july 31 2012 complete agenda

7/31/2019 July 31 2012 Complete Agenda

1/179

AGENDA

MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION

TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2012 11:00 A.M.

Closed Session Tuesday, July 31, 2012 11:00 a.m.- 1:00 p.m. Legal, Real Estate andPersonnel Matters

1. Report on Closed Session Tuesday, July 31, 2012 11:00 a.m. Legal, Real Estate andPersonnel Matters

2. Bid Openings

A. Annual Concrete Sidewalk Repair & Replacement ContractB. Annual Street Paving Contract

C. Annual Standby Generator Preventive Maintenance Contract

D. City-Wide Water Valve Exercising Project

E. Replacement of 14th

Street Water Treatment Plant Replacement ValvesF. Boardwalk Phase II

G. Boardwalk Phase II Lumber Materials

3. Tourism Advisory Board Funding Recommendations

Presented by: Greg Shockley, Chair

4. Overview of Dew Tour Event and Site Plan

Presented by: Aileen Koprowski Sokol, Director of Competition and Event Production, Alli

Sports

5. Request to Purchase Vehicles on Maryland State ContractPresented by: Joe Sobczak, General Services Director

6. Request to Use FY2011 Homeland Security Grant Funds for Police In-Car Technology

Presented by: Lt. Elton Harmon

7. Presentation of Caroline Station Design

Presented by: Terence McGean, City Engineer

8. Request to Adopt 2012 Building Codes


9. Planning and Zoning Annual Report for 2011

Presented by: Bob Nelson, Planner

10. Engineering Proposal for Design of Modifications and Improvements to the Odor Control

System at the Wastewater Treatment Plant Facility

Presented by: Jim Parsons, Chief Deputy Director of Public Works


2/179

11. Engineering Proposal for Design of Improvements to the Clarigesters and Sludge PumpingBuildings at the Wastewater Treatment Plant

Presented by: Jim Parsons, Chief Deputy Director of Public Works

12. Engineering Proposal for Design of Improvements to the Wastewater Pumping Stations

Located at (1) Dukes Avenue and (2) at Old Landing RoadPresented by: Jim Parsons, Chief Deputy Director of Public Works

13. Discussion of Renegotiating Terms for the Airport Improvement Bond of 2005

Presented by: Martha Bennett, Finance Administrator

14. Review of Proposed Ordinance to Revise the Criteria for No-Excuse Absentee Ballots

Presented by: Guy R. Ayres, City Solicitor

15. Discussion to Change Poll Closing Time to Coincide with State Poll Closing Time


16. Resolution to Authorize that the Proposed Charter Amendment Allowing Certain Employees

of All Departments of Ocean City to Collectively Bargain be Placed on the Election Ballot in

November


17. Request to Serve Beer and Wine at Fiesta Park for the Delmarva Irish American Club Annual

Picnic on Sunday, August 5, 2012Presented by: Mayor Rick Meehan, President of DIAC


3/179

WORK SESSION -MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2012

1 Report on Closed Session - Tuesday, July 31, 2012

11:00 a.m. 1:00 p.m. Legal, Real Estate and Personnel

Matters


4/179

NOTICE OF CLOSED SESSION OF MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL OF OCEAN CITY

AUTHORITY: State Government Article: Section 10-508(a) Annotated Code of Maryland

DATE AND TIME: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 11:00 a.m.

PLACE: City Hall

SUBJECT: Legal, Real Estate and Personnel Matters

VOTE: UNANIMOUS

OTHER: FOR:

AGAINST:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENTfor Vote:

PURPOSES:

X

1. To discuss:

(i) the appointment, employment, assignment, promotion, discipline, demotion,

compensation, removal, resignation or performance evaluation ofappointees, employees or officials over whom it has jurisdiction; or(ii) any other personnel matter that affects one or more specific individuals;

2. To protect the privacy or reputation of individuals with respect to a matter that is

not related to public business

X3. To consider the acquisition of real property for the public purpose and matters

directly related thereto;

4. Consider a matter that concerns the proposal for a business or industrialorganization to locate, expand or locate in the state;

5. Consider the investment of public funds;

6. Consider the marketing of public securities;

X 7. Consult with counsel to obtain legal advice;8. Consult with staff, consultants or other individuals about pending or potential

litigations;

9. Conduct collective bargaining negotiations or consider matters that relate to thenegotiations;

10. Discuss public security if the public body determines that public discussionwould constitute a risk to the public or public security, including;

a) the deployment of fire and police services and staff; and

b) the development and implementation of emergency plans

11. Prepare, administer or grade a scholastic, licensing or qualifying examination;

12. Conduct or discuss an investigative proceeding on actual or possible criminal

conduct;13. Comply with a specific constitutional, statutory or judicially imposed

requirement that prevents public disclosures about a particular proceeding or

matter; or

14. Before a contract is awarded or bids are opened, discuss a matter directly relatedto a negotiation strategy or the contents of a bid or proposal, if public discussion

or disclosure would adversely impact the ability of the public body to participate

in the competitive bidding or proposal process


5/179

REPORT OF CLOSED SESSION

OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF OCEAN CITY

Prior to this open session of the Mayor and City Council being held on Tuesday,

July 31, 2012, a closed session was held on Tuesday, July 31, 2012 at 11:00 a.m.

The following is a report of the closed session.

1. A statement of the time, place, and purpose of the closed session is attached.

2. A record of the vote of each member as to closing the session is attached.

3. A citation of the authority under the law for closing the session is attached.

4. (a) Topics of Discussion: Legal, Real Estate and Contractual Matters

(b) Persons present:

Mayor Richard Meehan

City Manager David Recor

Council President Jim Hall,

Council Secretary Lloyd Martin

Council Members Doug Cymek; Joe Hall, Mary Knight, Margaret Pillas and

Brent Ashley

City Solicitor Guy Ayres

Internal Auditor Susan Childs

Public Works Director Hal Adkins

City Engineer Terence McGean

Graylin Smith of SB & Company

Executive Office Associate Diana Chavis

Action(s) taken:

Motion to close meeting:

H:\Wpdoc\closedsess.wpd


6/179



2 Bid Opening

A. Annual Concrete Sidewalk Repair & Replacement

Contract


7/179


8/179


9/179


10/179


11/179


12/179


13/179



2 Bid Opening

B. Annual Street Paving Contract


14/179


15/179


16/179


17/179


18/179


19/179


20/179



2 Bid Opening

C. Annual Standby Generator Preventive Maintenance

Contract


21/179


22/179


23/179


24/179


25/179


26/179


27/179


28/179



2 Bid Opening

D. City-Wide Water Valve Exercising Project


29/179


30/179


31/179


32/179


33/179


34/179


35/179



2 Bid Opening

E. Replacement of 14th

Street Water Treatment Plant

Replacement Valves


36/179


37/179


38/179


39/179


40/179


41/179



2 Bid Opening

F. Boardwalk Phase II


42/179

BID SPREAD SHEET

ITEM: BOARDWALK RECONSTRUCTION PHASE 2

Bidders Total Bid

Bearing ConstructionBerlin, MD

Mike Davidson ExcavatingGoldsboro, MD

Goody HillBerlin, MD

Black Diamond BuildersOcean City

Gillis GilkersonSalisbury, MD

Cherry Hill ConstructionJessup, MD

DW BurtSalisbury, MD

Harkins Concrete ConstructionSalisbury, MD

Royal PlusOcean City, MD

K.B ColdironFrankford, DE

:


43/179

BID SPREAD SHEET


Bidders Total Bid

Evans BuildersSalisbury, MD

McGee Fence & DeckWaldorf, MD

Miken BuildersMillville, DE

Willow ConstructionEaston, MD

All States ConstructionBishopville, MD

Whiting TurnerBaltimore, MD

Tecta AmericaFruitland, MD

RBCIEaston, MD

Corman Marine ConstructionAnnapolis Junction, MD

Mallard ConstructionQuantico, MD


44/179

BID SPREAD SHEET


Bidders Total Bid

Patterson ConstructionBerlin, MD

Nason ConstructionSalisbury, MD

Walsh Home ImprovementBerlin, MD

Brawner BuildersHunt Valley, MD

Absolute DemolitionOcean City, MD

Hopkins ConstructionBridgeville, DE

Bennett ConstructionFruitland, MD

Dixie ConstructionGeorgetown, DE

R.L. Mitrecic & SonsOcean City, MD


45/179

BID SPREAD SHEET


Bidders Total Bid

Lewes Holding GroupDewey Beach, DE

Kade Construction

George-LynchDover, DE

Kuhn ConstructionHockenssin, DE

Dissen & Juhn CoStevensville, MD

Culpeper MarineFederalsburg, MD

Rommel ElectricSalisbury, MD

Axion InternationalNew Providence, NJ

Mumford & MillerMiddletown, DE

Rehaks ContractingBaltimore, MD


46/179

:BID SPREAD SHEET


Bidders Total Bid

Chesapeake ConstructionSalisbury, MD

CE Commercial LLCBethany Beach, DE

Big Island Ventures LLCCenterville, MD

Frick MechanicalOcean City, MD

MBMRehoboth Beach, DE

BID BOND: YES X NOSTAFF ESTIMATE: $3,000,000BUDGET ALLOCATION: $6,000,000 (full project)


47/179

INFORMATION FOR BIDDERS

BIDS will be received by THE TOWN OF OCEAN CITY (herein called the 'TOWN'), atthe office of the City Manager, City Hall, 3rd Street & Baltimore Avenue, Ocean City, Marylanduntil TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2012 11:00 AM then opened and read aloud at the Council meeting

held at 1:00 PM.

Each BID must be submitted in a sealed envelope, addressed to the Mayor & CityCouncil at the Town of Ocean City, Maryland. Each sealed envelope containing a BID must be

plainly marked on the outside as bid for the Ocean City Boardwalk Reconstruction - Phase 2Contract and the envelope should bear on the outside the name of the BIDDER, his address, andhis license number and either NORTH RECONSTRUCTION or SOUTH REDECKING. Ifforwarded by mail, the sealed envelope containing the BID must be enclosed in another envelopeaddressed to the Town of Ocean City, City Manager's Office, P.O. Box 158, Ocean City,Maryland 21842. Faxed bids will not be accepted.

All BIDS must be made on the required BID form. All blank spaces for BID prices mustbe filled in, in ink or typewritten, and the BID form must be fully completed and executed whensubmitted. Only one copy of the BID form is required.

The TOWN may waive any informalities or minor defects or reject any and all BIDS.Any BID may be withdrawn prior to the above scheduled time for the opening of BIDS orauthorized postponement thereof. Any BID received after the time and date specified shall notbe considered. No BIDDER may withdraw a BID within 60 days after the actual date of theopening thereof. Should there be reasons why the contract cannot be awarded within thespecified period, the time may be extended by the TOWN.

BIDDERS must satisfy themselves of the accuracy of the estimated quantities in the BIDschedule by examination of the site and a review of the drawings and specifications includingADDENDA. After BIDS have been submitted, the BIDDER shall not assert that there was amisunderstanding concerning the quantities of WORK or of the nature of the WORK to be done.

The TOWN shall provide to BIDDERS prior to BIDDING, all information which ispertinent to, and delineates and describes, the land owned and rights-of-way acquired or to beacquired.

The CONTRACT DOCUMENTS contain the provisions required for the construction ofthe PROJECT. Information obtained from an officer, agent, or employee of the TOWN or any

other person shall not affect the risks or obligations assumed by the CONTRACTOR or relievehim from fulfilling any of the conditions of the contract.


48/179

Each BID must be accompanied by a BID BOND payable to the TOWN for five (5)percent of the total amount of the BID. As soon as the BID prices have been compared, theTOWN will return the BONDS of all except the three (3) lowest responsible BIDDERS. Whenthe agreement is executed the bonds of the two remaining unsuccessful BIDDERS will beretained until the payment BOND and performance BOND have been executed and approved,

after which it will be returned. A certified check may be used in lieu of a BID BOND.

A performance BOND and a payment BOND, each in the amount of 100 percent of theCONTRACT PRICE, with a corporate surety approved by the TOWN, will be required for thefaithful performance of the contract.

Attorneys-in-fact who sign BID BONDS or payment BONDS and performance BONDSmust file with each BOND a certified and effective dated copy of their power of attorney.

The party to whom the contract is awarded will be required to execute the Agreement andobtain the performance BOND and payment BOND within fourteen (14) calendar days from the

date when NOTICE OF AWARD is mailed to the BIDDER. The NOTICE OF AWARD shall beaccompanied by the necessary Agreement and BOND forms. In case of failure of the BIDDERto execute the Agreement, the TOWN may at it's option consider the BIDDER in default, inwhich case the BID BOND accompanying the proposal shall become the property of the TOWN.

The TOWN within ten (10) days of receipt of acceptable performance BOND, paymentBOND and Agreement signed by the party to whom the Agreement was awarded shall sign theAgreement and return to such party an executed duplicate of the Agreement. Should the TOWNnot execute the Agreement within such period, the BIDDER may by WRITTEN NOTICEwithdraw his signed Agreement. Such notice of withdrawal shall be effective upon receipt of thenotice by the TOWN.

The NOTICE TO PROCEED shall be issued within ten (10) days of the execution of theAgreement by the TOWN. Should there be reasons why the notice to proceed cannot be issuedwithin such period, the time may be extended by mutual agreement between the TOWN andCONTRACTOR. If the NOTICE TO PROCEED has not been issued within the ten (10) dayperiod or within the period mutually agreed upon, the CONTRACTOR may terminate theAgreement without further liability on the part of either party.

The TOWN may make such investigations as it deems necessary to determine the abilityof the BIDDER to perform the WORK, and the BIDDER shall furnish to the TOWN all suchinformation and data for this purpose as the TOWN may request. Bids from Contractors

debarred from doing business with the State of Maryland or the Federal Government will not beaccepted.

The TOWN reserves the right to reject any BID if the evidence submitted by, or investigation of,such BIDDER fails to satisfy the TOWN that such BIDDER is properly qualified to carry out theobligations of the Agreement and to complete the WORK contemplated therein.

A conditional or qualified BID will not be accepted.


49/179

Award will be made to the lowest responsible BIDDER.

All applicable laws, ordinances, and the rules and regulations of all authorities havingjurisdiction over construction of the PROJECT shall apply to the contract throughout.

Each BIDDER is responsible for inspecting the site and for reading and being thoroughlyfamiliar with the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. The failure or omission of any BIDDER to doany of the foregoing shall in no way relieve any BIDDER from any obligation in respect to hisBID.

The low BIDDER shall supply the names and addresses of major material suppliers andsubcontractors when requested to do so by the TOWN.

A pre-bid meeting for prospective BIDDERS will be held at the Ocean City, City

Hall Council Chambers on 10:00 am Wednesday, July 11, 2012 for any questions

concerning the bids. The phone number is (410)289-8845, fax (410)289-8809.


50/179

BID UNIT NORTH END RECONSTRUCTION

Proposal of _____________________________________(herein called 'BIDDER'), organized and existState of Maryland doing business as a/an ____________________________*.

To the TOWN OF OCEAN CITY, OCEAN CITY, MARYLAND (herein called the 'TOWN').

In compliance with your Advertisement for Bids, BIDDER hereby proposes to perform all WORK for thBOARDWALK RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT UNITS __________________ in strict accordance wiDOCUMENTS, within the time set forth therein, and at the prices stated below.

By submission of this BID, each BIDDER certifies, and in the case of a joint BID each party thereto certorganization, that this BID has been arrived at independently, without consultation, communication, or arelating to this BID with any other BIDDER or with any competitor.

BIDDER hereby agrees to commence WORK under this contract on or before a date to be specified in thand to fully complete the PROJECT within TWO HUNDRED CALENDAR DAYS. BIDDER further adamages, the sum of $1,000 (one thousand dollars) for each consecutive calendar day thereafter as proviConditions.

BIDDER acknowledges receipt of the following ADDENDUM:

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

*Insert a 'corporation', a 'partnership', or an 'individual' as applicable.


51/179

BID SCHEDULE NORTH END RECONSTRUCTION

NOTE: BIDS shall include all applicable fees:

Item Description Qty Unit Price

1.1 Demolition including grade work 1 LS ---------------------

1.2Contingent Unit Price 5 wide temp wood walkways andmaintenance.

3,000 LF $____________/lf

2.1 Concrete Footers 1x2 in place including excavation 13,916 LF $____________/lf

3.21 Concrete Retaining Wall Type 1 30 height 150 LF $____________/lf



3.3 6 Stone base 1 LS ----------------------

3.4 Concrete Boardwalk Reconstruction at Caroline St 1 LS ----------------------

6.1 North End Carpentry Excluding beach access ramps 1 LS --------------------

6.2 Remove/Replace deck at beach access ramps (8 width) 500 lf $____________/lf

16.1 Unit 4 Electrical Work including fiber optic cable 1 LS --------------------


52/179

Total Bid Price for North End Reconstruction:................................................................................$______________

__________________________________________________________________________________________d

Items bid on the above COMBINED bid sheet will not be awarded separately. The decision regarding wis at the sole discretion of the Town of Ocean City and will be based on lowest total price for the project

Respectfully submitted,

__________________________________ ___________________________ Signature Title

__________________________________________________________________ License No. __________________________Address

________________________________ (seal if BID by a corporation)Attest


53/179


54/179

BID SCHEDULE - SOUTH END CARPENTRY


ItemNo.

Description Quantity Unit Price

A001 Base Bid. All work as described in the contract documents forUNIT 5 SOUTH END CARPENTRY.

1 L.S. (lumpsum)

N/A

A002 Unit price PER LINEAR FOOT OF BOARD to remove andreplace damaged stringers as directed by the Engineer.

500 L.F. (linearfeet)

$_________per LF

Total Bid Price for SOUTH END CARPENTRY:................................................................................$_____________

__________________________________________________________________________________________d

Respectfully submitted,

__________________________________ ___________________________ Signature Title

__________________________________________________________________ License No. __________________________

Address

________________________________ (seal if BID by a corporation)Attest


55/179



2 Bid Opening

G. Boardwalk Phase II Lumber Materials


56/179

BID SPREAD SHEET

ITEM: BOARDWALK LUMBER MATERIALS PHASE 2

Bidders Total Bid

Rocky Top Wood PreserversRocky Mount, VA

Lumberman AssociatesBristol, PA

Atlantic Wood IndustriesFruitland, MD

Lee LumberSparrows Point, MD

Bridgewell ResourcesPenn Laird, VA

Integrity SupplyElkton, MD

84 LumberEighty Four, PA

Long Life Treated WoodHebron, MD

TW PerryGaithersburg, MD

Matheus LumberWoodinville, WA


57/179

BID SPREAD SHEET

ITEM: BOARDWALK LUMBER MATERIALS PHASE 2

Bidders Total Bid

East TeakWest Bend, WI

National Wood SourcingOrangeburg, SC

Bayou Forest ProductsSulphur, LA

Lowes Home CentersWilksboro, NC

Biewer Lumber LLCSt. Clair, MI

Cupleper MarineMagnolia, DE

Grasmick LumberBaltimore, MD

Great Southern Wood PreserversRocky Mount, VA

BID BOND: YES NO XSTAFF ESTIMATE: $475,000BUDGET ALLOCATION: $6,000,000 (full project)


58/179

Office of the City Engineering

P.O. Box 158

Ocean City, MD 21842

BID FORM NAME OF BIDDER: ______________________________________________________

PAGE ONE:

RE: Boardwalk Lumber

If promised delivery is not met, the Mayor and City Council reserves the right not to honor the bid and contract.

In order to be considered, no deviation or modification from the attached specifications will be allowed. In the eve

the bid will not be considered.

It is not the intent of the Town of Ocean City to disqualify a bidder if every bid line item specification is not met.

their own merit to determine the successful low bidder.

Sealed bids must be in the City Managers Office, City Hall, 301 Baltimore Avenue, Ocean City, Maryland, 2184

Tuesday July 31, 2012. Mailed bids must be received by this time as postmarks will not be considered. Faxed bids

accepted as a valid proposal.

Mailed bids should be addressed to the City Managers Office, P.O. Box 158, Ocean City, MD 21842 and marked

envelope SEALED BID: Boardwalk Lumber.

The bids will be opened and acknowledged by the mayor and Council at their regular Work Session on Tuesday,

at 1:00 PM at City hall, 301 Baltimore Avenue, Council Chambers, Ocean City, Maryland. Following staff review

bidders will be notified as to the final results.

The undersigned understands that the Mayor and City Council of Ocean City, Maryland has the right to reject any

Date:_________________________ Signed:_____________________________ Title:__________________


59/179

BID SCHEDULE - BOARDWALK LUMBER MATERIALSPage 2 of 3


BASE BID:

ItemNo.

Description Quantity Unit Price

1 Deck 2x6x8, ACQ/CA-C 16,850 each $_________per each

2 Deck 2"x6"x12', ACQ/CA-C 16,300 each $_________per each



5 Ledger 2"x4"x12', CCA 1,820 each $_________per each

4 Brace 4x4x12 870 each $_________per each

5 Performance and Payment Bonds 1 Lump Sum -------------

Total Base Bid Price for LUMBER:................................................................................$_______

____________________________________________________________________________


60/179


61/179



3 Tourism Advisory Board Funding Recommendations

Presented by: Greg Shockley, Chair


62/179

TOW N OF

The W h i t e Mar l i n Cap i t a l o f t he Wor ld

Agenda Item # 3

Council Meeting July 31, 2012

TO: The Honorable Mayor, Council President and Members of Council

FROM: David L. Recor, ICMA-CM, City Manager

RE: Tourism Advisory Board Funding Recommendations

DATE: July 25, 2012

I SSUE( S) : Consideration of funding recommendations from theTourism Advisory Board

SUMMARY: On July 12, 2012, the Tourism Advisory Board voted to

recommend funding of two projects/events during FiscalYear 2013:

1) Ping Pong Summer movie production funding upto $100,000; and

2) Silver Sizzles, a Las Vegas-style revue, in the

amount of $13,500.

FI SCAL I MPACT: Potential positive economic impact from lodging, food andbeverage, recreation and other incidental expenditures

related to both events

RECOMMENDATI ON: Approve funding recommendations from the TourismAdvisory Board

ALTERNATI VES: Do not approve the Tourism Advisory Boards funding

recommendations or modify the recommended fundingamount

RESPONSI BLE STAFF: Donna Abbott, Director of Tourism

COORDI NATED W I TH: David L. Recor, ICMA-CM, City Manager

ATTACHMENT(S): 1) Memorandum from Greg Shockley, Chair, TAB2) Ping Pong Summer and Ocean City Bullet Points3) Ping Pong Summer Film Overview

4) Ping Pong Summer, LLC, Tourism Development GrantApplication

5) Silver Sizzles Tourism Development Grant Application

6) Executive Summary ofAn Economic Assessment of

Marylands Film & Television Production I ndustr y and

Policy Imp lications


63/179

MEMORANDUM

To: Mayor & CouncilFrom: Tourism Advisory Board Chair, Greg ShockleyDate: July 23, 2012

Subject: Tab Recommendations (Ping Pong Summer and Silver Sizzles)

TAB heard 2 proposals at our July 12th meeting. One of the proposals, Silver Sizzles is a Vegasstyle revue with glitz and glamour and performers from former Rockettes. TAB funds wouldonly need to be allocated if the show does not cover its expenses through the ticket sales. Thevote passed unanimously to support the full funding request.

In addition, TAB has met with the producers of Ping Pong Summer and discussed the project atlength. After reviewing the script and considering the future tourism benefits and economicimpact, we are fully supportive of moving forward to help fund the movie. The movie willprovide an immediate economic impact via room, food & beverage, recreation

and incidentals for the actors and crew. Getaway packages and bus tours will be developed toincrease visitation. Finally, Ocean City will be promoted to a national audience as name actorshave been signed. Our unanimous recommendation was to invest up to $100,000 (although therequest was $300,000) towards the project. TAB feels that the other funds should be leveragedthrough the county, the state and private business investment.

Title ofProject/Event

DateReviewed

Promoter Total ProjectBudget

AmountRequested

AmountRecommended

Silver SizzlesReview

July 12,2012

LarryNoccolino

$26,705.00 $13,500.00 $13,500.00

Ping Pong

SummerMovieProduction

July 12,

2012

George Rush $1,100,000.00 $300,00.00 $100,000.00

Summary of TAB meeting discussions regarding these 2 items:

Ping Pong Summer Producer Billy Peterson described the vision for the movie. The Film hasbeen in the making for 20 years by Maryland native, Michael Tully and is based on life andexperiences in the 80s in Ocean City. Because the movie is an independent film, this meansthat the producers have total control without falling prey to big companies like Sony and Fox.They are passionate about the project and have an A-list of producers, along with Susan

Sarandon and Amy Sedaris whove agreed to work for minimal fees because they are alsopassionate. The script centers around a young ping pong enthusiast and his summer trip to OC.It will have a Karate Kid antagonist meets protagonist feel with rivalry among this young boyand a group of preppies. Many iconic OC places will be featured, as well as lots of boardwalkshots. Immediately in the fall, $650,000 will be spent on local hotels, restaurants, renting items,etc. The marketing poster will feature made in Ocean City, MD. The goal is to have itreleased next summer. Donna Abbott stated that when she spoke with the MD Film office,veteran Jack Gerbes had a great feeling about this film. John Gehrig asked if the investors arent


64/179

found and movie isnt made would the monies be returned. Billy answered yes, but, he wascertain the project would come to fruition as the cast was strong.

The producers budget is approximately $1.1 million and they still need to raise $300,000. GregShockley asked if everyone was in support of the project and all answered yes. He continued

noting that what we want to do and what is reality may be two different things; however, hebelieved the formula needed to include city, state, county and TAB funding. Troy Purnell addedthat Runaway Bride had an enormous economic impact on Berlin. Bob Rothermel added thatthere could be tremendous product placement of Ocean City in the movie. The Board gave Gregthe unanimous okay to follow up with the county, tourism director Donna Abbott and the Mayorto determine the funding and to utilize up to $100,000 from the TAB allocation as part of thefunding source.

Silver Sizzles New Convention Center Director, Larry Noccolino, talked about a project thathed like to bring to the Convention Center. Silver Sizzles is a Vegas style revue with glitz andglamour and performers from former Rockettes. The 90-minute show targets the 55+ crowd.

The ticket prices are slated for $20 and would offer four shows November 8-10. If 1500 ticketsare sold, the $13,500 investment would be re-couped. Larry plans to advertise the show throughsocial media up to Lewes, over to Easton and south to Chincoteague. Steve Pappas commentedthat he felt this was a great idea to target older customers. Larry noted that TAB funds wouldonly need to be allocated if the show flops. The vote passed unanimously to support Larrysrequest. Susan Jones added that she would encourage restaurant members to build packages fordinner and a show. Larry also added that he is in the midst of hiring a new sales manager forthe SMERF (social, military, educational, religious and fraternal) market.


65/179

PING PONG SUMMER AND OCEAN CITY

Director Michael Tully has dreamed of making a feature film in Ocean City for over twentyyears. In the fall of 2012 he will finally realize this dream, bringing the summer wonderland ofhis youth to a mass audience through his film Ping Pong Summer.. In the fall of 2012 he willfinally realize this dream, bringing the summer wonderland of his youth to a mass audience

through his film Ping Pong Summer. It has been over 25 years since Ocean City has benefittedfrom the exposure to a global film audience. Other Eastern Seaboard locations have seentremendous benefits from the film industry since that time. Tourists still visit Berlin, MD to seethe locations of the fictional town depicted in Runaway Bride. Ping Pong Summer depicts OceanCity as it isa family vacation destinationand with a bankable Hollywood cast.

PING PONG SUMMER features "A" list talent including Oscar winner Susan

Sarandon who along with our other well known actors have grossed more than $1

billion in box office sales.

$650,000 is budgeted to be spent during filming in Ocean City.

All of the actors (and crew) are working for minimum rates allowing us to

produce an $8 million movie for less than $1.5 million. These savings directly

inure to the benefit of all investors of the film.

The family friendly PG rated movies are some of the most popular and

commercial movies produced.

Ocean City and many existing businesses and residents will be prominently

featured throughout the movie. Ocean City will be very recognizable, almost an

additional character if you will. The amount of publicity is difficult to quantify

at this early stage, but a major theatrical release would expose Ocean City to

millions who have yet visited the city.

90% of the film's net revenues will be used to repay investors until they receive

115% of initial capital investment; thereafter, investor will receive 50% of net

revenues in perpetuity.

Estimated Room Nights:

Pre Production: 3 rooms x 45 days = 135 room nights

Production: 50 rooms x 45 days = 2250 room nights (crew only - some shared)

30 rooms x 5 days = 150 room nights (guests of cast and crew)

2535 Total Room Nights

Cast and Crew will all be spending money while in Ocean City. All locations shall be in

Ocean City as including a production office which shall open on August 1.


66/179


67/179

PING-PONG SUMMERFilming in Ocean City, Maryland this fall

Starring Susan Sarandon

A family vacation during the summer of 1985 changes everything for a teenager obsessed with ping-pong.

The Film

PING-PONG SUMMER is the dream project that writer/director Michael Tully has wanted to make for

twenty years. The goal is to produce an artistic, entertaining, and commercial independent motion picture thatcombines a few seemingly disparate sourcesthe original The Karate KidmeetsNational Lampoons Vacationmeets Wild Stylewhile subverting some of the more familiar tropes of Hollywood storytelling.

PING-PONG SUMMER is first and foremost a comedy, and with its soundtrack full of mid-1980s music, itwill have style and flair. But it is also going to be made with absolute sincerity. This is not going to be awinking satire of the 80s. By shooting on 16mm film, telling the story as if it were made in 1985, and removingthe prism of hindsight, the hope is for the audience to think that theyre actually watching a lost gemfrom 1985.

The Cast

Susan Sarandon (Randi Jammer) is one of Hollywood's most iconic actresses. Sarandon won the AcademyAward for Best Actress for her performance inDead Man Walking, and has also been nominated for herperformances in four other films including Thelma and Louise and The Client. She most recently starred inJeff

Who Lives At Home and The Lovely Bones.

Amy Sedaris (Aunt Peggy) is well known for her comedic and character work, and was a lead (voice) inPuss in Boots and Chicken Little, which have grossed nearly $1 billion worldwide. Sedaris starred as Jerri Blankin the classic Comedy Central television series Strangers with Candy. She also regularly collaborates with herolder brother, humorist and author David Sedaris.

John Hannah (Mr. Miracle) is a Scottish film and television actor. He has appeared in Stephen Sommers'Mummy Series, Richard Curtis' Four Weddings and a Funeral and Sliding Doors with Gwyneth Paltrow.

Judah Friedlander, a native son, was born and raised in Gaithersburg, Maryland. He is perhaps best knownfor his work on NBCs 30 Rock. Friedlander has appeared in many films, including the Academy Award-

nominated The WrestlerandAmerican Splendor, for which he was nominated for an Independent Spirit Award.

The Writer/Director

Hailing from Mt. Airy, Maryland, Michael Tully is thrilled to make his return home with PING-PONGSUMMER. After his directorial debut, Cocaine Angel, world premiered at the 2006 International Film FestivalRotterdam, Tully was named one ofFilmmakermagazines 25 New Faces of Independent Film. His follow-up,Silver Jew, world premiered at the 2007 South By Southwest Film Festival. Tullys most recent feature, Septien,world premiered at the 2011 Sundance Film Festival and was picked up for distribution by Sundance Selects.Since 2008, Tully has been the head writer/editor ofHammerToNail.com, a website devoted to championingambitious cinema.

The experienced producing team of PING-PONG SUMMER (George Rush, Jeff Allard and Michael

Gottwald) has enjoyed success at numerous film festivals including Cannes, Berlin, and Sundance, as well as atthe global box office.

The Investment

The production budget of PING-PONG SUMMER is $1.5 million. The minimum investment per investor is$25,000. With production starting in the fall, there is a unique opportunity for investors to see the fruit of theirinvestments realized within an exciting period of time. Investments should be committed by August 1st toGeorge Rush at The Law Offices of George M. Rush, 220 Montgomery Street, Suite 411, San Francisco,California 94104. George can be reached via telephone at 415.393.8005 or e-mail at [email protected].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Sommershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mummy_(franchise)#Recent_Mummy_Serieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Curtishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Weddings_and_a_Funeralhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sliding_Doorshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwyneth_Paltrowhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaithersburg,_Marylandhttp://hammertonail.com/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://hammertonail.com/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaithersburg,_Marylandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwyneth_Paltrowhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sliding_Doorshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Weddings_and_a_Funeralhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Curtishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mummy_(franchise)#Recent_Mummy_Serieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Sommers


68/179


69/179

3

Executive Summary

American movies are a global phenomenon. The worldwide popularity of American films is an

economic as well as a cultural benefit. While this country has endured years of trade deficits,

importing more goods from China and other countries than we export, films and television are abright light in U.S. foreign trade, consistently generating trade surpluses. On a national and

global scale, there is compelling evidence that incentives are successful in attracting film and

television production activity. In fact, the availability of incentives is an inherent part of the

industry and the default position for states that wish to maintain or encourage the development of

the industry.

Due to strained budgets, Maryland and many states are considering the extent to which they

should incentivize filmmaking, television production and related activities. Maryland has for

many years been a leader in these activities, hosting a combination of prominent television

shows and serving as backdrop for films with global appeal. These activities have spawned asignificant infrastructure of people, equipment and facilities, as well as an infrastructure of local

businesses that produce jobs and positive economic and revenue impacts for Maryland. The

hallmarks of the industry in Maryland include:

Human capital investment. Almost 6,000 Marylanders were employed in the industry in2008. At least 30 higher and post-secondary and two dozen secondary educationalinstitutions in Maryland offer programs in film, television, video and related activities. Avibrant film and television industry creates opportunity to retain the creative human talentin which Maryland has invested.

Good jobs. Nationally jobs in the industry pay 77 percent more ($80,531 vs. $45,589)

than the typical job. The industry provides an extra employment bonus for everyMaryland film industry job, the industry supports on average an additional 1.26 jobs.

Economic and fiscal impacts. Direct spending on film and television production benefitsmany local vendors. A feature film spending $15 million could purchase or rent goodsand services from approximately 380 Maryland businesses. Analysis has determined that57.6 percent of each dollar of incentive is recovered in state and local tax revenues.While this is a solid return, it should be noted that the incentives do not generate acorresponding amount of offsetting tax revenues. It should also be noted that thispercentage does not account for the significant indirect impact of the film industry.

In recent years, the combination of falling State of Maryland revenues and the intensity of

competition for film production has resulted in decreased appropriations to the Film ProductionRebate Program. Predictably, production activity is now in decline.

This is a pivotal year for Marylands film industry. Marylands program has been demonstrably

effective in the past when sufficiently funded. A reasonable investment should be made to

sustain Marylands film industry until a time when fiscal circumstances would allow Maryland

to better competeon a national and global level.


70/179

4

1. Size, scope, and trends in US film and television industry

The creation of the film and television industry as an economic juggernaut is a quintessentially

American story. Originally centered in New York and led by self-made recent immigrants, the

industry migrated to southern California after Cecil B. De Mille filmed The Squaw Man in

Hollywood in 1913.1 It has since been transformed from silent films to talkies, responded to thechallenge of new technologies and dissemination mechanisms, and emerged as a cultural force

with global reach.

Recent and current industry trends in filmmaking

While still dominated by activities in California and New York, film and television production is

a national industry supported by 115,000 businesses nationally. Films and television make a

substantial contribution to the nation's economy. The industry in its various forms and activities

creates or supports millions of jobs and tens of billions of dollars of income for Americans.2

According to a report from the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), in 2007, the

motion picture and television industry was responsible for:

2.5 million American jobs; $41.1 billion in wages for workers in America; $38.2 billion in payments to U.S. vendors and suppliers, small businesses and

entrepreneurs;

$14 billion in income and sales taxes; and $13.6 billion in trade surplus.

The MPAA report also indicated that the industry was a source of high quality employment.From 2001 to 2008, the number of jobs grew almost 15 percent. Nationally this employment is

particularly remunerative, averaging $80,531 a year compared to $45,589 for all industries in the

U.S.

As measured by the number of films produced, the industry is relatively volatile. Between 1999

and 2008, the number of films produced in the U.S. declined from 758 films to 520 films. Over

that 10-year period, however, no consistent trend is evident. As shown in Exhibit 1-1, the

number of films produced each year declined from 1999 to 2002, then increased steadily for 3

years before entering another period of annual decreases.

1 Ephraim Katz, The Film Encyclopedia, 5th Edition, Collins, 2005.2 "The economic impact of the motion picture & television industry on the United States," Motion PictureAssociation of America, April 2009.


71/179


72/179


73/179


74/179


75/179


76/179


77/179


78/179


79/179


80/179


81/179

OCEAN CITY FINAL PLAN AND UPDATES


82/179

Overview

We would like to extend our thanks to the c ity sta ff, the mac ounc il for your continued support o f the Dew Tour and

throughout the p lanning proc ess. We have been workinof the dep artments in making this another huge ly suc c

event for the c ity.

We wa nted to outline the agend a that inc ludes our key updthroug h our full presenta tion d uring the work


83/179

Agenda Genera l upd a te and thanks

Site upda tes

Fina l Site Layout

Stage loc a tion

Sampling

Water sales Coord ina tion w ith loc a l bottler

TV Prod uc tion enha ncem ents

Cab lec am- new a erial ca mera

City coo rd ina tion

Bea c h Stand Vend ors Update

Meetings and p lan

Fireworks c oord ina tion

Dorchester St lot renta l

Toyota shuttles


84/179

Site Layout

A full site layout will be presented in the


85/179



5 Request to Purchase Vehicles on Maryland State Contract

Presented by: Joe Sobczak, General Services Director


86/179


87/179


88/179


89/179

25166 TOWN OF

The White Marlin Capital of the World

TO: The Honorable Mayor, Council President and Members of Council

THRU: David L. Recor, ICMA-CM, City Manager

FROM: Bernadette A. DiPino, Chief of Police

RE: FY 2011 Homeland Security grant 11 Homefor the Police In-Car Technology

project

DATE: July 24, 2012

ISSUE(S): Consideration to use $39,989.18 of the $40,000 allocated fromthe FY 2011 Homeland Security grant (11 Home) for theenhancement of the Police In-Car Technology project.

SUMMARY: The $39,989.18 will further four different projects that relate to

the enhancement of Police In-Car Technology.

1) The purchase of twenty-five (25) scanners ($11,222) andtwenty-five (25) arm rest printers ($12,763.50) will allow

for the continuation of the E-TIX program as outlined in

the attached documents.2) The purchase of seventy-five (75) licenses from Imprivata

to complete the One Sign / Authentication program.

($8,250) This purchase will allow the Department toobtain the needed license for fulltime and seasonalpersonnel, bringing the Department in compliance with

Federal C.J.I.S. and N.C.I.C. regulation.

3) The purchase of one In-Car Audio and Image Recording(ICAIR) system ($5,690). The purchase of this item willfurther the ICAIR program and increase the availability of

cameras from eight to nine total systems in theDepartments police fleet.

4) With the approval of the above stated three purchases,there will be $2,074.50 remaining in the 11 Home grantfor Police In-Car Technology. At this time, the

Department is working to replace outdated DataLuxcomputers with CF31 Tough Books that are ready for

installation. The following purchases will allow theDepartment to install five new CF31 Tough Books incurrent vehicle.

A) One Havis Port Replicator $520.68B) One Havis mounting kit for a Tahoe SUV $330C) One Havis Mounting Kit for a Expedition SUV $368D) Five Pentax Armrest Printers ($169 each) $845

Total $2,063.68

Agenda Item # 6



90/179

P.O. BOX 158 OCEAN CITY, MARYLAND 21843-0158 City Hall (410) 289-8221 FAX (410) 289-8703

FISCAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact on the FY 2013 Budget. The

purchases outlined in this proposal will be accomplished with the

available grant funding for the continuation of Police In-CarTechnology

RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the outlined proposal to increase the DepartmentsPolice In-Car technology to improve efficiency and effectiveness

of the police mission and assuring compliance with State andFederal mandates.

ALTERNATIVES: Not to increase our In-Car camera program and utilize Cityfunding to purchase items and licenses to become compliant withState and Federal requirements and regulations.

RESPONSIBLE STAFF: Lieutenant Elton Harmon, Police Department

COORDINATED WITH: Christopher Holloway / Senior Support Specialist InformationTechnology

ATTACHMENTS: 1) Back up and justification for all four requests.

2) Bids received


91/179


92/179

The bid summary for twenty five (25) Pentax Armrest Printers is as follows:

1) Insight Total cost = $12,763.50

2) Brekford Total cost = $13,985.00

3) Priority Install Total cost = $16,601.98

Total funds request to complete Part One of this plan is $23,985.50

II. Part Two of the plan is for the completion of the OneSign / Authenticationprogram (Imprivata). The purchase will allow us to obtain the needed licenses forfull-time and seasonal personnel, bringing us in compliance with Federal C.J.I.S.and N.C.I.C. regulations.

Based on the research and bids received in reference to the OneSign /Authentication program, we recommend that the license and maintenance bepurchased from Imprivata at a cost of$8,250.00. Additionally it should be

noted that the only company known as a reseller of the Imprivata OneSignlicense is CDWG. Therefore only two bids are available.

The bid summary for seventy- five (75) Imprivata OneSign / Authenticationlicense is as follows:

1) Imprivata Total cost = $8,250.00

2) CDWG (reseller) Total cost = $8,335.00

3) NOT AVAILABLE

Total funds requested to complete Part Two of this plan is $8,250.00

III. Part Three of the plan is for the continuation of the In-car Audio and ImageRecording (ICAIR) program. The Department currently has eight In-Car camerasoperational in the fleet. We are asking for consideration to purchase oneadditional camera.

The Department selected the Panasonic Arbitrator in-car camera system in 2007;initially purchasing five units, followed by three additional units one year later.We recommend continuing with this manufacturer due to reliability of the productand continued standardization of systems.

Brekford is the sole company who sells and installs the Panasonic Arbitrator on

site.

The bid summary for one Panasonic Arbitrator is as follows

1) Brekford (Sole Vender) Total cost = $5,690.00

Total funds requested to complete Part Three of this plan is $5,690.00


93/179


94/179


95/179


96/179


97/179


98/179


99/179


100/179


101/179


102/179


103/179


104/179


105/179


106/179


107/179


108/179


109/179



7 Presentation of Caroline Station Design



110/179

25166 TOW N OF


TO: The Honorable Mayor, Council President and Members of CouncilTHRU: David L. Recor, ICMA-CM, City ManagerFROM: Terence J. McGean, PERE: Caroline Street Comfort StationDATE: July 25, 2012

I SSUE( S) : Design changes for the Caroline Street Comfort Station andStage

SUMMARY: Council has requested changes to the previously approved designof the Caroline Street Comfort Station and Stage to more closelyresemble other city facilities on the boardwalk

FI SCAL I MPACT: Cost of the project is currently estimated at $1,000,000 whichhas been included in the recent bond issue. No additional costsare anticipated due to the changes being presented

RECOMMENDATI ON: Approve the revised design.

ALTERNATI VES: Additional design revisions, complete re-design. Note thatsignificant design revisions or re-design will delay completion ofthe project.

RESPONSI BLE STAFF: Terence McGean

COORDI NATED W I TH: OCDC

ATTACHMENT(S): 1) presentation

Agenda Item # 7



111/179

Ocean City Comfort Station &Performing Arts Stage

Revision 13 June 2012

esday, June 13, 2012


112/179

Project Goals:

Replace existing facility in disrepair with a lower-maintenance facility

Increase number of fixtures to 25, plus 2 public showers

Create a fully ADA compliant facility

Provide permanent 600sf performing arts stage with dressing room

Provide shaded boardwalk seating

Create building with high entertainment value

Create a building with low utility and maintenance costs



113/179

Revision Goals:

Modify design to be more similar to other recentCity project

More traditional appearance

More in keeping with Old Town Ocean Cityimage



114/179

Revision Changes:

Barrel-vaulted roof changed to gable roof

Fabric awning over stage changed to gable roof

End porches and stage changed to have exposedwood trusses with bow bottom-chord



115/179

Plan



116/179

Images



117/179



118/179



119/179



120/179



121/179



122/179


123/179



124/179



8 Request to Adopt 2012 Building Codes



125/179

25166 TOW N OF


TO: The Honorable Mayor, Council President and Members of CouncilTHRU: David L. Recor, ICMA-CM, City ManagerFROM: Terence J McGean PE, City EngineerRE: 2012 Building Code AdoptionDATE: July 24, 2012

I SSUE( S) : The State of Maryland has adopted the 2012 versions of theInternational Building Code, International Residential Code andInternational Energy Conservation Code.

SUMMARY: In January, the State adopted the 2012 versions of theInternational Building Code (IBC), International Residential Code(IRC), and International Energy Conservation Code(IECC). Bylaw local jurisdictions have 6 months to adopt these codes afterthe State acts. The new codes remove Ocean City and someother East Coast jurisdictions from the wind borne debris zone.

FI SCAL I MPACT: Approximately $1,000 for purchase of new code books.

RECOMMENDATI ON: Prepare necessary ordinances to adopt the new building codes

ALTERNATI VES: Amend the code to require impact resistant glazing.

RESPONSI BLE STAFF: Terence McGean, Kevin Brown

COORDI NATED W I TH:

ATTACHMENT(S): 1) Cover memo2) Memo from Fire Marshal/Deputy Chief David Hartley

Agenda Item # 8



126/179

INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM

TO: DAVID RECOR

FROM: TERENCE MCGEAN

SUBJECT: 2012 CODE ADOPTION

DATE: 7/24/2012

CC: COUNCIL AGENDA, KEVIN BROWN

In January, the State adopted the 2012 versions of the International Building Code (IBC),International Residential Code (IRC), and International Energy Conservation Code(IECC). By lawlocal jurisdictions have 6 months to adopt these codes after the State acts.

The 2012 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) contains some relatively aggressiveprovisions including requirements for duct pressure testing and blower door testing on all singlefamily homes. However, State law relating to the IECC prohibits local jurisdictions from amendingthis code to weaken it and therefore we are committed to enforcing these provisions.

The significant change in the IBC and IRC and the reason that it has taken us so long to bringthe adoption to the council is that the wind speed maps in the new codes have been changed. As aresult of this change, Ocean City is no longer in a wind borne debris region that requires impactresistant glass for most building types nor are we in a region that requires special wind design forresidential construction. Higher risk category buildings such as assembly occupancy, hospitals, andfire stations remain in the higher design wind speeds and would require impact resistant glazing. Staffrequested an explanation for the change and after speaking with Code representatives and reviewingonline material, the change was based on additional wind data and statistical analysis conducted by

the American Society of Civil Engineers reflecting, among other things, faster hurricane weakening atlandfall. Other areas of the East Coast besides Ocean City were also removed from the wind bornedebris requirements in the new codes.

In addition to the wind speeds themselves, the code has also changed how the actual wind loadsare then calculated from the wind speed. In place of the previous method of assigning an importancefactor that adjusted the design wind load based on the building type, the new code uses differentwind speed recurrence interval maps for different building types. This explains why some types ofcritical buildings will still require impact resistant glazing, while most others will not.

Staff looked at three alternatives regarding adoption of the new code and wind speeds:

1. Adopt the code as is (impact resistant glass not required for most buildings)2. Amend the code to require impact resistant glass for new construction.3. Amend the code to require impact resistant glass for new construction and allow the

use of removable plywood panels for 2 stories or less as an alternative.


127/179

2

Staff is recommending adoption of the code as is. The science behind the revised wind speedsand associated wind load calculation procedures appears to be sound.

There are no increases or penalties from Federal Community Ratings System (CRS) floodinsurance ratings associated with requiring or not requiring impact resistant glass. Regarding our ISO(Insurance Services Office) rating, amendments that strengthen the current building code are looked

upon positively by the (ISO). During our last evaluation, the City received 4 out of a possible 4points for code strengthening based on our foundation requirements and other existing amendments.Since at that time impact resistant windows were required by the general building code, and were notan additional requirement added by the City, I do not believe that adopting the new code as writtenwill reduce this rating.

Impact resistant windows are, on average, double the cost of standard windows. Requiring theseitems in Ocean City when the new data suggests that even under the wind conditions of a 300 yearstorm they would not be necessary, seems overly conservative. Homeowners are, of course, free toinstall these windows if they wish for the added security.

Therefore I am requesting that the Council allow me to work with the city solicitor to prepare

the necessary ordinances to adopt the 2012 codes.


128/179

1

Ocean City Fire Department

Memorandum

To: Terence McGean, City Engineer

From: David Hartley, Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal

Date: July 26, 2012

Re: Adoption of International Building Code 2012

International Residential Code 2012

*********************************************************

For your code adoption process with the Mayor and City Council I would like to add

my concerns with impact resistant glass requirements from a Fire Department

perspective.

Windows with impact resistant glass create several safety concerns in that they make

emergency fire fighter ingress and egress for structures difficult and time consumingand require specialized training to defeat properly. The windows can adversely affect

fire fighters from entering a structure for a rescue, suppression or hamper fire

fighters from a quick emergency exit in a fire scenario. Additionally, an occupant is

less likely to utilize a window for egress or fresh air in a fire emergency without the

use of specialized knowledge or tools.

With these concerns in mind I would concur with your staffs recommendation to

adopt these codes as is, alleviating the requirements for impact resistant glass in

most buildings.


129/179



9 Planning and Zoning Annual Report for 2011

Presented by: Bob Nelson, Planner


130/179

25166 TOW N OF


TO: The Honorable Mayor, Council President and Members of CouncilTHRU: David L. Recor, ICMA-CM, City ManagerFROM: Jesse Houston, Director of Planning and Community DevelopmentRE: Annual Report Planning CommissionDATE: July 24, 2012

I SSUE( S) : Article 66B of the Annotated Code of Maryland requires PlanningCommissions to prepare an annual report. The report is to beapproved by the Planning Commission, submitted to the locallegislative body, and then submitted to the Maryland Departmentof Planning.

SUMMARY: The Annual Report is to include changes in developmentpatterns, whether any changes are consistent with adoptedplans, recommendations for improving the development process,ordinances adopted or changed, and the impact of an adequatefacilities ordinance. Additional analysis is required if ajurisdiction has issued more than 50 residential building permitsin the year.

FI SCAL I MPACT: None

RECOMMENDATI ON: Mayor and Council approval of the Annual Report.

ALTERNATI VES: N/A

RESPONSI BLE STAFF: Jesse Houston and Bob Nelson, Planner

COORDI NATED W I TH: N/A

ATTACHMENT(S): 1) Annual Report for 2011 as approved by the PlanningCommission.

Agenda Item # 9

Council Meeting 7/31/12


131/179

2011 ANNUAL REPORT

Town of Ocean City Planning Commission

July 3, 2012

INTRODUCTION

The Maryland Annotated Code, Article 66B, Sec. 3.09, requires the PlanningCommission to prepare an annual report which shall:

(1) Locate on a map all changes in development patterns including land use,transportation, community facilities patterns, zoning map amendments, and

subdivision plats.

(2) State whether the changes are or are not consistent with each other, the last

annual report, adopted local and state plans.(3) Contain recommendations for improving the local planning and development

process.

(4) State which ordinances have been adopted or changed to implement the visionscontained in Article 66B.

The Smart, Green and Growing legislation passed in 2009 and 2010 includesrequirements for additional information to be included in local annual reports:

(1) A report if an Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) restricts developmentin a Priority Funding Area (PFA). (Does not apply to Ocean City, as we do not

have an APFO.)

(2) If more than 50 residential building permits are issued in the year, certainmeasures and indicators analyzing growth within and outside PFAs, development

capacity, and preservation of agricultural land are required. (Does not apply toOcean City this year because only 16 residential building permits were issued.)

DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS

There were no changes to development patterns within the Town. Development was

consistent with existing and planned land use patterns, primarily in the form of

redevelopment.

There were no zoning map amendments or subdivisions. There were no changes to

transportation or community facilities patterns. Improvements to both were

accomplished, but no overall patterns were changed.

CONSISTENCY

Development that occurred was consistent with local Comprehensive Plans (Town and

County), as well as with State development plans and policies. As the entire municipality

is a State-designated Priority Funding Area (PFA), all development has taken placewithin the PFA.


132/179

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING LOCAL PLANNING AND

DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

(1) The Municipal Growth and Water Resources Elements of the Comprehensive

Plan were adopted in 2009. The six-year review of the Ocean CityComprehensive Plan has begun. This review should be completed by early2013. Appropriate zoning map and ordinance changes will follow.

(2) A review of the permit process continues, with the goal of improving the

process while still providing adequate oversight and protection of the public.An on-line permitting system is being implemented to better serve the public.

(3) Implementation of the Critical Area Program and Stormwater Managementregulations and will continue, as will support for the Ocean City Development

Corporation and the Maryland Coastal Bays Program.

ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS

The Planning Commission considered the following ordinances and regulations to

implement the State Visions during 2011:

(1) Design guidelines Design guidelines for development outside of the downtown

area were developed by the Commission and adopted by the legislative body.(2) The scope of the Planning Commissions site plan review authority was expanded

to include residential projects with three or more units (previously 10 or moreunits) and all commercial projects (previously greater than 5,000 square feet).

(3) Outdoor lighting Improved outdoor lighting controls were developed by the

Commission and adopted by the legislative body.(4) All Hazards Mitigation Plan was prepared, and a public hearing held by the

Commission, as required by FEMA and MEMA as part of the Community Rating

System. Final approval pending.(5) Wind turbines - Reviewed and approved the first conditional use request for a

rooftop wind turbine installation, subsequent to adoption of enabling ordinance.

(6) Scooter and moped regulations The Commission held public hearings and

developed enhanced regulations on rentals of scooters, mopeds and similarvehicles. These regulations were intended to protect the public safety, and were

adopted by the legislative body.


133/179



10 Engineering Proposal for Design of Modifications and

Improvements to the Odor Control System at the

Wastewater Treatment Plant Biosolids Facility

Presented by: Jim Parsons, Chief Deputy Director of

Public Works


134/179

25166 TOW N OF


TO: The Honorable Mayor, Council President and Members of CouncilTHRU: David L. Recor, ICMA-CM, City ManagerFROM: Jim Parsons, Chief Deputy Director of Public WorksRE: Engineering Services Proposal For Wastewater Treatment Plant Biosolids Odor

EvaluationDATE: July 20, 2012

I SSUE( S) : Improvements to odor control system at the biosolids facility

SUMMARY: Improvements to the odor control system at the bioslids facility

are needed to enable better overall performance of the systemand to improve employee working conditions within the processarea. Before improvements can effectively be made, anengineering evaluation is needed to determine the best way toselect a treatment methodology and design an effective systemmodification.

FI SCAL I MPACT: $29,644 this is a planned item in the WW FY 2013 budget

RECOMMENDATI ON: Recommend approval and implementation of the evaluation

ALTERNATI VES: No improvements to system not recommended

RESPONSI BLE STAFF: Jim Parsons, Chief Deputy Director of Public Works

COORDI NATED W I TH: Hal Adkins, Director of Pubilc WorksCharlie Felin, Wastewater SuperintendentDean Dashiell, Senior Project Engineer, Public Works

ATTACHMENT(S): 1) Memorandum from Jim Parsons2) Proposal of Engineering Services, Whitman, Requardt &

Associates

Agenda Item # 10



135/179

MEMORANDUM

TO: David Recor, City ManagerFROM: Jim Parsons, Chief Deputy Director of Public WorksDATE: July 17, 2012

SUBJECT: Engineering Services ProposalWastewater Treatment Plant Biosolids Odor Evaluation

Attached for review and approval is an Engineering Services Proposal for the Wastewater TreatmentPlant (WWTP) Biosolids Odor Evaluation in the amount of $29,644. We have requested thisproposal from Whitman Requardt & Associates (WR&A) to enable the Wastewater Department tomove forward with an odor evaluation that will focus on aspects of the Biosolids operation that are inneed of odor control and ventilation improvements. This evaluation will then form the basis for thedesign and ultimate construction of the necessary improvements.

To assist in understanding this issue, the following brief history and summary overview is offered:

WR&A performed the engineering for the existing odor control systems at the WWTP andthe Solid Waste Transfer Station in 2003. They were assisted by Webster EnvironmentalAssociates, an engineering firm that specializes in odor monitoring, evaluation, and controlmethodologies.

In the time since 2003 there have been operational changes in the Biosolids processes thathave created the need to modify/expand the odor control system at the facility.

The funding for this project is provided by the Wastewater Departments FY 2013 budget,which includes a line item of $40,000 designated for odor control system evaluation.

If approved, the attached proposal from WR&A will enable the DPW/Wastewater Department tomove forward on this important issue and will allow for WR&A, in conjunction with WebsterEnvironmental Associates, to proceed immediately (while the WWTP is operating at peak Summercapacity) with the completion of the odor monitoring, assessment, evaluation, and a summary report.The report will then subsequently form the basis for selection, design, and installation of future

improvements in odor control at the biosolids treatment facility.

Therefore, recognizing the importance of maintaining the most optimum odor control in theoperations of the Wastewater Treatment Plant, our recommendation is for the Mayor and CityCouncil to provide authorization to proceed with the Wastewater Treatment Plant Biosolids OdorEvaluation, for the amount of $29,644, as per the attached WR&A proposal.

I will plan to be present at the MCC Work Session of July 31, 2012, and present this information asper your direction.

CC: Hal Adkins, Public Works DirectorCharlie Felin, Wastewater SuperintendentDean Dashiell, Senior Project Manager


136/179


137/179


138/179


139/179


140/179



11 Engineering Proposal for Design of Improvements to

the Clarigesters and Sludge Pumping Buildings at the

Wastewater Treatment Plant

Presented by: Jim Parsons, Chief Deputy Director of

Public Works


141/179

25166

TOW N OF


TO: The Honorable Mayor, Council President and Members of CouncilTHRU: David L. Recor, ICMA-CM, City ManagerFROM: Jim Parsons, Chief Deputy Director of Public WorksRE: Engineering Services Proposal For Design of Upgrades to the Clarigesters and

Sludge Pumping Buildings at the WWTPDATE: July 20, 2012

I SSUE( S) : Improvements to clarigesters and primary sludge pumpingstations at the WWTP

SUMMARY: Improvements to the clarigesters and primary sludge pumpingstations at the WWTP are needed due to age and operationalchanges. This proposal is for the engineering design andincludes engineering support through the bid and contractorselection process.

FI SCAL I MPACT: This amount of this proposal is $224,189. Funding for thisproject is provided by municipal bond money, which allocated$1,350,000 toward this project.

RECOMMENDATI ON: Recommend approval of the proposal.

ALTERNATI VES: No improvements to the units. This will ultimately compromisethe overall ability of the WWTP to function in its intendedcapacity.


COORDI NATED W I TH: Hal Adkins, Director of Public WorksCharlie Felin, Wastewater SuperintendentDean Dashiell, Senior Project Engineer, Public Works

ATTACHMENT(S) : 1) Memorandum from Jim Parsons2) Proposal for Engineering Services, Whitman, Requardt &

Associates

Agenda Item # 11



142/179

MEMORANDUM

TO: David Recor, City ManagerFROM: Jim Parsons, Chief Deputy Director of Public WorksDATE: July 17, 2012SUBJECT: Engineering Services Proposal

Design of Upgrades to Wastewater Clarigesters and Primary Sludge PumpingStations

______________________________________________________________________________________

Attached for review and approval is an Engineering Services Proposal for upgrades to theClarigesters and the Primary Sludge Pumping Stations (PSPS) at the Wastewater Treatment Plant inthe amount of $224,189. We have requested this proposal from Whitman Requardt & Associates(WR&A) to enable the Wastewater Department to begin the process of making neededimprovements to the noted facilities.

A brief summary overview of this issue is as follows:

There are two Clarigesters (North and South) at the WWTP. They function in the portion ofthe facility that is commonly referred to as the primary treatment plant.

The North and South Clarigesters entered service in 1969 and 1974 respectively. They areessentially identical units, and, due their age and design specifics, are both in need of designmodifications and physical overhaul in order to be retained as useful treatment facilities inthe future.

Two of the three PSPS were constructed at the same time as the Clarigesters, and the third(East) station was built in 1988. Due to the age and general condition of the North and SouthPSPS, the time has come to replace their existing pumps, electrical equipment, and electricalservice feeder lines so as to ensure the consistent operation of these components in thefuture. Replacement of only the existing pumps will suffice for the East station.

The funding for this project is provided by money from the recent sale of Municipal Bonds,which allocated $1,350,000 for Clarigester Upgrade.

If approved, the attached proposal from WR&A will enable the DPW/Wastewater Department tomove forward with the design engineering for this project as described. The proposal includesengineering services through the construction advertisement and bidding phases. Although we planto solicit bids for both the North and the South Clarigesters, we anticipate that the cost of doing bothmay make it necessary to proceed with only one (North) and to schedule the South unit at some pointin the future. If that is the case, because the two Clarigester units are identical, the engineering workthat is being performed in this project will enable us to rebid the South unit without incurring thecost of additional design work at that time.

It is important for the TOC to plan ahead and take appropriate measures to ensure that theWastewater Treatment Plant remains fully operational and able to function in an efficient andsuccessful manner at all times. Therefore, in support of this endeavor, our recommendation is forthe Mayor and City Council to provide authorization to proceed with the design of upgrades to theWastewater Clarigesters and PSPS, for the amount of $224,189, as per the attached WR&A

Engineering Services Proposal.

I will plan to be present at the MCC Work Session of July 31, 2012, and present this information asper your direction.



143/179


144/179


145/179


146/179


147/179



12 Engineering Proposal for Design of Improvements to the

Wastewater Pumping Stations Located at (1) Dukes Avenue

and (2) at Old Landing Road

Presented by: Jim Parsons, Chief Deputy Director of Public

Works


148/179

25166 TOW N OF


TO: The Honorable Mayor, Council President and Members of CouncilTHRU: David L. Recor, ICMA-CM, City ManagerFROM: Jim Parsons, Chief Deputy Director of Public WorksRE: Engineering Services Proposal for Design of Improvements to Wastewater

Pumping Stations at Dukes Road and at Old Landing RoadDATE: July 20, 2012

I SSUE( S) : Improvements to aging wastewater collections systeminfrastructure

SUMMARY: The pump stations at Dukes Avenue and at Old Landing Roadhave exceeded their anticipated service life and are in need ofrenovation. This project will also provide onsite standby backupelectrical generator power. This proposal is for the engineeringdesign and includes engineering support through the bid andcontractor selection process.

FI SCAL I MPACT: The amount of this proposal is $262,058. Funding for thisproject is provided by municipal bond money, which allocated$1,800,000 toward improvements to these pump stations.

RECOMMENDATI ON: Recommend approval of the proposal.

ALTERNATI VES: Continue use of the existing pump stations, which will tend tobecome less reliable and more costly to maintain, and, do nothave onsite backup generator power.


COORDI NATED W I TH: Hal Adkins, Director of Public WorksCharlie Felin, Wastewater SuperintendentDean Dashiell, Senior Project Engineer, Public Works

ATTACHMENT(S): 1) Memorandum from Jim Parsons2) Proposal for Engineering Services, Whitman, Requardt &

Associates

Agenda Item # 12



149/179

MEMORANDUM

TO: David Recor, City ManagerFROM: Jim Parsons, Chief Deputy Director of Public WorksDATE: July 18, 2012

SUBJECT: Engineering Services ProposalDesign of Improvements to Wastewater Pumping Stations at DukesAvenue and Old Landing Road

________________________________________________________________________

Attached for review and approval is an Engineering Services Proposal for improvements to theWastewater Pumping Stations located at (1) Dukes Avenue, and (2) Old Landing Road, in theamount of $262,058. We have requested this proposal from Whitman Requardt & Associates(WR&A) to enable the Wastewater Department to begin the process of making neededimprovements to these facilities.

A brief summary of the issue is as follows:

Each of these pump stations entered service in the early 1970s. As such, each has exceededits anticipated service life of 30 years, and, has also begun to experience problems withstructural integrity and mechanical operation.

In addition to improving the pump stations, the proposed project will also provide eachlocation with an onsite diesel generator for back-up emergency power capacity.

The exterior of each facility will be designed to match the dcor of the surroundingneighborhood.

The funding for this project is provided by money from the recent sale of Municipal Bonds,which allocated $900,000 for each of the two pump stations and therefore a total sum of$1,800,000.

We plan to put the two pump stations out for bid in a manner that will allow the TOC theflexibility to either select one contractor to perform both locations, or, alternatively, to selectseparate contractors and utilize one per individual site.

It is important for the TOC to ensure that all of its Wastewater Pumping Stations remain ingood condition and operable at all times. Therefore, in support of that endeavor, ourrecommendation is for the Mayor and Council to provide authorization to proceed with thedesign of upgrades to the Dukes Avenue and Old Landing Road Wastewater Pumping Stations,for the amount of $262,058, as per the attached WR&A Engineering Services Proposal.

I will plan to be present at the MCC Work Session of July 31, 2012, and present this informationas per your direction.


7/31/2019 July 31 20

july 31 2012 complete agenda

Documents