[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-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",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_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",6458324,"mediaKeyId","5822707-7566deeb59cded694ea3c72988417591","parentId",5822707,"title","Commissioners enact compensation-review commission; three bills introduced, including ag preservation fund tied to solar projects","audioSeconds",180,"startMs",3260000,"endMs",3440000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5822707-7566deeb59cded694ea3c72988417591&start=3260&end=3440","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5822707-7566deeb59cded694ea3c72988417591/thumbnail_3260000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6458324/Caroline-County/Maryland/Commissioners-enact-compensation-review-commission-three-bills-introduced-including-ag-preservation-fund-tied-to-solar-projects","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6458324-684a2d24e042297f53feb81eebbc0300/orig.mp4?Expires=1771021772&Signature=oX-YrCjqsDaJH9y3rMf9va7FJ1ZiogkNiKQajwSUk6~-~3F7ZOyDPG27Vtd4-KHr6gvwgadE-FeXtmtBlCNXKUlz-~z2Mxl6xOfrCBjhLGjztoXdt6Z9ZqluXCIYzBe2tRiFM6568GbdTZbexowgoh6ZmF1EJbV1jIl0-FhW4QXbYtuWjeSj2PY3C-QTcTftwDVuaEkUx9bw2clymrKy7aZOrJzfVRgYnjjHlDF5iyfIz7KIFdeQJi16U~7~2xftMWY0ytJFyk5hno1Ene2t5CYHIYD5OYonncde7qXFiQWsTdZ5QUlBMQXYljBMgB2uPC8rf4yJMh~tdJy~HneY0w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Caroline","date","2025-09-23T00:00:00Z","article","Caroline County Commissioners completed a short legislative session on Sept. 23 that included final enactment of a compensation-review commission and the official introduction of two additional local bills.

Enactment: Legislative Bill 2025‑009, “An Act to create the Caroline County Compensation Review Commission,” was enacted after third reading. The law repeals and reenacts section 18‑5 of the county code to confirm current rates and allowances for county commissioners and to establish a compensation review commission charged with studying commissioner compensation and reporting back. County staff said the legislation will take effect 45 days after enactment and that the commission must report back by Dec. 15 (dates cited in the presentation). The board recorded the vote as “ayes” on the motion to enact.

Introductions: The board accepted the official introduction and set the public‑hearing schedule for two bills:
- Legislative Bill 2025‑010 (Chapter 149, Right to Farm): the bill proposes to change the required composition of the Caroline County Agricultural Reconciliation Committee by removing specified seat requirements (for example the requirement that two members be from the agricultural community and at least one be from a municipality) and replacing them with a requirement that all members be county residents. Public hearing notice was scheduled for Oct. 4, second reading and public hearing for Oct. 7, and third reading for Oct. 14; an effective date of Nov. 29 was noted in the introduction.
- Legislative Bill 2025‑011 (Chapter 166, Taxation): the bill would create a Caroline County Agricultural Land Preservation Fund to receive compensatory preservation contributions when solar-energy generating stations or energy-storage devices are developed on land classified by the USDA as prime or statewide‑importance farmland. The proposed language ties use of the fund to the purchase of development rights through agricultural easements (including MALPF easements) and specifies that funds may be used only with written approval of the county commissioners. The bill was scheduled similarly for notice and hearings; commissioners discussed moving the new fund’s location in the code to the existing Ag Land Preservation chapter (Chapter 74) for clarity.

Votes at a glance:
- Bill 2025‑009 (Compensation Review Commission): motion to enact; voice vote recorded as ayes; effective date noted as Nov. 8 (45 days after enactment) and commission report due Dec. 15.
- Bill 2025‑010 (Right to Farm committee composition): motion to accept introduction and calendar; unanimous voice vote to introduce and proceed to scheduled hearings.
- Bill 2025‑011 (Agricultural Land Preservation Fund / compensatory preservation contribution): motion to accept introduction and calendar; board approved introduction and directed staff to investigate placing related language in Chapter 74 (Ag Land Preservation) and to refine appraisal/valuation approach before public hearings.

Why it matters: Bill 2025‑011 would create a local funding mechanism intended to offset the loss of prime farmland when utility-scale solar or energy-storage projects are sited on agricultural land; commissioners discussed appraisal methods, potential percentages of appraised value for contributions and whether to coordinate with the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation (MALPF) or local land‑conservation entities. Commissioners also debated where in the county code the new fund should be located to preserve flexibility and resist potential preemption or challenge.

Next steps: Staff will refine the draft language on appraisal and valuation (county‑approved appraisers and a two‑appraiser average were discussed) and continue the legislative calendar through the posted public‑hearing dates.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Caroline - Caroline County Commissioners Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","The Caroline County Commissioners enacted legislation to create a Compensation Review Commission and introduced two new bills — including a proposed Agricultural Land Preservation Fund tied to solar and energy-storage projects — during their Sept. 23 legislative session.","taxTitle","Caroline County, Maryland","taxId",61674,"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},6458319,"Commissioners workshop solar ordinance and NFPA 855 for energy storage; county delays storage provisions pending state guidance",245,5175000,5420000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5822707-7566deeb59cded694ea3c72988417591&start=5175&end=5420","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5822707-7566deeb59cded694ea3c72988417591/thumbnail_5175000.jpg","/articles/6458319/Caroline-County/Maryland/Commissioners-workshop-solar-ordinance-and-NFPA-855-for-energy-storage-county-delays-storage-provisions-pending-state-guidance","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6458319-5e0bd28b5873f328fac57f5f8c96c303/orig.mp4?Expires=1771021772&Signature=gH25JLc6so9yY0yopUVehIGhVqIfqdogXkfeeFc13XHgbhV-pWgnMxE2x4P7MMF8zE-UPFzpsqDyKCXKICeLtFWK2PT7NUfJmF6A-kAMNOyr2wIePB-MkrAMGN2leacBZOxNOxjdAZ8BTKqz1N1gqdfNntGiQ6cgbs1EYlu-F7Gg4QpSx9~NX-nyZKV8N35iBynUOQfMKEMrB7eypCmDyc5720XSgtsWuN5ylBxIGFU87h-XLdGuEQi5gR1BO9u3f9a3v3EnsrgkDzb-0yqGaZS~waWv2ViZMXGWr5IDs7x~sA1wfFGZLHm2d~AUFvUNb-rbtDSzntTmteaWFURV~g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Caroline County held a workshop Sept. 23 to review a proposed local solar ordinance, a proposed Agricultural Land Preservation Fund (to receive compensatory contributions when solar or energy‑storage projects are sited on prime farmland), and the applicability of NFPA 855 (the National Fire Protection Association standard for energy‑storage systems).

Crystal Dads, director of planning and codes, summarized the draft zoning language: the county proposes to regulate utility-scale solar and energy-storage systems differently by size — less than 1 megawatt (local zoning authority retained) and 1 megawatt or greater (state siting standards and Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity frameworks interact). Dads said the draft would require a certificate of compliance with NFPA 855 “issued by the authority having jurisdiction” for energy‑storage systems and would require developers to contribute to an agricultural land‑preservation fund when projects affect prime farmland. The draft also included screening and setback requirements tied to the state siting standards.

Adam Smith of First State Inspection, invited to speak about NFPA 855, briefed the board on the code’s state and national status, and on common practice for permitting and plan review. Smith said NFPA 855 (editions adopted in recent years, with a 2026 edition forthcoming) includes hazard analyses and permitting submittal requirements and references NFPA 13 (sprinkler systems) but does not prescribe a single, definitive suppression solution for all battery systems. He and commissioners discussed published guidance and case studies showing that some self‑contained, containerized battery systems can be damaged by sprinklers and that alternate mitigation and monitoring approaches (gas detection, remote enunciators, misting, compartmentalization, and fire‑department remote monitoring) are being considered in different jurisdictions.

Commissioners expressed concern that local fire departments lack specialized equipment and remote monitoring to safely fight large battery incidents and that NFPA 855 leaves important discretion to the “authority having jurisdiction” (the state fire marshal or local fire authority). Several commissioners said they favored keeping the county’s existing moratorium on new energy‑storage approvals until the state provides clearer regulatory or technical guidance.

Key operational decisions recorded in the workshop included:
- The board asked staff to remove the energy‑storage provisions from the current ordinance package and hold them for a separate bill while proceeding with solar siting language and the Agricultural Land Preservation Fund; the county will reintroduce or amend legislation at a later date after additional work on NFPA 855 implementation and fire‑department needs.
- Commissioners directed staff to require a certificate of compliance with NFPA 855 from the Maryland State Fire Marshal’s Office (as the “authority having jurisdiction”) before local approvals for energy‑storage systems would be granted.
- Staff and commissioners discussed an appraisal process for the preservation contribution — county‑approved appraisers, two appraisals with an average or median used for valuation, and options to coordinate with the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation (MALPF) or local land trusts. Commissioners asked staff to craft draft language requiring applicant‑paid appraisals reviewed/approved by the county; the board discussed capping contributions (MALPF’s cap of 75% of fair market value was noted) and whether to use land‑only valuation.
- Commissioners asked staff to explore requiring developers to secure liability insurance, to document air‑monitoring and evacuation plans, and to obtain written confirmation from the nearest volunteer fire companies that required training and equipment will be provided at the developer’s expense before permits are issued. The board also directed staff to research training needs and estimated costs for local fire companies.

Why it matters: County officials said they will continue to regulate solar siting while seeking an operational, defensible approach for energy‑storage safety. Battery energy storage poses evolving technical and emergency‑response questions; commissioners favored deferring formal local approval of storage facilities until the state fire marshal’s office and NFPA guidance provide more definitive direction and until county fire companies can identify training and equipment needs.

Next steps: Planning staff will rework the solar ordinance language for reintroduction, remove energy‑storage provisions from the immediate package, and prepare a draft appraisal and contribution process for the preservation fund. Staff will also survey local fire departments on equipment/training needs and seek input from the Maryland State Fire Marshal’s Office about NFPA 855 implementation and certification.","At a Sept. 23 workshop, Caroline County commissioners reviewed a proposed solar ordinance and NFPA 855 guidance for battery energy‑storage systems and decided to remove energy‑storage provisions from the current ordinance package pending clearer state and technical guidance.",{"_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},6458334,"Caroline County commissioners back school system’s FY27 CIP planning request for middle school project",1346,674000,2020000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5822707-7566deeb59cded694ea3c72988417591&start=674&end=2020","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5822707-7566deeb59cded694ea3c72988417591/thumbnail_674000.jpg","/articles/6458334/Caroline-County/Maryland/Caroline-County-commissioners-back-school-systems-FY27-CIP-planning-request-for-middle-school-project","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6458334-b99871fd33cdc77a41ac1770ce05b459/orig.mp4?Expires=1771021772&Signature=eMSfQ~YJ7HVlJ7mPQH7rFlApkyr9XxNScbQXKIg1nivr5oP5WExcgUWBfTk8LHeEg53XD1MFNKfa~jUrAV4YYmF19DJ-zbiGsdKyr1smwsDWs9e5z0nLkBFVUYdvkJDBdj1a9pQelOJwPTOZcnmGOIgDiXSqxdyso3SSRppaNlTTXk2Zu~gjw9FgUhnCK88Aum3LFBbDg6tydN2Y2X2Ybn7Gybpno2xRPv4jaObeFMUsUJ~lBNqK2Y6oP4M0MVDfZSMU8dJ9QJxfz89ZAIgQLmS7WA4~yJkeovHO9Ruvk9nJajMvtJgdjWTSn8Szivmt2z6K6Kx8kwnTgdkGYv6z3Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Caroline County Commissioners voted Sept. 23 to draft and send a letter of support for the Caroline County Public Schools (CCPS) FY2027 capital improvement program, a step officials said is needed to secure state planning approval for a proposed middle-school replacement known in presentations as the Lockerman project.

Dr. Derek Simmons, superintendent of Caroline County Public Schools, and Bill Mangle, director of operations for CCPS, briefed commissioners on the FY27 CIP and the school system’s five‑year plan. Mangle said the FY27 request seeks state approval for architectural and engineering (A&E) planning only, estimated in the presentation at $600,082 (transcript figures include typographical noise in the original); CCPS anticipates requesting larger construction appropriations in FY28 and FY29 if the project receives state planning approval.

Mangle said the program has entered its second year and that CCPS recently approved a feasibility study and space summary that led the Board of Education to locate the middle‑school rebuild on county high‑school property. He also said CCPS is negotiating a memorandum of understanding with the Maryland Stadium Authority for technical support on the project.

Projected funding requests described in the presentation (figures as presented by CCPS staff) included roughly $41.1 million in FY28 (state share cited as about $33.0 million, local share about $8.1 million) and about $51.4 million in FY29 (state share about $35.9 million, local share about $15.5 million). Mangle said FY30 was expected to complete construction and—based on the presentation—be covered by state funding with no local share indicated \"as of today.\" He described an updated total estimate of the project between about $100.1 million and $105 million (presenter characterized that as a high-end estimate).

Mangle also told the board about two additional CIP items: replacement or major work on two 1968 wastewater treatment plants tied to the school property, for which a very rough current estimate cited was about $1.3 million for a new plant, and a replacement roof at Denton Elementary estimated in the presentation at about $5 million. Mangle said the state’s Healthy School Facilities Fund previously assisted systemic roofing projects but the program “has sunset,” and CCPS is monitoring the state’s proposed new Priority Funding Program anticipated in 2026.

Commission discussion focused on cost uncertainty, state funding shares and how state formulas treat eligible versus ineligible square footage and furnishings. Dr. David Lieber, a consultant in educational facilities planning who advised CCPS staff in the feasibility work, told commissioners that the Maryland Stadium Authority and competitive bidding would be important to controlling costs but that overall construction pricing remains uncertain.

Action: Commissioner motioned to draft and send a letter in support of the FY27 CIP; the motion was seconded and the board approved the letter by voice vote (recorded as “ayes”). The county will use a template for the letter and return it to CCPS staff.

Why it matters: Commission support is a procedural step toward state planning approval, which the presentation identified as necessary for the project to proceed through state review and toward later construction funding requests that would require additional local decision points.","Commissioners voted to send a letter of support for Caroline County Public Schools’ FY27 capital improvement program, which seeks state planning approval for a new middle school (the Lockerman project) and lists multi-year construction funding requests, plus other CIP items including wastewater work and a roof at Denton Elementary.",{"_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},6458339,"Caroline County proclaims September 2025 ‘No Matter What, You Matter’ suicide-prevention month",165,240000,405000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5822707-7566deeb59cded694ea3c72988417591&start=240&end=405","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5822707-7566deeb59cded694ea3c72988417591/thumbnail_240000.jpg","/articles/6458339/Caroline-County/Maryland/Caroline-County-proclaims-September-2025-No-Matter-What-You-Matter-suicide-prevention-month","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6458339-9b7aae53f7576ea0014f81e34042be9c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771021772&Signature=ZactmzUIPwaTUMZSIPBCsDnCvotnTvTeltCqCwzx8oddtcPMeDco7kwjr8SLP~NYGYPsc-hw83PM4kAmDtlcATJOOrWFkX-gSm3OCBNViC45JamGRae2wsQCUSXcdXVxsYFDszwM1EKAsC3LybB2oKwD1o3SViNuoyj6tE09BnEpBzbBwNyV8uKFd~WsOW-09YBFRCYmCy89-u4owrwVZ1y-3hKJm49qVvILwgNG5ljq4jAqPv6FL1OPl6lzq8v4i~ktnBCwpKQPrwSMRE6BZD9OOwIw2CB9C4veII3T9hOgn2hlYuX52~Y9AwBxF1ybrYYbnwJbX-2XkG5J75F~4w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Caroline County Commissioners on Sept. 23 issued a proclamation declaring September 2025 as “No Matter What, You Matter” suicide-prevention month in the county, citing local and national suicide statistics and urging residents to check on neighbors.

The proclamation, read during the commissioners’ meeting by President J. Travis Breeding, said national suicide deaths and self-reported suicidal thoughts remain a serious public-health problem and noted county school survey figures showing 26.5 percent of middle-school students and 22.1 percent of high-school students reported seriously considering suicide.

Melissa Kelly, a board member with All Seasons Inc., told commissioners the nonprofit provides community behavioral-health care and crisis services “regardless of anyone’s ability to pay or the language they speak” and that the agency operates open-access hours so a person can meet a therapist the same day. “The ‘No Matter What You Matter’ message is a reminder that everyone has value,” Kelly said.

Superintendent of Schools Derek Simmons and other commissioners praised the proclamation and cited telehealth and outreach as tools to reach residents. Commissioners also encouraged residents to contact community providers and to look for local resources listed at AllSeasonsInc.org.

The proclamation was entered into the public record; no formal vote beyond the reading was required.

Looking ahead: commissioners and local providers said outreach, school-based screening and accessible behavioral-health services will remain topics for future meetings and collaborations.","Caroline County Commissioners approved a proclamation declaring September 2025 as suicide-prevention month and highlighted local behavioral-health resources, including All Seasons Inc.'s open-access services.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6458329,"Early Head Start expansion funding lapses; local nonprofit and county officials weigh options for displaced families and staff",426,2054000,2480000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5822707-7566deeb59cded694ea3c72988417591&start=2054&end=2480","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5822707-7566deeb59cded694ea3c72988417591/thumbnail_2054000.jpg","/articles/6458329/Caroline-County/Maryland/Early-Head-Start-expansion-funding-lapses-local-nonprofit-and-county-officials-weigh-options-for-displaced-families-and-staff","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6458329-137a2d51a9b65884a468fcd1bb290251/orig.mp4?Expires=1771021772&Signature=P3LWVQiGBnPEzJGcu2ssktnyWXDDY1q3yWZViptx329UcWNCfKiPg-rOlMhjatTQa3tz-BTxbXG0AUPXZfDA~pJPJGu5h63DUrRQGYbK9tGQ287HmeuTUhB6Rypg~CXnfOHMJmKZcSXqyHKPdmfmS5pr72lYIcJtm~igwdyVW1jCvi2ZGe0HbUl4d35D2RYX7eykoRaxGNIFBTOhqZcQ-yWDpvndenbGoexmH5i7L053khx~0neZAfKBvUjjwrGY7FB2KT~RMjSJx50AKAAKW7wUNNarWcqjYrJp6pifooA7cfp31cwQ2zBaHOoWBECvLKZLjFkmZuloe8ZoIzVQfg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representatives from the Maryland Development Corporation briefed Caroline County Commissioners on Sept. 23 about the imminent end of a federal Early Head Start expansion funding stream that had supported additional infant-toddler slots in the region.

Charles Huster, executive director of Maryland Development Corporation, told the board that the organization had sought about $3 million in Early Head Start expansion funding but, by applying as a direct recipient, did not receive an award; he said that as a subrecipient under Maryland Family Network (MFN) the organization likely would have had a funding path. Huster said the agency had “over $1,000,000” in existing dollars and that the Office of Head Start’s communications about the award process had been limited; Huster said the office’s response to congressional inquiries was slow and that Maryland Family Network serves as a pass-through entity with long-standing practice of designating subrecipients.

Huster and Abby McNinch said immediate steps included helping displaced employees find other work and considering alternative service models. They reported program effects the board that included about 101 families left unserved across the region, 31 of them in Caroline County, and about 26 employees impacted (roughly half in Caroline County). The organization said it has classroom space in Greensboro and Federalsburg that could be used for a fee-based or “Patty Center” model that would combine family services and on-site child care, but that it must study economic feasibility and licensing requirements.

Commissioners and staff said they would assist by sharing correspondence with congressional and state offices; the county administrative office committed to forwarding a letter from U.S. Rep. Andy Harris’s office that had been sent to the Office of Head Start. Huster said that MD Development Corporation had escalated the matter through political channels but that official, direct answers from the Office of Head Start had been limited; the organization also described difficulties in communication when working as a subrecipient versus a direct recipient.

Why it matters: Early Head Start serves children under age 3 and their families; the loss of expansion funds reduces available infant-toddler slots and affects staffing. County leaders said they will explore locally feasible interim models and press federal contacts for clarity on the Office of Head Start’s decisions.

Next steps: MD Development Corporation will study feasibility of a fee-based center and licensing implications, pursue outreach to congressional and federal officials, and coordinate with county staff and local partners on transitional services for families and employees.","Maryland Development Corporation officials said federal Early Head Start expansion funding did not arrive after they applied as a direct recipient; 31 Caroline County families and 26 employees were named as directly affected. Officials described next steps including feasibility work on a fee-based center model and outreach to congressional staff.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commissioners enact compensation-review commission; three bills introduced, including ag preservation fund tied to solar projects

Commissioners workshop solar ordinance and NFPA 855 for energy storage; county delays storage provisions pending state guidance

Caroline County commissioners back school system’s FY27 CIP planning request for middle school project

Caroline County proclaims September 2025 ‘No Matter What, You Matter’ suicide-prevention month

Early Head Start expansion funding lapses; local nonprofit and county officials weigh options for displaced families and staff