BALTIMORE COUNTY COUNCIL

NOTES TO THE AGENDA

LEGISLATIVE SESSION 2015

Issued:      April 23, 2015

 Work Session:      April 28, 2015

 Legislative Day No.  9 :   May 4, 2015

 

The accompanying notes are

compiled from unaudited

information provided by

the Administration and

other sources.

 

BALTIMORE COUNTY COUNCIL

May 4, 2015

NOTES TO THE AGENDA

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

LEGISLATIVE SESSION

 

Witnesses…………………………………………………………………. ii

 

 

BILLS – FINAL READING

 

Bill 28-15…………………………………………………………………….. 1

Bill 29-15…………………………………………………………………….. 8

Bill 30-15…………………………………………………………………… 11

 

 

FISCAL MATTERS

 

FM-1…………………………………………………………………………. 13

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS

 

MB-1 (Res. 32-15)……………………………………………………. 18

 

_____________________________________________________________

i

BALTIMORE COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA

LEGISLATIVE SESSION 2015,   LEGISLATIVE DAY NO. 9

MAY 4, 2015           6:00 P.M.

 

 

CEB = CURRENT EXPENSE BUDGET

BY REQ. = AT REQUEST OF COUNTY EXECUTIVE

 

 

Page

 

CALL OF BILLS FOR FINAL READING AND VOTE

 

 

DAVE THOMAS, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

1          Bill 28-15 – All Councilmembers – Basic Services Maps

 

 

            JEFF MAYHEW, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING

8          Bill 29-15 – Mrs. Bevins(By Req.) – Final Historical Landmarks

 

 

TIM SHERIDAN, ADMINISTRATOR, CIRCUIT COURT

11         Bill 30-15 – Mrs. Bevins(By Req.) – Courthouse Security Grant

 

 

APPROVAL OF FISCAL MATTERS/CONTRACTS

 

 

            VINCE GARDINA, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION & SUSTAINABILITY

13           1. Amendment to Contract – Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. – Stream restoration design, consultation mgt. & post-construction monitoring services

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS

 

 

ANDREA VAN ARSDALE, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING

18         1. Res. 32-15 – Mrs. Bevins(By Req.) – Rural Legacy Area Applications – (5)

 

 

COUNCIL

2. Res. 33-15 – Mr. Kach – Property Tax Exemption – BLIND – John J. Maskeroni
3. Res. 34-15 – Mr. Jones – Property Tax Exemption – DAV – Matthew K. Cook
4. Res. 35-15 – Mrs. Bevins – Property Tax Exemption – DAV – Jovon M. Harris

 

ii

Dave Thomas                                             Fiscal Note                                                   May 4, 2015

 

Bill 28-15                                                                                                           Council District(s) _All_

 

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 4A02.1 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 under-served 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 6, 2015.

 

Bill 28-15 repeals the 2014 Basic Services Maps and enacts the 2015 Basic Services Maps. Attached is a summary of the changes proposed by the Planning Board on February 25, 2015. See Exhibit A.

 

With the affirmative vote of five members of the County Council and signature by the County Executive, Bill 28-15 will take effect on May 18, 2015.

 

 

 

 

 

Jeff Mayhew/                                              Fiscal Note                                                   May 4, 2015

Andrea Van Arsdale

 

Bill 29-15                                                                                                      Council District(s) _5 & 7_

Mrs. Bevins (By Req.)

Department of Planning

Final Historical Landmarks

Article 32, Title 7 of the Baltimore County Code establishes a system of historic and architectural preservation for Baltimore County. The law authorizes the creation of a Landmarks Preservation Commission and sets forth the procedure to be followed for the creation of historic districts and for the compilation and maintenance of a Historic Landmarks List.

 

The Historic Landmarks List currently includes 390 properties. The law authorizes placement of historic “structures” and historic environmental settings on the list. A structure is defined as any man-made or natural combination of materials to form stable constructions including, but not limited to, buildings, bridges, towers, walls, trees, and rock formations.

 

Periodically, after reviewing structures for eligibility and conducting a public hearing, the Landmarks Preservation Commission approves additional structures for placement on a preliminary landmarks list. Each list of proposed structures is then sent to the County Executive for review before being forwarded to the County Council for consideration. The Council may approve the list, in whole or in part, for adoption as additions to the Final Landmarks List.

 

The Landmarks Preservation Commission recommended two new structures and settings for addition to the list. The County Executive reviewed the list submitted by the Commission, and the list was sent to the County Council. Thereafter, the owners were notified by the Department of Planning of the public hearing, which the Council is required to hold. The Council hearing was held on March 16, 2015.

 

Bill 29-15 proposes to amend the Landmarks List by adding two new structures to the list. A description of each structure is attached (see Exhibit A).

 

With the affirmative vote of five members of the County Council and signature by the County Executive, Bill 29-15 will take effect on May 18, 2015.

 

 

Tim Sheridan                                              Fiscal Note                                                   May 4, 2015

 

 

Bill 30-15 (Supplemental Appropriation)                                                    Council District(s) _5_

 

 

Mrs. Bevins (By Req.)

Circuit Court

Courthouse Security Grant

The Administration is requesting a supplemental appropriation of state funds totaling $20,000 to the Courthouse Security Grant Gifts and Grants Fund program. The funds will be used to improve the security of the Baltimore County Courts Building by installing employee badge-operated locks and a video/audio doorbell system to all non-public doors in the building to allow remote access to court personnel.

 

                                                                      Fiscal Summary

 

Funding Source		Supplemental Appropriation		Current Appropriation		TotalAppropriation
County		—		—		—
State (1)		$           20,000		—		$           20,000
Federal		—		—		—
Other		—		—		—
Total		$           20,000		—		$           20,000
(1) Maryland Administrative Office of the Courts funds.   No County matching funds are required.

 

Analysis

 

The proposed grant funds will be used to improve the security of the Baltimore County Courts Building by equipping all non-public doors with employee-accessible remote entry devices. Up to 10 doors may be equipped with employee badge-operated locks and a video/audio doorbell

 

 

Bill 30-15 (Supplemental Appropriation) (cont’d)                                                           May 4, 2015

 

 

system that will permit court personnel to grant access to the non-public portions of the Courts Building. Installation will be provided by Easter’s Lock and Access Systems, Inc., a subcontractor under a current contract with Skyline Network Engineering, LLC, which was approved by the Council on July 1, 2013.

 

The grant period is February 19, 2015 through May 31, 2015. The grant requires all funds to be expended by the end of the grant period; the Circuit Court advised that it expects to comply with this requirement. No County matching funds are required for this grant.

 

With the affirmative vote of five members of the County Council, Bill 30-15 will take effect May 17, 2015.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vince Gardina                                            Fiscal Note                                                   May 4, 2015

 

 

FM-1 (Contract Amendment)                                                                  Council District(s)     All   _

 

 

Department of Environmental Protection and Sustainability

Stream Restoration Design, Consultation Mgt. & Post-Construction Monitoring Services

The Administration is requesting an amendment to a contract with Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. (formerly known as PB Americas, Inc.) to provide additional on-call engineering services for stream restoration design, management, and monitoring. The amendment increases the maximum compensation of the contract by $1.0 million, from $1.0 million to $2.0 million, for the entire 7-year term. The contract commenced in October 2011. See Exhibit A.

Fiscal Summary

 

Funding Source		Contract Amendment		Current Maximum Compensation		Amended Maximum Compensation
County (1)		$   1,000,000		$         1,000,000		$         2,000,000
State		—		—		—
Federal		—		—		—
Other		—		—		—
Total		$   1,000,000	(2)	$         1,000,000		$         2,000,000	(3)
(1) Capital Projects Fund (County Bonds and Stormwater Remediation Fees).(2) Additional compensation for the entire 7-year term. (3) Maximum compensation for the entire 7-year term.

 

 

Analysis

 

The contractor provides on-call engineering services for the preparation of stream restoration designs, consultation management, and post-construction monitoring services. Services include producing designs,  drawings,  plans,  specifications,  incidental work  reports,  calculations,

 

 

FM-1 (Contract Amendment) (cont’d)                                                                                May 4, 2015

 

 

computer programs, technical reports, operating manuals, and other subject data and materials required to complete a project.

 

The Department advised that the proposed amendment is necessary to meet stream nutrient and sediment reduction goals (NPDES-MS4 Permit/WIP-TMDLs) and to complete the increasing number of stream restoration projects anticipated under the Stormwater Remediation Program. The Department also advised that the amendment will allow for additional assignments of work to the contractor based on the required expertise. (See Exhibit A for the current and pending projects for the contractor.)

 

On October 3, 2011, the Council approved the original 7-year contract, along with seven other contracts, with compensation not to exceed $1 million each ($8 million combined). The proposed amendment increases the maximum compensation of the contract by $1.0 million, from $1.0 million to $2.0 million, for the entire 7-year term. The amendment also incorporates the contractor’s supplemental proposal for the additional work including renewals, revised insurance certificates, and revised MBE/WBE forms. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged. The County may terminate the agreement by providing 30 days prior written notice. Funding for the contract will not be encumbered at this time. Rather, contract costs will be charged to specific projects as they are assigned.

 

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 are within established County limits.

 

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 the length of delay in completing the project. The Department advised that it has not been necessary to utilize this contractor for consent decree projects; however, it decided to build flexibility into the contract should the need arise.

 

The Department advised that expenditures/encumbrances as of April 17, 2015 for the eight on-call contractors approved by the Council on October 3, 2011 to perform stream restoration design services are as follows:

 

 

FM-1 (Contract Amendment) (cont’d)                                                                                May 4, 2015

 

 

Contractor		Contract Total		Expenditures/Encumbrances as ofApril 17, 2015		Balance
McCormick Taylor, Inc.		$ 2,000,000		$     1,232,896		$     767,104
CEI/WBCM Joint Venture		2,000,000		999,914		1,000,086
KCI Technologies, Inc.		1,000,000		802,602		197,398
Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc.		1,000,000		999,999		1
Gannet Fleming, Inc.		1,000,000		192,973		807,027
Johnson, Mirmiran &Thompson, Inc.		1,000,000		0		1,000,000
EA Engineering, Science,and Technology, Inc.		1,000,000		0		1,000,000
Biohabitats, Inc.		1,000,000		467,012		532,988
Total		$ 10,000,000		$     4,695,396		$   5,304,604

 

On July 7, 2014, the Council approved contract amendments with McCormick Taylor, Inc. and CEI/WBCM Joint Venture to increase the maximum compensation of each contract by $1.0 million, from $1.0 million to $2.0 million, for the entire 7-year term to allow for the additional assignment of work according to the required expertise.

 

On May 11, 2011, the Professional Services Selection Committee (PSSC) selected the 8 engineering firms to perform on-call engineering services from 22 submittals based on qualifications.

 

On July 7, 2010, the Council approved a 7-year on-call contract not to exceed $1.25 million with Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. to provide watershed management planning services for various County projects in order to meet national permit and water quality pollutant reduction requirements. As of April 15, 2015, expenditures/encumbrances under the contract totaled $959,620.

 

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….”

 

 

 

 

 

 

Andrea Van Arsdale                                 Fiscal Note                                                   May 4, 2015

 

 

MB-1 (Res. 32-15)                                                                         Council District(s)  2, 3, 5, 6 & 7 _

 

 

Mrs. Bevins (By Req.)

Department of Planning

Rural Legacy Area Applications

Resolution 32-15 approves and endorses, in priority order, five Rural Legacy Area Plan applications for FY 2016 funding for consideration and approval by the Maryland Rural Legacy Board.

 

The Maryland Rural Legacy Program is part of the Smart Growth initiative approved by the Maryland General Assembly during its 1997 session and is administered by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources. The purpose of the program is to preserve large blocks of rural landscape to protect and foster rural economies such as agriculture and tourism, to protect important natural resources, and to maintain the rural culture.

 

The Rural Legacy Program provides for the designation of specific areas as rural legacy areas and provides the opportunity for the sponsors of the rural legacy areas to compete for state funding. The sponsors can be a political jurisdiction or a private land trust.

 

The state requires that counties with more than one rural legacy area prioritize their applications. There are five state-approved rural legacy areas in Baltimore County and all have submitted applications for FY 2016 funding.

 

Rural legacy areas have a specific boundary in which state funds, if awarded, may be spent. Similarly, County funds provided to rural legacy areas must be spent within the approved State Rural Legacy Area.

 

The Maryland Rural Legacy Program requires local jurisdiction approval of the applications, and, in the case of multiple applications in one jurisdiction, a ranking is also required. Baltimore County

 

 

MB-1 (Res. 32-15) (cont’d)                                                                                                    May 4, 2015

 

 

has five designated rural legacy areas – the most in the state. The County ranking is included in the state’s evaluation of the applications. County ranking is based on factors that include: degree of completion, threat of development, water quality delivery to the Bay, percentage of forest protected, extent of agriculture, recent easement activity, prior state ranking, and lastly but of great importance – public benefits.

 

The proposed ranking for FY 2016 is:

1. Baltimore County Coastal Rural Legacy Area;
2. Manor Rural Legacy Area;
3. Piney Run Watershed Rural Legacy Area;
4. Long Green Land Trust Rural Legacy Area; and
5. Gunpowder Valley Rural Legacy Area.

 

The State Rural Legacy Advisory Committee will review the applications and make a recommendation to the Rural Legacy Board comprised of the Secretaries of the Departments of Natural Resources, Planning, and Agriculture. The Rural Legacy Board will determine the funding levels subject to the approval of the State Board of Public Works.

BALTIMORE COUNTY COUNCIL
May 4, 2015
NOTES TO THE AGENDA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE
LEGISLATIVE SESSION

Witnesses ii
BILLS – FINAL READING

Bill 28-15 1
Bill 29-15 8
Bill 30-15 11
FISCAL MATTERS

FM-1 13
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS

MB-1 (Res. 32-15) 18
i
BALTIMORE COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA
LEGISLATIVE SESSION 2015, LEGISLATIVE DAY NO. 9
MAY 4, 2015 6:00 P.M.
CEB = CURRENT EXPENSE BUDGET
BY REQ. = AT REQUEST OF COUNTY EXECUTIVE
Page

CALL OF BILLS FOR FINAL READING AND VOTE
DAVE THOMAS, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
1 Bill 28-15 – All Councilmembers – Basic Services Maps
JEFF MAYHEW, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
8 Bill 29-15 – Mrs. Bevins(By Req.) – Final Historical Landmarks
TIM SHERIDAN, ADMINISTRATOR, CIRCUIT COURT
11 Bill 30-15 – Mrs. Bevins(By Req.) – Courthouse Security Grant
APPROVAL OF FISCAL MATTERS/CONTRACTS
VINCE GARDINA, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION & SUSTAINABILITY
13 1. Amendment to Contract – Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. – Stream restoration design, consultation mgt. & post-construction monitoring services
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
ANDREA VAN ARSDALE, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
18 1. Res. 32-15 – Mrs. Bevins(By Req.) – Rural Legacy Area Applications – (5)
COUNCIL
2. Res. 33-15 – Mr. Kach – Property Tax Exemption – BLIND – John J. Maskeroni
3. Res. 34-15 – Mr. Jones – Property Tax Exemption – DAV – Matthew K. Cook
4. Res. 35-15 – Mrs. Bevins – Property Tax Exemption – DAV – Jovon M. Harris

ii

Dave Thomas Fiscal Note May 4, 2015
Bill 28-15 Council District(s) _All_
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 4A02.1 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 under-served 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 6, 2015.

Bill 28-15 repeals the 2014 Basic Services Maps and enacts the 2015 Basic Services Maps. Attached is a summary of the changes proposed by the Planning Board on February 25, 2015. See Exhibit A.

With the affirmative vote of five members of the County Council and signature by the County Executive, Bill 28-15 will take effect on May 18, 2015.

Jeff Mayhew/ Fiscal Note May 4, 2015
Andrea Van Arsdale

Bill 29-15 Council District(s) _5 & 7_
Mrs. Bevins (By Req.)
Department of Planning
Final Historical Landmarks
Article 32, Title 7 of the Baltimore County Code establishes a system of historic and architectural preservation for Baltimore County. The law authorizes the creation of a Landmarks Preservation Commission and sets forth the procedure to be followed for the creation of historic districts and for the compilation and maintenance of a Historic Landmarks List.

The Historic Landmarks List currently includes 390 properties. The law authorizes placement of historic “structures” and historic environmental settings on the list. A structure is defined as any man-made or natural combination of materials to form stable constructions including, but not limited to, buildings, bridges, towers, walls, trees, and rock formations.

Periodically, after reviewing structures for eligibility and conducting a public hearing, the Landmarks Preservation Commission approves additional structures for placement on a preliminary landmarks list. Each list of proposed structures is then sent to the County Executive for review before being forwarded to the County Council for consideration. The Council may approve the list, in whole or in part, for adoption as additions to the Final Landmarks List.

The Landmarks Preservation Commission recommended two new structures and settings for addition to the list. The County Executive reviewed the list submitted by the Commission, and the list was sent to the County Council. Thereafter, the owners were notified by the Department of Planning of the public hearing, which the Council is required to hold. The Council hearing was held on March 16, 2015.

Bill 29-15 proposes to amend the Landmarks List by adding two new structures to the list. A description of each structure is attached (see Exhibit A).

With the affirmative vote of five members of the County Council and signature by the County Executive, Bill 29-15 will take effect on May 18, 2015.

Tim Sheridan Fiscal Note May 4, 2015
Bill 30-15 (Supplemental Appropriation) Council District(s) _5_
Mrs. Bevins (By Req.)
Circuit Court
Courthouse Security Grant
The Administration is requesting a supplemental appropriation of state funds totaling $20,000 to the Courthouse Security Grant Gifts and Grants Fund program. The funds will be used to improve the security of the Baltimore County Courts Building by installing employee badge-operated locks and a video/audio doorbell system to all non-public doors in the building to allow remote access to court personnel.
Fiscal Summary

Funding
Source Supplemental Appropriation Current
Appropriation Total
Appropriation
County — — —
State (1) $ 20,000 — $ 20,000
Federal — — —
Other — — —
Total $ 20,000 — $ 20,000

(1) Maryland Administrative Office of the Courts funds. No County matching funds are required.
Analysis

The proposed grant funds will be used to improve the security of the Baltimore County Courts Building by equipping all non-public doors with employee-accessible remote entry devices. Up to 10 doors may be equipped with employee badge-operated locks and a video/audio doorbell

Bill 30-15 (Supplemental Appropriation) (cont’d) May 4, 2015
system that will permit court personnel to grant access to the non-public portions of the Courts Building. Installation will be provided by Easter’s Lock and Access Systems, Inc., a subcontractor under a current contract with Skyline Network Engineering, LLC, which was approved by the Council on July 1, 2013.

The grant period is February 19, 2015 through May 31, 2015. The grant requires all funds to be expended by the end of the grant period; the Circuit Court advised that it expects to comply with this requirement. No County matching funds are required for this grant.

With the affirmative vote of five members of the County Council, Bill 30-15 will take effect May 17, 2015.

Vince Gardina Fiscal Note May 4, 2015
FM-1 (Contract Amendment) Council District(s) All _
Department of Environmental Protection and Sustainability
Stream Restoration Design, Consultation Mgt. & Post-Construction Monitoring Services
The Administration is requesting an amendment to a contract with Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. (formerly known as PB Americas, Inc.) to provide additional on-call engineering services for stream restoration design, management, and monitoring. The amendment increases the maximum compensation of the contract by $1.0 million, from $1.0 million to $2.0 million, for the entire 7-year term. The contract commenced in October 2011. See Exhibit A.
Fiscal Summary

Funding
Source Contract Amendment Current Maximum Compensation Amended Maximum Compensation
County (1) $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 2,000,000
State — — —
Federal — — —
Other — — —
Total $ 1,000,000 (2) $ 1,000,000 $ 2,000,000 (3)

(1) Capital Projects Fund (County Bonds and Stormwater Remediation Fees).
(2) Additional compensation for the entire 7-year term.
(3) Maximum compensation for the entire 7-year term.
Analysis

The contractor provides on-call engineering services for the preparation of stream restoration designs, consultation management, and post-construction monitoring services. Services include producing designs, drawings, plans, specifications, incidental work reports, calculations,

FM-1 (Contract Amendment) (cont’d) May 4, 2015
computer programs, technical reports, operating manuals, and other subject data and materials required to complete a project.

The Department advised that the proposed amendment is necessary to meet stream nutrient and sediment reduction goals (NPDES-MS4 Permit/WIP-TMDLs) and to complete the increasing number of stream restoration projects anticipated under the Stormwater Remediation Program. The Department also advised that the amendment will allow for additional assignments of work to the contractor based on the required expertise. (See Exhibit A for the current and pending projects for the contractor.)

On October 3, 2011, the Council approved the original 7-year contract, along with seven other contracts, with compensation not to exceed $1 million each ($8 million combined). The proposed amendment increases the maximum compensation of the contract by $1.0 million, from $1.0 million to $2.0 million, for the entire 7-year term. The amendment also incorporates the contractor’s supplemental proposal for the additional work including renewals, revised insurance certificates, and revised MBE/WBE forms. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged. The County may terminate the agreement by providing 30 days prior written notice. Funding for the contract will not be encumbered at this time. Rather, contract costs will be charged to specific projects as they are assigned.

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 are within established County limits.

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 the length of delay in completing the project. The Department advised that it has not been necessary to utilize this contractor for consent decree projects; however, it decided to build flexibility into the contract should the need arise.

The Department advised that expenditures/encumbrances as of April 17, 2015 for the eight on-call contractors approved by the Council on October 3, 2011 to perform stream restoration design services are as follows:

FM-1 (Contract Amendment) (cont’d) May 4, 2015
Contractor Contract Total Expenditures/
Encumbrances as of
April 17, 2015 Balance
McCormick Taylor, Inc. $ 2,000,000 $ 1,232,896 $ 767,104
CEI/WBCM Joint Venture 2,000,000 999,914 1,000,086
KCI Technologies, Inc. 1,000,000 802,602 197,398
Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. 1,000,000 999,999 1
Gannet Fleming, Inc. 1,000,000 192,973 807,027
Johnson, Mirmiran &
Thompson, Inc. 1,000,000 0 1,000,000
EA Engineering, Science,
and Technology, Inc. 1,000,000 0 1,000,000
Biohabitats, Inc. 1,000,000 467,012 532,988
Total $ 10,000,000 $ 4,695,396 $ 5,304,604

On July 7, 2014, the Council approved contract amendments with McCormick Taylor, Inc. and CEI/WBCM Joint Venture to increase the maximum compensation of each contract by $1.0 million, from $1.0 million to $2.0 million, for the entire 7-year term to allow for the additional assignment of work according to the required expertise.

On May 11, 2011, the Professional Services Selection Committee (PSSC) selected the 8 engineering firms to perform on-call engineering services from 22 submittals based on qualifications.

On July 7, 2010, the Council approved a 7-year on-call contract not to exceed $1.25 million with Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. to provide watershed management planning services for various County projects in order to meet national permit and water quality pollutant reduction requirements. As of April 15, 2015, expenditures/encumbrances under the contract totaled $959,620.

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….”

Andrea Van Arsdale Fiscal Note May 4, 2015
MB-1 (Res. 32-15) Council District(s) 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7 _
Mrs. Bevins (By Req.)
Department of Planning
Rural Legacy Area Applications
Resolution 32-15 approves and endorses, in priority order, five Rural Legacy Area Plan applications for FY 2016 funding for consideration and approval by the Maryland Rural Legacy Board.

The Maryland Rural Legacy Program is part of the Smart Growth initiative approved by the Maryland General Assembly during its 1997 session and is administered by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources. The purpose of the program is to preserve large blocks of rural landscape to protect and foster rural economies such as agriculture and tourism, to protect important natural resources, and to maintain the rural culture.

The Rural Legacy Program provides for the designation of specific areas as rural legacy areas and provides the opportunity for the sponsors of the rural legacy areas to compete for state funding. The sponsors can be a political jurisdiction or a private land trust.

The state requires that counties with more than one rural legacy area prioritize their applications. There are five state-approved rural legacy areas in Baltimore County and all have submitted applications for FY 2016 funding.

Rural legacy areas have a specific boundary in which state funds, if awarded, may be spent. Similarly, County funds provided to rural legacy areas must be spent within the approved State Rural Legacy Area.

The Maryland Rural Legacy Program requires local jurisdiction approval of the applications, and, in the case of multiple applications in one jurisdiction, a ranking is also required. Baltimore County

MB-1 (Res. 32-15) (cont’d) May 4, 2015
has five designated rural legacy areas – the most in the state. The County ranking is included in the state’s evaluation of the applications. County ranking is based on factors that include: degree of completion, threat of development, water quality delivery to the Bay, percentage of forest protected, extent of agriculture, recent easement activity, prior state ranking, and lastly but of great importance – public benefits.

The proposed ranking for FY 2016 is:
1. Baltimore County Coastal Rural Legacy Area;
2. Manor Rural Legacy Area;
3. Piney Run Watershed Rural Legacy Area;
4. Long Green Land Trust Rural Legacy Area; and
5. Gunpowder Valley Rural Legacy Area.

The State Rural Legacy Advisory Committee will review the applications and make a recommendation to the Rural Legacy Board comprised of the Secretaries of the Departments of Natural Resources, Planning, and Agriculture. The Rural Legacy Board will determine the funding levels subject to the approval of the State Board of Public Works.