[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.