[{"_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",6474821,"mediaKeyId","5739638-e6a613fcc04bfd67ae6119da9cc16ad5","parentId",5739638,"title","Caroline County health staff propose consolidated fees, seek clarifications on refunds and transfer charges","audioSeconds",2822,"startMs",537000,"endMs",3359000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5739638-e6a613fcc04bfd67ae6119da9cc16ad5&start=537&end=3359","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5739638-e6a613fcc04bfd67ae6119da9cc16ad5/thumbnail_537000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6474821/Caroline-County/Maryland/Caroline-County-health-staff-propose-consolidated-fees-seek-clarifications-on-refunds-and-transfer-charges","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6474821-31cff98446d768a8122646bdf450c917/orig.mp4?Expires=1770452680&Signature=RqZriYIDoSb7~QGeus~y~3hviIywkuK0JfTDsX6wB4dBnJNZ0XR7QxZiGigQARhmbEr-CfDLP07THrJBc-IExKu0Hy3SwDdattt6zY5lOmWCR8~sy2OzSeyxwWRXaJ3u5A8ld6wrwixdNp6NqDfS6khoyUaDc3UGVP1DCU-KsocKLpU8ER~ZxOdjGTCFOmiqQg4ldnD26JU7M8UeBHdiUoirNOpJtqh~n5pJOXJhcr3zp1RI95HgAFHsCQgxuGwWQef3ankzf7Ev-dfixdUDTZ1SKXexxFQfSvwxhN8kyecEz7OZGPRWPx06lArweHRkGYezcKsi4VMuvjYdrou-DA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Caroline","date","2025-09-09T00:00:00Z","article","Robin Cahall, Caroline County health officer, and Josh Parker, environmental health, told the county commissioners on Sept. 9 that the department is proposing an updated environmental health fee schedule to account for staffing growth and rising costs.

The department said its fee schedule has not been updated since February 2005 and presented a set of changes that would consolidate and add several charges. \"The fee schedule has not been updated since 02/2005,\" Cahall told the board. Parker told commissioners the proposal includes an \"all‑in‑one\" residential soil and site evaluation fee, to be paid up front rather than in multiple follow‑on charges: \"I propose putting it all in one fee.\" Staff said the consolidated fee is intended to reduce administrative follow‑up and unnecessary site visits and can be offered at a discounted rate compared with the current cumulative charges.

Why it matters: environmental health fees affect the cost and timing of on‑lot septic and well approvals, which in turn influence housing construction costs, subdivision timing and agricultural property transactions. Commissioners and staff framed the proposal as an effort to better align charges with staff time and to make the application process more efficient while acknowledging the potential impact on housing costs.

Key details and proposed changes discussed

- Consolidated soil/site evaluation: Staff proposed an \"all‑in‑one\" residential soil and site evaluation to include initial soil testing, wet‑season monitoring when required, mound/perk testing as applicable and the plat review. Staff said paying a single fee up front reduces repeated administrative processing and can speed field work. Parker said the inclusive fee removes multiple small receipts and follow‑ups and lets sanitarians perform necessary field work in a single visit.

- Septic permit and repair fees: Commissioners and staff discussed separate fees for septic permits and repairs. Staff said the current charge for a new septic permit is $480 and the current repair permit is $200; they proposed aligning the repair fee with the new permit fee (raising the repair fee). (Staff characterized the change as moving both new and repair permit reviews to the same $480 level.)

- Plat review and plat evaluation: The health department currently charges a $90 plat review fee. Staff proposed standardizing plat evaluation fees at $90 per lot and adding a resubmission fee for repeated plan resubmittals, modeled on the planning and codes practice (staff cited a third‑submission fee approach used by planning and codes).

- Temporary food events and food‑service fees: Staff proposed charging a $30 fee for single‑operator temporary food events (excluding nonprofits with tax‑exempt numbers) and a higher fee for large, coordinated events. For permanent food establishments, staff proposed splitting the current combined moderate/high permit structure and raising high‑priority food‑service annual permits to $330 and increasing plan‑review fees for moderate/high priority projects (staff proposed raising plan review from $500 to $1,000 for those categories, citing the technical review time required).

- Transient noncommunity water systems: Staff proposed simplifying and modestly raising the annual fee structure for transient noncommunity water systems (farms, food trucks, other public‑access wells) to a single flat rate to cover sampling and reporting instead of multiple line items.

- New or clarified fees: The draft includes other new or clarified line items such as sanitary sewer system construction permit fees, mobile home park permit changes, recreation camp and natural bathing beach permit language, property status reports and a possible after‑the‑fact application fee. Staff also proposed an after‑the‑fact application charge for cases in which work or facilities are discovered later and need formal review.

Commissioner questions, concerns and next steps

Commissioners pressed staff for clarifications on several points, including:
- Whether the county's county‑code transfer fee (developmental right transfer) is separate from the proposed wet‑season testing charge and whether it applies in addition to other fees; staff said they will return with the exact code references and how the transfer fee is applied.
- Refund policy when a soil‑only evaluation shows a site is not buildable. Commissioner Breeding asked whether applicants would be entitled to refunds if a soil test makes it clear a site cannot support a system. Staff said there is not a standard blanket refund policy; they have approved case‑by‑case refunds in the past and will research options and regulatory consequences before proposing a formal refund policy.
- How often soil evaluations result in a definitive failure. Staff agreed to research and report back on the county's historical failure rate for soil/site tests.

Finance and staffing context

Staff said environmental health expenditures for FY25 were roughly $808,000 and collections were roughly $357,000, noting that about 95% of the department's expenditures are salaries. Cahall and Parker said salary and staff growth over recent years — including converting contract positions to merit staff and hiring new licensed sanitarians — were major drivers for revisiting fees.

No final vote; board requested follow‑up

No final vote was taken. Commissioners asked staff to return with clarifications on the transfer code citation, historical failure rates for soil/site tests, proposed resubmission fee amounts and a more detailed projection of revenue versus workload. Cahall said the fee schedule must also be reviewed by the county Board of Health before implementation and that staff would return for further discussion and revisions.

Ending note: staff work plan

Cahall and Parker told the commissioners they will refine the draft fee schedule, research refund precedents and the transfer‑fee code reference, and return to the board with recommended language and updated justifications. The county finance and planning offices will be involved in subsequent reviews.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Caroline - Caroline County Commissioners Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","Robin Cahall, Caroline County health officer, and Josh Parker, environmental health, told the county commissioners on Sept. 9 that the department is proposing an updated environmental health fee schedule to account for staffing growth and rising costs.","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},6474817,"Caroline commissioners introduce pay‑review commission bill and advance solar/battery zoning changes; move to seek higher farmland preservation contribution",538,6361000,6899000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5739638-e6a613fcc04bfd67ae6119da9cc16ad5&start=6361&end=6899","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5739638-e6a613fcc04bfd67ae6119da9cc16ad5/thumbnail_6361000.jpg","/articles/6474817/Caroline-County/Maryland/Caroline-commissioners-introduce-payreview-commission-bill-and-advance-solarbattery-zoning-changes-move-to-seek-higher-farmland-preservation-contribution","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6474817-822bb61413d1cec67cf11566f97d04cb/orig.mp4?Expires=1770452680&Signature=gzSv00xmRPR5Wl6z0GZeWdXwbi2Sm0bDrz4S0xTfnvXOFP6KGoJUk4af~QKZZaOP5NmyebApNy7uWd-NtKZZxvgpLOrXxAoMq9QROKZFA3YvbPMjMmtV0c6ILKVof~JLd-~TOeVpAdXEYHr4C3YiL5g7e2apdUvjq-~qIJew~wEu7RX7EBGDeuPFFvrnyZw5ga8Q3Eiucvyjb7~TwCgRANyHet2kEqfTdj0mEEdkD6qSlRXrreQ2OTCpmvx9zJGf6qEPYYYLexZmKRfyMw4GQJ~f0AMWTSqAoAOxU4Z7APwsAQ7rsV5boLpvGDDNE3u3r1izhqH-O5mgnfRwE0L-xA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Caroline County commissioners introduced two legislative bills on Sept. 9: one to create a county Compensation Review Commission and another to revise the county's zoning rules for solar facilities and battery energy storage devices following state law changes.

The board voted to introduce legislative bill 2025‑009, which would establish a Compensation Review Commission to study and recommend salaries and allowances for county commissioners. County staff said the current compensation provision has not been revised since 2009 and that the commission would follow a process described in the Maryland Local Government Article (section 10‑302). The bill timeline presented by staff called for public notice and a public hearing the week of Sept. 16 with a potential third reading and final action the week of Sept. 23; the ordinance would take effect Nov. 8 if adopted. The motion to introduce 2025‑009 carried on a voice vote.

Solar and battery storage zoning

County staff also presented a comprehensive draft zoning amendment (legislative bill 2025‑010) prepared to align Caroline County's ordinances with the state's Renewable Energy Certainty Act and related statutory requirements for energy storage devices. The draft implements several mandatory state provisions and retains local rules for smaller projects that the state did not preempt.

Staff highlighted these elements:
- Projects larger than the state threshold are subject to the statutory requirements in the state law and the county's draft adds local procedures that follow that framework.
- The draft requires battery energy storage installations to be \"installed and inspected in accordance with\" the most recent published edition of NFPA 855 (the National Fire Protection Association standard for stationary energy storage systems). Staff said this would allow the county to rely on a recognized technical standard for safety and emergency planning.
- For solar facilities of 1 megawatt or less (a category the state did not explicitly regulate), staff proposed retaining Caroline County's existing local siting, setback and decommissioning standards. That retained authority is intended to allow the county to continue applying local design controls to small commercial arrays.
- The draft also proposed a compensatory preservation contribution tied to the appraised fair‑market value of cropland taken out of production; staff described the draft formula as 50 percent of the appraised value per acre using the state agricultural easement settlement process as the valuation basis.

Commissioner debate, amendments and next steps

Commissioner Larry Porter, Commissioner Jay Travis Breeding and Commissioner Ben Franklin Bartz took part in a wide-ranging discussion that included safety concerns about battery storage and how to secure funding and equipment for fire companies. Commissioner Bartz expressed strong reservations about battery storage safety and said he would not support installing systems that, in his view, endanger first responders; he said he wanted explicit safety and suppression requirements and suggested that developers be required to support local fire departments with equipment and training.

After discussion the commissioners voted to introduce the solar/battery zoning bill and instructed staff to pursue four specific amendment directions:
1) increase the compensatory preservation contribution from 50 percent to 100 percent of the appraised fair‑market value used in the state agricultural easement settlement process;
2) add a fire department equipment and training fee or requirement to the battery energy storage provisions;
3) remove the county's 2,000‑acre cap for aggregated small solar projects (section reference in the draft); and
4) amend the zoning table of uses to reflect the permitted districts described in the bill.

The motion to introduce the bill and to forward these amendment directions passed on a voice vote. Commissioners asked staff to verify NFPA 855 references (the 2023 edition is currently published; a 2026 edition is expected in future cycles) and to draft precise language to require specific suppression and response equipment for county review and for inclusion in the ordinance.

Why it matters

The zoning bill is the county's response to state‑level changes that streamline approvals for certain renewable energy facilities while leaving narrower projects (1 MW and below) under local control. The proposed compensatory preservation contribution is intended to generate funds to offset the loss of agricultural land to arrays; commissioners favored increasing the contribution to make preservation more viable locally. The battery storage debate focused on firefighter safety, emergency response and who would pay for additional training and equipment.

Formal actions recorded

- Legislative bill 2025‑009 (Compensation Review Commission): introduced and moved forward (voice vote; no numerical roll call recorded). Staff presented timing for public notice, hearings and potential enactment with an anticipated effective date of Nov. 8 if adop ted.

- Legislative bill 2025‑010 (Solar energy and battery storage zoning): introduced and advanced with four amendment directions (listed above). The board directed staff to return with draft amendment language and to work with planning staff and the technical advisory committee on the table‑of‑uses changes.

Ending note: process and outreach

Staff said the bills will be advertised and scheduled for public hearings in accordance with the county's legislative calendar and that planning staff will work with legal counsel, local fire companies and other county departments to draft the amendment language and to vet NFPA 855 compliance details in the ordinance.","Caroline County commissioners introduced two related legislative bills on Sept. 9: one to create a Compensation Review Commission and another to change zoning rules for solar facilities and battery energy storage after new state legislation.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Caroline County health staff propose consolidated fees, seek clarifications on refunds and transfer charges

Caroline commissioners introduce pay‑review commission bill and advance solar/battery zoning changes; move to seek higher farmland preservation contribution