[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-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",[32,75,87,99],{"_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",6562250,"mediaKeyId","3277625-8e5e9a594a99042cc93f30b5e89bc1e2","parentId",3277625,"title","Council hears lengthy objections to proposed temporary administrative suspension power; item introduced amid split views","audioSeconds",584,"startMs",5565000,"endMs",6149000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3277625-8e5e9a594a99042cc93f30b5e89bc1e2&start=5565&end=6149","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3277625-8e5e9a594a99042cc93f30b5e89bc1e2/thumbnail_5565000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6562250/Taneytown/Carroll-County/Maryland/Council-hears-lengthy-objections-to-proposed-temporary-administrative-suspension-power-item-introduced-amid-split-views","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6562250-a01214bfde87b59ad0385e318f1f0f0f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771136932&Signature=Ji4hMyRWNr~gshgif7baxYYVequH-99lnnvM~bF7nMhjGB2av7LprwShvVyoSGfBMAu2TXsBya-ROZKCiTyEGwlqUpdwrC2oPqjDB5kSJWw~gPmjz9ObCBvQDGDdmWGQGXC6~VMEV6vtreEsJT78PFfiD1wPsIPb15bdiX~wpLg18kYv37s3PkbnaCoH66CpVFbArC7GqCwQMwopEL-uxM1juZtDw4zpTTqN7Bf2i2DcnvRx07W6YmIz7OFYvGxEZ3HX1t~eeJ8SYHnJlK1B66~Q1QjRbwCbfJR2zD-fHAhd3R0jhNilQ1-maDvk8r8vT~D04hBnf8FpJ4yPdCRoHQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Taneytown, MD","date","2025-05-09T19:03:02Z","article","Taneytown, Md. — A proposed ordinance that would permit temporary administrative suspension of enforcement for up to 60 days drew sharp opposition from several council members on May 12, producing lengthy debate about separation of powers and procedural safeguards.

The draft ordinance (as presented) would allow the mayor or administration to suspend enforcement of a municipal ordinance for a fixed period, require written notice to the city manager and city council explaining the reasons for suspension and propose clarifying changes, and place the item automatically on the council agenda during the suspension period for legislative review.

Opponents argued the draft was too broad. One council member said bluntly, \"This is a bad idea,\" and raised concerns that the language could permit the mayor to suspend large swaths of municipal code without adequate checks. Several speakers requested sharper limits, shorter suspension windows, or clearer standards that would trigger the mechanism.

The mayor and supporters defended the measure as a formal process to surface ambiguous or unenforceable ordinances and to ensure administration and council address enforcement problems in a documented, time-limited way. Mayor Christopher G. Miller said the measure was intended to \"kick it back to the council saying this needs to be clarified, so I'm not just saying to the city manager, 'hey, we're just not gonna enforce this.'\" He added that the draft includes a sunset and that council could call an emergency meeting if it wanted to overturn a suspension.

Council direction and next steps: The item was introduced as drafted, but multiple council members asked staff to revise the language to narrow the scope, clarify standards for suspension, and consider shorter timeframes or an \"intent-to-suspend\" procedure that triggers immediate council notice without unilateral temporary suspension. Several members asked for legal review to confirm the measure's compatibility with charter authority and to avoid creating unbounded executive discretion.

Ending: Staff will return with revised language and a legal opinion addressing concerns raised by councilors before any final adoption vote.
","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Mayor & City Council Combined Workshop/Meeting 2 Incoming Council May 12, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Taneytown, Md. — A proposed ordinance that would permit temporary administrative suspension of enforcement for up to 60 days drew sharp opposition from several council members on May 12, producing lengthy debate about separation of powers and procedural safeguards.","taxTitle","Taneytown, Carroll County, Maryland","taxId",71667,"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},6562259,"Taneytown council debates 5% water-rate cut as staff warns long-term utility funding is strained",851,1677000,2528000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3277625-8e5e9a594a99042cc93f30b5e89bc1e2&start=1677&end=2528","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3277625-8e5e9a594a99042cc93f30b5e89bc1e2/thumbnail_1677000.jpg","/articles/6562259/Taneytown/Carroll-County/Maryland/Taneytown-council-debates-5-water-rate-cut-as-staff-warns-long-term-utility-funding-is-strained","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6562259-f0e9a4adc9d4962b0f7d2759dab6a232/orig.mp4?Expires=1771136932&Signature=TrGlxaK3SyYPHzHo3JdRrlMceGj7rZannOD8CqvYvS68i0zIFtrRMhmWjDi8EjOHT3UoiKhE82ej7Fkr2fraAq4j4TsCELVOeIMVr~cZHDFWkMj0WERfqVjKXdjLjcJhcssdqNuniIp8nEfWxIpzCmo35Q63bNEegzdFkOdrn8AQe~gwpnIp7rYV0Ly67CA1QwiCPwafcaLpLqbgvPooqEdTvu418NyiSrsUFPBQ5G8FPB2ce6qoFfJcPMblOknEb1qrmmj1P7vufTtNY8LCHtfQKIlNzwIrA25IEpBIPEaAkS3KyoDSCrsEKyGMbNA4IXkLJWp~B-~ETNbK8O1Xiw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Taneytown, Md. — A proposed 5% reduction in water and sewer rates that appears in the city's draft FY2025'26 budget sparked a lengthy exchange on May 12 as council members weighed short-term relief for residents against long-term funding needs for aging water and sewer systems.

City Manager Jim told the council the utility fund has surpluses accumulated over recent years but that the city still faces large projected capital needs. \"I would suggest that our existing user rates are not adequate to cover the long term maintenance of the system,\" Jim said during budget discussion, noting an estimated $11.8 million in water and sewer projects projected over the next five years. He also said the city received roughly $4.67 million in ARPA funding used to pay for deferred utility maintenance.

Mayor Christopher G. Miller supported a temporary 5% reduction reflected in the draft budget, portraying it as short-term relief and a political choice that can be revisited. \"I don't see the justification for not doing 5%... we'll readdress it in a year if we really need to,\" he said. The mayor framed the reduction as a one-year reprieve while staff produces a more detailed capital-improvement program and cash-flow projections.

Council members and the city manager pushed back on whether the reduction is sustainable. Staff said the utility fund has posted multi-year surpluses (Jim cited about $7.576 million over five years) but that the combination of recent capital borrowing and debt service, the need for PFAS/PFOA filtration and rising operating costs (chemicals, electricity) mean the fund might not be able to shoulder a prolonged revenue reduction without drawing down reserves.

Council discussion focused on these core points:
- What the 5% reduction means now versus long-term solvency: proponents argued it is temporary relief with a one-year review; opponents cautioned continued underfunding could force larger future rate increases to catch up.
- How much of the utility fund balance derives from benefit assessments tied to new development versus regular ratepayer revenue. Several council members and staff noted that some prior surpluses were boosted by benefit assessments tied to recent housing development, not recurring user-rate income.
- The pending PFAS/PFOA treatment issue: staff said the city is anticipating an award for filtration funding but that ongoing operating costs for filtration media will increase annual expenses.

Public comment echoed the debate: resident Alex Kelly ran through the municipal numbers and urged the council to focus on clearing legacy debt so future rate decisions start from a cleaner fiscal position. Kelly noted, \"with a 5% reduction, if a consumer uses 10,000 gallons, that's only a $10 decline in their bill,\" and urged the council to weigh where reductions would do the most good across the community.

Outcome and next steps: The council introduced the water-and-sewer ordinance for rates with instruction to staff to adjust the ordinance to reflect the 5% reduction already budgeted. Council also asked staff to produce a draft capital improvement program and multi-year cash-flow projections to be presented at a new annual water workshop that the council asked to codify in ordinance. The mayor and staff indicated the rate change would be re-evaluated after one year at that workshop.

Ending: Council members asked staff to circulate detailed surpluses, projected debt-service schedules and the capital-improvement program ahead of the water workshop so the council and public can review the numbers before any final rate adoption.
","Taneytown, Md. — A proposed 5% reduction in water and sewer rates that appears in the city's draft FY2025'26 budget sparked a lengthy exchange on May 12 as council members weighed short-term relief for residents against long-term funding needs for aging water and sewer systems.",{"_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},6562264,"Taneytown council introduces budget, tax rate and multiple ordinances; votes summarized",1805,1530000,3335000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3277625-8e5e9a594a99042cc93f30b5e89bc1e2&start=1530&end=3335","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3277625-8e5e9a594a99042cc93f30b5e89bc1e2/thumbnail_1530000.jpg","/articles/6562264/Taneytown/Carroll-County/Maryland/Taneytown-council-introduces-budget-tax-rate-and-multiple-ordinances-votes-summarized","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6562264-5555c4af83c6c216636e7cd4d24cb5a4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771136932&Signature=XuH07GcofbXdN0T5F6fXXteHcBKM3R56RSKLUkv61Y0ISXW3m4gMRyjMYwyJ0TDT-OY2nPcvhWlNDhcCxzHoTwchXfkmdQQL8UfJm6RbG7-1xEHW8aRyu0nyRMO5n21Je7ohv1vDuXY05gX6-WbnDabeD6EB~bcJfr26yU-xz43K3f8HowA8h5VJjj6cVgXHjJ8-Ynt3F9pww8vTHIfZYnCIf7ViIJhilZ0s3Z2B9ax9~rCzCXgCymNbQ1ABfZ9PV0XZWzCMzXgGfJoCAmnKlQ9FqQJwiOX3obvRhzW~Vr8EFpboBD65KaAkZMgDqu6K4LW5-pNcL1duhzpuaapJsA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Taneytown, Md. — The Taneytown Mayor and City Council on May 12 introduced the city's fiscal year 2025'26 operating budget and advanced a slate of ordinances and resolutions, including a yearly water-workshop requirement tied to a 5% reduction in water and sewer rates currently reflected in the draft budget.

The most significant procedural actions were: introduction of Ordinance 06/2025 (FY2025'26 operating budget); introduction of the tax-rate ordinance and emergency adoption of the FY2025 tax rate; introduction of an ordinance establishing an annual water-system workshop (tied in the package to a 5% rate reduction already budgeted); introduction of ordinances related to the police manual and police staffing rules; introduction of city attorney and officer/agency clarifications; and adoption of a resolution setting legislative priorities for the next six months.

Why it matters: Several introduced items carry operational effects (positions, capital projects, and utility rates) and will return for public hearings or additional council action. The water and sewer rates and the capital-improvement funding that underlie them drew the most extended discussion at the meeting and are likely to be focal points for follow-up hearings and a dedicated annual workshop.

Votes at a glance (motion outcomes shown as recorded in the meeting):
- Ordinance 06/2025, FY2025'26 operating budget: motion to introduce — carried by voice vote (ayes). (Introduced May 12.)
- Ordinance 07/2025, FY2025'26 water and sewer rates: motion to introduce (to be adjusted to reflect a 5% reduction already budgeted) — introduced by voice vote (ayes). (Introduced May 12.)
- Ordinance 08/2025 (tax rate) / Emergency adoption of FY2025 tax rate: motion to introduce and motion to adopt as an emergency — both carried by voice vote. (Introduced and adopted as emergency May 12.)
- Ordinance 09/2025, Police Manual: motion to introduce (removed the word \"sole\" from chief authority language) — introduced by voice vote.
- Ordinance 10/2025, City Attorney requirements (change from required to may be requested for attendance/review): motion to introduce — introduced by voice vote.
- Ordinance 11/2025, Executive Administrative Assistant (new position): motion to introduce — introduced by voice vote (with note chief of police removed from earlier draft).
- Ordinance 12/2025, Amendment to sign code (community-based signs): motion to introduce — introduced by voice vote; council directed further refinement and referral to planning and zoning before final adoption.
- Ordinance 16/2025, Repeal chapter 18 (campaign finance): motion to introduce — introduced by voice vote; multiple council members urged caution and said repeal should be paired with a replacement (repeal/replace recommended by some members).
- Ordinance 17/2025, Water & sewer rates / annual workshop: motion to introduce — introduced; council instructed staff to remove redundant rate-change language and to codify the annual April workshop requirement before final action.
- Multiple other amendments and organizational ordinances (IT officer/agency designation; officer removal/agency language; temporary administrative suspension; police protection standards; sign-code details) were introduced or discussed and advanced for further drafting.

Formal motions to adopt, to introduce, or to declare emergency were recorded multiple times; most actions were decided by voice vote and recorded as \"aye\" or \"nay\" with no roll-call breakdown in the transcript. Any ordinance introduced will return for the statutorily required public hearings and subsequent adoption votes where required.

What comes next: Several items the council directed staff to refine or refer to the planning commission (notably the sign-code amendment). The council asked staff to prepare a capital-improvement/cash-flow package and a draft capital-improvement program in advance of a scheduled water workshop so members can assess long-term utility funding, debt service and PFAS/PFOA grant-funded projects. The tax-rate ordinance will be delivered to the county as adopted under emergency procedures, and budget and rate items proceed to public hearing in accordance with municipal rules.

Quotes (selected):
- City Manager Jim: \"I would suggest that our existing user rates are not adequate to cover the long term maintenance of the system.\" (May 12 discussion of utility fund and capital needs.)
- Mayor Christopher G. Miller: \"I don't see the justification for not doing 5%... we'll readdress it in a year if we really need to.\" (Arguing for a temporary 5% reduction reflected in the draft budget.)

Ending: Detailed ordinance text, public hearing dates and the draft capital-improvement program will be posted with agendas and public-notice materials before adoption votes. Council members asked staff to circulate supporting financial projections and the utility fund's five-year cash-flow estimates ahead of the water workshop so the public and council have data available for the decisions that follow.
","Taneytown, Md. — The Taneytown Mayor and City Council on May 12 introduced the city's fiscal year 2025'26 operating budget and advanced a slate of ordinances and resolutions, including a yearly water-workshop requirement tied to a 5% reduction in water and sewer rates currently reflected in the draft budget.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6562254,"Council advances community-sign amendment; directs legal and planning review after concerns about size and zoning",766,4224000,4990000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3277625-8e5e9a594a99042cc93f30b5e89bc1e2&start=4224&end=4990","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3277625-8e5e9a594a99042cc93f30b5e89bc1e2/thumbnail_4224000.jpg","/articles/6562254/Taneytown/Carroll-County/Maryland/Council-advances-community-sign-amendment-directs-legal-and-planning-review-after-concerns-about-size-and-zoning","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6562254-66bb8ecd0df0678725ef0f6e5e82a4a3/orig.mp4?Expires=1771136932&Signature=cOSpfTjF9BnuT0HMmcY7LecHVu1-FPFaPFqhmBL6Ys0tO7r1J54KXxs6ZgXoggVZzPJaO~TyLGwLdbUZzNyNlIofSGTZNr5A~Og9gj5WlKc6kbKGnepR3dBstbInuWXqEOg4KnXwkh1QrQ4EVm3In74BPy8AyNjERaUPCFVwtdTkgGzIhRtUJL-pJXRfpFXx2ajDF5aebpuj5oHbDGACtfEB-cpGcYkHtEAxVjbzhuCPfdJ-bjb2GLCA~m8KJkQNWQAEvewaMS-4V5CbbS2BrXvo93a1yuGvZc4ZoWuYGCeXHWfzRkelAUqispDx~4roYmxqKMSDZopaVAvnfD9q0Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Taneytown, Md. — The council on May 12 introduced an amendment to the city's sign code intended to allow community-based organizations, sports leagues and nonprofits limited off-premise signage, but members immediately flagged concerns about dimensions, zoning consistency and legal exposure.

The proposed ordinance would permit community organizations to display a set number of signage events subject to permit, set seasons and require permissions for signs placed on city property. During discussion, council members and staff noted several open questions:
- Maximum sign size and where larger signs would be allowed (historic downtown vs. residential neighborhoods).
- Whether the amendment would unintentionally permit commercial off-premise advertising by defining \"community organization\" too broadly.
- The need to coordinate the amendment with existing zone-by-zone sign-size rules to avoid conflicting standards.

City Manager Jim and other council members suggested several drafting changes: replace fixed large-size allowances with a square-footage cap or dimensional callouts tied to zoning districts; add a sunset or enforcement review; and ensure the provision coordinates with the zoning ordinance, which requires an additional planning commission review because sign rules are a zoning matter.

The council directed staff to refer the draft to the planning and zoning commission for comment, to obtain a legal review of the proposed fees and to rework the size/dimensional language before the item returns to the council. The council majority supported introduction to show intent and keep the item on the legislative radar, but members stressed that the ordinance as introduced needs substantial redrafting.

Public comment following the meeting suggested the city could include noncommercial murals and other downtown beautification measures in future Main Street work. Resident Paul Cluth said a mural could be treated as an exemption or handled through a Main Street program rather than as standard signage.

Ending: Staff will revise the draft to address dimension limits and fee structure, obtain legal advice about fee exemptions for nonprofits, and provide planning-and-zoning recommendations before the council holds a public hearing.
","The council introduced an amendment to the sign code to allow community-based signs and a permit process, but members raised legal and zoning concerns — especially maximum sign size, off-premise advertising and consistency with existing zoning districts — and directed referral to planning and zoning and legal review before any final adoption.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council hears lengthy objections to proposed temporary administrative suspension power; item introduced amid split views

Taneytown council debates 5% water-rate cut as staff warns long-term utility funding is strained

Taneytown council introduces budget, tax rate and multiple ordinances; votes summarized

Council advances community-sign amendment; directs legal and planning review after concerns about size and zoning