[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6680371,"mediaKeyId","2366737-1943c6566989957f3b45bb6dd465f2de","parentId",2366737,"title","Council approves three pumps for wastewater plant; discussion continues on water and sewer rates","audioSeconds",3163,"startMs",3803000,"endMs",6966000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2366737-1943c6566989957f3b45bb6dd465f2de&start=3803&end=6966","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2366737-1943c6566989957f3b45bb6dd465f2de/thumbnail_3803000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6680371/Chesapeake-Beach/Calvert-County/Maryland/Council-approves-three-pumps-for-wastewater-plant-discussion-continues-on-water-and-sewer-rates","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6680371-b542d3ca9b8d10d95d57112d83e15675/orig.mp4?Expires=1771180146&Signature=XKFBglfqzXlkAUV-jP-sD44qHFM75nOzWjbzDSWAoqBtSaP00JUuZ5Yc4TmesYg8hfeBC2jLDMA0uHEhpQJkmYWztMINBiXeOSwAiMcHWdk~Fg15dEB0zoPhbNuuleh94MNhDHnzSRP6MZORvdaqov65QWuawZxZSrf3LzrxiJAYFpRvVDyj4ugMcPN8wEZ~Nx40zbaZ2cJuHPMf-nNW12TTI3MadHoKakKMv8RBO7J9iqAnaSWmK2nOesHVV1IxosgjyOjwFiOr6DwETZHBfR2whqSSkKtbjD7aWQc-gzRSYuCgyelHieQQYPaaj0R-tAj33KLsinSEnD-4e2rCPQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Town of Chesapeake Beach, Maryland","date","2025-02-21T02:15:13.313Z","article","The Chesapeake Beach Town Council on Feb. 18 voted to approve a purchase of up to $65,000 for three flight pumps for the town’s wastewater treatment plant and discussed an ongoing, high‑priority examination of water and sewer rates.

During new business, the council approved the expenditure “not to exceed $65,000” to buy three flight pumps, including a trial pump already installed, with funding to come from the FY25 Water Reclamation/Treatment Plant budget. A council motion to approve the purchase was moved and seconded; council recorded the motion as passed with the ayes prevailing.

Earlier in the meeting the town’s operations and public‑works staff delivered a detailed report. Jay (Public Works) and Josh (Plant operations) said the plant handled large storm flows during the recent rain event, routing excess to the shellfish protection tank and recording peak daily inflows of about 910,000 gallons on Feb. 15 and roughly 1,000,000 gallons on Feb. 16. Staff said they are investigating inflows and infiltration sources that originate outside town collection areas.

Plant staff noted routine maintenance items completed in recent weeks: repairing a clarifier by replacing a broken shear pin; solving a firewall/VPN issue with the plant control system; retrofitting a manual bar rack to reduce clogging; and addressing routine wear on UV bank electronics. Staff also highlighted the operational burden posed by so‑called “flushable” wipes, which require cleaning the bar rack several times daily and increase maintenance costs.

The town’s biosolids contractor, Synagro, remains engaged while the town awaits state guidance on PFAS sampling and classification. Plant staff said prior testing placed the town at the low end of the state’s Tier 2 threshold for PFOS (about 20 parts per billion), and the town is collecting additional lab results to establish an average value before finalizing a new biosolids contract (the current contract expires Aug. 1).

Councilmembers spent much of the meeting on water and sewer rates after lengthy public and internal discussion. Several councilmembers said they are working with an outside consultant/auditor to produce a short‑ and long‑term plan. Councilmembers acknowledged a high level of resident concern: one councilmember reported encountering a resident who said she was unsure how she would pay the next utility bill.

Councilmembers discussed options that have been proposed privately, including raising fixed charges, shifting salary allocations among funds, temporarily subsidizing bills from the general fund, and structuring a partial rebate or credit for low‑use customers. Several councilmembers warned that actions need reliable financial analysis before enactment; one said changing salary allocations (moving some utility‑charged staff back to the general fund) could lower utility fund expenditures by roughly 20% if supported by the data.

The council is pursuing an outside utility consultant to present “Utility Rates 101” in March to explain key metrics, EDU calculations and possible short‑term steps; members said the consultant’s work can be shared with partners in the regional wastewater agreement and could be cost‑shared. Several councilmembers urged using existing cash reserves and other short‑term measures to limit hardship before the next billing cycle while the longer review continues.

Votes at a glance

- Expenditure approved: up to $65,000 to purchase three flight pumps for the wastewater treatment plant (funds from FY25 WRT/P). Motion moved and seconded; council approved the purchase (ayes recorded).

- Calvert County Program Open Space FY 2026 submission approved: council approved the town’s submission list (kayak launches, railway trail expansion, Kellams Park improvements, Beach Elementary connection, natural open space parcels). Motion moved and seconded; council approved (ayes recorded).

- Other routine approvals: agenda amendments, minutes of Jan. 16, Feb. 13 and closed‑session minutes were approved by voice vote; a closed session to consult with counsel about Richfield Station was authorized under the Maryland Annotated Code General Provisions §3‑305(b)(7).

Councilmembers set a work session in March to receive consultant input and budget‑level numbers for projects including the waterpark retrofit and potential screw‑pile and concrete work the town is evaluating. Staff said vendors and engineers have been engaged and that a March work session could present budgetary ranges and decision points for schedule commitments.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","February 20, 2025 Town Council Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","The Chesapeake Beach Town Council approved up to $65,000 for three replacement flight pumps for the wastewater plant and received detailed operations and capital updates. Councilmembers also debated urgent options and an auditor review for water and sewer rate adjustments amid resident concerns about bills.","taxTitle","Chesapeake Beach, Calvert County, Maryland","taxId",71658,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6680375,"Chesapeake Beach council flags Board of Appeals eligibility clause for after long-running case",307,163000,470000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2366737-1943c6566989957f3b45bb6dd465f2de&start=163&end=470","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2366737-1943c6566989957f3b45bb6dd465f2de/thumbnail_163000.jpg","/articles/6680375/Chesapeake-Beach/Calvert-County/Maryland/Chesapeake-Beach-council-flags-Board-of-Appeals-eligibility-clause-for-after-long-running-case","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6680375-ea9fc7c4c3b347a0b04ddac7a1f36812/orig.mp4?Expires=1771180146&Signature=RgJ-S6Z9x~Fyt2o3poZQyj7GAgSpIsaS9Z~7wmXwoRHRIDpIUeigzFOhIeI0tuoKPArQOfih22OeBS35wMgywjrx9hLr439p2mekIoQDEhaeMDtCu1~RN4liHaZcUO5Q5aKTiFpqsrzBJkLYINAPYMvAFYkpKr-ugRZv3rleei5maE6RjjvngyH1r1eYJCOXKMI6V~S3Rp6ncx2Mj4~CxuiupE1bU9Ed15Q1dhlQqyfLy7yzyal3Nbk~3omSvCPGxA-gBwIUyvfG2anELyuLYHpEm3z2Cu50EU5YnyUoLNUncECKCOGToGvbcaQZk9zY~I2eNFb-QLTq7v7c2atmJw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At the Feb. 18 Chesapeake Beach Town Council meeting, councilmembers debated whether the town should change a provision in the Board of Appeals’ governing documents that can render a member ineligible to vote if they miss a single meeting.

A councilmember who asked to add the Board of Appeals matter to the agenda said the clause had prevented two board members who had served many months from voting in a long, complex case and called the outcome “summarily unfair.” The councilmember said the Board of Appeals’ proceedings had extended unusually long — 13 meetings and more than 35 hours of testimony — and suggested allowing a member who missed a meeting to watch a recording and then participate.

Town attorney Fred Sussman (referenced by council) is reported to have said that the requirement is unusual. Councilmembers agreed that changing the language during an active, long‑running case would not be appropriate because revisions would not apply retroactively and thus would not resolve the immediate situation. The chair of the Board of Appeals, Jody Hoontar (as referenced), told council members he planned to avoid holding meetings if attendance was insufficient so that the present case would not be decided without members who had heard prior testimony.

Council discussion produced this short‑term approach: do not hold meetings when attendance would trigger the disqualification clause and revisit possible charter or bylaw changes after the case concludes. Several councilmembers signaled support for revising the rule at that later date; one councilmember noted that any change would not be retroactive and would not help the current case.

Councilmember Kathleen (last name not specified) asked why the change could not be made retroactive; council members said that was the advice of counsel and that retroactivity was not available. The council did not take a formal vote on an amendment at the meeting; instead, members agreed to move the topic to unfinished business and to address it after the Board of Appeals case concludes.","Council discussed a provision in the Board of Appeals rules that can render members ineligible for missing a single meeting, and agreed to postpone changes until the currently ongoing case concludes. Council noted the requirement is unusual and not retroactive, and the chair plans to avoid meetings if quorum would be compromised.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6680381,"Richfield Station residents urge town action on unpaved roads, traffic signal and safety",997,904000,1901000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2366737-1943c6566989957f3b45bb6dd465f2de&start=904&end=1901","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2366737-1943c6566989957f3b45bb6dd465f2de/thumbnail_904000.jpg","/articles/6680381/Chesapeake-Beach/Calvert-County/Maryland/Richfield-Station-residents-urge-town-action-on-unpaved-roads-traffic-signal-and-safety","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6680381-5ec90c0e10de3deec970920fe8156f1a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771180146&Signature=gPX5yXz~mIWlZy0BtZT0rruquuPhDA~hiMj1Qv6D6EH-umoHsGa1hv8ytLtTnlvL9i~eROTLkMUwmDZP3SeK14kYsd54mwoR5LJqify-nQqVcSVE8qE19dgO2ijgYLsSl6pK0y2D0~fzkWt7SorwFQ4WU2iluFzn33~gu9nFoCkXH0TIruS-KAGcI4~geGnHaVm2I70aaIGp8Q1pPEaCekaCHvG3LoUW3uZFP1eGZrP7rrgP~R~oC1UHk30AWLfeqVbvK5ON32Bxr3dd4Crp2Z2TGWXrwkcxwMpe55JkP7Bmn2xYWyC~9ymW8jot2iTSfSIBZDQv-4NBhwMYp-L~OQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Several Richfield Station residents told the Chesapeake Beach Town Council on Feb. 18 that unfinished roads, exposed and raised manhole covers, parking shortages and the timing of the entrance traffic signal are creating safety and quality-of-life problems.

The most immediate complaints came from residents along Clearview, Crestview and Clear Spring Drive, who described visible transitions from paved to unpaved surfaces at the circle, popping manhole covers, temporary ramps placed around openings and repeated vehicle and pedestrian hazards. Robin Jones, secretary of the Richfield Station homeowners association, said the unpaved stretches worsen with spring weather and expected melting, and asked the town what it and the developer planned to do.

“As we get to spring and see what those roads really look like, it’s a huge discussion,” Jones told the council. Ashton Conklin, a Clear Spring Drive resident, said contractors briefly returned, adjusted manholes and left after one day of work. “They were supposed to finish,” Conklin said.

Other residents said manholes that sit proud of the pavement cause driving hazards, bicycle and pedestrian risks and snow‑plow damage. Councilmember Jay (full name not specified) said the town has not formally taken over those sections and that plowing was being done as a courtesy while the developer’s buildout remains incomplete. Justin Dudash, a member of Richfield’s board of directors, said the settlement language he reviewed may exclude some areas from developer obligations; he said he would share documents with the town to clarify responsibilities.

Multiple residents also asked the council to take up traffic‑signal timing at the Richfield Station entrance. Residents proposed changing the lane assignment (making the curb lane right‑turn only), shortening signal cycles during low‑traffic hours and, for overnight hours, running the light in flashing mode to reduce unnecessary wait times. Council members said the State Highway Administration (SHA) would be the agency to receive proposed timing changes and that the town could compile residents’ suggestions for SHA.

Public safety concerns were raised about people loitering near the trailhead, alleged drug use, and cars congregating in parking areas. Samantha (last name not specified), a resident at the trailhead, said that people “park in the couple of guest parking for the trail and sit there for hours getting high,” and asked for more patrols. Sheriff’s Office representatives said marijuana use in public is a civil violation and that deputies would increase patrols and citations where appropriate; they also noted the department’s beach‑patrol cart would be used on the railway trail when weather allows.

Several speakers described complex ownership and governance matters: some units are designated as “townhouse condominiums,” and residents pay both an HOA and COA fee; others said the developer partitioned buildout to retain control over sections while selling units. Raymond Menser, a Crestview resident, said he had consulted an Annapolis attorney previously and believed the developer may have exploited administrative classifications when building.

Councilmembers and staff said the council will gather legal documents provided by residents, discuss the matter with the town attorney during a planned closed session on the topic and continue outreach to SHA and other agencies. Councilmember Eric (last name not specified) moved to add the topic of Richfield Station and potential legal action to a closed session at the end of the meeting; the council approved that addition.

The council also accepted a written public‑comment submission from the Richfield Station HOA and asked staff to obtain copies of legal and settlement documents residents say they possess. Residents said they would provide those materials to help the town determine whether developer obligations remain outstanding and whether town action or collaboration with the HOA is appropriate.","Multiple Richfield Station residents told the Chesapeake Beach Town Council the developer left sections of roads unfinished, raised manholes and a traffic signal timing problem create safety and maintenance concerns. Residents and council discussed legal documents, police presence and possible town intervention.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council approves three pumps for wastewater plant; discussion continues on water and sewer rates

Chesapeake Beach council flags Board of Appeals eligibility clause for after long-running case

Richfield Station residents urge town action on unpaved roads, traffic signal and safety