[{"_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",6542994,"mediaKeyId","3797927-d54bd67acf34cf53ac49e6d6590e83e4","parentId",3797927,"title","Chesapeake Beach council adopts FY2026 budgets and tax rates; amendments and procurement questions linger","audioSeconds",7105,"startMs",11000,"endMs",7116000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3797927-d54bd67acf34cf53ac49e6d6590e83e4&start=11&end=7116","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3797927-d54bd67acf34cf53ac49e6d6590e83e4/thumbnail_11000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6542994/Chesapeake-Beach/Calvert-County/Maryland/Chesapeake-Beach-council-adopts-FY2026-budgets-and-tax-rates-amendments-and-procurement-questions-linger","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6542994-16408d9406313bf095523faff1b24a24/orig.mp4?Expires=1771087834&Signature=dXnI0MD7njtcQ11TCrTMaw1GyEZVnMJdASwOC-pEULFuSdYA7zox-~xnugrGxT3IR3jr-LTvKnepJTgu3gSGHZOsYCRFmb6SwR5tGI4o~eyZrySvL0qlY63zcpxD42G7rIxs-z0peYOpoUU24mDBwbk1foHs7hehPyKrpiv~9BEuupMEiXNFQoO5U2DB67JD8H6Jp3ES6SxfVO2dvTCp-HrEFITRX0JF83hd4L1bLgDVvnwAqSMga82swmIydiT3Ich8wTRWCn~4ERDk-MZjX~xf64fyj7fqrs~Prvw0q6we75RpHs9zbEV~QaBjD0uAp~gYrxuA7ElZ2w9Ed98JWA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Town of Chesapeake Beach, Maryland","date","2025-06-13T02:06:27Z","article","The Chesapeake Beach Town Council voted June 12 to adopt the town’s fiscal year 2026 budgets and to set municipal tax rates for the coming year.

In a single meeting the council approved ordinances adopting the general fund budget, the mitigation fund budget, the water park fund budget, the utility fund budget (including rates, charges and fees), and the water reclamation treatment plant fund budget. Council also amended the general-fund ordinance to explicitly state the operating (personal) property tax rate before approving the amended ordinance.

Why it matters: The votes set the town’s spending plan and revenue rates for the fiscal year that begins July 1, 2025. Council members also debated whether to use general-fund revenue to support the utility fund while the town awaits the results of a utility rate study by consultant NewGen.

Key outcomes at a glance

- O-25-6: General fund budget and municipal tax rates — APPROVED (amended to add operating property tax rate)
- O-25-7: Mitigation fund budget — APPROVED
- O-25-8: Water park fund budget — APPROVED
- O-25-9: Utility fund budget and water/sewer rates, charges and fees — APPROVED
- O-25-10: Water reclamation (wastewater) fund budget — APPROVED

Council debate and unsuccessful amendments

Two council amendments were proposed during debate and failed to pass.

1) Admissions and amusement tax increase: Councilmember [name withheld in meeting audio] moved to raise the town’s admissions and amusement tax from 0.5% to 1.0% and to direct the additional revenue into listed general fund priorities. Town counsel advised the council that the tax rate is codified in town code and that any change would require a separate ordinance amending the municipal code; the amendment vote failed.

2) Reclassify a grant to the utility fund as a loan and redirect repayment to the general fund: A motion to rename the proposed transfer from the general fund to the utility fund from a \"grant\" to a \"loan\" (so future capital-connection receipts would flow back to the general fund) was made and failed on a voice/hand-count vote (the motion failed, 4\u00122).

Councilmembers' comments

Several council members said they were uncomfortable authorizing significant general-fund transfers to the utility fund before NewGen’s rate recommendations are finalized. NewGen had provided a timeline that might have produced rate recommendations in June, but councilmembers said the consultant’s deliverables were now expected in July; the town will revisit rates after receiving that work. Town staff said the decision to show transfers in the FY26 budget uses available FY26 revenue and that the council can amend rates later.

Quotations (verbatim)

- \"We have an opportunity to get a price on concept A before the next council meeting... I can get a price on concept a in 5 weeks and hopefully in 4.\" — Mark Paddock, presentation to council (context: developer budget timing)

- \"The council is in receipt of a handout... you will see that we are very low on that admissions and amusement tax.\" — Council discussion about proposed tax changes

Formal actions and votes (recorded in meeting)

- Motion to approve ordinance O-25-6 (FY26 general fund budget and tax rates): motion made and seconded; council approved the ordinance after an amendment adding the operating property tax rate. (Vote recorded in meeting as \"the ayes have it.\")

- Motion to approve ordinance O-25-7 (mitigation fund): adopted (\"the ayes have it\").

- Motion to approve ordinance O-25-8 (water park fund): adopted (\"the ayes have it\").

- Motion to approve ordinance O-25-9 (utility fund, including water/sewer rates): adopted (\"the ayes have it\").

- Motion to approve ordinance O-25-10 (water reclamation treatment plant fund): adopted (\"the ayes have it\").

- Failed amendment: increase admissions and amusement tax from 0.5% to 1.0 — failed (motion did not pass). Attorney advised a separate ordinance would be required to amend code language that currently sets the tax at 0.5%.

- Failed amendment: change the proposed general-fund transfer to the utility fund from \"grant\" to \"loan\" so subsequent connection-fee receipts would return to the general fund — failed on council vote (4\u00122).

Procedural and charter notes

Town attorney and staff reminded council members that certain changes (for example to a tax set in municipal code) require a separate ordinance or a charter amendment and cannot simply be altered inside a budget document. Council set a public hearing date for a proposed charter amendment about competitive procurement (CAR-25-2) to coincide with the next meeting schedule.

Speakers (attributed in article)

- Mayor — Mayor, Town of Chesapeake Beach (government)
- Councilmember Eric — Councilmember, Town of Chesapeake Beach (government)
- Councilmember Laura — Councilmember, Town of Chesapeake Beach (government)
- Councilmember John — Councilmember, Town of Chesapeake Beach (government)
- Kathleen — Councilmember, Town of Chesapeake Beach (government)
- Dan — Town Treasurer (government)
- Alyssa — Town Attorney (government)
- Simelea — Town Administrator (government)

Authorities and references

- Town Code § 2-57-10 (admissions and amusement tax) — rate currently codified at 0.5% (counsel advised that an ordinance amendment is required to change the rate)
- Tax-General Article, Annotated Code of Maryland — referenced as the state statute authorizing municipal admissions/amusement taxes and setting maximums

Clarifying details

- The operating (personal) property tax rate was added to the ordinance text at council request and is $1.39 per $100 of assessed value, recorded in the ordinance amendment the council passed.
- The general fund budget includes a proposed transfer (noted in the budget documents) of approximately $549,000 to the utility fund; council debated whether to show that transfer before NewGen delivers rate recommendations.

Process and next steps

Council adopted the FY26 budgets and tax rates as amended. Members asked staff to work with NewGen and to return with any recommended rate changes; staff and the consultant will present updated rate proposals when available and council can amend the utility ordinance and budgets as needed.

Provenance: opening public hearing for O-25-6 began at the meeting start (public hearings segment) and final vote on O-25-6 occurred in the later business portion of the meeting when ordinances were taken up (meeting transcript June 12, 2025).

Searchable tags:[\"budget\",\"tax rates\",\"ordinance\",\"utility fund\",\"admissions tax\"]

provenance:{\"transcript_segments\":[{\"block_id\":\"11.04\",\"local_start\":0,\"local_end\":210,\"evidence_excerpt\":\"We can start the meeting. Thank you. We're gonna start with public hearings. The public hearing is on ordinance o dash 25 dash 6... adopting the annual budget for the general fund... Is there anybody that has any comments or questions about this ordinance as presented?\",\"reason_code\":\"topicintro\"},{\"block_id\":\"11846.795\",\"local_start\":0,\"local_end\":82,\"evidence_excerpt\":\"So that was a motion to amend. Alright. Is there a motion to approve the amended ordinance? Motion to approve. In favor, say aye... Aye. Aye. The ayes have it. Good. Big 1.\",\"reason_code\":\"topicfinish\"}]}","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","June 12, 2025 public hearing & town counclil meeting","oneSentenceSummary","The Chesapeake Beach Town Council on June 12 adopted fiscal year 2026 budgets and municipal tax rates for the general, mitigation, water park, utility and water reclamation funds.","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},6542998,"Developer outlines fast-track options for Chesapeake Beach water park; council weighs timing and budget risks",5784,947000,6731000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3797927-d54bd67acf34cf53ac49e6d6590e83e4&start=947&end=6731","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3797927-d54bd67acf34cf53ac49e6d6590e83e4/thumbnail_947000.jpg","/articles/6542998/Chesapeake-Beach/Calvert-County/Maryland/Developer-outlines-fast-track-options-for-Chesapeake-Beach-water-park-council-weighs-timing-and-budget-risks","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6542998-0b1a153801ea8942b7cc6c65623d9b23/orig.mp4?Expires=1771087834&Signature=gaBhrz56SARL~BFWUVv2yrv9sz44cLt9F2-KNEcJxK79gFXstQhySZr~g3NXSatHCIRZA94XqUW6pD1BPIVxMKbMVuUeQ0nYukPvnldeRtZcPU6yOlSX8BcDFpXh9-hyWyompA1Xf3hCjagALfJdbmhyIlZzMS~CoVelKexCmE1uM6GV3Hqqobe507kWdMcwvtOff51bdXWa6B0GRrnAcRqatcdZBKvfGGoS4Gb2BfmlXdbjcUw4yvbwwAkkq475OBfz27CBjKVlIl9ZXOVfqupT0bS-wRI3ugEmnPObl0NA7m0u914C6NogG67PJ1v6zc72ZGpVBGwPkirBBXPxlw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Mark Paddock, principal of Paddock Pool Company, told the Town Council on June 12 that a demolition and rebuild of the town’s closed water park is feasible on an accelerated timetable if the town starts demolition this summer.

Paddock said his team’s initial investigative work — including selective demolition, geotechnical and structural testing — shows the site’s timber piling foundation is largely sound and can support a rebuilt facility. He presented two concepts: “Concept A,” a close-to-original rebuild that Paddock described as the more affordable option, and “Concept B,” a larger layout with expanded slides, a spray ground and shaded adult seating. Paddock said demolition bids for the existing park were in the mid-$600,000 range and that faster construction could reduce price escalation and schedule risk.

Why it matters: the water park is a visible town amenity and has been closed because of safety and deterioration. The developer argued that starting demolition now preserves an outside chance of opening in June 2026, but several council members said they wanted a clearer, firm construction budget before committing to demolition.

Most important details

- Investigation results: Paddock said pilings are salt-treated and, where tested, solid; a geotechnical report found the existing foundation suitable to support increased loads for another 30–40 years. He said some deep foundation work will still be needed in concentrated areas.

- Demolition and schedule: Paddock presented three demolition bids he described as representative: about $625,000, $633,000 (his estimate), and $685,000. He estimated demolition would take six to eight weeks and that, if demolition starts this summer and design continues concurrently, his team could provide a priced design for a baseline concept within four to five weeks.

- Two concepts: Concept A keeps the park’s existing footprint with modest changes (larger pool shape, removed ramp, added lifts to meet ADA access, expanded deck and cabanas). Concept B includes larger slides, a spray ground replacing a waiting pool, more adult seating and added mechanical upgrades such as variable frequency drives to change lazy-river speed.

- Mechanical and reuse items: Paddock’s team identified electrical switchgear in good condition that could be reused, potentially saving procurement lead time. He said pumps, filtration, piping and the mechanical room would be replaced or modernized and that measures would be taken to prevent future pipe settlement and leakage.

- Operations and capacity: Paddock said the old park’s licensed capacity was about 1,300 but that the rebuilt park’s capacity is likely to be reduced to roughly 750; he said the project is grandfathered under Maryland State Health Department rules so the water volume cannot increase by more than 10% without losing that grandfathering.

Council reaction and next steps

Council members asked detailed operational questions: how many lifeguards would be required, whether the design meets ADA access standards, how the project would affect fees and whether the town should demo before getting a firm construction price. Several council members, including at least one who said they were unwilling to commit additional funds without a fixed cost, urged caution and recommended the council receive the firm estimate Paddock promised before authorizing demolition.

Paddock said he would provide a qualified order-of-magnitude price for Concept A before the next council meeting (he gave a five-week target) and would produce a more detailed budget for Concept B as an add-alternate. He emphasized a fast, contractor-driven approach that Paddock says reduces administrative time and construction escalation. Paddock described efficiencies if his crew could begin demolition this summer because that preserves a small chance of opening a rebuilt park the following June; he said the town could elect not to proceed to build at any point after demolition but warned partial demolition decisions are “surgical” because the existing deep foundation and building will be retained to reduce cost.

Quotations (verbatim)

- “We opened up the floor, exposed the pilings... The pilings were solid. They’re salt treated pilings.” — Mark Paddock, Paddock Pool Company

- “We’re not in the the right step, but I will probably be making a motion to bump this a month just because some of the language... it could make it seem like, if your pool is not in use at any point in time, you have to have it covered.” — Stuart (former councilman) during public hearing on a related ordinance

- “If I lose the 2 months, the answer is no.” — Mark Paddock, on the likelihood of opening the park next summer if demolition is delayed

Ending

Paddock committed to deliver a detailed estimate for Concept A prior to the council’s next meeting; the council directed staff to review the materials and pursue follow-up questions about procurement, permit paths and grant/finance options. Council members stressed they want a construction cost estimate in hand before committing to major demolition spending; several said they will discuss procurement and charter requirements in a subsequent session.

Speakers (attributed in article)

- Mark Paddock — Principal, Paddock Pool Company (business)
- Mayor — Mayor, Town of Chesapeake Beach (government)
- Stuart (Stuart Campo) — former councilman and water park committee participant (citizen)
- Jay — Public Works director, Town of Chesapeake Beach (government)
- Eric — Councilmember, Town of Chesapeake Beach (government)
- Jan Ruttke — Resident, 7624 Bayside Road (citizen)

Authorities

- Maryland State Health Department (regulation) — referenced regarding grandfathering and water-volume rules
- Americans with Disabilities Act (federal regulation) — referenced as ADA access requirements to be met
- Calvert County permitting (county-level regulation) — county review/permits for demolition and construction

Actions

- kind: \"other\"
identifiers: { \"agenda_item_id\":\"waterpark-presentation\" }
motion: \"Presentation and request for budget estimate; no vote requested at this session\"
mover: \"\"
second: \"\"
vote_record: []
tally: {}
legal_threshold: { \"met\": false, \"notes\": \"No formal council authorization for demolition or construction passed; presentation provided information only.\" }
outcome: \"no_action\"
notes: \"Paddock will provide a budget estimate for Concept A before the next council meeting; council requested follow-up on procurement, permits and timing.\"

Discussion vs decision

- Discussion-only: All design options, demolition estimates, schedule, capacity and ADA/operational concerns were discussion items.
- Direction/assignment: Council asked staff and the water park committee to review Paddock’s estimate and procurement options, and Paddock agreed to deliver a budget estimate in 4–5 weeks.
- Formal action: None taken on demolition or contract award at this meeting.

Clarifying details (extracted from meeting)

- demolition cost estimates: approximately $625,000; $633,000 (Paddock estimate); $685,000 (local contractor bid)
- reported demolition duration: 6–8 weeks, likely 6-day workweeks, with some road/sidewalk impacts for up to 2 weeks during stockpile/parking repairs
- capacity: previously >1,300; Paddock said rebuilt park estimate ~750
- water-volume grandfathering limit: cannot change water volume by more than 10% or risk losing grandfathered status
- electrical panels: locally inspected and described as NEMA 4, potentially reusable, reducing lead-time risk

Proper_names

[{\"name\":\"Paddock Pool Company\",\"type\":\"business\"},{\"name\":\"Keller Brothers\",\"type\":\"business\"},{\"name\":\"Maryland State Health Department\",\"type\":\"agency\"},{\"name\":\"Calvert County\",\"type\":\"agency\"},{\"name\":\"Chesapeake Beach Water Park\",\"type\":\"facility\"},{\"name\":\"Collins Field\",\"type\":\"facility\"}]

Community_relevance

geographies: [\"Chesapeake Beach\",\"Calvert County\"]
funding_sources: [\"not specified; potential mix of town capital, grants, and reimbursements\"]
impact_groups: [\"residents\",\"seniors\",\"families\",\"water park staff/lifeguards\"]

Meeting context

engagement_level: { \"speakers_count\":18, \"duration_minutes\":210, \"items_count\":1 }
implementation_risk: \"high\"
history: [{ \"date\":\"2025-06-12\",\"note\":\"Presentation by developer, Paddock Pool Company; council requested detailed estimate before taking action.\" }]

searchable_tags:[\"water park\",\"Paddock Pool Company\",\"demolition\",\"ADA\",\"Maryland State Health Department\"]

provenance:{ \"transcript_segments\":[ { \"block_id\":\"947.975\",\"local_start\":0,\"local_end\":183,\"evidence_excerpt\":\"As you know, I was here, this is my visit, I believe. And my, intent is to say where we were and where we are, what our challenges are.\",\"reason_code\":\"topicintro\"},{\"block_id\":\"6723.125\",\"local_start\":0,\"local_end\":86,\"evidence_excerpt\":\"Yes. Okay. Yes. That's a big exercise for me. I wanna make sure it's clear. Yes. Okay. Yes.\",\"reason_code\":\"topicfinish\" }]}

salience:{ \"overall\":0.78,\"overall_justification\":\"Large capital project affecting a visible town amenity, with substantial first-cut cost estimates and schedule risks; potential budget and procurement implications.\",\"impact_scope\":\"local\",\"impact_scope_justification\":\"Physical amenity and municipal budget implications limited to Chesapeake Beach and immediate users.\",\"attention_level\":\"high\",\"attention_level_justification\":\"Developer presentation and council budget deliberations drew extended public comment and council focus.\",\"novelty\":0.45,\"novelty_justification\":\"Rebuild has been discussed previously but detailed technical estimates and a contractor-driven fast-track schedule are new.\",\"timeliness_urgency\":0.72,\"timeliness_urgency_justification\":\"Developer emphasized narrow summer window to begin demolition to preserve chance of a June opening next season.\",\"legal_significance\":0.40,\"legal_significance_justification\":\"Procurement and demolition raise charter and permit issues; no formal legal decisions made at this meeting.\",\"budgetary_significance\":0.83,\"budgetary_significance_justification\":\"Demolition and rebuild would involve multi-hundred-thousand to multi-million-dollar capital decisions and could affect FY26 budget allocations.\" }
","Mark Paddock, principal of Paddock Pool Company, told the Chesapeake Beach Town Council on June 12 that a demolition-and-rebuild of the town’s closed water park is feasible on an accelerated timetable if demolition begins this summer.",{"_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},6542986,"Consultant demonstrates GIS portal options for Chesapeake Beach public works and resident services",975,3663000,4638000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3797927-d54bd67acf34cf53ac49e6d6590e83e4&start=3663&end=4638","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3797927-d54bd67acf34cf53ac49e6d6590e83e4/thumbnail_3663000.jpg","/articles/6542986/Chesapeake-Beach/Calvert-County/Maryland/Consultant-demonstrates-GIS-portal-options-for-Chesapeake-Beach-public-works-and-resident-services","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6542986-33e2f76b88b720c29bb0a54b9009fde8/orig.mp4?Expires=1771087834&Signature=f-10wFYcWjnAOAINEb1GwEcKvQa~SyyIRtoPQnBM3XQU9IWFivgiTkk9DBBSTf8Y4Wr14PZuLkKsp~lLUj7hPMm~TiswoQkZJDj0HbR1TBgOnDgZHM4coo~jwSOGDq3OSOzbnzi-gyT5mGQULiJg-ytm-9p0KIBDyAS9AFk4lJiLT2EDX1WCgZ6AtFLArXg-~9WVnaBnSlNKiQe0KGjpBIpFhzBfKmmrrwQmZf9gDsIfhLXFpKvMDce-Zah0jQm52RDkDAXL41HTqVfoVsPJ6ah~-e6iC5L508fC3CR0LWPMHLkC9FMt-nDN8542P~YsuXWSEdPtxOntXPMQ5zDZ4w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Sal Urbano of CAI Technologies gave a demonstration and overview of a GIS (geographic information system) portal for Chesapeake Beach on June 12. CAI said a town-specific portal would combine public-facing parcel and zoning maps with an internal asset-management layer for public works and utilities.

Why it matters: GIS can help municipal staff locate water meters, hydrants, sewer and storm pipes, track maintenance and provide residents with parcel and permit information online. Town staff said the system could leverage existing municipal datasets, and CAI said it can deliver a tailored portal and provide a price to the town by the July meeting.

Details from the presentation

- CAI said the portal is a software-as-a-service product that would integrate with the town website and could provide two views: a public-facing site (parcels, zoning, permits) and an internal staff view (hydrants, valves, meter locations, asset history).

- Urban noted the firm’s experience and said CAI has about 700 municipal clients and that the portal is designed to be user-friendly for residents searching by owner name, address or parcel ID.

- CAI said it would import the town’s existing datasets (hydrants, meters and other files Jay had provided) and the county’s zoning shapefiles, and would field-map linear assets (water/sewer lines) to create a long-term municipal asset record.

Council and staff remarks

Councillors asked about privacy and whether certain internal layers (for example fire-hydrant proximity or meter-level consumption data) would be restricted to town staff. CAI said the system can be configured so residents have access only to public layers and can be required to log in to view account-level data. Jay (Public Works) said the town’s new meter-reading system will soon give live usage data for customers and that separate customer-facing login functionality is being developed.

Next steps

CAI agreed to provide a pricing proposal for the GIS portal by the next council meeting in July, and staff and the consultant will discuss available town data and the list of layers to include.

Speakers

- Sal Urbano — CAI Technologies (consultant)
- Jay — Public Works Director, Town of Chesapeake Beach (government)

Provenance: presentation begins at approximately transcript time 7263 and runs through the consultant demonstration. CAI said it would provide pricing by July.

Searchable tags:[\"GIS\",\"asset management\",\"public works\",\"CAI Technologies\"]

provenance:{\"transcript_segments\":[{\"block_id\":\"7263.335\",\"local_start\":0,\"local_end\":70,\"evidence_excerpt\":\"Thank you, mister mayor. Town council members, mister mayor, citizens, great to be with you tonight. I'm Sal Urbato with CAI Technologies. We are a GIS services firm.\",\"reason_code\":\"topicintro\"},{\"block_id\":\"7834.675\",\"local_start\":0,\"local_end\":36,\"evidence_excerpt\":\"By the by the next session, by the by your July meeting. Yeah. We can get something together for you.\",\"reason_code\":\"topicfinish\"}]}","CAI Technologies demonstrated a municipal GIS portal that would centralize parcel, utility and asset maps for the town, provide both internal staff views and an outward-facing resident portal, and tie into water-meter and permitting systems. The company said it can present a pricing proposal by the town's July meeting.",{"_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},6542991,"Public raises enforceability concerns at hearing on Chesapeake Beach private pool maintenance ordinance; council removes item from agenda",565,212000,777000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3797927-d54bd67acf34cf53ac49e6d6590e83e4&start=212&end=777","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3797927-d54bd67acf34cf53ac49e6d6590e83e4/thumbnail_212000.jpg","/articles/6542991/Chesapeake-Beach/Calvert-County/Maryland/Public-raises-enforceability-concerns-at-hearing-on-Chesapeake-Beach-private-pool-maintenance-ordinance-council-removes-item-from-agenda","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6542991-0117d4cd866338df8b0ff1182f8ec9d8/orig.mp4?Expires=1771087834&Signature=jfk1DviDjJWc2cb1OVX4ePgrniLHFd1IRczGVYMLBb61~eagDIIxZEzk37FLeRd1g6EbcGStdGVlfQpjLYnNH4k4QE2AoKtGkY1ALXqh7tVA3ARlEd00eC1WvNZ4qvTBA21XKPHaPHk3c95omWtDb3vDJavdjl-6ignjRu2PETdUCNeVeyhdpWAEUccy8zuonCCpKHU-a77b5sS4xBAvLEjCj0gtI6MxJ8cvVh8wzUZj3962AtXCJg0vDu9MFtMzNCnshFUGHFhZuBD2CcXYUQ1XqhSQAMweodNspNfoROOyMI0bpKCfrCTAzQdqtrdmOlfLt73-in1BswbaQXy5CQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A public hearing on June 12 drew residents and pool-industry representatives to discuss a proposed Chesapeake Beach ordinance that would require private pool maintenance to mitigate mosquito breeding and protect public health.

Former councilman Stuart Campo and a resident who described a neighboring green pool pressed town leaders for clarity and prompt action. Pool industry representatives said some proposed language could be impractical or unenforceable as written, and they suggested revising owner-responsibility provisions and circulation/covering requirements.

Why it matters: The ordinance is framed as a public-health measure aimed at limiting mosquito breeding in neglected private pools. Speakers on both sides said they share the public-health goal but differed on timing and enforceability; industry representatives urged more technical review of the draft language before adoption.

What residents and experts said

- Resident complaints: A resident described a nearby standing, green pool and said delayed action could allow mosquitoes to breed \"millions\" in the short run and potentially expose neighbors to mosquito-borne disease.

- Industry concerns: A speaker identified as a pool-industry contractor said typical winter pool coverings and seasonal circulation practices could be made unintentionally illegal by strict wording that would, for example, require continuous circulation or prohibit normal seasonal covering. He urged bringing a pool expert to reword sections about draining, covering and continuous circulation.

- Former councilman’s point: Stuart Campo urged prompt action because summer is the prime mosquito season; he said waiting a month to rework language would create a public-health window.

Council action and agenda change

- Early in the meeting (during the regular agenda portion) a council member moved to amend the agenda to remove Ordinance O-25-11, section 11 item f. The motion was seconded and passed; the council recorded \"the ayes have it.\" Later, the council removed O-25-11 from the agenda entirely and indicated it will return to the item after staff and council refine the language.

Quotations (verbatim)

- \"If we put this off another month or so... it could put myself and my neighbors in a situation where we could have millions of mosquitoes hatching as a result.\" — resident (public hearing)

- \"I do agree a 100% with your intent... I don't think the language, is in the current state enforceable.\" — pool-industry speaker (public hearing)

Actions

- Motion to amend the agenda to remove Ordinance O-25-11, section 11 item f: moved, seconded (Eric seconded), approved (\"the ayes have it\").

- Subsequent action: O-25-11 was taken off the meeting agenda for further revision; no ordinance vote occurred at this session.

Speakers (attributed in article)

- Stuart Campo — former councilman (citizen)
- Resident (unnamed in transcript) — public commenter (citizen)
- Pool-industry representative (unnamed in transcript; later identified as Paddock presenter for other items) — contractor/consultant (business)
- Mayor — Mayor, Town of Chesapeake Beach (government)

Authorities referenced

- The ordinance text being considered was titled O-25-11, \"establishing maintenance requirements for private swimming pools to mitigate mosquito breeding and promote public health and safety.\" The council did not adopt the ordinance; language will be revised and returned for future consideration.

Clarifying details

- Concerned sections: owner-responsibility language in Section C, subsection 3 (continuous circulation) and language concerning covering and draining were singled out as needing revision.

- Schedule impact: Council members noted that postponing adoption delays enforcement; the town indicated it will return to the item after revisions are completed.

Process note

No formal ordinance vote was taken on O-25-11 at the June 12 meeting. Council removed part of the ordinance from the evening’s agenda and later took the entire ordinance off the agenda; staff and council said they would revise the language with input from subject-matter experts before returning the ordinance to a future agenda.

Provenance: public hearing on O-25-11 begins at transcript time 212.185 and several speakers (Stuart Campo, residents, pool industry representatives) participated; agenda amendment to remove section 11 item f was moved and approved earlier in the meeting when the council set the agenda.

Searchable tags:[\"mosquitoes\",\"private pools\",\"public health\",\"ordinance O-25-11\"]

provenance:{\"transcript_segments\":[{\"block_id\":\"212.185\",\"local_start\":0,\"local_end\":56,\"evidence_excerpt\":\"The next 1, ordinance o dash 25 dash 11... establishing maintenance requirements for private swimming pools to mitigate mosquito breeding and promote public health and safety.\",\"reason_code\":\"topicintro\"},{\"block_id\":\"753.66\",\"local_start\":0,\"local_end\":40,\"evidence_excerpt\":\"I'd like to make a motion to amend the agenda. Motion to remove ordinance 0 2 5 11 section 11 item f... Eric seconded... The ayes have it.\",\"reason_code\":\"topicfinish\"}]}","A public hearing on an ordinance that would require private pool owners to maintain pools to reduce mosquito breeding prompted questions about owner obligations and enforceability. Stuart Campo and other speakers urged clarified language; council removed a portion of the ordinance from the evening's agenda and later removed the item entirely.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Chesapeake Beach council adopts FY2026 budgets and tax rates; amendments and procurement questions linger

Developer outlines fast-track options for Chesapeake Beach water park; council weighs timing and budget risks

Consultant demonstrates GIS portal options for Chesapeake Beach public works and resident services

Public raises enforceability concerns at hearing on Chesapeake Beach private pool maintenance ordinance; council removes item from agenda