[0:00] Gracious heavenly father, we come before you this morning with open hearts and

[0:04] open minds. Lord, direct us, guide us, use us to serve the citizens of this

[0:09] great county and community. Lord, we pray especially this morning for the

[0:14] school system, for all the teachers and support staff, the administration. Uh

[0:20] today is a half day, the last day of school. Um Lord, we pray for the

[0:25] students for their safety and well-being as they are obviously joyous that today

[0:31] is the last for the summer. And Lord, watch over them, protect them, guide

[0:35] them throughout their summer activities. Lord, we pray that um many good things

[0:41] will become of of the students and our administration and our teachers. Lord,

[0:47] watch over them, protect them, give them encouragement, and uh just bless them

[0:51] throughout the summer vacation and all and time off for the summer. Lord, lead,

[0:57] guide us here today. May we honor and please you in all that we do and say for

[1:02] it's in your name we pray. Amen. >> Amen.

[1:05] I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the

[1:11] republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and

[1:17] justice for all. >> Thank you.

[1:22] With that, we'll call our meeting officially to order. And uh first on the

[1:26] agenda is the approval of the minutes of May 5th.

[1:31] » Motion to approve. Second. Okay, we have a motion and second. All in favor by

[1:36] saying I. I >> oppose. Same sign. 5. Thank you very

[1:40] much. Next on the agenda is comm is um commissioners reports and comments. And

[1:47] Commissioner Wagner, you want to go first?

[1:49] » Yeah, I'm going to make it short this morning. Good morning. Glad everybody

[1:52] could make it. Um and u I don't have any comments for this morning.

[1:56] » Okay. >> Thank you, John.

[1:58] » Randy Leman, good morning. >> Thank you, John. Good morning, everyone.

[2:01] Um, in John's Prairie, we recognized the school students today. Last day of

[2:06] school in Washington County. Wow. I'm sure our memories, all of us can go back

[2:10] to that. How exciting that was. >> Water guns.

[2:13] » I'm sorry. >> Water guns.

[2:14] » Water guns. That's right. Water guns. So, um, uh, congratulations to the

[2:19] students. Certainly wishing them a safe summer. Uh, and, uh, just a quick shout

[2:23] out to the parents, grandparents, family members. Uh, let's turn off the devices

[2:27] this summer occasionally and pick up a good book. Uh, I'm a big advocate of

[2:31] reading to our our children. So, uh, that's my my tip for the day for the the

[2:36] last day of school. Uh, I got to recognize a couple new Eagle Scouts in

[2:40] Washington County. Caleb Ritter on June 6th, uh, Scout Troop 108,

[2:45] congratulations on him becoming an Eagle Scout. Bennett Dugan on June 7th, uh,

[2:49] Troop 66, another Eagle Scout. Huge accomplishments in these young men. Very

[2:55] proud of them. And uh finally on June 4th um we had our 10th annual Washington

[3:00] County Public Safety Awards. We recognized 33 individuals or instances

[3:04] of bravery in Washington County. U it was incredible. It was just a a really

[3:10] well done event. It was at fire station 12 in Fairplay. It was hosted by the

[3:14] chamber and hats off to the chamber for once again doing a magnificent job of

[3:20] recognizing our heroes in Washington County. Um that concludes my comments.

[3:24] Thanks John. Thank you, Commissioner Parrot.

[3:27] » Well, good morning, >> Mr. Ray. Mr. Ray, please Mr. Ray, please

[3:33] sit down. >> I gave you an opportunity to stand

[3:36] against them. You said public and then you back out.

[3:42] » Mr. Rayak, >> you're out of order. Mr. Ray,

[3:48] » please leave Mr. Ray. You are given an opportunity to speak.

[3:55] » I'm gonna ask the deputy to remove Mr. Ray.

[3:59] » Where public comment is not. Imagine. Imagine how the people that are voting

[4:03] for you feel when you're afraid to even stand up against the very people that

[4:08] they don't want to vote for. That's ridiculous. Off air.

[4:24] Okay, good morning. Um, [clears throat] a lot of things that we can be thankful

[4:29] for, especially we think about Memorial Day, which was the last time that we

[4:32] were before we were here was before Memorial Day. And I want to thank uh our

[4:36] staff for a great uh parade that they helped put on. They got the Boon Parade

[4:41] and Shark Parade. I was able to be part of the the Boonboro parade. I want to

[4:44] thank both towns for hosting such great events. Also at Halfway Park, we um

[4:50] recognize Seaman Craig Wimberly and fireman Patrick Roy who were killed on

[4:55] the USS bombing. Um and also members of [clears throat] the World War II Korean

[4:59] conflict. We were to take those plaques and put them up. Uh I want to thank

[5:03] Michael Boyd and the Tech High stu Michael Boyd Tech High students for

[5:08] their role in doing this. Jim Klein with the Joint Veterans Council of Washington

[5:12] County and our own Jamie Dick with the Washington County Parks and Recreation

[5:16] and Sweeney Masonry for helping to make this happen. I think it's it's a really

[5:19] good and nice memorial. If you have a chance to go to halfway where the pool

[5:23] is, you can see where the flag is. It's right there. Really nice memorial. Also

[5:27] want to encourage everyone to vote. Voting is very important. Uh we have

[5:31] governor, congress, this board, the board of education. Uh, Democrats can

[5:36] vote on their ballot, Republicans on their ballot, and unaffiliated voters

[5:38] can also vote for the Board of Education. I encourage everyone to get

[5:42] out and vote. Early voting actually starts this Thursday. Uh, goes for one

[5:45] week, so June 11th to June 18th with election day on the 23rd. And of course,

[5:50] if someone's would rather vote by mail, they could do that as well. And one last

[5:56] thing I'd like to say is some really exciting events are coming up. Uh, July

[6:00] 4th, you guys have probably seen this, but there's a big drone show and

[6:03] fireworks. Thank our staff for working on that and I encourage everyone to come

[6:06] on out and celebrate 250 years of Washington County. Thank you.

[6:11] » Thank you, Neil. Mleine. >> Yeah. Good morning everyone. Um I too

[6:16] enjoyed the parades and charts had and our county float was exceptional. So

[6:22] thanks to the staff that created that float. Over the weekend I attended the

[6:26] Humane Society of Washington County's luau was a fundraiser for the humane

[6:30] society. well attended and some very um nice volunteers who commit to that

[6:36] organization. I also um attended the Washington County

[6:41] Chambers. Thank you for our first responders down at Fair Play. Uh I think

[6:46] it was it was their 10th annual. It continues to recognize the sacrifices

[6:51] and quite frankly every day there's a miracle in Washington County from our

[6:56] first responders. Also was at Smithsburg EMS. They had a

[7:01] ceremony of bringing in their new ambulance where they have uh people push

[7:06] the ambulance in is sort of a tradition, but uh Smithsburg's come a long way in

[7:11] partnership with the county. They're now a stellar organization out there. So,

[7:16] thank you to all those people out at Smithsburg. And again, I did attend

[7:21] Memorial Day ceremonies at at Tech uh at Marty Suck Park. We raised the plaques

[7:26] off the ground for Craig Wberly and Patrick Roy and I think it was the 1940

[7:31] class of Hagerstown was also commemorated and I think Commissioner

[7:35] Barl mentioned Sweeney Masonry Tech High and Jim Klein and our recart um Jamie

[7:41] Dick and Parks and Rec who helped facilitate that project. Um

[7:47] we do have another big event going on. It started this week. It's the

[7:52] Washington County Ice Cream Trail. It's honoring our lo um 16 different ice

[7:58] cream um establishments, locally owned, uh supporting small businesses. I've

[8:05] been to about eight of them so far. And uh it's impressive to see people walking

[8:10] up with their maps already in their hand. And I think there's breaking news

[8:15] that someone's already completed all 16 locations within a week. So, I'd like to

[8:22] give that guy an award. >> That's not good for your diet there,

[8:24] Jeff. >> I'm doing fine. Um, but I want to thank

[8:28] everybody for being here today. And that concludes my report.

[8:34] [laughter] >> I got to pick on him a little bit. Um,

[8:38] » thanks for the the help with the uh memorial the uh at Marty Snook Park.

[8:45] Just a little bit behind that story, Jamie Dick from Parks and Recreation

[8:50] approached Commissioner Klein and I together at an event and said how nice

[8:54] it would be to get those memorials up off of the ground. They're covered in

[8:57] snow. They're covered in dirt. It's very disrespectful. And he said the problem

[9:01] lies with the uh students and the and the teachers at Tech High wanted to

[9:08] help, but they needed a professional mason to help them and guide them and

[9:13] give them the support. So, Commissioner Klein and I reached out to Nate Sweeney,

[9:17] Sweeney Masonry. He graciously jumped on board. Turned into a very nice project

[9:23] [clears throat] and hats off to Nate Sweeney and personally because he did he

[9:28] he worked with the students. They did an incredible job and a nice ceremony. So,

[9:32] » yes, it was. >> Y it was very nice again uh thanks to

[9:36] Sweeney Masonry and Nate Sweeney in particular.

[9:40] For me, there's a number of things the past two weeks. Um, and of course, I had

[9:44] a granddaughter that graduated from Clear Spring High School. So, there was

[9:48] an a senior awards night. One night, two nights later, there was a balariat

[9:52] service, which I think a lot of schools no longer uh participate in balariates.

[9:58] And then several days later, uh, was the, uh, annual, um, commencement at

[10:04] Clear Spring High School. So, attended all three of those events. Um the John

[10:09] Fry Awards was two weeks ago. Many of us were there. Uh a lot of nice

[10:15] presentations uh for uh awards for rehabilitation of older facilities in

[10:21] our community, both residential and commercial projects. Uh very nice and

[10:26] well attended ceremony. And hats off to the Washington County Historic

[10:30] Preservation uh folks because they they put a lot of work into that every year.

[10:35] They take applications, they review the submissions and the things that were

[10:39] accomplished and uh hand out some nice awards. Also attended the 10th annual um

[10:47] honoring the men and women of public safety in Washington County which has

[10:50] already been mentioned here. again uh some of the heroic stories that have

[10:54] taken place in the past year by our first responders in this community u

[11:00] heartwarming uh including some folks that have survived gunshots. So um it's

[11:08] uh it was a very nice ceremony. One last thing that I have this morning and I

[11:13] know we've been talking me myself personally uh pushing for water and

[11:18] sewer in our community uh jointly with the city of Hagerstown. I know there's a

[11:23] lot of folks that think we don't work together and uh we we are we're trying

[11:28] to do better at that and uh how important water is for all the citizens

[11:33] of Washington County, not just the the city of Hagerstown or Sharburg or Clare

[11:39] Spring, Williamsport. what have you. It it is uh universal across our county and

[11:44] our community. And I I follow Kippenser's letter uh religiously. Their

[11:50] accuracy accuracy rate over the past 100 years is somewhere in the 90 percentile.

[11:55] And this week uh I shared with our county administrator water systems note

[12:01] rising worries about the condition of US water and sewer systems. Only 39% of

[12:06] municipal officials rate their systems in satisfactory condition, down from 82%

[12:13] just four years ago. It also goes on to say 18% of

[12:18] respondents rate their systems not satisfactory, up from almost zero in

[12:24] 2022. And in a new American Waterwork Works Association survey, respondents

[12:29] five-year outlook for the health of US water and systems dropped to the lowest

[12:34] rating in eight years. Upgrades require costly repairs or outright replacements

[12:40] of aging systems as governments face rising construction costs and difficulty

[12:45] securing financing. Other challenges for utilities, higher tariffs, supply chain

[12:51] disruptions, more frequent natural hazards, cyber threats, regulatory

[12:56] issues, and labor shortages. So, ladies and gentlemen, it is very critical that

[13:02] uh this board and the succeeding boards of county commissioners, city council

[13:07] folks, mayors and councils of the various municipalities. It is imperative

[13:12] that we communicate, collaborate, and work to better our water system and our

[13:19] sewer systems. So, that's that's my soap box for this morning. With that, I'm

[13:25] going to ask uh staff comments. Michelle Gordon.

[13:29] » Thank you. Um I also attended the Sharpsburg and Boonsboro Memorial Day

[13:33] parades. I'd like to thank u both towns for putting on uh the parades for the

[13:38] community. And I'd also like to thank our public relations staff for uh and

[13:42] our highway staff for creating the float. Um it was a big hit this year and

[13:47] uh received a lot of positive feedback from the community during both parades.

[13:51] Uh I attended the John Fry Awards. Uh let's see. I also attended the new

[13:59] burn building and fire training tower demonstration at the public safety

[14:03] training center. We had a soft opening. Uh it's part of phase one at the public

[14:07] safety training center at Tactical Village. This facility will allow our

[14:11] firefighters, law enforcement officers, as well uh emergency medical service

[14:15] providers and other emergency responders in the area to train together in

[14:21] realistic environments to strengthen communication, coordination, and

[14:25] decision-making. Uh, the tactical village provides our first responders

[14:29] with the opportunity to practice critical skills in a safe, controlled

[14:34] environment. I also attended the Memorial Day

[14:37] ceremony at Marty Snook Park where the newly constructed stonework at the

[14:42] Veterans Memorial was unveiled. I'd like to thank the students at TAC High uh a

[14:48] uh AE Sweeney Masonry as well as our parks and rec staff for their hard work,

[14:53] skill, dedication to honoring our local heroes who gave the ultimate sacrifice.

[14:59] I'd like to thank our highways crews for clear clearing roads during this

[15:02] weekend's weather events. I have one OMA opinion that I'd like to

[15:08] read. Uh let's see. dated May 20th, 2026 20-175.

[15:15] In this opinion, they addressed two complaints. The first asserts that the

[15:19] county board engaged in improper closed sessions. The second complaint alleged

[15:23] that the county board improperly removed an individual from an open session.

[15:28] » [snorts] >> uh for the first session regarding

[15:31] closed session discussions about responding to PIA requests. Uh this is

[15:36] the latest in a series of submissions by the same complaintant alleging that the

[15:39] county board improperly engaged in closed door discussion. In September

[15:44] 2025, they issued an opinion addressing his allegation based on a record of

[15:50] swipes of board members assigned key cards that the three members convened in

[15:54] a secret meeting on February the 13th, 2025.

[15:58] Because they are unable to resolve uh factual disputes, they could not

[16:03] determine whether the county board met on February the 13th or whether the bo

[16:07] board or the body violated the act. for the second complaint in opinion in

[16:12] February 2026. The complainant now alleges that the

[16:16] county board violated the act by discussing the PIA request in closed

[16:21] session discussions in February and March of 2025. He says that he reviewed

[16:26] the agendas for each of the four publicly disclosed meetings in that time

[16:30] period and none he asserts indicated that the body would discuss a PIA

[16:34] request or response in closed session. He further alleges that the top that

[16:39] such a topic is not one of the reasons that a public public body may dis may

[16:44] close a session under the act. Uh returning to the complaint before them,

[16:48] they find that no violation based on the complaintant's allegation that the

[16:53] meeting agendas did not reflect the county board intended to discuss the PIA

[16:57] in closed session. Uh the act does not require the agenda to reveal anything

[17:02] about what the public body discusses or expects to discuss in the closed portion

[17:06] of the meeting. [snorts] Also, according to the board's county

[17:10] attorney, um uh an inquiry of the county board in

[17:14] relation to the PI request would have taken place in a closed session pursuant

[17:19] to um certain exceptions. In support of this assertion, the county board has

[17:24] provided copies of four written closing statements, each of which invoke the

[17:28] legal advice exception. Uh we can say as an abstract matter that

[17:33] discussions involving county board's questions about the county's response to

[17:36] the PIA request and council's legal advice in closed in response to those

[17:42] questions would fall within a legal advice exception. The county board also

[17:47] provided them uh with minutes of the four closed sessions. dis uh sessions in

[17:53] question. Closed session minutes were provided um in compliance with with

[17:59] their request. They are unable to resolve this part of this complaint.

[18:04] They stopped short of finding a violation because they cannot rule out

[18:08] the possibility that close session discussions about the PIA involved the

[18:11] performance of an administrative function, which is an allowable um uh

[18:16] task that can be performed in closed session. When a public body performs an

[18:21] administrative function, the act generally does not apply. Meaning that

[18:25] any deficiency in the minutes would not violate the act. We have previously said

[18:29] that a discussion about how to comply with the opens meeting open meetings act

[18:33] as an administrative function because the act is a law that the public body

[18:38] must consider and apply regularly. We think the same is true of the

[18:42] discussions about responding to requests under the PIA. Because the closed

[18:47] session discussions here may have been administrative, then we cannot say that

[18:52] the county board violated the open meetings act by failing to keep more

[18:55] detailed minutes of the discussions. We find no val violation here because we

[18:59] cannot rule out the possibility that the PIA related discussions were

[19:03] administrative in nation nature. We are unable to resolve this complaint. for

[19:08] the second complaint regarding the removal of an individual from a meeting.

[19:11] The second complaint which alleges that the county board violated the act by

[19:15] removing someone from a March 17th, 2026 meeting. This meeting included a public

[19:21] hearing on a proposed modification of 911 fees. The individual in question was

[19:26] among several members of the public who signed up to testify about this

[19:29] proposal. During her comments to the county board, she said that the fiscal

[19:34] crisis that prompted the proposed fee moda modifications was due in part to

[19:39] the county's lack of jurisdiction over a property that the federal government had

[19:43] recently purchased to use as an immigration detention facility. The

[19:47] board president called the speaker's name and banged his gavvel several

[19:51] times. The individual kept speaking. President then banged his gavvel again,

[19:55] saying, "You are out of order." The speaker responded that she was

[19:59] addressing the proposed 911 fee increase and continued to read her prepared

[20:03] remarks, interrupting the board president. The president banged his

[20:07] gavvel several more times and said, "I'm asking you to step away from the

[20:10] microphone." Staff apparently turned off her microphone, but the individual kept

[20:15] speaking. The board president said that that's irrelevant to the 911 fee

[20:20] increase. The board president said, "I'm going to

[20:24] ask you to sit down or please leave." The individual kept speaking. The board

[20:28] president then asked law enforcement officer to escort the speaker from the

[20:32] meeting room. Based on this record, we find no violation of the act. The

[20:37] general public is entitled to attend any open session of a public body, but the

[20:41] act does not afford the public the right to participate in the meeting. Moreover,

[20:46] that act states that if the presiding officer determines that the behavior of

[20:50] an individual is disrupting an open session, the public body may have the

[20:54] individual removed and despite several warnings that her comments were not

[20:58] pertinent to the subject of the public hearing, the individual continued to

[21:02] speak. We thus conclude that the county board was entitled to have the

[21:06] individual removed from the meeting under 3-303C.

[21:10] The county board did not violate the act by removing an individual from the March

[21:14] 17th meeting.

[21:18] [snorts] I'd also like to remind everyone that we

[21:22] are having a 250th anniversary celebration at the A Center on July the

[21:27] 4th. It begins at noon. It should end that evening somewhere around 9 or 10:00

[21:32] with the drone show. We have uh published uh the itinerary for the day.

[21:37] Uh we also will have free transit service available from the transit

[21:42] center located here behind our building to the a center in um on the Sharpsburg

[21:47] Pike. Uh it will run about every four I think it's about every hour um taking

[21:52] individuals back and forth between downtown Hagerstown and to the a center.

[21:56] [snorts] Lots of events happening, lots of drone shows. There'll be lots of

[21:59] vendors available to purchase food. We will have a kids zone. Um public

[22:04] relations department, our parks and recck department and many other

[22:07] departments in the county have been working very hard on this and I

[22:09] encourage everyone to attend this event. Thank you.

[22:13] » Thank you. With that, we'll move right into our agenda. Under tab one is the

[22:19] ask me uh collective bargaining memorandum of understanding approval.

[22:25] We have folks here this morning from ask me. Sam, come on up, please.

[22:40] Good morning. [snorts] >> Morning.

[22:47] » Morning. >> Okay. Uh sorry. This is a presentation

[22:51] only uh signing of the memorandum of understanding between the board of

[22:54] county commissioners and the Maryland public employees council ASME uh AFL CIO

[23:00] and local 2677 the AFL CIO uh that was formally amended and approved by the

[23:06] board of county commissioners on May the 21st 2026. We did have one minor um

[23:11] adjustment that needed to be made um and we asked um our representatives to join

[23:16] us here today so that we can have an official signing of theou. There's no

[23:20] action that needs taken today since it's already approved. This is just a

[23:23] signing. >> Okay. So, are we going to do the signing

[23:26] [clears throat] out front? >> Yes.

[23:29] » Great. >> Yep. I've got two original

[24:08] We can all gather.

[24:58] I appreciate

[25:04] you.

[25:28] picture.

[25:43] Who's the last one?

[25:57] » All right, everyone. Look here.

[26:07] Thank you very much.

[26:42] Michelle

[26:52] right there. Okay. I'm sorry.

[27:00] Okay, next on the agenda is under tab number two, youth meritorious award

[27:05] presentation. Richard, good morning.

[27:14] Morning. Morning.

[27:20] Richard Lash, grant manager, office of grant management.

[27:25] And today we are here uh to recommend an award. Throughout the school year,

[27:32] the board of county commissioners present youth meriators awards to

[27:35] students attending both public and private schools for those being

[27:38] homeschooled in Washington County. The following individual has been selected

[27:42] based on his elastic achievement, leadership qualities, community service

[27:46] performed, and other positive contributions to their school and

[27:50] community. It is my pleasure to introduce to you a

[27:53] young man who embodies the very spirit of meritorious award. Grant Semler.

[27:59] Grant is a senior this year just graduated from North Hagerstown High

[28:02] School where he has maintained a stellar reputation as a true scholar athlete. He

[28:07] is a standout left-handed pitcher for the North High varsity baseball team. He

[28:12] competes at a high level for the traveling Hagerstown team Barrel Nation

[28:15] and has already committed to continuing his academic and athletic career at

[28:19] Concord University in Athens, West Virginia next year. But what truly sets

[28:24] Grant apart is his commitment to service while managing a rigorous academic

[28:28] schedule. He dedicates time to tutoring elementary students at Fountainale

[28:32] Elementary. He understands that leadership means lifting others up.

[28:37] Furthermore, Grant is a creative force. Over the past few years, he has

[28:40] developed an expertise in digital media and production, earning a local

[28:44] recognition for his talent. It is this passion that he will pursue his degree

[28:48] in college. The future is incredibly bright for Grant and deserving a

[28:53] deserving recipient for the youth mayor's choice award. I present to you

[28:57] Grant Setler. >> Congratulations.

[29:01] [applause]

[29:06] Would Grant, would you like to say anything?

[29:09] I think I'm good. [laughter]

[29:19] » I'm honored on behalf of the county commissioners. Congratulations. I think

[29:23] you know what this means. In about 20 years, you need to be sitting up here.

[29:27] So, first of all, the coveted Porsche County pin that we all adorn every day.

[29:34] and we'd like to present you with this certificate of recognition. On behalf of

[29:38] my fellow commissioners, we present it to Grant Semler. We, the board of county

[29:42] commissioners of Washington County, to hereby recognize you for the outstanding

[29:47] achievement of being selected as a recipient of the May 2026 Youth

[29:52] Merritorious Award, North Hagerstown High School. Your academic ac

[29:57] accomplishments, humanitarian efforts, and extracurricular

[30:01] activities are to be commended by both parents and students in Washington

[30:06] County. You have proven to be a superior role model. We rec we congratulate you

[30:12] on your achievements and wish you the best in all your future endeavors.

[30:16] Awarded this 9th day of June, 2026 by the county commissioners. There's also

[30:21] an envelope back here. It's for you. So, spend it on yourself.

[30:30] [applause]

[30:35] » Come up front. Parents, come up.

[30:52] » We're going to let parents

[30:58] You stand.

[31:05] Ready.

[31:14] Commissioners could join. >> Are we going out?

[31:18] » Your turn.

[31:23] No,

[31:32] » that doesn't >> digital

[31:36] artistic. He says in the digital >> he's

[31:48] gonna pass everyone here.

[31:57] » Thank you all.

[32:04] » Oh, he does.

[32:13] Are they really? >> Wow.

[32:14] » Good for >> Thank you all.

[32:31] » Okay. Next up under tab three is the annual report from the Tri County

[32:35] Council for Western Maryland. Good morning, Elizabeth.

[32:43] » Good morning, commissioners. Thank you for having me today. Um, I started with

[32:48] Tri County Council about 16 months ago. I know Tri County Council would not has

[32:54] not come to a commissioner's meeting in some time, but we just completed our

[32:58] 2025 annual report and I wanted to present that to you. Um, as you know,

[33:05] Commissioner Klene and Commissioner Leatherman are members of our 26 member

[33:11] board and Tri County Council is an instrumentality of local government that

[33:16] was established way back in 1972. Um we are uh authorized by state statute

[33:23] and we also serve as a conduit to Appalachin Regional Commission funding

[33:28] and economic development administration funding. So federal funding coming to

[33:33] the region. The reason that that we exist for that purpose is so that the

[33:38] federal government can ensure that federal dollars are being spent in

[33:42] accordance with local goals and priorities. Um a few highlights in the

[33:47] report before you. Uh, one of the EDA or economic development administrative

[33:52] administration projects that was recently commit completed was the Bowman

[33:57] Training Center. Uh, the ribbon cutting was last year and we were able to have

[34:02] our council meet, Tri County Council meeting there in December to be able to

[34:06] show that asset off to the region.

[34:12] Talk about a lot of things in this annual report and I won't go into all of

[34:15] that today. I will keep it brief. Um, but something that I'm particularly

[34:19] proud of is our revolving loan funds. So, we lend to small businesses and

[34:24] entrepreneurs in the three western Maryland counties. We do this through

[34:29] various revolving loan funds from state and federal sources. But last year,

[34:34] 2025, we had a banner year and lent over $4 million to the three counties and

[34:40] $2,62,985

[34:44] was lent right here in Washington County. Uh towards the back of the

[34:48] report, there's two Washington County businesses that are highlighted. 96

[34:52] Royal Beans down here in downtown Hagerstown as well as Everyday Earth

[34:57] that's located in Booneboro. So, I'm happy to a answer any questions.

[35:04] I have a few extra copies of the report that I will leave with Michelle, but I

[35:09] thank you just very much for your time and your ongoing commitment.

[35:14] Okay. >> Thank you.

[35:18] Okay. Any any other comments? Just thank you.

[35:24] Thank you, Elizabeth. Good report. Appreciate all the work that goes into

[35:28] Western Maryland. Next up is under tab four is FY26 budget

[35:34] adjustments to the Washington County Board of Education's general fund

[35:37] budget. Good morning, gentlemen. >> Morning, commissioners. Jeff Pru, chief

[35:41] operating officer, Washington County Public Schools.

[35:43] » Uh, good morning. Eric Sysler, executive director of finance for Washington

[35:47] County Public Schools. >> Commissioner, the matter before you is

[35:50] the FY26 budget adjustments for the board of education's general fund

[35:54] budget. Uh, as I tell you, each time we come forward, the annotated code

[35:58] requires uh the local school systems to periodically reforcast and re-evaluate

[36:03] uh any necessary budget changes. Uh to that end uh you have uh changes that

[36:08] were approved by the board of education at its business meeting on May 19th,

[36:13] 2026. Uh the one item I do want to highlight

[36:16] the largest uh value on this item uh is approximately a million dollar transfer

[36:22] from the category which is maintenance of plant which is our maintenance

[36:25] department to the category for food services. Our audit firm, Clifton Larson

[36:29] Allen, uh requests that uh any funds being used to support the maintenance

[36:35] within the food service department that is being done by the general fund be

[36:38] transferred to the food service category. Uh I want to make the

[36:41] distinction this is the food service category of the general fund of the

[36:44] board of education and not the enterprise fund which is the fund that

[36:48] operates the food service department. Uh in this uh in this summer, we've uh uh

[36:53] planned to do several improvements uh in in a handful of schools, adding

[36:57] additional walk-in freezers to support growing participation in the food and

[37:01] nutrition services program. And with that, we're happy to answer any

[37:04] questions that you have. >> Questions, comments?

[37:11] » Motion for >> Motion to approve the adjustment.

[37:14] » Second. Okay, we have a motion and approve and a second for approval of the

[37:18] adjustments as listed. Ready to vote? All in favor by saying I.

[37:23] » I. >> Oppos. Same sign. 5. Thank you,

[37:26] gentlemen. Commissioners. >> Thank you.

[37:31] » Uh, Zach, do we need a motion to go in to Yeah.

[37:34] » convene? Okay. >> Motion to to convene as the board of

[37:37] health. >> Okay. We have a motion

[37:40] » and a second. >> Okay. Second. All in favor by saying I.

[37:44] I >> oppos same sign. Thank you.

[37:48] Uh next this item is substance abuse uh lead uh let everyone advance with

[37:55] dignity uh program. So Earl Stoner, you're up.

[37:59] » Uh Earl Stoner, Washington County Health Department health officer.

[38:02] » Hi, my name is Laura Sheffield Bishop. Um I'm the director of behavioral health

[38:06] services in the Washington County Local Addiction Authority. Uh we are here

[38:11] today to seek approval um from the board uh for a contract uh with the uh PTOIC

[38:19] uh community services. Basically, it's to uh increase the amount of award that

[38:24] we have with them for the um lead program. Um the new award amount will be

[38:30] $18,480.

[38:33] Uh there were we had an initial contract with them um and then we had leftover

[38:38] money uh through some budget modifications and things of that nature

[38:43] at the end of the year. So instead of investing that internally, we want to go

[38:48] ahead and give $60,524 more dollars uh for that program um to

[38:54] PTOI Community Services.

[38:59] » I guess >> Oh, you have a question?

[39:02] » Question. Yeah. >> Yeah. Go ahead.

[39:03] » So, what exactly does the lead program do? What would this money go directly

[39:07] towards? >> It'll go directly towards targeted case

[39:09] management. So, the way the program works is um when police divert folks to

[39:16] the program, they'll get enrolled into peer recovery services and then have a

[39:20] case manager through case services and they'll get them like connected to

[39:24] community resources such as like behavioral health treatment, uh like

[39:29] entitlements through DSS, a lot of the basic needs that they need.

[39:33] » And this has been very successful at reducing recetivism. Is that correct?

[39:38] » That is correct. >> Okay. Within the last quarter, we only

[39:42] had I think it was two folks out of 23 that violated probation.

[39:47] » Wow. That's impressive. It >> is very Yeah.

[39:50] I just want to also reinforce that 100% of the funding for this contract is

[39:54] provided by the Maryland Department of Health Behavioral Health Administration.

[39:58] No additional funding is being requested from the county.

[40:03] » Okay. Motion to approve. >> Second.

[40:06] » And we have a motion and a second for approval as submitted. All in favor by

[40:10] saying I. >> I.

[40:11] » I. >> Opposed. Same sign. 50. Thank you. Next

[40:14] item under tab six is State Care Coordination.

[40:18] » Okay. This is a uh request for approval of a contract uh to Care First Community

[40:25] Health LLC in the amount of $118,000 uh for the state care coordination

[40:31] program. Um this is basically a recovery support program. um obviously focused on

[40:38] behavioral health, substance use disorder and um and mental health. Um

[40:43] really linking individuals, providing supports for them uh in the community

[40:47] and things they may need uh transitioning u to and from uh care and

[40:52] those sorts of things. Um and from the fiscal uh standpoint, 100% of these

[40:58] funds are also through the Maryland Department of Health down through the

[41:02] Behavioral Health Administration. Just a curious question on all these programs.

[41:06] How are the the people admitted to these programs? I mean, does

[41:11] the health department do that? Are they referred or I'm just curious about it.

[41:15] How do you find the people with the mental issues and the behavioral issues?

[41:19] » So, we do a lot of one community partnerships and two a lot of outreach.

[41:23] So, we'll do a lot of community events and I mean it depends on what type of

[41:27] pro like which program. So the lead program specifically is more through the

[41:32] police and that's more of our priority, but community partners can refer like

[41:36] high-risisk folks to us as well. And then for state care, they have to be

[41:41] either in um like an outpatient treatment or they're transitioning from

[41:45] inpatient to an outpatient program. So we have a lot of relationships.

[41:49] » So like Meredith could send somebody to you.

[41:52] » Yep. That's correct. >> Okay.

[41:56] » Motion to approve. Second.

[41:58] » We have a motion and a second for approval as submitted. All in favor by

[42:02] saying I. >> I.

[42:03] » Oppos. Same sign. >> 5. Thank you.

[42:08] » Next item under tab seven is uh Maryland Medical Assistant Assistance

[42:15] Non-emergency Transportation Contract. >> Okay. This is a request uh to approve a

[42:22] contract with AMVAN uh Incorporated, better known as AAA Transport, in the

[42:28] amount of $1.2 million uh for the contract year of uh July 1st of 26

[42:35] through June 30th of 27 uh with two um consecutive option years. Basically,

[42:41] this is for um individuals who are on medical assistance and it provides uh

[42:47] non-emergency medical transportation to um providers and to care that they may

[42:53] need. And 100% of these funds, these are actually federal funds that come down

[42:58] through the state and the state um has uh local health departments, mostly

[43:03] local health departments in Maryland, uh implement this program. So, there's no

[43:09] county money involved at all. Any idea how many um transports that

[43:16] » exactly? Hold on. All right. So, for

[43:24] fiscal year 26 and these are one way, so obviously just uh double that. Uh we've

[43:30] done 13,761 total transports.

[43:35] majority of those being um taxi related because there's also like ambulance uh

[43:41] transports and things of that nature but right pretty significant.

[43:44] » Yeah, that is. Thank you, >> Earl. Do you get reimbursed in any other

[43:49] fashion for those? Is there folks have to use their own dollars or insurance or

[43:55] whatever? >> It's No, it's just being qualified for a

[43:58] medical assistance program. It's uh federal money [clears throat] and uh

[44:03] it's you know basically granted to each state and then each state implements it

[44:09] in various and sorted ways but no there's no reimbursement for that.

[44:16] So the 13,600 river trips um would that all take place through then through AAA

[44:22] transport or >> AAA transport uh typically does

[44:26] ambulance and wheelchair services then if I'm correct in my memory um they have

[44:32] a sedan service that they sub out to. >> Okay. So it's all handled through them

[44:38] but >> it's all handled through them.

[44:40] » Gotcha. All right. Thank you. >> Yes.

[44:42] » I misunderstood you. Sorry. Okay, we have a motion to approve.

[44:47] » Second. >> We have a motion and a second for

[44:49] approval as submitted. All in favor by saying I.

[44:52] » I. >> Opposed? Same sign. Thank you. Thank you

[44:54] again. >> Thank you. We appreciate it.

[44:56] » We need a motion to go back in. I need a motion to go back into general session.

[45:01] » Motion to go back in general session. >> Second.

[45:04] » All in favor? I >> opposed. Same sign. Thank you.

[45:08] » With that, uh, we're under tab 18. Is that right?

[45:15] » Number eight. >> Eight.

[45:17] » Yeah, they missed a page. John, you have to go to your honor agenda.

[45:21] Where's >> Oh, yeah. There's a page missing in

[45:24] there. >> Yeah, I'm missing a page.

[45:27] » Okay.

[45:30] Thought something didn't look right. Okay. Tab number eight. I'm glad I

[45:34] called that out. Uh, Long Meadow Road and Paradise Church Road property

[45:38] acquisition. Morning, Todd.

[45:43] Good morning, commissioners. Do >> you need this bag?

[45:48] » Todd Moser, real property administrator, division of engineering. Move to approve

[45:52] the option agreement for partial property acquisition, including fee

[45:55] simple for 13505 Long Meadow Road in Hagerstown and

[46:00] approve an ordinance approving said purchase and to authorize the execution

[46:03] of necessary documentation to finalize the acquisition.

[46:07] One option agreement has been executed for the abovementioned property. The fee

[46:10] simple acquisition is shown in the table below. Again, the address is 13505 Long

[46:15] Meadow Road in Hagerstown. FE simple acquisition consisting of 827 square ft.

[46:21] An acquisition cost $3,810. This partial property acquisition is for

[46:26] a planned intersection improvement project. New traffic signal and lane

[46:29] configuration at the intersection of Long Meadow Road and Paradise Church

[46:33] Road is identified in the capital improvement plan. Are there any

[46:37] questions? >> Yeah, I have a couple. Is this fair

[46:40] market value? Have you had it appraised? >> It we have everything appraised. Yes,

[46:44] it's appraised. This is fair market value.

[46:46] » And has the property owner agreed to that?

[46:48] » Yes, they have. >> Okay, thanks. Then I make a motion to go

[46:52] ahead and approve the sale. >> Second.

[46:56] » Okay, we have a motion and second for approval as submitted. All in favor by

[46:59] saying I. I >> post same sign.

[47:04] Okay, very good. Thank you. Next item under tab nine is Apple Town Road

[47:11] property acquisition. Todd, again, Todd Moser, Property

[47:15] Administrator, Division of Engineering. Move to approve the option agreement for

[47:18] partial property acquisition, including fee simple and easements for 6137 Apple

[47:23] Road in Boonesboro and approve an ordinance approving said purchase and to

[47:27] authorize the execution of necessary documentation to finalize the

[47:30] acquisition. One option agreement has been executed for the above mentioned

[47:34] property. FE simple and easement acquisitions are shown in the table

[47:37] below and the address 6137 Appletown Road in Boonesboro. Fe simple

[47:42] acquisition consisting of 589 square ft. Easements 475 ft perpetual drainage and

[47:49] 840 ft in temporary construction. Total acquisition cost is 1,100.

[47:56] This project is for a culvert replacement on Appletown Road. Any

[48:01] questions? >> Motion to approve.

[48:04] » Second. >> Okay, we have a motion, a second for

[48:06] approval as submitted. All in favor by saying I.

[48:08] » I. >> Same sign 50. Thank you.

[48:12] » Thank you. >> Next item under tab 10 is easement

[48:15] donation for Mount Etna waterline project.

[48:19] » Jason, interim director environmental management. Move to approve the donated

[48:24] easement abandonment of portion of existing easement and approve ordinance

[48:27] approving set acquisition and to authorize the execution of the necessary

[48:30] documentation to finalize the acquisition.

[48:34] The project involves replacing old water line that runs along Mount Antner Road

[48:37] and tying into the existing water line at the end of High Point Drive on the

[48:41] Highland View Academy property. Chesby Conference Association of 7th Day

[48:46] Advent Highland View Academy have agreed to wave their right to just compensation

[48:50] and donate waterline easements on their property. A portion of the existing

[48:54] waterline easement to the east will be abandoned and the new water line will

[48:57] run parallel with Mount Etna Road. The waterline easements are as follows.

[49:02] Property map 59 parcel 35 permanent waterline easement consisting of 17,880

[49:08] square feet. Property map 59, parcel 165, another permanent waterline

[49:13] easement consisting of 22,741 square feet. Are there any question?

[49:20] » Any I'm sorry. Any idea the age of the existing water line?

[49:27] » Uh, that's a good question, but it's been in the ground probably 50 years,

[49:32] more. I mean, it's it's one that's been around for a while.

[49:34] » I got you. Thanks. I guess of course Highland View Academy,

[49:39] they've agreed to this. >> Yes.

[49:42] » And did we make any promises uh for them to this? I guess just the fact that

[49:46] we're going to probably redo these water lines.

[49:50] » The these are water lines that they transferred to us. I I believe back in

[49:54] the 70s, I could be wrong about that. Um so it's a direct benefit to them. So

[49:58] that's why I approached them with a a donation in this case in waiver of uh

[50:02] just compensation. >> Right. I think the academy had the

[50:06] system originally and then we took it over

[50:10] probably in the late 70s or early 80s I would guess and so it became Washington

[50:15] County system. So we we basically taken over system now we're making

[50:19] improvements as as needed >> and of course they pay water and sewer

[50:23] fees. >> Yes they do.

[50:24] » Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. We have we have a motion and a

[50:29] second. >> Motion to approve.

[50:32] » And a second. Okay. All in favor by saying I

[50:36] » I >> oppos. Same sign. 5. Thank you,

[50:39] gentlemen. >> Thank you.

[50:41] » Next item under tab 11 is construction bid award shower road at Pini Avenue

[50:47] intersection improvements. Scott Hobbs. Good morning.

[50:57] » Good morning. Scott Hobbs, director of engineering.

[51:00] » I'm sorry to say, but this isn't right. Ma'am,

[51:03] » you hear that protest outside?

[51:08] » Ma'am, you're out of order. Please >> sit down or leave.

[51:13] » Ma'am, I'm going to ask you to sit down or please leave.

[51:16] » Ma'am, >> officer going to have to remove her.

[51:23] » Fair.

[51:52] Okay. Good morning, Scott. >> Good morning, Scott Hobbs, director of

[51:55] engineering. I'm here to recommend the board award the bid for the Sha Walter

[51:59] Road at Pini Avenue intersection improvements contract to the lowest

[52:03] responsive responsible bidder Roland and Company of Hagerstown, Maryland in the

[52:07] amount of $417,525.50.

[52:12] The county accepted bids on the project on May 6th. The project was advertised

[52:16] on the state of Maryland's e Maryland marketplace advantage website and on the

[52:20] county's online bidding website. Two bids were received as shown on the

[52:24] attached bid tabulation. The project involves work on Sha Walter

[52:28] Road and Pini Avenue, including construction of a concrete median and

[52:32] auxiliary lane, grading, asphalt paving, pavement markets, pavement markings,

[52:37] signage, and installation of traffic barrier. The project is a 100

[52:41] consecutive calendar day contract with an anticipated notice proceed in July

[52:45] and a completion date in October 2026. There will be road closure on Perini

[52:50] Avenue and lane closures on Shaalter Road associated with this work. Public

[52:54] notices will be made and road work signs posted prior to the start of work. The

[52:59] project will utilize available funds from the capital improvement plan and

[53:03] total expenses are estimated at $497,525 and50 including the proposed bid and

[53:09] $80,000 for other expenses such as inspection, testing, utilities and

[53:13] construction contingency. Any questions? >> What was that? You might have said it

[53:20] and I might have missed it. What's the engineers estimate on that? 425,000.

[53:25] So, it's in line with the bids.

[53:30] » Go ahead. Go ahead, Neil. >> I know we talked a little bit. How many

[53:35] crashes have been at that intersection that we're trying to solve?

[53:39] » There have been 10 incidents at the intersection in the last three years

[53:42] with six documented as more severe crashes and three personal injury

[53:47] crashes as part of that. And in addition, there have been a lot of near

[53:51] misses. >> Many near misses.

[53:53] » Okay. So, this is really a safety project.

[53:55] » Yes. >> And I guess when construction begins,

[53:58] would there be a four-way stop installed at Pini and Kraton?

[54:02] » Yes, that's what we're looking at. >> Okay.

[54:04] » Yes. >> I I think communication on this one's

[54:09] going to be extremely important, especially with the amount of traffic

[54:12] that goes in and out of the airport parking lot directly across the street.

[54:17] That >> Yes. the same intersection. We're the

[54:20] exit to the airport. So, there'll be constant communication with the public

[54:23] and with the contractor dealing with with our staff and the citizens.

[54:27] » A lot of people very unfamiliar with the area going into the airport to either

[54:33] pick up family or whatever coming in and out on Allegiance. So, this is a very

[54:38] troublesome spot. I know that for a fact. So [sighs and gasps]

[54:42] hopefully during the construction there's adequate signage and uh

[54:49] you know folks guiding and guarding the the tractor and trailers in and out of

[54:54] that very dangerous situation. So >> with that,

[54:58] » I just have a question. Then is mostly this night work or is it day work or

[55:03] » we have it set up as day work and then uh depending on how the um some of the

[55:08] traffic control works there may be night work at times but at this point in time

[55:12] most of it's day work. >> So it's going to affect the airport

[55:15] exit. >> Uh could you look at maybe doing more

[55:17] night work? >> Yeah.

[55:19] » Okay. [snorts]

[55:22] » Randy, did you I thought you had >> I'm good.

[55:25] » Okay. Motion for approval. >> Motion to approve.

[55:29] » I'll second. >> Second.

[55:30] » Okay, we have a motion and a second for approval. Uh, ready to vote. All in

[55:33] favor by saying I. >> I.

[55:35] » Oppos. Same sign. 5. Thank you. >> Thank you.

[55:39] » Next item under tab 12 is Apple Town Road.

[55:44] » Ma'am, ma'am, you're out of order. Ma'am

[55:49] show up. >> Ma'am, I'm going to ask you to I'm going

[55:52] to ask you to sit down >> and or re

[55:59] » please. >> Ma'am, deputy, please remove her. that

[56:14] box.

[56:18] God

[56:41] All right. One, two, three.

[57:16] Okay. Under tab 12, Apple Town Road pre-cast concrete box culvert. Scott,

[57:21] you're up again. >> Thank you. Scott Hobbs, director of

[57:24] engineering. I'm here to recommend the board award the bid for supplying a

[57:27] pre-cast concrete box culvert for the Appletown Road culvert replacement

[57:31] project to the lowest responsive responsible bidder Gillespie pre-cast of

[57:36] Chestertown, Maryland in the amount of 114,727.14.

[57:41] The county accepted bids for the pre-cast concrete box culvert on May

[57:45] 29th. The bid was advertised on the state of Maryland's emer marketplace

[57:49] advantage website and on the county's online bidding website. Two bids were

[57:53] received as shown on the attached bid results. The pre-cast concrete box cover

[57:57] culvert would be scheduled for delivery this summer. Work is anticipated to be

[58:00] completed by the highway department within two months from delivery of the

[58:04] culvert. The highway department works on culvert repairs and replacements for

[58:08] various projects each year. And this is one of those projects. And Todd earlier

[58:12] presented some of the work with the property owners regarding this project.

[58:18] » Okay. Motion questions. >> I like the way you're constructing it.

[58:24] It's good. You get the whole thing built. Bring it in. Just stuck it in

[58:26] there. That's I think an economical way to do it.

[58:29] » Yes. >> So, I move to approve the project.

[58:32] » Second. >> Okay. We have a motion and second for

[58:34] approval as submitted. All in favor by saying I

[58:38] » opposed. Same sign. >> 5. Thank you.

[58:41] » Thank you so much. Next item under tab 13 is contract extension local

[58:46] cooperative 2023-01 number two heating oil supply and

[58:51] delivery.

[58:58] » Good morning. Aaron Bner, buyer in the office of procurement.

[59:01] » Andrew Ashelman, director of public works.

[59:04] » The first recommendation we have is contract extension local cooperative

[59:08] 2023-01. Move to concur with the recommendation

[59:13] of the Washington County Public Schools to extend the contract for Washington

[59:16] County government's number two heating fuel oil to the responsive responsible

[59:21] low bidder AC&T company incorporated of Haggartown Maryland who submitted a bid

[59:26] factor of 2395 cents per gallon for tank wagon deliveries. Washington County

[59:33] government, the city of Haggertown, Haggertown Community College, the

[59:37] Washington County Free Library, the Washington County Health Department, and

[59:41] Washington County Public Schools cooperative cooperatively bid heating

[59:45] fuel requirements. On Wednesday, April 22nd, 2026, the Washington County Public

[59:50] Schools extended its contract for tank wagon loads and transport loads to the

[59:55] responsive responsible bidder AC&T Company Incorporated of Hagerstown,

[1:00:00] Maryland. The contract was originally awarded by Washington County Public

[1:00:04] Schools on August 16, 2022 through a competitively bid process and approved

[1:00:10] for use by the county by the board of county commissioners of Washington

[1:00:13] County on September 13, 2022. The extension period is effective August

[1:00:19] 1st, 2026 and ending November 30th, 2026. This is an extension rather than a

[1:00:26] renewal due to the Washington County Office of Procurement taking the lead on

[1:00:30] combining both heating fuel and gasoline and diesel fuel deliveries into a single

[1:00:34] annual bid. These services are being combined to ensure a more efficient

[1:00:39] competitive bidding procedure. This competitive bid process will continue to

[1:00:43] be a cooperative contract for services for Washington County government, the

[1:00:47] city of Hagerstown, Hagerstown Community College, Washington County Free Library,

[1:00:53] the Washington County Health Department, and Washington County Public Schools

[1:00:57] with Washington County government assuming the primary leadership role.

[1:01:01] The goal is to maintain collaboration between all parties while optimizing

[1:01:05] procurement for these essential services and funds are budgeted as required by

[1:01:10] the individual using departments and agencies for this service.

[1:01:15] » Okay, any questions? >> Except one, how many bids did you

[1:01:19] receive for this one? Washington County Public Schools was the

[1:01:24] original um lead on the procurement and I don't know the answer to that

[1:01:31] question, but I can get it for you. >> That'd be good. And it's not just one,

[1:01:36] right? >> I wouldn't think there was just one. No,

[1:01:39] » I'd like to hold it until we know how many other bids there were.

[1:01:44] » This is strictly an extension. Correct. >> Correct. It it's essentially to align

[1:01:48] the bids up because we're taking the heating fuel bid which was previously

[1:01:53] one bid and diesel and gas is another. >> So between the county and the school

[1:01:58] board taking the lead, we want to do an extension so that we can align the end

[1:02:03] dates of those terms up and do one larger bulk bid.

[1:02:07] » So it's an extension to align those dates up.

[1:02:10] » So we've already had this contract. >> We've already done that and that was the

[1:02:13] date, you know, 2022 that was awarded. So, we're just extending that a little

[1:02:17] bit longer in the contract term to align those bids up.

[1:02:20] » That sounds good. Thank you. >> So, in November, we're there.

[1:02:24] » Correct. It'll be one larger bulk bid where we'll do them together.

[1:02:27] » Yeah. Our current gasoline and diesel fuel um competitive bid that we did last

[1:02:32] year is an annual bid and that one ends November 30th. So, we're just aligning

[1:02:37] them >> like

[1:02:40] Thank you. >> Okay.

[1:02:42] » I make motion to approve. >> Okay. Second. Okay. Okay, we have a

[1:02:45] motion and second. Ready to vote. All in favor by saying I

[1:02:49] » oppos. Same sign. 5. Thank you. Next item under contract. Yeah. Under tab 14

[1:02:55] is the contract renewal PUR1611 janitorial services for Washington

[1:03:01] County. >> Karen Bner, buyer in the office of

[1:03:04] procurement. >> Danny Hixon, deputy director, buildings

[1:03:07] facilities. >> The second recommendation we have is

[1:03:09] contract renewal PUR611. Move to renew the contract for

[1:03:14] janitorial services for Washington County office buildings under option

[1:03:18] number one with Jasso Maintenance LLC of Rockville, Maryland based on its letter

[1:03:23] dated April 27th, 2026 requesting a 5% increase for fiscal year 27. The last

[1:03:30] request for an increase was made in fiscal year 2025.

[1:03:34] On August 8th, 2023, the board originally awarded a contract for the

[1:03:38] subject services to Jaso Maintenance LLC in the total annual amount of $285,118

[1:03:46] for eight locations. The term of the contract is for a one-year period that

[1:03:50] commenced on August 8, 20th, 2023 with an option by the county to renew for up

[1:03:56] to four additional consecutive one-year periods. This is the third of four

[1:04:00] one-year optional renewals of the contract. The county reserves the right

[1:04:04] to accept or reject any request for renewal by the bidder and any increase

[1:04:08] in monthly costs for each specified building. Funds are budgeted for these

[1:04:12] services within each using department's FY27 operating budget account under

[1:04:17] maintenance services.

[1:04:23] » Okay, any questions? >> Yeah, I guess when was the last time we

[1:04:26] increased the amount? It was in fiscal year 25 and at that time it was a 7%

[1:04:32] increase that they requested. >> So we're going quite a bit above the

[1:04:36] rate of inflation, right? 7% last year and now it's 5%.

[1:04:40] » 7% was in 25. So that was two years ago. >> Oh, so this is two years. All right. Two

[1:04:45] years ago. Yeah, >> we're a little bit less than inflation

[1:04:47] for this time. All right. Thank you. >> A motion to approve.

[1:04:54] » Second. >> Okay. We have a motion and a second for

[1:04:56] approval as submitted. All in favor by saying I

[1:04:58] » I >> I

[1:04:59] » opposed. Same sign. >> 5. Thank you.

[1:05:03] » Next item under tab 15, soul source procurement compatibility purchase 1828,

[1:05:10] electronic door controls and intercom system upgrade at the Washington County

[1:05:15] Detention Center. >> Karen Begner, buyer in the office of

[1:05:18] procurement. >> Terry Hill, senior systems mechanic,

[1:05:21] Washington County Sheriff's Office. The third recommendation we have is a soul

[1:05:25] source procurement for compatibility PUR1828.

[1:05:30] Move to authorize a soul source procurement for the electronic door

[1:05:34] control and intercom system upgrade at the Washington County Detention Center

[1:05:38] in the amount of $255,000 from McGomery Technology Systems LLC of

[1:05:44] Greenville, Alabama. The Sheriff's Office wishes to apply sections

[1:05:48] 1-106.2A1 to A1 and two of the code of local

[1:05:53] public laws of Washington County, Maryland to the procurement requested.

[1:05:57] These sections state that a sole source procurement is authorized and

[1:06:01] permissible when number one, only one source exists that meets the county's

[1:06:06] requirements and number two, the compatibility of equipment, accessories,

[1:06:11] or replacement parts is par is the paramount consideration.

[1:06:16] This request requires the approval of four of the five commissioners in order

[1:06:20] to proceed with a soul source procurement.

[1:06:23] This purchase is direct from the manufacturer of the current system in

[1:06:26] place at the detention center. The current system requires an upgrade and

[1:06:30] the integration and addition of the female housing unit to the existing

[1:06:34] system. The current system has components that are now obsolete

[1:06:38] requiring an upgrade. With the integration of the new equipment coming

[1:06:41] directly from the manufacturer of the existing equipment, there will be no

[1:06:45] downtime of this critical security system during the upgrade, nor will

[1:06:49] there be any training required. This manufacturer is the sole source of this

[1:06:53] program and technology. Funds are available in the department's CIP budget

[1:06:59] BL089 for this purchase.

[1:07:04] Okay, >> questions. If you were going to install

[1:07:07] a whole new door, like not go with the same company, about how much would that

[1:07:10] be? >> System had documented that.

[1:07:13] » We had we had quote we had bid this out several years ago. One one quote was 450

[1:07:20] couple thousand. Um the other one was 575.

[1:07:25] Memory serves me right. This has been seven years since we last bid this. Um

[1:07:29] MTI has been in our institution for nearly 30 years. Um, we did one upgrade

[1:07:36] of the peripherals. Now we're doing actually female housing is not

[1:07:40] integrated into our master control system, which is what we did seven years

[1:07:44] ago. We were not able to control our entire facility from central control

[1:07:49] initially. Um, and we we are able to do that now. Now we want to add um female

[1:07:55] housing so that we do have total control from one location if an event would

[1:07:59] happen that we would need to take full control of the entire facility from a

[1:08:03] centralized secure location. Number one um and number two the peripherals that

[1:08:09] we do have we're going to keep in place. Um we there's no need to change those at

[1:08:13] this point. We'll be adding one monitor in female housing, a second control

[1:08:17] center in SE central control itself, and then the core itself is just antiquated.

[1:08:24] So the core they'll be upgrading into the new dragonfly system, and um we'll

[1:08:29] just keep on moving forward. >> How many years do you think this would

[1:08:32] buy you using the same system? I wouldn't I mean I wouldn't personally

[1:08:38] wouldn't know the technology but I mean based on what we have now I mean our

[1:08:42] course over 30 years old so if that's an indicator of how successful this company

[1:08:48] has been with their product and with their support um they've given us

[1:08:52] excellent support over the years. We've had little to no downtime with really

[1:08:57] the entire system ever. So that's it's um it's been a good relationship and a

[1:09:03] good product. Very good. Thank you.

[1:09:07] » Okay, have a motion. >> Motion to approve.

[1:09:11] » Second. >> We have a motion and a second for

[1:09:13] approval as submitted. All in favor by saying I.

[1:09:16] » I. >> 5. Thank you.

[1:09:20] » Thank you, Secretary. Thank uh next item under tab 16 contract award PUR1 1815

[1:09:27] local care team coordinator >> Karen Bner buyer in the office of

[1:09:32] procurement. Richard Lesh, grant manager, office of grant management.

[1:09:36] » The last recommendation we have is contract award PUR1815.

[1:09:40] Move to award the contract for the local care team coordinator to the responsible

[1:09:44] proposer with the responsive proposal. The purpose of the service to be

[1:09:49] provided is to fulfill crime prevention, youth, and victim services. The award of

[1:09:53] funds for local care team coordinator shall commence upon receipt of a fully

[1:09:57] executed contract between the board of county commissioners of Washington

[1:10:00] County and the awarded vendor. The awarded contract shall expire on June

[1:10:05] 30th, 2027 with an option to renew up to two consecutive one-year periods through

[1:10:10] 2029. Notice of the request for proposal was

[1:10:14] advertised on UNA, the county's online bidding website, and on the state's e

[1:10:19] Maryland marketplace advantage website. 18 individuals, companies, or bidous

[1:10:24] downloaded the RFP document from the county's website. Proposals were

[1:10:28] received from two firms. The qualifications and experience submittals

[1:10:33] were evaluated and one was considered to be responsive. Therefore, the price

[1:10:37] proposal of that firm was then opened and evaluated. The committee deemed the

[1:10:42] other firm to be non-responsive due to the lack of experience with child

[1:10:45] placement systems and special education, which was a requirement in the request

[1:10:50] for proposal. Therefore, this firm's pricing proposal was not opened. Funding

[1:10:55] from the Maryland Governor's Office for Children in the amount of $58,789

[1:11:01] is available.

[1:11:06] » Okay, any questions? >> Motion to approve.

[1:11:11] » Second. >> Okay, we have a motion and second for

[1:11:14] approval as submitted. All in favor by saying I.

[1:11:17] » I post. Same sign. 5. Thank you. Next, next item under tab 17 is bid rejection

[1:11:27] purchase 1,800 hauling recycling of scrap tires from the 40 west landfill.

[1:11:35] » Morning, commissioners. Brandy Kentner, director, the office of procurement.

[1:11:40] » David Mason, interim director environmental management.

[1:11:43] » The first recommendation I have for you this morning actually does have a

[1:11:46] correction. This will be a bid rejection and contract award for PUR 1800. Move to

[1:11:52] take action in the best interest of the county and to request that the bid for

[1:11:56] the hauling of scrap tires from BO1 of Bethesda out of Gaithersburg, Maryland

[1:12:01] be rejected without prejudice due to the vendor not being able to honor the

[1:12:04] prices that they did submit. The second um part of this is we would

[1:12:10] like to move to award the bid to the next low bidder Panda Trucks out of

[1:12:13] Haggartown, Maryland for a total sum of $108,795

[1:12:19] for a one year tentatively beginning July 1st, 2026 with the option for the

[1:12:24] county to renew up to three consecutive one-year periods. The county does not

[1:12:28] guarantee a minimum or maximum number of calls nor quantity of materials under

[1:12:32] this contract. The project's scope is to remove uh for the removal and recycling

[1:12:37] of tires periodically as required and requested by Washington County's solid

[1:12:42] waste department. The bid was advertised on the state of Maryland's e-marland

[1:12:46] marketplace advantage website, the county's new online bidding website.

[1:12:50] Seven vendors did download the document and we did receive two bids. Funds are

[1:12:55] available in the department's operating budget. And just a little history, in

[1:12:59] 2025, uh the total cost of that contract was

[1:13:04] $28,697.50.

[1:13:07] In 2024, it was $20,250.14.

[1:13:12] » This references a bib tabulation matrix as an attachment, but we don't have

[1:13:16] that. Do you have that so that I can >> I do I can send that to all of you? You

[1:13:20] want a copy? >> Yeah, let me make a copy for the

[1:13:22] commissioners. >> My apologies. I thought that was on

[1:13:24] there.

[1:13:32] Okay. So, we're waiting. Um, what was the original price for Bowanda Bethesda

[1:13:36] that they can't honor? >> It's on the bid tabulation.

[1:13:38] » It was uh for the small tires $195 a ton and for the large tires $260 a ton.

[1:13:46] » And what's the new one that we're trying to to accept today?

[1:13:51] » Uh, for small tires, $284.95 per ton. And for large tires, $395

[1:13:57] per ton. >> So, it's a lot more. Did the um bio one

[1:14:01] of Bethesda give new prices? Did they do a bid to to stay on or

[1:14:07] » they didn't quite understand what the contract was asking? So they the bid

[1:14:11] that they put in my understanding was for the hauling of tires. Then they

[1:14:15] wanted to charge us an additional amount for the recycling

[1:14:19] » where our contract specifically says all prices should include hauling and

[1:14:24] recycling of tires. So they just did not understand it. They could not honor

[1:14:28] their price. So they asked to withdraw their bid

[1:14:32] » and they don't get the opportunity to modify their bid once it's submitted.

[1:14:36] That's their final bid. they have an opportunity to ask all questions for a

[1:14:39] period of two weeks. So, we don't allow for modification,

[1:14:43] » right? So, we didn't go back out to rebid it once they fell through. We went

[1:14:49] with the existing bids that we had. >> Yeah. The other the next bid that came

[1:14:53] in was from Panda, which we're asking to accept.

[1:14:56] » Okay. >> And we checked with them. They are good

[1:14:58] with their pricing. They understand exactly what's what's expected through

[1:15:03] the bid. So, they are good. Panda's pretty much in line with the last two

[1:15:08] years. Like I said, their yearly quote was 27,198

[1:15:13] and last year was 28,000. So, it's pretty much in line.

[1:15:17] » Great. Thank you. >> And because it wasn't attached, I'd like

[1:15:20] to if I can read into the record for their for the viewers that are here. PR

[1:15:26] 1800 hauling of scrap tires. Line number one description part one mixed auto and

[1:15:31] truck. uh less than 24in rims, removal, recycling, disposal. Uh tire estimates

[1:15:38] are based on scale records from July 2022 through June 2025. Quantity 65

[1:15:44] tons. Uh for Bowen Bethesda, the bid was a unit price of $195

[1:15:52] extended to 20 thou 12,675. For Panda Trucks LLC, that unit price

[1:15:58] was $284.75 extended to $18,50875.

[1:16:04] For line number two, which is part two, agricultural equipment greater than 24in

[1:16:09] rim removal recycling disposal of one tire, estimates are based on scale

[1:16:14] records from July 2022 through June 2025, 22 tons. For Bio1 of Bethesda,

[1:16:22] the unit price is $260 extended to $5,200 I'm sorry, $5,720.

[1:16:28] For Panda Trucks, the uh unit price is 395,000,

[1:16:33] I'm sorry, 395 extended to $8,690. Total bid price for Bowen of Bethesda is

[1:16:39] $18,395 and Panda Trucks is 27,19875.

[1:16:46] Yeah, it seems like to me for the sake of it's a one-year contract, it starts

[1:16:50] July 1st, right? >> And we have an option to renew the next

[1:16:55] year. >> Yes.

[1:16:56] » So that would if this contract if we wouldn't accept it, then you'd have

[1:17:00] nobody to do tires July 1st. >> Correct.

[1:17:03] » For that reason, I'll motion to approve for a year

[1:17:08] » for one year or for the term of the contract. It's one-year contract

[1:17:12] starting >> and we could renew it up to three

[1:17:14] consecutive one-year periods. >> So, the term of the contract,

[1:17:17] » can you renew it without coming back? >> We do renew without coming back unless

[1:17:22] they ask for a price increase. >> Okay.

[1:17:27] » However, if you'd like it to be rebid next year, it would be a one-year

[1:17:30] [clears throat] you would you would make a motion for a one-year contract.

[1:17:34] Now, we do take the chance if we go back and tell them it's a one-year contract,

[1:17:37] they could possibly not honor their prices and pull their their bid.

[1:17:42] » Okay.

[1:17:45] » We only accept tires from in county. Is that correct?

[1:17:49] » Correct. >> And we collect a fee for each one of

[1:17:52] those tires that we receive. >> Correct.

[1:17:55] » I would keep the motion as approved because we have to have something by

[1:17:58] July 1st or you're going to have tires everywhere.

[1:18:01] » Is that correct, Dave? Well, we could still collect them. We would just they'd

[1:18:04] just be piling up at the at the landfill.

[1:18:07] » A motion to approve as submitted as presented.

[1:18:11] » Second. Okay. We have a motion to second for as submitted. Do we want to do this

[1:18:16] in two parts? The rejection of the first.

[1:18:18] » Yes. >> Let's sign.

[1:18:20] » Yeah, it's a motion to reject the first contract.

[1:18:22] » Okay. Do we have a second on that? All in favor by saying I

[1:18:25] » I same sign. 5 for the rejection. Now we have a a motion and a second

[1:18:31] » discussion >> for for the the new contract [snorts]

[1:18:36] » and discuss. Did they have a a third? I mean I see these two. Was there a third

[1:18:40] bid? >> No,

[1:18:41] » these were the only two biders. >> Correct.

[1:18:44] » And who was the vendor last year? >> Emanuel Tire out of Baltimore.

[1:18:48] » And they didn't >> they did not bid this year. I don't know

[1:18:50] why. >> And you said last year was 28,000 total.

[1:18:56] So this is actually a little bit under. >> Yeah. And the the bid is an estimate. We

[1:19:00] just give them an estimate number of tires.

[1:19:03] » And this is self-supporting. The user fee would be passed on to whoever is

[1:19:07] bringing in the tires. >> Yeah. We have we have set fees for for

[1:19:11] bringing in, you know, what we charge the customers,

[1:19:13] » right? And that's not going to change. [snorts]

[1:19:17] » Good. Thanks. >> Okay. We're ready. Do we get a second?

[1:19:21] » We already have a second. Okay. Ready to vote? All in favor by saying I. I

[1:19:26] » post same sign 50. Thank you. >> Thank you.

[1:19:29] » Okay. >> To explain my vote, one thing I like is

[1:19:34] that Panda Trucks is located here in Edgartown.

[1:19:40] » Next item under tab 18 bid award PUR809 security gates for Washington County

[1:19:46] Parks Department. >> Randy Kentner, director office of

[1:19:50] procurement. >> Danny Dixon, deputy director of voting

[1:19:52] responsibility. Tim Alexander, assistant park supervisor.

[1:19:56] » The next recommendation I have for you is the bid award PR1809.

[1:20:01] Move to award the bid for the purchase and installation of security gates at

[1:20:05] Regional Park, Marty Snook Park, and Penmar Park to the responsible

[1:20:09] responsive bidder Long Fence Company out of Maryland for a total sum of $148,600.

[1:20:17] The purchase and installation of the security gates at Regional Park, Marty

[1:20:20] Snook Park, and Pinmar Park will improve security, control after hours access,

[1:20:26] reduce unauthorized or illegal activity on county park grounds. Approval of this

[1:20:31] award will enhance safety and operational control at the identified

[1:20:35] park locations. The bid was advertised on the state of Maryland's e Maryland

[1:20:39] marketplace advantage website and the county's online bidding website. 11

[1:20:43] companies did download the document and we did receive three bids and that bid

[1:20:48] tabulation is attached. Funding is available in the FY26 and 27 parks and

[1:20:54] recck departmental budget.

[1:20:58] » Any reason, not that I don't want to save a bunch of money, but any reason

[1:21:02] that did there's such a discrepancy in those bids? You think

[1:21:08] » it's under my opinion that it's proximity to the competition? Um the

[1:21:12] other two companies uh that came in at higher bids are more towards the DC

[1:21:17] metropolitan area and that's that'll drive cost down.

[1:21:26] » Okay. Any other questions? We have a motion.

[1:21:31] » Motion to approve.

[1:21:35] » I said a question. Um >> we have a motion on the floor.

[1:21:39] » We need a second for discussion. Second. >> Okay. Motion to second. Now, discussion.

[1:21:44] » Great. Thank you. Um, will this save us money because we're not going to have

[1:21:49] police that have to go to the parks to lock it every night or or park ranger?

[1:21:52] Is that kind of the purpose? >> Um, I I think it not only will save us

[1:21:56] money, but it'll also relieve the burden of our park staff and our county staff

[1:22:01] of having to address potential issues after hours.

[1:22:06] » Right. So, this kind of guarantees that it will be locked.

[1:22:09] » Correct. Okay.

[1:22:12] Okay, ready? Y ready? We have a motion and a second for approval as submitted.

[1:22:18] All in favor by saying I. >> Oppos? Same sign. 50. Thank you.

[1:22:23] » Thank you. >> Next item under tab 19 is soul source

[1:22:26] procurement pur 1825 keystone CAD interface.

[1:22:38] Randy Kentner, director in the office of procurement.

[1:22:41] » Alani, director of emergency management communications.

[1:22:44] » The next recommendation is a soul source procurement PR 1825.

[1:22:49] Move to authorize a soul source procurement for CAD interface software

[1:22:52] maintenance and annual licensing fees used by the division of emergency

[1:22:56] management and communications in the amount of $143,588

[1:23:02] from Keystone Public Safety out of Maples, New Jersey. The division of

[1:23:06] emergency management and communications which is to apply sections 1 through

[1:23:11] 106.2A1 and two of the code of local public laws

[1:23:16] of Washington County to this procurement. The section states that a

[1:23:19] soul source became is authorized and permissible when only one source exists

[1:23:23] that meets the county's requirements. This request does require four out of

[1:23:28] five commissioners to proceed. The above approval is for software maintenance and

[1:23:32] annual licensing fees for the following systems within the emergency management

[1:23:37] and communications department. Computer aided dispatch licensing for the main

[1:23:42] and backup 911 center which includes the keystone client and the web client. This

[1:23:47] also consists of crywolf interface used for processing false alarm information

[1:23:52] and for billing. All other interface components are provided by outside

[1:23:56] softwares that communicates with the internal CAD system in order to complete

[1:24:00] call processing, dispatching, logging, mapping, recording, reporting, and web

[1:24:06] web access. Funds are available in the department's operating budget for this

[1:24:09] purchase.

[1:24:15] I guess is this probably what we've been using for the last several years

[1:24:18] » for the last 20 plus years. >> Okay. And do other counties around us

[1:24:23] use the same system? >> No, everybody has a different CAD. Some

[1:24:27] people use Motorola, some people use Central Square. It's just what they

[1:24:31] have. >> Have we looked at maybe other options to

[1:24:36] see if because I see this is sole source um that might be less expensive.

[1:24:41] » We'd have to replace the whole CAD system.

[1:24:44] That's millions. That would be Yeah, that would be substantial.

[1:24:49] » Thank you. >> Yeah.

[1:24:51] Okay. >> Motion to approve.

[1:24:53] » Yeah. >> Second.

[1:24:55] » Okay. We have a motion and a second for approval as submitted. All in favor by

[1:24:59] saying I >> I opposed. Same sign. 50. Thank you.

[1:25:05] Next item under tab 20 is the soul source procurement pur 1827 fire hose

[1:25:12] software agreement for division of emergency services.

[1:25:16] » Randy Kentner, director in the office of procurement.

[1:25:18] » Eric Jacobs emergency services. The next recommendation is a soul source

[1:25:23] procurement PR1827 move to authorize a soul source

[1:25:27] procurement of the maintenance software agreement for the division of emergency

[1:25:31] services for CA AutoCAD software upgrades and updates in the amount of

[1:25:36] $109,65126

[1:25:40] from ESO Solutions Incorporated out of Dallas, Texas. This is a maintenance

[1:25:44] agreement for the ESO software platform which is utilized by county fire and EMS

[1:25:50] for fire incident reporting. DEES wishes to apply sections 1 through 106.2A1

[1:25:57] and two of the code of local public laws of Washington County to this

[1:26:01] procurement. This section states that a soul source procurement is authorized

[1:26:05] and permissible when only one source exists that meets the county's

[1:26:08] requirements and the compatibility of equipment, accessories, and replacement

[1:26:12] parts is the paramount consideration. This does require four out of five

[1:26:16] commissioners to proceed. This software is a necessary tool to ensure that

[1:26:21] accurate and factual national fire incident reporting system compliant

[1:26:26] documentation of fire rescue and EMS incidents can be completed. funds are

[1:26:31] available in this department's operating budget for this purchase

[1:26:39] » discussion. >> So this is an annual

[1:26:43] and how long have we used so? >> So originally it was firehouse software

[1:26:48] that transitioned to ESO and uh for the the length of um the association of

[1:26:55] member companies using it it's been decades.

[1:26:58] » Okay. Thanks. >> Okay.

[1:27:02] Looking for a motion. [clears throat] >> Motion to approve.

[1:27:08] » Second. >> Okay, we have a motion and second for

[1:27:10] approval as submitted. All in favor by saying I.

[1:27:14] » I. >> Oppos. Same sign. Thank you.

[1:27:18] Next item under tab 21, Intergovernmental Cooperative Purchase

[1:27:23] 26-0229,

[1:27:26] Maryland Emergency Service Transporter Supplemental Payment Program, known as

[1:27:32] ESSP.

[1:27:35] » Randy Kner, director of the Office of Procurement.

[1:27:38] » Morning. David Hayes, director of emergency services. The next

[1:27:40] recommendation is an intergovernmental cooperative purchase INTG-26-0229

[1:27:47] move to authorize by resolution for the approval to contract services with

[1:27:51] public consulting group LLC out of Boston, Massachusetts for consulting

[1:27:56] services to implement the Maryland Emergency Service Transporter

[1:28:00] Supplemental Payment Program known as ESP for the Department of Emergency

[1:28:05] Services. This approval is also contingent upon the final approval of

[1:28:09] the final agreement approved by the county attorney's office and signed by

[1:28:13] the president of the board of county commissioners. The Maryland Emergency

[1:28:17] Service Transporter Supplemental Payment Program offers an opportunity for

[1:28:23] Washington County to receive an increase in reimbursement for the medical

[1:28:27] transport of Medicaid patients. Washington County is now in a position

[1:28:30] to enter into the program due to the increase of and ambulance services being

[1:28:36] overseen by the Division of Emergency Services. For each successive cost

[1:28:41] reporting cycle in consideration for the contracted services, Washington County

[1:28:46] will pay PCG 9% of the net federal share portion of reimbursements received by

[1:28:52] Washington County under this program. PCG would invoice annually based on the

[1:28:57] amount collected only. The code of public local law of Washington County 1

[1:29:02] through 106.3 provides that the board of county

[1:29:05] commissioners may procure goods and services through a contract entered into

[1:29:09] by another government entity as long as we abide by the same terms and

[1:29:12] conditions of that contract and we are doing so with this request. There is no

[1:29:18] budgetary um impact as this is a not to exceed pricing schedule based on the

[1:29:23] amount Washington County is reimbured through the ESP program.

[1:29:31] » What's the total revenue estimated to be generated from this contract?

[1:29:35] » Could be up to 3.5 million. >> Dave, do you have any idea how what

[1:29:41] percentage of EMS transports will result in recovery of funds? So, currently this

[1:29:47] will only apply to Medicaid uh recipients of EMS care. Uh the state

[1:29:54] provides $150 per 24-hour period for any one Medicaid patient regardless of the

[1:30:01] number of transports. This actually brings that to if we transport somebody

[1:30:06] three times, we would receive a reimbursement. But more importantly,

[1:30:10] what it does, it encumbers or includes all of the expenses in developing what

[1:30:16] that reimbursement total should look like. Then it's 50% of that. So, as an

[1:30:21] example, uh, in the $3.5 million estimate, the cost for transports likely

[1:30:27] would be around $1,500 per reimbursement. And when you use uh

[1:30:34] community rescue service, which is the largest provider,

[1:30:37] » uh and also the largest Medicaid transporter, they have about 5600 calls

[1:30:42] that would come in for that. >> Okay.

[1:30:45] » So, um I don't know if that gets where you're looking.

[1:30:48] » I think it does because I'm if you're talking about those six medic units,

[1:30:52] then they are running 22,000 calls a year. So, you're tell I think you just

[1:30:56] told me 25%. >> Yeah. the requirements and and why we

[1:30:59] are at the point now that we can and likely should enter this program is it

[1:31:04] requires the uh jurisdiction which is the county to be the deliverable of the

[1:31:10] service which mean we needed to own the people and be the biller of record which

[1:31:15] we now are for at least five companies uh and as we continue to transition

[1:31:21] that number will grow. The county is doing the billing so that enables us to

[1:31:25] do that. Uh and then we own the MSTOP which is the EMS operational program. Uh

[1:31:30] those are requirements that need to be into that. Uh the positive of this is we

[1:31:36] have till July 1 to enroll. You only have one enrollment period per year. If

[1:31:40] we enroll by July 1, which we're prepared to do if this is executed

[1:31:43] today, um it's a look back for the previous 12 months. So all of our

[1:31:48] expenses for the last 12 months that qualify can be included next June 30 for

[1:31:54] payment. The importance of this contract is this group is anme in this program

[1:31:59] and delivering and does multiple counties throughout Maryland. So they're

[1:32:02] our quickest way in and will help us maximize potential uh revenue recovery

[1:32:10] » if we start with this group like on these last couple contracts. Are we kind

[1:32:14] of locked into them in the future or we could

[1:32:17] » and are there other companies that do this as well?

[1:32:21] I I I would imagine that there are we did a 101 uh with this particular

[1:32:26] company and I think uh out of and I don't have that information with

[1:32:31] me but out of 15 states or 15 counties in the state of Maryland they represent

[1:32:37] them all with the exception of one and I think that one is doing it themselves.

[1:32:42] We don't believe that we're positioned right now to do this program ourselves.

[1:32:46] Our goal is to get this launched and then we can evaluate it much like we did

[1:32:50] with EMS billing. We currently use a thirdparty service for that. At some

[1:32:53] point there may be an interest and originally there was with a group of

[1:32:57] commissioners to bring that in house but we launched with an outside agency that

[1:33:01] was better toolled and prepared to get us moving in the program.

[1:33:05] » Yeah. I mean it's interesting. It looks like you mentioned that like three and a

[1:33:08] half million might come in and they're going to take 9%. So, we're going to pay

[1:33:11] 315,000 >> roughly

[1:33:14] » roughly for the service. I mean, couldn't we do that in house for

[1:33:19] less than 315,000? >> I don't think we're toolled right now

[1:33:22] with the expertise to do that and maximize the revenue. Our recommendation

[1:33:26] from county staff would be to move with a third party and then again in 12 24 36

[1:33:32] months if the commissioner still thought that we could create a cost savings then

[1:33:36] bring it back in house. At that point, the program will already be established.

[1:33:39] We already be familiar with all the parameters, all the reimburseables,

[1:33:42] everything that we could get our money for. We want to try to maximize it.

[1:33:47] » Like at CRS, as an example, they get reimbured right now, right?

[1:33:51] » They do. $150 per Medicaid transport >> and using this service, how much would

[1:33:57] the reimbursement be? >> It it could be potentially at $1,500.

[1:34:01] Um, now CRS wouldn't be reimbursed through this program because we don't

[1:34:07] own the people. We don't pay the salaries. You have to be the person that

[1:34:11] pays the expense that's included in this program. So CRS in and of itself, the

[1:34:17] way it's currently structured with corporation employees would not be able

[1:34:22] to be included in it. When I say up to $3.5 million, at some point that would

[1:34:26] include CRS potentially transitioning employees to the county. So, how how

[1:34:30] much is it now with the five companies that we do have?

[1:34:33] » I don't know that I have that here. >> I think it's only between three and

[1:34:36] $500,000 now. >> Yeah, I it's a pretty low number. I

[1:34:39] don't think it's on >> It wouldn't be up to 3.5 million until

[1:34:42] until it was a systemwide >> county service. It's it's it's three to

[1:34:47] 500,000 now. >> The spreadsheet doesn't have that, but

[1:34:51] she's right. It is somewhere less than a million dollars. I think it's probably

[1:34:55] less than 700,000, but it's revenue we don't have right

[1:34:59] now. So the good news is we're capturing addition.

[1:35:02] » So the initial cost for the first year would be somewhere between

[1:35:06] 30 and and $70,000 not not the $350,000. >> And this particular contract is is paid

[1:35:13] for performance. So if we don't collect a dollar, we don't pay a dollar.

[1:35:17] » And I guess this doesn't affect CRS then at all in the current state. They

[1:35:21] they're still going to get their I guess you said about $150.

[1:35:25] » Yeah. We would have about uh a little over a thousand Medicaid calls that

[1:35:30] likely would qualify to some level with the companies that

[1:35:36] are on board. >> And how long is this contract?

[1:35:43] This is a cooperative contract and I believe we've agreed to a two-year

[1:35:46] period um so that they could move us into the system into the program assist

[1:35:53] us the first year and then the second year we should get in the swing of

[1:35:57] things and that's why we said we would revisit at that time if possible bring

[1:36:00] it in house but it's a cooperative and you don't have to stay within that

[1:36:05] contract.

[1:36:09] I hear you say July 1st is the deadline to get into this program. So that's

[1:36:13] good. Yeah,

[1:36:16] » this was bid by another company. >> It's a source wall contract.

[1:36:20] » Correct. So it was bid out by another organization or another county

[1:36:25] government or local organization government organization. So we're just

[1:36:29] piggybacking on their contract. >> Which contract are we piggybacking on? A

[1:36:34] different county or >> a different county or a different I'm

[1:36:36] not sure. >> It's a cooperative group. It's source

[1:36:38] well. We use source well for a number of contracts and they had a contract for

[1:36:43] this and specifically awarded um PCG uh for exactly what we were looking for to

[1:36:51] get us enrolled to get us started. They were the consultant that was awarded and

[1:36:55] I believe there was so many agencies within Maryland that was already using

[1:37:00] this. >> They're almost the exclusive provider of

[1:37:03] these consulting service for this particular program in Maryland. But this

[1:37:07] was competitively bid. We're just piggybacking on another contract,

[1:37:11] » right? >> I imagine the rural counties are

[1:37:15] probably not using it. Garrett Aleni, >> not currently, but I do know that uh

[1:37:20] Morgan County, West Virginia is now exploring that. West Virginia as a state

[1:37:25] is not a participant in this particular program yet, but they're working on

[1:37:28] legislation to move forward. Program is only about three years old.

[1:37:34] It's not a long-term program yet.

[1:37:39] Thanks. >> Yeah, a motion to approve that.

[1:37:44] » Second. >> We have a motion and a second for

[1:37:46] approval that's submitted. All in favor by saying I.

[1:37:50] » I. >> Oppos? Same sign.

[1:37:52] » 5. Thank you. Next item under tab 22 is contract award

[1:38:00] PUR1 1817 recordkeeping and actuarial consulting

[1:38:05] services for the retirement plan length of service award program better known as

[1:38:10] LOAP and other postemployment benefits under Gatsby-75.

[1:38:17] » Randy Kentner, director of procurement.

[1:38:29] The next recommendation is the contract award for PR 1817. Move to award the

[1:38:34] contract for recordkeeping and actuarial consulting services for the retirement

[1:38:39] plan lent the service award program and other postmployment benefits under

[1:38:44] GSB-75 to the responsible responsive proposal

[1:38:49] Bolton Partners Incorporated out of Baltimore, Maryland for its price

[1:38:53] proposal dated April 27th, 2026 for an initial one-year term with the option

[1:38:58] for the county to renew up to four additional one-year periods for a total

[1:39:02] sum $332,600.

[1:39:06] The services consist of annual actuarial evaluations for employees, retirement

[1:39:12] plan, length of service awards program, and other post-employment benefits plan,

[1:39:17] preparation of annual employee benefit statements, approximately 100 benefit

[1:39:21] calculations annually, approximately 10 buyback calculations annually. uh

[1:39:27] administration of pension portal for employees and preparation of GASB

[1:39:33] disclosure reports. Notice of the request proposal was advertised on the

[1:39:37] county's online bidding site as well as the email marketplace advantage uh

[1:39:42] website. 18 companies downloaded the document. Three companies were present

[1:39:46] at the pre-proposal. We did receive one proposal for these services.

[1:39:54] And to answer your question, we got before you asked, we had only got four

[1:39:57] the last time five years ago. Um, so we got one this year and it was our

[1:40:03] incumbent. Um, the coordinating committee that reviewed the proposal was

[1:40:09] uh comprised with the director of procurement, the director of human

[1:40:13] resources, human resources, retirement coordinator, director of budget and

[1:40:17] finance, and the county CFO. The fees for the services are paid from the

[1:40:21] pension funds. um years 21 through 26 for five years, the amount of that

[1:40:27] contract was $279,815.

[1:40:35] [clears throat] >> So the last time we had this it was

[1:40:38] 270,000 >> $279,815.

[1:40:42] That was 5 years ago >> and now it's 332.

[1:40:47] [snorts]

[1:40:51] Does anyone know um how many participants are in the LOAP program?

[1:40:58] » Off the top of my head, I don't. >> Okay. I

[1:41:01] » We can get that for you. I'll get that for you.

[1:41:02] » I'm just curious. Okay. >> So, we're looking at uh $66,520

[1:41:08] per year. >> Okay.

[1:41:12] [sighs]

[1:41:15] » Okay. Motion.

[1:41:18] Anyone?

[1:41:24] Motion to approve.

[1:41:30] » Second. >> Okay.

[1:41:32] Ready to vote. All in favor by saying I. >> I.

[1:41:35] » I. >> Oppos. Same sign.

[1:41:37] » 5. Thank you. >> Next item under tab 23 is contract award

[1:41:43] PUR1 18/19 stop loss insurance coverage.

[1:41:51] Randy, >> Becky Lewis, I'm benefits consultant for

[1:41:55] Citiz. The next recommendation is contract award PR18/19.

[1:42:00] Motion to award a contract for stop-loss insurance to the responsive responsible

[1:42:04] proposal high mark of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, who submitted a total

[1:42:08] annual premium for option one of 1,639,444

[1:42:15] with a specific stop-loss of $175,000 per claimant. Stop-loss policies are

[1:42:22] insuranceances that protects the plan from significant claim costs. associated

[1:42:26] with individual members or for the entire group. Currently, the board of

[1:42:30] county commissioners has a stop-loss policy with Highark that limits the

[1:42:34] medical and prescription drug plan cost at a maximum of $175,000

[1:42:39] per member per year. Direct notice of the request proposal was emailed to 13

[1:42:45] potential providers. Propo proposals were received before the deadline of May

[1:42:49] 15, 2026 from three companies that are providers of stop-loss insurance. Funds

[1:42:55] are available in the FY27 health insurance budget for these services.

[1:43:05] » Ma'am, >> ma'am, you're out of order. This is

[1:43:10] » I'm going to ask you to sit. Please sit down.

[1:43:13] » Please sit. Ma'am, please sit down. You're out of order.

[1:43:20] Okay, Brand Brandy, you have any any further comments?

[1:43:24] » Okay, >> commissioners.

[1:43:29] » So, you had three bids. This is the lowest bidder.

[1:43:33] » Okay. >> And the the presentation with the

[1:43:36] results are on there if you'd like to take a look at the proposals that we did

[1:43:40] get. >> Out of curiosity, what is the order?

[1:43:48] Okay, we [clears throat] have a motion.

[1:43:52] » Second. >> No, we need a motion.

[1:43:55] » Do we have a motion? >> I do. Motion to approve. I'm sorry.

[1:43:58] Motion approve. >> Motion and a second. Okay. All in favor

[1:44:01] by saying I. >> I.

[1:44:02] » Opposed. Same sign. 50. >> Okay. Thank you.

[1:44:09] Next item under tab 24 contract award PUR1822

[1:44:13] Hagerstown Regional Airport rehabilitate runway 2-20.

[1:44:21] » Randy Kentner, director in the office of procurement.

[1:44:24] » Andrew Rashwin, director of public works.

[1:44:26] » The next recommendation is contract award PR1822.

[1:44:30] The recommended motions are motion one contingent upon successful FAA and MAA

[1:44:35] grant application and awards. Move to award the contract for the

[1:44:39] rehabilitation of runway 2-20 at the Hagerstown Regional Airport to the

[1:44:44] Responsive Responsible Firm C. William Hetszer of Hagerstown, Maryland for a

[1:44:48] total price of 2,220,450.

[1:44:52] Motion number two, move to empower staff to sign and submit FAA and MAA grant

[1:44:58] applications, issue purchase orders, execute task orders, and complete

[1:45:02] related paperwork for this project based on the total cost uh being on the blow

[1:45:08] amounts programmed and approved by the previous county budgets. Project scope

[1:45:13] includes the reconstruction and rehabilitation of existing crosswind

[1:45:17] runway 2-20, including runway milling and overlaying, replacement of airfield

[1:45:23] lighting with LED new airfield signage, a constant current regulator, a

[1:45:29] supplemental supplemental wind cone and replacement of lighting panel within the

[1:45:34] existing air traffic control tower. Runway dimensions are expected to be

[1:45:38] maintained. This project is time-sensitive as FAA and MAA grant

[1:45:43] applications need to be submitted during the second week of June to meet the

[1:45:47] deadlines. The invitation of bid was advertised on the county's website and

[1:45:52] the state of Maryland's e-marland marketplace website. 12 companies

[1:45:55] downloaded the document. Six firms were present at the pre-proposal and two

[1:46:00] firms submitted a proposal. Funding is available in the capital improvement

[1:46:04] plan RUN 021.

[1:46:12] Mo motion to approve motion one accept the grant complete or submit the grant

[1:46:19] application. Is that correct

[1:46:23] » to award? >> Motion one's the contingent award.

[1:46:25] Motion two is to submit the grant application.

[1:46:27] » Okay. Motion one contingent award. Yeah. >> Second. Okay. We have a motion and a

[1:46:32] second >> discussion.

[1:46:34] » Okay. >> Thanks. Um, if we get the

[1:46:39] what we're the grant application, if we get the grant, how what percentage of

[1:46:43] the grant is going to cover the cost? >> 95% roughly.

[1:46:48] » So, the county would pay the extra 5%. >> Correct. The airport would pay the

[1:46:52] remaining 5% or so. >> It's paid for out of the enterprise

[1:46:55] fund, >> right? So, I know that we had

[1:46:58] electricity that went out this last week. Could that be included in

[1:47:01] something like this to get battery backup?

[1:47:04] » No. This project scope is already set, but that's another reason why we're

[1:47:08] advocating for funding for the new air traffic control tower to address some of

[1:47:13] those backup issues. >> Okay, so that's separate, but thank you.

[1:47:17] So, it's >> there is a lighting component to this

[1:47:20] project and that's one of the ad alternates. So, if you've been up in the

[1:47:23] tower and you see those antiquated control systems, so there is a piece of

[1:47:27] this project to be able to uh put a control panel in there to be able to

[1:47:31] control the lighting. So that's what you're seeing in there is to be able to

[1:47:35] control that from the tower, not mainly on the ground.

[1:47:39] » Very good. >> Okay, we have a motion and a second on

[1:47:43] the floor. Ready to vote? All in favor? >> Ma'am, you're out of order. This is

[1:47:50] » I'm going to >> I'm going to ask you one more time to

[1:47:54] leave or be quiet. >> What is the You need to leave, officer.

[1:48:00] We're going I'm going to ask to have them removed.

[1:48:07] » Oh, fair.

[1:48:24] » So, I think you have a motion and a second on on one,

[1:48:27] » right? So, we ready to vote? All in favor [snorts] by saying I

[1:48:31] » I >> oppos same sign five 50.

[1:48:35] » Next >> then I would motion to submit the

[1:48:37] application to the FFA motion to second. >> We have a motion and a second to submit

[1:48:43] the application for the grant award. All in favor by saying I

[1:48:48] » I >> oppos. Same sign 50. Thank you.

[1:48:53] » [clears throat] >> Uh, next item under tab 25 is contract

[1:48:58] award PUR1823, aircraft rescue and firefighting uh,

[1:49:04] building demolition at Hagerstown Regional Airport.

[1:49:07] » The next recommendation is the contract award PR1823.

[1:49:12] The recommended motions are motion one contingent upon successful FAA and MAA

[1:49:17] grant application and awards. do move to award the contract for aircraft rescue

[1:49:21] and firefighting building demolition at the Hagerstown Regional Airport to the

[1:49:26] responsive responsible firm Blue Rock Remodeling out of Rockville, Maryland

[1:49:30] with the lowest total bid amount of $92,000.

[1:49:33] Motion number two, move to empower the staff to sign and submit FAA and MAA

[1:49:38] grant applications, issue purchase orders, execute task orders, and

[1:49:42] complete related paperwork for this project. um

[1:49:47] for the total cost below the amount programmed and approved by in previous

[1:49:51] county budgets. The project involves the demolition of the old abandoned airport

[1:49:57] fire station to remove it from the airport's runway visibility zone and

[1:50:01] runway object free area. This will enable the airport to meet FAA safety

[1:50:06] standards and to improve line of sight between the primary and crosswind

[1:50:10] runways. This is a rebid from previous bids that were rejected. Demolition

[1:50:15] demolition services have now been separated out

[1:50:20] from the airport fence realignment work. At um its May 7th, 2024 meeting, the

[1:50:26] board of county commissioners previously voted to empower the airport director to

[1:50:29] sign and submit FAA and MAA grant applications for the related um

[1:50:34] paperwork for this project based upon total cost being

[1:50:42] for for the amounts uh programmed and approved in a previous county budget.

[1:50:46] The invitation to bid was advertised on the county's website and on the e-

[1:50:50] Maryland marketplace advantage website. 21 companies downloaded the document and

[1:50:54] eight firms were present at the pre-proposal. We did receive eight

[1:50:58] proposals for this project. The project is identified in the county's capital

[1:51:02] improvement plan under LTI068.

[1:51:08] And I'm guessing this is 5% same thing as the last one.

[1:51:11] » Correct. >> Thanks.

[1:51:15] » Okay. Motion one.

[1:51:32] We uh the there's not much difference in that number one and two bid. What was

[1:51:37] it? Do you have an estimate of what you thought it would be?

[1:51:40] » Yes, that's in there. Uh the engineers estimate I believe was just 6% or so

[1:51:46] higher. Yes, 92,756 was the engineer's estimate for the

[1:51:51] work.

[1:51:59] Does the um removal of the building does that include any of the removal of the

[1:52:05] apron with the building or the flooring of the building? Do you understand my

[1:52:09] question? I'm just curious how much my understanding is that we're not

[1:52:13] necessarily disturbing outside the footprint of the building.

[1:52:16] » Okay. So, it's just the footprint of the building.

[1:52:18] » Just the footprint of the building. >> Okay. And is it the floor of the

[1:52:20] building also? Are you not sure? >> I'm not I could clarify.

[1:52:23] » It's just torn. Okay. It's being demolished to the ground level.

[1:52:26] » Visibility down to ground level and solid surfacing. Okay. Yes.

[1:52:29] » Just curious. Thanks. >> As in all contracts, has the award

[1:52:34] winner been vetted for? >> Correct. Um, we've talked with this

[1:52:40] contractor. The consultant ADCI has has done more extensive um communication

[1:52:46] with them and they're also on a upcoming prospective award as well. So, it is a

[1:52:50] new contractor um to us in Washington County.

[1:52:53] » References checked and things like that. They all were positive.

[1:52:58] Yes.

[1:53:02] » And we may see new vendors. We have our new online bidding site which opens it

[1:53:06] up to a wide variety of vendors. So, we like to see that. That's competition.

[1:53:10] So, you may see more new vendors in in the future.

[1:53:28] What do you think the likelihood that we'll get the um the award is?

[1:53:33] » This one I would say near 100%. Because the way these these projects work is we

[1:53:38] have entitlement funds which are capital funds set aside by the FAA for the

[1:53:44] airport meeting its um employment goal targets. So if we receive that uh this

[1:53:50] program is scheduled to use entitlement funds the ones we just awarded uh runway

[1:53:55] 220 is competing for discretionary funds. So that's the one that's

[1:53:58] competitive uh much more timesensitive both both are uh but essentially they go

[1:54:04] through kind of as a pairing and they evaluate those and the funds first off

[1:54:07] the board are your entitlement funds and then remaining funds can compete for

[1:54:12] discretionary grants. >> Yeah. I guess it's entitlement because

[1:54:15] this is a safety issue. Well, yes and no. They consider it um basically we

[1:54:20] structure our capital improvement plan so that we can compete for as much

[1:54:25] discretionary outside funds. And so uh projects that deal with runways,

[1:54:31] taxiways, kind of working from inside the airport out compete better for

[1:54:35] discretionary funds. things like this, which are still safety improvements, but

[1:54:40] more peripheral, is where we have a better chance to just use our

[1:54:44] entitlement funds to to get the project done. So, we try to structure things to

[1:54:48] be most advantageous to bringing outside more outside grant funds into the

[1:54:53] airport. >> Very good. Thanks.

[1:54:56] And where is the um contractor located? >> Their address is believe

[1:55:03] Rockville >> Rockville Rockville

[1:55:10] Okay. Any other discussion, questions? Motion for

[1:55:17] item number one.

[1:55:26] I'll go ahead and make a motion. I mean, it is the cheapest one, although

[1:55:31] it's not by a lot.

[1:55:35] And to your point, it is helpful to have a lot of people competing on our work.

[1:55:45] » Second. >> Okay. Have a motion and second for

[1:55:47] motion number one. All in favor by saying I

[1:55:51] » I >> opposed. Same sign. Now discussion and

[1:55:56] motion for motion number two. >> I make a motion that we apply for the

[1:56:00] grant. >> Second.

[1:56:01] » Okay. All in favor by saying I. I >> oppos same sign 50 likewise. Thank you.

[1:56:09] » Next item under tab 26 is contract award PUR1 1824 airport operations area uh

[1:56:17] fence access gate and realignment at Hagerstown Regional Airport.

[1:56:22] » The next recommendation is contract award PR1824.

[1:56:28] The recommended motions are motion one contingent upon successful FAA and MAA

[1:56:33] grant applications and award. Move to award the contract for the airport

[1:56:37] operations area fence and access gate realignment at the Hagerstown Regional

[1:56:41] Airport to the responsive responsible firm Blue Rock Remodeling out of

[1:56:45] Rockville, Maryland with the lowest bid total sum of 2,218,625.

[1:56:53] Motion number two is the empower the staff to sign, submit FAA and MAA grant

[1:56:58] applications, issue purchase orders, execute task orders, and complete

[1:57:02] related paperwork for this project based on the program and approved uh budgets

[1:57:08] by the county. The project includes the removal and reinstallation of new AOA

[1:57:14] airport operations area security fencing gates to meet runway visibility zone

[1:57:19] requirements. A section of the existing parameter fence that runs along the east

[1:57:23] side of the runway O2 is also currently located within the runway object free

[1:57:28] area. This section of the fence will be removed and a new section and a new

[1:57:32] fence shall be constructed outside the ROFA. The project has been broken out

[1:57:38] from a larger project that was designed and bid in 2025. We had no successful

[1:57:43] bids um for that project. Therefore, the project has broken up into separate more

[1:57:48] discipline specific work elements to diversify um the potential bidder pool

[1:57:54] and to obtain successful bids for this project. Both contract PR1 1823 and 1824

[1:58:01] are anticipated to be included under the same FAA and MAA grants. The invitation

[1:58:07] of bid was advertised on the county's online bidding website, the state's

[1:58:11] email marketplace advantage website. 15 companies downloaded the document. Six

[1:58:16] firms were present at the pre-proposal and we did did receive six proposals for

[1:58:21] this project. This project is identified in the county's capital improvement plan

[1:58:26] LBI68. >> I I have one question. I just noticed

[1:58:31] that you say motion to empower staff. Do we normally do that?

[1:58:36] » No, but I believe this was due to the supplies um and the application. I think

[1:58:41] Neil normally signs the actual grant applications that that go in as an

[1:58:46] authorized agent. So that that's what it's referring to.

[1:58:50] » Well, aren't grants normally signed by the board president?

[1:58:55] » Grant applications.

[1:59:01] Neil has noted that in in his absence today, he'd give me this. In May of

[1:59:06] 2024, the board did vote to empower him to sign these applications um

[1:59:14] » for these projects. It was one project at the time. It's two projects now. They

[1:59:18] broke it apart. >> What that is referring to is this

[1:59:21] project was previously advertised with the demolition of the ARF station as

[1:59:26] one. We only received one bid and the board rejected it. So when you're

[1:59:31] dealing with FAA projects, there's multiple kind of applications that need

[1:59:36] to be made and submitted um and purchase orders. So I think it's a question of

[1:59:41] what is he permitted to sign versus what does President Bar need to sign for um

[1:59:49] essentially moving those documents through execution.

[1:59:54] » It's just unusual.

[1:59:58] I [clears throat] would say Commissioner Bar would have to review and sign with

[2:00:01] the permission of the vote of the commissioner's approval. Um another

[2:00:07] check and balance. Someone tell me different.

[2:00:10] » So then the previous two items that also need amended

[2:00:14] to remove empower staff.

[2:00:23] » I know there is a deadline I believe for June 15th. So, provided you're available

[2:00:28] to sign those documents, >> that won't be a problem.

[2:00:32] » Okay, >> we need a motion to kind of back up and

[2:00:35] cover that. >> Yes, we need to amend the previous two

[2:00:39] items. >> I make a motion to pre uh to

[2:00:43] [snorts] revisit the previous two motions with

[2:00:46] the condition, the approval and signature of the commissioner and

[2:00:49] commissioners and John Bar signature. >> That accurate?

[2:00:53] » Yes. >> Second. Okay, we have a motion and a

[2:00:56] second for that revision. All ready to vote. All in favor by saying I.

[2:01:00] » I. >> Opposed? Same sign. 5. No.

[2:01:07] » Now for this one, um the motion would be amended to just move to approve instead

[2:01:13] of empower staff. It would just move to approve

[2:01:20] the submission of the grant applications. And

[2:01:25] » yeah, >> out of curiosity, how much was the

[2:01:30] project that was rejected a couple years ago? Um, it was over three million. Oh,

[2:01:35] so we got a better price. Yes. >> Sort of break this whole this is done in

[2:01:42] I'm a little confused. I'm sorry. This is done in certain bidding sequences and

[2:01:46] bidding awards. What's it >> do you have your what number one low

[2:01:52] bidder was blue rock? Do do they >> how they align with it's in there

[2:01:57] somewhere. The engineering estimates. >> Uh yes. So the engineering estimate for

[2:02:02] this one I believe was was actually a little bit less uh one

[2:02:08] » $1,937,480

[2:02:12] was the engineers estimate on this one. So on this one at least with respect to

[2:02:16] that the bids are a little bit higher than that estimate. So, what's of all

[2:02:23] these bids tabulated, what's the difference between the first bidder and

[2:02:27] say the second or third bidder, whoever, what's

[2:02:29] » uh the spread on this one, the high bidder is 3,333,575

[2:02:35] and I believe they were the vendor that submitted the bid that I just referenced

[2:02:40] that was rejected previously. Um, >> makes sense. So yes, the bids were

[2:02:45] separated this time around and ultimately ended up being a new vendor

[2:02:48] bidding on it because we had kind of an issue of well is it a demolition project

[2:02:53] or is it a fence project and so you had people um not necessarily expertise in

[2:02:59] either one and not a GC that wanted to step in and do uh the project and manage

[2:03:03] both. So, we did get um on both projects more bids received for both of them,

[2:03:11] which is a good sign, but again, it is a a new vendor.

[2:03:18] » In eight years, I haven't seen that vendor. That's why I'm questioning it.

[2:03:21] » Well, they didn't exist eight years ago. >> They seem really, again, it's [snorts]

[2:03:26] competition's good, and I agree with what Neil said. It's always good, but is

[2:03:30] there a fear of there being too low? I will say this, I mean again the

[2:03:36] engineers estimate is one thing. We request their uh subconsultants listing

[2:03:41] and estimated pricing. So I mean they are using long fence for the fencing

[2:03:46] work and I know they're a reputable company. So a lot of times you have a GC

[2:03:50] on this project. A lot of the work that they are uh proposing to be done is by

[2:03:56] subcontractors. We do have a minimum percent of work to be completed by the

[2:04:01] prime and they've met that. Um, so again, they've listed their subs,

[2:04:06] they've been checked out. So I know we just awarded an earlier project along

[2:04:10] fencing for gates and things like that. >> So some of it's coming down to how

[2:04:14] they're managing the subs and the overhead.

[2:04:22] » Who who vetted all the company? I mean, who vets them?

[2:04:25] » Does AC Rock, they take the lead. Do you want to

[2:04:30] explain kind of our process on this one because we did a little bit more effort

[2:04:33] than usual? >> So, for Blue Rock, because they were

[2:04:37] new, um we did it was more or less a team effort. ADCI did call the vendor,

[2:04:42] did speak with the vendor, got a list of um jobs that they had done. They had

[2:04:47] some foreign embassy jobs over overseas. They

[2:04:52] had a I don't have the paper in front of me that had

[2:04:54] » Yeah, they did embassy work in in Washington DC. I would say they're they

[2:04:58] they have done you know residential work. They do commercial their

[2:05:01] commercial work was was more on the state department side doing embassy. So

[2:05:05] they have experience doing security projects, fencing projects. Um and again

[2:05:10] this project is more that than necessarily

[2:05:12] » it's not really as much project and site >> airport operation. It is about just what

[2:05:17] they could do on any commercial property they haven't really had airport

[2:05:21] experience but in this case I'm not sure it matters

[2:05:27] » do do we require a bond anything certain amount

[2:05:31] » yes there's a bid bond and a payment and performance bond

[2:05:34] » okay so they are >> and they are registered with state of

[2:05:36] Maryland so we do check that too so they're in good standing uh and they

[2:05:40] have been since 2022 too.

[2:05:45] » I just want to clarify when Commissioner Commissioner Klein made his motion he

[2:05:50] referenced previous items. He was referring to 24 and 25.

[2:05:57] Is there um is there any plan now or in the future

[2:06:03] uh to provide any form of parking for general aviation aircraft in the

[2:06:08] vicinity of the [sighs and gasps] museum?

[2:06:13] » I would say yes and no. So there's a part of that apron which was purchased

[2:06:19] several years ago under an FAA grant to provide that visibility zone. Mhm.

[2:06:25] » And then I know Neil's had some conversations and meetings with the

[2:06:28] airport uh or the Heggertown Aviation Museum about kind of reconfiguring where

[2:06:34] they can park aircraft because as you know there's the uh object free area,

[2:06:39] but then there's also kind of that cone that steps back up um where you can put

[2:06:44] things maybe lower level but not high tails and things of aircraft. So, I

[2:06:48] think he's had those discussions and I know there was a meeting about it,

[2:06:52] » but I don't have a parking layout for everything. They park aircraft there

[2:06:56] now. >> Yeah. But it's just not it's not

[2:06:58] something that if I were landing at that airport that I could say I'm headed to

[2:07:02] the museum that I can easily tower could move me to that to park. Do you

[2:07:08] understand my point? >> Correct. I mean the gate there will be a

[2:07:11] functioning sliding gate 160 ft. So there will be access in and out but

[2:07:16] technically that is off airport property.

[2:07:18] » Okay. >> All right. Thank you.

[2:07:23] » Okay. Looking for a motion for motion number one.

[2:07:34] » Is it appropriate to ask another commissioner a question?

[2:07:39] » Like Commissioner Wagner. Um the last one that we looked at

[2:07:45] » was only $756 difference, >> right? That didn't that didn't bother me

[2:07:50] at all, you know. That was good, you know.

[2:07:52] » And then this one, of course, is 3 million. Well, 300,000, sorry,

[2:07:56] difference. Would you feel better if we divided it between two different

[2:08:01] contractors? You know, I'm not after that as much as

[2:08:04] I am just making sure they were vetted properly because eight years I've never

[2:08:09] seen the name and it didn't exist eight years ago. And I'm

[2:08:17] I mean it wouldn't matter if you divide. They're still less expensive than

[2:08:22] either way. I think the grand total is more than that figure you just mentioned

[2:08:27] on everything. Isn't it a difference? Well, I mean, I they're two separate bid

[2:08:33] awards right now, two separate estimates,

[2:08:36] » right? >> Um even though the the capital funding

[2:08:40] » is coming from the same Washington County CIP number,

[2:08:45] » right? >> Because of how we had it set up

[2:08:48] originally, but we're doing two two bids.

[2:08:54] I mean, I'll say any any project that we do, there's always risk of unknowns,

[2:08:58] whether it's a a known vendor or a new vendor. Um, so I can't sit here and

[2:09:02] promise that everything's going to go, you know, perfect. We do what we can and

[2:09:06] ultimately, you know, the procurement's uh assistance and and with the the team

[2:09:12] is to try to define if or judge if they're uh responsive and responsible.

[2:09:19] That's really where we're coming from. the next low we would have to determine

[2:09:24] that the low didn't meet the requirements because we did advertise

[2:09:27] with course low bid does drive it but they also have to meet the requirements

[2:09:31] of the solicitation and we found nothing that said otherwise.

[2:09:35] » Yeah and I mean saving money saving money I get it and that's what we're

[2:09:38] here for to try to save as much as we can and I I I'm a little bit more

[2:09:43] comfortable personally because ADCI vetted them. I mean they've been in the

[2:09:47] business forever and they've they do they're big. They're huge. If

[2:09:53] » so, that makes me more comfortable. So, >> we can't just not award someone because

[2:09:58] they're new because we're going to always have new vendors.

[2:10:00] » Yeah. I mean I I I get the hesitation but we can't just say we are too new to

[2:10:05] take on our project like like you said ABCI did make their calls and they did

[2:10:10] vet them as well as you know we went through what procurement does to vet

[2:10:14] them >> and we have procedures in place if they

[2:10:17] fail to perform any of the duties or responsibilities that are included in

[2:10:20] the contract um we have um things in place to to address that.

[2:10:26] » Correct. We don't like doing it, but that's to Commissioner Bar's question

[2:10:30] before about the payment and performance bond. You don't like to go there, but

[2:10:33] there's >> um measures that we take to protect

[2:10:36] ourselves.

[2:10:40] » Okay. Looking for a motion for the first

[2:10:45] recommendation. Motion number one. >> Make a motion to approve motion one.

[2:10:51] » Okay. >> Second.

[2:10:52] » I have a motion and second. Ready to vote. All in favor by saying I. I

[2:10:56] » I >> oppose same sign. And then motion number

[2:10:59] two is to uh >> without empower staff,

[2:11:03] » right? To submit FAA and MAA grant applications.

[2:11:08] » Motion to approve that >> as amended.

[2:11:12] » Correct. >> Okay.

[2:11:13] » Thank you. >> Second. Ready to vote. All in favor by

[2:11:16] saying I. >> I. I.

[2:11:17] » Oppos. Same sign. 5. Thank you. Thank you.

[2:11:22] Next item is under tab 27 and that is contract award PUR786

[2:11:30] Washington County Office um building roof repair. The next recommendation is

[2:11:35] contract award PR 1786. Move to award the contract for the Washington County

[2:11:41] Office Building Roof Repair to the Responsive Responsible Firm Bonded

[2:11:45] Applicators of Waysburg, Pennsylvania with the lowest total bid sum of

[2:11:49] $292,845.

[2:11:53] The work includes removal of the existing membrane roof system on the

[2:11:56] county office building, removing and resetting rooftop equipment,

[2:12:01] installation and insulation, crickets, slopes,

[2:12:05] saddles, flashing roofing system, and parapet wall repairs. The building is

[2:12:12] located at 3335 West Washington Street in Haggartown. The invitation of bid was

[2:12:17] advertised on the county's online bidding site, the state of Maryland's e

[2:12:21] Maryland marketplace [snorts] advantage website. 16 companies downloaded the

[2:12:25] document. 15 companies were present at the pre pre- bid proposal and we did

[2:12:29] receive 10 proposals for this project. Capital improvement uh plan budget DLB

[2:12:36] 100 has made funds available for this project.

[2:12:46] discussion motion >> just my curious question engineers

[2:12:50] estimate on that >> I would yes we did one I think it was

[2:12:56] around 300,000 250 or 300,000 I budgeted for

[2:13:01] this one in the facility roof uh repairs >> unit price is a little higher because

[2:13:06] it's a little bit more than just a roof replacement there's insulation and other

[2:13:10] work and there's a lot of equipment

[2:13:14] Just another huge discrepancy that's all which is in our favor for the

[2:13:18] » in this in this case. Bonnet Applicators has done a lot of work with the county

[2:13:22] and they're also >> um

[2:13:24] » Yeah, it's a well known >> familiar with the building. They've done

[2:13:27] patch repairs on it already. So, I mean I think they know what they're getting.

[2:13:32] » Well, I'm not questioning their ability. I was just thinking we keep seeing all

[2:13:36] these big swings. >> You're say what's the reason? I think in

[2:13:39] this case it's familiarity. Um, and they are a local contractor

[2:13:43] » and I think they see the competition when they're on our site. They can see

[2:13:45] who's bidding on that. >> So, there's a there's a number of

[2:13:48] vendors on there. >> Okay.

[2:13:50] » And we we had a lot of participation in the the um pre-bid meeting and the site

[2:13:55] visit.

[2:13:58] » Okay. Any other discussion? Looking for a motion.

[2:14:03] » Motion to award.

[2:14:08] » Second. >> Okay. Motion and second for award as

[2:14:11] submitted. All in favor by saying I. >> I.

[2:14:14] » Oppos? Same sign. 5. Next item under tab 28 is contract award PUR1 1787 Martin

[2:14:23] Luther King Jr. uh community center renovation.

[2:14:27] » My last recommendation contract award PUR 1787.

[2:14:31] Move to award the contract for the Martin Luther King Jr. community center

[2:14:35] renovation to the responsive responsible firm Tricson Construction of Baltimore,

[2:14:40] Maryland with the lowest total bid sum amount of 2,799,775

[2:14:48] for the base bid at alternates three allowance and unit prices and to approve

[2:14:53] and execute the reference budget adjustment. So that'll require two

[2:14:57] approvals, one for the award and one for the budget adjustment. The project

[2:15:02] includes renovations to common use areas on three floors of the former school

[2:15:06] building constructed in 1949. Washington County is the building owner and primary

[2:15:12] building tenants include Head Start and Children in Ne. The project will uh

[2:15:17] renovate portions of the building to upgrade building systems and accommodate

[2:15:21] public facility use as a community gymnasium.

[2:15:25] Building renovations include replacing the wood floor in the gymnasium, new

[2:15:29] restroom facilities, installation of an elevator and machine room, HVAC systems,

[2:15:35] sprinkler additions, fire alarm and door security systems, partial roof

[2:15:40] replacement, windows, two entrance canopies and landscaping. The building

[2:15:44] is located at 131 West North Street in Haggartown. The invitation of bid was

[2:15:50] listed on the county's website along with the state of Maryland's e Maryland

[2:15:53] marketplace advantage website. 60 companies downloaded the document. 18

[2:15:58] curves were present at the pre-proposal and we did receive five proposals for

[2:16:03] this. Funds are budgeted in various capital improvement plans for these

[2:16:08] services and a $125,000 budget adjustment form uh from

[2:16:14] facilities roof repairs. MLK Gymnasium is requested to cover the construction

[2:16:19] and inspection cost associated with the roof replacement that will be completed

[2:16:24] with the renovation project. >> [clears throat]

[2:16:34] » Okay. >> Just had a question about the gymnasium.

[2:16:37] How many people tend to use this? >> It varies depending on the event. Um the

[2:16:45] the hope is and the plan as after uh the renovations, the Washington County

[2:16:51] Recreation Department would be able to run more programming there. Right now,

[2:16:54] one of the limiting factors is the lack of facilities, uh, restroom facilities,

[2:16:59] things like that. So, it's used daily, um, by Head Start for their gymnasium

[2:17:05] space. And back when Robert Wood Johnson was operating, uh, programming for the

[2:17:10] community, they were using it as well, uh, at least, I think, two or three

[2:17:15] times a week. So it get you it's used fairly uh regularly and we anticipate

[2:17:20] the community use aspect would increase once we have this project complete. Um

[2:17:26] that rental space will be more or less self-contained prior to that. It there

[2:17:32] weren't measures in place to be able to ensure that people were staying in the

[2:17:36] gymnasium and not through other parts of the building or having access to

[2:17:40] facilities. And you think our parks and wreck will be a be sorry will be able to

[2:17:44] use this facility as well? >> Correct. I think we'll be able to use it

[2:17:47] and even discussions about some of the community reinvestment funds um having

[2:17:53] that opportunity to support programming there. So I think we're really excited

[2:17:58] about offering that service to the community. Um and so it'll be a nice

[2:18:02] addition and we're trying to reuse the facilities that we already have rather

[2:18:06] than going and building a new gym somewhere else. Um so I think in that

[2:18:10] regard it's it's fairly uh you know costefficient to do to do that versus uh

[2:18:16] new somewhere else. >> And the community reinvestment funds are

[2:18:20] monies uh that we receive uh from cannabis sales tax.

[2:18:31] [clears throat]

[2:18:37] Motion to approve Second.

[2:18:40] » Okay, we have a motion and second for approval. And before I call for a vote,

[2:18:43] I want to go on the record as abstaining uh from voting on this

[2:18:49] when I understand that my former company that I used to own six years ago may be

[2:18:54] a part of this project as a subcontractor. And so therefore, I'm

[2:18:59] going to set this one out. But we we do have a motion in a second. I'm going to

[2:19:03] call for the vote. All in favor by saying I

[2:19:06] » I >> 40. 41 extens abstension

[2:19:11] » and for the approval of the budget adjustment.

[2:19:15] » Motion to approve. >> Okay. We have a second for that.

[2:19:20] » Second. >> Okay. Motion to second for budget

[2:19:23] adjustment. All in favor by saying I. >> I.

[2:19:26] » And I abstain. 40. >> Thank you.

[2:19:30] » Thank you. >> [clears throat]

[2:19:36] » Next item under tab 29 FY2027 program open spaces annual program.

[2:19:43] Andrew Echelman. >> Thank you. Something a little bit more

[2:19:46] exciting and light-hearted. Everyone looks forward to this uh each year. I

[2:19:50] certainly do. Uh, it's to seek a recommended motion to approve the annual

[2:19:55] FY27 program open space project list as was

[2:20:00] presented and recommended to the Washington County Recreation and Parks

[2:20:03] Advisory Board. Each year, per POS guidelines, the board of county

[2:20:09] commissioners is required to adopt the annual POS program. The various

[2:20:14] municipalities, board of education, Hickortown Community College, as well as

[2:20:18] the county submit project requests for consideration and inclusion in the

[2:20:22] program. Based upon anticipated available funds, we develop a program

[2:20:28] that gives consideration to county parks and recreation priorities, community

[2:20:33] benefit, and the priority rating of the project sponsor. Uh this year the parks

[2:20:38] and recck advisory board um heard those presentations and voted at its May 7th

[2:20:44] meeting to recommend the proposed schedule to the county commissioners for

[2:20:47] adoption. After adoption by the county

[2:20:50] commissioners, we finalize the program schedule, send it into the Department of

[2:20:55] Natural Resources, and then once that's approved, uh project sponsors may start

[2:21:01] uh and apply for funding after July 1st. This year, Washington County will

[2:21:06] receive $1,77,378 in FY227

[2:21:11] pro program open space funds. Since Washington County has met its local

[2:21:16] acquisition goal, 100% of these funds and aortionment can

[2:21:21] be used for either acquisition or development.

[2:21:25] Parkland projects are available for 100% reimbursement while development projects

[2:21:32] require a minimum 10% local match. This year all projects being considered and

[2:21:38] recommended are development projects. Uh this is highly unusual but uh the

[2:21:44] allocation was a little bit uh higher um almost twice as much as last year. we

[2:21:50] had you seen a decline after seeing uh earlier record numbers for allocation in

[2:21:56] FY 23 and 24. Um so all project sponsors requests were funded um including some

[2:22:06] uh additional uh funds that were made available to

[2:22:10] some of the project sponsors that I revisited um with their estimates

[2:22:15] because they submit these back in December. And so whether it's asphalt or

[2:22:20] diesel or those kind of things, um we made sure that the funding requests were

[2:22:24] still met. And so the project list before you essentially everyone who

[2:22:29] submitted an application um it's able to be fully funded this

[2:22:34] year. Are there any questions? >> The work in Hancock, what does that

[2:22:40] involve? So, um, if you've been up there, you've seen they installed the

[2:22:44] splash pad, the parking lot, and all of the, uh,

[2:22:48] driveway entrances for that area of the park kind of

[2:22:52] » south of there and to the east of the library, okay, is what they want to redo

[2:22:56] and surface and stripes so it's not so much of a hodge podge and broken

[2:23:00] pavement and and so have a proper parking lot to serve.

[2:23:03] » Okay. So, it's specifically for the splash pad.

[2:23:07] » Yeah. Well, I mean, it can serve other amenities within the park, but primarily

[2:23:11] what's driving it is the splash pad. >> Yeah, I saw that was gravel and so it's

[2:23:15] warranted. Sure.

[2:23:23] » And this is all state money, right? >> Correct. It's state money that is,

[2:23:28] again, as a refresher, it's collected as a as a transfer tax on real estate

[2:23:33] sales. So, a portion of that goes into a pot of money and then there uh the state

[2:23:39] does have discretion over uh which funding programs within that um

[2:23:46] receive a certain allocation. So, when Chris Bogs is in here for land

[2:23:51] preservation, that's also something that gets funded under this. There's state

[2:23:54] program open space. So, that's why you can look at a whole for what the funds

[2:24:00] are within program open space at a state level. But then the administration kind

[2:24:04] of has discretion over how much they allocate to each program is my

[2:24:07] understanding. [snorts]

[2:24:11] » Move to approve the POSOS project list. >> Second. Okay. We have a motion and

[2:24:16] second for approval as submitted. All in favor by saying I

[2:24:20] » I >> oppos. Same sign. 50. Thank you.

[2:24:24] » Thank you. Next item under tab 30 is the 2026 2027

[2:24:30] property and casualty insurance renewal. >> Ma'am, ma'am, you're out of order.

[2:24:39] » Ma'am, you're being disruptive to this meeting. I'm going to ask you to sit

[2:24:43] down or leave. >> Ma'am,

[2:24:46] » officer, we're going to have to remove her.

[2:24:48] » Need to ask her to leave. >> Ma'am, you have to leave.

[2:24:51] » I will leave now. for supporting this. This is all

[2:24:55] and you're silencing the people. The people want to speak. You're

[2:24:58] the command. All fair

[2:25:20] 28 >> Tracy McCammon, risk management

[2:25:24] coordinator. >> I'm Patrick Civas. Good morning, Chip

[2:25:28] Rose, director of human resources. >> We're here to present the 2026 2027

[2:25:33] property and casualty insurance renewal. The recommended motion is moved to renew

[2:25:37] the property and liability policies with Travelers Insurance Company and the

[2:25:42] drone and airport liability policies with AIG.

[2:25:46] The renewal quotes from the insurance carrier carriers are reflected on the

[2:25:50] attached premium comparison spreadsheet. The total renewal is a 5.8% 8% increase

[2:25:55] in premium compared to last year's actuals that were paid. Overall, we had

[2:25:59] a very favorable insurance renewal as reflected in the premium comparison.

[2:26:04] Several premiums either decreased slightly or they remained unchanged.

[2:26:08] There are two items that I would like to highlight from the comparison sheet.

[2:26:12] First, we were able to get travelers to agree to increase our coverage limit for

[2:26:16] our cyber to million and to decrease the deductible to $25,000.

[2:26:24] Second, there is an increase to our autoline premiums both in the liability

[2:26:28] and the physical damage. The increase is mainly due to our loss ratio and the

[2:26:33] number of transit bus accidents that we've had over the past year. So,

[2:26:37] unfortunately, Travelers has increased the deductible only to our transit bus

[2:26:42] accidents for the upcoming policy term. So, effective uh July 1st, the

[2:26:48] deductible will increase from the current $5,000 deductible to $10,000.

[2:26:53] The HR department has been working with the transit department on a plan to help

[2:26:58] uh mitigate some of these uh claims that we're having. And I can let Chip explain

[2:27:03] that plan. briefly. Um, starting this month, HR and Transit has developed a

[2:27:07] strategy to increase the volume of drivers we have uh on demand, improve

[2:27:11] the structure of the job family so they know where they stand in their family,

[2:27:14] develop new training for hands-on training specifically, um, and starting

[2:27:18] with the new fiscal year, we're going to hire a new safety coordinator. We're we

[2:27:22] have high hopes that the uh this will improve the confidence of our transit

[2:27:25] drivers and will help lower the volume of future incidents.

[2:27:31] So, as I said before, the um total increase in premium is 5.8%. However, we

[2:27:36] are within the 10% um that was budgeted for the fiscal year. Concurrences is

[2:27:41] Michelle Gordon, county administrator, and the alternative would be to go back

[2:27:44] and try to complete a market bid, but that could create a lapse in coverage.

[2:27:50] Any questions?

[2:27:57] How long have we had this company? >> We've been with Traveler since 2000.

[2:28:03] » And when have we put it out for bid? >> Um [sighs and gasps] trying to think the

[2:28:09] last time you went out to bed. >> It was before my time handling the

[2:28:12] account. We did uh the the property in Marine were with another outfit as of

[2:28:17] two years ago and then we bid that out. travelers came in with very aggressive

[2:28:21] option that we we did accept or county accepted that they're with now. So the

[2:28:25] property in Marine those were those were shopped at the market. That's how they

[2:28:29] ended ended up at Trappers. Um but we have not shopped that out and at least

[2:28:34] since I've been handling the account it's not to say we could not. It's just

[2:28:39] the the account isn't in the best shape to expect a better result right now due

[2:28:44] to some loss history. So when when all the things that HR is doing safety

[2:28:49] standpoint start to show in as a result of lower frequency of claims and lower

[2:28:54] claims and the presentation would look better to potential suitors, then that's

[2:29:00] the time we want to go out and do that. >> Yeah. So, I'm thinking about putting a

[2:29:04] motion to accept this uh because it's one year,

[2:29:08] right? >> Accept this for one year, but with the

[2:29:10] stipulation that we're going to go out to bid next year to get other prices

[2:29:14] that we can look at. You kind of want to Is that a motion?

[2:29:20] » That's a motion. Yes. >> I want to do a second for discussion. Uh

[2:29:25] it sounds like to me on travelers that What was their proposal on cyber that we

[2:29:30] got them to 2 million? 1 million. >> So we originally had 1 million. Um we've

[2:29:35] had that since our renewal in 2023 because of our cyber incident that we

[2:29:40] had in November of 22, right? >> We originally had a $3 million policy.

[2:29:44] Deductible was $25,000. >> Okay. And when we did the renewal in 23,

[2:29:49] they reduced our uh coverage to 1 million, put some sublimit coverages on

[2:29:54] some of the other things that was covered in the policy and increased our

[2:29:57] deductible to 50,000. And ever since then, um I've been trying to get it back

[2:30:02] up. >> So we did manage to get 2 million and

[2:30:05] 25,000 instead of 50,000 and >> correct

[2:30:09] » or less than 2 million. >> Yes. And and to your your point on this

[2:30:12] particular situation with the cyber, this wasn't just an ask like travelers,

[2:30:15] will you do this for us kind of thing. Competition did did force their hand a

[2:30:19] little bit on having adjusted terms for us both in pricing and getting

[2:30:23] attention. >> Good.

[2:30:25] » Yeah, I think it's fair to shop it in a year, but I'm fine. Yeah.

[2:30:29] » Is that a second? >> Yeah.

[2:30:31] » Okay. We have a motion and a second on the floor. Ready to vote? All in favor

[2:30:36] by saying I >> oppos. Same sign. 5. Thank you. So that

[2:30:40] motion approves as amended. >> Yes.

[2:30:44] » Thank you. >> Thank you.

[2:30:49] » Next item. Uh tab 31 agriculture. June is National Dairy Month. And do we

[2:31:00] Kelsey?

[2:31:03] » Michelle, >> you need to ice cream.

[2:31:09] Okay.

[2:31:19] » Good morning, commissioners. >> Good morning.

[2:31:21] » Kelsey Kadel, agricultural business specialist for the Department of

[2:31:24] Business and Economic Development. >> Good morning, commissioners. Danielle

[2:31:27] Weaver, director of public relations and marketing.

[2:31:32] Every June we celebrate National Dairy Month, a time to recognize the farmers

[2:31:35] and dairy producers who help feed our communities every day. Dairy continues

[2:31:39] to play an important role across Maryland, both economically and

[2:31:43] culturally. The recent data from the Maryland Department of A shows that milk

[2:31:47] sales in 2023 generated nearly $185 million statewide, reflecting the

[2:31:52] strength and lasting importance of the industry. Washington County remains a

[2:31:56] key part of that success. Being the leaders for the state with 92 dairy

[2:32:00] farms throughout the county, local farm families work hard all year round to

[2:32:04] provide local milk, cheese, ice cream, and other dairy products to be enjoyed

[2:32:08] by families across the region. This year, National Dairy Month celebration

[2:32:13] is especially meaningful as Washington County commemorates its 250th

[2:32:17] anniversary. Agriculture has shaped the county since its earliest days, and

[2:32:21] dairy farming has long been one of the defining traditions. The area's rich

[2:32:25] limestone soil, water resources, and open pasture land has made an ideal

[2:32:29] place for dairy farms to thrive, helping establish an industry that has supported

[2:32:33] generations of local families. So, let us remember that National Dairy Month is

[2:32:38] not only a time to celebrate the nutritious dairy products, but also a

[2:32:41] chance to recognize the hardworking farmers who continue a tradition that

[2:32:44] has been a part of Washington County for 250 years. Residents are encouraged to

[2:32:49] support local dairy producers this month and every month. And of course, there's

[2:32:54] no better way to celebrate than with a sweet scoop of local ice cream.

[2:32:59] And I'm here today to officially announce the Washington County's 250th

[2:33:03] anniversary ice cream trail, which officially launched on June 2nd and will

[2:33:08] continue through the last day of summer, which is September 22nd. This year's

[2:33:12] special theme trail features 16 participating stops across Washington

[2:33:17] County, giving residents and visitors an opportunity to enjoy local ice cream

[2:33:21] while exploring communities throughout the county. The ice cream trail

[2:33:26] celebrates both our strong dairy heritage and our 250th anniversary,

[2:33:31] highlighting the farms, cremaries, and businesses that help make Washington

[2:33:36] County such a special place. The response has already been incredible

[2:33:40] with one participate participant completing all 16 stops in less than a

[2:33:45] week. Whether you visit one stop or all 16,

[2:33:50] the ice cream trail is a fun way to support local businesses, celebrate our

[2:33:55] agricultural roots, and take part in Washington County's 200 250th

[2:34:00] anniversary festivities throughout the summer. Along the way, you can create

[2:34:05] lasting memories with friends and family, meet fellow participants, and

[2:34:09] maybe even make a new friend while enjoying some of the best ice cream

[2:34:13] Washington County has to offer.

[2:34:17] » And we do have uh one of those locations for you for when the meeting is over um

[2:34:22] in the break room. Uh we have gotten ice cream from Misty Meadow Farm from Creary

[2:34:26] for you today. >> And they were also our favorite ice

[2:34:30] cream shop for last year's trail. Very good. Very good. Thank you.

[2:34:35] » Thank you. >> Appreciate it.

[2:34:36] » Thank you.

[2:34:41] » Okay. Next item under tab 32 is the Washington County diversity and

[2:34:45] inclusion uh committee appointments. Don >> Don Marcus, county clerk, commissioners.

[2:34:51] On behalf of the Washington County Diversity and Inclusion Committee, I am

[2:34:55] requesting a motion to appoint Thomas Waldron and Maya Shupe to serve a first

[2:35:00] full three-year term from June 1st of 2026 through May 31st of 2029. This is

[2:35:08] not a paid board.

[2:35:16] » Motion. >> Motion to approve.

[2:35:18] » Second. >> Okay. Motion and second for approval as

[2:35:21] submitted. All in favor by saying I. >> I.

[2:35:24] » Opposed. Same sign. 5. Thank you. Next item under tab 33, Washington County

[2:35:30] Veterans Advisory Committee reappoint. >> Don Marcus, County Clerk. On behalf of

[2:35:36] the Washington County Veterans Advisory Committee, I'm requesting a motion to

[2:35:41] reappoint Aaron Palmer to serve a second three-year term from November 1st of

[2:35:47] 2025 through October 31st of 2028 as a veteran representative. This is not a

[2:35:53] pay board. Motion to approve. >> Second.

[2:35:57] » We have a motion and a second for approval as submitted. All in favor by

[2:36:01] saying I. >> I oppose. Same sign. Thank you.

[2:36:07] » [clears throat] >> Next item under tab 34 is the sheriff's

[2:36:11] office first amendment toou between uh Washington County public schools

[2:36:17] sheriff's office and board of county commissioners Zachary.

[2:36:21] » Thank you President Bar Zachary Kefir County Attorney. I'm before you today

[2:36:25] with the recommended motion to approve the first amendment to the school

[2:36:29] resource officer between the board of education sheriff's office and board of

[2:36:34] county commissioners. The school resource officer provides for

[2:36:38] the assignment of full-time school resource officers to the board of

[2:36:42] education for placement at the board of education central office Boonboro, Clear

[2:36:46] Spring, Smithsburg, and Williamsport school complexes. The school resource

[2:36:51] officer dated July 1, 2025 was executed by the parties and includes attachment

[2:36:57] two establishing the yearly cost of each SRO's salary and benefits to be paid by

[2:37:02] the board of education. Theou requires attachment two to be amended annually.

[2:37:07] The purpose of this first amendment is to amend attachment two.

[2:37:12] » Um, I don't have attachment two in my packet. Can I make a copy of that for

[2:37:16] the commissioners? >> I'm sorry. I don't. It's not in my

[2:37:20] packet either, but I can certainly get that to you.

[2:37:34] Are you emailing that right now? I'll go print it for the commissioners.

[2:38:03] » [snorts]

[2:38:23] » My apologies, President Bar. Um I guess if once Commissioner Wagner and uh

[2:38:28] Michelle come back if you want to move on and we can maybe

[2:38:33] » Um yeah, >> I I I'm sorry it's not up in my emails.

[2:38:37] » I was just looking at the next item here. I'm not sure I want to move into

[2:38:40] that without full board and >> we we can wait. Yeah, county

[2:38:45] administrator. We'll just hold tight here for a moment.

[2:39:23] Yes, >> the other 75%.

[2:39:31] It's just >> they they pay the full amount but um

[2:39:35] each quarterly payments of 25% of the total cost but they pay the whole

[2:40:00] Okay.

[2:40:12] Sorry.

[2:41:26] I'll be right back. Okay.

[2:41:55] I just spotted something wrong in our next item. The next item on the agenda

[2:42:01] increase,000 from 125 to 125 something in your next item.

[2:42:10] We'll bring it up. Correction correction.

[2:42:14] » Yeah. Just

[2:42:20] looking ahead to the next item. Increasing $6,000.

[2:42:34] Must be a typo of some sort. increased 86,000 from 125

[2:42:42] to 1216,000.

[2:42:54] Okay. Okay. Maybe it is okay. It's It's okay. It's okay. I put 255 to 35.

[2:43:03] » Okay. Okay.

[2:43:09] Thank you. Just >> Zach's printing it now.

[2:43:14] » Okay. Well,

[2:43:19] » should we wait for Zach? >> Yeah. I I think you guys need to take a

[2:43:24] look at theou

[2:44:32] Thank you.

[2:44:42] that other item is correct. >> Okay.

[2:44:46] » I was I wasn't looking at it right.

[2:44:55] Thank you.

[2:45:20] Okay, let's come back to

[2:45:25] theou between Marson County Public Schools Sheriff's Office and the Board

[2:45:28] of County Commissioners. So, I think everyone's been handed a

[2:45:34] update here.

[2:45:38] So for the audience and the viewers, the total fiscal year budget amount is

[2:45:42] $95,634.56.

[2:45:51] This amount um is paid for by the board of education and it comes out of the

[2:45:54] funding that the county provides to the board of education uh as part of

[2:45:59] maintenance of effort and I believe this contract has been in place for quite

[2:46:03] some time. So it's included in maintenance of effort.

[2:46:12] » Any discussion? Motion.

[2:46:15] » I guess just a brief discussion. I really support this program that we have

[2:46:20] officers in the schools. It helps protect the kids. Uh and they have good

[2:46:23] relationships with the students as well, which provides a good positive example.

[2:46:29] So I'm glad to be able to take part in this. that I go ahead and make a

[2:46:32] recommendation that we move forward. Second.

[2:46:35] » Okay. We have a motion and second for approval as submitted. All in favor by

[2:46:39] saying I. >> I.

[2:46:41] » Post. Same sign. 50. Thank you.

[2:46:46] Um, next item under tab 35 is the FY27 general fund budget adjustment.

[2:47:06] Morning, commissioners. Kelsey Mace, chief financial officer.

[2:47:11] Staff is requesting an adjud an an adjustment to the board of education's

[2:47:14] FY27 budget based on the final state aid calculations issued by the Maryland

[2:47:19] State Department of Education. On May 19th, the MSDE released their final

[2:47:24] state aid calculations for FY27, which included some revisions from their

[2:47:28] preliminary calculations. Based on these revisions, the amount

[2:47:33] budgeted for direct allocation to the board of education increased $86,580.

[2:47:40] And I'm I'm double checking to see where my typos at if it's in this increase or

[2:47:44] if it was in the budget that we started with, but the budget will be changing to

[2:47:48] 125 million, 311,760.

[2:47:53] And the amount for the private prek will decrease 9,970

[2:47:57] from $499,000 to9 920 to $489 950. So it either increased to 86580 or

[2:48:05] 56580 depending on where my um typo was. Um the net effect on this increase is

[2:48:15] $76,610 which will be offset by decreasing the

[2:48:19] amount budgeted for capital reserves. It is staff's request that this change be

[2:48:23] made to the original adopted budget for FY27 since the fiscal year has not

[2:48:28] started and budget documents have not yet been published. This will be budget

[2:48:32] neutral and the general fund total for fiscal year 27 will remain at

[2:48:36] 355751,800.

[2:48:47] Great. This is really just a tweak in what we've done and we it's mandated by

[2:48:51] the state because we have to do >> it is I have received an estimated

[2:48:55] revision based off of changes that they were doing with their state formulas and

[2:48:59] that was included in the approved version. Um but when we did get that

[2:49:02] final amount out it just did um vary a little bit from what we estimated.

[2:49:08] » Very good. So this is based on formulas not enrollment.

[2:49:11] » Correct. It was >> well enrollment is part of that formula.

[2:49:15] » Okay. Thanks. It is um but their changes per their letter and I can share this

[2:49:20] with all the commissioners um at the state level the overall

[2:49:25] funding for state and local board certifications increased um split

[2:49:30] between local and state for their career ladder. Um so this increased the funds

[2:49:36] for the maintenance of certification for all el eligible teachers and not just

[2:49:40] those that were reertified in December of 25. Um there was also changes to the

[2:49:46] pre kindergarten where state and local pre pre kindergarten funding decreased

[2:49:50] by 15.2 million in total and that was spread out 7.6 million over all the

[2:49:55] local jurisdictions. Um and then there's also some enrollment changes that

[2:49:59] impacted the education effort and local share calculations in addition to the

[2:50:04] other bul um program calculations. I'll send this letter out to you to see what

[2:50:09] all they changed at the state level that recalculated for everybody.

[2:50:13] » Thank you.

[2:50:18] Okay. Motion to approve. >> Second.

[2:50:22] » Okay. We have a motion and second for approval as submitted. Uh all in favor

[2:50:27] by saying I >> opposed. Same sign.

[2:50:30] » Thank you. >> So I do have the correction. So the

[2:50:33] starting budget for the direct allocation should be 12525.

[2:50:39] So that increase is the 86,580 with a net of 76,000.

[2:50:52] Okay. Next item under tab 36 is FY27 community organization updated funding

[2:50:58] recommendation.

[2:51:03] » Good morning everyone. How are you? >> Morning. dollar to be dispersed to 52

[2:51:08] organizations and the approval of that amount was part of the FY27 budget

[2:51:13] process. Prior to us distributing the funds, which would be after July 1st of

[2:51:19] this year, one of the organizations had a strategic change in direction and

[2:51:24] asked us to pull their request of $20,000.

[2:51:29] I went back to the committee members uh each of which have been appointed by one

[2:51:34] of the members of the board and asked them how they would best like to

[2:51:39] reallocate the $20,000 and their recommendation was to fully

[2:51:44] fund seven of the smaller organizations which I have listed on the chart there

[2:51:50] and then the remaining $5,840 to hospice. It wouldn't change the

[2:51:56] bottom line. the delta difference for each organization to fully fund the

[2:52:01] seven and the hospice equals the $20,000 which was to go to the organization who

[2:52:08] changed their mind. So really no change other than to let

[2:52:12] the board know that when this list is published, it will look different than

[2:52:16] the original published list that we presented, but the bottom line is

[2:52:21] different and seven of our small organizations will be able to have the

[2:52:25] request fully funded. >> Okay.

[2:52:29] » I guess one question is where does this money come from? Is this from the

[2:52:33] general fund for >> Yes.

[2:52:35] » So we could just put it back into the general fund, couldn't we?

[2:52:40] the $20,000 >> you could prior prior to this year that

[2:52:46] was 1 million200,000 that the board allocated to community

[2:52:50] organizations. We had over 3 million plus maybe even three,500,000

[2:52:58] worth of asks. So, the board upped the amount to $1,300,000

[2:53:03] this year so we could fund, you know, some additional organizations uh because

[2:53:08] the asks are incredibly large for the amount of money that is available to be

[2:53:12] funded. >> Okay. Thanks.

[2:53:15] » You're welcome.

[2:53:20] » Motion to approve. >> There's no motion.

[2:53:24] » No motion requested for this. Thank you. >> Yeah.

[2:53:27] » This is just information. Yeah, just want to make sure that what we publish

[2:53:31] is exactly what we will be dispersing and they go disperse in four uh

[2:53:36] quarterly to the organizations. >> Very good.

[2:53:39] » Thank you very much. >> Thank you.

[2:53:40] » Thank you. >> Okay, you guys have an awesome day.

[2:53:42] » Thanks for the information. >> Next item under tab 37 is the uh ARC

[2:53:50] grant for Fort Richie Sewer Project.

[2:54:02] Good morning, commissioners. David Mason, interim director of environmental

[2:54:05] management. Uh today, looking for a motion to apply for and accept the

[2:54:10] awarded funding for the ARC grant application for recent recently

[2:54:14] submitted to Tri County for the Fort Richie sewer infrastructure project. Uh

[2:54:20] the county is applying for $44,910 in the grants which will be matched uh

[2:54:27] by the county for a total project amount of $898 $820,000.

[2:54:32] » So I just wanted to um amend the motion. I did speak with Elizabeth Stalman of

[2:54:37] Tri County Council. uh she uh would like our a motion amended to state that we

[2:54:42] are submitting the preliminary project description and if selected to apply for

[2:54:48] the grant by the Tri County Council review board in July. Um the motion

[2:54:53] would uh second motion would be if selected to apply and um we have

[2:54:59] permission to uh apply and accept awarded funding from ARC. The county

[2:55:03] match would come from the sewer fund uh not from general fund.

[2:55:10] Okay. Motion.

[2:55:14] » Motion. Okay. Have a second.

[2:55:19] » Second >> discussion.

[2:55:22] » Yes. >> Just to clarify this. We own this sewer

[2:55:25] line. Correct. We as part of theou that was approved um

[2:55:30] at the last meeting, it is required that the uh property owner transfer the

[2:55:35] infrastructure and the easement to the county and that will be brought back

[2:55:39] before the board on June the 30th. So before any contracts would be signed and

[2:55:44] before the grant would be applied for, we will own the property as of June

[2:55:47] 30th. >> Perfect. Okay,

[2:55:50] » we have a motion and a second. Ready to vote? All in favor by saying I. I same

[2:55:56] sign 50. Thank you.

[2:56:03] » Next item under tab 38 is the 2026 safer grant application request to apply

[2:56:11] and accept.

[2:56:17] Morning,

[2:56:24] commissioners. David Hayes, director of emergency services.

[2:56:26] » David Chisum, deputy director of emergency services.

[2:56:29] » Uh, commissioners, we're here today. Uh, it's a little bit of a short notice, but

[2:56:33] uh, we just received notification about 3 weeks ago that the uh, FY26

[2:56:39] uh, FEMA safer grant opportunity had opened and it's only open until June

[2:56:43] 22nd. So, we're in a short window to actually uh seek your approval to apply

[2:56:49] and then subsequently do so. So, we're looking today for a motion to authorize

[2:56:53] the Division of Emergency Services to submit a FEMA grant uh safer application

[2:56:58] to hire uh 24 firefighters and accept the grant funding if awarded. Over the

[2:57:03] previous five years, the DEES has continued to place additional full-time

[2:57:07] firefighters and multiple fire stations throughout Washington County. While the

[2:57:11] addition of these firefighters has increased the number of trained and

[2:57:14] certified firefighters on duty each day, there are still many instances where

[2:57:18] apparatus and/or departments struggle to get adequate firefighters on apparatus

[2:57:22] for call responses. By authorizing the division to hire 24 additional

[2:57:26] firefighters, it will enable dees to continually

[2:57:30] and strategically place firefighters and additional fire stations throughout the

[2:57:34] county. the fiscal impact because this is a grad graduated grant. Uh it is 75%

[2:57:40] federal money the first two years and then switches to 35% year three and then

[2:57:45] year four is the county's obligation entirety. Uh FY27

[2:57:50] uh if we funded for the full year would be 679,042

[2:57:54] and 36 cents. Uh if we did not hire and we likely could not hire prior to

[2:57:59] January 1 of 2027 uh that would only require 30 slightly

[2:58:04] over 339,000 in the current fiscal budget that we operate and the

[2:58:09] subsequent years would be an additional 679,000

[2:58:13] and in FY29 it would be 1.7 almost 1.8 million and in FY30 and some point in

[2:58:19] FY30 the full cost of 2.7 million will transfer to the county. We have

[2:58:24] concurrences from obviously myself, Michelle Gordon the county

[2:58:27] administrator, Kelsey Mesa the chief financial officer. There is funding

[2:58:30] available in our budget that could cover those costs. And I do have uh the

[2:58:35] volunteer coordinator, Oie Griffith, is here. And we met last week to brief the

[2:58:40] association and their leadership. President Spreer is here as well. Uh we

[2:58:44] still have six outstanding letters for requests of support for staffing. Two of

[2:58:50] which will be answered through RC8. This would allow us to answer at least two

[2:58:55] maybe three more of those letters uh with a successful award.

[2:58:59] » What's the total request of uh request? How many firefighters are being

[2:59:04] requested by stations right now? Total >> it it's it it somewhat depends

[2:59:09] commissioner on how many we put in each of those stations. So,

[2:59:12] » but what would be the request like if you added up everybody's request would

[2:59:16] be >> normally it's three firefighters on duty

[2:59:18] each day, which takes 12 to make that happen,

[2:59:21] » right? So you couldn't fulfill what you're

[2:59:24] being requested is what you're saying. >> No, this would not complete a full

[2:59:28] request to get all of this. What we are benching this off of is response matrix.

[2:59:32] So we're trying to make sure that where we see struggles to get adequate

[2:59:36] staffing, these would be the stations that we would approach first and place

[2:59:39] staffing there. Understanding we can't hire 50 or 100 firefighters at one time.

[2:59:43] » Right. >> And I just want to point out that

[2:59:45] approval of these 24 positions would be contingent upon approval of this grant.

[2:59:50] meaning that if the grant is not approved, we we will not fill those 24

[2:59:53] positions. >> And we applied last year, correct?

[2:59:56] » We did. >> And we didn't get it.

[2:59:58] » We did not. >> And this year, who who's writing the

[3:00:01] grant? Do we have per you guys write it or do we

[3:00:04] » write the grant? We use the narrative from our 2021 uh safe grant. We

[3:00:09] certainly could actually a grant writer, but they're usually templated grants and

[3:00:15] we're prepared to use. >> Is there a reason we weren't accepted

[3:00:17] last year? They were not awarded in Maryland last year.

[3:00:20] » None were awarded. >> Take that. Read what you want out of

[3:00:22] that. But Montgomery and Frederick applied and that's highly unusual that

[3:00:29] neither of those two would have gotten. Frederick's been successful at least

[3:00:32] four times. I believe >> we were successful a few years ago as

[3:00:37] well. >> Yeah, we we received 33 firefighters in

[3:00:39] 2021.

[3:00:42] » We're confident our grant was the quality of the grant was good. No, I'm

[3:00:46] not saying. I'm just curious. >> But it's a highly competitive grant,

[3:00:49] too. So, there's only roughly $350 million available and they probably get

[3:00:54] over a billion dollars worth of requests. So, it's just possible that we

[3:00:59] didn't make >> So, this is a $2.7 million obligation

[3:01:03] for the county. Uh, does that include retirement as well? It

[3:01:07] » does. Yep. That's total cost. retirement, health insurance, uh social

[3:01:12] security, uh taxes, all of those things are are in the formulation that you

[3:01:17] would see behind this that drives the number.

[3:01:20] » Very good. And if we got the grant, these would all become county employees.

[3:01:24] They couldn't be employees of volunteer fire companies,

[3:01:27] » correct? They would be county employees. >> Okay.

[3:01:30] What's the uh length of our rookie school?

[3:01:33] » How many weeks? >> 26 weeks now.

[3:01:35] » 26 weeks. So realistically, we're only I mean,

[3:01:39] we're if we run two a year, we're >> Yeah. We struggle to get two in a year.

[3:01:43] The time we have to go through a hiring process.

[3:01:46] » Yeah. >> And then actually implement the uh the

[3:01:48] school likely not get two in a year. And this grant typically, and I can't tell

[3:01:53] you when we may get notified, good or bad, we just uh last week received the

[3:01:58] denial letter from last year's grant. We already knew we didn't get it, but the

[3:02:02] official notification just came last year or last week. So this grant

[3:02:06] historically has opened in January, February. It did not open until late

[3:02:10] May. It historically awards somewhere in the August uh September, October.

[3:02:16] Typically by the end of [clears throat] September, the awards are there. So I

[3:02:20] can't really tell you when we find notification if we were successful. So

[3:02:24] that's where I say I don't believe there's any realistic opportunity to

[3:02:27] where we could be hired prior to July one or January 1. [clears throat]

[3:02:34] And at that point, we'd be late fall next year getting them to fire stations.

[3:02:38] So, this is well over a year process even if we got

[3:02:47] » you know I see it as we've missed the grant at least twice, right?

[3:02:51] » Yes. The very first one we wrote we did not get. The second one we wrote we did

[3:02:56] get. The last one we did not get. So, this would be our fourth.

[3:02:59] » And you know, I don't uh I I know what the situation is. been sitting here for

[3:03:03] eight years. I would have to approve it because I'm

[3:03:06] thinking if we even have a shot of getting it and we're probably not going

[3:03:10] to get it again for a few years. That's just my logic. I could be wrong, but

[3:03:17] » yeah. And our biggest ask here and why we we push to get here is if we believe

[3:03:22] we're going to hire additional firefighters in the next one, two or

[3:03:25] three years, we could potentially get them [clears throat] now execute federal

[3:03:28] dollars that significantly offset those costs and potentially have those

[3:03:32] firefighters here. That number of firefighters in

[3:03:34] » That's what I was trying to say, but you said it better.

[3:03:38] » Just kidding. >> So, I'd like to make a motion to

[3:03:42] authorize. >> I'll second. Okay. Motion and second for

[3:03:46] approval as submitted. All in favor by saying I

[3:03:50] » I >> opposed. And I'd like to explain my

[3:03:52] vote. >> Okay.

[3:03:53] » Um I definitely support the fire fighters both paid and volunteer. Um but

[3:04:00] I'm a little bit uncomfortable committing $2.7 million uh every single

[3:04:05] year for 24 new firefighters. So I know at first it would be a grand would help

[3:04:10] us out a little bit, but then we're stuck with this bill. And I'd like to

[3:04:13] explore other options like perhaps having the volunteer fire companies hire

[3:04:17] their own uh firefighters instead of always having the county come in and

[3:04:21] hire them. So that's my vote. Why vote? No. Thank you.

[3:04:28] » Okay. >> Okay. Thank you.

[3:04:31] Okay. The last item on our open agenda is t under tab 39

[3:04:38] and it's a statement regarding open meetings compliance board decision

[3:04:42] issued June 2nd 2026 and >> county commissioners the people of

[3:04:47] county statement very clear you are to listen

[3:04:51] » you are out of order please sit down >> please stop

[3:04:55] » reopen our meetings >> please leave you need to leave now

[3:05:00] All fair.

[3:05:37] » [clears throat]

[3:05:56] » Okay, let me back up and we'll start over Under tab 39, statement regarding

[3:06:01] open meetings compliance board decision issued June 2nd, 2026. And as president

[3:06:07] of the board of county commissioners, I'll read the following

[3:06:11] uh report in brief. Acknowledgement and announcement of open meetings compliance

[3:06:15] board OMCB decision discussion. In accordance with section 3-211

[3:06:22] of the general provisions article of the Maryland code, at the next open meeting

[3:06:26] of the BOCC, after the OMCB has issued its opinion, a member of the public body

[3:06:33] shall announce the the violation and verbally summarize the opin the opinion.

[3:06:42] On June 2nd, 2026, the Open Meetings Compliance Board issued an advisory, and

[3:06:49] I'll say that again, an advisory opinion in which the Compliance Board found that

[3:06:54] the board of county commissioners did did not violate the Open Meetings Act in

[3:07:00] meeting with federal officials, revising an agenda less than 24 hours before a

[3:07:06] meeting, and removing individuals from several open sessions. The compliance

[3:07:11] board determined the board violated the act by not preparing a written closing

[3:07:16] statement before convening in an emergency close session or close session

[3:07:21] summary. Finally, it was unable to determine whether the board violated the

[3:07:26] act in voting to close the meeting for the emergency close session.

[3:07:34] So with that, I'm going to ask for a motion to go into close session for the

[3:07:40] reasons stated.

[3:07:44] » Motion motion and second. All in favor by saying I. I.

[3:07:49] » And with that, let's take a five let's take a 10-minute recess. Thank you all.

Board of County Commissioners Meeting - June 9, 2026

Transcript