Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout180410aIndividuals requiring special accommodations are requested to contact the Office of the County Commissioners, 240.313.2200 Voice/TDD, to make arrangements. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS April 10, 2018 Agenda 08:00 A.M. HORIZON GOODWILL – “MORE THAN JUST A STORE” TOUR Location: 14515 Pennsylvania Avenue, Hagerstown, MD 09:00 A.M. DEPART FOR 100 WEST WASHINGTON STREET, SUITE 1113 09:45 A.M. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CALL TO ORDER, President Terry L. Baker 09:50 A.M. CLOSED SESSION (To discuss the appointment, employment, assignment, promotion, discipline, demotion, compensation, removal, resignation, or performance evaluation of appointees, employees, or officials over whom this public body has jurisdiction; or any other personnel matter that affects one or more specific individuals; and to consider matters that concern proposals for business or industrial organizations to locate, expand, or remain in the State.) 10:45 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING: LAND PRESERVATION, PARKS AND RECREATION – Jill Baker, Chief Planner, Planning & Zoning 11:00 A.M. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – March 27, 2018 and April 3, 2018 11:05 A.M. COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS AND COMMENTS 11:10 A.M. REPORTS FROM COUNTY STAFF 11:15 A.M. CITIZENS PARTICIPATION 11:20 A.M. NATIONAL PUBLIC SAFETY TELECOMMUNICATORS’ WEEK, APRIL 8-14, 2018 – Proclamation presented by the Board of County Commissioners 11:30 A.M. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATIVE PURCHASE – PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT (PPE) FOR DIVISION OF EMERGENCY SERVICES – Rick Curry, CPPO, Director of Purchasing and Jonathan Hart, Assistant Director of Fire Operations, Division of Emergency Services 11:35 A.M. DEPART FOR MUSEUM OF FINE ARTS, KAYLOR ATRIUM, 401 MUSEUM DRIVE, HAGERSTOWN Terry L. Baker, President Jeffrey A. Cline, Vice President John F. Barr Wayne K. Keefer LeRoy E. Myers, Jr. WWW.WASHCO-MD.NET Individuals requiring special accommodations are requested to contact the Office of the County Commissioners, 240.313.2200 Voice/TDD, to make arrangements. 12:00 P.M. WASHINGTON COUNTY MUSEUM OF FINE ARTS – CITY AND COUNTY LUNCHEON 01:30 P.M. DEPART FOR 100 WEST WASHINGTON STREET, SUITE 1113, HAGERSTOWN 02:00 P.M. SALARY STUDY REPORT – Stephanie Stone, Director of Health and Human Services and Deb Peyton, Deputy Director of Human Resources 02:20 P.M. DWAYNE EUGENE COULTER RURAL LEGACY PROGRAM EASEMENT – Eric Seifarth, Rural Preservation Administrator, Planning & Zoning 02:25 P.M. BONNARD J. AND PEGGY R. MORGAN RURAL LEGACY PROGRAM EASEMENT – Chris Boggs, Land Preservation Planner, Planning & Zoning 02:30 P.M. GOVERNOR’S OFFICE FOR CHILDREN FY19 COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL - Stephanie Lapole, Grant Manager, Office of Grant Management 02:35 P.M. ADJOURNMENT Open Session Item SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING – Land Preservation, Parks and Recreation Plan PRESENTATION DATE: April 10, 2018 10:45am PRESENTATION BY: Jill Baker, Chief Planner, Planning and Zoning RECOMMENDED MOTION: No motion is needed at this time. The purpose of this public hearing is to take public comment on the draft Land Preservation, Parks, and Recreation Plan (LPPRP). REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The LPPRP is a planning document that is typically updated on a three year cycle as required by Maryland State law. The preparation and update of this document is a prerequisite for County participation in the Maryland Program Open Space Localside Program, which provides annual grants for the acquisition of land for conservation and park purposes as well as for the development of public recreation facilities. Funding received from the POS program is also shared with the nine incorporated municipalities in the County. DISCUSSION: The LPPRP was developed in accordance with guidance from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources and with input from the County Planning Commission and County Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Public input was also sought for this document through public input meetings, public comment sessions, and a targeted survey. The draft document has been sent to the Maryland Department of Natural Resources for review and comment. Their comments are attached. Staff has notified each of the local municipalities and several stakeholder groups of the public comment period for the Plan. FISCAL IMPACT: Failure to adopt a local LPPRP could result in the withholding of Localside Project Open Space Funding. Withholding of funding could impact both County and Municipal projects. CONCURRENCES: Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board ALTERNATIVES: n/a ATTACHMENTS: Draft Land Preservation, Parks and Recreation Plan via internet link: https://www.washco-md.net/index.php/2017/03/09/planzone-home/) Comments from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: None Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland Agenda Report Form "ARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF Larry Hogan, Governor Boyd Rutherford, Lt. Governor Mark Belton, Secretary NATURAL RESOURCES Joanne Throwe, Deputy Secretary March 5, 2018 Ms. Jill Baker Chief Planner Washington County Department of Planning and Zoning 100 W. Washington St. Suite 2600 Hagerstown, MD 21740 Re: Washington County DRAFT 2017 LPPRP Comments Dear Ms. Baker, Thank you for sending Washington County's Draft Land Preservation, Parks, and Recreation Plan (LPPRP) to the Maryland Department of Natural Resources and Maryland Department of Planning. Washington's Plan is well organized and thought out, and will meet the Guideline requirements with a few additional changes. Please review the comments included in the following pages to address for the final submission. If you have any questions, and/or concerns, please contact me at Ingrid.brofman@maryland.gov or by calling (410) 260-8461. We would be happy to speak with you if you would like to discuss further. Thank you again for your submission of the draft 2017 LPPRP. Sincerely, Ingrid Brofman, Natural Resources Planner Maryland Department of Natural Resources cc: Carrie Lhotsky, MD DNR Dan Rosen, MDP John F. Wilson, MD DNR Tawes State Office Building — 58o Taylor Avenue — Annapolis, Maryland 23.403. 410-26o-8DNR or toll free in Maryland 877-620-8DNR—dnr.mary(and.gov—TTY Users Call via the Maryland Relay Washington County 2017 LPPRP Draft Evaluation Form & Checklist - If there is a question stated, or the term ‘please address/explain,’ please address these comments/questions in the final submission, so that your LPPRP can be approved by the State of Maryland. - The 2017 LPPRP Draft has informed the State that Washington County has not met their acquisition goal. 1. INTRODUCTION YES (Pg. #) NO 1a. Does the Plan include an introduction? 1b. Does the introduction include geographic and population/demographic information? 1c. Does the introduction include information about the existing system of preserved lands in the county? 2. RECREATION AND PARKS YES (Pg. #) NO Summary, Goals, and Implementing Programs 2a. Does the Plan include an executive summary/overview? 2b. Does the Plan highlight any accomplishments/challenges involving parks and recreation? 2c. Does the Plan identify roles, services, and/or benefits that public parks and recreational amenities provide? P. 13. DNR supports the reference to the health benefits of nature exposure, “Frequent exposure to nature, even in a passive way, has been shown to have positive effects. 2d. Does the Plan identify State and county goals/objectives? P. 15 and 20. DNR supports the “implementation of regulations that would require parkland dedication by developments of major residential subdivisions in the County.” P. 15. The plan includes an objective to “whenever practical, link parklands and open space by a system of pedestrian/bicycle trails, greenways, and or waterways.” Project Green Classrooms and DNR support this as a strategy to promote sustainable communities. *2e. Does the Plan include an update of the county’s work to reach the goals established in the 2012 LPPRP for parks and recreation? 2f. Does the Plan incorporate the Partnership for Children in Nature? The MD Project Green Classrooms (formerly the Maryland Partnership for Children in Nature) is a public and private partnership that has worked collaboratively to provide opportunities for children to play and learn outdoors and promote environmental literacy. The Partnership for Children In Nature was instrumental in helping the State to update the pre K-12 environmental literacy education program (COMAR 13A.04.017) and to pass the first Environmental Literacy Graduation Requirement (COMAR 13A.03.02.03) in the Nation. Since then, the Partnership has worked diligently to support school systems as they develop and implement their local environmental literacy programs, fostering collaboration among formal and non-formal educators, helping to increase opportunities for student outdoor experiences and teacher professional development, and more. The Washington County LPPRP is great opportunity to establish goals that support increased access for students and families to natural areas and parkland for both formal and non-formal education opportunities as well as recreation opportunities. Many county parks staff across the state are working with school systems and other educators to develop ways to support the environmental literacy graduation requirement by helping schools meet requirements through access to local parks and providing educational programming consistent with the curriculum. P. 11, P. 15 and P.21. The plan references the relationship that the County has with the school system for recreational activities; however there are opportunities to tie in curriculum and create outdoor classrooms and natural areas that would bring nearby nature to people using the school grounds and students. P. 14 DNR supports the reference to areas that support both recreational and conservation and educational purposes. This is strongly promoted by the Project Green Classrooms. 2f. Does the Plan describe how county goals complement statewide goals? If county and state goals differ, explain how. 17 2g. Does the chapter/section identify and explain programs/funding sources that help to achieve parks and recreation goals? 17-21 Inventory of Existing Public Parks and Recreation Facilities *2h. Does the Plan include an inventory of existing public parks and recreation facilities? - What do the yellow highlighted rows indicate? App B *2i. Does the inventory include both publicly owned (federal, state, county, municipal) and quasi-public/privately owned (e.g., land trusts, school properties) parks and recreation facilities? - State and Federal lands are only listed in the NR inventory. State lands are titled ‘MD State Parks’ but listed underneath this title are other lands that are not state parks, like Wildlife Management Areas. Please rename this to something like ‘MD DNR Lands’. Pg. 11 – Under the Parks and Recreation Facilities section the descriptions of Federal and State lands lists passive and active recreational opportunities that these facilities provide. Water access and water recreation are not included but should be since many of these locations provide public water access. 23, App B *2j. Is the inventory updated, meaning any new land or facilities added since 2012 have been included? X 2k. Does the Plan include a summary narrative describing the park systems and different types of recreational amenities and opportunities that are available to the public? 14-15;21- 22 *2l. Does the Plan provide a GIS-based inventory map of the parks and recreation lands and facilities included in the inventory spreadsheet? The parks and facilities map needs to be cross-referenced or linked with the inventory; many counties have simply used numbers to identify which recreation area is which. This is a requirement for Plan approval. Can they be easily identified? Please indicate in the plan on pg 23 that a larger map is in the Appendix. 23, Appendix X Measuring User Demand *2m. Did the county gather user demand information through a combination of sources, or one primary source? Please bold and underline: public engagement & outreach; usage data/participation rates; other studies and information/sources. - Stakeholder meeting and online survey The way that the County sought out and received public input was very simplified compared to than the method used by some of the other counties in the State. More detail regarding the types of recreational activities that the population engages in, and information regarding demographic trends over time would be helpful in guiding future decisions related to parks and recreation. 23-25 *2n. Did the county conduct public meetings to collect information on park and recreation use? County found previous public meetings to be inefficient and ineffective. Will public be able to provide input/comment into the draft document? X *2o. Did the county administer a survey to collect information on park and recreation use? When looking at Appendix C, there seems no way to tell for Q 7, 14, 15 (the questions that actually ask about need) if more than one respondent said any of the amenities need improvement. For example, did multiple people say they wanted to see more bike trails, dog parks, gardens, etc.? This seems like important information to capture. Please address. The public interest and participation survey seemed heavily weighted towards getting input related to recreational programming, specific facility use, and organized sports. The questions related to “other recreational activities” did not include any form of water recreation activity (other than fishing). This seems unusual considering the County’s many waterways, water access opportunities and public input indicating that water trails are of interest. If yes, is there a summary of findings included in the Plan? 23-25 App C 2p. Does the Plan provide a summary of participation rates/known or estimated facility usage figures that help in understanding unmet needs/demand? 26-30 Analyzing User Demand 2q. Does the analysis of data explain a level of service provided by the county parks and recreation system through narratives, maps, or other graphics? X 2r. Does the analysis note trends, strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities that may impact the implementation of local recreational goals or otherwise influence the management of the county parks and recreation system or capital improvement programming from 2017 – 2022? X Level of Service for Recreation Opportunities Analysis *2s. What type/tool(s) of analysis were used by the county to identify opportunities and deficiencies in the existing recreational system? (e.g., proximity analysis, park equity analysis)? A participation survey was used, as well as both a proximity analysis and park equity analysis. 30-36 If applicable, is a map of the proximity analysis included? 32-36 If applicable, is a map of the park equity analysis included? 30-32 “The four criteria used for the map are high concentration of children under the age of 16, high concentration of populations below the poverty line, high population density, and low access to public park space. …. Greatest weight is given to the mean distance from the Census Tract to park space. The scores for age and density are also given more weight. The totals are then combined to create a Park Equity Combined Score, with the higher score reflecting the greater need” (page 30). * Brief description of results of the proximity analysis (if applicable) General note on maps: The description of the distances in the map legends could be more precise, as noted below. Current description Suggested Description Within 1 Mile [No Change] Within 3 Miles From 1 Mile to 3 Miles Within 5 Miles From 3 Miles to 5 Miles Within 10 Miles From 5 Miles to 10 Miles Proximity to Parks: A one-mile catchment area was mapped to show walking distance and a five -mile catchment was mapped to represent “an approximate 10-15 [minute] drive or reasonable bike ride” (page 32). A three-mile catchment area was also displayed. The results show that the entire county except for the western edge lies within five miles of a park. The western edge is part of the state’s Woodmont Natural Resource Management Areas and is designated as “low need” in the park equity analysis. An insert map of Hagerstown-Funkstown-Williamsport displayed ¼ and ½ mile catchment areas in addition to the 1-, 3-, and 5-mile catchments. “The reason for the reduced catchment areas is to evaluate proximity of parks to those areas determined to have a higher need for parklands by the park equity analysis” (page 33). Since much of the county’s population lives in the area, the maps need color showing the data in the municipalities in the insert—and elsewhere—so that we can see the proximity of parks to urban residents. Currently, they are ‘greyed out’ and it is impossible to see any of this data they discuss; please address. The Plan reports a gap in proximity in the northern portion of the UGA. “There are high concentrations of residential development along the Maugansville Avenue/Long Mead ow Drive corridor that appear to lack nearby park facilities as compared to other dense residential areas in the UGA. The County does have long term plans to locate a new regional park in the vicinity of Leitersburg Pike and Marsh Pike which would likely fill some of the need within this area. However, there still appears to be a gap in the general vicinity of the Maugansville area” (LPPRP page 33). How is the reviewers supposed to easily tell where these areas are? They are not labeled on the maps. Proximity to Natural Areas: This map displays catchment areas of 1, 3, 5, and 10 miles. About half the county appears to be within one mile of a natural area and much of the rest within three miles. The exception is a ring of five-mile distance around Hagerstown to the east, south, and west, and a ten-mile patch to the north, northeast, and northwest of Hagerstown to the Pennsylvania line. Because the municipalities are colored gray, we cannot tell what the situation is inside. As with map 6, map 7 the county needs to color in the municipalities so that we can see the proximity of natural areas to urban residents. Proximity to Water Access: Beyond the Potomac and a few interior spots, almost all the county lies more than a mile from the water. There are many access spots along the 80 miles of Potomac shoreline and the nine primary tributaries. “[T]he County Parks Department has been continuously seeking opportunities for additional access points specifically along the Antietam and Conococheague Creeks” (page 35). The map illustrating the proximity to water access on pg. 35 could be enhanced by adding symbols that indicate the actual location of public water access points. In addition, the plan makes no mention of existing water trails in Washington County including the Upper Potomac River Water Trail which was established in 2002 and spans almost the entire southern border of the county. The Upper Potomac River water trail is not shown on the “Special Program Areas” map and the water trails that are indicated are not state designated. Digital data for public water access points and water trails is readily available from Maryland DNR and can be viewed on the Maryland Public Water Access web application at https://maryland.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=db62ad80097845baba3a4e3f8c1def94 Proximity to Trail Access: The county seems evenly divided within 1-, 3-, and 5-mile distances from trail access, with an area within 10 miles of trail access north of Hagerstown and Clear Spring. The airport is in this latter area, as are PPA areas that are targeted for preservation of private land. Again, the municipal areas are shaded in gray, so we cannot tell what the proximity is within them; please address. * Brief description of results of the park equity analysis (if applicable) According to the text, Hagerstown showed the greatest areas of need; map five, however, shows Hagerstown colored grey as a municipality. As described in above and in 2t below, please show a close-up of Hagerstown appeared as an insert, as in map 6 (Proximity) AND not colored gray but containing the colored equity rankings so we can see the data that the text is supported by. “Other areas showing a medium to high need are in Census tracts north of the City and tracts along the Virginia Avenue (US Route 11) corridor” (page 31). The analysis notes that results in a census tract south of Hagerstown are skewed toward medium-high need because of the demographics associated with a prison complex near Roxbury. The great majority of the county shows low need or medium-low need. *2t. Is there logical justification for their basis of analysis and is this clearly documented? - Page 30 of the plan states that “a simple listing of resources does not give an accurate depiction of service. To provide a more accurate representation of parkland supply, a spa-tial analysis of the park system has been completed. To complement the sup ply portion of the equation, the demand portion of the analysis is done through a park equity evaluation.” - As stated in the comments above, the County needs to account for population in the Level of Service Maps. Page 30-31 discusses the greatest need is within Hagerstown, but there’s actually no way to see this in the maps provided! It does not make sense to make this statement, but then not include the data. The park polygons are depicted in the facilities map so please include these changes in the next revision/final submission. Please make sure the municipal boundaries/UGA are clear and explain what radius mileage is ideal for citizens to be near facilities. This is not only for Hagerstown, but all area of higher density. Accounting for population is a requirement from statute. The state does support the ¼ mile and ½ mile radii listed for the UGA, but needs to see this data displayed. Please see similar note above for Park Equity changes. - It is also pretty difficult to depict where the parks are in the proximity maps; it would help if the reader was able to see the parks (in the centers) around the surrounding radii. - If there is a need in the western part of the state, but there is a NRMA that would fill some of the gap described on pg. 32, why wouldn’t the county include this in the proximity analysis? 30-36 *2u. Does the section/chapter explain how the local jurisdiction will address the recreational needs of their users? (i.e. describe their strategies to fill the deficiencies brought forth under analyses)? - Page 37 implies that parkland acquisition will address the gaps revealed in the park proximity and equity analyses. Other strategies for land dedications, using schools and other government facilities, and working on trails with public and private land owners, etc. are also included. 37-39 - Needs identified in proximity analysis will help guide County in providing new parks and redeveloping existing parks. *2v. If yes, in what detail are these goals/strategies defined? Is it difficult to decipher the County’s goals, both in acquisition and development? 15-21; 37-39 Capital Improvement Plan 2w. Does the section/chapter include a 5-year parks and recreation capital improvement plan for land acquisition, facility development, and rehabilitation priorities? 19;37- 39 2x. Is there logical justification for their proposed plan and is this clearly documented? How do the gaps and results from the spatial analyses connect/reflect with the CIP on page 19? How do these connect with the priorities on pg. 37-39? These connections need to be more clear for final approval. Pg. 15 - It is good that the County lists “linking parklands and open space by a system of pedestrian/bicycle trails, greenways, and/or waterways,” among the goals and objectives for Parks and Recreation, but the county should provide further information related to how they plan to go about creating the system and those linkages. It is difficult to get a sense of this from the list of capital improvement projects on pg 19. A detailed map showing existing trails, greenways and water trails would be helpful. X Additional Comments:  Pg. 18 – The LPPRP reinforces elements in the County Comprehensive Plan which is very good. In particular, they specifically recognize that “Assessments should be done along local waterways for non-motorized boating.” DNR has been working with the County for several years to support this effort and it has been moving forward steadily with strong local, state and federal commitments.  Pg. 14 – “The County continues to work with private property owners to locate public access to local waterways, and therefore, provide more opportunities for activities such as fishing and kayaking.” The County has been very proactive in working with private landowners to secure agreements for public water access. Few, if any other counties have been actively pursuing this.  Pg. 24 – Public input regarding parks and recreation lists the suggestion to, “Explore the potential of water trails along the creeks and waterways within the County, specifically the Antietam and Conococheague Creeks.” This effort is underway and DNR is already working with the County and other partners to develop a water trail along Antietam Creek. This same effort is noted again on pg. 35.  The County did well by specifically noting efforts to promote and pursue development of greenways, rail trails, and water trails in this plan and should be encouraged to provide more specifics with regard to how they will move these efforts further. The “Special Program Areas” is a little busy and it is difficult to see the trail connections. I did not get any sense of an overall vision for creating a county-wide system of trails from this plan. 3. NATURAL RESOURCE LAND CONSERVATION YES (Pg. #) NO Summary, Goals, and Implementing Programs 3a. Does the Plan include an executive summary/overview? 39-41 3b. Does the summary/overview highlight any accomplishments or challenges? If yes, briefly describe: 40-41 3c. Does the Plan explain public benefits to maintaining and enhancing natural resources lands and associated outdoor recreation amenities, and benefits to connecting people with nature? 40-41 3d. Does the Plan identify State and county goals/objectives? 41-42 *3e. Does the Plan include a summary update on the status of the county’s work to achieve goals for the preservation of natural resource land since the 2012 LPPRP? X 3f. Does the Plan describe how county goals complement statewide goals? If county and state goals differ, explain how. 42 *3g. Does the Plan clearly identify programs and ordinances that help to achieve its goals for the conservation of natural resource land? 44-53 Inventory of Protected Natural Resource Lands & Mapping *3h. Does the Plan include an inventory of existing natural resources lands in the county? 43; Appendix B *3i. Does the Plan include maps that illustrate and convey information related to the inventory and other natural resource land conservation in the county? 47-53 3j. If applicable, does the Plan include information regarding the county’s plan for coastal resiliency and its relation to recreation and parks? DNR recommends integrating climate resiliency into the LPPRP by identifying areas vulnerable to inland flooding, minimizing impervious surface areas, and protecting and expanding stream buffers in these vulnerable areas. Planning for the enhanced protection and or restoration of public lands can ensure waterways have capacity to respond to flood events including infrastructure such as culverts and road crossings. Together, a long term comprehensive resiliency plan will benefit public safety and protect infrastructure investments. X 3k. Does the Plan include information regarding the county’s TEAs, GreenPrint, BioNET, etc.? County has done a good job displaying maps that show important areas for natural resource conservation (i.e., maps for GreenPrint and BioNet). The text is a little disjointed, in that there is a section on Environmental Conservation, which is very general and discusses "environ- mental" issues prominent enough to constrain development. Then there is a section on Sensitive Areas Element, which mentions "habitats of threatened and endangered species." However, these resources are not discussed until the section called "Habitat and Wildlife," which is virtually just a discussion of federally-listed species occurring in Washington County. The County could have combined these latter two sections, however this is a minor point. 51-52 The information regarding federally-listed species is accurate. The information regarding state-listed could be expanded to include additional information, such as a reference or link to the list of rare, threatened and endangered species, found here: http://dnr.maryland.gov/wildlife/Documents/Washington_County_RTEs.pdf 4. AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION YES (Pg. #) NO Summary, Goals, and Implementing Strategies 4a. Does this county have an agricultural land preservation program certified by MDP and MALPF? (See Guidelines for certain specifications with certified counties) X 4b. Does the Plan include an executive summary/overview? 3-4 4c. Does the chapter/section highlight any accomplishments or challenges associated with managing or preserving working farms and forests? If yes, briefly describe: 29-30 4d. Does the chapter/section explain public benefits to maintaining and enhancing the county’s system of agricultural lands? 29-30 4e. Does the chapter/section identify State and county goals/objectives? X *4f. Does the Plan include an update on which strategies/actions presented in the 2012 LPPRP have been implemented and what the effects have been? The 2012 LPPRP referred to TDRs and mandatory notification about right-to-farm laws to purchasers of new houses. In the final draft, please provide information about the progress of these two measures. X 4g. Does the Plan discuss which particular strategies/actions presented in the 2012 LPPRP have not been implemented and why? X Inventory of Preserved Agricultural Lands & Mapping *4h. Does the Plan include an inventory of existing preserved agricultural land in the county? This information will be part of Washington County’s application for recertification of their agricultural land preservation program in October 2019. The data table can be added to the final draft of the LPPRP or the text can say that it will be included in the recertification application. X *4i. Does the Plan include maps that illustrate agricultural land preserved in the county and any existing Priority Preservation Areas? X Counties without Certified Ag Land Preservation Programs 4j. Has the county established priority preservation areas in its comprehensive plan? NA 4k. Are these areas mapped and are these maps included in the comprehensive plan? NA 4l. How are the county’s goals implemented through zoning and other land use tools? NA Important Sections for LPPRP Included? Yes No Does the Plan include an up-to-date inventory of existing parks and facilities? Is this mapped? Needs to be cross-referenced with inventory; see Q21. X X Did the county gather user demand information? X Does the Plan include an analysis that leads to the identification of opportunities and deficiencies in the existing recreational system? Needs to include population density areas on the maps (not greyed out) in support of the text narrative; see Q2t. X Does the Plan explain how the local jurisdiction will address the recreational needs of their users (i.e. describe their strategies to fill the deficiencies found in analysis)? Did the county reach the goals established in the 2012 LPPRP for parks and recreation? Unsure – not discussed at all. Has the County provided MD DNR with the recreational datasets used in the development of their LPPRP? X Did the county conduct public meetings/outreach to the public? Conducted surveys and stakeholder meetings but not public meetings – will the county post the Plan for public comment online? X Open Session Item SUBJECT: National Public Safety Telecommunicator’s Week, April 8-14, 2018 PRESENTATION DATE: April 10, 2018 PRESENTATION BY: Board of County Commissioners PROCLAMATION: WHEREAS, emergencies can occur at any time that require police, fire or emergency medical services; and, WHEREAS, when an emergency occurs, the prompt response of police officers, firefighters and paramedics is critical to the protection of life and preservation of property; and, WHEREAS, the safety of our police officers and firefighters is dependent upon the quality and accuracy of information obtained from citizens who telephone into the Washington County Communications Center; and, WHEREAS, Public Safety Telecommunicators are the first and most critical contact our citizens have with emergency services; and, WHEREAS, each dispatcher has exhibited compassion, understanding and professionalism during the performance of their job in the past year; and, NOW THEREFORE, we the Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland hereby proclaim April 8-14, 2018 as National Public Telecommunicators’ Week in Washington County, Maryland. Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland Agenda Report Form Open Session Item SUBJECT: Intergovernmental Cooperative Purchase – Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for Division of Emergency Services PRESENTATION DATE: April 10, 2018 PRESENTATION BY: Rick Curry, CPPO, Director of Purchasing and Jonathan Hart – Assistant Director of Fire Operations RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to authorize by Resolution the approval of the purchase of fifty (50) sets of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) (coats and pants) for the Division of Emergency Services from Witmer Public Safety Group, Inc. of Williamsport, MD at contracted unit prices totaling $99,165.00 based on the contract awarded by the State of New Jersey (Solicitation #12-X-22281; New Jersey Contract A80947) REPORT-IN-BRIEF: Section 106.3 of the Public Local Laws of Washington County grants authorization for the County to procure goods or services under contracts entered into by other government entities. On items over $50,000, a determination to allow or participate in an intergovernmental cooperative purchasing arrangement shall be by Resolution and shall indicate that the participation will provide cost benefits to the county or result in administrative efficiencies and savings or provide other justification for the arrangement. 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 State of New Jersey contract and eliminating our County’s bid process would result in an administrative and cost savings for the Division of Emergency Services in preparing specifications and the Purchasing Department. DISCUSSION: N/A FISCAL IMPACT: Funding is in the department’s operating budget account 599999- 10-11525 CONCURRENCES: Director of the Division of Emergency Services; Chief Financial Officer (as to funding only) ALTERNATIVES: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Quote # 334807 (dated 3/2/2018) based on State of New Jersey contract pricing (45% discount pricing structure). AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland Agenda Report Form Quotation Witmer Public Safety Group 10228 Governor Lane Boulevard itMEr Suite 3012 Quote ID: 334807 Williamsport, MD 21795 Date: 3/2/2018 Phone: (888) 560-3473 Sales Person: KEVIN G Fax: (301) 223-1188 Proposal To: Washington Co. Emergency Services Proposal ID 334807 Division Of Fire And Emergency Sery Date 3/2/2018 16232 Elliot Parkway Sales Person KEVIN G Williamsport, MD 21795 Phone: ( ) - Fax: ( ) - Quantity Item ID Description Unit Amount 50.00 CVBM-WASHCO Janesville V-Force Coat, Armor AP Gold 1,173.15 58,657.50 CVBM-WASHCO Janesville V-Force Coat, Armor AP Gold, K4 Liner, Washington Co. Specs, Ref: WM6Q2262 50.00 PVFM-WASHCO Janesville V-Force Pant wBelt, Armor AP Gold 810.15 40,507.50 PVFM-WASHCO Janesville V-Force Pant wBelt, Armor AP Gold, K4 Liner, Washington Co. Specs. Ref: WM6Q2262 ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL Subtotal 99,165.00 The above prices, specifications, and conditions Signature Tax 0.00 are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. Proposal is valid until April 01, 2018 Date Total 99,165.00 (\T�j� GIDEON TheFireStore ��� M%w erawv tmEMSstere �r T A C r 0 A L Open Session Item SUBJECT: WASHINGTON COUNTY MUSEUM OF FINE ARTS – City and County Luncheon: Kaylor Atrium (noon-1:30PM) PRESENTATION DATE: April 10, 2018 PRESENTATION BY: Washington County Museum of Fine Arts RECOMMENDED MOTION: None REPORT-IN-BRIEF: Annual City/County Luncheon and tour (if time permits) hosted by Trustees of the Washington County Museum of Fine Arts, provides an opportunity to acknowledge and thank the City and County Leaders and Staff for their partnership and ongoing support of the Museum. Lunch will be followed by a brief update on the Museum’s accomplishments during the past year, future events and goals. DISCUSSION: Questions and Answer will take place as needed FISCAL IMPACT: None CONCURRENCES: None ALTERNATIVES: None ATTACHMENTS: None AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: None Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland Agenda Report Form Open Session Item SUBJECT: Salary Study Report PRESENTATION DATE: April 10, 2018 PRESENTATION BY: Stephanie Stone, Director of Health and Human Services; Debbie Peyton, Deputy Director of Human Resources RECOMMENDATION: None REPORT-IN-BRIEF: In early 2017, the Washington County Board of County Commissioners (Board) awarded a bid to Evergreen Solutions, LLC (Consultant) to conduct a “Wages and Salary Scale Study for Washington County, Maryland” (Study). The Study was subsequently extended to consider benefits. Since the study was initiated and in consideration of the largely completed draft study, the Board approved a total Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) of 3.5% in November of 2017. In addition, the Board then approved an employee investment program to recognize employee achievement, support employee training, and encourage teamwork and customer service. The final draft of the Study is now complete. The discussion below will detail the results and remaining efforts to be addressed by staff. DISCUSSION: In preparing the Fiscal Year 2018 budget, staff then recommended a 15% raise for all County employees at a cost believed to exceed the reasonably available budget. The Board in-turn approved a 5% COLA and further consideration, pending the results of the Study, then underway. A draft Study included a new salary structure with two options. The first option would move positions to the closest step on the new scale presented by the Consultants, with a cost of $826,951. The second option, would bring each position to the next highest step on the new scale, with a cost of $1,743,045. The new scale recommended 24 grades versus the current County scale of 22. While no position would be reduced in salary, the Consultant recommended a drop-in grade number. Transition to the proposed scale would necessitate wide variation in salary changes among positions; from a low of 0.2% to a high of 11.3%. The variation was not substantiated in the study nor supported by staff. The range above was based on the salary scale in effect after the 5% COLA effective July 2017, yet prior to the 3.5% COLA effective January 2018. The initial Study did not include a review of the County’s benefit package. Current staff suggested the opportunity to research all aspects of the County’s compensation package and include benefits. The results indicated the County’s benefit package was evident to be “…very competitive benefits for both current and retired employees” in relationship to those surveyed. The County was found to be “…comparable and slightly ahead…”. It was noted the County offers higher accrual rates Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland Agenda Report Form for sick leave and more paid holidays. In addition, the County’s tuition reimbursement program was above that of those surveyed. The study surveyed market peers regarding the County’s Defined Benefit Plan (Retirement Plan) and DROP Plans; the study found of the peers surveyed 87.5% offered a retirement option. Only 37.5% of those surveyed offered a DROP plan to retirees. The peer average to be fully vested was 10 years; as compared to the County which is five (5) years. On average the County contributes 17% annually to the retirement plan on behalf of the employees; as compared to 10% to those surveyed. With the draft Study in November of 2017, staff recommended five equally important investments to address the early findings: WAGE–EQUITY–TRAINING–RECOGNITION–TEAM BUILDING. A COLA of 3.5% at a cost of $2,077,400 was approved to address WAGE; effective in January of 2018. A budget was recommended to allow careful review of individual departments for consistency to address EQUITY; initiated in the fall of 2017. A budget of $120 per employee per year was approved to empower individuals to invest in their personal/professional development to address TRAINING. A budget of $100 per employee empowers department heads to identify stellar performance of individuals who have demonstrated the desire to exceed expectations to address RECOGNITION. A budget of $25 per employee was approved to encourage department heads to reward collective staff achievements to address TEAM BUILDING. As mentioned, the approved wage and equity components are already underway. We are excited to announce that the approved training, recognition, and team building components will be initiated immediately. More on equity, the draft Study was used to review individual departments and recommend adjustments. The draft Study and dialogue with the Consultant has proven valuable in the equity component. Several County departments have been reviewed since the fall of 2017 including: Public Relations and Marketing Department – October 24, 2017 Business Development Department – October 24, 2017 Division of Information Systems – November 7, 2017 Division of Health and Human Services – November 28, 2017 Division of Budget & Finance – Currently in discussion With the final Study, staff will continue to review the remaining departments. Any and all changes will be recommended to the Board of County Commissioners for approval. One example of quantitative consistency is that all positions requiring an associate degree will be no less than a grade 10 while all positions which require a bachelor degree will be no less than a grade 12. Similar consistency will be applied to experience, skill, and certification requirements. Reviews will be scheduled to occur with a goal of no less than one department per month. At the same time, staff will utilize the data from the completed Salary Study to review all job descriptions to include qualifications and experience, certifications, education, and Fair Labor Standard Act (FLSA) exempt/non-exempt status. All job descriptions will be updated as necessary to accurately reflect the essential job functions, education, certifications, and experience required to perform the job. The study found that there was not adequate differentiation in compensation between recently hired staff and those with more time in service with the County. This may be attributed to the years in which a step increase was not issued. The rather large step of 3.5% may be prohibiting programed step increases on an annual basis. A survey of other employers in the region indicate a 2% step is more practical. A lessor step will afford the Board the ability to issue regular step increases to reward well performing staff each year. For instance, the WCPS salary structure includes a step of 2.5%; which is regularly issued. The study found that the starting wage, prior to the recent COLA’s, was below par among peer employers. The Sheriff’s Office was one example of a non-competitive starting wage; which the approved COLA’s have improved. A COLA based upon an index, even if pro-rated or adjusted, would serve to keep wages competitive. For a relative benchmark, the latest WCPS COLA is 0.5%. The Sheriff’s Office and Emergency Services salary structures vary from the County salary structure largely referenced herein. All three salary structures will require consistency in the number of steps and step size. In summary, the Board has expressed interest in and support for a cost effective yet competitive merit based pay structure. The study has provided staff valuable insight to meet the Board’s interest. First, the COLA’s approved by this Board have made County wages competitive among our peers. Second, the benefits, from healthcare to pension to paid leave, are above par among our peers. Third, while the COLA’s and Employee Investments and benefits have brought most of positions to accurate compensation, position descriptions will be reviewed by departments for irregularities or inequities within the County salary structure. Fourth, consideration of a more modest step and cola system will afford modest yet regular increases to well deserving staff. Fifth and finally, the employee investments approved by the Board will incentivize individual career growth while encouraging teamwork. FISCAL IMPACT: Staff is currently preparing the budgets for Fiscal Year 2019. Revenue projections indicate the County will be able to offer a modest COLA of 1.5% to all employees. Moreover, County employees will not experience an increase in healthcare cost or copay increases in Fiscal Year 2019, as was the case in Fiscal Year 2018. CONCURRENCES: County Administrator, Chief Operations Officer, Chief Financial Officer ALTERNATIVES: N/A ATTACHMENTS: N/A AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A Open Session Item SUBJECT: Dwayne Eugene Coulter Rural Legacy Program (RLP) Easement PRESENTATION DATE: April 10, 2018 PRESENTATION BY: Eric Seifarth, Rural Preservation Administrator, Dept. of Planning & Zoning RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the Dwayne Eugene Coulter RLP Easement project, in the amount of $272,615.00 for 78.89 easement acres, paid for 100% by the State, and to adopt an ordinance approving the easement purchase and to authorize the execution of the necessary documentation to finalize the easement purchase. REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The Coulter property is located on Park Hall Road, Boonsboro. The easement will protect 48 acres of cropland, 9 acres of pasture and 20 acres of woodland within the Locust Grove/Park Hall Road Historic Landscape. The farm also lies in the viewshed of the Battle of Fox’s Gap and is adjacent to thousands of acres of preserved land. Nine (9) development rights will be extinguished with this easement. Since 1998, Washington County has been awarded more than $20 million to purchase Rural Legacy easements on more than 6,100 acres near Antietam Battlefield in the Rural Legacy Area. RLP uses an easement valuation system (points) to establish easement value. DISCUSSION: For FY 2018, Washington County was awarded RLP grants totaling $1,359,000. The Coulter RLP Easement uses funding from that grant. Easement applicants were ranked based on four main categories: development rights, agricultural, environmental, and historic values. FISCAL IMPACT: RLP funds are 100% State dollars, mainly from Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Open Space funds. In addition to the easement funds, we receive up to 3% of the easement value for administrative costs, a mandatory 1.5% for compliance/monitoring costs, and funds to cover all of our legal/settlement costs. CONCURRENCES: Both the State RLP Board and the State DNR staff have approved and support our program. A final money allocation will be approved by the State Board of Public Works. ALTERNATIVES: If Washington County rejects State funds for RLP, the funds will be allocated to other counties in Maryland. ATTACHMENTS: Aerial Map, Location Map, RLP Info Sheet, Ordinance AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland Agenda Report Form PARK HALL RD MD iMAP, DoIT Dw ayne Euge ne C oulter 0 0.04 0.08 0.12Miles WARNING!: Th is ma p is for internal use b y the Washing to n Coun ty Plan ning Depa rtment. It is not fo rgeneral distribution to the public, and should not be scaled or copied. Sources of the data contained hereonare fro m variou s pub lic ag encie s which may ha ve use restrictio ns and d isclaimers The parcel lines shown on this map are derived from a variety of sources which have their own accuracystandards. The pa rcel lines a re ap pro ximate and for informatio nal p urpose s ONLY. The y are n ot gu aranteedby Washington County Maryland or the Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxations to be free oferrors including errors of omission, commission, positional accuracy or any attributes associated with realproperty. They shall not be copied, reproduced or scaled in any way without the express prior writtenapproval of Washington County Maryland Planning and Zoning Department. This data DOES NOT replacean accurate survey by a licensed professional and information shall be verified using the relevant deeds,pla ts a nd other recorded lega l do cumen ts b y th e u ser. 0 160 320 480 640 800Feet Printed: Thursday, March 15, 2018 Printed by: cboggs Ea se me nt Boun dary 20727 Park Hall Roa dBoonsboro, MD 21 713 ® CZARR A, EDGAR F., JR. CZARR A, EDGAR F., JR. CZARR A, EDGAR F., JR. CZARR A, EDGAR F., JR. MAIORANA, CELESTE INEZ & MATTHEW LEEFER JAEHNIGEN, LINDA JEAN MAIORANA, CELESTE INEZ & MATTHEW LEEFER Sellers Czarra Pearson King Maiorana MaioranaMaiorana Stone STONE STONE PARK HALL RD RENO MONUMENT RD LAMBS KNOLL RD WOODSTOCK LN SMITH RD Dwayne Eugene Coulter, Rural Legacy 0 0.25 0.5 0.75Miles WARNING!: Th is ma p is for internal use b y the Washing to n Coun ty Plan ning Depa rtment. It is not fo rgeneral distribution to the public, and should not be scaled or copied. Sources of the data contained hereonare fro m variou s pub lic ag encie s which may ha ve use restrictio ns and d isclaimers The parcel lines shown on this map are derived from a variety of sources which have their own accuracystandards. The pa rcel lines a re ap pro ximate and for informatio nal p urpose s ONLY. The y are n ot gu aranteedby Washington County Maryland or the Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxations to be free oferrors including errors of omission, commission, positional accuracy or any attributes associated with realproperty. They shall not be copied, reproduced or scaled in any way without the express prior writtenapproval of Washington County Maryland Planning and Zoning Department. This data DOES NOT replacean accurate survey by a licensed professional and information shall be verified using the relevant deeds,pla ts a nd other recorded lega l do cumen ts b y th e u ser. 0 990 1,980 2,970 3,960 4,950Feet Printed: F riday, March 16, 2018 Printed by: cboggs Prop erty Bound ary 20727 Park Hall Roa dBoonsboro, MD 21 713 ® ^_ Legend Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program AG District MALPF AG Easement Rural Legacy Area Properties Other Permanent Easements Rural Legacy Program (RLP) Information Purpose of Program: RLP seeks to protect farmland and open space which contains significant agricultural, environmental and cultural/historic features. The Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) funds the program and protects land mainly with the use of permanent easements. However, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) of Washington County is the holder of RLP easements. Easement Valuations: The price paid for permanent easements is determined using a valuation worksheet. The more of the above listed features on the property, the higher the easement values. Priority of Properties: As with most programs of this sort, there is a chronic shortage of funds available. Therefore, properties that are contiguous to existing permanently protected land are given priority. Other priorities include: prime agricultural lands; prime woodland (CREP is encouraged); land with environmental features needing protection such as endangered species, streams, sinkholes, and properties with historic value such as Antietam Battlefield area. Processing of Applications: Each year, Washington County applies to DNR for RLP funding. Negotiations then begin with landowners who have expressed interest in the program. There are many steps until easement settlement occurs and the process takes about a year to complete once properties are chosen for processing. After the BOCC approves the applications, the Board of Public Works in Annapolis makes final selections for funding. For More Information: Contact Eric Seifarth using information in the above letterhead or by E-mail: eseifarth@washco-md.net I:LandPreservation/RuralLegacy/basicinformation.doc ORDINANCE NO. ORD-2018-___ AN ORDINANCE TO APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF A CONSERVATION EASEMENT UNDER THE MARYLAND RURAL LEGACY PROGRAM (Re: Coulter RLP Conservation Easement) RECITALS 1. The Maryland Rural Legacy Program ("RLP") provides the funding necessary to protect large, contiguous tracts of land and other strategic areas from sprawl development and to enhance natural resource, agricultural, forestry and environmental protection through cooperative efforts among State and local governments. 2. Protection is provided through the acquisition of easements and fee estates from willing landowners and the supporting activities of Rural Legacy Sponsors and local governments. 3. For FY 2018, Washington County (the "County") was awarded a RLP grant totaling $1,359,000 (the "RLP Funds"). 4. Dwayne Eugene Coulter (the "Property Owner") is the fee simple owner of real property consisting of 78.89 acres, more or less, (the "Property") in Washington County, Maryland. The Property is more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto. 5. The County has agreed to pay the sum of approximately TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY-TWO THOUSAND, SIX HUNDRED FIFTEEN DOLLARS AND NO CENTS ($272,615.00), which is a portion of the RLP Funds, to the Property Owner for a Deed of Conservation Easement on the Property (the “Coulter RLP Conservation Easement"). THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland that the purchase of a conservation easement on the Property be approved and that the President of the Board and the County Clerk be and are hereby authorized and directed to execute and attest, respectively, all such documents for and on behalf of the County relating to the purchase of the Coulter RLP Conservation Easement. ADOPTED this ____ day of __________________, 2018. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND __________________________ BY: Vicki C. Lumm, Clerk Terry L. Baker, President Approved as to legal sufficiency: Mail to: _____________________________ Office of the County Attorney John M. Martirano 100 W. Washington Street, Suite 1101 County Attorney Hagerstown, MD 21740 EXHIBIT A - DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY All those lots, parcels or tracts of land, and all the rights, ways, privileges and appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining, situate in Election District No. 8, Washington County, Maryland, and being more particularly described as follows: TRACT ONE: Parcel No. 1: Being part of the tract of land called “Park Hall” and part of a tract called “Foxes Den” beginning to include both parts of a stone planted at the end of the first or South eighteen (18) degrees West forty (40) perch line of the Deed from Jesse Reeder to Francis Reeder for six acres bearing date on the 2nd day of October 1815, and running thence South eighty-two (82) degrees East twenty-nine (29) perches to a pile of stones, South eight and one-half (8 ½) degrees East twenty-two and seven-tenths (22.7) perches to a stone planted at or near the end of the 12th line of “Foxes Den”; thence along the division fence between the lands hereby conveyed and the lands now or formerly belonging to Hiram Reeder South thirty-eight (38) degrees West twenty- one and two-tenths (21.2) perches to a marked locust tree agreed upon by Jacob E. Smith and Philip Brown as a corner; thence as a division line between the lands hereby conveyed and the lands now or formerly belonging to Jacob E. Smith North eighty-two and one-half (82 ½) degrees West thirty-one and three-tenths (31.3) perches to a stone pile at the end of eight (8) perches in the South ten (10) degrees West eight (80) perch line of “Foxes Den”; thence South ten (10) degrees West eighteen (18) perches to a stone pile, a corner of the land now or formerly belonging to Jacob E. Smith; thence North seventy-seven and one-half (77 ½) degrees West twenty-six and three-tenths (26.3) perches to a stone, North seventy-seven and one-half (77 ½) degrees West forty-nine (49) perches to a stone, North twenty (20) degrees East forty-seven and two-tenths (47.2) perches to a stone, North seventy-seven and one-half (77 ½) degrees West forty-six and three-fourths (46 ¾) perches to a stone on the West side of the public road and leading to what is called Locust Group; thence along the West side thereof North twelve and one-half (12 ½) degrees West twenty-two and one-fourth (22 ¼) perches to a stone; thence along said public road North sixty-nine (69) degrees East thirty and one-tenth (30.1) perches to a corner of the lot now or formerly belonging to George Reeder; thence South fifty-five (55) degrees East nine and one-half (9 ½) perches to a stone, North nineteen and one-half (19 ½) degrees East ten and one-half (10 ½) perches into said public road; thence North sixty-nine (69) degrees East twenty-six (26) perches, South seventy-four and one-half (74 ½) degrees East nine (9) perches, North seventy-three and one-half (73 ½) degrees East eleven (11) perches to a planted stone on the East margin said road; thence leaving said road South seventy-seven (77) degrees East nine (9) perches to a stone, North seventeen and one-half (17 ½) degrees East fourteen (14) perches to a stone planted on the North side of the aforesaid road; thence South seventy-seven and one fourth (77 ¼) degrees East forty-three (43) perches to a stake on the East side of the land leading to Mrs. Francis Reeder’s dwelling; thence South fifteen (15) degrees West fifteen and one-tenth (15.1) perches to a stone; thence along said lane South eighteen and one-half (18 ½) degrees West to the place of beginning; containing seventy-four and one-fourth (74 ¼) acres and twenty-seven (27) perches of land, more or less. Parcel No. 2: Being part of a tract of land called “Strife” and beginning for the tract hereby conveyed at a stone, being the Southwest corner of “Park Hall” School House lot, and running with Locust Grove Public Road to the land now or formerly belonging to G.G. Brane; then South seventy-seven and one-half (77 ½) degrees East about twelve (12) perches to a stake; thence North fourteen (14) degrees East (allowing three (3) degrees to correct the variation of the compass) to the Southeast corner of the said School House lot; thence with a straight line to the place of beginning; containing one (1) acre of land, more or less. Parcel No. 3: Being a part of a tract of land called “Strife” beginning at a planted stone standing at the end of the 4th of South seventeen (17) degrees West twenty-six and six-tenths (26.6) perch line of a Deed from Elias Washington and others to George Reeder, dated May 6, 1854, and running thence with part of the 5th line of said Deed North fifty-six and one-fourth (56 ¼) degrees West nine and one-half (9 ½) perches to the middle of the public road leading from Locust Grove to Park Hall; thence along the middle thereof North sixty-seven (67) degrees East twelve and one-half (12 ½) perches to intersect the aforesaid 4th line; thence with said 4th line South seventeen (17) degrees West ten and eight-tenths (10.8) perches to the place of beginning; containing forty-nine (49) square perches of land, more or less. SAVING AND EXCEPTING THEREFROM, the following: 1. All that parcel of land, recited to contain 3.14 acres, more or less, described and conveyed in a Deed from Richard L. Haynes and Marietta J. Haynes, to Timothy A. Haynes and Patricia K. Haynes, his wife, dated October 1, 1976 and recorded in Liber 623, folio 544, one of the Land Records of Washington County, Maryland. 2. All that parcel of land, recited to contain 3.141 acres, more or less, described and conveyed in a Deed from Richard L. Haynes and Marietta June Haynes to Charles T. Fauble and Cathy A. Fauble, his wife, dated September 27, 1977, and recorded in Liber 645, folio 693, one of the Land Records of Washington County, Maryland. 3. All that parcel of land, recited to contain 3.57 acres, more or less, described and conveyed in a Deed from Richard L. Haynes and Marietta June Haynes to Richard L. Haynes and Marietta June Haynes, his wife, dated June 27, 1984, and recorded in Liber 765, folio 1097, one of the Land Records of Washington County, Maryland. 4. All that parcel of land, recited to contain 3.465 acres, more or less, described and conveyed in a Deed from Richard L. Haynes and Marietta June Haynes to Kevin Leroy Harris and June Lowery Harris, his wife, dated March 12, 1991, and recorded in Liber 986, folio 370, one of the Land Records of Washington County, Maryland. TRACT TWO: All that tract or parcel of land situate approximately 800 feet East of Locust Grove Road and adjoining the most Southerly property lines of land of Richard L. Haynes as recorded in Liber 356, folio 236, one of the Land Records of Washington County, Maryland, and beginning at an iron pin set at the end of the seventh or North 77 ½ degrees West 49 perches line of a Deed from D. Harold Haynes and Elsie C. Haynes, his wife, to Richard L. Haynes and Marietta June Haynes, his wife, and recorded in Liber 356, folio 236, one of the Land Records of Washington County, Maryland; thence running in a clockwise direction and along the most Southerly lines of the above mentioned Deed and with corrected bearings and distances reflecting the recorded survey, South 72 degrees 33 minutes 12 seconds East 1221.01 feet to a planted stone found; thence along the same North 25 degrees 30 minutes 05 seconds East 136.28 feet to a stone pile found; thence along the same, South 67 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East 465.08 feet to an iron pin set in a stone row; thence along lands of Catherine I. Maiorano, South 43 degrees 22 minutes 35 seconds West 308.84 feet to an iron pin set in a stone row; thence South 23 degrees 55 minutes 00 seconds West 109.90 feet to an iron pin set in the stone row; thence with four new lines of division and along lands of D. Harold Haynes, Executors, North 68 degrees 02 minutes 51 seconds West 512.81 feet to an iron pin set; thence South 20 degrees 33 minutes 17 seconds West 209.44 feet to an iron pin set; thence along the Northern side of an existing fence, North 72 degrees 25 minutes 41 seconds West 1236.98 feet to an iron pin set; thence North 41 degrees 31 minutes 00 seconds East 495.50 feet to the place of beginning; containing 16.49 acres of land, more or less. The street address of the herein described property is currently known and designated as 20727 Park Hall Road, Boonsboro, Maryland. BEING all of the same property which was conveyed from James G. Cochran and Leslie A. Cochran to Dwayne Eugene Coulter by Deed dated August 25, 2017 and recorded in Liber 5577, folio 84 among the Land Records of Washington County, Maryland. Open Session Item SUBJECT: Bonnard J. and Peggy R. Morgan Rural Legacy Program (RLP) Easement PRESENTATION DATE: April 10, 2018 PRESENTATION BY: Chris Boggs, Land Preservation Planner, Dept. of Planning & Zoning RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the Bonnard J. and Peggy R. Morgan RLP Easement project, in the amount of $53,504.48 for 20.62 easement acres, paid for 100% by the State, and to adopt an ordinance approving the easement purchase and to authorize the execution of the necessary documentation to finalize the easement purchase. REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The Morgan property is located on Chestnut Grove Road, Keedsyville. The Rural Legacy Easement will protect 19.06 acres of woodland and 1.56 acres of pastureland, and serve to buffer a portion of Sharman’s Branch. The parcel is nearby other preserved properties, thus aiding in adding to the large block of preservation, and is located within the viewshed of a property that was used as a signal tower for the Battle of Antietam. Four (4) development rights will be extinguished with this easement. Since 1998, Washington County has been awarded over $20 million to purchase Rural Legacy easements on more than 6,100 acres near Antietam Battlefield in the Rural Legacy Area. RLP uses an easement valuation system (points) to establish easement value. DISCUSSION: For FY 2018, Washington County was awarded RLP grants totaling $1,359,000. The Morgan RLP Easement uses funding from that grant. Easement applicants were ranked based on four main categories: development rights, agricultural, environmental, and historic values. FISCAL IMPACT: RLP funds are 100% State dollars, mainly from Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Open Space funds. In addition to the easement funds, we receive up to 3% of the easement value for administrative costs, a mandatory 1.5% for compliance/monitoring costs, and funds to cover all of our legal/settlement costs. CONCURRENCES: Both the State RLP Board and the State DNR staff have approved and support our program. A final money allocation will be approved by the State Board of Public Works. ALTERNATIVES: If Washington County rejects State funds for RLP, the funds will be allocated to other counties in Maryland. ATTACHMENTS: Aerial Map, Location Map, RLP Info Sheet, Ordinance AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland Agenda Report Form CHESTNUT GROVE RD MD iMAP, DoIT Bonnar d J. & Peggy R . Morgan, Rura l Legac y 0 0.025 0.05 0.075Miles WARNING!: Th is ma p is for internal use b y the Washing to n Coun ty Plan ning Depa rtment. It is not fo rgeneral distribution to the public, and should not be scaled or copied. Sources of the data contained hereonare fro m variou s pub lic ag encie s which may ha ve use restrictio ns and d isclaimers The parcel lines shown on this map are derived from a variety of sources which have their own accuracystandards. The pa rcel lines a re ap pro ximate and for informatio nal p urpose s ONLY. The y are n ot gu aranteedby Washington County Maryland or the Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxations to be free oferrors including errors of omission, commission, positional accuracy or any attributes associated with realproperty. They shall not be copied, reproduced or scaled in any way without the express prior writtenapproval of Washington County Maryland Planning and Zoning Department. This data DOES NOT replacean accurate survey by a licensed professional and information shall be verified using the relevant deeds,pla ts a nd other recorded lega l do cumen ts b y th e u ser. 0 100 200 300 400 500Feet Printed: Monday, March 5, 2018 Printed by: cboggs Prop erty Bound ary Chestnut G rove R oadKeedysville, MD 2 1756 ® CHESTNUT GROVE ROAD Sharman's Branch Mount Briar Wetland Weverton/Roxbury Rail Corridor Weverton/Roxbury Rail Corridor Weverton/Roxbury Rail Corridor King Morgan Morgan Dreisch Traska Bowes Morgan Morgan Morgan Saville Morgan Morgan Morgan Morgan Czarra Ingram CHURCHEY MAIN CHURCHEY MORGAN MORGAN MORGANMORGAN TREGO RD RED HILL RD ROHRERSVILLE RD WOODSTOCK LN MAIN ST PENNYHILL LN HORIZON LN ROHRERSVILLE RD Bonnar d J. & Peggy R . Morgan, Rura l Legac y 0 0.25 0.5 0.75Miles WARNING!: Th is ma p is for internal use b y the Washing to n Coun ty Plan ning Depa rtment. It is not fo rgeneral distribution to the public, and should not be scaled or copied. Sources of the data contained hereonare fro m variou s pub lic ag encie s which may ha ve use restrictio ns and d isclaimers The parcel lines shown on this map are derived from a variety of sources which have their own accuracystandards. The pa rcel lines a re ap pro ximate and for informatio nal p urpose s ONLY. The y are n ot gu aranteedby Washington County Maryland or the Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxations to be free oferrors including errors of omission, commission, positional accuracy or any attributes associated with realproperty. They shall not be copied, reproduced or scaled in any way without the express prior writtenapproval of Washington County Maryland Planning and Zoning Department. This data DOES NOT replacean accurate survey by a licensed professional and information shall be verified using the relevant deeds,pla ts a nd other recorded lega l do cumen ts b y th e u ser. 0 990 1,980 2,970 3,960 4,950Feet Printed: F riday, March 16, 2018 Printed by: cboggs Prop erty Bound ary Chestnut G rove R oadKeedysville, MD 2 1756 ® ^_ Legend Parks Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program AG District MALPF AG Easement Rural Legacy Area Properties Other Permanent Easements Rural Legacy Program (RLP) Information Purpose of Program: RLP seeks to protect farmland and open space which contains significant agricultural, environmental and cultural/historic features. The Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) funds the program and protects land mainly with the use of permanent easements. However, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) of Washington County is the holder of RLP easements. Easement Valuations: The price paid for permanent easements is determined using a valuation worksheet. The more of the above listed features on the property, the higher the easement values. Priority of Properties: As with most programs of this sort, there is a chronic shortage of funds available. Therefore, properties that are contiguous to existing permanently protected land are given priority. Other priorities include: prime agricultural lands; prime woodland (CREP is encouraged); land with environmental features needing protection such as endangered species, streams, sinkholes, and properties with historic value such as Antietam Battlefield area. Processing of Applications: Each year, Washington County applies to DNR for RLP funding. Negotiations then begin with landowners who have expressed interest in the program. There are many steps until easement settlement occurs and the process takes about a year to complete once properties are chosen for processing. After the BOCC approves the applications, the Board of Public Works in Annapolis makes final selections for funding. For More Information: Contact Eric Seifarth using information in the above letterhead or by E-mail: eseifarth@washco-md.net I:LandPreservation/RuralLegacy/basicinformation.doc ORDINANCE NO. ORD-2018-___ AN ORDINANCE TO APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF A CONSERVATION EASEMENT UNDER THE MARYLAND RURAL LEGACY PROGRAM (Re: Morgan 2018 RLP Conservation Easement) RECITALS 1. The Maryland Rural Legacy Program ("RLP") provides the funding necessary to protect large, contiguous tracts of land and other strategic areas from sprawl development and to enhance natural resource, agricultural, forestry and environmental protection through cooperative efforts among State and local governments. 2. Protection is provided through the acquisition of easements and fee estates from willing landowners and the supporting activities of Rural Legacy Sponsors and local governments. 3. For FY 2018, Washington County (the "County") was awarded a RLP grant totaling $1,359,000 (the "RLP Funds"). 4. Bonnard J. Morgan and Peggy R. Morgan (the "Property Owner") is the fee simple owner of real property consisting of 20.62 acres, more or less, (the "Property") in Washington County, Maryland. The Property is more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto. 5. The County has agreed to pay the sum of approximately FIFTY-THREE THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED FOUR DOLLARS AND FORTY-EIGHT CENTS ($53,504.48), which is a portion of the RLP Funds, to the Property Owner for a Deed of Conservation Easement on the Property (the “Morgan 2018 RLP Conservation Easement"). THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland that the purchase of a conservation easement on the Property be approved and that the President of the Board and the County Clerk be and are hereby authorized and directed to execute and attest, respectively, all such documents for and on behalf of the County relating to the purchase of the Morgan 2018 RLP Conservation Easement. ADOPTED this ____ day of __________________, 2018. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND __________________________ BY: Vicki C. Lumm, Clerk Terry L. Baker, President Approved as to legal sufficiency: Mail to: _____________________________ Office of the County Attorney John M. Martirano 100 W. Washington Street, Suite 1101 County Attorney Hagerstown, MD 21740 EXHIBIT A - DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY All that lot or parcel of land, and all the rights, ways, privileges and appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining, situate along the West side of Chestnut Grove Road, approximately 0.5 miles Southward from its intersection with Mr. Briar-Trego Road, in Election District No. 8, Washington County, Maryland, and being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a stake in the West margin of the said Chestnut Grove Road, said stake being at the end of the 5th or North 12 degrees 12 minutes East 222.0 foot line of the Deed from Daniel B. Moler, et al, to Thomas P. Quigley and Wife dated October 10, 1969 and recorded in Liber 496, Folio 563 among the Land Records of Washington County, Maryland, and running thence back from said road binding on said parcel of land with a portion of the 6th line of said Deed North 77 degrees 33 minutes West 985.72 feet to a stake; thence leaving the lines of said Deed and binding on lands hereto conveyed to Rosa G. Cimemanis North 12 degrees 40 minutes West 821.85 feet to a post, thence leaving said lands and running South 79 degrees 22 minutes East 1,352.41 feet to a post in the West margin of said Chestnut Grove Road; thence along the margin thereof South 13 degrees 42 minutes West 787.26 feet to the point of beginning; containing 20.62 acres of land, more or less (no street address assigned). BEING all of the same property which was conveyed from Rosa G. Cimemanis to Bonnard J. Morgan and Peggy R. Morgan, his wife, by Deed dated March 1, 2002 and recorded in Liber 1757, folio 800 among the Land Records of Washington County, Maryland. Open Session Item SUBJECT: Governor’s Office for Children FY19 Community Partnership Agreement Proposal Submittal PRESENTATION DATE: April 10, 2018 PRESENTATION BY: Stephanie Lapole, Grant Manager, Office of Grant Management RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the submission of the FY19 Community Partnership Agreement proposal to the Governor’s Office for Children requesting $674,447 and accept funding as awarded. REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The Washington County Office of Grant Management, on behalf of and at the direction of the Local Management Board, requests approval to submit a Community Partnership Agreement Proposal to the Governor’s Office for Children for fiscal year 2019 in response to their FY19 Notice of Funding Availability. The proposal requests $674,447 in funding for five (5) programs impacting the well-being of children, youth and families in Washington County as well as support for County administrative expenses. DISCUSSION: The funding requested by the Local Management Board includes the following programmatic strategies and their respective vendors – o Family Centered Support Services (Department of Social Services) - $69,060 o School Based Mental Health Services (Brook Lane Health Services, Inc.) - $211,560 o Disconnected Youth Program Enhancements (Western Maryland Consortium) - $52,687 o Family Strong Program (Potomac Case Management Services, Inc.) - $100,000 o Washington County Reengagement Center for Disconnected Youth (vendor to be determined) - $119,740 o Office of Grant Management Administration expenses - $121,400 FISCAL IMPACT: The grant will provide up to $121,400 to the Office of Grant Management for the administrative costs of the Local Management Board. CONCURRENCES: The Local Management Board approved the submission of the proposal and recommends the acceptance of this award. ALTERNATIVES: Deny approval of submission and award of requested funding. ATTACHMENTS: N/A AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland Agenda Report Form