday, ARC houses, ground breaking, commissioners Gordon Kyler, Rostin and Vigliati

[2:29:49] at 9am, 9.30 a.m., make a legislative initiative, committee virtually, and we're gonna try

[2:29:57] to do both.

[2:29:58] I'll do it in the car, in fact.

[2:30:00] If not, I won't go to New York.

[2:30:03] And at 11 a.m. is a committee in term meeting virtual and we're probably safe to be back here and do that.

[2:30:14] Board of Education at 4 p.m. shows no commissioners attending and planning a zoning commissioner at 6 p.m. Commissioner Gordon.

[2:30:22] On Thursday, 8 a.m. close that man, 9 a.m. open session,

[2:30:28] priority, care, MDE Tour of Carroll County is item two and

[2:30:34] and that'll be ongoing with staff while we're here.

[2:30:40] Also, briefing discussion on comment letter for city

[2:30:45] of Westminster annexation.

[2:30:47] She won't be an open session.

[2:30:49] She won't be an open session.

[2:30:51] At all.

[2:30:52] No, right.

[2:30:55] So that will go away.

[2:30:57] Um, do we need to have that on there?

[2:31:00] No, we need to take public comment for it.

[2:31:02] Yes.

[2:31:02] I would accept.

[2:31:03] Just take it out.

[2:31:06] Um.

[2:31:08] Sorry.

[2:31:09] Twenty-twenty-four planning and your report.

[2:31:14] After school program for care county, middle schools.

[2:31:20] contract renewal for, what do we do with Fort Knox?

[2:31:24] That's, that's software.

[2:31:25] That's software.

[2:31:28] And then tech services for Genetech Advantage support.

[2:31:32] And then public works for Millpave and Restripe a parking lot.

[2:31:38] Prime care medical for catastrophic billing for the sheriff's office.

[2:31:42] Prime care medical for MAT expenses.

[2:31:45] Sheriff's Office, spending a 30-genitorial services for the Sheriff's Office, food services

[2:31:52] at the Detention Center for the Sheriff's Office, expenses from Genesis Inc., annual maintenance

[2:32:03] support life cycle management for Department of Public Safety, approved what I execute,

[2:32:11] to change order related to the multi-year service

[2:32:13] agreement with Motorola, public comment,

[2:32:16] admin open, agenda review, Friday shows,

[2:32:20] nothing Saturday shows,

[2:32:22] uh, Rick and Parks annual car fest,

[2:32:25] uh, Commissioner Kyler,

[2:32:27] and Commissioner Vigliati has the podcast.

[2:32:31] Should we, um,

[2:32:34] not to belabor things,

[2:32:36] but should we put in agenda item for

[2:32:39] and PRP discussion on our open agenda, our open end, not open end, but our agenda.

[2:32:48] Let's see how far we get in discussing, tomorrow is a holiday.

[2:32:54] No, no, I'm not talking about a specific, okay, do the guidance we gave, but just to allow us

[2:33:07] because like it was set things are moving fast and if we want to do something, you know, why not?

[2:33:15] I mean, just a regular agenda item that doesn't have necessarily anything.

[2:33:19] Pretty much. That's a good idea. I mean, you know, just to.

[2:33:25] So if we do a the last agenda item before admin open,

[2:33:33] possible action to stop MPRP or something.

[2:33:37] or discussion, I mean, if I have a conversation like I said with PSNG to put it in a place

[2:33:45] where I can open up or with a state or wherever, and it may be nothing, but can you be

[2:33:54] worded so if we end up making a motion to do something, I don't know, was that what open

[2:34:00] admin is? Well, except open admin doesn't provide us a specific topic.

[2:34:08] I see where you're going with this. The problem that I would say is it's not a lot different,

[2:34:15] as you're saying, from open admin, and you can give staff direction in open admin,

[2:34:22] and you still, I would really hesitate to still say even if you had a specific agenda.

[2:34:29] agenda item that you could spend money in that way, so I would suggest that I'd like

[2:34:36] her next.

[2:34:38] It'd be better to, you know, if you could tell me a day or two in advance of Thursday

[2:34:44] and you know, unless it's an emergency.

[2:34:47] That's fine.

[2:34:48] I'm just, you know, what should we do?

[2:34:51] That's fine.

[2:34:52] Let's just have the conference.

[2:34:53] Like you said, have an open admin.

[2:34:55] Well, we're sure we understand that what's the latest that we're not in trouble, we get in a agenda Friday that's pretty fixed.

[2:35:06] This this this week something was added.

[2:35:09] I forget Monday.

[2:35:10] So.

[2:35:11] Two days, my my role.

[2:35:13] So, so by today, if we just understand it by Tuesday, if we see something pop up for this, we need to add it to the agenda.

[2:35:22] And if it's an emergency, I mean emergencies are, you know, are different situations, but, you know, this particular conversation did not seem to be an emergency situation.

[2:35:36] Okay.

[2:35:37] I mean, I'd like our next sort of goals or any discussion on MPRP to be when Mr. Burke gets back to us and that may not be next week with what, and I know this is going to be a staff-wide discussion.

[2:35:51] you know what what this office of coordination if you will might look like and how much it's going to cost.

[2:35:57] And that's that's when I'll be ready to talk about it again.

[2:36:02] Unless something comes up.

[2:36:03] Unless something comes up.

[2:36:07] Okay.

[2:36:07] The week of July, 14th.

[2:36:10] Monday Transit Advisory Council Commissioner Kyler.

[2:36:14] Tuesday Commissioner Rausteen Chamber Breakfast.

[2:36:19] Commissioner's Kyler and Rausteen.

[2:36:21] Do you, does the county have to pay for me to listen to him?

[2:36:25] Is that how I work?

[2:36:26] That doesn't have to attend.

[2:36:29] Yeah, planning and zoning commission or commission or Gordon, veterans advisory meeting,

[2:36:36] commissioners Gordon and Kyler on Wednesday, community solar hearing,

[2:36:42] and evidentiary that we listened to that.

[2:36:47] Yeah.

[2:36:47] 10 a.m. and our listen to it. And at 5 p.m.

[2:36:52] Carol Community College Board of Trustees meeting,

[2:37:01] I need the double check on that.

[2:37:04] They skip a month and do a retreat.

[2:37:08] But I'd offer get which month.

[2:37:09] But I'll double check that with Vivienne.

[2:37:13] A-SAC 7 p.m. Commissioner Gary.

[2:37:16] And before we leave that, actually Board of Ed just told me that their meeting was moved.

[2:37:21] from the 9th to the 60th at 4 p.m.

[2:37:38] Community College I mentioned at 5 a.m.

[2:37:41] E-SAC Commissioner Garen on Thursday, 8 a.m.

[2:37:46] and police service recognition breakfast.

[2:37:51] And then we won't do close-by men,

[2:37:56] but we'll have open session at 10 a.m.

[2:37:58] I'm proud of you, Carol,

[2:38:04] and in just, Carol County,

[2:38:07] radiological, radiological, ingestion.

[2:38:10] It's a fun topic.

[2:38:13] Yeah, that'll be exciting.

[2:38:14] And I'm sure there'll be more items added.

[2:38:17] Public comment, admin, open, agenda review.

[2:38:20] 1 PM, closed admin.

[2:38:23] And on Friday, Baltimore, Metropolitan Council Board

[2:38:27] of Directors Meeting Commissioner, Ross Dean.

[2:38:30] Saturday shows open and commissioner Kyler has the podcast.

[2:38:37] Any other discussion items or a motion to adjourn?

[2:38:41] Motion to adjourn? Second?

[2:38:43] Of a motion a second, all those in favor?

[2:38:45] Aye. Opposed?

[2:38:46] Thank you.

Board of County Commissioners Open Session

Agenda

Transcript