HomeMy WebLinkAbout06.13.2017 Agenda
Individuals requiring special accommodations are requested to contact the Office of the County Commissioners, 240.313.2200 Voice/TDD, to make arrangements.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
June 13, 2017
Agenda
10:00 A.M. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CALL TO ORDER, President Terry L. Baker
APPROVAL OF MINUTES –JUNE 6, 2017
10:05 A.M. COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS AND COMMENTS
10:10 A.M. REPORTS FROM COUNTY STAFF
10:15 A.M. CITIZENS PARTICIPATION
10:20 A.M. 2017 MD AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION (MALPF) FINAL
CERTIFICATION REPORT APPROVAL – Eric Seifarth
10:30 A.M. BID AWARD (PUR-1352) INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND RELATED
ELECTION TECHNICAL SERVICES FOR THE WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD
OF ELECTIONS – Karen Luther, Purchasing; Barry Jackson and Bruce Field, Board Of
Elections
10:35 A.M. CONTRACT AWARD (PUR-1345) LANDFILL MONITORING SERVICES – Karen
Luther and Dave Mason
10:40 A.M. FY2018 ANNUAL PROGRAM OPEN SPACE PROGRAM – Jim Sterling
10:45 A.M. 2017 – 2018 PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE RENEWALS – Tracy
McCammon and Patrick Hancock of AON Risk Solutions
10:50 A.M. BID AWARD (PUR-1349) GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FOR VARIOUS COUNTY
DEPARTMENTS – Rick Curry, Purchasing and John Easterday, Black Rock Golf
Course
10:55 A.M. CONVEYANCE OF REAL PROPERTY TO CASCADE TOWN CENTRE
DEVELOPMENT, LLC. – Susan Small
Terry L. Baker, President
Jeffrey A. Cline, Vice
President
John F. Barr
Wayne K. Keefer
LeRoy E. Myers, Jr.
100 West Washington Street, Suite 1101 | Hagerstown, MD 21740-4735 | P: 240.313.2200 | F: 240.313.2201
WWW.WASHCO-MD.NET
Individuals requiring special accommodations are requested to contact the Office of the County Commissioners, 240.313.2200 Voice/TDD, to make arrangements.
11:00 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; to consider a matter that concerns a proposal for a
business or industrial organization to locate, expand, or remain in the State; to consult with staff, consultants, or other
individuals about pending or potential litigation; and to consult with counsel to obtain legal advice on a legal matter.)
11:45 A.M. ADJOURNMENT
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: 2017 Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation (MALPF) Final
Certification Report Approval
PRESENTATION DATE: June 13, 2017
PRESENTATION BY: Eric Seifarth, Rural Preservation Administrator, Dept. of Planning &
Zoning
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Approve the enclosed Final Certification Report (checklist) of
the Washington County Agricultural Land Preservation Program to present to the Maryland
Departments of Planning (MDP) and Agriculture (MDA) for approval.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: Every 3 years the Land Preservation staff is required to prepare and
submit a Certification Report so as to retain an additional 42% (total 75% retention) of state
agricultural transfer taxes. Agricultural Land Preservation Staff will submit the certification
report to MDP and MDA after approval by the Board of County Commissioners. The
Certification Report is based on questions developed at the State level to assess the County’s
Agricultural Land Preservation Program and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. While
the Certification Report addresses all the County agricultural land preservation programs,
Washington County has traditionally used 100% of the transfer tax funds for the 60/40 match
component of MALPP. A sample under FISCAL IMPACT shows the multiplying effect of the
certification on the 60/40 match mechanism.
DISCUSSION: The County’s Final Certification Report addresses several main items from the
interim certification report which the State feels need to be clarified. These items are located on
page 8 item IV.D.3.b.(County easement acquisition programs), page 9 item IV.E (inventory),
page 9 item IV.G.1 (program development strategy) and page 10 item IV.G.3 (coordination with
neighboring counties). The report discusses our plans to achieve a goal of 50,000 acres in
permanent preservation. MDA and MDP understand that factors affecting our strategy will
change over time and we will have on-going opportunity to update and modify our land
preservation plans.
FISCAL IMPACT: The certification process allows the County to retain an additional 42% of
State Agricultural Transfer Tax. While the tax amount collected varies, in years of high farmland
to residential use conversion the additional 42% has yielded several hundred thousand dollars.
With the amount of transfer tax revenue decreasing in the past several years, it is important that
we receive as much funding as possible to better serve our land preservation needs.
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
Example: Collection of tax w/o certification - $200,000 x 33% = $66,000 then leveraged through
60/40 match = $165,000. With certification - $200,000 x 75% = $ 150,000 then leveraged =
$375,000.
CONCURRENCES: The Agriculture Land Preservation Advisory Board has approved the
report.
ALTERNATIVES: Decline certification and not receive the 42% additional funds from
agricultural transfer tax.
ATTACHMENTS: Final Certification Report
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A
Based on COMAR Title 34 Department of Planning, Subtitle .03 Land Use, Chapter .03
Certification of County Agricultural Land Preservation Programs
DATE: May, 2017 COUNTY: WASHINGTON
DATE OF TRANSMITTAL:
CHECKLIST FOR CERTIFIED COUNTIES' ANNUAL REPORTS1 - FY 14,15,16
I. The county agricultural preservation advisory board, or the county office of planning
or county planning commission, as designated by the county, and the governing body
of the county:
OK A. Have approved the application for (re)certification of the county program
(.05(A)(2)).
Letters were signed by
II. Financial Reporting. Both annual reports shall provide a financial report that
includes:
OK A. Estimated revenues and expenditures for the county's agricultural land transfer tax
account for fiscal years that have transpired in their entirety during the certification
period (.10(B)(1)(a)); and
Agricultural Land Transfer Tax in Washington County
Ag Land Transfer
Tax Collected Surcharge Remitted to State
(Incl. Surcharge) Retained
FY 2014 $183,764 $45,860 $91,801 $137,823
FY 2015 $35,266 $8,389 $17,205 $26,450
FY 2016 $164,742 $40,628 $81,814 $123,556
TOTAL $383,772 $94,877 $190,819 $287,830
OK B. Revenue sources for, and estimated expenditures of, any other funds used to purchase
development rights, provide financial enhancements to purchases of development
rights, or administer the county's agricultural preservation program (.10(B)(1)(b)).
Expenditure of “Other” County Funds
FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016
Installment Payments $563,735 $548,203 $366,726
Tax Credits on Easement
Properties $146,268 $157,776 $161,276
TOTAL $710,003 $705,979 $528,002
1 Note: The first report is due on October 1 following the completion of the first full fiscal year of the certification period,
except as extended by MDP for reasonable cause.
The second report is due on October 1 following completion of the second full fiscal year of the certification period, except as
extended by MDP of reasonable cause.
Washington County Recertification Application Checklist
December 12, 2016
Page 2 of 11
OK C. Information necessary for MDP and MALPF to determine if the county is meeting its
commitment of qualifying expenditures in an amount at least equal to the additional
funds available to the county as a result of certification (a financial reporting form for
this purpose is available from MDP) (05(D); .10(B)(2)).
As the figures above show, the county is more than meeting its commitment for qualifying
expenditures.
OK D. All expenditures reported shall be identified as qualifying or non-qualifying
expenditures (.10(B)(3)).
OK E. Financial reports shall be verified and signed by the county's chief financial officer or
by an independent auditor (.10(B)(4)).
Financial reports for FYs 2014, 2015, and 2016 were signed by SB & Company, LLC.
III. In addition to the financial report above, the FIRST and SECOND annual report of
each certification period shall include: Attachment C
OK A. An inventory of properties which have been permanently preserved by an agricultural
land preservation easement during the reporting period (.10(C)(2)).
OK B. The total number of easements purchased and acreage preserved through the county
and State agricultural land preservation easement purchase programs during the
reporting period (.10(C)(3)).
Washington County preserved 1,548 acres for the three fiscal years FY 2014-FY 2016.
OK C. An update on progress made to reach the milestones established in the county's most
recent program development strategy (.10(C)(4)).
Provided elsewhere in checklist.
IV. In addition to the financial report and the information required in the first annual
report, above, the SECOND annual report of each certification period shall include:
OK A. A map of all agricultural lands preserved in the county, including those preserved
both during and before the certification period, showing those properties in relation to
priority preservation areas (.10(D)(2)).
Washington County Land Preserved by Easement
FY 2014-2016
FY MALPF Rural
Legacy MET CREP IPP
2014 152.3 317.3
2015 41.1 70.9 99.8
2016 185.8 510.7 170.2
Total 379.2 898.9 0 270 0
Washington County Recertification Application Checklist
December 12, 2016
Page 3 of 11
OK B. A description of the programs the county has established to encourage participation of
farmers in agricultural land preservation efforts, including purchase of development
rights or financial enhancements related to the purchase of development rights,
outside of MALPF (.05(B));
Washington County uses a full array of easement programs: MALPF, MET, Rural
Legacy, MET, local PDRs with an IPP option, CREP, and other federal programs such
as transportation scenic easements.
C. An evaluation of the county's agricultural land preservation program, including the
strengths and shortcomings in each of the following areas (.05(E); .05(E)(1)):
1. The ability of the county's zoning and other land use management tools to do the
following in the county's priority preservation area (.05(E)(1)(a)):
OK a. Limit the amount and geographic distribution of subdivision and development
in accordance with established agricultural land preservation goals
(.05(E)(1)(a)(i));
Washington County reports the following: “While in the past Washington County had a
liberal lot allowance of 1/5 in the Agricultural Zoning, the Sustainable Growth and
Agricultural Preservation Act allows a maximum of only 7 subdivision rights per parcel.
16,300 subdivision rights were lost leaving only 18,400 rights available in the rural
areas.”
OK b. Stabilize the land base (.05(E)(1)(a)(ii)); and
See above IV.C.1.a. In addition, the acreage subject to agricultural land transfer tax,
depicted on the graph below, shows a steep decline after the 2005 downzoning, even
before the economic downturn that started in FY 2009. (In 2005 Washington County
made its zoning significantly more protective by changing it from 1:1 (Agriculture) or 1:3
(Conservation) to the following:
1:5 (+3 lots) Agricultural zone,
1:20 (+ 3 lots) Environmental Conservation zone,
1:30 (+ 3 lots) Preservation (Rural Legacy) zone. Plus 2 more lots at 1:50.
The chart below shows that since 1990, the total acreage subject to agricultural land
transfer tax in Washington County is notably higher than in the “average” Maryland
County. However, just four years of excessive development in Washington County explain
all the difference. In fact, if you exclude the years 1990, 1995, and 2004, the total
acreage of farmland converted in Washington County (10,592) would be lower than that
for the “average” Maryland County (10,624)
Washington County Recertification Application Checklist
December 12, 2016
Page 4 of 11
OK c. Provide time for agricultural land preservation easement acquisition to
achieve State and local preservation goals before the agricultural land resource
is excessively compromised by development (.05(E)(1)(a)(iii)).
For the five-year period of FYs 2012-2016, Washington County preserved 2,258 acres
while 474 were subject to Agricultural Land Transfer Tax. The county reports that
Washington County Recertification Application Checklist
December 12, 2016
Page 5 of 11
“[s]ince the rate of conversion had slowed so significantly from past 5 year periods and
the rate of protection will continue to increase with State funds being restored, it appears
very likely that our permanent easement efforts will allow us to keep pace.”
OK 2. The ability of combined State, local, and other agricultural land preservation
easement acquisition programs to permanently preserve lands in the county's
priority preservation area at a rate sufficient to achieve State and local
preservation goals (.05(E)(1)(b)).
Washington County reports that of the 859 acres permanently preserved in FY 2016, all
was in the PPA. The five-year figure for acres subject to agricultural land transfer tax in
the whole county was just 474, so easements are being acquired in the PPA at a rate
sufficient to achieve State and local preservation goals.
OK 3. The degree to which county land use and other ordinances and regulations restrict
or otherwise interfere with the conduct of normal agricultural activities in the
priority preservation area (.05(E)(1)(c)).
The county’s right-to-farm ordinance protects farmers by allowing any normal farm
activity.
OK 4. The ability of county zoning, subdivision, and development regulations and
policies to minimize the degree to which development in the priority preservation
area interferes with normal agricultural activities (05.(E)(1)(d)).
As mentioned in IV.C.1.a above, the Sustainable Growth and Agricultural Preservation
Act has countered the effects of the liberal 1:5 agricultural zoning. Meanwhile, Environ-
Washington County Recertification Application Checklist
December 12, 2016
Page 6 of 11
mental Conservation zoning of 1:20 and Preservation zoning of 1:30 further limit
development in rural areas, including PPAs.
OK 5. The ability of county and other farming assistance programs to support profitable
agriculture and forestry activities in the priority preservation area (05.(E)(1)(e)).
The recertification application reports that “Washington County has a complete package
of farmer assistance programs, including Soil Conservation, Farm Services Agency,
Extension Service, Ag Marketing specialist, as well as an active farmland preservation
program. In addition, we have encouraged farm support services such as feed and
equipment dealers to maintain a strong presence in the County.”
6. Statistics and other factual information necessary to evaluate the county's
agricultural land preservation program, such as:
OK a. A description of the amount of subdivision and development allowed on land
within zoning districts comprising the priority preservation area, including base
density and additional lots allowed for clustering, density transfers between
parcels, and any other provisions affecting lot yields (.05(E)(2)(a));
See IV.C.1.4, above. As mentioned above, for the 5 years of FY 2012-2016, 474 acres
were subject to agricultural land transfer tax countywide. Washington County reports
that from 1/1/2011 to 12/31/2015 Washington County lost only 231 acres of converted
farmland in the entire rural area.
b. The numbers and locations of residential parcels and acres subdivided and
developed within the priority preservation area during the most recent 5-year
period (.05(E)(2)(b));
OK c. The total acreage and locations of farms and parcels permanently preserved
through agricultural land preservation easements recorded in the land records
of the county during the most recent 5-year period (.05(E)(2)(c));
Program totals were provided.
OK d. The constraints and restrictions placed by county ordinances and regulations on
normal agricultural activities, such as minimum setbacks from property
boundaries (.05(E)(2)(d)); and
Washington County reports that there are no restrictions placed on normal agricultural
activities.
OK e. The constraints and restrictions placed by county ordinances and regulations on
non-agricultural development activities, in order to minimize conflicts with
normal agricultural activities within the priority preservation area
(.05)(E)(2)(e)).
Setbacks requiring a 50 feet buffer.
Washington County Recertification Application Checklist
December 12, 2016
Page 7 of 11
D. A program development strategy which:
OK 1. Describes the way in which the goals of the program will be accomplished in the
county's priority preservation area, including the county's strategy to protect land
from development through zoning, preserve the desired amount of land with
permanent easements, and maintain a rural environment capable of supporting
normal agricultural and forestry activities (.05(F)(1)).
While Washington County’s overall goal is to protect 50,000 acres in permanent
preservation in the county as a whole, the PPA properties receive bonus points in the
priority rankings of their easement programs. In addition, the county’s easement priority
ranking system gives about 25% of the total points available for properties which are
contiguous to other easements. Since Washington’s PPA was selected in part because of
close proximity to permanently protected land, the chances are higher for protection in
those areas.
The Sustainable Growth and Agricultural Preservation Act has dramatically curtailed
potential lot rights in most rural areas. As mentioned previously, between 1/1/2011 and
12/31/2015 only 231 acres of farmland were converted. Washington County expects that
trend to continue; in fact, in several cases subdivided lots have been added back to farms
being preserved with easements. The county program administrator, Eric Seithforth,
reports, “We have often heard people in the rural area complain recently about not being
able to sell lots they have spent considerable money on to subdivide. We have seen a
shift from using rural areas as temporary farmland until development occurs. There is a
much stronger sense of permanence now in our rural areas.”
Finally, with the increased state funding levels and the county plan to use a portion of
Installment Payment Program funds to gain an additional $600,000 of MALPP 60/40
match money each cycle, Washington County reports that it is on pace to achieve our
goal of 50,000 acres in permanent preservation in about 20 more years.
OK 2. Includes a schedule of activities the county will undertake to overcome
shortcomings in the ability of county tools identified in the evaluation
(.05)(F)(3)).
With the limited number of lot rights now available in the rural area, the increasing pace
of preservation, and the rate of land preserved compared to land developed, Washington
County is on track to reach its goal of 50,000 acres of land permanently preserved by
easement. With state funding being increased in the next few years and, hopeful, a return
to normal levels of land preservation funding, the county does not see obstacles to
achieving its goals. Landowner interest remains very strong for all programs and local
support is high. [MDP data show about 29,400 acres under easements of all types in
Washington County.]
3. Includes a schedule of milestones according to which the county hopes to
overcome the identified shortcomings, including but not limited to changes the
county intends to make or pursue in:
Washington County Recertification Application Checklist
December 12, 2016
Page 8 of 11
OK a. The county comprehensive plan, zoning, land use management tools, and
related regulations and procedures (.05(F)(4)(a));
The comprehensive plan is currently being updated and should be completed in 2017.
The county does not expect to change its rural zoning because of the reduction of lots
resulting from the Sustainable Growth and Agricultural Preservation Act.
OK b. County easement acquisition programs (.05(F)(4)(b));
As mentioned in IV.D.2 above, the county reports that easement programs have seen
increased interest, with funding being restored over the next 10 years at the State level
and extra allocations of funding in the meantime. Legislation enacted in 2016—HB 462,
Program Open Space - Transfer Tax Repayment – Use of Funds—including the following
earmarks, “Notwithstanding any other section of the law”:
In FY2017, Washington County approved the use of County Real Estate Transfer Tax
(RETT) to fund the MALPF 60/40 Match. Over the past 12 years, that funding has been
used to fund the County’s Installment Payment Program (IPP). However, in order to
leverage more funding, now that agricultural transfer tax revenue collections are low, the
County has elected to use half of the $400,000 per year it receives from the RETT for its
40% portion of the 60/40 Match. The Board of County Commissioners has approved a
$330,000 allotment from the RETT towards the 60/40 Match for the FY17 MALPF Cycle,
which will result in a $495,000 match from MALPF, and an overall allotment of
$825,000 for the 60/40 Match mechanism.
OK c. County ordinances, regulations, or procedures supporting or restricting normal
agricultural activities (.05(F)(4)(c));
Washington County has a Right to Farm ordinance that protects all normal
agricultural activities. Every property sold in the County has a statement saying that
the county protects normal farming practices.
_____ d. County ordinances, regulations, or procedures limiting non-agricultural
development activities that might interfere with the conduct of normal
agricultural activities (.05)(F)(4)(d));
OK e. County strategies or mechanisms to fund easement acquisition (.05(F)(4)(e)); and
Washington County created a 2% county piggyback agricultural land transfer tax. It
runs its own PDR program, which has an Installment Payment Program(IPP). The
county also accepts donated easements and uses its local share of ag transfer tax for
60/40 MALPF matching and the use of a county ag transfer tax for easements. In
addition, Washington County is exploring the use of IPP funds for additional leveraging
FY 2017 FY 2018
POS-State: $4 million
POS-Local: $5 million
Rural Legacy: $4.862 million
MALPF: $3.5 million
POS-State: $3.412 million
POS-Local: $11 million
Rural Legacy: $9 million
MALPF: $9 million
Washington County Recertification Application Checklist
December 12, 2016
Page 9 of 11
in the MALPP 60/40 match. The county also has had success in obtaining easements
through CREP and federal transportation funds.
OK f. Farming assistance programs and activities (.05(F)(4)(f));
Washington County has an active Soil Conservation Service, Farm Services
Agency, Ag Marketing , Extension Service and Farm Credit to help farmers.
E. An inventory, in digital or tabular form, of the properties which have been
permanently preserved by a recorded conservation easement, which:
_____ 1. If in digital form, is approved by MDP for content and format (.05(G)).
2. If in tabular form, includes, for each property:
_____ a. The number of each tax map on which each parcel comprising the easement
occurs (.05(G)(2)(a));
_____ b. Each grid cell number of each tax map for each parcel comprising the easement
(.05(G)(2)(b));
_____ c. Each parcel number through which the property can be identified on each tax
map (.05(G)(2)(c));
_____ d. The total number of acres of each easement property (.05(G)(2)(d));
_____ e. The date on which the easement became effective (.05(G)(2)(e));
_____ f. The preservation program which holds the easement (.05(G)(2)(f));
_____ g. The means through which the easement was acquired, such as purchase,
transfer of development rights between private parties, or another means
specified by the county (.05(G)(2)(g)); and
_____ h. The easement purchase price, if the easement was purchased through or with
financial assistance from a government program (.05(G)(2)(h)).
N/A F. A description of any changes in the county priority preservation area and the priority
preservation area element of the local plan (.10(D)(4)).
G. During the certification period, the county:
_____ 1. Has made reasonable progress on the recommendations and improvements
scheduled in its most recent program development strategy, or can justify
deviation from that strategy (.05(11)(B)(1)(c)).
We have made excellent progress in all programs since the last reporting period. We
have recently surpassed the 31,000-acre mark, which puts us over three-fifths of the way
Washington County Recertification Application Checklist
December 12, 2016
Page 10 of 11
toward our goal. Funding and interest in our programs continue to climb and we are
optimistic of reaching our 50,000 acres of permanent preservation in the next 25 years.
In 2014’s recertification report, Washington County listed the following items in its
program development strategy:
A continuing evaluation of development occurring in the PPA will provide the data to
support the implementation of additional preservation measures if needed. In the last
five years, 30 parcels were subdivided in the PPA, equating to 82.38 total acres. In
contrast, 42 easements were preserved in the PPA over the same time frame,
consisting of 1,993.55 acres. That means that for every 1 acre subdivided, the County
has managed to preserve roughly 25 acres of land in the PPA.
The continuing encouragement of donated easements and a County TDR program.
While the County has made no progress in the development of a TDR program, it has
made strides in procuring donated easements. Landowners continue to discover the
benefits of donated easements on their land, especially regarding improving easement
rankings, ag-subdivision feasibility, and tax benefits.
Continue to support the clustering of easements. Washington County’s ranking
systems for the bulk of its easement programs tend to lead toward the clustering of
easements, as they give weight to contiguity. To that affect, it is no surprise that the
majority of easements procured over the past several years have been in close
proximity to existing permanent easements.
Revising the zoning in the UGA to support higher densities, where appropriate. With
the County-wide goal of protecting 50,000 acres of farmland taken into account, the
Department of Planning and Zoning is currently in the process of updating its
Comprehensive Plan. As a practice, the UGA is has been designated as a high-
growth area, and the Comprehensive Plan update itself will reiterate this, as well as
provide recommendations for directing density into the UGA and preserving the
intrinsic qualities of Washington County’s open space.
The recertification application states that the county has rezoned the Urban Growth Areas
in ways that will make them more attractive for development.
OK 2. Has been reasonably successful in preserving agricultural land and controlling
subdivisions and conversion of agricultural land consistent with State and county
goals and plans to preserve agricultural land and to protect environmental quality
(.05(11)(B)(1)(d)).
As mentioned above, for the five-year period of FYs 2012-2016, Washington County
preserved 2,258 acres while 474 were subject to Agricultural Land Transfer Tax. The
previous five-year report, covering the fiscal years 2009-2013, showed 3,289 acres
preserved and just 354 converted.
_____ 3. Has made significant attempts to coordinate agricultural preservation efforts with
those of neighboring counties, when appropriate, and MDP and MALPF
(.05(11)(B)(1)(d)).
Washington County works with other Maryland counties on a regular basis
through a variety of programs. Generally, it is in the form of providing guidance
Washington County Recertification Application Checklist
December 12, 2016
Page 11 of 11
for, and troubleshooting, different nuances of the many preservation programs
available. However, there have been occasions, especially along the Appalachian
Trail, where we have had to consult with our Frederick County counterpart.
Further, the updating of MALPF Uses Policies has been a coordinated effort with
several other Administrators, as Eric Seifarth sits on the Uses Committee. In
addition, we have met with land preservation officials from W.Va. to seek Federal
easement funds through NRCS.
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Bid Award (PUR-1352) – Information Technology and
Related Election Technical Services for the Washington County Board of Elections
PRESENTATION DATE: June 13, 2017
PRESENTATION BY: Karen R. Luther, CPPO – Director of Purchasing; Barry
Jackson, Deputy Director and Bruce Field, President – Washington County Board of Elections
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Motion to award the bid for Information Technology and
Related Election Technical Services for the Washington County Board of Elections to the
responsible, responsive bidder IT Election Services, LLC of Hagerstown, MD who submitted
the lowest (annual) Total Bid Price in the amount of $49,920.00.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The Washington County Board of Elections sought bids for
information technology and related Election technical services as required by the Board of
Elections in order to permit the Board of Elections to discharge its statutory duties and satisfy
those information technology and election related requirements imposed upon the Board of
Elections by the State Board of Elections (SBE), including, but not limited to, those services
outlined in the bid document that included specified minimum requirements, necessary skills and
abilities, maintenance of equipment, training for users, policy development, warehouse
management, reports and performance schedules for each.
The successful contractor shall be compensated for his or her time and professional services in
twelve (12) equal monthly installments payable the first of each month beginning August 2017
for the month of July’s service. No services are needed from the successful contractor for a sixty
(60) calendar day period prior to any election as the State furnishes a contractor to provide
services during that period; therefore, no compensation will be paid to the successful contractor
for those two-month periods as they occur. Since these services may span more than one (1)
fiscal year, the hourly rates for Extra Work will automatically adjust three (3%) percent on the
anniversary of the date of the contract between the County and the Contractor.
The contract will be for a one-year period tentatively commencing July 1, 2017, with an option
by the County to renew for up three (3) additional consecutive one-year periods, subject to
written notice given by the County at least sixty (60) calendar days in advance of each expiration
date. If the Bidder wishes to renew the contract, he/she must submit a letter of intent to the
County's Representative at least ninety (90) calendar days prior to the expiration of each contract
term. The County reserves the right to accept or reject any request for renewal and any increase
in costs that the Bidder may request. All other terms and conditions shall remain unchanged.
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
The bid was advertised on the State’s “eMaryland Marketplace” and County’s website, and
published in the local newspaper. One hundred forty-eight (148) persons/companies
registered/downloaded the bid document on-line, and one (1) firm was represented at the pre-bid
conference. One (1) bid was received on May 31, 2017 as indicated on the attached bid
tabulation sheet.
DISCUSSION: Please take note that the principal of IT Election Services, LLC is Dean
Robucci, the long-time provider over more than the last ten (10) years of similar services to the
Election Board in his prior positions as an employee of the various vendors who, under contracts
with the State Board of Elections (“SBE”) and local election boards (“LBEs”) across the State,
routinely staff the requirements of LBEs in the several month run-up to and close-down of
primary and general elections. Unfortunately, the extensive IT services now necessary to satisfy
SBE mandates for election systems (including substantial security issues) require that the County
contract for a full-time position.
Further, please note that Mr. Robucci is the spouse of Kaye Robucci, the Director of the
Washington County Election Board. Recognizing the inherent issues arising from that
relationship, Ms. Robucci recused herself from all consideration of the subject position and
assigned all responsibilities and decisions related thereto to the Deputy Election Director, Barry
Jackson. Further, as the Minutes of the Election Board will reflect, Ms. Robucci absented herself
from all meetings of the Board related thereto. The Election Board President, Bruce Field, and
counsel to the Election Board, Roger Schlossberg, have taken a hands-on role in all activities
related to the position and, with the active participation of the County Administrator and the
Director of Purchasing (and expressly without any role of Ms. Robucci), prepared the Request
for Bids and all specifications of the Contract. Further, all procurement procedures related to the
subject Contract similarly have been monitored by the Director of Purchasing, the County
Administrator’s Office and the County Attorney to ensure strict compliance with those
procedures.
FISCAL IMPACT: Funding in the amount of $50,000 has been approved in the FY’18
budget under Contracted/Purchased Service for these services
CONCURRENCES: Washington County Board of Elections
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
ATTACHMENTS: Bid Tabulation
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A
PUR-1352
Information Technology and Related Election Technical Services
Description Qty.Unit
Price
Total
Price
Information Technology and Related
Election Technical Services -
PER MONTH
12 $4,160.00 $49,920.00
Description Unit
Service Rate for Extra Work not covered
by Service Contract -
REGULAR
Hour
REMARKS / EXCEPTIONS:
Repair parts and materials not included herein shall be billed at cost plus twenty-five (25%) percent.
I have over ten (10) years of experience working with the Washington County Board of Elections
IT Election Services, LLC *
Hagerstown, MD
Unit
Price
$24.00
1 Proposals Opened: 04-27-17
BOCC ONLY
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Contract Award (PUR-1345) - Landfill Monitoring Services -
Requirements Contract
PRESENTATION DATE: June 13, 2017
PRESENTATION BY: Karen R. Luther, CPPO – Director of Purchasing and
David A. Mason, P.E., Deputy Director of Environmental Management – Department of Solid
Waste and Watershed Programs
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Motion to award the contract to the responsive, responsible
proposer, Barton & Loguidice of Camp Hill, PA with the lowest total (annual) proposal amount
of $87,051.10, for providing Landfill Monitoring Services.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The services under this contract consist of providing gas and water
monitoring services at the five (5) landfill locations for the Department of Solid Waste. It is a
requirements contract, utilized on an as-needed basis with no guarantee of minimum or
maximum number units of services. The duration of the contract is for a period of two (2) years
for these services with an option by the Board of County Commissioners of Washington County,
Maryland (the “County”) to renew for up to three (3) additional, consecutive one (1) year
periods. Extensions are subject to written approval by the County at least sixty (60) calendar
days prior to the contract expiration date.
The Request for Proposal (RFP) was advertised in the local newspaper, on the State of
Maryland’s web site, “eMaryland Marketplace”, and on the County’s web site. Forty-one (41)
firms/persons accessed the RFP document from the County’s web site, and five (5) firms were
represented at the pre-proposal conference. Five (5) proposals were received; three (3) proposals
were deemed responsive and their Price Proposals were opened as shown on the attached Price
Proposal Tabulations. The Coordinating Committee was comprised of the following members:
County Director of Environmental Management (Chairman Designee), County Director of
Purchasing, County Deputy Director of Environmental Management - Solid Waste, Assistant
Director of Solid Waste and Operations Supervisor.
DISCUSSION: N/A
FISCAL IMPACT: Landfill Monitoring Services funding for monitoring of
groundwater, surface water, domestic wells, gas migration monitoring, and NPDES stormwater
at applicable department landfill sites is from the specific departments’ budgets in Fund 21.
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
BOCC ONLY
CONCURRENCES: Coordinating Committee
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
ATTACHMENTS: Price Proposal Tab Sheet
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A
1
BOCC ONLY
PUR-1345
Landfill Monitoring Services
Barton & Loguidice
Camp Hill, PA
Environmental Alliance,
Inc.
Glen Bernie, MD
P. Joseph Lehman, Inc.
Ducansville, PA
Description
Approx.
Annual
Number
Unit
Price
Total
Price
Unit
Price
Total
Price
Unit
Price
Total
Price
WATER MONITORING - SURFACE AND GROUND WATER MONITORING EVENTS:
1
Resh Road Landfill - Lump Sum -
Surface and Ground Water Monitoring
Event
2 $6,215.00 $12,430.00 $6,820.00 $13,640.00 $8,727.00 $17,454.00
2
Rubble Landfill - Lump Sum -
Surface and Ground Water Monitoring
Event
2 $6,245.00 $12,490.00 $5,820.00 $11,640.00 $9,231.00 $18,462.00
3
City/County Landfill - Lump Sum -
Surface and Ground Water Monitoring
Event
1 $3,269.00 $3,269.00 $3,455.00 $3,455.00 $4,770.00 $4,770.00
4
40 West Landfill - Lump Sum -
Surface and Ground Water Monitoring
Event
2 $8,153.00 $16,306.00 $9,080.00 $18,160.00 $11,345.00 $22,690.00 *
5
Hancock Landfill - Lump Sum -
Surface and Ground Water Monitoring
Event
2 $2,056.00 $4,112.00 $3,240.00 $6,480.00 $2,911.00 $5,822.00
6 Kaetzel Transfer Station - Lump Sum -
Surface and Ground Water Monitoring
Event
1 $874.00 $874.00 $1,545.00 $1,545.00 $1,551.50 $1,551.50 *
ANNUAL DOMESTIC WATER SUPPLY TESTING - DOMESTIC GROUND WATER MONITORING EVENTS:
7
40 West Landfill - Lump Sum –
Domestic Ground Water Monitoring
Event
1 $3,289.00 $3,289.00 $3,750.00 $3,750.00 $6,145.00 $6,145.00
8 Rubble Landfill - Lump Sum - Domestic
Ground Water Monitoring Event: 1 $506.00 $506.00 $1,090.00 $1,090.00 $1,910.00 $1,910.00
2
BOCC ONLY
Barton & Loguidice
Camp Hill, PA
Environmental Alliance,
Inc.
Glen Bernie, MD
P. Joseph Lehman, Inc.
Ducansville, PA
Service
Approx.
Annual
Number
Unit
Price
Total
Price
Unit
Price
Total
Price
Unit
Price
Total
Price
GAS MONITORING - GAS MONITORING EVENTS:
9 Resh Road Landfill - Lump Sum - Gas
Monitoring Event 4 $114.24 $456.96 $180.00 $720.00 $155.00 $620.00
10 Rubble Landfill - Lump Sum –
Gas Monitoring Event 1 $88.96 $88.96 $195.00 $195.00 $100.00 $100.00
11 City/County Landfill - Lump Sum –
Gas Monitoring Event 4 $114.24 $456.96 $195.00 $780.00 $155.00 $620.00
12 40 West Landfill - Lump Sum –
Gas Monitoring Event 4 $114.24 $456.96 $210.00 $840.00 $155.00 $620.00
13 Hancock Landfill - Lump Sum –
Gas Monitoring Event 4 $114.24 $456.96 $180.00 $720.00 $205.00 $820.00
14 Kaetzel Transfer Station - Lump Sum –
Gas Monitoring Event 2 $97.85 $195.70 $275.00 $550.00 $100.00 $200.00
WELL INSTALLATION / ABANDONMENT:
15 Price per Linear Foot of Well drilled 100 $63.00 $6,300.00 $65.00 $6,500.00 $47.00 $4,700.00
16 Price per Linear Foot of Well
Abandonment 100 $13.00 $1,300.00 $65.00 $6,500.00 $9.00 $900.00
HOURLY RATES:
17 Professional Engineer 25 $145.00 $3,625.00 $100.00 $2,500.00 $85.00 $2,125.00
18 Geologist 50 $60.00 $3,000.00 $74.00 $3,700.00 $50.00 $2,500.00
19 Field Personnel 100 $45.00 $4,500.00 $53.00 $5,300.00 $40.00 $4,000.00
3
BOCC ONLY
Barton & Loguidice
Camp Hill, PA
Environmental Alliance,
Inc.
Glen Bernie, MD
P. Joseph Lehman, Inc.
Ducansville, PA
Description
Approx.
Annual
Number
Unit
Price
Total
Price
Unit
Price
Total
Price
Unit
Price
Total
Price
EVENT RATE:
20 NPDES Storm Water Sampling Event
(4 Events x 5 Sites) 20 $646.88 $12,937.60 * $725.00 $14,500.00 $917.50 $18,350.00 *
TOTAL
PROPOSAL AMOUNT $87,051.10 * $102,565.00 $114,359.50 *
* Corrected calculations based on individual unit pricing.
Item
No.
Barton & Loguidice:
15 Well installation costs assume single cased well installed within site overburden soils to final depth. Well unit price cost could vary depending on final
well design and/or specific geologic conditions.
20 B&L cost included is for quarterly routine and visual inspections along with an annual comprehensive site compliance evaluation.
Semi-annual NPDES storm water sampling and annual reporting is assumed to be completed by the County. B&L's cost to perform site Semi-annual
NPDES storm water sampling is $2,560 per facility/event.
If purge water is needed to be containerized and disposed of, a separate cost would be provided for those services, if warranted.
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: FY 2018 Annual Program Open Space Program
PRESENTATION DATE: June 13, 2017
PRESENTATION BY: Jim Sterling, Director of Public Works
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the Annual FY 2018 POS Program as
presented and recommended by the Washington County Recreation and Parks Advisory Board.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: as per POS guidelines, each year the Board of County Commissioners is
required to adopt the annual POS Program.
DISCUSSION: The various municipalities, Board of Education, Hagerstown Community
College as well as the City of Hagerstown and County submit projects for consideration for
inclusion in the annual POS Program. Based upon anticipated funds available, a program is
developed giving consideration to the priority ranking of the project given by its sponsor. The
Recreation and Parks Advisory Board then recommends to the Board of County Commissioners
a program for adoption. After adoption by the Board of County Commissioners, notification is
provided to the sponsors as to which projects have been included in the program along with
approval letters. This then allows the sponsors to apply for funding after July 1.
FISCAL IMPACT: Anticipated POS allocation for FY 2018, $773,841.00
CONCURRENCES: Washington County Recreation and Parks Advisory Board
ALTERNATIVES: Adopt different projects than those recommended by the Washington
County Recreation and Parks Advisory Board.
ATTACHMENTS: FY 2018 Annual POS Program
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS:
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
FY 2018 POS PROGRAM
SPONSOR PROJECT PROJECT REQUEST REQUEST APPROVED
COST DEVELOPMENT ACQUISITION PROJECTS
BOONSBORO Boonsboro Park Trail $130,000 $80,000 $60,000
Phase III
FUNKSTOWN Land Acquisition Project $62,769 $62,769 $143,460
HAGERSTOWN City Park Play Equipment $100,000 $90,000 $90,000
Park Amenities, Various Parks $40,000 $36,000 $36,000
City Park Lake Fountain $15,000 $13,500
HANCOCK Kirkwood/Widmeyer Park
Pedestrian Trail $76,000 $56,000 $49,000
SMITHSBURG Vererans Park, Walking Trail $60,000 $54,000 $54,000
WILLIAMSPORT Byron Memorial Park Lightpost $10,800 $8,025
Potomac Street Acquisition $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
BOE Boonsboro High Tennis Courts $25,000 $22,700 $22,687
KEEDYSVILLE Park Pavilion Upgrades $22,275 $20,250 $20,250
Roof Replacement
FY 2018 POS PROGRAM
SPONSOR PROJECT PROJECT REQUEST REQUEST APPROVED
COST DEVELOPMENT ACQUISITION PROJECTS
WASHINGTON COUNTY Regional Park Playground $92,000 $83,000 $83,000
Replacement
MLS Pool Sun Shades $10,000 $9,000 $9,000
Ag Center Land Development $103,000 $93,000 $66,444
Horse Ring, Access Rd
Patching, Overly, Chip Seal $50,000 $45,000 $45,000
Various Parks
BRGC Maintenance Building $50,000 $45,000 $45,000
Roof Replacement
Total Request Projects $896,844 $655,475 $112,769 $773,841
Development Approved $580,381
Acquisition Approved $193,460
Total POS Program $773,841
25% Acquisition Requirement $193,460
75% Development $580,381
Washington County Board ofCounty Commissioners of Washington County,Maryland
A , MARYLAND Agenda Report Form
7+nss
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: 2017-2018 Property and Casualty Insurance Renewals
PRESENTATION DATE: June 13, 2017
PRESENTATION BY: Tracy McCammon, Risk Management Administrator
Patrick Hancock,AON Risk Solutions
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to renew policies in place during policy year, i.e.
liability policies with Travelers Insurance Company, property and equipment
policies with Local Government Insurance Trust, and airport liability policy with
Global Aerospace.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: Renewal quotes from insurance carriers are reflected on the
attached premium comparison and show a total increase of$17,122 over last year's actual, a
1.5%increase for FY2018.
DISCUSSION: Due to ongoing successful efforts of AON, renewal quotes from
carriers were well within budgeted increases.
FISCAL IMPACT: Present insurance program renewal results a premium increase of
1.5%,well within the 8% budgeted increases.
CONCURRENCES: Stephanie Stone, Director of Health&Human Services
ALTERNATIVES: Lapse of insurance policies and necessity for repeat of market bid.
ATTACHMENTS: Premium comparison
AUDIOVISUAL NEEDS: None
Line of Coverage FY2017 FY2018 $Change Change
Travelers
Pkg-Auto Liability(Incl.Buses)322,703 $341,241 $18,538 5.7%
Pkg-Auto PD(Incl.Buses)64,511 $67,365 $2,854 4.4%
Pkg-GL,Liquor,Products,EBL 139,687 $137,795 ($1,892) -1.4%
Pkg-Law(Incl.Dispatch E&O) 190,556 $189,303 ($1,253) -0.7%
Pkg-Excess Liability 80,961 $80,579 382) -0.5%
Pkg-Management Liability 33,971 $33,730 241) -0.7%
Pkg-EPLI 58,047 $56,313 ($1,734) -3.0%
Pkg-Crime 6,028 6,028 0 0.0%
Pkg-CyberFirst 8,773 8,834 61 0.7%
Sub Total-Travelers 905,237 $921,188 S 15,95 I 1.8%
Other July 1 Renewal Policies
Airport Liability 9,950 $10,945 995 10.0%
Property 182,235 $182,235 0 0.0%
Inland Marine 9,558 9,654 96 1.0%
Boiler&Machinery 7,981 8,061 80 1.0%
Sub Total-Other July 1 Renewal Policies 209,724 $210,895 $1,171 0.6%
Grand Total-July 1 Renewal Policies 1,114,961 $1,132,083 $17,122 1.5%
Quote Options:
Cyber Optional Quote:
Current retention-$10,000 Premium$8,729/year
Reduce retention-$5,000 Premium$8,834/year
Difference in premium cost to reduce retention 105/year
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Bid Award (PUR-1349) - Grounds Maintenance for Various County
Departments
PRESENTATION DATE: June 13, 2017
PRESENTATION BY: Rick Curry, CPPO, Buyer – Purchasing Department and
John Easterday, Superintendent at Black Rock Golf Course
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to award the contract to the responsible companies
with the responsive lowest bids that meet the specifications for each chemical item (as indicated
on the Bid Tabulation Summary). Tie bids were received for Item Nos. 1, and 13, therefore, it is
required that the chemicals be awarded based upon drawing lots in public, pursuant to Section
2.9 of the Washington County Procurement Policy Manual.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The County accepted bids on May 10, 2017. The Invitation to Bid
was published in the local newspaper, listed on the State’s “eMarylandMarketPlace” web site
and the County’s website. This contract primarily provides the needed chemicals for the Black
Rock Golf Course, County Highway Department and Department of Water Quality; the City of
Hagerstown may utilize the contract. The contract term is one (1) year tentatively commencing
July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018.
Bidders were declared Non-Responsive if: a Bidder submitted two (2) prices for one (1) item,
and/or if a Bidder submitted a substitute (equivalent) chemical that was not on the list of
approved chemicals, and/or if a Bidder submitted the wrong unit of measure pricing. Tie Bids
were received on three (3) chemicals (Item # 1, and Item # 13). Therefore, it is required that the
three (3) chemicals be awarded based upon drawing from lots in public, pursuant to Section 2.9
of the Washington County Procurement Policy Manual.
DISCUSSION: N/A
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are budgeted for the chemicals in various expense operating
accounts.
CONCURRENCES: N/A
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
ATTACHMENTS: Bid Tabulation Matrix
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
PUR-1349
Grounds Maintenance Chemicals
Bid Tabulation Summary
Item # Product Vendor
Unit of
Measur
e
FY’ 17
Unit Price
FY’ 18
Unit Price
1 Acclaim Extra Tie Bid Gallon $458.00 $465.00
2 Aqua Shade SiteOne Landscape
Supply Gallon $38.29 $38.48
3 Propiconazole 14.3% Crop Production Services Gallon $51.00 $48.55
4 Propamocarb Hydrochloride
66.2% Crop Production Services Gallon $287.74 $299.00
5 Bensumec – 4LF Landscape Supply Gallon $108.00 $104.00
6 Thiophonate Methyl 46.2% Crop Production
Services Gallon $44.08 $43.14
7 Aluminum Tris WDG 80% Landscape Supply Pound $13.73 $13.42
8 Crossbow Crop Production Services Gallon $41.42 $44.99
9 Chlorothanlonil 720 SFT
54.0% Landscape Supply Gallon $33.35 $28.90
10 Chlorpyifos 4E 42.5% Helena Chemical
Company Gallon $40.64 $46.00
11 Dylox 420 SL Landscape Supply Pound $61.00 $60.00
12 Fore WSP Landscape Supply Pound $6.95 $7.25
13 Head Way Tie Bid Gallon $417.00 $417.00
14 Tebuconazole 3807% Crop Production Services Gallon $47.49 $44.40
15 Imidacloprid 75 % Landscape Supply Case $359.64 $281.00
16 PCNB 40% SiteOne Landscape
Supply
Gallon $48.95 $48.95
17 Pendulum Aqua Cap Crop Production Services Gallon $45.24 $44.99
18 Trinexapac Ethyl 11.3% Landscape Supply Gallon $104.80 $102.00
19 Prograss Crop Production Services Gallon $122.22 $123.75
20 Provaunt Crop Production Services Case $520.00 $499.40
21 Glyphosate 41% Crop Production Services Gallon $10.99 $11.99
22 Mefenoxam 22.5% Landscape Supply Gallon $340.00 $329.00
23 Talstar Crop Production Services Gallon $33.00 $32.93
24 Trimec Classic Crop Production Services Gallon $35.20 $21.20
25 Paclobutrazol 22.3% Landscape Supply Gallon $152.00 $149.00
26 Phosguard Crop Production Services Gallon $15.55 $16.97
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Conveyance of Real Property to Cascade Town Centre Development, LLC
PRESENTATION DATE:
PRESENTATION BY:
June 13, 2017
Susan Small, Real Property Administrator
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to adopt the Ordinance declaring 63.0 acres, more or
less, located within the Cascade Development District and identified on the attached aerial (the
“Property”), as surplus property and to approve the conveyance of the same and authorize the
execution of necessary documentation to finalize the conveyance.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The County’s intent to convey the Property was duly advertised on
May 16, 23, and 30, 2017, and a portion of the Property (42.29 acres) is ready to be conveyed to
Cascade Town Centre Development, LLC with the remaining 20.71 acres, more or less, to be
conveyed after a simplified subdivision process has occurred.
DISCUSSION: It has been determined by the County that the Property is not
needed for public use and is being conveyed for no monetary consideration since it is meant to
activate redevelopment in the Cascade Development District.
FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact.
CONCURRENCES: Director of Engineering
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
ATTACHMENTS: Aerial GIS Map
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
ORDINANCE NO. ORD-2017-___
AN ORDINANCE TO DECLARE CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY
AS SURPLUS PROPERTY AND TO APPROVE THE CONVEYANCE OF SAID REAL
PROPERTY
BE IT ORDAINED by the County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
(the "County"), as follows:
1. It is hereby established and declared that certain real property consisting of
63 acres of land, more or less, located within the Cascade Development District and along
the north side of the former Fort Ritchie Military Reservation (the “Property”), is surplus
and no longer needed for a public purpose or a public use.
2. The County believes that it is in the best interest of the citizens of Washington
County to convey the Property and Notice of Intention of Washington County to Convey
Land was duly advertised pursuant to Section 1-301, Code of the Public Local Laws of
Washington County, Maryland, in The Herald-Mail, a daily newspaper of general circulation,
on May 16, 23, and 30, 2017.
3. It has been determined that the Property will be conveyed in two parts. The
first conveyance will consist of 42.29 acres of land, more or less, and is more fully described
in Exhibit A attached hereto. The second conveyance will be for the remaining 20.71 acres
of land, more or less, and will take place after a simplified subdivision process has occurred.
4. The President of the Board of County Commissioners of Washington County,
Maryland and the County Clerk be, and they hereby are, authorized and directed to execute
and attest, respectively, for and on behalf of the County any and all deeds conveying the
Property to Cascade Town Centre Development, LLC for no monetary consideration.
ADOPTED this _____ day of _______________, 2017.
ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND
__________________________ BY: _____________________________________
Vicki C. Lumm, Clerk Terry L. Baker, President
Approved as to form
and legal sufficiency:
Mail to:
Office of the County Attorney
__________________________ 100 W. Washington Street, Suite 1101
John M. Martirano Hagerstown, MD 21740
County Attorney
EXHIBIT A
Description of Surplus Property
(42.29 acres)
All those two (2) parcels of land situate in Election District 14, Washington County,
Maryland, and more particularly described as follows:
PARCEL NO. 1:
Beginning at a point where the westerly boundary of lands now or formerly of
the United States of America (Liber 265, folio 475 Parcel No. 1) intersects the
southwest margin of the CSX Railroad right of way, thence with said right of way
with a curve to the right having a radius of 1,112.53 feet, an arc length of 286.62
feet and a chord bearing and distance of S33°44'59"E 285.83 feet to a point where
said right of way intersect the northern boundary of lands now or formerly of
Washington County Sanitary District (Liber 1109, folio 138), thence with the same
S63°17'16"W 180.20 feet to a point, thence S00°50'13"E 120.04 feet to a point, thence
S25°57'35"E 189.03 feet to a point, thence leaving said lands and crossing Penn Mar
Road S02°18'02"E 34.04 feet to a point, thence S08°27'15"W 191.06 feet to a point at
or near the shoreline of Lake Royer, thence with said shoreline S26°34'25"W 62.34
feet to a point, thence S10°18'31"W 103.90 feet to a point, thence S06°04'29"W 87.85
feet to a point, thence S11°29'36"W 96.43 feet to a point, thence S33°27'23"W 80.94
feet to a point, thence S18°00'37"W 130.29 feet to a point, thence Sl0°43'54"W 119.33
feet to a point, thence leaving said shoreline S41°42'28"W 140.15 feet to a point,
thence N48°48'23"W 138.12 feet to a point, thence S40°42'43"W 366.68 feet to a
point, thence N48°22'04"W 23.27 feet to a point, thence S52°11'20"W 431.50 feet to a
point, thence N73°04'22"W 255.37 feet to a point, thence with a curve to the left
having a radius of 82.06 feet, an arc length of 141.03 feet and a chord bearing and
distance of S47°05'37"W 124.30 feet to a point, thence N79°06'23"W 281.41 feet to a
point, thence N69°04'54"W 262.59 feet to a fence post in the western boundary of
lands now or formerly of the United States of America (Liber 265, folio 475 Parcel
No. 1), thence with said western boundary N31°42'28"E 117.08 feet to a concrete
monument, thence N44°12'06"E 672.75 feet to a concrete monument, thence
N47°51'32"E 548.56 feet to a fence post, thence N54°15'38"E 252.25 feet to a fence
post, thence N39°19'33"E 352.87 feet to a fence post, thence N40°26'53"E 141.24 feet
to a drill hole in a boulder, thence N38°17'07"E 517.79 feet to the place of beginning;
Containing 35.63 acres of land more or less.
PARCEL NO. 1 being all of Phase 1, Parcel No. 1 in the Quitclaim Deed from
PenMar Development Corporation, a Maryland corporation, to the Board of County
Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland, dated September 20, 2016 and
recorded among the Land Records of Washington County, Maryland, in Liber 5329,
folio 232.
PARCEL NO. 2:
Beginning at a point, said point being S74°l6'04"E 541.92 feet from the end of the
forty fifth or S55°10'E 735 feet line of lands now or formerly of the United States of
America (Liber 265, folio 475 Parcel No. 1) as surveyed by R.F. Gauss & Associates,
Inc. dated July 16, 2001 thence running through said lands with a curve to the right
having a radius of 82.06 feet, an arc length of 141.03 feet and a chord bearing and
distance of N47°05'37"E 124.30 feet to a point, thence S73°04'22"E 255.37 feet to a
point, thence N52°11'20"E 431.50 feet to a point, thence S48°22'04"E 23.27 feet to a
point, thence N40°42'43"E 366.68 feet to a point, thence S48°48'23"E 138.12 feet to a
point, thence N41°42'28"E 140.15 feet to a point, thence S01°05'05"W 147.36 feet to a
point, thence S39°16'23"W 251.46 feet to a point, thence S06°00'56"E 112.00 feet to a
point, thence S48°28'23"W 146.32 feet to a point, thence S54°36'12"E 124.03 feet to a point,
thence S37°42'20"W 231.07 feet to a point, thence N55°56'24"W 310.04 feet to a point,
thence N68°20'35"W 81.19 feet to a point, thence with a curve to the left having a radius
of 66.79 feet, an arc length of 113.43 feet and a chord bearing and distance of
S52°06'38"W 100.28 feet to a point, thence S09°5l '58"W 120.19 feet to a point, thence
S12°48'34"E 74.42 feet to a point. thence S85°13'41"W 90.51 feet to a point, thence
S05°43'03"E 224.41 feet to a point, thence S84°04'18"W 226.47 feet to a point. thence
N05°23'36"W 413.20 feet to a point, thence N29°29'26"W 167.62 feet to the place of
beginning; Containing 10.16 acres of land more or less.
PARCEL NO. 2 being all of Phase IV, Parcel No. 1 of the Quitclaim Deed from PenMar
Development Corporation, a Maryland corporation, to the Board of County
Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland, dated September 20, 2016 and
recorded among the Land Records of Washington County, Maryland, in Liber 5329,
folio 232.
EXCEPTING AND RESERVING: The County, hereby reserves unto itself, in fee
simple, 3.50 acres more or less, being a portion of the former Fort Ritchie Military
Reservation, situate along the northerly margin for Pen Mar Road that, said 3.50 acres being
a naturally subdivided portion of Phase I Parcel 1 by said road more particularly described
as follows:
Beginning for the outline hereof at a point on the northerly right of way line for
Pen Mar Road where it intersects the twenty seventh (27) or N40°26’53”E 141.24 foot line
of the grantors deed described as Parcel I Phase I in the Grantors deed dated September
20th, 2016 and recorded among the Land Records of Washington County Maryland in
Liber 5329 at folio 232, and its intersection of the northerly right of way line for Pen Mar
Road. Said point also being S40°26’53”E 101.98 feet from a drill hole in a boulder for the
End of the aforementioned line, thence with the existing outline for Parcel 1 Phase 1 on
bearings to agree with Maryland Grid (NAD83-91) in accordance with a survey
performed by the Division of Engineering and Construction Management dated April
27, 2017
1. North 40 degrees 26 minutes 53 seconds East 101.98 feet to a drill hole in a boulder,
thence
2. North 38 degrees 17 minutes 07 seconds East 517.79 feet to a point in the southwest
margin of the CSX Railroad Right-of-Way; thence with the said right of way with a
curve to the right, having a radius of 1,112.53 feet, a length of 277.70 feet, and a
chord bearing and distance of
3. South 34 degrees 04 minutes 44 seconds East 276.74 feet to a point being the end of
the North 63 degree 17 minute 47 second East 180.20 foot line of Tract “B” of a deed
for the Washington County Sanitary District dated August 18, 1993 and recorded
among the said land records in Liber 1109 at folio 160, thence running with the said
Sanitary District for three (3) courses
4. South 63 degrees 17 minutes 16 seconds West 180.20 feet to a capped rebar
5. South 00 degrees 50 minutes 13 seconds East 120.04 feet to a capped rebar, and
6. South 25 degrees 51 minutes 20 seconds East 187.83 feet to a point on the northerly
right of way line for Pen Mar Road; thence with said right of way line for two (2)
courses
7. North 86 degrees 34 minutes 50 seconds West 119.15 feet, and by a curve to the
right having radius of 732.63 feet, a length of 366.10 feet, and a chord bearing and
distance of
8. North 72 degrees 38 minutes 11 seconds West 362.30 feet to the place of beginning
encompassing an area of 152,304 square feet or 3.50 acres of land, more or less,
Being portions of the property that was conveyed unto the Board of County
Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland, from Penmar Development
Corporation, a Maryland corporation, by a Quitclaim Deed dated September 20, 2016
and recorded among the Land Records of Washington County, Maryland in Liber 5329 at
folio 232.
63 AC. +/-
0 375 750 1,125 1,500Feet
Legend
C as c a de To wn Ce n tr e @ For t R itch ie S u r pl u s P ro p e r t y
´
- Internal Parcel Boundaries
- Surplus Property
- Property Boundary