[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-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],{"_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",6667596,"mediaKeyId","2258321-57e6d472e172d61172313d0a3a7ce7a7","parentId",2258321,"title","County reports FY25 second‑quarter finances as state tax restructuring could cut Caroline revenue by about $1.1 million","audioSeconds",1090,"startMs",3025000,"endMs",4115000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2258321-57e6d472e172d61172313d0a3a7ce7a7&start=3025&end=4115","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2258321-57e6d472e172d61172313d0a3a7ce7a7/thumbnail_3025000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6667596/Caroline-County/Maryland/County-reports-FY25-secondquarter-finances-as-state-tax-restructuring-could-cut-Caroline-revenue-by-about-11-million","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6667596-b9a19d91ce3d1b9c5e122ddd840870ba/orig.mp4?Expires=1771157215&Signature=mriQvI2-wT5-w1CCyLgnXlumXjDKqEam0ONhn0u~-4j0hBnDzpKehme~Y~8xTaSCwb6TL~JCEksO4G592C9W1WQ8okIbNOvVbKnzK9i8kdtWBJRXNbfysjfGKEXmJvBIFxXnnqU7Tutl3uenGzBIV2~bLv7OuWtkmzBSVSUiM1VidXgDJ5PUQ7pGGPR7od2aRk~VrY4GmnpU8TpsWxPMqBMgdkKLS5tf21wExnt~40fkupdltRsPNVSdyrPn-yk-c-7W-U24E6wOWWhEj-zQB1-3R4NobcC4YhQwG4pyqlKjjTqe6xJf~r9fcfud-I1pqm71C20A8SofIqmIKFd5pg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Caroline","date","2025-02-11T00:00:00Z","article","Deputy County Administrator Daniel Fox and Stacy Stewart, grant coordinator, told commissioners Tuesday that Caroline County’s fiscal year 2025 second‑quarter (through December) revenue and spending are broadly in line with expectations, but they cautioned that proposed state tax changes and shifting state budget obligations create uncertainty for next year’s county budget.

Fox said the county’s core revenue lines are tracking as expected in mid‑year. “Right now, overall, we're at a 90% collection rate” for property taxes as of the December close, he said. He also reported recordation tax receipts are “about 76% collected” and noted income tax receipts are at roughly 35% of the annual total at year‑to‑date (a timing pattern he called typical because larger payments arrive later in the fiscal year). On charges and reimbursements, Fox highlighted an unusually large balance in an agency reimbursement account that reflects insurance settlements and reimbursements that will be spent down as claims and repairs are processed.

On spending, Stacy Stewart said most departments are near or below the 50% midpoint expected at year‑to‑date after six months; she identified seven departments slightly above that benchmark, often because of annual upfront insurance or audit payments (for example, general services and central shop liability insurance) or coding issues that staff are correcting. The county reported a largely positive net position at midyear: “we're still about 12.9 to the good,” Fox said; he and Stewart added that the number is roughly consistent with the same point in last year’s fiscal cycle.

Commissioners and staff spent considerable time on the interaction between county finances and pending state actions. Fox summarized a Bureau of Revenue Estimates analysis the governor released of a proposed state income tax restructuring: the proposal would remove itemized deductions at the state level and broaden the standard deduction, shrink taxes for many lower‑income filers while raising liabilities for higher‑income filers. Fox said the county’s estimate based on the bureau’s model shows Caroline County could lose about $1.1 million in income tax receipts under the governor’s proposal, while some wealthier counties would see large increases (the staff presentation cited a Montgomery County projection of approximately $75 million additional income tax receipts in the same model). Fox summarized the statewide net effect in the bureau’s table as a roughly $139 million net increase in state revenue but with an uneven county distribution.

Commissioners also reviewed other state budget pressures staff described: the governor’s proposed budget included what staff called net reductions and cost shifts to counties (Fox cited $283 million in state reductions and roughly $143 million in additional county liabilities across programs in the governor’s package), and the board discussed prior increases in the county’s mandatory education contribution ($2.2 million last year and a projected additional $1.8 million this year, according to staff). Fox and Stewart said those shifts — combined with uncertain final outcomes in the legislature — make the FY26 local budget a moving target.

What happened next: county finance staff said they will finalize property tax figures and deliver a preliminary FY26 estimate to the commission next week; Fox and Stewart said they are continuing to adjust internal coding errors, reconcile late grant reimbursements and monitor state budget and tax actions that could require adjustments to the county’s revenue projections.

Ending: Commissioners directed staff to continue the FY26 schedule, correct coding issues, and return with updated revenue projections once the county has the latest state guidance and final property tax numbers.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Caroline - Caroline County Commissioners Meeting - Feb 11, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Deputy administrator Daniel Fox and grant coordinator Stacy Stewart presented December 2024 fiscal results and said revenue collections are generally in line, but a proposed state income tax restructuring would lower Caroline County's projected income tax receipts by about $1.1 million next year.","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},6667599,"Caroline County moves to intervene in two solar projects, warns state preemption bill could limit local control",1828,1545000,3373000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2258321-57e6d472e172d61172313d0a3a7ce7a7&start=1545&end=3373","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2258321-57e6d472e172d61172313d0a3a7ce7a7/thumbnail_1545000.jpg","/articles/6667599/Caroline-County/Maryland/Caroline-County-moves-to-intervene-in-two-solar-projects-warns-state-preemption-bill-could-limit-local-control","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6667599-6d9d765942106be1688650febd23ff89/orig.mp4?Expires=1771157215&Signature=KdUMVf9cyV4GxnUm4Jl6AGFHC5gvszdX8KVFwRSd~9zD6OlA~TuW9z3NSxbMHrYk83OiPAOklY2aWpeGz9cvOJ2yv4ptbVoH5YR-5jBwPRnzRg7bCFEdB3yVcQUtK11P60DFYWWoynV8h1VuRYwThUuSuAmly5S8uqC3dQ3BFD4UgcRV~mJt2~EgdUScqFGQAfgbzkkbIBSCqcAkvcHuu~fS9XaNx5VWR9ZZpekx4MhiD2XM1IDWN-N2mcmk6CKCgmZN~m5ygWGC6DIOor7P2OTnvZVDzLdfwppt~WIl9LXNCiPIfbiNTM~0rudDvvhXI-Mysd9F3IMPPjcm55E6Jw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Caroline County commissioners and the county attorney’s office said Tuesday they have intervened in a certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) application for a solar project near Federalsburg and are preparing to intervene in a second, nearby project, while warning that pending state legislation could remove local land‑use and tax authority for utility‑scale solar.

County Attorney Stuart Barrow told commissioners the county received a roughly 200‑page application from Chaberton Solar Pahar LLC and “pointed out in a filing to the public utility law judge that the application is not complete.” Barrow said the Department of Natural Resources’ Power Plant Research Program (PPRP) filed that the application was complete, and a public utility law judge subsequently set the matter to proceed. “The application is in this binder. It's about 200 pages. I have read it,” Barrow said, describing the county’s next steps: written interrogatories to the applicant, preparation of written testimony from county staff and outside counsel and participation in two forthcoming public hearings (one virtual, one in‑person) before the Public Service Commission process.

Barrow and outside counsel Jesse Hammock (Easton) said the county contends the Chaberton application proposes siting in a zoning district that does not allow utility‑scale solar and that the applicant misrepresented its contact with county planning staff. The commissioners invited options for county commissioners to sit alongside the public utility law judge during in‑person hearings to observe hearings and hear applicant and intervenor testimony.

County staff also described a second project called Halo, on about 40 acres north of Goldsboro. Planning staff told the commissioners the Halo plan “meets all of our county code requirements, as far as solar siting with the exception of the recent changing to the 200 foot setback.” Commissioners said that if a project meets the county code and remains under the county’s 2,000‑acre cap, the county would likely not oppose it, but they emphasized the county will intervene in projects that conflict with zoning or code provisions.

Public comment at the meeting included a resident who urged that solar be directed to marginal land and away from irrigated farmland. “I was very glad to see that the old landfill will be used for solar,” a resident identified as Chip said, adding that large industrial solar installations on otherwise productive farmland are “upsetting.”

Commissioners and staff framed the county’s legal position as constrained by state review and a Public Service Commission process: if the PSC grants a CPCN for a project, that approval can effectively override county zoning for that specific project. Commissioners repeatedly cited a 2017 local ordinance that caps utility‑scale solar at 2,000 acres and noted enforcement of setbacks adopted by the county (200 feet) may be subject to review by a public utility law judge during CPCN proceedings. Barrow pointed to past court precedent—in the discussion he referenced Washington County litigation—as part of the legal background constraining county control.

The board also warned of pending state legislation they said could preempt local siting authority and reduce tax revenue. Commissioners described Senate Bill 931 (filed this session, cited at the meeting by number) as proposed legislation that would limit county zoning and setback authority for ground‑mounted solar, open the door to wider battery energy storage siting, and cap taxing authority for solar projects. Commissioners said the bill would, as drafted in committee materials they reviewed, reduce the county’s assessed tax base on solar generation equipment from about $9,370 per megawatt under local practice to a maximum of $5,000 per megawatt under the proposed statute; they also said the bill would permit salvage‑value assumptions to be used in calculating decommissioning obligations. Commissioners described those changes as a significant reduction to local taxing power and said several state agencies (DNR/PPRP and the PSC) are increasingly involved in the review process.

What happened next: the county attorney and staff said they have filed to intervene in the Chaberton matter, are preparing interrogatories and written testimony, and will file a petition to intervene in the Halo proceeding. The county said it will continue to coordinate with outside counsel and discuss whether county commissioners should attend the in‑person public hearing with the public utility law judge.

Ending: Commissioners said that, regardless of whether the county’s regulations are ultimately honored in a particular CPCN, the county will continue to intervene where it contends applicants have not complied with county code or the required application procedures and will monitor state legislation that could further restrict local control.

","County attorneys and commissioners said they have intervened in a Chaberton solar certificate application and prepared to intervene in a Halo project; they said state agencies and pending legislation are reducing local planning and taxing authority for utility‑scale solar.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

County reports FY25 second‑quarter finances as state tax restructuring could cut Caroline revenue by about $1.1 million

Caroline County moves to intervene in two solar projects, warns state preemption bill could limit local control