HomeMy WebLinkAbout221129a-revJeffrey A. Cline, President
Terry L. Baker, Vice President
Krista L. Hart, Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
November 29, 2022
AMENDED OPEN SESSION AGENDA
9:30 AM MOMENT OF SILENCE AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CALL TO ORDER, President Jeffrey A. Cline
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 15, 2022
9:35 AM COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS AND COMMENTS
9:50 AM STAFF COMMENTS
9:55 AM CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
10:05 AM PROCLAMATION FOR SHERIFF DOUGLAS W. MULLENDORE
Board of County Commissioners to Sheriff Douglas W. Mullendore
10:15 AM AGRICULTURE – FACES OF FARMING PRESENTATION
Leslie Hart, Business Development Specialist - Agriculture, Business Development;
Jonathan Horowitz, Director, Business Development
10:20 AM MARYLAND AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION PROGRAM
(MALPP) 60/40 MATCH FOR FY 2023
Chris Boggs, Rural Preservation Administrator, Planning and Zoning
10:25 AM COMMUNITY RESCUE SERVICE SUB-STATION DISCUSSION
R. David Hays, Director, Emergency Services; Robert Buck, Deputy Chief,
Community Rescue Service (CRS), Dale Fishack, President, WCVFRA
10:30 AM PUBLIC HEARING – MARYLAND CLEAN ENERGY LOAN PROGRAM
ORDINANCE AND AGREEMENT
Linda Spence, Business Specialist, Business Development
10:40 AM PUBLIC HEARING – NOT-TO-EXCEED $5,600,000 OF CONDUIT REVENUE
BONDS TO BE ISSUED BY THE TOWN OF SMITHSBURG (“SMITHSBURG”)
AND LOANED TO BROOK LANE HEALTH SERVICES, INC. (“BROOK
LANE”) AND PROPOSED RESOLUTION
Kirk C. Downey, County Attorney; and Lindsey A. Rader, Bond Counsel for
Washington County; or Emery B. McRill, McGuire Woods LLP, Bond Counsel for
the Proposed Revenue Bond Issue
Wayne K. Keefer
Randall E. Wagner
Charles A. Burkett
Page 2 of 3
OPEN Session Agenda
November 29, 2022
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.
10:50 AM PUBLIC HEARING – APPLICATION FOR ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT
RZ-22-004
Jill Baker, Director, Planning and Zoning
11:30 AM TEXT TO 911 – REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO ACCEPT AWARDED
FUNDING
Brian Albert, Assistant Director, Emergency Communications Center Operations;
Nicole Phillips, Grant Manager, Grant Management
11:35 AM INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATIVE PURCHASE (INTG-22-0101) 9-1-1
(NG9-1-1) ESINET NEXT GENERATION SOFTWARE UPGRADE
IMPLEMENTATION
Rick Curry, Director, Purchasing; Brian Albert, Assistant Director, Emergency
Communications Center Operations;
QUOTATION AWARD (Q-22-737) FORT RITCHIE MANHOLE MONITORING
Rick Curry, Director, Purchasing; Joe Moss, Deputy Director, Highway
Department
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATIVE PURCHASE (INTG-22-0091) -
LEASE/PURCHASE ONE (1) NEW TUB GRINDER
Rick Curry, Director, Purchasing; Dave Mason, Deputy Director, Solid Waste
RESCIND BID AWARD, INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATIVE
PURCHASE (INTG-22-0080) ONE (1) NEW 2023 FORD F650
Rick Curry, Director, Purchasing
11:40 AM CONSTRUCTION BID AWARD – STOTLER ROAD AT HALFWAY
BOULEVARD SIGNAL INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
Scott Hobbs, Director, Engineering
11:45 AM PROCLAMATION PRESENTATION TO COMMISSIONER TERRY L. BAKER
FOR HIS DEDICATED YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE CITIZENS OF
WASHINGTON COUNTY
Presented by the Board of County Commissioners
11:55 AM PROCLAMATION PRESENTATION TO COMMISSIONER CHARLES A.
BURKETT FOR HIS DEDICATED SERVICE TO THE CITIZENS OF
WASHINGTON COUNTY
Presented by the Board of County Commissioners
Page 3 of 3
OPEN Session Agenda
November 29, 2022
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.
12:05 PM
12:30 PM
ADJOURNMENT
COMMISSIONERS END OF TERM RECEPTION
LOCATION: ADMINISTRATION OFFICE BOARDROOM #1115
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Proclamation for Sheriff Douglas W. Mullendore
PRESENTATION DATE: November 29, 2022
PRESENTATION BY: Board of County Commissioners to Sheriff Douglas W. Mullendore
RECOMMENDED MOTION: N/A
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: Proclamation Presentation
WHEREAS, Douglas W. Mullendore has dedicated his life to serving the citizens of Washington
County, Maryland; and
WHEREAS, in 1968, at the age of 15, he began volunteering for the combined Boonsboro Fire and
Ambulance Company When the companies split, he stayed with the fire department and eventually
served as Boonsboro Fire Chief from 1978 to 1983; and
WHEREAS, Sheriff Mullendore was first employed as a police officer for the town of Boonsboro
form 1974-1978. He was hired by the Washington County Sheriff’s Office on January 18, 1982. He
has held the ranks of Deputy through Sheriff. He is the longest serving employee of the
Washington County Sheriff’s Office, who was elected and served as Sheriff for sixteen (16) years; and
WHEREAS, during his career with the Washington County Sheriff’s Office, Sheriff Mullendore
enhanced the lives and safety of the citizens of Washington County; and
WHEREAS, Sheriff Mullendore was instrumental in the implementation of the Day Reporting Center,
that provides outpatient services for nonviolent substance abuse offenders, adding the Sally Port to the
Washington County Courthouse, that provides a secure area for officers to transport prisoners from their
vehicles to holding cells in the courthouse; adding a new Central Booking Facility to the detention center
to streamline arrests, reduce the risk of escapes during prisoner transport and allow officers to return to
their patrols more quickly; planning and constructing the Public Safety Training Center; and planning
for the renovation of the Special Services Building and relocation of the Patrol Division.
NOW THEREFORE, We, the Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland, do
hereby offer our most sincere appreciation in recognition of Sheriff Mullendore’s retirement from the
Washington County Sheriff’s Office and thank you for your dedication and service to our community
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Agriculture – Faces of Farming Presentation
PRESENTATION DATE: Tuesday, November 29, 2 022
PRESENTATION BY: Leslie Hart, Business Development Specialist, Agriculture and Jonathan
Horowitz, Director, Business Development
RECOMMENDED MOTION: N/A
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: “Faces of Farming” is an agricultural-focused video marketing campaign
that will showcase two local Washington County farms every month, for one year. The “Faces of
Farming” marketing videos will be showcased on the County’s website, as well as Facebook and
other social media platforms, and will target a new industry and highlight a local farmer from
that specific agricultural industry.
DISCUSSION: Washington County’s agricultural business represents the backbone of the
County’s landscape. With over 900 operating family farms and $153,725,000 in market value of
products sold, agriculture is the largest economic driver in Washington County. The “Faces of
Farming” marketing campaign will aim to educate residents in Washington County, along with the
surrounding States and Counties, about the economic impact of the Ag industry. Additionally,
these videos will be used for agricultural education to numerous streams around Washington
County, such as, 4-H and FFA (Future Farmers of America) meetings, Ag Expo and Fair, and they
will be available on the Washington County Ag App and website.
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
CONCURRENCES: N/A
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
ATTACHMENTS: N/A
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: Yes - Faces of Farmin g Videos: Holsinger’s Meats and Hoffmans
Meats of Hagerstown Maryland
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Program (MALPP) 60/40 Match for FY
2023
PRESENTATION DATE: November 29, 2022
PRESENTATION BY: Chris Boggs, Rural Preservation Administrator, Planning and Zoning
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve a $1,333,333.00 commitment from the County
Agricultural Transfer Tax, State Agricultural Transfer Tax, and Real Estate Transfer Tax to the
60/40 match component of the MALPP easement program for FY 2023 Cycle.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: Each year MALPP asks counties if they want to obligate funds to the
60/40 match portion of the Land Preservation Easement Program. Land Preservation staff is
recommending that Washington County designate $1,333,333.00 as its 40% local match in order
to receive the 60% State match of $2,000,000.00.
The commitment requested today will result in total funding of about $4,300,000 for easement
purchases in FY 23 (including approximately $1,000,000 of general allotment funds that all
counties receive). These Transfer Taxes collected each year are restricted for use in preservation
programs and are not General Fund dollars.
DISCUSSION: For clarity sake, State funding contributions to the Ag Preservation Program
result from the following distributions. The entire MALPP fund is divided in half. One half is
divided equally among all Maryland counties which will result in an FY 2023 “General Allotment”
of approximately $1,000,000 for each County. The remaining half is divided among only those
Counties that make local commitments to the 60/40 matching program and is used for the State’s
60% contribution. The County may add General Funds dollars to its 40% match which would
result in additional matching funds from the State and an increase in the total amount available for
easement purchases.
FISCAL IMPACT: This 60/40 match commitment and General Allotment money results in
funds for land preservation easement purchases on six (6) farms. There are no General Funds
involved. $500,000 comes from the County’s Agricultural Transfer Tax; $600,000 comes from
the State Agricultural Transfer Tax; and $233,333 comes from the Land Preservation share of the
Real Estate Transfer Tax.
CONCURRENCES: The Agricultural Land Preservation Advisory Board has endorsed the use
of the above funding source for the 60/40 match.
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
ALTERNATIVES: Make no commitment to the matching program; or commit further funding
to the 60/40 match through the use of County General Funds.
ATTACHMENTS: N/A
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Community Rescue Service Sub-Station Discussion
PRESENTATION DATE: November 29, 2022
PRESENTATION BY: R. David Hays, Director of Emergency Services
Robert Buck, Deputy Chief, Community Rescue Service (CRS)
Dale Fishack, President, WCVFRA
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to formally recognize the Community Rescue Service EMS
station located at 113 Summit Avenue (Station 754) as a duly recognized sub-station by the Board
of County Commissioners of Washington County, MD.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: At the May 2022 monthly meeting of the WCVFRA, a motion was
made and approved to formally recognize the CRS sub-station located at 113 Summit Avenue.
Subsequently, CRS has requested consideration for full funding of the $100,000.00 allocated to all
other volunteer fire and EMS stations/sub-stations throughout the county.
DISCUSSION: In order to fund this request, the BOCC will need to authorize a budget
adjustment in the Amount of $100,000.00, as the current general allocation funding for vol. fire and
EMS companies does not include funds to cover this request.
FISCAL IMPACT: $100,000.00
CONCURRENCES: County Administrator, Chief Financial Officer, Director of Emergency
Services, WCVFRA
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
ATTACHMENTS: None
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING – Maryland Clean Energy Loan Program Ordinance and Agreement.
PRESENTATION DATE: November 29, 2022
PRESENTATION BY: Linda Spence, Business Specialist, Department of Business Development
RECOMMENDED MOTION: N/A
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The Clean Energy Loan Program Ordinance is intended to replace ORD-2022-
03 that was adopted and effective March 1, 2022. In addition to the updated ordinance, an agreement
between Maryland Clean Energy Center (MCEC) Agreement and the Board of County Commissioners
is required.
DISCUSSION: Since its adoption, the MD-PACE program has updated language to authorize
enhanced eligibility requirements, as well as to require local government adoption. It will replace the
existing Ordinance adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on March 1, 2022 (ORD-2022-
03). The agreement between the Maryland Clean Energy Center (MCEC) and the Washington County
Board of County Commissioners is required by the Maryland Clean Energy Center and is necessary to
set forth the contractual rights and obligations of Washington County and the Maryland Clean Energy
Center in establishing, administering, and overseeing the program.
The MD-PACE program administers county programs at no cost to the county. Maryland Clean Energy
Center (MCEC) works with local tax collectors to accommodate MD-PACE on the tax bill and receives
revenue through closing and servicing fees for C-PACE projects. A county is responsible for collecting
MD-PACE assessments, not guaranteeing their collection. The county must also ensure that the MD-
PACE assessments are separately accounted for and cannot be utilized for any other purposes. If a
building owner is deficient or delinquent on their MD-PACE assessment, the county is not responsible
to cover the shortfall. The county only remits payments to the program’s servicing agent that are
actually paid by building owners and are not liable for any deficiency or delinquency. A delinquent C-
PACE surcharge is collected by the County in the same manner as real property taxes, pursuant to the
enabling C-PACE legislation in Maryland.
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
CONCURRENCES: Jonathan Horowitz, Director of Business Development and Kendall
Desaulniers, Deputy County Attorney.
ALTERNATIVES: Do not adopt the updated ordinance or sign the agreement.
ATTACHMENTS: Adopting Ordinance, the Clean Energy Loan Program Ordinance, and Maryland
Clean Energy Center (MCEC) Agreement.
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
ORDINANCE NO. ORD-2022-
AN ORDINANCE TO ADOPT
THE CLEAN ENERGY LOAN PROGRAM ORDINANCE
WHICH SHALL REPEAL AND REPLACE
ORDINANCE NO. ORD-2022-03, CLEAN ENERGY LOAN PROGRAM,
ADOPTED AND EFFECTIVE MARCH 1, 2022
RECITALS
Maryland Code, Local Government Article, §§ 1-1102 et seq. (the Act), authorizes
counties and municipalities to enact ordinances or resolutions to establish clean energy
loan programs in their jurisdictions for the purpose of facilitating loan financing for
Qualifying Projects to Commercial Properties (as those capitalized terms are defined in
the Act) by utilizing state or local tax assessment mechanisms to provide security for
repayment of the said loans.
The Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland (the
Board), established such a program by Ordinance No. ORD-2022-03, adopted and
effective March 1, 2022, following a public hearing held the same date, which hearing,
together with the text of the proposed Ordinance No. ORD-2022-03, was duly noticed
and publicly advertised. The clean energy loan program established by Ordinance No.
ORD-2022-03 was for the expressed purpose of encouraging the finance or refinance of
energy and water efficiency projects, environmental remediation projects, renewable
energy projects, and resiliency projects, as were set forth in applicable provisions of the
Act.
Certain legislative changes to the Act necessitate the Board’s repeal and
replacement of said Ordinance No. ORD-2022-03 with the attached Clean Energy Loan
Program Ordinance.
A public hearing was held on_______________, 2022, following due notice and
advertisement of the repeal and replacement of Ordinance No. ORD-2022-03 with the text
of the attached Clean Energy Loan Program Ordinance (the Ordinance).
Public comment was received, reviewed, and considered concerning the aforesaid
Ordinance.
The Board believes it to be in the best interests of the citizens of Washington
County for the Board to repeal Ordinance No. ORD-2022-03 and to adopt the attached
Clean Energy Loan Program Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners
of Washington County, Maryland, that Ordinance No. ORD-2022-03, adopted and
effective March 1, 2022, is hereby repealed; and
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Washington County, Maryland, that the attached Ordinance entitled “Clean Energy Loan
Program Ordinance” is hereby adopted; and
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Washington County, Maryland, that the Maryland Clean Energy Center (MCEC) and/or
its designee are hereby authorized and directed to serve as the Clean Energy Loan
Program Administrator (as that capitalized term is defined in the Act) under the terms of
a separate agreement; and
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Washington County, Maryland, that the Ordinance shall apply to any Commercial
Property for which a Clean Energy Loan (as those capitalized terms are defined in the
Act) was financed on or after March 1, 2022.
Adopted and effective this _____ day of __________, 2022.
ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND
________________________________ BY:______________________________________
Krista L. Hart, Clerk Jeffrey A. Cline, President
Approved as to legal sufficiency:
_______________________________
Kirk C. Downey, County Attorney
Mail to:
County Attorney’s Office
100 W. Washington Street, Suite 1101
Hagerstown, MD 21740-4735
C LEAN E NERGY L OAN P ROGRAM O RDINANCE
Section 1. Clean Energy Loan Program.
(a) Definitions. In this Ordinance, the following words have the meanings indicated:
(1) Act means §§ 1-1101 et seq. of the Local Government Article.
(2) Clean Energy Lender means a capital provider that provides loans to Property Owners to
finance Qualifying Projects, approved by MCEC, and such capital provider’s successors,
transferees, and assignees.
(3) Clean Energy Loan means any loan made by a private lender to a Property Owner under
the Clean Energy Loan Program.
(4) Clean Energy Loan Financing Agreement means an agreement between a Property Owner
and a Clean Energy Lender providing for the terms and conditions of a Clean Energy Loan.
(5) Clean Energy Loan Obligation means all indebtedness and obligations of a Property Owner
to a Clean Energy Lender under a Clean Energy Loan Financing Agreement.
(6) Clean Energy Loan Program or PACE Program means the clean energy loan program
authorized by the Act and established by Section1-(b) of this Ordinance, the purpose of which is
to provide loans to Property Owners to finance Qualifying Projects.
(7) Clean Energy Loan Program Administrator means any person or entity selected by the
County to manage the Clean Energy Loan Program.
(8) Commercial Property means any real property as defined in the Act, including residential
dwellings containing more than four single dwelling units.
(9) County means Washington County, Maryland.
(10) Local Government Article means the Local Government Article of the Annotated Code of
Maryland, as it may be amended.
(11) Property Owner means the owner of qualified Commercial Property.
(12) Qualifying Projects means projects as defined in Section 1-(g) of this Ordinance.
(13) Surcharge means the assessment levied by the County on a Property Owner’s property
tax bill to collect PACE Program loan payments owed to a Clean Energy Lender by the Property
Owner and costs of administering the PACE Program in accordance with the Act and as authorized
by Section 2 of this Ordinance.
(14) Surcharge Lien means the lien automatically established upon the County’s levy of the
Surcharge on the property tax bill.
(b) Program. There is a Clean Energy Loan Program to finance Qualifying Projects as provided
in the Act.
(c) Rules and Regulations. The County may adopt rules and regulations to administer the Clean
Energy Loan Program consistent with this Ordinance.
(d) Program Administrator. The County may enter into an agreement with a private entity or
State instrumentality to administer the Clean Energy Loan Program.
(e) Scope. Property Owners are eligible to participate in the Clean Energy Loan Program for non-
accelerating loans greater than $25,000.
(f) Eligibility. In order to be eligible for a Clean Energy Loan, the Property Owner shall:
(1) have a 100% ownership interest in the property located in Washington County for a
Qualifying Project(s) is(are) proposed;
(2) demonstrate that the most recent property taxes, assessments, and charges on the property
have been paid;
(3) provide a copy of written notice to all current holders of a mortgage or deed of trust who
have a priority recorded lien on the property and written proof of express consent to the Clean
Energy Loan as a priority lien by all current holders of a mortgage or deed of trust on the property
that is to be financed under the Clean Energy Loan Program; and
(4) establish that the owner of the Commercial Property is able to repay the loan provided
under the Clean Energy Loan Program, in a manner substantially similar to that required for a
mortgage loan under §§ 12-127, 12-311, 12-409.1, 12-925, and 12-1029 of the Commercial Law
Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland.
(g) Qualifying Projects. The cost of the following types of Qualifying Projects to existing
buildings and structures, or new construction, on Commercial Property may be financed through
the Clean Energy Loan Program:
(1) Energy and water efficiency projects;
(2) Renewable energy projects, including, but not limited to, solar energy equipment,
geothermal energy devices, and wind energy systems;
(3) Environmental remediation projects which means a project intended to remove
environmental or health hazards, and including projects that promote indoor air and water quality,
asbestos remediation, lead paint removal, and mold remediation;
(4) Resiliency projects which means a project intended to increase the capacity of a property
to withstand natural disasters and the effects of climate change, including flood mitigation,
stormwater management, a project to increase fire or wind resistance, a project to increase the
capacity of a natural system, an inundation adaptation project, alternative vehicle charging
infrastructure, and energy storage; and
(5) Any other project approved by the County or the Clean Energy Loan Program
Administrator as qualifying consistent with the Act.
(h) Qualifying Costs. A Clean Energy Loan may be used to pay for all costs incurred by a Property
Owner in connection with the Qualifying Projects, including, but not limited to, the cost of the
energy audit; feasibility studies and reports; project management, design, installation, and
construction of the Qualifying Projects; commissioning; energy savings or performance guaranty
or insurance; building accreditation; closing costs of the Clean Energy Loan; permitting fees;
administrative fees; post-install Evaluation, Measurement & Verification; and building
accreditation.
Section 2. Real property tax surcharge.
(a) Repayment of Loans. A Property Owner participating in the Clean Energy Loan Program shall
repay the Clean Energy Loan through a Surcharge on the real property tax bill. Upon receipt of
written notice from the Clean Energy Loan Program Administrator of the execution of a Clean
Energy Loan Financing Agreement, the County shall add the Surcharge to the tax property bill on
July 1 of the year indicated by the payment schedule of the Clean Energy Loan Financing
Agreement. The Surcharge shall constitute a first lien on the property from the date it becomes
payable until the unpaid Surcharge and interest and penalties on the Surcharge are paid in full,
regardless of a change in ownership, whether voluntary or involuntary. A person or entity that
acquires property subject to a Surcharge assumes the obligation to pay such Surcharge.
(b) Calculation. The Surcharge for a Clean Energy Loan shall include the Clean Energy Loan
Obligation and any administrative costs incurred by the County which shall be the actual expenses
incurred to administer the program.
(c) Statement of Levy and Lien of Surcharge. Upon receiving written notice from the Clean
Energy Loan Program Administrator of the execution of a Clean Energy Loan Financing
Agreement, the Property Owner shall execute an agreement with the County and the Clean Energy
Lender that will be recorded in the land records of Washington County, at the expense of the
Property Owner, and which shall include:
(1) the date the Clean Energy Loan was made to the Property Owner and the property became
subject to the Surcharge;
(2) the term of the Clean Energy Loan over which the Surcharge will apply to the property;
(3) the Clean Energy Loan Obligation and estimated County administrative costs for the first
year;
(4) the annual principal and interest amount for each year of the term of the Clean Energy
Loan, including any partial-year prorated amounts;
(5) prepayment requirements and any prepayment premium that may apply to a prepayable
Clean Energy Loan;
(6) notice that the Clean Energy Loan Obligation and the County’s administrative costs will
be repaid through a Surcharge included on the Property Owner's real property tax bill due and
payable on the same date as the real property tax bill;
(7) notice that an unpaid Surcharge constitutes a first lien on the property that has priority over
prior or subsequent liens in favor of private parties and that the Surcharge will continue as a lien
on the property from the date it becomes payable until the unpaid Surcharge and interest and
penalties on the Surcharge are paid in full, regardless of a change in ownership of the property,
whether voluntary or involuntary; and
(8) notice that, if payments of Surcharges are not timely paid, the Surcharge will be collectible
as a tax lien through the tax sale process authorized under Tax-Property Article, Title 14, Subtitle
8, of the State Code and in accordance with Section 2-103 of the Code of Public Local Laws for
Washington County, and that an overdue Surcharge will be so collected, irrespective of whether
real property taxes (or any other taxes, charges, or assessments) are due and owing.
(d) Default. In the event of default on the Surcharge, the County shall be required to collect the
lien pursuant to Tax-Property Article, Title 14, Subtitle 8, of the State Code and in accordance
with Section 2-103 of the Code of Public Local Laws for Washington County, irrespective of
whether property taxes (or any other taxes, charges, or assessments) are due and owing. The
County shall not incur any liability to the Clean Energy Lender or others in the event of default.
(e) Credit of Payments. Payments received from a Property Owner shall be credited first to all
County taxes, assessments, and charges.
(f) Payment to Clean Energy Lender. The County shall have no ownership of the Surcharges
collected except for administrative costs provided under this Ordinance. The County shall pay all
Surcharge payments in any calendar month to the applicable Clean Energy Lender or the Clean
Energy Loan Program Administrator within 30 days after the end of the month in which such
amounts are collected. The County shall have no obligation to make payments to any Clean Energy
Lender with respect to any Clean Energy Loan Obligation other than that portion of Surcharge
actually collected from a Property Owner for the repayment of a Clean Energy Loan.
Section 3. Financing.
(a) Private Lenders; Terms. Clean Energy Loans may be provided by any private lender; and a
Clean Energy Financing Agreement may contain any terms agreed to by the Clean Energy Lender
and the Property Owner, as permitted by law, for the financing of Clean Energy Loans. The County
may not finance or fund any loan under the Clean Energy Loan Program, shall serve only as a
program sponsor to facilitate loan repayment by including the Surcharge on the County real
property tax bill for the property, and shall incur no liability for the Clean Energy Loan. The Clean
Energy Loan must be repaid over a term not to exceed the useful life of the Qualifying Project(s)
as determined by the Clean Energy Loan Program.
(b) County Role. The County’s role in the Clean Energy Loan Program is limited to sponsoring
the Clean Energy Loan Program and collecting and forwarding the Surcharges imposed
thereunder. The County may not provide Clean Energy Loans or other financing in connection
with the Clean Energy Loan Program.
Page 1 of 10
COMMERCIAL PROPERTY ASSESSED
CLEAN ENERGY (“MDPACE”) AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into as of this _____ day of
__________, 2022, between the Board of County Commissioners of Washington County,
Maryland, a body corporate and politic and a political subdivision of the State of Maryland (the
“County”), and the Maryland Clean Energy Center, a body politic and corporate and a public
instrumentality of the State of Maryland (“MCEC”).
RECITALS
1. A Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy program is a program to facilitate
loan financing for Qualifying Projects to Commercial Properties by utilizing a state or local tax
assessment mechanism to provide security for repayment of the loans.
2. Pursuant to §1-1102 of the Act (as defined below), counties and municipalities may
enact ordinances or resolutions to establish a clean energy loan program.
3. The County has authorized and established a commercial property assessed clean
energy loan program (“the PACE Program”) pursuant to Ordinance No. ORD-2022-_____ adopted
and effective __________, 2022 (the “Ordinance”), attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
4. Section 1-(d) of the Ordinance permits the County to enter into an agreement with
a PACE Program Administrator.
5. MCEC agrees to work with the County to implement the PACE Program and to
obtain financing therefor.
6. To secure financing for the program, MCEC and the County are authorized to enter
into a written agreement pursuant to which the County has agreed to assess, collect, remit, and
assign Surcharges (defined below) to MCEC in return for Qualifying Projects for Commercial
Property Owners within the County and for costs reasonably incurred by the County in performing
those duties.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements
set forth in this Agreement, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are acknowledged, and in order to effectuate the purposes of the Act and the
Ordinance, the parties agree as follows:
ARTICLE I
DEFINITIONS
(a) Act means §§1-1101 et seq. of the Maryland Code, Local Government Article.
(b) Clean Energy Lender means a capital provider that provides loans to Property Owners to
finance Qualifying Projects, approved by MCEC, and such capital provider’s successors,
transferees, and assignees.
Page 2 of 10
(c) Clean Energy Loan means any loan made by a private lender to a Property Owner under
the Clean Energy Loan Program.
(d) Clean Energy Loan Financing Agreement means an agreement between a Property Owner
and a Clean Energy Lender providing for the terms and conditions of a Clean Energy Loan.
(e) Clean Energy Loan Program or PACE Program or MDPACE Program means the clean
energy loan program authorized by the Act and established by Section 1-(b) of the
Ordinance, the purpose of which is to provide loans to Property Owners to finance
Qualifying Projects.
(f) Clean Energy Loan Program Administrator means any person or entity selected by the
County to manage the Clean Energy Loan Program.
(g) Commercial Property means any real property as defined in §1-1101(d) of the Act,
including residential dwellings containing more than four (4) single dwelling units.
(h) Local Government Article means the Local Government Article of the Annotated Code of
Maryland, as it may be amended.
(i) Property Owner means the owner of qualified Commercial Property
(j) Qualifying Projects means projects as defined in the Ordinance.
(k) Surcharge means the assessment levied by the County on a Property Owner’s property tax
bill to collect PACE Program loan payments owed to a Clean Energy Lender by the
Property Owner and costs of administering the PACE Program in accordance with the Act
and as authorized by the Ordinance.
(l) Surcharge Lien means the lien automatically established upon the County’s levy of the
Surcharge on the property tax bill.
ARTICLE 2
OBLIGATIONS OF MCEC
Pursuant to this Agreement, MCEC will have the following obligations:
(a) Program Requirements.
1. Shall develop program guidelines governing the terms and conditions under
which a Property Owner may access a PACE Program loan from a Clean Energy Lender, pursuant
to the Act and Section 1-(f) of the Ordinance.
2. Shall receive and review applications submitted by Property Owners within
the County for financing of Qualifying Projects and approve or disapprove each application in
accordance with underwriting procedures and requirements established by MCEC and in
accordance with State law.
Page 3 of 10
3. Shall prepare and deliver to the County an annual report which shall contain
information related to the PACE Program within the County, including the following:
(i) A list of each Commercial Property for which the Property Owner
executed a Clean Energy Loan Financing Agreement during the prior year;
(ii) A list of each Commercial Property where all obligations under the
Clean Energy Loan Financing Agreement have been satisfied or paid in full during the prior
year, including the satisfaction date and a copy of the notice of satisfaction, if required; and
(iii) For each unpaid Surcharge:
A. The date of the Clean Energy Loan Financing Agreement;
B. The total principal balance and accrued interest outstanding
on the Clean Energy Loan; and
C. The annual payment(s) due, which shall include principal
and accrued interest (including the amount of accrued interest on the initial payment, if different),
and the fees for the costs of administering the PACE Program.
(b) Project Requirements. If a Property Owner requests approval from MCEC for a
Qualifying Project, MCEC shall do the following:
1. Require proof that the Property Owner owns one hundred percent (100%)
of the interests in the property located in Washington County for which Qualifying Projects are
proposed;
2. Require that the Property Owner demonstrate that the proposed project is
consistent with the requirements of the Act and Section 1-(f) of the Ordinance and is a Qualifying
Project;
3. Impose requirements and criteria to ensure that the proposed Qualifying
Project is consistent with the purpose of the PACE Program;
4. Require that the Property Owner, prior to the execution of the Clean Energy
Loan Financing Agreement, provide a copy of the written notice to all current holders of a
mortgage or deed of trust who have a priority recorded lien on the property and written proof of
express consent by all current holders of a mortgage or deed of trust on the Commercial Property
to the PACE Program loan, along with an acknowledgement of the priority of the Surcharge Lien;
5. Require that the Clean Energy Lender demonstrate to MCEC that the
Property Owner is able to repay the loan under the Clean Energy Lender’s underwriting standards
which are substantially similar to the criteria set forth in the Act and Section 3 of the Ordinance;
and
6. Require the Property Owner to provide proof that all outstanding property
taxes, assessments, and charges have been paid.
Page 4 of 10
(c) Financing Agreement for Project.
1. A Clean Energy Lender may provide financing to a Property Owner to
finance Qualifying Projects, which loan will be non-accelerating and will survive a change of
ownership, whether voluntary or involuntary.
2. Each Clean Energy Loan Financing Agreement shall clearly state the final
Surcharge that will be levied against the PACE Program Commercial Property.
3. Each Clean Energy Loan Financing Agreement shall contain a Disclosures
and Risks Form executed by the Property Owner.
4. Upon the submission of a Clean Energy Loan Financing Agreement to
MCEC by a Clean Energy Lender and Property Owner with an approved Qualifying Project,
MCEC shall (i) sign the Statement of Levy and Lien which establishes the legally binding
Surcharge, including all fees for the operation of the PACE Program, and (ii) may provide a Notice
to the County to Commence Levy and Collection of Surcharges for a Clean Energy Loan Program.
If the County has semi-annual billing for real property taxes, the Surcharge shall be payable in two
(2) equal payments respectively payable on September 30th and December 31st of each year so
that they are due at the same time as the installments of the County’s real property taxes. If the
County changes its practices concerning the billing of annual real property taxes as to the number
of installments and their due dates, MCEC will change its practices to the extent possible to
correspond with the County’s practices.
(d) Levy of Surcharge. Upon receiving written notice from MCEC that a PACE
Program Clean Energy Loan Financing Agreement has been executed, MCEC, MCEC’s Agent, or
the Clean Energy Lender shall file a Notice of Levy and Lien of Surcharge in the County land
records.
ARTICLE 3
OBLIGATIONS OF THE COUNTY
(a) Surcharge Billing, Collection, and Disbursement to MCEC.
1. The County shall select, within thirty (30) days of the date of this
Agreement, a PACE Program coordinator within the tax collector’s office who will assist in
Surcharge assessments and collection as set forth in this Agreement.
2. The County shall bill the Surcharge due by a Property Owner on the first
tax bill after the Program Administrator provides written notice to the County’s PACE Program
coordinator of the PACE Program agreement’s repayment schedule. The County shall add a
Surcharge to its real property tax bill(s) or stand-alone tax bill and shall send a copy of the tax bill
containing the Surcharge to MCEC within thirty (30) days of the County’s initial tax bill.
3. The purpose of the Surcharge is to repay the Clean Energy Loan under the
PACE Program Clean Energy Loan Financing Agreement and to cover costs to operate the PACE
Program. The Surcharge shall be a separate, clearly defined line item or separate bill and shall be
due on the same date(s) as the County’s real property taxes. The amount of the Surcharge will be
recorded on the County’s tax rolls in the same manner as any other tax, such that the public will
Page 5 of 10
have access to its existence and payment status. The penalties and interest on delinquent
Surcharges shall be charged in the same manner and at the same rate as the County charges for
delinquent real property taxes. Once the obligation to assess, levy, collect, and disburse Surcharge
payments to MCEC is triggered, the obligation survives termination and/or opting-out of this
Agreement by the County.
(i) Surcharges collected by the County shall be segregated from all
other funds of the County and deposited into a separate account for the benefit of MCEC and
identifying MCEC as the beneficial owner. The County disclaims any ownership interest or other
interests in such account or the amount collected.
(ii) The County shall pay all Surcharge amounts collected within any
calendar month to MCEC no later than thirty (30) days after the last day of the month that the
amounts are collected. The County will provide collection reports to MCEC; and MCEC, at its
own expense, shall have the right to audit the records relating to the Surcharges upon reasonable
notice at reasonable times. MCEC and the County agree to provide each other with information as
they may reasonably request. MCEC and the County agree to provide such information in a
computer format satisfactory to each other. Reported information may include data necessary for
MCEC to include in its annual report required by this Agreement. Required information shall not
include information which is deemed confidential information by law or any proprietary or
confidential information from loan applicants or relating to the underwriting of any particular
PACE Program Loan. The County shall not disclose any information contained in the books and
records of MCEC, except as may be required by any applicable law.
(b) Levy of Surcharge. The Surcharge levied pursuant to this Agreement, State Code,
and Section 2-(a) of the Ordinance, and the interest, fees, and any penalties thereon, shall constitute
a lien against the Commercial Property on which they are made until they are paid. The Surcharge
Lien shall be levied and collected in the same manner as the property taxes of the County on real
property, including, in the event of default or delinquency, with respect to any penalties, fees,
remedies, and lien priorities, as provided by Sections 2-(a), -(b), and -(d) of the Ordinance, and
State law.
(c) Collections. Upon the failure of a Property Owner to pay a Surcharge within the
appropriate timeframe, the County shall institute a tax lien collection pursuant to State law. Funds
collected from a tax sale of a Commercial Property subject to a Surcharge shall be paid to MCEC
or the MCEC Agent, its trustee, successors, assignees, or any other entity or person that MCEC or
the MCEC Agent designates in writing to receive payment as set forth in Paragraph (a) above.
(d) Delinquencies. In the event that any Property Owner fails to make a Surcharge
payment when due in any property tax billing cycle, the County shall provide written notice to
MCEC or the MCEC Agent, its trustee, successors, or assignees, of such delinquency in a timely
manner and shall endeavor to do so within thirty (30) days.
(e) Amendment of the Surcharge Amount. Pursuant to the PACE Program Clean
Energy Loan Financing Agreement, the final amount of the Surcharge may be adjusted after the
levy of the Surcharge Lien. Such an adjustment would likely be the result of a change in the
qualifying improvement service contract amount during the construction period, a change in the
amount of capitalized interest, or an amendment to the PACE Program Clean Energy Loan
Financing Agreement. In the event that the final Surcharge amount needs to be adjusted at the
Page 6 of 10
completion of the Qualifying Project or any other time, MCEC will inform the County of the
change and provide the County with an updated payment schedule and new Surcharge amount,
after which the County shall amend the Surcharge Lien to reflect the adjustment.
(f) PACE Program Administration Costs.
1. The County may include an administration fee to cover costs that will be
collected by the PACE Program and remitted to the County. Reimbursable costs and expenses
include reasonable costs, including attorneys’ fees, incurred by the County in conjunction with any
and all proceedings to collect and enforce the Surcharges and delinquent Surcharges, including
foreclosure proceedings.
2. The County will provide written notice to MCEC prior to any sale or
assignment of its real property taxes or any institution of a judicial foreclosure or other proceeding
against any real property for delinquent real property taxes if such real property is subject to a
delinquent Surcharge.
ARTICLE 4
TERM
The term of this Agreement shall commence upon the date the last party executes this
Agreement. This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect until all of the Surcharges levied
by the County have been paid in full or deemed no longer outstanding. Either party may terminate
this Agreement at any time upon ninety (90) days’ advance written notice to the other party,
provided that the County’s obligations to collect Surcharges for any PACE Program Loan made
prior to the termination date shall continue until all Surcharges (including the interest, penalties,
and fees thereon) have been collected and all such PACE Program Loans have been paid in full.
ARTICLE 5
DEFAULT
Each party shall give the other party written notice of any breach of any covenant,
provision, or term under this Agreement and shall allow the defaulting party thirty (30) days from
the date of its receipt of such notice within which to cure any such default or, if it cannot be cured
within the thirty (30) days, to commence and thereafter diligently attempt to cure, using good faith
efforts to effect such cure, and to thereafter notify the other party of the actual cure of any such
default. The parties shall have all other equitable rights and remedies provided by law, including,
but not limited to, specific performance.
ARTICLE 6
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
(a) Assignment or Transfer by County. The County may not assign or transfer its rights
or obligations under this Agreement without prior written consent of MCEC.
(b) MCEC Agent. The County acknowledges and agrees that MCEC may employ a
third party to undertake MCEC’s obligations under this Agreement, subject to approval by the
County (an “MCEC Agent”). In the event that MCEC employs an MCEC Agent, MCEC will notify
the County in writing of the name and contact information of the MCEC Agent. The County agrees
Page 7 of 10
that, for purposes of this Agreement, the MCEC Agent shall speak and act for MCEC and that any
notices required under the terms of this Agreement required to be sent to MCEC shall also be sent
to the MCEC Agent. In the event that MCEC is to be dissolved, MCEC may assign and transfer
its rights under this Agreement to the MCEC Agent, subject to the County’s right to terminate this
Agreement under Article 4.
(c) This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and shall be binding upon, each of the
parties and their successors and permitted assigns.
(d) Amendment/Termination/Waiver. This Agreement may not be amended or
terminated by either party without the prior written approval of the other party. Any waiver of any
provision of this Agreement must be in writing and mutually agreed to by MCEC and the County.
Except for the specific provision of this Agreement, which is amended, this Agreement remains in
full force and effect after such amendment and is subject to the same laws, obligations, conditions,
provisions, rules, and regulations as it was before the amendment.
(e) Severability. If any clause, provision, or section of this Agreement is held to be
illegal or invalid by any court, the invalidity of the clause, provision, or section will not affect any
of the remaining clauses, provisions, or sections; and this Agreement will be construed and
enforced as if the illegal or invalid clause, provision, or section has not been contained in it.
(f) Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts,
each of which shall be deemed to be an original, and all of which together shall constitute but one
and the same instrument.
(g) Notices. All notices, requests, consents, and other communications shall be in
writing and shall be delivered, mailed by first-class mail with postage prepaid, hand-delivered, or
overnight delivery service, to the parties, as follows:
If to the County:
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
100 West Washington Street, Suite 1101
Hagerstown, MD 21740
Attention: County Administrator
With courtesy copy to the County Attorney at the same address.
If to MCEC:
Maryland Clean Energy Center
5000 College Avenue, Suite 31010
College Park, MD 20740
Attention: Executive Director
(h) Applicable Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be construed, interpreted, and
enforced according to the laws of the State of Maryland. Any claim brought in connection with
this Agreement must be brought in the State Courts of Maryland, and the parties consent to the
jurisdiction of the State Courts of Maryland.
Page 8 of 10
(i) Headings. The headings in this Agreement are solely for convenience, do not
constitute a part of this Agreement, and do not affect its meaning or construction.
(j) Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the
parties and supersedes all previous discussions, understandings, and agreements between the
parties relating to the subject matter of this Agreement.
(k) No Agency. Nothing in this Agreement, and no act of the County or MCEC, shall
be deemed to create any relationship of third-party beneficiary, principal and agent, limited or
general partnership, joint venture, or any other relationship between the County and MCEC.
[Remainder of this page intentionally blank]
Page 9 of 10
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the County and MCEC have each caused this Agreement to
be executed and delivered as of the date set forth above:
______________________________
Name: Krista L. Hart, County Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY, MARYLAND
By: ___________________________
Name: Jeffrey A. Cline
Title: President
______________________________
Name: ________________________
MARYLAND CLEAN ENERGY
CENTER
By: ___________________________
Name: _________________________
Page 10 of 10
EXHIBIT 1
1
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING--Not-to-Exceed $5,600,000 of Conduit Revenue Bonds to be Issued
by The Town of Smithsburg (“Smithsburg”) and Loaned to Brook Lane Health Services, Inc. (“Brook
Lane”) and Proposed Resolution
PRESENTATION DATE: November 29, 2022, 10:40 a.m. (for public hearing)
PRESENTATION BY: (i) Kirk C. Downey, County Attorney, and (ii) either Lindsey A. Rader,
bond counsel for Washington County, or Emery B. McRill, McGuireWoods LLP, which is serving as
bond counsel for the proposed revenue bond issue
RECOMMENDATION: Move to adopt the proposed Resolution (this may occur only after the
public hearing is closed).
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The public hearing is being conducted as required by the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), with respect to the proposed Resolution. The Resolution
approves the issuance from time to time by Smithsburg of one or more series of revenue bonds in an
original aggregate principal amount not to exceed $5,600,000 (the “Bonds”), and the lending of the
proceeds thereof to Brook Lane, pursuant to the authority of the Maryland Economic Development
Revenue Bond Act (the “Act”), for the purpose of financing and refinancing costs of the Project
identified below.
DISCUSSION: Brook Lane has asked Smithsburg to issue the Bonds in order to
(a) refinance existing indebtedness of Brook Lane, the proceeds of which were used to pay the costs of (i)
constructing, equipping, furnishing and renovating Brook Lane’s existing hospital facilities located on
approximately 114 acres of land owned by Brook Lane located in Washington County and known as
13218 Brook Lane Drive, Hagerstown, Maryland 21742, and (ii) acquiring an electronic medical record
(“EMR”) system; (b) finance the costs of acquiring and installing a new EMR system in an amount of
approximately $1,500,000; and (c) finance certain costs relating to the issuance of the Bonds and other
related eligible costs (collectively, the “Project”). Such facilities and improvements are located outside
the geographical boundaries of Smithsburg and are not located within the geographical boundaries of any
other municipality within the County, but are located within the geographical boundaries of the County.
Section 147(f) of the Code requires that when the facilities and improvements are to be financed or
refinanced from proceeds of “qualified 501(c)(3) bonds” (as is expected to be the case with the Bonds)
are not located within the geographical boundaries of the issuing entity the elected legislative body or
chief elected executive officer of an encompassing jurisdiction in which such facilities and improvements
are located conduct a public hearing relating to such bonds and the location and nature of the facilities
and improvements, and, thereafter, approve such bond issue. This is known as “host approval.”
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
2
Brook Lane has requested that the County hold the public hearing required by the Code and provide host
approval for the issuance of the Bonds by Smithsburg in order to position the Bonds for issuance within
calendar year 2022, which will allow Smithsburg to designate the Bonds as “qualified tax-exempt
obligations” for purposes of the Code, resulting in a more favorable interest rate or rates on the Bonds.
The Act does not require that the facilities or improvements to be financed or refinanced from the
proceeds of bonds issued under authority of the Act be located within the boundaries of the issuing entity.
The Council of Smithsburg has concluded that there is a sufficient nexus for it to serve as issuer of the
proposed Bonds. The Council of Smithsburg has agreed to (i) hold a public hearing (as required by the
Code) on November 22, 2022 concerning the issuance of the proposed Bonds, and (ii) consider a
resolution (as required by the Act) on November 22, 2022 to authorize the issuance of the proposed
Bonds, the loan of the Bonds to Brook Lane for the purposes of refinancing and financing costs of the
Project, and to approve or provide for other matters required by the Act, in order to provide the “issuer
approval” required by the Code for issuance of the Bonds.
In 2002 and 2013, Smithsburg issued conduit revenue bonds pursuant to the Act and loaned the proceeds
of such conduit revenue bonds to Brook Lane; the County provided host approval for those bond
issuances by Smithsburg. Those 2002 and 2013 conduit revenue bond issues constitute a portion of the
existing indebtedness proposed to be refinanced from proceeds of the Bonds.
FISCAL IMPACT: None. Washington County will not be the issuer of the Bonds. The
County will not have any liability for payment of the Bonds. Brook Lane will be responsible for making
all debt service payments on the Bonds. The issuance will have no impact on the County’s borrowing
limits or financial position. Brook Lane will pay all publication costs and costs of professionals involved
in the proposed financing (including the County’s bond counsel), whether or not the Bonds are issued.
CONCURRENCES: Lindsey A. Rader of Funk & Bolton, P.A., bond counsel to the County,
concurs in the necessity for host approval regarding the proposed Bonds and that the County is an
appropriate entity to provide such host approval in the event she is not available for the public hearing
and consideration of the proposed Resolution on November 29, 2022 due to a scheduled bond pre-closing
on that date.
ALTERNATIVES: If the County is unwilling to provide host approval, Brook Lane’s only
option for the issuance of the Bonds on a tax-exempt basis will be to seek host approval from the State of
Maryland, which likely will be difficult to obtain and it may not be possible for the Bonds to be issued in
calendar year 2022 as proposed, which may impact the ability of the Bonds to be issued as “qualified tax-
exempt obligations.”
ATTACHMENTS: N/A
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A
RESOLUTION NO. RS-2022-
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY APPROVING THE ISSUANCE BY THE TOWN OF SMITHSBURG (THE
"TOWN"), PURSUANT TO THE MARYLAND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REVENUE
BOND ACT (THE "ACT"), OF THE TOWN'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REVENUE
BOND OR BONDS IN ONE OR MORE SERIES FROM TIME TO TIME IN AN
AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED FIVE MILLION SIX HUNDRED
THOUSAND DOLLARS ($5,600,000.00), IN ORDER TO LEND THE PROCEEDS
THEREOF TO BROOK LANE HEALTH SERVICES, INC., A NONPROFIT MARYLAND
CORPORATION (THE "BORROWER"), SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING
OR REFINANCING THE COSTS OF THE ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENT OF
CERTAIN FACILITIES (WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT) DESCRIBED HEREIN,
TO BE USED BY THE BORROWER IN ITS TAX-EXEMPT PURPOSE ACTIVITIES;
GENERALLY DESCRIBING AND APPROVING SUCH FACILITIES AND THE ISSUANCE
OF SUCH BONDS; GENERALLY DESCRIBING THE PUBLIC PURPOSES TO BE
SERVED BY SUCH FACILITIES; PROVIDING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
RESOLUTION SHALL BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED; AND GENERALLY PROVIDING
FOR AND DETERMINING VARIOUS MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH.
RECITALS
Sections 12-101 through 12-118, inclusive, of the Economic Development Article of the
Annotated Code of Maryland, as amended, being the Maryland Economic Development Revenue
Bond Act (the "Act"), empower any public body (as defined in the Act) to issue and sell bonds
(as defined in the Act), as its limited obligations and not upon its faith and credit or pledge of its
taxing power, at any time and from time to time, and to loan the proceeds of the sale of such
bonds to one or more facility users (as defined in the Act) for the purposes of financing or
refinancing any costs of the acquisition and improvement (as defined in the Act) of one or more
facilities (as defined in the Act) for one or more facility users, including the necessary expenses
of preparing, printing, selling, and issuing those bonds, the funding of reserves, and the payment
of interest with respect to financing such acquisition and improvement in such amounts, or for
such periods, as the public body deems reasonable.
The Act states the declared legislative purpose of the General Assembly of Maryland to
be to (1) relieve conditions of unemployment in the State of Maryland (the "State"); (2)
encourage the increase of industry and commerce and a balanced economy in the State; (3) assist
in the retention of existing industry and commerce and in the attraction of new industry and
commerce in the State through, among other things, the development of ports and the control or
abatement of environmental pollution and the use and disposal of waste; (4) promote economic
development; (5) protect natural resources and encourage resource recovery; and ,(6) promote the
health, welfare and safety of the residents of the State.
The Town of Smithsburg (the "Town") has received a request from Brook Lane Health
Services, Inc. (the "Borrower"), an organization described under Section 501(c)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), and a facility applicant and a facility
user within the meaning of the Act, for the Town to participate in the financing or refinancing of
the costs of certain facilities (within the meaning of the Act) more particularly described in such
166908455.2
request by authorizing, issuing and selling its revenue bond or bonds in one or more series from
time to time in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed Five Million Six Hundred Thousand
Dollars ($5,600,000.00) (in any such case, the "Bonds") and lending the proceeds of the sale
thereof (the "Loan") to the Borrower.
The facilities (within the meaning of the Act) to be financed or refinanced will consist
generally of (a) refinancing existing indebtedness of the Borrower, the proceeds of which were
used to pay the costs of (i) constructing, equipping, furnishing and renovating the Borrower's
existing hospital facilities located on approximately 114 acres of land owned by the Borrower
located in Washington County and known as 13218 Brook Lane Drive, Hagerstown, Maryland
21742 and (ii) acquiring an electronic medical record ("BMW") system; (b) financing the costs
of acquiring and installing a new EMR system in an amount of approximately $1,500,000; and
(c) financing certain costs relating to the issuance of the Bonds and other related eligible costs
(collectively, the "Project"). The facilities and improvements referred to in clauses (a) and (b) of
the definition of the Project (collectively, the "Facilities") are located outside of the geographical
boundaries of the Town, but are located in an unincorporated area within the geographical
boundaries of Washington County, Maryland.
On November 22, 2022, the Council of the Town, following a public hearing as required
by Section 147(f) of the Code, adopted a resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of the
Bonds and the financing and refinancing of costs of the Project by the Borrower.
Because the Facilities are located outside the geographical boundaries of the Town,
Section 147(f) of the Code provides that prior to the issuance of any of the Bonds by the Town,
the elected legislative body or chief elected executive officer of the county or municipality in
which the Project to be financed or refinanced with the proceeds of the Bonds is to be located
shall conduct a public hearing relating to the Bonds and the location and nature of the Facilities
and, thereafter, approve the Bonds and the Project.
The Borrower has requested in a letter to the Board of County Commissioners of
Washington County, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A (the "Request Letter"), that
County Commissioners of Washington County (the "County"), following a public hearing as
required by Section 147(f) of the Code, approve the Project and the issuance of the Bonds by the
Town. In the Request Letter, the Borrower identifies the purposes of the Act to be achieved
through the issuance of the Bonds and the financing or refinancing of the costs of the Project.
The County has held a public hearing concerning the issuance of the Bonds and the
location and nature of the Facilities following reasonable public notice (within the meaning of
Section 147(f) of the Code).
The County has determined, based upon the findings and determinations hereinafter set
forth, that it is in the best interests of the citizens of the County that the County approve the
financing and refinancing of costs of the Project by the Town by approving the Project and the
issuance of the Bonds by the Town.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY:
0
SECTION 1. That the Recitals to this Resolution are incorporated by reference herein
and deemed a substantive part of this Resolution. Capitalized terms used in this Resolution and
not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings given to such terms in the Recitals.
References in this Resolution to "finance" or similar terms shall be construed to also refer to
"reimburse" or similar terms, to the extent applicable.
SECTION 2. That, based on the Request Letter, it is hereby found and determined that
the Project and the financing and refinancing of the costs thereof by the Town will (i) enhance
and expand health care provided by the Borrower to the citizens of the Town, the County and the
State; (ii) strengthen the ability of the Borrower as a health care institution to attract and care for
patients; and (iii) permit the Borrower to maintain its professional and other staff, and,
accordingly, will generally promote the purposes of the Act, by sustaining jobs and employment,
thereby relieving conditions of unemployment in the Town, the County and the State, assisting in
the retention of existing industry and commerce in the Town, the County and the State, and
promoting the health, welfare and safety of the residents of the Town, the County and the State.
Accordingly, it is in the interests of the public welfare of the citizens of the County and the State
that the County approve the financing or refinancing by the Town of the costs of the Project.
SECTION 3. That the County hereby approves:
(a) the Project; and
(b) the issuance by the Town from time to time of one or more series of the
Bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $5,600,000, the proceeds of which may be
used by the Town to make the Loan to the Borrower for the purpose of financing or refinancing
the costs of the Project.
SECTION 4. That neither the Bonds nor the interest thereon shall ever constitute an
indebtedness or a charge against the general credit or taxing powers of the County within the
meaning of any constitutional or charter provision or statutory limitation and neither shall ever
constitute or give rise to any pecuniary liability of the County. The Bonds shall not constitute an
indebtedness to which the faith and credit of the County is pledged. The Bonds and the interest
on them shall be limited obligations of the Town, and the principal of, premium, if any, and
interest on the Bonds shall be payable solely from revenues or moneys to be received in
connection with the financing or refinancing of the costs of the Project or from any other moneys
made available to the Town for such purpose.
SECTION 5. That the Bonds shall be authorized, issued, sold and delivered without
direct or indirect cost to the County, and to that end, the Borrower shall pay all necessary
expenses of preparing, printing, selling, and issuing the Bonds and all other costs and expenses
contemplated and permitted by the Act, including without limitation, any and all costs, fees and
expenses (including, without limitation, attorneys' fees and expenses) incurred by or on behalf of
the County in connection with this Resolution, the publication of notices of any public hearings
to be held in connection herewith, and the development and execution of any closing certificates
of the County deemed necessary or desirable in connection with any issuance of the Bonds,
whether or not the proposed financing is consummated.
SECTION 6. That the adoption of this Resolution shall not in any way indicate the
approval of, or constitute any commitment for approval by, the County or any of its officials or
employees of any license, permit, application, or any other request to the County with respect to
the acquisition and improvement (within the meaning of the Act) of the Facilities or the
operation of the Facilities.
SECTION 7. That no further action of the County is necessary to effect the financing or
refinancing by the Town of costs of the Project or the completion of the transactions
contemplated in this Resolution, including without limitation, the issuance of the Bonds;
provided that, (i) the President or, in the absence or disability of the President, the Vice President
of the Board of the County Commissioners, on behalf of the County, is hereby authorized to sign
the Request Letter in order to evidence the County's acceptance of the Request Letter and (ii) the
appropriate officials of the County are hereby authorized and empowered to negotiate, approve,
execute and deliver any certificates deemed necessary or desirable by bond counsel to the Town
or counsel to the County in connection with any issuance of the Bonds.
SECTION 8. That it is hereby acknowledged and understood that Funk & Bolton, P.A.,
bond counsel to the County, which is representing the County in connection with the subject
matter of this Resolution, is also serving as issuer's counsel to the Town in connection with the
issuance of the Bonds.
SECTION 9. That the provisions of this Resolution shall be liberally construed in order
to effectuate the transactions contemplated by this Resolution.
SECTION 10. That this Resolution shall take effect from the date of its adoption.
[CONTINUED ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
0
Adopted this day of , 2022.
(SEAL)
ATTEST: COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
WASHINGTON COUNTY
Krista L. Hart, County Clerk
Approved as to form and legal sufficiency:
Kirk C. Downey
County Attorney
Jeffrey A. Cline, President
Board of County Commissioners
of Washington County
Mail to:
Office of the County Attorney
100 W. Washington Street, Suite 1101
Hagerstown, MD 21740
5
EXHIBIT A
LETTER FROM BROOK LANE HEALTH SERVICES, INC.
BROOK
LANE
Hope -Healing • Recovery
November 17, 2022
Board of County Commissioners
of Washington County
100 West Washington Street
Hagerstown, Maryland 21740
Re: Proposed The Town of Smithsburg Economic Development Revenue Bonds
for the Benefit of Brook Lane Health Services, Inc.
Dear Commissioners:
Brook Lane Health Services, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the "Borrower"), respectfully requests
that County Commissioners of Washington County (the "County") approve the issuance from time to time
by The Town of Smithsburg (the "Town") of one or more series of economic development revenue bonds
in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed Five Million Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($5,600,000.00)
(the "Bonds"), pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the Maryland Economic Development
Revenue Bond Act, Sections 12-101 through 12-118, inclusive, of the Economic Development Article of
the Annotated Code of Maryland, as amended (the "Act"), to finance or refinance the costs of the acquisition
and improvement (within the meaning of the Act) by the Borrower of the Project identified below.
The Borrower will use the proceeds of the Bonds for the purpose of (a) refinancing existing
indebtedness of the Borrower, the proceeds of which were used to pay the costs of (i) constructing,
equipping, furnishing and renovating the Borrower's existing hospital facilities located on approximately
114 acres of land owned by the Borrower located in Washington County and known as 13218 Brook Lane
Drive, Hagerstown, Maryland 21742, and (ii) acquiring an electronic medical record ("EMR") system; (b)
financing the costs of acquiring and installing a new EMR system in an amount of approximately
$1,500,000; and (c) financing certain costs relating to the issuance of the Bonds and other related eligible
costs (collectively, the "Project"). The facilities and improvements referred to in clauses (a) and (b) of the
definition of the Project (collectively, the "Facilities") are located outside the geographical boundaries of
the Town but within an unincorporated area of the County and constitute facilities within the meaning of
the Act.
The existing Facilities are used and the Facilities to be acquired will be used by the Borrower in its
business of operating a psychiatric hospital and providing related health care services and the components
13121 Brook Lane, Hagerstown, MD 21742 A 301-733-0330 . ik-wR-.brooklane.org
6
BR - 0K
LANE
Hope -Healing -Recovery
of the Project to be located at such location shall be used accordingly. The Borrower has been determined
by the Internal Revenue Service to be an exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code").
With respect to the County, the Borrower believes that the issuance of the Bonds and the financing
and refinancing of the costs of the Project will (i) enhance and expand health care provided by the Borrower
to the citizens of the Town, the County and the State; (ii) strengthen the ability of the Borrower as a health
care institution to attract and care for patients; and (iii) permit the Borrower to maintain its professional and
other staff, and, accordingly, will generally promote the purposes of the Act, by sustaining jobs and
employment, thereby relieving conditions of unemployment in the Town, the County and the State, assisting
in the retention of existing industry and commerce in the Town, the County and the State, and promoting
the health, welfare and safety of the residents of the Town, the County and the State.
The Bonds shall be limited obligations of the Town, the principal of, premium, if any, and interest
on which shall be payable solely from the revenue derived from loan repayments (both principal and
interest) payable by the Borrower pursuant to the terms and provisions of the Loan Agreement (hereinafter
defined) and from any other moneys made available to the Town for such purpose. The Town will loan the
proceeds of the Bonds (the "Loan") to the Borrower pursuant to the terms and provisions of one or more
loan agreements to be entered into by and between the Town and the Borrower (by whatever name known,
including (without limitation) as a loan and financing agreement, a bond and financing agreement or by any
other name, the "Loan Agreement"). The Loan Agreement will require the Borrower to use the proceeds
of the Loan for the sole and exclusive purpose of financing or refinancing the costs of the Project and, to
the extent permitted by the holder or holders of the Bonds, the payment of the expenses of preparing,
printing and selling the Bonds, and other eligible costs, including any required reserves or interest.
As required by Section 5f.103-2(c)(3) of the Income Tax Regulations, the Borrower hereby requests
that the Board of County Commissioners take the necessary action to grant "host approval" with respect to
the Bonds and the Project.
It is expressly understood and agreed that the County will not incur any liability, direct or indirect,
or any cost, direct or indirect, in connection with the authorization, issuance and sale of the Bonds, the
making of the Loan or the acquisition and improvement of the Project and to that end, the Borrower agrees
to pay all necessary expenses of preparing, printing, selling, and issuing the Bonds and all other costs and
expenses contemplated and permitted by the Act, including without limitation, any and all costs, fees and
expenses (including without limitation, attorneys' fees and expenses) incurred by or on behalf of the County
in connection with the adoption of a resolution approving the Project and the issuance and sale of the Bonds,
the publication of notices of any public hearings to be held in connection therewith and the development
and execution of any closing certificates of the County deemed necessary or desirable, whether or not the
13121 Brook Lane, Hagersto-Nvn, MD 21742 0 301-733-0330 m 1«v1v%,.brooklane.org
'r1
1
BROOK
LANE
Hope -Healing -Recovery
proposed financing is consummated. The County shall have no liability or responsibility for the payment
of any such fees and expenses.
The Borrower hereby agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the County and all of its officials,
employees, agents and representatives from any and all claims, damages, expenses, fees and costs of any
nature whatsoever in connection with the financing or refmancing of the costs of the Project and the
issuance of the Bonds. Moreover, nothing contained in this letter shall be deemed to constitute an
undertaking by the County to expend any of its funds to effect any or all of the transactions contemplated
by this letter.
The Borrower understands and agrees that the approval by the County of the Project and the
issuance and sale of the Bonds by the Town shall not in any way indicate the approval of, or constitute any
commitment for approval by, the County or any of its officials or employees of any license, permit,
application, or any other request to the County with respect to the acquisition and improvement (within the
meaning of the Act) of the Facilities or the operation of the Facilities.
The Borrower understands and agrees that the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the
Bonds (1) shall be limited obligations of the Town, (2) are not debts or charges against the general credit
or taxing power of the Town or the County within the meaning of any constitutional or charter provision or
statutory limitation, and (3) may not give rise to any pecuniary liability of the Town or the County. The
Bonds are not a debt to which the faith and credit of the Town, the County or any other public body (within
the meaning of the Act) is pledged.
The Borrower accepts and understands that the County has designated the firm of Funk & Bolton,
P.A. to provide legal services on the County's behalf in connection with the activities contemplated by this
letter, and that such firm is also serving as issuer's counsel to the Town in connection with the issuance of
the Bonds.
If the foregoing is acceptable to the County, please have an authorized representative of the County
execute the same in the space provided for below; counterpart signature pages of this letter may be
circulated by facsimile transmission and/or c-mail.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
13121 Broom Lane, Hagerstown, MD 21742 301-733-0330 a «�«v.brooklxine.org
:DRt) K
LANE
Hope -Healing -Recovery
Accepted:
Very truly yours,
BROOK LANE HEALTH SERVICES, INC.
By:
Jeffery D. O'Neal, MBA, LCPC, FACHE
Chief Executive Officer
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY
[Vice] President of the Board of County
Commissioners of Washington County
Date: 2022
13121 Brook Lane, Hagerstown, MD 21742 c 301-733-0330 0 wwxv.btoo klane.org
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Application for Zoning Text Amendment RZ-22-004
PRESENTATION DATE: November 29, 2022 10:50am
PRESENTATION BY: Jill Baker, AICP, Director, Department of Planning and Zoning
RECOMMENDED MOTION: The purpose of this public hearing is to take public comment on the
rezoning application. The Commissioners may take action to approve or deny the request or wait until
a later date to deliberate.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: Application has been made by the Board of County Commissioners of
Washington County to amend several sections of the Zoning Ordinance to remove truck stops as a
special exception use in the Highway Interchange (HI) district and to require warehouses with gross
building areas greater than or equal to 1,000,000 sq. ft. to be special exception uses in all districts where
warehouses are currently permitted.
DISCUSSION: Electronic commerce (E-commerce) has rapidly expanded in recent years
hastened by the social changes brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. Two primary focus points
of e-commerce is having a large supply inventory as well as fast delivery service. This has created
increased demand for inventory warehousing, regional distribution facilities, and freight carriers.
As an expected side effect, there has been a proportional increase in truck and other freight delivery
services on local road networks. In addition to localized truck traffic, there has been a continued
increase in interstate through traffic especially on Interstate 81. It is projected that truck traffic on both
I-70 and I-81 will continue to increase as e-commerce and consumer demand continues to increase.
With increased truck traffic has also come the need for services related to those employed by this
industry. This most frequently takes the form of a truck stops, convenience stores, lodging facilities
and parking facilities to assist truck drivers to meet federal limits on driving hours.
This has culminated in concerns from the public regarding traffic congestion, safety, and environmental
concerns. In response to these concerns the applicant has proposed the text amendments attached to
this report.
This amendment has not yet been presented to the Washington County Planning Commission. The
Planning Commission has scheduled a Public Information Meeting to be held on Monday, December
5, 2022. It is recommended by Staff that the Board of County Commissioners withhold action on this
matter until such time the Planning Commission can take public comment, deliberate, and submit a
recommendation to the Board.
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
FISCAL IMPACT: unknown
CONCURRENCES: none
ALTERNATIVES: n/a
ATTACHMENTS: Proposed text amendments, staff report, and application
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: none
Proposed Text Amendments for RZ-22-004 1
Proposed Text Amendments for RZ-22-004
ARTICLE 3. DISTRICTS ESTABLISHED; ZONING MAPS, DISTRICT BOUNDARIES; LAND USE
REGULATIONS (RURAL AREA USES)
Section 3.3 Land Use Regulations
LAND USES A(R) EC P RV RB IM Intensity of Use
Q. Transportation and Warehousing
wholesale and retail sale where the gross building
wholesale and retail sale where the gross building
ARTICLE 12 "BG" BUSINESS, GENERAL DISTRICT
Section 12.1 Principal Permitted Uses
(a) Retail trades, businesses and services, including but not limited to the following and any use permitted
in the BL District, subject to the use regulations specified in that district.
Wholesale business, warehousing with gross building area less than 1,000,000 sq. ft or service
establishments, except as first allowed in an "IR" or "IG" District.
Section 12.2 Special Exception Uses (Requiring Board Authorization After Public
Hearing)
(m) Wholesale business, warehousing with gross building area greater than or equal 1,000,000 sq. ft or
service establishments, except as first allowed in an "IR" or "IG" District.
ARTICLE 13 "IR" INDUSTRIAL, RESTRICTED DISTRICT
Section 13.1 Principal Permitted Uses
(a) Uses of a light industrial nature including, but not limited to the following:
Warehouses as defined in Article 28A with gross building area less than 1,000,000 sq. ft.
Proposed Text Amendments for RZ-22-004 2
Section 13.2 Special Exception Uses (Requiring Board Authorization After Public
Hearing)
Warehouses as defined in Article 28A with gross building area greater than or equal to 1,000,000
sq. ft.
ARTICLE 14 "IG" INDUSTRIAL, GENERAL DISTRICT
Section 14.1 Principal Permitted Uses(e) Any use permitted or as regulated as a principal permitted or
special exception in the "IR" District, except as hereinafter modified.
Section 14.2 Special Exception Uses (Requiring Board Authorization After Public
Hearing)
(c) Warehouses as defined in Article 28A with gross building area greater than or equal to 1,000,000 sq.
ft.
ARTICLE 17 "PB" PLANNED BUSINESS DISTRICT (SHOPPING CENTERS)
Section 17.1 Principal Permitted Uses
Only uses permitted in the BL or BG Districts shall be permitted. However, no animal hospitals, veterinary
clinics, or kennels shall be permitted. No residential or industrial uses or Outdoor Advertising Signs shall
be permitted. Only warehouses with gross building area less than 1,000,000 sq. ft. are principally
permitted.
Section 17.1.1 Special Exception Uses (Requiring Board Authorization After
Public Hearing)
(c) Warehouses as defined in Article 28A with gross building area greater than or equal to 1,000,000 sq.
ft.
ARTICLE 18 "PI" PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (INDUSTRIAL PARK)
Section 18.1 Principal Permitted Uses
(c) Wholesale warehousing establishments with gross building area less than 1,000,000 sq. ft. where no
retail sales are permitted.
(d) Truck terminals or warehouses with gross building area less than 1,000,000 sq. ft.
Section 18.2 Prohibited Uses
(h) Special exception uses in "IR" and "IG" Districts
Section 18.2.1 Special Exception Uses
(a) Solar Energy Generating Systems in accordance with Section 4.26.
(b) Warehouses as defined in Article 28A with gross building area greater than or equal to 1,000,000
sq. ft.
Proposed Text Amendments for RZ-22-004 3
ARTICLE 19 "HI" HIGHWAY INTERCHANGE DISTRICT
Section 19.2. Principal Permitted Uses
(a) All Principal Permitted Uses allowed in the BL, BG, PB, and ORT Districts. Also permitted are all
Principal Permitted Uses in the IR District except heliports, warehouses as defined in Article 28A with
gross building area greater than or equal to 1,000,000 sq. ft., and Commercial Communications Towers.
Section 19.3. Special Exception Uses (Requiring Board Authorization after Public
Hearing)
(g) Warehouses as defined in Article 28A with gross building area greater than or equal to 1,000,000 sq.
ft.
(h) Public utility buildings, structures, or uses not considered essential utility equipment, as defined in
Article 28A.
(i) Commercial Communications Towers, subject to the requirements of Section 4.22.
ARTICLE 19C - “SPECIAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT”
Section 19C.2. Principal Permitted Uses
Warehouses with gross building area less than 1,000,000 sq. ft.
Section 19C.3. Special Exception Uses
Warehousing with gross building area greater than or equal to 1,000,000 sq. ft
ARTICLE 21 "AP" AIRPORT DISTRICT
Section 21.4 AP - Airport District
Section 21.41 Principal Permitted Uses
(c) Uses of a light industrial nature including, but not limited to the following:
Wholesale warehousing establishments with gross building area less than 1,000,000 sq. ft. where no
retail sales are permitted.
Truck terminals or warehouses with gross building area less than 1,000,000 sq. ft.
Section 21.42 Special Exception Uses (Requiring Board Authorization After Public
Hearing)
(f) Warehousing with gross building area greater than or equal to 1,000,000 sq. ft
ARTICLE 28A - DEFINITIONS
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING I LAND PRESERVATION I FOREST CONSERVATION I GIS
RZ-22-004 November 2022
WASHINGTON COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
STAFF REPORT AND ANALYSIS
ARTICLES 3,12,13,14,17,18, 19,19C, 21 & 28A
Proposal: Application has been made by the Board of County Commissioners of Washington
County to amend several sections of the Zoning Ordinance to remove truck stops as a special
exception use in the Highway Interchange (HI) district and to require warehouses with gross
building areas greater than or equal to 1,000,000 sq. ft. to be special exception uses in all districts
where warehouses are currently permitted.
Staff Report: Electronic commerce (E-commerce) has rapidly expanded in recent years hastened
by the social changes brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. Two primary focus points of e-
commerce is having a large supply inventory as well as fast delivery service. This has created
increased demand for inventory warehousing, regional distribution facilities, and freight carriers.
As an expected side effect, there has been a proportional increase in truck and other freight delivery
services on local road networks. In addition to localized truck traffic, there has been a continued
increase in interstate through traffic especially on Interstate 81. It is projected that truck traffic on
both 1-70 and I-81 will continue to increase as e-commerce and consumer demand continues to
increase. With increased truck traffic has also come the need for services related to those employed
by this industry. This most frequently takes the form of truck stops, convenience stores, lodging
facilities and parking facilities to assist buck drivers to meet federal limits on driving hours.
This has culminated in concerns from the public regarding traffic congestion, safety, and.
environmental concerns. In response to these concerns the applicant has proposed the afore
referenced text amendments.
Analysis:
The proposed amendments effect two different use types currently included within the zoning
ordinance. While the two uses are similar in their function, the impacts of the text amendments
will have different effects, therefore staff will analyze the changes separately.
Warehouses/Distribution Facilities
Through September 2022, there have been numerous applications made for review of
warehouse/distribution facility projects in the County. A total of 22 buildings have been proposed
747 Northern Avenue I Hagerstown, MD 21742 1 P: 240.313.2430 IF: 240.313.2431 1'd'DD: 7d-1
WWW.WASHCO-MRNET
with 4 currently under roof for a total of 3.1 million square feet in the County. The City of
Hagerstown has also experienced an influx of warehouse projects including 7 buildings with 4
currently under roof for a total of nearly 2.2 million square feet.
While there is no singular data source that can predict how many more warehouses may want to
locate to the area, it is generally accepted that as long as e-commerce continues to grow, so will
the need for additional warehouse and distribution centers to accommodate consumer demand.
Logically, the intersection of two of the most significant eastern seaboard interstates that have both
north -south and east -west directionals would prove to be a highly desirable location for these types
of facilities. This puts Washington County in particularly high demand for placement of these
uses.
The County is not a stranger to this phenomenon. Our economic prosperity has always been
heavily linked to the influences of transportation. Modes of transportation have changed over the
years from horse drawn carriages, to railroads, to the C&O Canal, to now interstates. Freight
movement is integral to the success of not just our local economy but to the overall national
economy.
Of particular concern in the moment is the overbearing size of these new facilities, almost all new
warehouses include at least 500,000 sq. ft. of area while some are ballooning to over 1 and even 2
million square feet. These significant projects have drawn the attention of the public as they
typically convert large amounts (50 to 100 acres) of existing farmland or other urban open space.
This has led to the perception that we are losing farmland too rapidly and not planning for the
impacts on our road networks and environmental resources.
These public perceptions have led the applicant to the conclusion that larger warehouses, defined
as 1,000,000 sq. ft. or larger should have additional public scrutiny in the form of a special
exception use that requires a public hearing. This would permit an additional forum for public
review and comment on projects that may have concerns related to the scale and compatibility of
larger buildings on the community.
Truck Stops
The applicant has stated that their reasoning for removing truck stops as a special exception use in
the Highway Interchange zoning district was due to potential safety threats to County citizens such
as human trafficking, traffic congestion, and vehicular accidents. There was also concern raised
about already existing deficiencies in interstate capacities, specifically I-81, and local contribution
to those deficiencies.
Several newspaper articles were cited as evidence that Washington County has a high rate of
potential for human trafficking as well as fatalities on our roadways. Several articles have been
published in the local newspaper, the Herald Mail, pertaining to various instances of criminal
activity and vehicular fatalities associated with sections of interstate located within the county.
One effect of removing truck stops as a special exception use in the Highway Interchange zoning
district is that there will no longer be any references to truck stops in the zoning ordinance in
totality. Therefore, the definition of a truck stop is also being stricken from the document in order
to limit confusion as to having a definition of a use that isn't listed within the ordinance. While
the perception is that this will effectively ban truck stop uses from being permitted in Washington
County, the actual effect is that there will now be ambiguity in the ordinance as to what actually
constitutes a hock stop. Without a definitive reference to a particular use within the ordinance, it
is left up to interpretation what the definition of a truck stop is and where it could be appropriately
located.
In addition to the administrative pit falls that this amendment could create, there is a lack of
evidence provided to indicate why truck stops are believed to be a greater threat to our community
than any other similar trucking or freight movement use in the Highway Interchange district.
Evidence provided by the applicant included references to local newspaper stories and repeated
statements by County and State elected officials that Interstate 81 has become dangerous and needs
widening. One newspaper article cited by the applicant noted a recent application made by the
State of Maryland to obtain Federal grant funding for the purpose of widening I-81. The statement
made in the application is that "Maryland is recognized as having the most dangerous stretch of I-
81 in the country...".. While this is compelling information, the grant application does not
implicate any particular segment of the transportation economy as being a singular cause of
highway capacity or safety issues. So while there has been evidence provided that I-81 has
documented capacity and safety issues, it seems arbitrary and capricious to attribute these issues
to just truck stops and/or warehouses.
Additional evidence cited by the applicant is another newspaper article that headlined a question
asking "A unique sweet spot: Is Washington Comity becoming a hub for sex trafficking?". The
article specifically mentions truck stops and lodging facilities that "can serve for clandestine
meetings". The article provides no statistics on actual reported cases of human trafficking in the
County but does reference that from January through August of 2022, 18 cases have been referred
to anti -trafficking officials for assistance that include an undetermined mix of those who have been
trafficked or of risk to be trafficked. No information was provided as to whether or not any of the
18 cases occurred on properties containing truck stops.
By citing this information, it further brings to light the arbitrary and capricious nature of the
proposed amendments. If part of the reasoning for removing truck stops as a use in the Highway
Interchange district is its attraction of human traffickers, then it stands to reason that any uses (i.e.
lodging facilities) that could attract illicit behavior should also be removed as a permitted use.
Staff Recommendation: The primary concern addressed in these text amendments revolve
around the fact that our County contains two of the most significant and heavily traveled interstates
in the country. Our proximity to these facilities undoubtedly makes our area vulnerable to negative
impacts such as traffic congestion, safety, and environmental concerns. Therefore, the question at
hand is how we can protect the public health, safety and welfare of our community while also
acknowledging the necessity and importance of interstate facilities to not just our local economy
but the country's economy as well.
11-81/Halfway Boulevard Freight Connections: Providing Opportunities for Economic Growth, Equitable Job Access,
and Improved Safety; FY 2021 INFRA grant application; March 19, 2021
This question is true of any land use and is first addressed through development of the
Comprehensive Plan. It is within the development of a Land Use Plan for the County that citizens
voice their opinions about growth and its impacts. Specific to the amendments being proposed in
the case, the Comprehensive Plan contains a Transportation Element that expands upon the multi -
modal aspects of transportation necessitated by the various types of land uses and their locations.
As noted in the goods movement section of the transportation element, "The intersection of two
major interstate systems provides a logical impetus for development of truck transportation.
Several national companies along with major regional carriers have large terminals or
warehouse/distribution centers in the area. The total terminal capacity greatly exceeds local
requirements, clearly showing the importance of Washington County in freight transfer
operations. "
Noting the need and expectation of the continued growth of economic development in and around
interstate facilities, the plan includes a land use policy area called Industrial Flex. As stated in the
plan, "This classification [Industrial Flex] reflects a hybrid policy area comprised of different
types of economic development associated land uses. It is an outgrowth of the change taking place
in the workplace as more and more jobs move from manufacturing to the hi -tech and service
sectors of the economy. Most of the land zoned Industrial Restricted, Planned Industrial, and
Airport; as well as a large portion of the Highway Interchange One zoned area not developed or
anticipated to be developed as commercial are located in this policy area. Existing and anticipated
land uses associated with this policy area include light industrial parks, office parks, research and
development facilities, hi -tech communication and technology facilities, trucking and distribution
facilities, and commercial uses that support jab centers. These policy areas are located around
the interchanges on I-81 and I-70 in the Urban Growth area... ".
Following the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, comprehensive evaluation of all zoning in the
County was completed. It was conducted in three phases that started with the rural areas of the
County that was adopted in 2005, followed by town growth areas in 2012 and finished with the
urban growth area in 2015. Zoning was applied in accordance with the policy areas set forth in
the Comprehensive Plan. It should be noted that nearly all locations where warehouses and/or
tuck stops have been developed or contemplated fall within the Industrial Flex policy areas
delineated in the land use plan and were given appropriate zoning classifications to follow the
guidance of the Industrial Flex policy area.
The Board of County Commissioners recommendation to require warehouses greater than or equal
to 1,000,000 sq. ft. obtain special exception approval does not seem to be counterintuitive to the
policies and recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. The recommended amendments do
not ban the use but applies more public scrutiny to larger developments that may have larger
impacts on the community.
The recommendation to remove tuck stops as a special exception use from the Highway
Interchange district and consequently as a use entirely from the zoning ordinance does not appear
to be in harmony with the policies and recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan or of the
Zoning Ordinance. As a basic tenet of land use planning and zoning, it is never a preferred method
to ban uses without significant evidence of public nuisance or harm. The public perception of
bucks stops attracting more criminal activity than other similar uses that are permitted within the
Highway Interchange has not been substantiated with the evidence provided in this case.
Furthermore, the elimination of hock stops as a defined use; special exception or otherwise is in
direct conflict with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan as stated previously as well as the
purpose statement of the Highway Interchange zoning which reads, "The Highway Interchange
District is established to provide suitable locations for commercial activities or light industrial
land uses that serve highway travelers, provide goods and services to a regional population, or
uses that have a need to be located near the interstate highway system to facilitate access by a
large number of employees, or the receipt or shipment ofgoods by highway vehicles. "
For these stated reasons, Staff recommends denial of these amendments in order to provide
consistent implementation of our land use policies and regulations.
Respectfully submitted,
Jill L. Baker, AICP
Director
FOR PLANNING COMMISSION USE ONLY
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT APPLICATION
□Property Owner □Contract Purchaser Applicant □Attorney □Consultant
□Other: Address Primary Contact Phone Number Address E-mail Address
□ Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance □ Water and Sewer Plan
□ Forest Conservation Ordinance □ Zoning Ordinance
□ Subdivision Ordinance □ Other
□ Solid Waste Plan
Section No.
Please provide the proposed text on a separate sheet of paper as follows: strike-through
should be used for deletions [deletions], unchanged wording in regular type, and new wording
should be underlined [new wording].
Applicant’s Signature
Subscribed and sworn before me this day of , 20 .
My commission expires on
Notary Public
FOR PLANNING COMMISSION USE ONLY
Rezoning No.
Date Filed:
□
□ Fee Worksheet
□
□ Changes
□
Washington County Board of County
Commissioners
100 W. Washington St., Hagerstown, MD
21740
Jeff Cline, President
same
Articles 3, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 19C,
21, & 28A
Elected Body
240-313-2200
contactcommissioners@washco-md.net
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Text to 911 – Request for Approval to Accept Awarded Funding
PRESENTATION DATE: November 29, 2022
PRESENTATION BY: Brian Albert, Assistant Director, Emergency Communications Center
Operations, and Nicole Phillips, Grant Manager, Office of Grant Management
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the acceptance of grant funds in the amount of
$59,944 from the Maryland 911 Board.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The Division of Emergency Services is requesting approval to accept
grant funds in the amount of $59,944 from the Maryland 911 Board.
DISCUSSION: This funding is for software and the maintenance contract for Text to 9-1-1
services. This service is added on to Washington County’s existing services with Motorola
Solutions.
FISCAL IMPACT: Provides $59,944 for the Division of Emergency Services.
CONCURRENCES: Susan Buchanan, Director, Office of Grant Management
ALTERNATIVES: Deny approval for submission of this request
ATTACHMENTS: N/A
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Intergovernmental Cooperative Purchase (INTG-22-0101) 9-1-1 (NG9-1-1) EsiNet
Next Generation Software Upgrade Implementation
PRESENTATION DATE: November 29, 2022
PRESENTATION BY: Rick Curry, CPPO, Director of Purchasing Department; Brian Albert,
Assistant Director, Emergency Communications Center
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to authorize by Resolution, the approval for the Division
of Emergency Services to enter into a service contract for project management of the 9-1-1 (NG9-
1-1) ESInet Next Generation software upgrade implementation at a cost of $205,874.64 from
Mission Critical Partners, LLC of Chicago, IL and to utilize another jurisdiction’s contract (HP08-
21) that was awarded by Houston Galveston Area Council (HGAC).
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The services that Mission Critical Partners, LLC is providing is support
to the Division with contract review, implementation, vendor oversight and coordination of the
NG9-1-1 solution. The assistance is to ensure County information is in a consistent and timely
fashion to the ESInet vendor in support of the County’s migration to the ESInet platform. Technical
assistance is also provided to ensure the NG9-1-1 system service provider is delivering services
per the contractual commitments. The quoted contract is $205,874.64, the division has made
several payments totaling $18,104 dollars, which the remaining contract balance of $187,734.64
to be paid to Mission Critical Partners, LLC for the completion of the project.
The Code of Public Laws of Washington County, Maryland (the Public Local Laws) §1-106.3
provides that the Board of County Commissioners may procure goods and services through a
contract entered into by another governmental entity, in accordance with the terms of the contract,
regardless of whether the County was a party to the original contract. If the Board of County
Commissioners determines that participation by Washington County would result in cost benefits
or administrative efficiencies, it could approve the purchase of this service in accordance with the
Public Local Laws referenced above by resolving that participation would result in cost benefits
or in administrative efficiencies.
The County will benefit with direct cost savings in acquisitions of these services because of the
economies of scale this contract has leveraged. I am confident that any bid received as a result of
an independent County solicitation would exceed the spend savings that the Houston Galveston
Area Council (HGAC) contract provides through this agreement. Additionally, the County will
realize savings through administrative efficiencies as a result of not preparing, soliciting and
evaluating a bid. This savings/cost avoidance would, I believe, be significant.
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
DISCUSSION: N/A
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are budgeted in the Division’s Capital Improvement Project (CIP)
account GRT150.
CONCURRENCES: Division Director
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
ATTACHMENTS: Mission Critical Partners, LLC price quote dated November 15, 2021
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A
Pricing
Professional services outlined in the scope of work will be provided for a not -to -exceed fee of $205,874.64.
The fee is inclusive of labor and expenses.
Mission Critical Partners proposes to deliver services on a per -hour basis based on our Houston Galveston Area
Council (H-GAC) Purchase Contract #HP08-21, with expenses defined at federal per diem rates. Reimbursable
expenses on this project will be invoiced using GSA Federal rates for lodging, mileage and meals. All other
expenses, including airfare, rental cars, rental fuel, local transportation, tolls, parking and taxes on lodging, will
be invoiced at the cost incurred.
At the close of each month, MCP shall submit a properly executed invoice showing services rendered for that
month. Each statement shall include labor and expenses for authorized activities based upon the approved
scope of work.
Any additional services contracted in subsequent years will be performed at MCP's then -current fee schedule.
Prior to initiating any such additional work, MCP would require a formal letter of authorization from Washington
County.
Based on the current MCP understanding of what is to be accomplished, the pricing identified represents an
estimate of the work anticipated for the project to be successful. MCP's priority is for this project to be successful
for Washington County.
Table 1: Pricing Table
Daniel Armstrong
Senior Technology Specialist
$218.00
32
$6,976.00
James Sullivan
Senior Technology Specialist
$218.00
32
$6,976.00
Dave Boyce
Senior Program Manager
$264.00
20
$5,280.00
Eric Caddy
Senior Program Manager
$264.00
20
$5,280.00
Joshua Jack
Senior Project Manager
$224.00
15
$3,360.00
Nicola Tidey
Technology Specialist II/III
$204.00
124
$25,296.00
Daniel Armstrong
Senior Technology Specialist
$218.00
269
$58,642.00
James Sullivan
Senior Technology Specialist
$218.00
121
$26,378.00
Dave Boyce
Senior Program Manager
$264.00
61
$16,104.00
Joshua Jack
Senior Project Manager
$224.00
26
$5,824.00
Eric Caddy
Senior Program Manager
$264.00
61
$16,104.00
Nicola Tidey
Technology Specialist II/III
$204.00
101
$20,604.00
M
MissioncriticaWartners
20
Table 2: Estimated Project Schedule
M
MissionCriticalPartners 21
MISSION CRITICAL PARTNERS, LLC
H-GAC All Hazards Preparedness, Planning, Consulting & Recovery Services
Contract No. HP08-21
Support Specialist 1 $63.00
Support Specialist II
$105.00
Operations Specialist 1
$204.00
Operations Specialist II
$218.00
Planner
$178.00
Communications Specialist
$160.00
Technology Specialist 1
$191.00
Technology Specialist II
$204.00
Project Manager
$198.00
Senior Technology Specialist
$218.00
Senior Project Manager
$224.00
Program Manager
$237.00
Forensics Analyst
$244.00
Senior Program Manager
$264.00
Principal
$224.00
M
MissionCriticalPartners
22
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. RS-2022-
(Intergovernmental Cooperative Purchase [INTG-22-0101] Radio Equipment for the
Washington County Detention Center)
RECITALS
The Code of Public Local Laws of Washington County, Maryland (the “Public Local
Laws”), §1-106.3, provides that the Board of County Commissioners of Washington County,
Maryland (the “Board”), “may procure goods and services through a contract entered into by
another governmental entity in accordance with the terms of the contract, regardless of whether
the county was a party to the original contract.”
Subsection (c) of §1-106.3 provides that “A determination to allow or participate in an
intergovernmental cooperative purchasing arrangement under subsection (b) of this section shall
be by resolution and shall either indicate that the participation will provide cost benefits to the
county or result in administrative efficiencies and savings or provide other justifications for the
arrangement.”
The Division of Emergency Services is requesting to enter into a service contract for project
management of the 9-1-1 (NG9-1-1) ESInet Next Generation software upgrade implementation at
a cost of $205,874.64 from Mission Critical Partners, LLC, of Chicago, Illinois, and to utilize
another jurisdiction’s contract (HP08-21) that was awarded by Houston Galveston Area Council
(HGAC).
Utilizing the Houston Galveston Area contract and eliminating the County’s bid process
result in administrative and cost savings for the Division of Emergency Services. The County will
benefit with direct cost savings because of the economy of scale the aforementioned contract has
leveraged. Additionally, the County will realize administrative efficiencies and savings as a result
of not preparing, soliciting, and evaluating bids.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board, pursuant to §1-106.3 of the Public
Local Laws, that the Division of Emergency Services is authorized to enter into a service contract
for project management of the 9-1-1 (NG9-1-1) ESInet Next Generation software upgrade
implementation at a cost of $205,874.64 from Mission Critical Partners, LLC, of Chicago, Illinois,
and to utilize another jurisdiction’s contract (HP08-21) that was awarded by Houston Galveston
Area Council (HGAC).
Adopted and effective this ____ day of November, 2022.
Page 2 of 2
ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND
_____________________________ BY: ______________________________________
Krista L. Hart, County Clerk Jeffrey A. Cline, President
Approved as to form
and legal sufficiency: Mail to:
Office of the County Attorney
______________________________ 100 W. Washington Street, Suite 1101
Kirk C. Downey Hagerstown, MD 21740
County Attorney
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Quotation Award (Q-22-737) Fort Ritchie Manhole Monitoring
PRESENTATION DATE: November 29, 2022
PRESENTATION BY: Rick Curry, CPPO, Purchasing Director; Joe Moss, Deputy Director,
Washington County Highway Department.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to award the Quotation for the Fort Ritchie Manhole
Monitoring project to the responsible, responsive bidder, Huntsberry Brothers, Inc. Smithsburg,
MD who submitted the Total Lump Sum Price of $93,450.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: On October 12, 2022 the County accepted Quotations for the Fort Ritchie
Manhole Monitoring project to replace sixty-six feet of sewer pipe, install one forty-eight inch
precast concrete manhole and have the contractor install a ten inch diameter cartridge type flow
meter. Request for Quotation notices were forwarded to three vendors. The Quotation was listed
on the County’s Purchasing website. There were eighteen (18) downloads of the Request for
Quotation document from the County’s website. Two (2) Contractors submitted a quote for the
project.
DISCUSSION: The Code of the Public Local Laws states that a contract over $50,000 for the
purchase or other expenditure shall be awarded by the Board to the lowest responsible bidder who
submits a responsive bid. Request for Quotations are processed for purchases of commodities and
services not exceeding $50,000 and are normally awarded at the departmental level in concurrence
with the Purchasing Department. Due to the manhole monitoring project cost proposal exceeding
$50,000, the Quotation is before the Board for an award. It was anticipated that the project would
not exceed $50,000.
Based on previously contracted values and estimates for the work, it was anticipated this work
would be quoted below the $50,000 threshold which would not have required using the Invitation
to Bid (ITB) advertisement process. As such, the Request for Quotation process was followed and
not the formal bid process. As noted previously, a significant number of vendors reviewed the
document; as such we do not believe publicly advertising the project in the newspaper or through
the State’s web site would have yielded any difference in the final outcome. Given the value of
the quotations, the Board of County Commissioners’ approval is necessary to award this project.
The project is to be funded through budgeted amounts previously approved for the manhole
monitoring project.
FISCAL IMPACT: Funding is available in the department’s CIP budget account LIN046.
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
CONCURRENCES: Division Director
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
ATTACHMENTS: Quote Matrix Tabulation
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A
Q-22-737
Fort Ritchie Manhole Monitoring
(Located at 25040 Penmar Road, Cascade, Maryland 21719)
Item Description Callas Contractors, LLC.
Hagerstown, MD
Huntzberry Brothers, Inc.
Smithsburg, MD
Replace 66' of swer pipe, install one (1) 48" diameter, precase concrete manhole, and
install an 8" diameter, cartridge type, flow meter with accessories.
TOTAL LUMP SUM PRICE per SCOPE OF WORK DESCRIBED ABOVE
Remarks/Exceptions
1. Interior/exterior concrete manhole coatings are excluded.
2.
8. No exceptions
piping.
$154,700.00 $93,450.00
Page 1 of 4 Quotes Opened: October 12, 2022
Q-22-737
Fort Ritchie Manhole Monitoring
(Located at 25040 Penmar Road, Cascade, Maryland 21719)
9. No exceptions
**Flow Meter lead time is not included in 90 Calendar Day Completion timeframe.
Huntzberry Brothers, Inc.
Item No. 5 – Request to use 3” – SCH-40 PVC
Item No. 6 – Request to use 1” SCH-40 PVC
10. Lump Sum Pricing is based on “hand-drafted” red line notations on the plans provided in the RFQ. As-build documents prepared in Auto-CAD or
by a licensed engineer/surveyor are excluded from this proposal.
Page 2 of 4 Quotes Opened: October 12, 2022
PUR-1475
SWIMMING POOL WATER/WASTEWATER TREATMENT CHEMICALS
Remarks / Exceptions
Addendum No. 1 (dated 10/8/20) Items number 15 & 16D were eliminatd from the Proposal. A "Revised Specification/Form of
Proposal" was also issued in Addendm No. 1. Addendum No. 2 (dated 10/9/20) Items number 4, 8, & 11 were elimated from the
Proposal. All bidders were required to use the "Revised Form Of Proposal"
Gasochem International LLC -
No. 18 $147.00 each 50#Addendum No. 3 not acknowledged
No. 20 $75 each No. 21 Brand: DowFlake
No. 22 Pail must be returned No. 28 Min 7000 gallon delivery
No. 41 $40 each No. 41 Celite 545 Brand
Brenntag Northeast LLC -George S. Coyne Chemical Company, Inc. -
No. 2 50,000 lb delivery No. 6 Minimum 8,000 lbs. per delivery
No. 9 4500 gl deliveries No. 12 Minimum 4 drums per combined delivery
No. 10A Bulk delivery No. 14 Minimum 10 drums per delivery
No. 10B 2 drum minimum order No. 16A Minimum 3 drums per delivery
No. 12 4 drum minimum order No. 18 Minimum 2 pallets per delivery
No. 13 We would like to deliver both locations together No. 24 Minimum 4 drums per delivery
No. 14 3 drum minimum order No. 26 Minimum 2 drums per delivery
No. 28 Bulk load No. 30 Bidding on CP-722
No. 34 Minimum 3 totes per delivery
No. 13 Import material Innovative Water Care -
Non-Responsive: Inncorrect Form of Proposal Kemira Water Solutions, Inc. -
No Addendums acknowledged No. 3 Kemira PIX-111
No. 10B Minimum 2 drums per delivery No. 17A Kemira PAX-XL6
No. 11 Minimum 4 containers per delivery
No. 12 Minimum 4 drums per delivery Kuehne Chemical Company, Inc. -
No. 13 Minimum 4 pails per delivery
No. 14 Minimum 4 drums per delivey
No. 19 Minimum 4 drums per delivery
No. 21 Minimum 4 containers per delivery Maryland Biochemical Company, Inc.
No. 23 Minimum 4 drums per delivery
No. 28 Minimum 3000 gallons per delivery
Amato Industries, Inc. / Amchlor -
Chemstream -
Colonial Chemical Solutions, Inc. -
3
PUR-1475
SWIMMING POOL WATER/WASTEWATER TREATMENT CHEMICALS
Remarks / Exceptions
Maryland Chemical Company, Inc. -Univar Solutions USA Inc. -
No. 2 Full Truck Load
No. 5 Minimum 1,200 Gallons
No. 10B Minimum 2 drums
No.12 53 gallon Drums Minimum 4 Drums
Norwalk Wastewater Equipment Co. dba Norweco -No. 13 Domestic Product
Non-Responsive: Inncorrect Form of Proposal No. 14 Caustic Soda 25% Minimum 4 Drums
No 16A Minimum 5 Pails
No. 16B Minimum 3 Drums
Pencco, Inc. -No 18 60 pound Contatiner Minimum 24 pails
Non-Responsive: Inncorrect Form of Proposal No. 19 53 gallon Drums Minimum 4 Drums
No Bid on all items No. 28 Minimum 7,000 Gallons FTL four (4) calendar days
No. 31A Minimum 1,000 Gallons
Premier Magnessia, LLC -No. 31B Minimum 2,000 Gallons
No. 33 Minimum 2,000 Gallons
No. 34 265 Gallon Non Returnable Tote
No. 36
Thactcher Copmany of New York, Inc -No. 38 Minimum 8 Cylinders
No. 39 Minimum 10 Cylinders
Lead Time: 3 to 5 days ARO No. 41 Minimum order 42 Bags/ Full Pallet 2,100 lbs.
4
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Intergovernmental Cooperative Purchase (INTG-22-0091) – Lease/Purchase One (1)
New Tub Grinder
PRESENTATION DATE: November 29, 2022
PRESENTATION BY: Rick Curry, CPPO, Director, Purchasing Department; Dave Mason P.E.,
Deputy Director, Solid Waste Department
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to authorize by Resolution, for the Solid Waste
Department to lease/purchase one (1) New Vermeer TG5000100 Tub Grinder from Vermeer All
Roads of Annapolis, MD for a total lease/purchase cost of $625,282 and to utilize another
jurisdiction’s contract (#050119-VRM) that was awarded by Sourcewell to Vermeer Corporation
of Pella, IA.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The Code of Public Laws of Washington County, Maryland (the Public
Local Laws) 1-106.3 provides that the Board of County Commissioners may procure goods and
services through a contract entered into by another governmental entity, in accordance with the
terms of the contract, regardless of whether the County was a part to the original contract. If the
Board of County Commissioners determines that participation by Washington County would result
in cost benefits or administrative efficiencies, it could approve the procurement of the equipment
in accordance with the Public Local Laws referenced above that participation would result in cost
benefits or in administrative efficiencies.
The County will benefit with the direct cost savings in the purchase of this equipment because of
economies of scale this contract has leveraged. Additionally, the County will realize savings
through administrative efficiencies as a result of not preparing, soliciting and evaluating a bid.
Acquisition of the equipment by utilizing the Sourcewell contract and eliminating our county’s bid
process would result in an administrative and cost savings for the Solid Waste Department and
Purchasing Department in preparing specifications.
DISCUSSION: N/A
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are budgeted in the Solid Waste Department’s Operating budget
account 535055-21-21020
CONCURRENCES: N/A
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
ATTACHMENTS: Vermeer All Roads’, Quote Dated November 15, 2022
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
Date: 11/15/2022
Pricing Valid Until: 12/15/2022
Quote Number: Q-20191
Quote Number:Q-20191 Page 1 of 2
Prepared For:
SOURCEWELL RECYCLYING AND REPURPOSING
WASHINGTON CO ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT
12630 EARTH CARE ROAD
HAGERSTOWN, MD 21740
240-313-2792
301-988-8030
100902
DMASON@WASHCO-MD.NET
Sourcewell Contract #050119-VRM
Vermeer Dealer:
645 - VERMEER ALL ROADS
301-498-5200
ANNAPOLISJUNCTION.MD@VERMEERALLROADS.COM
8832 CORRIDOR RD
ANNAPOLIS JUNCTION, MD 20701
STEVE ZAICKO
240-374-9361
Description Qty
TG5000
TG5000100 TG5000 TUB GRINDER - 2 AXLE FOR NON LOADERIncludes frame and axle assembly; 2"
replaceable king pin and hitch; PT Tech dry clutch; tub table; belly and load out conveyor, fuel and oil
reservoirs; hydraulic system; ACS electric control system; hydraulic cooling assembly; 24V starting and
charging system; trailer lighting; radio remote; standard yellow paint
1
TG5000030 CAT C15 540HP T4F/STAGE V ENGINEincludes cooling system; fuel cooling system; after-
treatment system; enclosure and sub frame
1
TG5000041 AUTO REVERSE COOLING FAN - T4F 1
TG5000061 HYDRAULIC TRAILER JACKS(not available when purchasing Loader -050 or -051)1
TG5000157 SERIES III DUPLEX DRUM W/ 7/8 BOLT TIPS; includes hardfaced drum with 3 inch premium
tips, special tools assembly, deflector assembly, and anvil assembly.
1
TG5000223 AXIAL MAGNETIC DRIVE PULLEYincludes nail chute; suited for light ferrous materials 1
TG5000230 STANDARD CLEATED CONVEYOR BELT WITH CABLE SPLICE 1
TG5000270 DAMAGE DEFENSE 1
TG5000AM010 ~TELEMATICS 1
163729211 SCREEN-2" RND TG5000 1
163729212 SCREEN-4" RND TG5000 1
163729962 SCREEN-6" RND TG5000 1
Subtotal Price Equipment (each)$ 718,559.00
Freight and Prep(each)$ 16,700.00
Quantity of Complete Units 1
Subtotal:$ 735,259.00
Additional Items
SOURCEWELL DISCOUNT:TG5000 = 12%1 $ -86,227.00
::ADDITIONAL DISCOUNT 1 $ -23,750.00
Subtotal:$ -109,977.00
Grand Total:$ 625,282.00
Date: 11/15/2022
Pricing Valid Until: 12/15/2022
Quote Number: Q-20191
Quote Number:Q-20191 Page 2 of 2
Terms
By signing below you understand the information presented and acknowledge order acceptance:
Vermeer: _____________________________Customer: _____________________________
Date: _____________________________ Date: _____________________________
Prices and availability are subject to change without notice. All prices are exclusive of any and all duties, import fees, taxes or other similar charges including sales and
federal excise tax, if applicable. Prices may not be applicable in any transaction involving a trade or rental transaction. Unless noted, dealer freight and preparation to
be determined. All prices quoted herein are US Dollars. All quotations valid for thirty days from date of quotation. The pricing set forth herein is an estimate only
based on currently prevailing market conditions. The above may not include all possible specifications available with this model. For complete product specifications,
please contact your local, authorized Vermeer Dealer.
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. RS-2022-
(Intergovernmental Cooperative Purchase [INTG-22-0091] Lease/Purchase One [1] New
Tub Grinder)
RECITALS
The Code of Public Local Laws of Washington County, Maryland (the “Public Local
Laws”), § 1-106.3, provides that the Board of County Commissioners of Washington County,
Maryland (the “Board”), “may procure goods and services through a contract entered into by
another governmental entity in accordance with the terms of the contract, regardless of whether
the county was a party to the original contract.”
Subsection (c) of §1-106.3 provides that “A determination to allow or participate in an
intergovernmental cooperative purchasing arrangement under subsection (b) of this section shall
be by resolution and shall either indicate that the participation will provide cost benefits to the
county or result in administrative efficiencies and savings or provide other justifications for the
arrangement.”
The Solid Waste Department is requesting to lease/purchase one (1) New Vermeer
TG5000100 Tub Grinder from Vermeer All Roads of Annapolis, Maryland, for a total
lease/purchase cost of $625,282, by utilizing another jurisdiction’s contract (#050119-VRM) that
was awarded by Sourcewell to Vermeer Corporation of Pella, Iowa.
Utilizing the Sourcewell contract and eliminating the County’s bid process results in
administrative and cost savings for the Solid Waste. The County will benefit with direct cost
savings because of the economy of scale the aforementioned contract has leveraged. Additionally,
the County will realize administrative efficiencies and savings as a result of not preparing,
soliciting, and evaluating bids.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board, pursuant to §1-106.3 of the Public
Local Laws, that the Solid Waste Department is authorized to lease/purchase one (1) New
Vermeer TG5000100 Tub Grinder from Vermeer All Roads of Annapolis, Maryland, for a total
lease/purchase cost of $625,282, utilizing another jurisdiction’s contract (#050119-VRM) that was
awarded by Sourcewell to Vermeer Corporation of Pella, Iowa.
Adopted and effective this ____ day of November, 2022.
Page 2 of 2
ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND
_____________________________ BY: ______________________________________
Krista L. Hart, County Clerk Jeffrey A. Cline, President
Approved as to form
and legal sufficiency: Mail to:
Office of the County Attorney
______________________________ 100 W. Washington Street, Suite 1101
Kirk C. Downey Hagerstown, MD 21740
County Attorney
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Rescind Bid Award, Intergovernmental Cooperative Purchase (INTG-22-0080) – One (1)
New 2023 Ford F650
PRESENTATION DATE: November 29, 2022
PRESENTATION BY: Rick F. Curry, CPPO, Director, Purchasing Department;
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to relieve 72 Hour LLC dba/National Auto Fleet Group of
Watsonville, CA from the contract without prejudices for the purchase of one (1) New/Unused 2023
Ford F-650, (F6D) Regular Cab Base, CA 84” WB with Rugby 11’ Eliminator Dump Body that was
approved by this Board on January 25, 2022 for the total sum amount $89,755 and permission
to readvertise for a 2024 model year t ruck.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The January 25th award was for one (1) F650 Ford regular cab truck, which
the vendor canceled the order due to the manufacturer stopped production. Since the beginning of
COVID-19 pandemic, new and used car prices have risen dramatically, in part due to computer
chips and labor force shortage.
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
CONCURRENCES: N/A
ALTERNATIVES: Purchase the equipment from another vendor.
ATTACHMENTS: N/A
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
Washington County Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Construction Bid Award — Stotler Road at Halfway Blvd Signal Intersection Improvements
PRESENTATION DATE: November 29, 2022
PRESENTATION BY: Scott Hobbs, Director, Division of Engineering
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to award the bid for the Showalter Road at Crayton Boulevard
Signal Intersection Improvements contract to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, C. William
Hetzer, Inc. of Hagerstown in the amount of $1,777,279.75.
REPORT -IN -BRIEF: The project was advertised in the Herald Mail, on the County's website, and on
the State of Maryland's website, e-Maryland Marketplace Advantage. One (1) bid was received on
Wednesday, November 9, 2022, as listed below.
Contractor: Total Bid:
C. William Hetzer, Inc. $1,777,279.75
The bids were evaluated, and the low bid is in order. The engineer's estimate for the work is $1,750,000.
DISCUSSION: The project involves the installation of a new traffic signal and associated equipment,
mechanically stabilized earth slope, paving, pervious concrete sidewalk, curb/gutter, traffic barrier, signs,
and pavement markings at the intersection of Stotler Road and Halfway Boulevard. The project is a 275
consecutive calendar day contract with an anticipated notice to proceed in January 2023 and a completion
date in October 2023. There will be lane and shoulder closures associated with this work.
FISCAL IMPACT: The project will utilize available funds from Intersection and Signal Improvements
(EQP052), Transportation ADA (LDI037), Stormwater Retrofits (DNG039), and Pavement Maintenance
and Rehabilitation Program (RDI024) in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).
CONCURRENCES: N/A
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
ATTACHMENTS: ,Bid Tabulation, Aerial Map
AUDIOVISUAL TO BE USED: Aerial Map
WASHINGTON COUNTY DIVISION OF ENGINEERING
BID TABULATION
0Intersection Signal & Sidewalk Improvments
Stotler Road & Halfway Boulevard
CONTRACT NO. TS-SH-045-16
Bids Received: Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 2:00 PM EST
Length of Contract: 275 Calendar Days
G William Heizer, Ine.
9401 Sharpsburg Pike
Hagerstown, MD 21741
Item No. Description
Unit
Quantity
Unit Price I
Item Total
1001
Mobilization
LS
1
$242,180.00
$242,180.00
1002
Maintenance of Traffic
LS
1
$61,500.00
$61,500.00
1003
Temporary Traffic Signs
SF
210
$66.00
$13,860.00
1004
Drums for Maintenance of Traffic
EA
75
$160.00
$12,000.00
1005
Construction Stakeout
LS
1
$5,630.00
$5,630.00
1006
Contingent: Temporary Orange Construction Fence
LF
200
$3.70
$740.00
1007
Temporary Concrete Barrier for MOT
LF
540
$24.25
$13,095.00
1008
Portable Flashing Arrow Panel
UD
60
$12.50
$750.00,
1009
Temporary Crash Cushion Sand Filled Plastic Barrels
EA
7
$500.00
$3,500.00
2001
Unclassified Excavation
CY
2050
$24.50
$50,225.00
2002
Common Borrow
CY
1800
$1.00
$1,800.00
2003
Contingent: Test Pit Excavation
CY
20
$200.00
$4,000.00
2004 IMecharucally
Stabilized Earth (MSE) Sloe
SF
2075
$33.00
$68,475.00
3001
Contingent: Selected Backfill
CY
100
$66.00
$6,600.00
3002
36 Inch Reinforced Concrete Pie
LF
16
$295.00
$4,720.00
3003
Precast COG/COS Open Back Inlet - 10 Feet
EA
7
$5,700.00
$39,900.00
3004
Stabilized Construction Entrance
EA
1
$1,040.00
$1,040.00
3005
Filter Log, 18 Inch Diameter
LF
2750
$10.50
$28,875.00
3006 1
Inlet Protection
EA
8
$310.00
$2,480.00
3007
Contingent: Class 0 RjpRap
SY 1
20
$61.00
$1,220.00
5001
Graded Aggregate Base 8 Inch Depth
SY
1300
$15.25
$19,825.00
5002
Hot Mix Asphalt Superpave Surface 12.5mm (PG64H-22)
Ton
1750
$110.00
$192,500.00
5003
Hot Mix Asphalt Superpave Base 19mm (PG64S-22)
Ton
400
$135.00
$54,000.05
5004
Milling Asphalt Pavement, 0-2 Inches
SY
14100
$4.60
$64,860.00
5005
Contingent: Hot Mix Asphalt Patch (Base Mix)
Ton
100
$220.00
$22,000.00
5006
Price Adjustment for Asphalt Binder
EA
1 5000
$1.00
$5,000.00
5007
Concrete for Street Repair - Mix 3
55
$275.00
$15,125.00
5008
5 Inch Yellow Thermoplastic Pavement Markings
3825
$1.25
$4,781.25
5009
5 Inch White Thermoplastic Pavement Markings
5100
$1.25
$6,375.00
5010
10 Inch Yellow Thermoplastic Pavement Markings
NLF
285
$2.50
$712.55
5011
12 Inch White Preformed Thermoplastic Pavement Markings
220
$18.75
$4,125.00
5012
24 Inch White Preformed Thermoplastic Pavement Markings
120
$25.00
$3,000.05
5013
White Preformed Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Symbols
62
$50.00
$3,100.00
5014
Saw Cutting
LF
2525
$0.95
$2,398.75
6001
Standard Type A Combination Curb and Gutter
LF
1730
$28.50
$49,305.05
6002
Contingent: Type A Curb
LF
250
$28.50
$7,125.00
6003
Concrete Curb Opening
EA
1
$1,410.00
$1,410.00
6004
5 Inch Pervious Concrete Sidewalk
SF
8810
$10.50
$92,505.00
6005
Concrete ADA Ramps - Mix 3
SF
665
$20.50
$13,632.50
6006
Removal and Disposal of Existing Traffic Barrier
LF
2020
$4.95
$9,999.00
6007
Traffic Barrier W-Beam Using 8 Foot Posts
LF
1975
$47.50
$93,812.50
6008
Traffic Barrier Type C End Treatment
EA
3
$5,000.00
$15,000.05
6009
Traffic Barrier Anchorage at Structures
EA
2
$5,630.00
$11,260.00
6010
Detectable Warning Surface
SF
165
$25.00
$4,125.00
7001
Placing Furnished Topsoil, 4 Inch Depth
SY
j 3200
$9.40
$30,080.05
7002
Temporary Seed and Mulch
SY
1600
$0.65
$1,040.00
7003
Turfgrass Establishment
SY
3200
$1.25
$4,000.00
7004
Type A Soil Stabilization Matting
SY
3000
$2.50
$7,500.00
8001
Concrete for Foundations and Cabinet Pad
CY
18
$1,630.00
$29,340.00
8002
Ground Rod - 3/4 Inch Diameter x 10 Foot Length
EA
6
$315.00
$1,890.00
8003
(1) 2 Inch Schedule 80 Rigid PVC Conduit - Trenched
LF
80
$31.50
$2,520.00
8004
(1) 4 Inch Schedule 80 Rigid PVC Conduit - Slotted
LF
165
$65.00
$10,725.00
8005
(2) 4 Inch Schedule 80 Rigid PVC Conduit - Trenched
LF
55
$63.00
$3,465.00
8006
LED Lamp and Lurninare
EA
2
$1,500.00
$3,000.00
8007
1 Embedded Metered Service Pedestal
EA
1
$5,630.00
$5,630.00
8008
Electricat Service Cable - 3 Wire -1 Conductor (4 AWG)
LF
350
$2.50
$875.00
8009
(2) 4 Inch Schedule 80 Rigid PVC Conduit - Slotted
LF
50
$93.00
$4,650.00
8010
Electrical Cable - 3 Conductor (12 AWG)
LF
325
$4.05
$1,316.25
8011
Electrical Cable - 2 Conductor (14 AWG)
LF
240
$3.45
$828.00
Item No.
Description
Unit
Quantity
Unit Price
Item Total
8012
Electrical Cable - 5 Conductor (14 AWG)
LF
235
$3.75
$881.25
8013
Electrical Cable - 7 Conductor (14 AWG)
LF
1840
$4.05
$7,452.00
8014
Stranded Bare Copper Ground Wire (6 AWG)
LF
1100
$4.05
$4,455.00
8015
Electrical Handhole
EA
1
$4,380.00
$4,380.00
8016
Wood Sign Supports 4 Inch x 6 Inch
LF
50
$25.00
$1,250.00
8017
Sheet Aluminrun Signs - Ground Mounted
SF
39
$88.00
$3,432.00
8018
Sheet Aluminum Signs - Mast Arm Mounted
SF
53
$140.00
$7,420.00
8019
12 Inch LED Vehicular Traffic Signal Head Section
EA
24
$610.00
$14,640.00
8020
16 Inch LED Countdown Pedestrian Signal Head
EA
2
$1,500.00
$3,000.05
8021
Traffic Signal Control Cabinet
EA
1
$40,000.00
$40,000.00
8022
Traffic Signal Controller
EA
1
$18,750.00
$18,750.06
8023
Video Detection Interface Equipment
EA
1
$13,250.00
$13,250.00
8024
IP Base Video Detection Camera (Envision)
EA
2
$15,000.00
$30,000.00
8025
Video Detection Lead -In Cable
LF
475
$4.05
$1,923.75
8026
Battery Backup for Traffic Signals
LS
1
$28,750.00
$28,750.05
8027
2-Wire APS Central Control Unit
EA
1
$5,630.00
$5,630.00
8028
Audible / Tactile Pedestrian Pushbutton Station and Sign
EA
2
$1,750.00
$3,500.00
8029
27 Foot Steel Pole with Twin 50 Foot and 60 Foot Mast Arms
EA
2
$86,250.00
$172,500.00
8030
130 Foot Steel Light Pole
EA
1
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
8031
120 Foot Lighting Arm
EA
2
$5,250.00
$10,500.00
8032
10 Foot Breakaway Pedestal Pole
EA
1
$5,630.00
$5,630.00
8033
Remove and Relocate Existing Signs and Sign Structures
SF
235
$58.00
$13,630.00
8034
(1) 3 Inch Schedule 80 Rigid PVC Conduit - Trenched
LF
320
$34.00
$10,880.00
TOTAL BID:
$1,777,279.75