HomeMy WebLinkAbout08.30.2016 AgendaWashington County Joar
Terry L. Baker,President
WanyneF.
K.BarKeefer
Jeffrey A.Cline, Vice President LeRoy E. Myers
1776
MARYL AND
100 West Washington Street, Room 226 I Hagerstown,MD 21740-4735 I P:240.313.2200 I F:240.313.2201
WWW.WASHCO-MD.NET
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AUGUST 30,2016
AGENDA
10:00 A.M. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CALL TO ORDER,President Terry L. Baker
APPROVAL OF MINUTES—August 2,2016 and August 23,2016
10:05 A.M. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS AND COMMENTS
10:10 A.M. REPORTS FROM COUNTY STAFF
10:20 A.M. CHANGE ORDER(NO. 9)
ENHANCED NUTRIENT REMOVAL AT WASHINGTON COUNTY'S WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT—Mark Bradshaw(change order#9 and letter)
10:30 A.M. CHANGE ORDER(NO. 10)
ENHANCED NUTRIENT REMOVAL AT WASHINGTON COUNTY'S WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT—Mark Bradshaw(change order#10 and letter)
10:40 A.M. SALARY STUDY COMMISSION—Kendall McPeak
10:50 A.M. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATIVE PURCHASE—PURCHASING CARD
PROGRAM SERVICES—Karen Luther and Darryl Brown
11:00 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING
PARTIAL RELEASE OF AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION DISTRICT AD-90-064
Chris Boggs, and Eric Seifarth(information)
11:20 A.M. RZ-16-001 —APPLICATION FOR MAP AMENDMENT(WASHCO ARNETT FARMS,
LLC)—Kirk Downey
11:30 A.M. RESOLUTION—WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND JOB CREATION AND
CAPITAL INVESTMENT REAL PROPERTY TAX CREDITS ORDINANCE
Kassie Lewis (resolution)
11:40 A.M. CITIZENS PARTICIPATION
11:50 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.)
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.
OSO
NOOGh2
3 '1
1776 /
P
Board of County Commissioners
Agenda Report
Washington County, Maryland
Open Session
From: Mark D Bradshaw, P.E., Deputy Director
Division of Environmental Management
Presentation By: Mark D Bradshaw, P.E., Deputy Director of Engineering Services
Presentation Date: August 23,2016
Subject: Enhanced Nutrient Removal @ Washington County's WwTP
Recommended Motion: Approve Change Order for Buchart-Horn, Inc. in the amount of
74,668.00.
Report-in-brief: Buchart Horn, Inc. contract for providing inspection services and project
management services needs to be extended because construction contract time was extended by
change order. For a breakdown of the hours associated with this work please refer to Buchart
Horn's letter dated July 8, 2016. Increase contract amount by$43,736.00.
Buchart Horn, Inc contract for project management service for the Winerbrenner WwTP was
proposed to be for one (1)year. Due to the complexity and delivery times associated with the
BioMag,the construction duration was extended from one(1)year to eighteen(18)months. Due
to the construction duration be extend by six(6)months, Buchart Horn is requesting an
additional six(6)months of project management services be added to their contract. Buchart
Horn is also giving the County a credit for a change order that was issued to the Contractor for a
design error associated with exhaust fans. For a breakdown of the hours associated with this
work and associated credit please refer to Buchart Horn's letter dated July 15, 2016. Increase
contract amount by$30,932.00.
Discussion:
Concurrences (If Applicable): Julie Pippel, Director
Fiscal Impact (If Applicable): "Fhe project has funds available to pay for this change order.
Alternatives(If Applicable): N/A
Attachments: Change Order#9, Buchart-Horn's letters dated 7/8/16 and 7/15/16.
Per County Administrator Policy CA-01,Agenda Policy,Effective July 1,1998
inliaBUCHARTHORN
ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS
July 8, 2016
Mr. Mark Bradshaw, P.E.
Deputy Director
Washington County Dept of Water Quality
Public Works Annex
16232 Elliott Parkway
Williamsport MD 21795-4083
Reference: Winebrenner ENR Upgrade
Construction Phase Services
Extension of Completion Date
BH No. 76436-04
Dear Mr. Bradshaw:
The contract completion date for construction of the Winebrenner ENR Upgrade was originally
scheduled for May 31, 2016. Your recent correspondence indicated that the contractor(HRI)
should have everything wrapped up by July 22, 2016. The additional inspection time required
from May 31 to July 22 is 316 hours. This time includes 12 hour days during the week of June
13 when the contractor will be working extended hours to complete flow transitions. An
additional 40 hours of inspection has been requested in August for final walk throughs and
preparation of associated punch lists. The additional fee for the construction inspector over
this period is$32,724.I
The time required for project management for the extended construction period,which
includes attendance at additional meetings, is 72 hours at a fee of$9,792. The additional time
for an administrative assistant is 20 hours at a fee of$1,220.
The total additional fee for the extended contract period is$43,736.The attached table
provides a breakdown of the fee.
Please review this information and let us know how you would like to proceed.
Very truly yours,
f3UCI-IART HORN
1/4c,
Jeffrey S. Colton, P.E.
Project Manager
the Russell C.Horn Building•445 West Philadelphia Street•PO Box 15040•York,PA 17405-7040 MII:(717)8524400.F:(717)8524401-wwwbucharthorn.com
1:\PROI\7643604\PROIINFO\Miscellaneous\ltr-Bradshaw F<tension of Completion Datedncx.docx
June i4,2016
Pzge2of2
JCS/IIb
WASHINGTON COUNTY
WINEBRENNER ENR UPGRADE
ADDITIONAL INSPECTION SERVICES
EXTENSION OF COMPLETION DATE
BREAKDOW OF FEE
PAY GRADE HOURS HOURLY RATE TOTAL
9 72 136.00 9,792.00
7 236 99.00 2,3364.00
6 ------ --- 120 78.00 9,360.00
420 61.00 1,220.00
TOTAL 43,736.00
www.buchart,iorn.com
E-BUCHART HORN
NGINEERS • ARCFIITECTS • PLANNERS
July 15,2016
Mr. Mark Bradshaw, P.E.
Deputy Director
Washington County Dept of Water Quality
Public Works Annex
16232 Elliott Parkway
Williamsport MD 21795-4083
Reference: Winebrenner ENR Upgrade
Construction Phase Services
BH No. 76436-04
Dear Mr. Bradshaw:
In October of 2014 we had provided you with the cost to increase the construction inspection
services for the Winebrenner ENR Upgrade. Our original proposal, which was prepared in 2006,
assumed the Winebrenner and Smithsburg facilities would be constructed at the same time over
the course of one year with the inspector splitting his time between the two facilities. A total of 6
month's inspection time was assumed for each facility. Our fee for these additional inspections
included increasing the inspector time to 18 months. The fee we provided was for the cost of the
inspector only. However, we did not include project management and support time for the
additional one year of inspection.
Typically we provide five hours of project management and support for our inspectors per week.
The total additional time for this management and support is 260 hours at a fee of $35,360. The
attached table provides a breakdown of this fee.
We would like to apply a credit to this fee to cover the cost of $4,428 for the replacement
ventilation fans required for the Winebrenner ENR upgrade. The total fee would then be reduced
to$30,932.
We request your consideration of this additional fee. It has now been 10 years since we submitted
our original proposal and other than the additional inspection services outlined above we have not
requested an increase in fee for the Winebrenner design or construction phase services.
Very truly yours,
i3UCH IT HORN
1..(//%//(
7,
r'"
4el it y S. Colton, P.E.
Project Manager
The Russell E.Horn Building•445 West Philadelphia Street•PO box 15040•York,PA 17405-1040 1.111T:(717)852-1400.F:(717)852-1401•wwwbucharthorn corn
I:\PROI\7643E-04\PROIItI1O\Miscellaneous\Ilr-Bradshaw Construction Inspection Services docx
June 14,2016
P;..;e2of2
WASHINGTON COUNTY
WINEBRENNER ENR UPGRADE
CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES
BREAKDOWN OF FEE
PAY GRADE HOURS HOURLY RATE TOTAL
9 260 136.00 35,360
Ventilation Fan Credit 4,428
30,932
www.ina.har'rorn.corn
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
WASHINGTON COUNTY MARYLAND
100 WEST WASHINGTON STREET,HAGERSTOWN,MARYLAND 21740-4735
CHANGE ORDER
TO:
Buchart Horn,Inc.
Consultant:
PO Box 15040
Contractor:
York,PA 17405
Vendor:
Change Order No. 9 Purchase Order No. 8554
Contract No. PUR-977 P/S Account No.515000-32-42010-TRP016-INSP00000
Project Title: Enhanced Nutrient removal @ Washington Co's WwTP Date: Jul 15,2016
The contract time will: (-increase c decrease G
remain the same by:0 calendar days C working days
Description of Change:
9.1 Add additional inspection and project management hours to the project.
9.2 Add an additional six(6)months of project management services to the contract.
Reason for Change:
9.1 During construction the contractor received change orders that include time extensions. Buchan Horn's contract didn't include these
time extension,thus they are now requesting a change order be issued to cover the additional hours. For more detailed information
please refer to Buchan Horn's letter dated July 8,2016. Increase contract amount by$43,736.00.
9.2 Buchan Horn's contract was to provide construction management services for a period of one(1)year but due to the complexity of
the BioMag system,the construction duration was extended to eighteen(18)months. Since the construction duration exceed Buchan
Horn's contract time,they are requesting an additional six(6)months project management services be added to the contract. For more
detailed information please refer to Buchart Horn's letter dated July 15,2016. Increase contract amount by$30,932.00
The completion date,incorporating the changes included in this change order,is: NA
The original contract sum was: 3,638,300.00
Net changes by previous change orders: 126,575.00)
Contract sum prior to this change order: 3,511,725.00 J
By this Change Order,the contract sum will be changed by: 74,668.00
The new contract sum including this change order will be: 3,586,393.00
The Consultant/ContractorNendor shall not commence with the work described hereon until this form is executed by all agents.
T Di anv a a ny,errrer cu,n,n
Consultant:Je rey Cu toll Dale m,6.oazz m:os z,-,war Finance:
ContractorNendor:Purchasing:
Approving gency:Julie Pippel DDataB20y1:GS.23by10,u3706P74'0 0 County Administrator:
Outside County Entities:Please email the signed form to ChangeOrder@washco-md.net.
To.v
17781.
Board of County Commissioners
Agenda Report
Washington County, Maryland
Open Session
From: Mark D Bradshaw, P.E., Deputy Director
Division of Environmental Management
Presentation By: Mark D Bradshaw, P.E., Deputy Director of Engineering Services
Presentation Date: August 30, 2016
Subject: Enhanced Nutrient Removal @ Washington County's WwTP
Recommended Motion: Approve Change Order for Buchan-Horn, Inc. in the amount of
124,176.00.
Report-in-brief: Buchart Horn, Inc contract for project management and inspection services for
the Conococheague WwTP was for one(1)year. Due to the complexity and delivery times
associated with the BioMag,the construction duration was extended from one(1)year to
eighteen(18)months. Due to the construction duration being extended by six(6)months,
Buchart Horn is requesting an additional six(6)months of project management and inspection
services be added to their contract. For a breakdown of the hours associated with this work
please refer to Buchart Horn's letter dated August 10,2016, 2016. Increase contract amount by
124,176.00.
Discussion:
Concurrences (If Applicable): Julie Pippel, Director
Fiscal Impact (If Applicable): The project has funds available to pay for this change order.
Alternatives(If Applicable):N/A
Attachments: Change Order#10, Buchart-Horn's letters dated 8/10/16.
Per County Administrator Policy CA-01,Agenda Policy,Effective July 1, 1998
uduirl
BUCHART HORN
Gii ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS
August 10, 2016
Mr. Mark Bradshaw, P.E.
Deputy Director
Washington County Department of Water Quality
Public Works Annex
16232 Elliott Parkway
Williamsport MD 21795-4083
Reference: Conococheague WWTF ENR Upgrade
Construction Phase Services
BH No. 76436-02
Dear Mr. Bradshaw:
Our original Scope of Services for the construction phase of the Conocochegue WWTP ENR
Upgrade,submitted in 2007,assumed construction duration of one year. Since that time the
construction period has been increased to 18 months due to the complexity of the project and
the long lead times for the major equipment. An additional six months of construction
inspection is required to cover the increased construction period.
The attached table summarized the additional fee required for the increased construction
inspection time.
If you should have any questions please do not hesitate to call me at(717)852-1455.
Very truly yours,
BUCHART HORN
r fil/77 y 7Gril' 7/4,4—
Jeffrey S. Culton, P.E.
Project Manager
The Russell E.Horn Building•445 West Philadelphia Street•PO Box 15040•York,PA 174(h-7040 11111111T:(717)852-1400•F:(717)852-1401•www.bucharthorn.com
August 9,2016
Par,•.2 2 of 2
WASHINGTON COUNTY
CONOCOCHEAGUE WWTF ENR UPGRADE
CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES
BREAKDOWN OF ADDITIONAL INSPECTION FEE
PAY GRADE HOURS HOURLY RATE TOTAL
9 156 136.00 21,216
7 1,040 99.00 102,960
TOTAL 124,176
www.buchartlorn.cont
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
WASHINGTON COUNTY MARYLAND
100 WEST WASHINGTON STREET,HAGERSTOWN,MARYLAND 21740-4735
CHANGE ORDER
TO:
Buchart Horn,Inc.
Consultant:
PO Box 15040
Contractor:
York,PA 17405
Vendor:
Change Order No. 10 Purchase Order No. 8554
Contract No. PU-977 P/S Account No.515000-32-42010-TRP018-INSP00000
Project Title: Enhanced Nutrient Removal @ Washington Co's WwTP Date: Aug 12,2016
The contract time will: ('increase C decrease c
remain the same by: 180 calendar days working days
Description of Change:
1. Add an additional six(6)months of project management service to the contract.
Reason for Change:
1. Buchart Horn's contract was to provide construction management services for a period of one(1)year,but due to the complexity of
the BioMag system,the construction duration was extended to eighteen(18)months. Since the construction duration exceed Buchart
Horn's contract time,they are requesting an additional six(6)months of project management services be added to the contract. For more
detailed information pleased refer to Buchart Horn's letter dated August 10,2016. Increase contract amount by$124,176.00.
The completion date,incorporating the changes included in this change order,is: NA
The original contract sum was: 3,638,000.00
Net changes by previous change orders: 51,907.00)
Contract sum prior to this change order: 3,586,093.00
By this Change Order,the contract sum will be changed by: 124,176.00
The new contract sum including this change order will be: 3,710,269.00
The Consultant/ContractorNendor shall not commence with the work described hereon until this form is executed by all agents.
agn 1y:0ea .Jd0...culton
Consultant:Jeffrey Cultonae:o,6oaii,o:,o-„-0,na Finance:L
ContractorNendor:Purchasing:
Approving Agency:Julie Pippel aDs22O
iefionse.
dnny
oJ38 Pwimoaroo County Administrator:
Outside County Entities:Please email the signed form to ChangeOrder@washco-md.net.
4p.,, Washington County Board of County Commissioners of Washington County,Maryland
MAR YL AND Agenda Report Form
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Salary Study Commission
PRESENTATION DATE: August 30, 2016
PRESENTATION BY: Kendall A. McPeak,Assistant County Attorney
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to constitute the 2016 Salary Study Commission and
appoint the below-named individuals,together with the Washington County Farm Bureau's
named individual, if and when submitted, and the at-large member identified by the
Commissioners,to serve on the Salary Study Commission as presented.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: State statutes require the constitution and appointment of the
Salary Study Commission every four years. The following statutorily designated groups have
submitted the named individuals for the Commissioners' appointment:
1. Associated Builders&Contractors, Inc.—Will Seilhamer;
2. Central Maryland AFL-CIO Council—Chip Cook;
3. Chamber of Commerce—Donna Long;
4. Democratic Central Committee—Peter Perini;
5. Joint Veterans Council—Wayne Taylor;
6. League of Women Voters—Richard Willson;
7. Republican Central Committee—Stephen Showe.
The representative of the Washington County Farm Bureau,another statutorily designated group,
remains unidentified. In addition to the above-named individuals,the Commissioners will have
to make an at-large appointment.
DISCUSSION: N/A
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
CONCURRENCES: N/A
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
ATTACHMENTS: N/A
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A
1tWashington County Board of County Commissioners of Washington County,Maryland
Jr
MARY L AND Agenda Report Form
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Intergovernmental Cooperative Purchase — Purchasing Card (PCard)
Program Services
PRESENTATION DATE: August 30,2016
PRESENTATION BY: Karen R. Luther, CPPO—Director of Purchasing and Darryl
Brown, Accounting Supervisor-Budget& Finance Department
RECOMMENDED MOTION: To authorize by resolution the Intergovernmental Cooperative
Purchase/Use of Commercial Card Services with JPMorgan Chase Bank,N.A.,via a County of
Fairfax,Virginia contract(Contract Number:4400007090)that provides for a percentage rebate to
the County based on the annual combined charge volume and average fileturn tier contained in the
contract.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: A Purchasing Card Program and Policy was endorsed and adopted by
the Board of County Commissioners in January 2002. Its purpose was to establish procedures under
which departments control the use of Purchasing Cards assigned to and utilized by employees for
procuring and paying for low dollar value goods and services. The cards are also used for business
travel and/or entertainment expenses. The County initially utilized the State of Maryland's contract
with Bank of America. At its expiration on April 30, 2013,the County contracted with JPMorgan
Chase Bank,N.A. The County's annual PCard spend is stated below. Based on this spend amount,
the County has received annual rebates as stated below.
Calendar Year Total Spend Rebate
2013 1,079,724.60 13,950.17
2014 1,972,766.54 19,643.81
2015 1,959,799.40 28,563.91
2016 947,460.36(to date) TBD
The 2015 rebate increased considerably when the County shortened the payment turnaround
time from 25 days to 10 days; a higher rebate percentage is paid for faster payments.
The Purchasing Card benefits the County by streamlining the purchasing process. It provides
flexibility, efficiency, increased productivity and cost savings:
Invoices are consolidated, reporting and tracking systems are improved.
Improved controls on delegated purchasing(under$2,500)
Spending controls are adjusted to fit employees' needs.
Fewer manual checks are required by Accounts Payable
The Purchasing Card benefits suppliers by automating payments:
Suppliers receive payment within 72 hours.
Invoicing and tracking are eliminated.
Section 1-106.3 to the Code of the Public Local Laws of Washington County, Maryland) grants
authorization for the County to procure goods or services under contracts entered by other
government entities. On procurements over$50,000,a determination to allow or participate in an
intergovernmental cooperative purchasing arrangement shall be by resolution and shall indicate that
the participation will provide cost benefits to the county or result in administrative efficiencies and
savings or provide other justification for the arrangement. Acquisition of the services through the
intergovernmental cooperative purchase eliminates the administrative time and costs associated with
the County bid process and results in a higher revenue generation by joining in an existing contract
with rebates based on economies of scale.
The proposed contract has also been utilized by Montgomery County, Prince George's County,
Howard Community College, City of Rockville and Frederick City, County and schools. The
recently used contract between JPMorgan and Fairfax County expired August 13,2016.
DISCUSSION: N/A
FISCAL IMPACT: Administrative cost savings as well as revenue generation (rebates)
based on a percentage of spend incurred.
CONCURRENCES: Chief Financial Officer
ALTERNATIVES: 1)Process our own bid for the services in which revenues would not 1,
be as favorable,or(2)piggy-back the State of Maryland's contract for PCard services which does not
pay any rebates(revenues)to local jurisdictions.
ATTACHMENTS: N/A
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A
y(SON
f.
RYI.PtJ
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County,Maryland
Agenda Report Form
Public Hearing
SUBJECT: PARTIAL RELEASE OF AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION DISTRICT—
AD-90-064
PRESENTATION DATE: August 30, 2016 at 11:00 a.m. THIS ISA PUBLIC HEARING
PRESENTATION BY: Chris Boggs, Land Preservation Planner
Eric Seifarth, Rural Preservation Administrator
Department of Planning and Zoning
RECOMMENDED MOTION:Move to APPROVE the partial release of the Agricultural
Preservation District #AD-90-064 on the basis of "economic hardships" on the current
landowner.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: Ms. Clarivet Torres purchased the former Bowers Agricultural
Preservation District property, AD-90-064, based on incorrect information from the Planning and
Zoning Department that a release of the district restrictions would be a simple administrative
task. She and her husband, Mr. Jairo Arciniegas, intended to develop several lots from the
property which necessitates the release. They plan to retain the remainder of the property in the
preservation district. After the purchase in April 2016 it was determined that a release of the
district restrictions to allow the subdivision required a more complicated procedure including a
hardship statement and a public hearing. This procedure is required due to a renewal of the
district under stricter guidelines which the Land Preservation Planner had not considered in the
initial advice to Mr. Arciniegas and Ms. Torres. This public hearing and enclosed hardship
statement will meet the requirements stated in an Ordinance For The Establishment Of
Agricultural Preservation Districts, ORD-09-01, adopted in January 2009. It should be noted
that Mr. Arciniegas and Ms. Torres have intended to request this partial release regardless of the
procedure required.
DISCUSSION: In response to the State of Maryland's plan to no longer accept applications for
district establishments (but continue easement purchases) and to support the existing County
property tax credit program for agricultural preservation districts, the Board of County
Commissioners adopted an Ordinance For The Establishment Of Agricultural Preservation
Districts, ORD-09-01, in January 2009.
Article 9 of these new rules establishes the guidelines for Termination and Alteration of a
District. Section 9.03 requires the establishment of a severe economic hardship. Section 9.04
requires that the current landowner will be liable to reimburse the County for the property taxes
that would have been due if the property tax credit had not been granted as well as interest for
2IPage AGENDA REPORT FORM
the period when the district was in effect. Section 9.05 requires that the County assess the
potential impacts of the termination on the remaining lands in the district. It also requires a
recommendation of the Agricultural Preservation Advisory Board and the County Planning
Commission. This section also requires this public hearing.
Mr. Arciniegas and Ms. Torres have provided the required petition stating the economic
hardship. Planning and Zoning staff have assessed the potential impacts of the partial district
termination on the remaining lands in the district and have found very little impact. There will
be a negligible loss of valuable agricultural land. The preservation district currently contains
110.315 acres. If the partial termination is approved the owners propose to subdivide up to 18
acres from the eastern portion of the property, leaving at least 92.315 acres in the agricultural
preservation district. The remaining lands will still meet every metric used for qualification to be
a preservation district.
The Agricultural Preservation Advisory Board has voted unanimously in favor of the ag district
release;the Planning Commission has voted to approve the release as well, with reservations.
FISCAL IMPACT: Following subdivision of the released acreage, it will be returned to full
taxing status. Arciniegas/Torres will repay an amount equal to the credit received plus interest,
approximately $210.00. Conveyance of the subdivided land will generate Agricultural Transfer
Tax in addition to the usual transfer taxes.
CONCURRENCES: Agricultural Preservation Advisory Board approval; Planning
Commission approval
ALTERNATIVES: Deny the partial release.
ATTACHMENTS: Detailed aerial map of property; Planning Commission comments from
June meeting; petition from landowners.
AUDIO/VISUAL TO BE USED: N/A
AD-90-064
4.
00,,
0-'4'\. .
6r ,
yip'. f
rr
s
lg P.204 /
7, Atz,., 4. _
t=
r:4
N. ,
miii.,..
Ac
P.2442
V..
1 "
i
I
z)
2:1;
4 20'.. 4.4: »'"
T.
a
r% ,
t f P.32
5. 0
I
118.90 Ac a 1 f,
4 r141
y
M
44011119
s RI .,l .
Remaining Lands •012)':
s 4 ` 94.3ac +/
4
Proposed
t Subdl t n ? Additional`0 x -a1,8/a/c/purchase
o
R i••
0`
r s
e
a..w-,
y,. it x4 /`'4 i'*:
y.
4
rk
y '",
0y,. ' .` `yt^::
n'
1 #ti0:.
1
s A 'w r act r1. .._
ar' g
6 A ..j v.
0.i
ra1L.mac" ;s 0 ,
E a• i. 3e ...
i
P
S s+ ss s g
go. ---4*
I '
1...,- . "+<
3 T i'51::.:7
1.. f" jV
q
V4' ."`'ea `
v p' t.
oile .
P 224 t
0., - ...1
1
1 ,
WARNING'.The map a for internal use by me Wamiigbn County Planning Department.It is not br
general dlstnbudon to me publicand aho.ed not be scaled or copied Sources of the data 001150.0 hereon
are from venous public attendee which may have use restrictions and declaimers
N
The parcel Imes shown on this map are derived from a variety of sources which have mei,own accuracy
standards The parcel lines are approximate and for informational purposes ONLY They are not guaranteed
by Washington County Maryland or the Maryland Department otUmesaments and Taxations to be hae of
errors ncludmg mors of amlmd n c accuracyposdional accuracy or any aenbutes mounted with real
w
property They shall not be coped reproduced or spied In any way windul the ex prem pnor vote.
approve ofof1 Washmgtyn County Maryland Plamag and 2onng Department This data DOES NOT replace
an accurate survey by a licensed professional and information shall be veneed using the relevant deeds,
Mats and other recorded legal documents by the user
l
0 190 380 570 760 950
Feet
0 0 045 0 09 0.135
mime Mlles Panted Tuesday August 02 2016
Pnnted Sn cboggs
Friday, May 11, 2016
TO: Washington County Agricultural Advisory Board
RE: Agricultural Preservation District Partial Termination
of the property 1834 Hoffinaster Rd Knoxville MD 21758
To Whom It May Concern:
Two months ago my husband Jairo Arciniegas came in the offices of Washington County to
discuss the possibility of subdividing a property we were considering purchasing. Lisa Kelly
referred my husband to Chris Boggs to discuss the restrictions on property, which included an
Agricultural Preservation District. After our conversation my husband left with the
understanding that we would be able to subdivide our intended lots off of the parcel as long as
we partially terminated the Agreement and paid back the tax credits that were given since 2012.
After settling on the property my husband came back into the offices for further discussion with
Mr. Boggs and Eric Seifarth and learned that the Agreement was for 10 years. This would mean
that we would not be able to subdivide until 2022. We did not understand this since Mr. Boggs
assured my husband at the previous meeting that we would be able to simply terminate the
agreement after the purchase and perform the subdivision at that point. Of course, we would
have never incurred the expense of the property if we knew this was the case. This problem puts
us in a very difficult financial situation with no way to leverage the purchase of the property, as
we intended to do by selling the lots.
We intended to subdivide a small portion of the property and build a house on the remainder to
farm the land. But with this sudden financial constraint, we do not believe we will be able to do
so, which is a great disappointment to us. Mr. Seifarth and Mr. Boggs assured me that they
would do whatever they could to rectify the situation. We are lobbying the representatives of
Washington County to allow us to partially terminate this District Agreement based on the
erroneous information initially presented to us and the financial difficulties it has placed upon us.
Hopefully we can work this out amenably.
Thank you for your time.
Sin rely,
fietz-“a'
larivet Torres JaioArci eb s
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
June 6, 2016
The Washington County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Monday, June 6, 2016 at 7:00
p.m. at the Washington County Administration Building, 100 West Washington Street, Room 255, 2nd
Floor, Hagerstown, Maryland.
Commission members present were: Chairman Terry Reiber, Jeremiah Weddle, Dennis Reeder, Andrew
Bowen, and Ex-Officio County Commissioner Leroy Myers, Jr. Staff members present were: Washington
County Department of Planning & Zoning - Stephen Goodrich, Director; Eric Seifarth, Rural Preservation
Administrator; Chris Boggs, Land Preservation Planner; and Debra Eckard, Administrative Assistant; and
Washington County Department of Plan Review—Tim Lung, Deputy Director.
CALL TO ORDER
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES
Motion and Vote: Mr. Bowen made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 2, 2016 regular
Planning Commission meeting as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weddle and unanimously
approved.
OTHER BUSINESS
AD-90-064— Formerly Leon and Doris Bowers Agricultural Preservation District
Mr. Seifarth stated that the County Agricultural District Ordinance was established in 2009 whereby a land
owner may enter into a preservation district for a period of 10 years or more. In exchange, the land
owner receives property tax credits. There is approximately 28,000 acres currently enrolled in the
program. Mr. Boggs stated that Mr. Arciniegas contacted the Department of Planning & Zoning looking
for information regarding the Leon and Doris Bowers property situated along Hoffmaster Road in
Knoxville. He was considering the purchase of this property with the intention of subdividing lots off of a
portion of it near the road frontage. A State Ag District was originally established on this property in 1990,
which at the time of Mr. Arciniegas' inquiry, would have been beyond the 10 year agricultural district
restriction; and, therefore. could be terminated at the will of the landowner. At the time of the inquiry, Mr.
Boggs did not realize that a new Ag District had been established in 2012 which restricts development for
a 10 year period. Mr. Arciniegas purchased the property and an adjacent property with the assumption
that he would be able to subdivide because the district could be easily terminated.
On April 26th, after Mr. Arciniegas had purchased the property, he again contacted staff and that is when
the regulation associated with the 2012 Ag District that is not easily terminated was brought to his
attention. At that point in time, Mr. Arciniegas wrote a letter to staff asking for a partial termination of the
Ag District on approximately 15 to 20 acres citing economic hardship in accordance with Section 9.3 of
the Agricultural District Ordinance which states that landowners may apply to terminate an Ag District on
the basis of "severe economic hardship". The remaining portion of property would remain in the Ag
District program. The Washington County Agricultural Preservation Advisory Board approved, via e-mail
vote on May
9th
and
10th,
the partial termination. If the Planning Commission also approves this request,
a public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners will be required. All three boards must give
approval before the Ag District can be terminated.
Discussion and Comments: Mr. Reeder asked if the developer could subdivide more lots on the
remaining lands after the 10 year period expires. Mr. Seifarth stated that a new road would be required to
be constructed by the developer; however, he believes that it would cost more money to build the road
than the developer would make on selling lots.
There was a brief discussion regarding road frontage on the proposed subdivision. It was noted that the
developer will be required to meet all subdivision regulations and no guarantee was made at the time of
purchase that the property could be subdivided.
Mr. Weddle expressed his opinion that the partial termination should be approved because the developer
contacted the County prior to purchasing the property and was given the wrong information.
Mr. Bowen expressed his opinion that a developer/land speculator is responsible for researching all
documents pertaining to a prospective purchase of land and assumes a certain amount of risk being
involved. He does not believe that a "severe economic hardship" has been proven.
Mr. Reiber stated that he "has grave concerns about the interpretation and definition of economic
hardships." He does not believe that economic hardship can be proven in land speculation.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Weddle made a motion to approve the partial termination of 15-20 acres of the Ag
District due to misinformation from County staff that created an economic hardship for the owner with 94
acres remaining in the Ag District. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reeder.
Comments and Discussion before the Vote: Mr. Weddle said that he understands Mr. Bowen's
position; however, he believes this is the best way to settle the issue without legal repercussions. He also
stated that he has worked with staff on many issues and he believes the Commission should support its
staff members. Commissioner Myers agreed with Mr. Weddle's comments and he also supports staff. He
noted that claiming an economic hardship is the only option to terminate the district.
Mr. Reiber requested that the minutes reflect his belief that if the developer had thoroughly researched
and verified the deed restrictions on the property, this would not be an issue. He also believes there is
not an economic hardship (i.e. serious illness, foreclosure, etc.) to warrant the termination.
Vote: Mr. Weddle, Mr. Reeder and Commissioner Myers voted "Yes" and Mr. Bowen voted "No".
As a side discussion, Mr. Seifarth gave a brief overview of the County's IPP (Installment Payment
Program), which was established in 2004. The County pays 10% per year plus interest for a 10 year
period for an ag easement. The tax source is a real estate transfer tax which is piggy-backed onto the
State tax. The County receives the first$400,000 every year. In the first 10 year cycle, the County used
these funds to purchase county easements. At that time, the Committee had considered using some of
the funds for the State Ag Preservation Program, which has a 60/40 match component but rejected the
option since sufficient funds for match were coming from the Ag Transfer Tax. It has been suggested that
up to half of the $400,000 each year be used to leverage the State 60/40 match. Mr. Reiber asked that
staff make a formal presentation at a later date for the Planning Commission to decide if this is a
recommendation it wants to support.
Update of Staff Approvals
Mr. Lung reported the following: 36 new submittals in May of which 20 were grading, utility and entrance
permit reviews; 7 site specific grading plans; 1 forest stand delineation; one preliminary plat including a
site plan for Cross Creek commercial (a small commercial building located at MD 65 and Battle Creek
Bouelvard); 3 minor subdivision plats; 1 simplified plat and 3 site plans including an addition to St.
Andrews Church (Virginia Avenue & Halfway Boulevard); a truck tire service facility (French Lane); and
entrance improvements to Meritus Health (Robinwood Drive). There were 6 subdivision plats approved
for minor subdivisions and a simplified plat and 3 site plan approvals for Pen Mar Board of Realtors,
Fahrney-Keedy Community Center and an expansion at Xerxes.
Election of Officers
Motion and Vote: Mr. Bowen made a motion to nominate Mr. Reiber as Chairman. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Reeder and unanimously approved.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Bowen made a motion to nominate Mr. Wiley as Vice-Chairman. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Myers and unanimously approved.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Bowen made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:45 p.m. So ordered by the Chairman.
Respectfully submitted,
Terry Reiber, Chairman
Washington County I Board of County Commissioners of Washington County,Marylandit.MARYLAND Agenda Report Form
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: RZ-16-001 —APPLICATION FOR MAP AMENDMENT(WASHCO Arnett
Farms, LLC)
PRESENTATION DATE: August 30, 2016
PRESENTATION BY: Kirk C. Downey, Deputy County Attorney
RECOMMENDED MOTION: N/A. Discussion Only. Reach consensus as to whether Map
Amendment Application RZ-16-001 should be approved or denied.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The applicant requests rezoning of a 5.18—acre property on the
south side of Arnett Drive, west of Sharpsburg Pike, from Residential, Urban (RU) to
Residential, Multi-family(RM).
DISCUSSION:Following the public hearing on the matter, this rezoning request is now
on the agenda for discussion by the Board of County Commissioners for a consensus on the
request.
A map amendment must include consideration of the following factors: (a)The report and
recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission; (b) Population change in the area of
the proposed change; (c)Availability of public facilities in the area; (d) Present and future
transportation patterns in the area; (e)Compatibility with existing and proposed development of
the area including indication of neighboring sites identified by the Washington County Historic
Sites Survey and subsequent revisions or updates; (f)The relationship of the proposed change to
the Adopted Plan for the County, Development Analysis Plan Map and Policies; (g)Whether
inapplicable, as the Applicant's case was premised upon a mistake analysis); (h) Whether there
was a mistake in the existing zoning classification; (i) Whether there has been a convincing
demonstration that the proposed rezoning would be appropriate and logical for the subject
property.
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
CONCURRENCES: N/A
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
ATTACHMENTS: N/A
AUDIOVISUAL NEEDS: N/A
m - WashingtonIngton County Board of County Commissioners of Washington County,Maryland
MARYLAND Agenda Report Form
Yn
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Resolution concerning the Washington County, Maryland Job Creation
and Capital Investment Real Property Tax Credits Ordinance
PRESENTATION DATE: August 30, 2016
PRESENTATION BY: Kassie A. Lewis, Director, DBD
RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to adopt the Resolution concerning the Washington
County, Maryland Job Creation and Capital Investment Real Property Tax Credits Ordinance
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: It is recommended that the real property tax credits allowed under
the Job Creation and Capital Investment Real Property Tax Credits Ordinance be focused on
economic development initiatives that are most desirable for the expansion of the local economy.
DISCUSSION: The County received enabling legislation to adopt certain tax
credits. The County implemented the credits via the Washington County, Maryland Job Creation
and Capital Investment Real Property Tax Credits Ordinance. To focus growth in desired
economic development areas,the Department of Business Development recommends that real
property tax credits for certain new or expanded premises(coupled with the creation of certain
full-time positions)be allowed for economic development projects that are a: (a) Retail facility
less than 5,000 ft.2 in area; (b)Restaurant less than 2,500 ft.2 in area;(c)Hospitality facility less
than 3,600 ft.2 in area; (d) Warehouse less than 30,000 ft.2 in area; or(e)Distribution facility
less than 30,000 ft.2 in area.
FISCAL IMPACT: Indeterminate.
CONCURRENCES: N/A
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
ATTACHMENTS: N/A
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A
RESOLUTION NO.RS-2016-
Washington County,Maryland Job Creation and Capital Investment Real Property Tax
Credits Ordinance Ineligibility
Declaration
The Board of County
Commissioners of Washington County,
Maryland, (the
doted the Washington County, Maryland Job Creation and Capital Investment
Board) a pRealProperty Tax Credits Ordinance (the Ordinance)on May 3, 201 .
provides that, "A Business Entity does not qualify for and,
The Ordinance p
therefore, is ineligible to apply for a Tax Credit if...the
Business tityDais
a types
of
de
business entity that the Board, heresolutionNewPermanent Full-Time Position(s) is a peof
ineligible for the Tax Credit; or
position that the Board, by resolution
before the Notificastilon Date,
d
has
a
geode
ineligiblephic area
for the Tax Credit; or the New or Expanded Premises
that the Board, by resolution
before the Notification Date, has made ineligible for the
Tax Credit." §3(b)(2).
its citizens, and the
The Board believes it to be in the best interest of tone
r
County,
anded Premises that are
general welfare to adopt this
rrthe
resolution defining
ineligible for a tax credit un
NOW,
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Board of Countyof
New o
Commissioners of
Washington County,
Maryland,hereby declaresaSecthe following
0 of the
New or Expanded Premises as ineligible for a tax credit under
Ordinance:
a) A retail facility more than 5,000 ft.2 in area;
b) A restaurant
more than
more2,
500 ft.2 in area;
than 3,600 ft.2 in area;
c) A hospitality facility
d) A warehouse more than 30,000 ft.2 in area;ore) A distribution facility more than 30,000 ft.2 in area.
Adopted and
effective this day of
2016.
ATTEST:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
WASHINGTON COUNTY,MARYLAND
BY:
Vicki C.Lumen,Clerk Terry L.Baker,President
Approved as to form
and legal sufficiency:
Kirk C.Downey
Deputy County Attorney
Mail to:
Office of the County Attorney
100 W.Washington Street,Room 202
Hagerstown,MD 21740
I:\Documents\Resolutions\
Washington County
Resolution-
Demolition of Building 303.docx