HomeMy WebLinkAbout06.07.2016 Agenda Individuals requiring special accommodations are requested to contact the Office of the County Commissioners, 240.313.2200 Voice/TDD, to make arrangements no later than ten (10) working days prior to the meeting.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS June 7, 2016 Agenda 10:00 A.M. CLOSED SESSION (To discuss the appointment, employment, assignment, promotion, discipline,
demotion, compensation, removal, resignation, or performance evaluation of appointees, employees,
or officials over whom this public body has jurisdiction; or any other personnel matter that affects one or more specific individuals; and to consider the acquisition of real property for a public purpose and
matters directly related thereto.) 11:00 A.M. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CALL TO ORDER, President Terry L. Baker APPROVAL OF MINUTES – May 24, 2016
11:05 A.M. COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS AND COMMENTS 11:10 A.M. REPORTS FROM COUNTY STAFF
11:15 A.M. BATTERY STORAGE PROJECTS – PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES
Jason Divelbiss and Bill Schofield 11:30 A.M. GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF CRIME CONTROL AND PREVENTION SAFE STREET GRANT PROGRAM – Stephanie Lapole and Cody Miller
11:40 A.M. REQUEST FOR REVOCATION OF ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE AGREEMENT – ROSE HILL MANOR – Timothy Lung (letter) 11:55 A.M. CITIZENS PARTICIPATION
Terry L. Baker, President Jeffrey A. Cline, Vice President
John F. Barr
Wayne K. Keefer LeRoy E. Myers
100 West Washington Street, Room 226 | Hagerstown, MD 21740-4735 | P: 240.313.2200 | F: 240.313.2201
WWW.WASHCO-MD.NET
SUBJECT: Battery Storage Projects – Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOTs)
PRESENTATION DATE: June 7, 2016
PRESENTATION BY: Jason Divelbiss, Esq.
Bill Schofield, Customized Energy Solutions
RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to authorize the execution of the proposed PILOT
agreements.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: Customized Energy Solutions, Inc. is trying to bring a 2 MW
battery storage project to Hagerstown in cooperation with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) as
well as two additional projects totaling 10 MW in cooperation with Alevo Energy.
DISCUSSION: These companies expect that eventually the market for utility scale batteries globally will become very large, thus they are willing to build projects now that have
lower profit margins in order to gain experience and refine their designs in anticipation of selling
many more batteries not just in the U.S. but in places like China and India that have under-
developed electric grids.
For MHI in particular, while their battery technology is of good quality, their cost is not currently
cost competitive with other battery technology in the market. Nonetheless, MHI would like to
have experience operating these technologies in the restructured wholesale electric markets of
the Mid-Atlantic United States with a more particular interest in gaining a competitive advantage
on other companies as the post-Fukushima disaster electric industry in Japan goes through major reforms.
.
Therefore, given the generally slim profit margin that the projects are expected to earn,
Washington County’s 2.37% business personal property tax is significant. Additionally, given the capital intensive nature of these projects where the batteries and related equipment cost
millions of dollars and are all considered “business personal property”, any BPP tax is
comparatively more significant for such a project than for the average business in which only a
portion of the start-up costs are considered business personal property.
Md. Code Ann., Tax-Property Article provides authority for the County to enter into a negotiated
payment in lieu of taxes on personal property owned by in this circumstance. The code further
provides that publicly owned property leased or otherwise made available to a person with the
privilege to use that property in connection with a business that is conducted for profit shall be
taxed as though the lessee or user of the property were the owner of the property.
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
FISCAL IMPACT: PILOT payments that would otherwise not be received and the
placement of certain property into a taxable status.
CONCURRENCES: County Administrator; County Attorney
ALTERNATIVES: Forego the opportunity presented by the projects and the PILOTs.
ATTACHMENTS: N/A
AUDIO/VISUAL TO BE USED: N/A
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Governor’s Office of Crime Control and Prevention Safe Street Grant
Program – Approval to Submit Application and Accept Funding
PRESENTATION DATE: June 7, 2016
PRESENTATION BY: Stephanie Lapole, Office of Community Grant
Management and Cody Miller, Washington County Sheriff’s Office
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the submission of the grant application
for the FY17 Safe Streets Grant Program to the Governor’s Office of Crime Control and
Prevention in the amount of $133,850 and accept the awarded funding.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The Washington County Sheriff’s Office is requesting approval to
submit a grant application which will provide $133,850 in funding for a Deputy Sheriff and a
Drug/Re-entry Coordinator, along with providing funds to cover the overtime costs of
investigators. The Deputy Sheriff will be responsible for investigating overdose cases, with the
ultimate goal of identifying dealers and suppliers for prosecution. The Drug/Re-entry
Coordinator will work with the Washington County Detention Center and the Narcotics Task
Force to help facilitate treatment for individuals with addictions.
DISCUSSION: The Washington County Office of Community Grant Management has
reviewed the application and program guidelines. There is no match requirement associated with
the grant and no unusual conditions or terms exist.
FISCAL IMPACT: Provides $133,850 to fund overtime and two (2) additional
Washington County Sheriff’s Office positions for 12 months. County funds will be required to
retain these positions beyond June 30, 2017.
CONCURRENCES: Director, Office of Community Grant Management, Sheriff
Douglas Mullendore, Washington County Sheriff’s Office
ALTERNATIVES: Deny approval for submission of this request
ATTACHMENTS: N/A
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Request for revocation of APFO agreement - Rosehill Manor
PRESENTATION DATE: June 7, 2016
PRESENTATION BY: Timothy Lung, Deputy Director-Plan Review
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve revocation of the APFO School
Mitigation Agreement for Rosehill Manor dated May 27, 2009.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The developer of Rosehill Manor has requested that the existing
Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) agreement be nullified so that the Alternative
Mitigation Process for schools under the APFO may be used.
DISCUSSION: Rosehill Manor is a proposed 132-lot single-family residential subdivision to be
located along the south side of Longmeadow Rd. In 2009 the developer, Dan Ryan Builders,
entered into an APFO agreement with the County that addresses mitigation for school capacity in
the form of a fee payment of $5,708.65 per lot to be paid on a per lot basis prior to the issuance
of building permits. In 2013 the County adopted an amendment to the APFO which provides for
an Alternate Mitigation Contribution (AMC) to address school inadequacies. Prior to the
adoption of the AMC, developers would negotiate APFO school mitigations payments on a case
by case basis with the Board of County Commissioners. The AMC provides for a consistent
calculation of the payment amount based on an adopted formula. The current AMC amount for a
single family dwelling is $2,892.14. The Ordinance requires that the AMC, once approved, be
paid prior to final subdivision plat approval. Payment deferral to the building permit stage is not
an option.
It is the developer’s intention to use the AMC process in the event that the Board of County
Commissioners agrees to revoke the old APFO agreement. As the Rosehill Manor project
proceeds through the subdivision process each final plat will be subject to the AMC process and
fee calculation applicable at that time. This will allow for buildout of the development given the
changed market conditions since the original APFO agreement was reached.
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
CONCURRENCES: N/A
ALTERNATIVES: Require the developer to continue to abide by the 2009 agreement.
ATTACHMENTS: May 2, 2016 request letter from Jason Divelbiss Attorney at Law
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: None