[{"_1":2,"_122":-5,"_123":-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",[32,75,87,99,110],{"_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",6672235,"mediaKeyId","2134539-c498a9be9f2b526f04550f32e12307e5","parentId",2134539,"title","Commissioners review revised public ethics code; county attorney and ethics board outline updates","audioSeconds",1157,"startMs",4139000,"endMs",5296000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2134539-c498a9be9f2b526f04550f32e12307e5&start=4139&end=5296","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2134539-c498a9be9f2b526f04550f32e12307e5/thumbnail_4139000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6672235/Caroline-County/Maryland/Commissioners-review-revised-public-ethics-code-county-attorney-and-ethics-board-outline-updates","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6672235-42471697421bb78ac87a35acb1572d2f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771141713&Signature=D9qocFOaaAs6tjDfuSSF41Q86j6BqRjf3K99O7gEQI63G4ZtkHx6T0rOQ0YI8bmKfOArFwuzeotQckQwYXWl1exCIhhU57vkUqysXbOF7HGd7SzBDkNPfGbBAY82804K8s8lxNB~EszhZCJEV6sfUAnTlFH9JRCxVuOP5rpru4fHHxgNgNzfu0uvSuDT6nw-o5pZF1HSHvOfU2Ia2ej-eWR~lVClL0woe27-L4ayTqFoMv5I-7hzTsxDL3~x1W~nhK0gWug-cM6olDCn5eLhnZXDlmbml7cspXp--rGaZM8lgtJuWi3tRiOg90p0cagMv6UcrNt9zcCVDbA-1kpufg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Caroline","date","2025-01-21T00:00:00Z","article","County legal staff and a member of the county ethics board presented a proposed revision to Caroline County’s public ethics code and described several substantive changes the county ethics board recommended.

County Attorney Barrel (as identified in the meeting) and an ethics board member said the revision implements guidance required by the Maryland Public Ethics Law and clarifies several commonly recurring issues in local practice: how a recused official must physically remove themself from discussions and votes, a prohibition on private ex parte meetings between applicants and board or commission members without disclosure, and a clearer definition of covered family interests for conflict determinations. The ethics board member said the proposed code is modeled closely on the state ethics law and was reviewed and approved by the State Ethics Commission.

Why it matters: The changes aim to increase public confidence by reducing the potential for private, off‑record persuasion of board members, strengthening disclosure requirements and clarifying when officials must step away from decisions that could benefit themselves or immediate family members.

Major changes described by presenters
- Recusal procedure: the draft spells out that a recused official should not participate in discussion and should physically remove themself from the decision area to avoid subtle influence on the deliberations.
- Ex parte contacts: the draft generally prohibits private, persuasive contacts between applicants and decision‑makers; members must disclose any private contact during the public meeting so the record is complete.
- Expanded conflict definition: the revision clarifies that conflicts include direct benefits not only to an official but to immediate family members when applicable.

Process and timing
County legal staff said the State Ethics Commission has approved the current draft. Commissioners asked for time to read the draft and suggested delaying formal introduction to the next scheduled legislative session to allow for review and potential edits. The board agreed to schedule a formal introduction at a future legislative meeting after commissioners have had time to review the proposed code.

Ending note
No formal changes were voted at the meeting; county staff and the ethics board said they will return with the draft for the commissioners’ formal introduction in the next available legislative cycle.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Caroline - Caroline County Commissioners Meeting - Jan 21, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","County legal staff and the Caroline County ethics board presented a revised public ethics code focused on recusal procedures, disclosures of private contacts and expanded family‑interest definitions.","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},6672240,"Auditors present Caroline County’s fiscal 2024 figures; county shows $17 million net position increase",272,756000,1028000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2134539-c498a9be9f2b526f04550f32e12307e5&start=756&end=1028","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2134539-c498a9be9f2b526f04550f32e12307e5/thumbnail_756000.jpg","/articles/6672240/Caroline-County/Maryland/Auditors-present-Caroline-Countys-fiscal-2024-figures-county-shows-17-million-net-position-increase","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6672240-6f59cce6c530fea752d5fadc63ba6a4a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771141713&Signature=G--cqZwQVFGYYiFyRUkPYtDZmp5ql6gfJUUgurZVGm3Z1E0lZpX2l-BvZu-Gcag54iOE-TzSU4o81-746yAACI5wKMCywjDQfKVCSM9ZXOmxcFMsNXiqX8PptWn1FSew4QkNURrLJ-KdjlmNEA6EVLbElibLxtNxgEvc4bRe2A-1OUTFS28jCDXC2APRyImxqBPdh2UBiPw6z6ulb-VwIGnQc89DG2iyf0NL4eqeQmfhoskhklXfrC62-wDNL7mZUUc52ZVTiq4f2hsYQF9gdRcuZc1z2Qg4x72VgXzabK8C0-x4gNuZcTZRTYhYrsw89RfpZrtFRQVOdFoCiNvkUg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","External auditors presented Caroline County’s fiscal year 2024 audit at the Jan. 21 commissioners meeting and said the audit opinion on the financial statements was unmodified.

The audit team from UHY highlighted an increase in the county’s net position from about $68.1 million at the start of the year to roughly $85.2 million at year‑end, an increase auditors characterized as substantial. Auditors noted several key items: growth in restricted funds, the creation of a cannabis‑related restricted fund, general fund balance equal to about seven months of operating expenses (the Government Finance Officers Association recommends a minimum of two months), and operating income in the county’s proprietary funds that covered depreciation expense.

Why it matters: The auditor’s clean opinion indicates the county’s fiscal statements are free of material misstatement. Commissioners and staff framed the year as strong financially but cautioned that some increases reflect timing or revenue recognition rather than recurring operating gains.

Highlights from the audit presentation
- Audit opinion: auditors stated the financial statements were free of material misstatement (an unmodified opinion as shown in the audit report).
- Net position: primary government net position reported at about $85.2 million at June 30, 2024, up roughly $17 million from the prior year.
- General fund balance: the county’s general fund balance was discussed as approximately seven months of operating expenses, above the GFOA recommended minimum of two months.
- Restricted funds: auditors described an increasing number of restricted funds, including new funds related to cannabis tax revenues; commissioners and staff discussed that many state and program grants restrict how revenues may be used.
- Pension and OPEB: the county’s net pension liability for its pension plan was presented as about $5.2 million (roughly 86% funded); the county’s participation in the state pension plan showed a liability about 74% funded; the county’s OPEB plan was reported as approximately 142% funded (a net OPEB asset) after long‑term prefunding carried out in prior years.
- LOSAP (Length of Service Award Program): auditors reported a LOSAP net liability decrease after a $1.7 million contribution; the plan was described as about 59% funded at year‑end, with ongoing sensitivity to benefit changes (discussion included commissioners’ concerns about potential changes to eligibility age and benefit structure and a suggestion to run actuarial scenarios before adopting changes).

Audit process notes and next steps
Auditors said they have completed most of the audit work and were finishing outstanding items such as single‑audit work and a few remaining subsidiary items; they expected to wrap single‑audit items by the end of the month. Auditors also noted a new planning requirement that increased front‑end audit work related to understanding entity environment and risk of material misstatement.

Ending note
Commissioners thanked county staff and auditors for completing the audit on time and without a filing extension. No formal action was required of the board on the audit report during the meeting; the audit report was presented for commissioner review.","External auditors told Caroline County commissioners the county’s net position rose by about $17 million in fiscal 2024 and that the audit opinion was unmodified. Auditors highlighted fund restrictions, pension and OPEB funding levels, and new audit planning requirements.",{"_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},6672245,"Caroline County commissioners press for public hearing, cost analysis as regional detention center talks continue",638,2096000,2734000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2134539-c498a9be9f2b526f04550f32e12307e5&start=2096&end=2734","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2134539-c498a9be9f2b526f04550f32e12307e5/thumbnail_2096000.jpg","/articles/6672245/Caroline-County/Maryland/Caroline-County-commissioners-press-for-public-hearing-cost-analysis-as-regional-detention-center-talks-continue","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6672245-e1e54c5501622e31b95c12e51a332d11/orig.mp4?Expires=1771141713&Signature=d4qA2QEUTLOClwOm6WfPPd8aAzk~9X1siTxLgE6TdjJ4Kmd~9KXWO~J5UtBXWOCpeKdCer33Z22sf64o4Z6BHBcRm9dyyn5DxcfXlNhmMgLIJOzz~QfElRwUhHKy-qfCK0UOL6iVppVNWL3wwZ50PQSMEw-ThqK8eXVcQk3mrRiF3883VR6XAQZ1xpZbkFvDy6CW6F4JJM67UIA7chbq~BBDV51BijhLE8t0SOE2fAN~OdBuJLb0y9gRTDkewzc2IJrcVnZhLMEY8DJJuRmb8TuWl8sZYWC-S-P~VLWTYTgM5CLRy~cB5E9aPjexwewMykJEcdwPaJVKaXmf1D1rmA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Caroline County commissioners said they will not move forward on a proposed regional detention center until they receive a revised agreement and more detailed cost and staffing analyses.

County deputy administrator Daniel (Danny) Fox and other county officials reported that a multi‑county negotiating session with Queen Anne’s and Kent counties produced no agreement on ownership of the facility. Commissioners were told the current position from Queen Anne’s County is that it will not transfer title to the land or any part of the building. Commissioners said that, because Queen Anne’s would retain title, Caroline and Kent would not be able to secure a proportional ownership stake that matched each county’s share of construction costs.

Why it matters: Commissioners said ownership, exit rights and how capital and operating costs are apportioned are central to any decision to join a regional facility. The county would be committing to years of payments and potential renovations on a facility that, at present, would remain owned by Queen Anne’s County.

Key details and next steps
- Commissioners said they are awaiting a redrafted agreement from Queen Anne’s County that removes provisions they regard as inconsistent with Caroline County funding the county’s proportional share of construction costs.
- Proposed funding split discussed in the meeting: Queen Anne’s 45 percent, Caroline 30 percent, Kent 25 percent. Initial contributions were to be a flat per‑county amount tied to population, then rebased after a period to actual use (based on incarcerated person days) to determine each county’s final share of operating costs.
- Commissioners asked county staff to obtain and present: a detailed cost‑savings analysis, projected construction and renovation costs, operating budget models, and an analysis of potential savings from shared vendor contracts (for example food and medical services).
- Commissioners requested confirmation of whether Caroline County employees assigned to the detention center could be absorbed into the new staffing structure and asked staff to seek the cost to move county detention employees into the state retirement “CORS” system (the transcript referred to state retirement coverage for those employees and said state participation may require an additional county contribution).
- Commissioners asked that, after a revised agreement is available, the county schedule a public hearing and publish the fiscal analyses for public review before any formal vote.

What commissioners said about risks and savings
County officials told the commission that the largest potential savings would come from moving third‑party medical and food contracts in‑house under a larger shared operation. The three county detention budgets now total roughly $17.3 million, with medical services one of the largest line items (Caroline’s 2025 line item for medical was described in the meeting as about $1.2 million of a roughly $5.9 million detention budget). The county was told the consolidated facility would staff roughly 110–115 employees, a number similar to current staffing across the three existing facilities; therefore, net savings would likely depend on reductions in third‑party vendor costs rather than reductions in salary costs.

Unresolved items
The group discussed a roughly recalled construction cost figure (participants referenced an estimate of about $60 million, described in the meeting as a recollection rather than a confirmed contract price). Commissioners also said they need clarity on the extent of renovations required at the existing Caroline facility if the county retains its local jail capacity, insurance cost allocation and whether Queen Anne’s County oversight board recommendations could effectively bind Queen Anne’s when Queen Anne’s is the owner and would sign vendor contracts.

Staff direction and outcome
No formal vote was taken. County staff were directed to: (1) obtain the redrafted agreement when issued, (2) provide a detailed fiscal and staffing analysis including scenarios for construction, renovation and operating costs, (3) obtain a state estimate on the costs to bring county staff into the state retirement system if required, and (4) schedule a public hearing after the redraft and analysis are complete.

Ending note
Commissioners repeatedly stressed they are not prepared to vote to join the regional center without full fiscal transparency and public input and said they expect the next step to be receipt of the revised agreement and more detailed modeling.","Caroline County commissioners said they are awaiting a redraft of a proposed regional detention center agreement with Queen Anne’s and Kent counties and requested more fiscal detail, a public hearing and clarity on ownership, employee transfers and operating cost allocation before any decision.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":103,"_47":104,"_49":105,"_51":106,"_53":107,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":108,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":109,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6672227,"Commissioners briefed on early 2025 state bills and governor’s budget proposals that could raise county costs",0,6377000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2134539-c498a9be9f2b526f04550f32e12307e5&start=6377&end=6377","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2134539-c498a9be9f2b526f04550f32e12307e5/thumbnail_6377000.jpg","/articles/6672227/Caroline-County/Maryland/Commissioners-briefed-on-early-2025-state-bills-and-governors-budget-proposals-that-could-raise-county-costs","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6672227-2b7200346bde8f06ef8b3f82fc35d522/orig.mp4?Expires=1771141713&Signature=ZSeyD9MlFKBBp-r-pIPG73~M5H8FOGT7rXkXbvZreVR59YkwvsZxD0XLCQVMO9KmsO10CfYmuEsniCjlp8FWMMdMbbyy3-kL6cYPxZCioVNf8iRI3p3f4TzmdYSzcwobseeB6XC-0wSSfd-NtqsJTdd37N9-2zZGrlXohlwomuFk3~SE1Fzn4-Hcx9VvQOFwq~k6yD-U5qCMs1mrobTkD4TTWmAFTflsNXsRPiW4FgUgLcRVgRTAvUqw~1cPE2DUe1EDz4EwbQIYqjW7EMfrQmMc~W1P8tcomb4sJcJZAKWepn4TWHJNtbabsW5AQGtBvLALpMuNEPKVMfFswQv-rA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Commissioners reviewed early 2025 state legislation and a summary of the governor’s proposed budget changes that county staff said would shift several costs from the state to local governments.

County legislative liaisons and staff highlighted two bills discussed during the meeting: a recurring school bus seat‑belt bill that would require new buses placed into service after 2027 to be equipped with seat belts and an eminent domain bill that would limit takings in preserved lands with limited carve‑outs. Staff said the county opposed the seat‑belt bill in a prior session and planned to coordinate with the school transportation department and superintendent on whether to submit another letter of opposition or testify.

Why it matters: Commissioners said several components of the governor’s budget proposal would increase Caroline County’s fiscal obligations and require budget adjustments for FY2026.

Budget highlights and estimated local impacts discussed by staff
- SDAT (State Department of Assessments and Taxation) staffing: the governor’s proposal would shift county share of assessment office costs from the current 50/50 split to a 90/10 split; staff estimated this change would increase Caroline County’s cost by roughly $140,000.
- Teacher retirement: staff estimated Caroline’s share would increase by about $561,645 under the governor’s proposal; the county also expects a reduction in a teacher retirement supplement grant by about $342,000, producing a net negative effect in the hundreds of thousands.
- Disparity grant changes: a preliminary recalculation of the disparity grant formula was estimated to reduce the county’s allocation by roughly $176,000.
- Local board of education allocation: preliminary state drafts of the local share calculation showed the county’s required local share increasing by roughly $1.8 million to $2.1 million depending on the scenario, producing a combined estimated county impact of about $3.0 million when paired with the other changes discussed.

Other items and bills
- Commissioners discussed the eminent domain draft language and noted the need for carve‑outs for critical infrastructure projects such as bridges where preservation boundaries may otherwise prevent necessary public works.
- Commissioners flagged anticipated energy and renewable‑energy bills (including transmission and solar siting issues) and a cannabis tax increase in the governor’s proposal (a phased increase from 9% to 15% by 2027); staff noted that many cannabis revenues remain restricted by statute to specific uses.

Outcome and next steps
County staff said they will continue monitoring the legislative session, prepare fiscal notes for specific bills and consult departments (for example transportation and schools) about potential testimony or letters. Commissioners asked staff to coordinate further with the superintendent on the school bus seat belt bill and to track the governor’s budget proposals during the legislative session.","Caroline County commissioners discussed early 2025 state bills — including a school bus seat‑belt proposal and eminent domain/Maryland preservation bills — and a governor’s budget that would shift costs to counties for assessment offices, teacher retirement and other items, potentially increasing Caroline’s expense by about $3 million.",{"_33":111,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":112,"_41":113,"_43":114,"_45":115,"_47":116,"_49":117,"_51":118,"_53":119,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":120,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":121,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6672231,"Caroline County declares January 2025 Human Trafficking Awareness Month; local advocacy group highlights hotlines",97,404000,501000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2134539-c498a9be9f2b526f04550f32e12307e5&start=404&end=501","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2134539-c498a9be9f2b526f04550f32e12307e5/thumbnail_404000.jpg","/articles/6672231/Caroline-County/Maryland/Caroline-County-declares-January-2025-Human-Trafficking-Awareness-Month-local-advocacy-group-highlights-hotlines","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6672231-423bea5a956ff073e9c1223b038fae53/orig.mp4?Expires=1771141713&Signature=WvDgzaEwV7IHPNpq0qww-eGLQXefppysPjIBsXtY1E0CxskP2Cb83nRIgx5HwYAgoXYUQbhcX5gy4r3TsFKacydUA10AT3BRl970Zw6RQF4pBq4fiqgcipwv4xGp6-A359ZjN7OINXaBOmidRvjrcpBCUrwmDlikQa3i9ov7fCnE60ft6l58krc5nSogPiJDexwL3JiEQQhRX-ybtvrhfkA4aYLg7Buq52GN7dRj1hY~zGWIgrKNJercF-B0hdcH~VJpyV2AyMtVoQlmfDpaD9LVDuGlyfQqHDJjTbmBUIzl1bOxw0C57Q5EscIR7nr3ZngwWnC0yGRuWaBS5YeMow__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Caroline County commissioners declared January 2025 as Human Trafficking Awareness Month and received a presentation from All Seasons Inc., a local behavioral health and crisis services provider that also operates a human trafficking prevention program.

All Seasons marketing and outreach coordinator Josie Wenzel and victim advocate Michelle Hudson described the nonprofit’s services, including victim support, therapy, psychiatry and community education offered statewide by telehealth and locally through multiple offices. Wenzel identified Susan Ahlstrom as All Seasons’ regional navigator for the human trafficking prevention program and directed interested residents to forallseasonsyouth.org for more information.

Hudson, introduced as a victim advocate, told commissioners human trafficking affects people “everywhere” and described trafficking as exploitation for labor or commercial sex through force, fraud or coercion; she emphasized that anyone under 18 involved in commercial sex is a victim regardless of apparent consent and urged the public to report suspected cases.

The county read a proclamation that cited national and Maryland data and described human trafficking as a growing criminal industry that causes moral and economic harm and that awareness and education help bring victims support.

Hotline information provided by All Seasons
- English hotline: 410‑820‑5600
- Spanish hotline: 410‑829‑6143

Ending note
Commissioners presented the proclamation and took a photo with the All Seasons representatives. No formal policy action was recorded; the proclamation is a public awareness measure.","Caroline County commissioners issued a proclamation declaring January 2025 Human Trafficking Awareness Month and heard from All Seasons Inc. about local services and hotlines for potential victims.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commissioners review revised public ethics code; county attorney and ethics board outline updates

Auditors present Caroline County’s fiscal 2024 figures; county shows $17 million net position increase

Caroline County commissioners press for public hearing, cost analysis as regional detention center talks continue

Commissioners briefed on early 2025 state bills and governor’s budget proposals that could raise county costs

Caroline County declares January 2025 Human Trafficking Awareness Month; local advocacy group highlights hotlines