January 5, 2009

            The regular meeting of the County Commissioners of Allegany County was held in the Commissioners’ Meeting Room, 701 Kelly Road, at 9:30 a.m. on the above date (Monday, January 5). The following were present: President James J. Stakem; Commissioner Robert M. Hutcheson; Commissioner Dale R. Lewis; County Attorney William M. Rudd; County Administrator Vance C. Ishler; and Clerk Carol A. Gaffney. 

            The following business was transacted:

MOTION #1

There were no additions or deletions to this agenda.

MOTION #2

The Commissioners approved the minutes of the December 18, 2008 public meeting reflecting the detailed summary of the Final Agenda.

REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT

There was no executive session held. 

PRESENTATION

Item 2.  Road Closing Petition– Attorney Seth D’Atri (for William Trozzo) for petitioners Daniel & Cynthia Blank to close portions of unnamed alley near Upper Sunnyside Road, Mt. Savage. Attorney D’Atri presented final closing documents (and will send certification of publication when available).  Vote:  3-0 to refer to appropriate departments.  Mrs. Blank was in audience.  No one offered testimony relative to petition.

Item 3.  Block Grant Hearing – Held to receive public input on proposed application for funding from the MD Neighborhood Conservation Initiative to assist communities in addressing abandoned and foreclosed homes. 

Jim Williams, Community Services, explained the hearing (advertised in the Cumberland Times)  was to review an application to the Community Development Block Grant program for funds from this program & obtain public input for use of money to rehab homes.  The State of MD was awarded HUD funding (through Emergency Housing & Recovery Act of 2008) in the amount of $26 million.  The MD Department of Housing & Community Development will administer to assist communities in addressing abandoned and foreclosed homes in neighborhoods impacted by foreclosure.  Some $17 million will be awarded via the Block Grant program on a competitive basis.  Applicants are required to establish target neighborhood conservation areas and propose investment strategies to stabilize these areas.  He detailed further requirements, uses, etc.  We are joining with Cumberland and HRDC in applying for the $660,000 grant.  The activity areas are City of Cumberland and Westernport.  Part will be used to purchase homes to create new ownership in the Decatur Heights/Virginia Ave. areas, part for acquisitions for lease on MD Ave. and Virginia Ave, part for demolition of abandoned properties for infrastructure for the HRDC Center in South Cumberland and demolition in Westernport.  Some monies of this $1.5 Million project will come from the local Legacy monies for Cumberland and HRDC. No one in the audience offered testimony in favor or opposition to this application. 

The following is his testimony:

Pursuant to the Emergency Housing and Recovery Act of 2008, the State of Maryland has been awarded $26 million in Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) funding from HUD.  The Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development will offer grants through the Neighborhood Conservation Initiative (NCI) program to assist communities in addressing abandoned and foreclosed homes in neighborhoods impacted by foreclosure and sub-prime lending.  Some $17 million in funds will be awarded via the block grant program on a competitive basis.

Applicants are required to establish target areas and to propose investment strategies to stabilize those target areas.  Target areas should be those that have experienced above average foreclosure or sub-prime lending activity as identified by HUD.  Also projects must meet the national objective of benefit to low and moderate income persons.  For the purpose of these funds only, HUD has created a new income category of “middle income” which is for household between 80 and 120% of the area median income.

Eligible uses for NCI funds are: 1. Establish financing mechanisms for purchase and redevelopment of foreclosed upon homes and properties.  2.  Purchase and rehabilitate homes and residential properties that have been abandoned or foreclosed upon, in order to sell, rent or redevelop such homes and properties.  3.  Establish land banks for homes that have been foreclosed upon.   4.  Demolish blighted structures.   5.  Redevelop demolished or vacant properties.   Applicants are strongly encouraged to work with local partners including non-profit organizations and municipal governments.

In cooperation with the City of Cumberland and HRDC we have developed an application in the amount of $660,000 with a total estimated project cost of $1.5 million.  Grants will be matched with Legacy, HOME and other local monies from the City of Cumberland, HRDC and a private developer in Westernport.  The project activities will concentrate in those areas with the highest foreclosure rates, specifically the Virginia/ Maryland Avenue and Decatur Street corridor (21502) and the Town of Westernport (21562).  Activities will focus on acquisition, rehabilitation and redevelopment of abandoned properties to create new home ownership and/or lease-to-own opportunities.

Again, all grants are competitive and applications will be rated competitively by a State review committee.

Mr. Williams asked the Commissioners to consider the adoption of Resolution 09-1. (Item 4 below)

ACTION AGENDA

Item 4.  Resolution 09-1 – Vote:  3-0 Submitted Block Grant application for $660,000 relative to the preceding hearing and authorized President to execute all documents required.  (Please see resolution below).

PRESENTATION

Item 1.  Little Orleans Bridge – (Delayed until Sen. Edwards arrived) Steve Young presented background information on Bridge A-116 Orleans Road South over Fifteen Mile Creek going back 5 years with design, etc. of a replacement structure.  This low water bridge is over 70 years old and federal requirements will close the structure if nothing is done.  It has a sufficiency rating of 26.5 out of 100 and is functionally obsolete.  It does not meet any safety standards and federal monies of 80% are available with another $2 Million we can get from other counties that have been unable to use the funds.  In addition, to qualify for the federal funds the bridge must pass a 25 year storm.  Design must be determined by the permit requirements set by the federal agency.  The proposed bridge would be located 200 feet downstream and will meet all design, safety and environmental standards set.  There will be two 9 ft. lanes with 2 ft. shoulders and the life of the bridge will be 75 years.  It is proposed as 205 feet in length with 2 center supports.

            Senator George Edwards asked the cost differential of going from 11 ft. to 9 ft. Mr. Young said it would be significant – at a couple hundred thousand dollars. Kevin Beachy noted that at 11 ft. it would need an additional beam and be relocated to have the road and bridge out of the floodplain.

Randy Appel had questions about the sediment never being dredged out which caused flooding problems.  Mr. Young noted that we must now decide whether to go ahead with the structure that meets the standards or do nothing.

Bill Schoenadel said the bridge has flooded over only a couple times in the last 40 years.  The new bridge will destroy the looks of the area and no one has complained about the bridge.  Instead of 300 vehicles he felt only about 30 cars in the last two days have used it. 

Delegate Wendell Beitzel asked if there was another outlet for people when it flooded.  Mr. Young said yes but it belongs to the Park Service and is a single lane, dirt road with use permitted by the Park Service at their pleasure.  It is also gated.  Delegate Beitzel asked if the current bridge could be improved to meet federal standards to which Mr. Young said there is no way to fix it.  They would still have to tear it down. Mr. Young said they looked at rehabilitation for the bridge and it was estimated at $169,000 but it is still a functionally obsolete bridge. Delegate Beitzel asked if we can transfer the money to another bridge.  Mr. Young noted the amount of study and design to reach this stage and we have no other bridge that could qualify for the funds.  It takes 5-6 years to reach this stage.

Delegate LeRoy Myers said this could be a great economic development tool and an opportunity to solve a problem for the long term however, the Commissioners have a tendency to “keep us in the dark until you need us.” If we had been in the loop it would have helped.  He looked at a minor fix by moving it up 4-5 feet which was about $200,000.  However, if federal dollars are available we should take advantage of that.  He felt the Delegation was the last to know.  Mr. Young noted that we haven’t really had a meeting.  They have been able to get the SHA to give us an additional $2 M and it didn’t require us to seek the assistance of the Delegation.  Mr. Young added that the meeting they had at the fire hall was required and they sent out over 200 flyers to people but he apologized and said he didn’t forward them to the Delegation. 

Delegate Myers said he didn’t want to have to read things in the newspapers and wanted informed about projects.  Commissioner Lewis asked if we were to notify them on every project and whether they would attend every meeting.  If we are selling the nursing home, did the Delegation want involved?  Delegate Myers said a courtesy call should be given.  Senator Edwards said if a member of the Delegation asks for information then he should be notified if you are having a meeting somewhere.  He didn’t think they should be involved unless there is state money in the project.  He personally didn’t want to attend all meetings.  Mr. Young said it was an oversight on our part and Delegate Myers should have been notified.  The federal funds can’t be diverted to another project.  Administrator Ishler noted that the county funds involved at $1.2 Million can go to another project.  In response to another question by Senator Edwards, Mr. Young noted that no increase in highway mileage would be realized. 

Delegate Myers then questioned the land to be displaced by the new bridge.  Mr. Young said part is a campground; however when they get to land acquisition it is a very stringent process and they hire someone to do that.  There may only be two property owners (maybe one).

Francis Zumbrum, 608 N. First Street, LaVale, Parks Manager for Green Ridge, said he was questioned by several residents why he didn’t attend the meeting.  He therefore requested that the Forest Manager be notified in the future.  The bridge he saw proposed would serve tourists and he thought it was needed but questioned if they could consider a covered bridge as a future tourist attraction.

Bill Schoenadel, Little Orleans, said he has tried to get a petition together and he couldn’t believe 300 people a month use the bridge.  He felt 50-75 people are opposed to this new bridge.  Many people own property and live outside the county.  Only 3 buses come out for children.  The locals clean up the debris and branches on the bridge and when necessary use the alternate road.  He felt they could eliminate the bridge and put in box culverts.  He concluded that he was opposed to the bridge.

Randy Appel, 10807 Cash Valley Road, said he lived in Little Orleans for many years and the bridge very seldom backs up from the Potomac River.  If the debris and sediment could be removed it wouldn’t flood over.  They should look at this before spending money on a bridge.  He was opposed to the bridge.

Ann Wallizer, said residents should have a vote on this.  She was in favor of the bridge.

Stanley Snyder also said they need to put this to a vote.

Pat Wallizer said he owns most of the property in question and has a business on the other side.  He didn’t want to see them spending money, but understood the regulations involved.  He was in favor of the bridge. 

Edward Garlock said he has seen the bridge flood 3 or 4 times and has video of this.  Now the logging companies are using it.  He was in favor of the bridge.

Joe Price, no address given, said a study was done on the low water bridge and pipes put in to take care of the water.  The first rain brings debris and trash.  He felt they needed a bridge there for sure.  The new bridge proposed doesn’t have room for development because of the Green Ridge Forest.  There is no room for economic development or building.  They need the bridge.

Bill Valentine, Little Orleans, questioned what would happen to the ground when Apple Road is relocated.  How will you handle that end of the road?  Mr.  Beachy noted that the road will remain an access to the creek.

Commissioner Stakem asked for a show of hands for those in favor of the bridge:  12

Commissioner Stakem asked for a show of hands for those opposed to the bridge:   7

Relative to other options, Mr. Young said you can’t put in a box culvert because of the regulations, and we have to comply with federal regulations.  He saw no alternative because we must pass the 25 year storm.

Delegate Myers noted that if we don’t build any bridge we still have the possibility of closing the old bridge.

Unidentified Woman (who spoke from the back row) said we need a new bridge but it doesn’t need to be an elaborate one.  It is sparsely used.  She disagreed with the tourism aspect.  However, she felt that was the biggest incentive because of the Rails to Trails set to run from Cumberland which results in them losing their road.  The state wants that Rails to Trails and this is why we are doing this.  It is overkill.

County Engineer Kevin Beachy has been involved in this bridge project since 1985.  He did the Apple Road feasibility study, and they looked at 6 different structures.  He noted one was 3 concrete arches at a cost of $7 Million; another was a steel truss bridge which was a little cheaper but had a significant impact by taking away from the esthetics of the area.  The county will bid 2 alternatives:  a concrete beam and a steel beam.  They further looked at a steel girder bridge which would have been very expensive – well over $5.7 Million.  He explained that the total project is for the design, materials, inspections, purchase of property, utilities, relocation of Apple Road, etc.  It is not just for the bridge.  (About $2.7M is the bridge). Relative to load limits we are required to follow all Maryland legal load standards.  With regard to traffic volumes they use counters buried in the road for 21 days. 

Brandon H.? (speaking from the audience) representing Park Service, C & O Canal, noted that once the Rails to Trails goes through and this is dedicated to recreational use, there will be no use of the road.

Joe Price, no address given, asked who owns this.

Administrator Ishler said when the Rails to Trails gets improved they will not allow the access for residents.  This is much like what the county did with the Highlands Trail that vehicles are prohibited on now. 

Commissioner Stakem concluded the hearing on the bridge, suggesting that people send in their comments and opinions to the office. 

CONSENT AGENDA

As Recommended by County Administrator

Vote:  3 to 0

Public Works Department

Item 5.  New Contract Positions – Authorized Human Resources to advertise 2 new positions for Utility Workers to be assigned to the Inflow and Infiltration (I & I) Crew.

Item 6.  Bids – Granted permission to advertise for bids for replacement of Opessa Street Bridge A-79 over Seven Springs Run (Contract #ACR-79-08(01). 

Item 7.  Contract for Extension to 911 Center – Approved contract with Alsip & Associates of Hagerstown to design a vertical exterior building shell extension to Center for $13,400 and authorized bid advertisement for mid-January for construction project.

Community Services Department

Item 8.  Bid Award – Accepted bid of Dilapidated Demolition in the amount of $14,420, the low bid, for demolition of One National Highway.

Public Safety & Homeland Security

Item 9.  MIEMSS Matching Grant – Accepted $3,250.50 grant to fund 50% of cost to purchase 3 Automatic External Defibrillators (AEDs) for EMS Division, Highlands Trail and Scenic Railroad and agreed to modify budget #1448 to reflect grant with cost of $1,083.50 to come from each department as match. 

Health Department

Item 10.  Budget Amendment – Approved call reimbursement pay for Mental Health Director from the supplemental budget for Health Department and authorized transfer of $3,000 from central budget (Dept. #1820 to supplemental budget (Dept. 1615).  No additional cost to county.

Item 4 continued: 

                         RESOLUTION 09-1

WHEREAS, the State of Maryland through the Department of Housing and Community Development has solicited applications from eligible applicants to apply for funding under the Maryland Neighborhood Conservation Initiative (NCI) Program; and

WHEREAS, a requirement of the applicant is the receipt of a supportive resolution from the legislative body where application activities would take place; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of County Commissioners of Allegany County, Maryland is supportive of said application in the amount of $660,000 for the following activities:

1) Acquisition and rehabilitation of foreclosed, abandoned, or blighted houses to create three (3) new affordable home ownership opportunities at Virginia/Maryland Avenue and Decatur Heights.

2) Acquisition and rehabilitation of foreclosed, abandoned, or blighted houses to create five (5) new affordable lease-to-own opportunities at Virginia/Maryland Avenue and Decatur Heights.

3) Demolition of abandoned properties in Virginia/Maryland Avenue corridor for infrastructure improvements at the new HRDC Community Center serving low-income and senior clients.

4) Acquisition, demolition and re-development of foreclosed, abandoned or blighted properties in the Westernport area to create four (4) new affordable home ownership opportunities.

5) That this Resolution shall become effective on this 5th day of January, 2009.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that James J. Stakem, President, is authorized and empowered to execute any and all documents required for the submission of the application.

       Board of County Commissioners of Allegany County, Maryland 

 Reminders:   

Next Work Session   - Thursday, January 15 at 9:30 a.m., Room 212

Next Public Meeting    – Thursday, January 15 at 11:00 a.m., Room 100

ADJOURNMENT:

            There being no further business to come to the attention of the Board, a motion to adjourn at 11:00 a.m. was made and duly carried.