BALTIMORE COUNTY COUNCIL

NOTES TO THE AGENDA

LEGISLATIVE SESSION 2016

Issued: April 21, 2016

Work Session: April 26, 2016

Legislative Day No. 9 : May 2, 2016

The accompanying notes are

compiled from unaudited

information provided by

the Administration and

other sources.

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY AUDITOR

BALTIMORE COUNTY COUNCIL

May 2, 2016

NOTES TO THE AGENDA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

All Councilmembers

–

Department of Public Works

Basic Services Maps

Article 4A of the Baltimore County Zoning Regulations sets out the provisions for growth management in Baltimore County. The growth management provisions are designed to facilitate implementation of the Master Plan with specific regard to the quantity and timing of new growth and development. Section 4AO2.1 provides that: “The County Council finds that important public facilities in certain predominately urban areas of the County are inadequate to serve all of the development that would be permitted under the regulations of the zones or commercial districts within which those areas lie. Basic Services Maps are hereby established to regulate nonindustrial development in those underserved areas to a degree commensurate with the availability of these facilities. Basic Services Maps are not permanent and will be reviewed annually with reports to the County Council.” Basic Services Maps are designed to aid the County in providing public services (water, sewer, and transportation) in an amount that facilitates the level of growth allowed by the current zoning. This growth management system applies inside the Urban Rural Demarcation Line (URDL). Article 4A requires that the three Basic Services Maps be prepared annually by the appropriate Executive agencies, and thereafter the Planning Board must recommend to the County Council any proposed annual revisions to the maps. The law requires the Council to take action on the maps after consideration of the recommendations of the Planning Board; the Council is required to hold one public hearing prior to the adoption of the maps. The hearing was held on April 4, 2016.

Bill 18-16 (cont’d) May 2, 2016

Bill 18-16 repeals the 2015 Basic Services Maps and enacts the 2016 Basic Services Maps. Attached is a summary of the changes proposed by the Planning Board on February 18, 2016. See Exhibit A. With the affirmative vote of five members of the County Council and signature by the County Executive, Bill 18-16 will take effect on May 16, 2016.

Thomas Joseph Fiscal Note May 2, 2016

Bill 19-16 (Supplemental Appropriation) Council District(s) _6 & 7_

Mrs. Almond (By Req.)

Department of Aging

2015-2016 Capital Budget –

Building Repairs, Renovations and Minor Additions

The Administration is requesting a supplemental appropriation of state funds totaling $131,000 to the Building Repairs, Renovations and Minor Additions project. The funds will be used to renovate the parking lots of the Ateaze Senior Center in Dundalk and the Overlea Senior Center in Nottingham. See Exhibit A.

Fiscal Summary

Funding Source	Supplemental Appropriation	Current Appropriation	Total Appropriation
County	—	$ 165,576,000	$ 165,576,000
State ⁽¹⁾	$ 131,000	588,872	719,872
Federal	—	1,500,000	1,500,000
Other	—	25,728,025	25,728,025
Total	$ 131,000	$ 193,392,897	$ 193,523,897
⁽¹⁾ Maryland Department of Aging funds. Renovation costs are estimated to total $261,525, with the County providing the remaining $130,525.

Analysis

The proposed grant funds will be used to repair and resurface the parking lots of the Ateaze Senior Center (182 parking spaces) in Dundalk and the Overlea Senior Center (35 parking spaces) in Nottingham, to address safety hazards. The Department advised that the parking lots have

Bill 19-16 (Supplemental Appropriation) (cont’d) May 2, 2016

numerous large potholes and cracks resulting from uneven surfaces, and that the Department of Public Works can no longer patch the potholes due to the poor condition of the pavement. The Department advised that the centers serve a total of 255 visitors daily.

Renovation costs are estimated to total $261,525, of which the State will provide $131,000 and the County will provide $130,525. The Department advised that the renovations would begin immediately after Council approval (pending contractor availability) and would be performed by M.T. Laney Company, Inc., one of the County’s on-call contractors.

With the affirmative vote of five members of the County Council, Bill 19-16 will take effect May 15, 2016.

Thomas Joseph Fiscal Note May 2, 2016

Bill 20-16 (Supplemental Appropriation) Council District(s) _All_

Mrs. Almond (By Req.)

Department of Aging

CountyRide System Project

The Administration is requesting a supplemental appropriation of state, federal, and private funds totaling $165,040 to the CountyRide System Project Gifts and Grants Fund program. The funds will be used to upgrade the CountyRide program’s computer system in order to improve efficiency and services. See Exhibit A.

Fiscal Summary

Funding Source	Supplemental Appropriation	Current Appropriation	Total Appropriation
County	—	—	—
State ⁽¹⁾	$ 16,504	—	$ 16,504
Federal ⁽²⁾	132,032	—	132,032
Other ⁽³⁾	16,504	—	16,504
Total	$ 165,040	—	$ 165,040
⁽¹⁾ Maryland Department of Transportation, Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) funds. ⁽²⁾U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration funds passed through the MTA. Matching funds of 20% of the total project cost (or $33,008) are required, which are being provided by the MTA and Other funding. ⁽³⁾Cash donation from the estate of Margaret Leister.

Analysis

CountyRide provides specialized transportation services to County residents 60 years of age or older, persons with disabilities ages 18 to 59, and rural residents of all ages. CountyRide operates

Bill 20-16 (Supplemental Appropriation) (cont’d) May 2, 2016

Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., and has 25 standard bus-size vehicles in its fleet. Destinations include medical appointments, shopping, and other general purpose trips. Fares range from $2.50 to $6.00 each way, depending on whether the fare is pre-paid or paid at the time of service and whether the destination is within the County or crosses the City-County line.

The proposed $165,040 supplemental appropriation will be used to upgrade the computer system for the CountyRide program. The Department advised that the existing computer system is difficult to maintain, does not facilitate agency reporting requirements, and does not provide necessary features such as secure customer fare handling. The Department further advised that an updated computer system will enable CountyRide to operate in “real time” by utilizing automated, bi-directional messaging; improve efficiency by utilizing web-based tools for account management, reporting, auditing, and billing; integrate secure magnetic swipe cards for secure customer fare handling; and improve data collection by instantly and electronically recording client names, times and dates of trips, GPS locations of pick-ups and drop-offs, and fares. The Department advised that it has not selected a vendor or software package but has been working with the Office of Information Technology to analyze current software, future needs, and potential software packages. The Department expects a new CountyRide computer system to be implemented and operational by April 2017. The Department estimates that the CountyRide program will serve 3,499 clients in FY 2016 and 3,848 clients in FY 2017.

The grant period is FY 2016-FY 2018. The federal grant requires a 20% match of the total project cost (or $33,008), which will be met with $16,504 in MTA funds and a $16,504 cash donation from the estate of Margaret Leister. On September 2, 2014, the Council approved a $163,866 donation from the estate of Margaret Leister, a portion of which was to be used for the CountyRide computer system upgrade.

With the affirmative vote of five members of the County Council, Bill 20-16 will take effect May 15, 2016.

Council Fiscal Note May 2, 2016

Bill 21-16 Council District(s) _All_

Mr. Kach

R-O (Residential – Office) Zone – Use Regulations

The R-O (Residential B Office) Zone was created over 20 years ago to accommodate houses converted to office buildings (Class A office buildings) and some small Class B office buildings located in, or in close proximity to, predominantly residential areas on sites that, because of adjacent commercial activity, heavy commercial traffic, or other similar factors, are no longer practical for uses solely allowable in moderate‑density residential zones.

A Class B office building is defined in the Baltimore County Zoning Regulations as a building used for offices that is not a Class A office building. A Class A office building is essentially defined as a building that was originally constructed as a one-family or two-family dwelling converted by proper permit to office use. A Class B office building is generally permitted in the R-O Zone by special exception, subject to certain restrictions – particularly for medical offices.

In recognition of the growth of internet commerce, Bill 21-16 permits a Class B office building containing internet retail, except that such use is restricted to retail sales of merchandise purchased via mail, phone, or the internet and shipped to a customer. There are additional restrictions on this use, which include: (1) no walk-in business is permitted; (2) storage of internet retail merchandise is permitted as an accessory use only and no more than 10% of the total gross floor area of the building may be so used; (3) a variance may be granted to increase this percentage to no more than 40% of the total gross floor area; (4) compliance with the Bulk Regulations of the R-O Zone is required; and (5) the special exception findings may also include restrictions or conditions on the use, including limitations on deliveries by means, time, and manner of delivery, and compliance with the goals and objectives of the R-O Zone.

With passage by the County Council, Bill 21-16 will take effect 45 days after its enactment.

Keith Dorsey Fiscal Note May 2, 2016

FM-1 (Contract Amendments) Council District(s) _All_

Office of Budget and Finance

On-Call, As-Needed Fencing Services

The Administration is requesting an amendment to two contracts that provide on-call fencing services for various County facilities. The two contractors are Hercules Fence of Maryland, LLC (Hercules) and P&H Fencing, LLC (P&H). The proposed amendments increase the maximum compensation for both contractors combined by $1,741,079, from $1,741,679 to $3,482,758, for the entire 5-year term, including the renewal periods. The contracts expire May 19, 2018. See Exhibit A.

Fiscal Summary

Funding Source	Contract Amendments		Current Maximum Compensation	Amended Maximum Compensation
County ⁽¹⁾	$ 1,741,079		$ 1,741,679	$ 3,482,758
State	—		—	—
Federal	—		—	—
Other	—		—	—
Total	$ 1,741,079	⁽²⁾ ^22222222	$ 1,741,679	$ 3,482,758	⁽³⁾
⁽¹⁾ General Fund Operating Budget and Capital Projects Fund. ⁽²⁾Additional compensation for both contractors combined for the entire 5-year term, including the renewal periods. ⁽³⁾ Maximum compensation for both contractors combined for the entire 5-year term, including the renewal periods.

Analysis

The contractors provide all labor, materials, tools, equipment, and supervision to perform various fencing services for County-owned and/or operated facilities on an on-call basis. Services include

FM-1 (Contract Amendments) (cont’d) May 2, 2016

fencing, gates, concrete footings, bollards, and recreational structures (e.g., backstops, goals, cages, etc.). Both contractors serve as primary contractors with the intention of the County to issue work equally; however, the assignment of work is at the sole discretion of the County.

The Office advised that the proposed contract amendments are necessary since certain estimates (e.g., installation of fencing at new sites) were unknown at the time the original contract value was estimated and there has been increased usage of the contracts by the Department of Environmental Protection and Sustainability for stormwater management work.

On June 3, 2013, the Council approved the original 5-year contracts not to exceed $1,741,679 for the two contractors combined. The proposed amendments increase the maximum compensation for both contractors combined by $1,741,079, from $1,741,679 to $3,482,758, for the entire 5-year term, including the renewal periods. The contracts expire May 19, 2018. All other terms and conditions remain the same.

Prior to the commencement of each renewal period, the County may entertain a request for an escalation in unit prices in accordance with the Consumer Price Index – All Urban Consumers – United States Average – All Items (CPI-U), as published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics at the time of the request, or up to a maximum 5% increase on the current pricing, whichever is lower. The County may terminate the agreements by providing 30 days prior written notice.

The contracts were awarded through a competitive procurement process based on the two lowest responsive bids from three bids received. The Office advised that as of April 14, 2016, expenditures/encumbrances totaled $333,782 under the Hercules contract and $1,306,620 under the P&H contract.

County Charter, Section 715, requires that “any contract must be approved by the County Council before it is executed if the contract is…for services for a term in excess of two years or involving the expenditure of more than $25,000 per year….”

Keith Dorsey Fiscal Note May 2, 2016

FM-2 (Contract) Council District(s) All_

Office of Budget and Finance

Maintenance/Minor Repairs to Proprietary Building Controls

The Administration is requesting approval of a contract with Honeywell International, Inc. to provide temperature control systems maintenance services in five County-owned buildings. The contract commenced December 7, 2015, continues until May 2, 2016, and may not exceed $25,000 unless approved by the Council. If approved, the contract will continue through December 6, 2016 and will automatically renew for four additional 1-year periods with the option to further extend the initial term or any renewal term an additional 120 days. The contract does not specify a maximum compensation for the initial 1-year term. Compensation may not exceed $646,313 for the entire 5-year and 4-month term, including the renewal and extension periods.

Fiscal Summary

Funding Source	Maximum Compensation		Notes
County ⁽¹⁾	$ 646,313		⁽¹⁾ General Fund Operating Budget. ⁽²⁾ Maximum compensation for the entire 5-year and 4-month term, including the renewal and extension periods. The contract does not specify a maximum compensation for the initial 1-year term.
State	—
Federal	—
Other	—
Total	$ 646,313	⁽²⁾

Analysis

The contractor will provide all labor, supervision, equipment, materials, tools, and related incidentals to maintain, troubleshoot, and make minor repairs to the proprietary building control systems at five County-owned buildings in accordance with manufacturers’ recommendations. The systems are located in the Drumcastle Government Center, the Historic Courthouse, the Jefferson Building, the County Office Building, and the Baltimore County Courts Building. Regular

FM-2 (Contract) (cont’d) May 2, 2016

maintenance service will be performed during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. The contract stipulates that the contractor must be available for emergency calls 365 days-per-year, 24 hours-per-day, and have personnel on the job site within 4 hours after receiving a request for emergency service.

The annual maintenance fee ranges from $9,918 (Historic Courthouse) to $33,204 (Drumcastle Government Center), depending on the building serviced. Charges for emergency and unscheduled service repair work will be in addition to the annual maintenance fee. An hourly rate of $181.38 will be charged during the initial term with a 3% increase each year. Material costs are 50% off the contractor’s list price plus a 15% mark-up.

The contract commenced December 7, 2015, continues until May 2, 2016, and may not exceed $25,000 unless approved by the Council. If approved, the contract will continue through December 6, 2016 and will automatically renew for four additional 1-year periods with the option to further extend the initial term or any renewal term an additional 120 days on the same terms and conditions, unless the County provides notice of non-renewal. The contract does not specify a maximum compensation for the initial 1-year term. Compensation may not exceed $646,313 for the entire 5-year and 4-month term, including the renewal and extension periods.

Prior to the commencement of each renewal period, the County may entertain a request for an escalation in unit prices up to a maximum 5% increase on the current pricing. The County may terminate the agreement by providing 30 days prior written notice.

The contract was awarded through a sole source procurement process since the operating software is proprietary to Honeywell International, Inc.

The Office advised that no expenditures have been incurred under the proposed contract as of April 14, 2016.

On June 7, 2010, the Council approved a similar 5-year and 4-month contract not to exceed $207,299 with Honeywell International, Inc. for the County Courts Building and the Jefferson Building. On October 19, 2015, the Council approved an amendment to the contract, increasing the contract’s extension period an additional 60 days, from 120 days to 180 days (through December 6, 2015), and increasing the maximum compensation of the contract by $35,411, from $207,299 to $242,710, for the entire 5-year and 6-month term. During the last three months

FM-2 (Contract) (cont’d) May 2, 2016

of the contract, services were also provided for the Historic Courthouse, County Office Building, and Drumcastle Government Center.

The amendment was necessary to extend maintenance services until a new contract was procured. The Office advised that expenditures totaled $221,094 under the contract.

Steve Walsh Fiscal Note May 2, 2016

FM-3 (Contract) Council District(s) All _

Department of Public Works

On-Call Engineering Services – Water & Sewer Main Design

The Administration is requesting approval of a contract with Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP (RK&K) to provide on-call engineering design services for the replacement or rehabilitation of County-owned water and sewer facilities. The contract commences upon Council approval, continues for 3 years, and will automatically renew for two additional 1-year periods. The contract does not specify a maximum compensation for the initial 3-year term. Compensation may not exceed $2.0 million for the entire 5-year term, including the renewal periods. See Exhibit A.

Fiscal Summary

Funding Source	Maximum Compensation		Notes
County ⁽¹⁾	$ 2,000,000		⁽¹⁾Capital Projects Fund (Metropolitan District). ⁽²⁾Maximum compensation for the entire 5-year term, including the renewal periods. The contract does not specify a maximum compensation for the initial 3-year term.
State	—
Federal	—
Other	—
Total	$ 2,000,000	⁽²⁾

Analysis

The contractor will provide on-call engineering design services for County-owned water and sewer facilities. Services include water and sewer main design with related surveying and plat preparation, geotechnical testing, corrosion control design, sediment and erosion control design, preparation of permit applications, and preparation of bid-ready documents with construction cost estimates and participation in public meetings as necessary.

FM-3 (Contract) (cont’d) May 2, 2016

The contract commences upon Council approval, continues for 3 years, and will automatically renew for two additional 1-year periods, unless the County provides notice of non-renewal. The contract does not specify a maximum compensation for the initial 3-year term. Compensation may not exceed $2.0 million for the entire 5-year term, including the renewal periods.

Services will be performed at the engineer’s cost plus profit. Profit is limited to 10% of the combined total of direct labor costs plus overhead and payroll burden. Hourly rates and percentages for overhead, payroll burden, and profit must be within established County limits. Funding for the contract will not be encumbered at this time. Rather, contract costs will be charged to specific projects as they are assigned. The County may terminate the agreement by providing 30 days prior written notice.

The contract stipulates that should work be performed under the September 20, 2005 consent decree, the contractor shall be liable for payment of penalties charged to the County for failure by the contractor to meet or achieve deadlines or requirements. The damages payable are dependent upon the type of project and length of delay in completing the project. The Department advised that it does not expect to utilize this contract for consent decree projects; however, it decided to build flexibility into the contract so that should the need arise, the contractor would be available for work related to the consent decree.

The Department advised that in procuring the contracts, the Professional Services Selection Committee (PSSC) had selected The Wilson T. Ballard Company and Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. as the prime contractors, and selected RK&K as the alternate. These selections were based on qualifications and experience from 22 submittals, of which 3 submittals were considered non-responsive. The Department advised that it is requesting approval of the proposed contract with RK&K since it is the most expeditious way to have continuing on-call water and sewer main design services available.

On August 6, 2012, the Council approved two 5-year contracts to provide similar on-call engineering design services, one with The Wilson T. Ballard Company and one with Michael Baker, Jr., Inc., (now known as Michael Baker International) with maximum compensation for each contractor not to exceed $2.0 million. The contracts may be renewed through August 2017. However, the Department advised that expenditures/encumbrances under the Ballard contract are close to the upset limit, totaling $1,954,488 as of March 22, 2016.

FM-3 (Contract) (cont’d) May 2, 2016

The Department advised that RK&K currently provides on-call engineering services (e.g., civil, structural, pumping station, and sewer rehabilitation design) for the County under six other contracts.

Amy Grossi Fiscal Note May 2, 2016

FM-4 (Contract) Council District(s) 2

Department of Permits, Approvals and Inspections

Gwynnbrook Avenue – Owings Mills

The Administration is requesting approval of a contract to acquire property totaling approximately 0.451 acre for $26,081 to be used for roadway improvements and a bridge replacement at the intersection of Owings Mills Boulevard and Gwynnbrook Avenue in Owings Mills. The State of Maryland currently owns the property, which fronts on the east side of Owings Mills Boulevard and the north and south sides of Gwynnbrook Avenue. The property is primarily zoned DR-2 (Density Residential – 2 dwelling units/acre), with a portion (6,000 sq. ft.) zoned ML-IM (Manufacturing Light – Industrial Major), and will be used for roadway improvements and various easement areas. See Exhibit A.

Fiscal Summary

Funding Source	Purchase Price	Notes
County ⁽¹⁾	$ 26,081	⁽¹⁾Capital Projects Fund.
State	—
Federal	—
Other	—
Total	$ 26,081

Analysis

Muller-Casella Associates, Inc. completed an appraisal of the property on May 12, 2011, recommending a value of $26,081. After review and analysis, Robert W. Kline, review appraiser, concurred with the appraisal, recommending the respective amount as just compensation for the acquisition.

FM-4 (Contract) (cont’d) May 2, 2016

The 0.451-acre property to be acquired is part of an 87.34-acre parcel owned by the State, which is improved with facilities of the Gwynnbrook Wildlife Management Area, including the central region office of the Maryland Natural Resources Police, as well as the Maryland Public Television (MPT) broadcasting station and tower. The property acquisition will have no adverse impact on the property. The Department advised that the contract will also be presented to the Maryland Board of Public Works for approval once approved by the County Council.

The Department advised that two acquisitions are needed for this project and both require Council approval. On May 2, 2005, the Council approved the first property acquisition totaling $22,000. Estimated project costs total $2.7 million for the roadway improvements and bridge replacement on Gwynnbrook Avenue, including $2.3 million for construction. As of March 21, 2016, $121,635 has been expended/encumbered for this project, excluding the cost of this acquisition. The Department advised that construction is anticipated to begin in July 2017 and be completed in April 2018. The Department also advised that the long delay between acquisitions was due to environmental mitigation of the site, survey and title issues, and the retirements of key contact agents from both the County and State.

County Charter, Section 715, requires Council approval of real property acquisitions where the purchase price exceeds $5,000.

Mike Field Fiscal Note May 2, 2016

MB-2 (Res. 49-16) Council District(s) _All_

Mrs. Almond (By Req.)

Office of Law

Baltimore County Code of 2015

Resolution 49-16 legalizes the Baltimore County Code of 2015.

Section 1005(a) of the Baltimore County Charter requires the County Council to Aprovide for a compilation and codification of this Charter and all public local laws, acts, rules, regulations, resolutions and ordinances, having the force and effect of law@ not greater than every 10 years.

This process, often referred to as Acode revision,@ typically occurs whenever the County=s contract with the publisher of the Baltimore County Code expires and the Office of Law begins the process of seeking and selecting a new publisher. When the code revision was last done (the current Baltimore County Code, 2003), it was a comprehensive revision of the County Code. The entire Code was rewritten and restructured in significant ways, mostly to reflect the Maryland Department of Legislative Services’ style of legislative drafting. This changed the numbering system that was previously used and also resulted in the main divisions of the Code that appeared in alphabetical order as ATitles@ to be changed to AArticles@ and grouped more thematically.

The Office of Law, with assistance from the Secretary of the County Council and representatives of the Office of Information Technology, has secured a new contract for the publication of the County Code with Municipal Code Corporation. The Office advised that the online version should be available within the next month or so, with the new Code published this summer. It is unnecessary to undertake major changes for this revision to the County Code; however, it does create an opportunity to fix minor problems and correct errors in the Code. These changes are reflected in Bill 77-15 entitled ABaltimore County Code B Code Revision B First Enactment,@ which was passed by the Council on November 2, 2015.

MB-2 (Res. 49-16) (cont’d) May 2, 2016

Resolution 49-16 is the adopting ordinance that formally legalizes the Baltimore County Code of 2015, and it is deemed and taken by all courts of this State and by all public officials of this State to be evidence of the County Charter and the public local laws, rules, regulations, resolutions and ordinances enacted by the County Council contained therein.

Resolution 49-16 shall take effect on the date of its passage by the County Council, and the 2015 Edition of the County Code shall take effect on the publication of the 2015 Edition of the Baltimore County Code.

Council Fiscal Note May 2, 2016

MB-3 (Res. 50-16) Council District(s) _5_

Mr. Marks

Loch Raven Commercial Revitalization District

Resolution 50-16 expands the Loch Raven Commercial Revitalization District.

Whereas, the County has 17 Commercial Revitalization Districts that have been officially designated, either by resolution of the County Council or by adoption of the Master Plan or a Master Plan Amendment.

Resolution 50-16 expands the District to include the property shown on the attached map. See Exhibit A.

Resolution 50-16 shall take effect from the date of its passage by the County Council.

BALTIMORE COUNTY COUNCIL

NOTES TO THE AGENDA

APPENDIX A

Tags: Agenda, Baltimore County, Baltimore County Council, district 3, Pending Legislation, wade kach

Wade Kach

BALTIMORE COUNTY COUNCIL

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY AUDITOR

PAGE

LEGISLATIVE SESSION

BILLS – FINAL READING

FISCAL MATTERS

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS

APPENDIX

All Councilmembers

–

Department of Public Works

Mrs. Almond (By Req.)

Department of Aging

Fiscal Summary

Funding Source

Supplemental Appropriation

Current

Appropriation

Total Appropriation

County

State (1)

Federal

Other

Total

Analysis

Mrs. Almond (By Req.)

Department of Aging

CountyRide System Project

Fiscal Summary

Funding

County

State (1)

Federal (2)

Other (3)

Total

Analysis

Mr. Kach

FM-1 (Contract Amendments) Council District(s) _All_

Office of Budget and Finance

On-Call, As-Needed Fencing Services

Fiscal Summary

Funding

Source

Contract Amendments

Current

Maximum Compensation

Amended

Maximum Compensation

County (1)

State

—

—

Federal

Other

Total

Analysis

FM-1 (Contract Amendments) (cont’d) May 2, 2016

FM-2 (Contract) Council District(s) All_

Office of Budget and Finance

Fiscal Summary

Funding Source

County (1)

State

Federal

Other

Total

Analysis

FM-2 (Contract) (cont’d) May 2, 2016

FM-2 (Contract) (cont’d) May 2, 2016

FM-3 (Contract) Council District(s) All _

Fiscal Summary

Funding Source

Maximum Compensation

Notes

County (1)

State

Federal

Other

Total

State ⁽¹⁾

State ⁽¹⁾

Federal ⁽²⁾

Other ⁽³⁾

County ⁽¹⁾

County ⁽¹⁾

County ⁽¹⁾

FM-4 (Contract) Council District(s) 2

County ⁽¹⁾