Ocean City Work Session Packet

MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

WORK SESSION Tuesday, February 26, 2013 – 1:00 P.M.

A Closed Session is scheduled from 11:00 A.M. – 1:00 P.M. to discuss legal, real estate and collective bargaining matters.

AGENDA

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION – Tuesday, February 26, 2013 – 11:00 a.m.

4. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC Any person who may wish to speak on a matter scheduled for discussion on the Work Session Agenda

may be heard during Comments from the Public for a period of three (3) minutes or such time as may be deemed appropriate by the Council President. Anyone wishing to be heard shall state their name,

address and the Agenda item on which he or she wishes to speak.

5. NEW BUSINESS

A. Presentation from Bryan Lilley, Ocean City Air Show LLC 1. Update on June 2013 OC Air Show Event 2. Request to permit the sale of food and beverages on the beach within the OC Air Show

Center

B. Presentation from Chris Larmore, Fire Chief, regarding purchase of new Aerial Truck budgeted in the FY13 Apparatus Replacement Schedule

C. Presentation from George Thornes, Transportation Superintendent, regarding solicitation of bids for Transit Advertising

D. Presentation from Hal Adkins, Director of Public Works, and Joe Sobczak, General Services Manager, regarding a recent Wastewater Tractor Bid and Request to Award

E. Presentation and Request for Approval of Planning Commission recommendation(s) by Blaine Smith, Zoning Administrator, and Matt Margotta, AICP, Planning & Community Development Director

1. Zoning Ordinance text amendment to permit Miniature Golf as a Conditional Use in the DMX, Downtown Mixed Use, zoning district

2. Zoning Ordinance text amendment to clarify the calculation of required parking for Mixed Use development

F. Presentation from Martha Bennett, Finance Administrator, regarding Banking Services and Request for Approval to “piggyback” the Anne Arundel County, Maryland, contract

Mayor and City Council – Work Session Agenda February 26, 2013

G. Presentation and Request for Approval of FY13 Budget Amendment #1 by Jennie Knapp, Budget Manager

H. Presentation of FY14 General Fund Revenue Projections and discussion of General Fund Budget Parameters by Jennie Knapp, Budget Manager, and David L. Recor, ICMA‐CM, City Manager

I. Bid Opening – Bond Counsel

6. ADJOURN

WORK SESSION -MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2013

3. Report on Closed Session – Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Legal, Real Estate and Collective Bargaining Matters

NOTICE OF CLOSED SESSION OF MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL OF OCEAN CITY AUTHORITY: State Government Article: Section 10-508(a) Annotated Code of Maryland PURPOSES:

1. To discuss: (i) the appointment, employment, assignment, promotion, discipline, demotion,

compensation, removal, resignation or performance evaluation of appointees, 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

X 3. 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 industrial organization 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;

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

10. Discuss public security if the public body determines that public discussion would 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 related to 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

DATE AND TIME: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 11:00 a.m. PLACE: City Hall SUBJECT: Legal, Real Estate and Collective Bargaining Matters VOTE: UNANIMOUS OTHER: FOR: AGAINST:

ABSTAIN: ABSENT:

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,

February 26, 2013, a closed session was held on Tuesday, February 26, 2013 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 Collective Bargaining Matters

(b) Persons present:

Mayor Richard Meehan City Manager David Recor Council President Lloyd Martin Council Secretary Mary Knight Council Members Doug Cymek; Margaret Pillas; Brent Ashley; Dennis Dare

and Joe Mitrecic City Solicitor Guy Ayres Miles and Stockbridge Associates John Gilman and Mark Sloan OCDC Executive Director Glenn Irwin OCDC President Bob Givarz City Engineer Terence McGean Executive Office Associate Diana Chavis

Action(s) taken:

Motion to close meeting:

H:\Wpdoc\closedsess.wpd


4. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC

Any person who may wish to speak on a matter scheduled for discussion on the Work

Session Agenda may be heard during Comments from the Public for a period of three (3) minutes or such time as may be deemed appropriate by the Council President. Anyone wishing to be heard shall state their name, address and the subject on which he or she wishes to speak.


5. NEW BUSINESS

A. Presentation from Bryan Lilley, Ocean City Air Show LLC

1. Update on June 2013 OC Air Show Event 2. Request to permit the sale of food and beverages on the beach within

the OC Air Show Center

36

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: John Sullivan, Special Events Director RE: Ocean City Air Show Update DATE: 02/07/13 ISSUE(S): The promoter of the OC Air Show is required by MOU to keep the

Mayor and Council updated on the Air Show planning. SUMMARY: Mr. Bryan Lilley will provide an update on the planning for the Air

Show to include:

Review of performer line up to date; Progress on securing host hotels to provide

complimentary rooms for Air Show performers; Review of 2013 sponsors committed to date

FISCAL IMPACT: This update will not increase the Town’s Financial support to the

Air Show. RECOMMENDATION: Council provide guidance as needed. ALTERNATIVES: Not applicable RESPONSIBLE STAFF:

Thomas Shuster, Director of Recreation & Parks John Sullivan, Special Events Director

COORDINATED WITH: City Staff, Mr. Bryan Lilley, and the City Solicitor ATTACHMENT(S): None

Agenda Item # 5A (1)

Council Meeting 02/26/13

TOWN OF

The White Marlin Capital of the World

Agenda Item # 5A (2) Council Meeting 02/26/13 TO: The Honorable Mayor, Council President and Members of Council THRU: David L. Recor, ICMA-CM, City Manager FROM: John Sullivan, Special Events Director RE: Ocean City Air Show Food and Beverage Franchise DATE: 02/07/13 ISSUE(S): In order for the Air Show to conduct food and beverage

operations/sales on the beach in the area of show center, Council must approve an annual Food and Beverage Franchise.

SUMMARY: A Food and Beverage Franchise will permit Mr. Bryan Lilley to sell

beer, wine, malt beverages and food on the beach in the area of show center during the period of Friday thru Sunday, June 7-9, 2013.

FISCAL IMPACT: Franchise will not increase the Town’s financial support to the Air

Show. RECOMMENDATION: Council approve the Food and Beverage Franchise for the Air

Show as presented by the City Solicitor. ALTERNATIVES: Provide guidance to alter the proposed MOU RESPONSIBLE STAFF:

Thomas Shuster, Director of Recreation & Parks John Sullivan, Special Events Director

COORDINATED WITH:

City Staff, Mr. Bryan Lilley and the City Solicitor

ATTACHMENT(S):

Franchise to operate a concession for sale of food and alcohol on the beach.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF OCEAN CITY THAT OC AIR SHOW, LLC BE, AND IT IS HEARBY, GRANTED A FRANCHISE TO OPERATE A CONCESSION FOR SALE OF FOOD PRODUCTS, BEVERAGES (ALCOHOLIC AND NON-ALCOHOLIC INCLUDING MALT DRINKS (NOT TO EXCEED 22% ALCOHOL PER VOLUMN), MERCHANDISE AND MEMORABILIA COMMEMORATING OCEAN CITY AIR SHOW 2013 ON THE BEACH AND WITHIN 75 FEET OF THE BOARDWALK (ATLANTIC AVENUE) BETWEEN 14TH AND 17TH STREETS ON FRIDAY, JUNE 7TH FROM 11:00 A.M. TO 4:00 P.M., ON SATURDAY, JUNE 8TH FROM 11:00 A.M. TO 4:00 P.M. AND 7:00 P.M. TO 10:00 P.M.AND ON SUNDAY, JUNE 9TH FROM 11:00 A.M. TO 4:00 P.M. AND TO OPERATE A CONCESSION FOR THE SALE OF MERCHANDISE AND MEMORBILIA COMMEMORATING THE OCEAN CITY AIR SHOW 2013 DURING THE SAME DATES AND TIMES ON THE EAST MOST 100 FEET OF 12TH STREET TO 14TH STREET (WITH WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE BUSINESS/PROPERTY OWNERS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THESE STREETS), ON 15TH TO 18TH STREETS FROM BALTIMORE AVENUE TO THE BOARDWALK AND ON THE EAST MOST 50 FEET OF 19TH AND 20TH STREETS AND WITHIN A 300 FOOT BY 100 FOOT SPACE LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INLET PARKING LOT.


5. NEW BUSINESS

B. Presentation from Chris Larmore, Fire Chief, regarding purchase of new Aerial Truck budgeted in the FY13 Apparatus Replacement Schedule

25166

TOWN OF


TO: The Honorable Mayor, Council President and Members of Council THRU: David L. Recor, ICMA-CM, City Manager FROM: Chris Larmore, Fire Chief RE: Apparatus Replacement DATE: February 20, 2013

ISSUE(S): Purchase replacement aerial truck as outlined on replacement schedule

SUMMARY: On May 16, 2011, the council unanimously approved to allocate

funds in accordance with the Fire Apparatus Replacement Schedule. The Ocean City Fire Department is requesting to replace truck #11 on that list, a 1982 Aerial Truck with a 2013 Emergency-One HP 100 Rear Mount Platform, to match two existing Aerial Trucks in service today. This unit has been bid and is on the current HGAC Contract.

FISCAL IMPACT: Total cost for the aerial truck is $1,078,305. Funding is available

in the current Fire Apparatus Fund. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the sole purchase to match the two existing aerial

trucks. ALTERNATIVES: Proceed with RFP’s. RESPONSIBLE STAFF:

Chris Larmore, Fire Chief Chris Shaffer, Assistant Fire Chief David Cropper, Deputy Chief of Volunteer Division

COORDINATED WITH: David Recor, ICMA-CM, City Manager ATTACHMENT(S): 1) Bid Proposal - Patriot Fire LLC

2) HGAC Buy Cooperative Purchasing Information 3) Fire Apparatus Replacement Schedule of 5.16.11

Agenda Item # 5B


Ocean City Fire Department Apparatus Replacement Schedule

May 10, 2011

Apparatus Time of Replacement Expected Years of Service Purchase Rescue Fire Boat Immediately 25 Replace Engine 12 Immediately 20 Replace Engine 2 Immediately 26 Replace Engine 9 No replacement 26 Replace Truck 11 1 year 29 Replace Engine/Tanker 19 1 year 24 Replace Brush 15 3 years 27 Replace Engine 1 8 years 18 Evaluate need for replacement of Engine 1 and Tower 6 Replace Truck 6 10 years 24 Replace Rescue 7 12 years 25 Replace Engine 3 14 years 20 Replace Truck 5 17 years 26 Replace Engine 4 19 years 20 Replace Engine 16 19 years 20 Replace Engine 2 21 years 21 Replace Engine 12 21 years 21

DChavis

Highlight


5. NEW BUSINESS

C. Presentation from George Thornes, Transportation Superintendent, regarding solicitation of bids for Transit Advertising

025 1662

TOWN OF


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

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

FROM: George Thornes, Superintendent of Transportation

RE: Transit Advertising RFP

DATE: February 12, 2013

ISSUE(S): Transit Advertising Contract

SUMMARY: Transit Advertising RFP – Advertising 5 Year Contract

Current contract expires: September 1, 2013

Anticipate receiving RFP’s @ Work Session on April 9, 2013

FISCAL IMPACT: Transit Revenue Source - +/- $210,000/annually

RECOMMENDATION: Approval to Advertise the RFP

ALTERNATIVES: Discontinue Advertising on the Transit Fleet

RESPONSIBLE STAFF:

George Thornes, Superintendent of Transportation

COORDINATED WITH: Hal Adkins, Director of Public Works

Brian Connor, Assistant Superintendent of PW Transportation

James Rasziewski, MTA Regional Manager

ATTACHMENT(S): MTA’s letter of concurrence (February 4, 2013)

Agenda Item # 5C

Council Meeting Feb. 26, 2013


5. NEW BUSINESS

D. Presentation from Hal Adkins, Director of Public Works, and Joe Sobczak, General Services Manager, regarding a recent Wastewater Tractor Bid and Request to Award

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: Joe Sobczak, General Services Director RE: Discussion concerning bid award – Wastewater Tractor DATE: February 20, 2013 ISSUE(S): Bids opened on January 15, 2013 for one (1) tractor for the

wastewater department; All bids came in over the allocated budget; staff wishes to discuss the potential of awarding the bid in lieu of re-bidding (which was the council motion on 1/15/13)

SUMMARY: The budget for this purchase was $90,600; The lowest

“responsive bid” was from Barr International in the amount of $114,284; slight modifications to the bid specifications can bring the tractor within reach of our funding ability; the original budget allocation was in error and a suitable tractor cannot be purchased with the allocation.

FISCAL IMPACT: Lower the overall expenditure to no more than $100,622 and

provide staff with permission to utilize up to $10,022 in savings from previous FY13 equipment purchases to fund this specific purchase

RECOMMENDATION: Cancel your “motion” from 1/15/13 requesting staff rebid the

purchase; reject the apparent low bid from Western Star-it was not responsive to the bid; award the responsive low bid from Barr International in the amount of $114,284 with the stipulation that staff must complete value engineering efforts, via minor substitutions, to lower the overall expenditure to no more than $100,622 and utilize savings of $10,022.

ALTERNATIVES: Rebid the tractor knowing the budget allocation is insufficient;

delay the purchase RESPONSIBLE STAFF:

Joseph Sobczak, General Services Director Charlie Felin, Superintendent of Wastewater

COORDINATED WITH: Hal O. Adkins, Public Works Director ATTACHMENT(S): 1) Barr International Bid Submission 1/15/13

2) Barr Internatiional “Value Engineered” Bid Specification dated 2/12/13

3) Memo detailing changes to original specifications resulting in reduction of price bid

Agenda Item # 5D

Council Meeting February 26, 2013

MEMORANDUM

DATE: February 20, 2013 TO: The Honorable Mayor, Council President and Members of Council THRU: David L. Recor, ICMA-CM, City Manager FROM: Joe Sobczak, General Services Director Subject: Changes to the Original Specification on the Wastewater tractor bid

opened on January 15, 2013 Changes:

1. Changed automatic transmission to manual transmission 2. Changed aluminum bumper to steel 3. Changed automatic traction control to manual traction control 4. Downgraded radio to AM/FM only

Note: *No changes were made that affect the performance, handling or weight carrying capabilities of the truck.


5. NEW BUSINESS

E. Presentation and Request for Approval of Planning Commission Recommendation(s) by Blaine Smith, Zoning Administrator, and Matt Margotta, AICP, Planning & Community Development Director

1. Zoning Ordinance text amendment to permit Miniature Golf as a

Conditional Use in the DMX, Downtown Mixed Use, Zoning District 2. Zoning Ordinance text amendment to clarify the calculation of

required parking for Mixed Use development

2336

TOWN OF


TO: The Honorable Mayor, Council President and Members of Council THRU: David L. Recor, ICMA-CM, City Manager FROM: Matthew G. Margotta, AICP, Director of Planning & Community Development RE: Code Amendment – Adding Miniature Golf as Conditional Use in the DMX zone DATE: February 15, 2013

ISSUE(S): Proposal to add above commercial use to existing zoning district as a Conditional Use

SUMMARY: Proposing to reinsert language in the DMX zone to allow this low-

impact commercial use to be reviewed through the Conditional Use process in order to protect the surrounding neighborhoods.

FISCAL IMPACT: Income generating, low-impact commercial use anticipated

within a mixed-use, commercial/residential district.

RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission unanimously recommends this code amendment after the public hearing held on January 23, 2013.

ALTERNATIVES: None RESPONSIBLE STAFF:

Matthew G. Margotta, AICP, Director of Planning & Community Development R. Blaine Smith, Assistant Director of Planning & Zoning

COORDINATED WITH: Glenn Irwin, Executive Director, Ocean City Development Corp. ATTACHMENT(S): 1) Recommendation

2) Transcript of Public Hearing

Agenda Item # 5E (1)

Council Meeting 2-26-13

RECOMMENDATION TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

TO AMEND SECTION 110-664 OF THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF OCEAN CITY MARYLAND

TO INCLUDE MINIATURE GOLF AS ITEM (8) AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE DMX, DOWNTOWN MIXED USE, ZONING DISTRICT

File PZ #12-14100003

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

On Wednesday, January 23, 2013, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider amending Section 110-664 of the Code of the Town of Ocean City, Maryland, to include miniature golf as item (8) as a conditional use in the DMX, Downtown Mixed Use, Zoning District.

The Planning Commission initiated this amendment. There were no comments from the public concerning the proposal.

The Planning Commission heard testimony from Zoning Administrator Blaine Smith, Regan J. R. Smith, Esquire, and Glenn Irwin, Executive Director of the Ocean City Development Corporation concerning the history of the DMX zoning district which had originally included the use, and the intent of the Downtown Design Overlay Zone District to be exclusionary to protect the residential nature of the district. Adding the use as a Conditional Use would safeguard the existing residential portions of the mixed-use district while allowing a new commercial use that would be of low impact to the neighborhood.

At the conclusion of the meeting, the Commission voted unanimously (6-0) to

forward the recommendation. For your information, the transcript of the public hearing is also included. /ks

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION January 23, 2013

PRESENT IN ATTENDANCE Pam Buckley Blaine Smith John Staley Kay Stroud Peck Miller Matt Margotta Lauren Taylor Bob Nelson Joel Brous Will Esham John Staley This meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Wednesday, January 23, 2013, in the City Hall Council Chambers located on Baltimore Avenue and 3rd Street, Ocean City, Maryland. Pam Buckley, Commission Chairperson, called the meeting to order. BUCKLEY: Alright, I’m going to call to order the public hearing for tonight this January 23, 2013. This public hearing is to consider amending Section 110-664 of the Code of the Town of Ocean City, Maryland to include miniature golf as item number seven as a use permitted, Conditional Use, in the DMX Downtown Mixed Use, Zoning District. Applicant, Planning and Zoning Commission, File #12-14100003. And prior to all public hearings, I need to know if anyone in the audience has any problem with any of the Commission Members that are sitting and Mr. Miller will be back shortly, any of us sitting for this public hearing. Have any issue? Alright, let the record state that no one objects to us all sitting. Okay, Mr. Smith, will you swear him in? ESHAM: Under the penalties of perjury do you hereby swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? SMITH: I do. The public hearing for a miniature golf course as a Conditional Use in the DMX District was brought up as a result of a property in town that was in the DMX District requesting if they could get a miniature golf course, and at first I was of the mind that it was permitted as a Conditional Use until I went through the Code, because we had had some miniature golf course, one of which was on the east side of Baltimore Avenue but that was in a B-1, Boardwalk Commercial District, which was the Trimper Miniature Golf course, and then there was another one, there used to be another property, we referred to it as the Ice House, and it was called Iceland Golf, Miniature Golf, and now it’s been razed from the property and they built a condominium in its place next to the White Marlin Condominium that I referred to earlier, but that too was in a district different from DMX. We had Downtown Marine District, and other type district when that golf course went in place, and the DMX District and the Lower Downtown Overlay District was conceived and 2002 and since then we’ve not had any request for a miniature golf course. We had approved one other miniature golf course downtown on what we sometimes refer to as Holt’s Landing, Jennyville property. They had came in and we approved a miniature golf course there but it never got built; so downtown has experienced miniature golf course including the pier. One of the first miniature golf courses on the pier franchise many years ago, and that too was the Schoellkopf family, and it was the Schoellkopf family that had an interest to bring another one to downtown. Glenn Irwin with the OCDC, the Executive Director, he ran it by his committee, the

design committee, and we did get a recommendation that OCDC Downtown Design Committee supports the addition of miniature golf course as a Conditional Use in the DMX zoning district, I’ll submit that. I don’t think I’ve received any other correspondence once it was advertised and what-have-you. If we were to look at it site-specific, the Trimper family had operated an amusement between Baltimore Avenue and Philadelphia Avenue and we refer to it as the tank-battle property. It’s at South 1st Street between Baltimore and Philly, and that use had terminated in recent years and they’ve basically been using the lot just for parking, and I can’t remember exactly when we did the Amusement Overlay on the east side of Baltimore Avenue to include other Trimper properties up to Wicomico Street, but at that time we did not extend the Amusement Overlay onto the tank-battle property. Had we done that, it could have been done as part of the Amusement District… BUCKLEY: Okay. SMITH: …but that was not done so we’re still in a DMX District, and to allow miniature golf as a Conditional Use it’s enabling legislation so that someone in the DMX District could apply for a Conditional Use, go through the public hearing process, you all would hold the hearing, and in turn, you would make a recommendation to the Mayor and Council site-specific, to see the compatibility and whether or not there was going to be adverse impact on adjacent properties. That would be the procedural side, and so we believe, and so does OCDC, that this is a worthy use; you know, we are a town of tourism, and the DMX District is next to the Boardwalk Commercial District on the east side of the highway even though much of the district is commercial and residential type use, there are some properties that might lend itself, and that’s why you would do it as a Conditional Use so that you could safeguard any adjacent property in a particular case, so we’ll bring it to the Commission and the public requesting that the ordinance be amended to be inclusive of miniature golf course as a Conditional Use. MILLER: Is R-1 the only district that doesn’t allow… SMITH: er, DMX? MILLER: …yes, is R-1 the only one that doesn’t allow Conditional Uses for golf courses? SMITH: Well, R-1, Single-family residential would not. MILLER/BUCKLEY: Right. MILLER: That’s the only other one besides DMX that doesn’t it? SMITH: And the MH, Mobile-home District. BUCKLEY: Right, yeah. MILLER: And we’re not looking to change those. SMITH: No, no.

MILLER: No? Okay, just want to make sure we’re not like, missing, you know, R-3 where it makes sense to go ahead and do it sometimes. BUCKLEY: Yeah, I think as long as we have it in there as a Conditional Use it gives us enough control… SMITH: Yeah. BUCKLEY: …design control, depending on where it’s going to be, you know, put into so, because we are so developed, we need to be able to protect what’s there now. Okay… SMITH: And I would also go one step further and say some miniature golf course are indoor and some are outdoor, so it may, there may be some indoor commercial activity, we had the laser tag which was on the east side of Baltimore Avenue, but some of these indoor amenities can be good for more year-around usage; we’ve got laser tag and things such as that, years ago we experienced a lot of arcades, and they were by Conditional Use, and so it’s consistent with other types of amusement type device. MILLER: In the DMX is one thing, but in the LC-1, you wouldn’t need to get a Conditional Use… SMITH: You do, it’s still Conditional Use even inside. MILLER: Even inside? SMITH: Yeah, yeah. MILLER: If everything’s contained inside? SMITH: Yeah, still Conditional Use. MILLER: Okay. TAYLOR: Well, apparently because of traffic, I mean… MILLER: Okay, hmm, rock and roll. SMITH: We have the, you know, the laser tag, and theirs is a miniature golf too isn’t it? MILLER: I think so. SMITH: At 33rd? BUCKLEY: It’s an outside miniature golf. SMITH: But they were a Conditional Use for both the outside and the inside activity. BUCKLEY: Yeah. MILLER: Okay.

SMITH: Sometimes it’s noise control, light control, neighborhood, like you say, to make sure it’s compatible with the neighborhood. BUCKLEY: Well, because we are allowing it in R-2, R-2A, R-3 which does have residential, so. SMITH: But again, it’s a Conditional Use and you would look at the neighborhood and in some of the neighborhoods it might not fit and in others it would. BUCKLEY: Right. SMITH: That’s why the Conditional Use is the way to treat it. BUCKLEY: Okay. Any other questions of Mr. Smith from the Commission? Alright, thank you Mr. Smith. Is there anyone in attendance that would like to give testimony for this public hearing? Any questions? Oh, we’ve got somebody coming up. Another Mr. Smith. I’m going to have to (chuckle), okay, Mr. Smith. ESHAM: I’ll do it. Under the penalties of perjury do you hereby swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? R.SMITH: I do. BUCKLEY: Name and address for the record please? R. SMITH: Regan Smith, 3509 Coastal Highway. Our office represents the Trimper family which is the applicant, Windsor Resorts, which is the applicant. Those of you, may recall, there actually was three golf courses downtown, there was the original Old Pro course which was on the Pier, Granville Trimper had a course which he had put in on what we call Trimper Family property which is on the north end of the amusement park, and then there was the infamous Iceland Golf which was in the old Ocean City Ice Plant; all had their life and the Old Pro has consistently wanted to try to come back downtown to have a, you know, another course down there because they really thought it was a good operation when they ran it. The property in question, you may recall, originally when Windsor purchased it, it was the Water Flume. BUCKLEY: Um hm. R. SMITH: And our own Hal Adkins was actually a 15 year old water flume guy that kept you from banging into the pool on the other side, back when they opened that. There’s actually still a swimming pool underneath the parking lot that they filled in when they did that. BUCKLEY: Oh is there really? R. SMITH: But then it was tank-battle as well, so it’s always been tied to the amusement park. Tank-battle sort of aged out when they moved the crosswalk down a block, it made it more difficult for people to cross that street so it was not as useful in its, as part of the amusement park. They’ve always been trying to walk towards some utilization of the property in some manner that would add another amenity downtown to the park, and

also allow another something different, something that would draw people down there, something that would add an additional use down there with all the others, so, we thought it was consistent with all the neighboring properties. When we went to Blaine, we realized that the zoning change from the prior, I think this was actually B-2, I can’t remember if it was B-1 or B-2. BUCKLEY: B-2 I think. R. SMITH: I thought it was B-2 on this side of the road, it kinda, when they changed it to the DMX they took that Conditional Use out of the Code, so it left it really without a use for the Trimper family other than as parking and storage, and there’s an actual house there on the corner as well. So, we’re trying to get a little more utilization out of the property, and we thought this was consistent with what we could do down there too in order to do that. And you still have the Conditional Use process, which allows us to come back and look at the actual plan to make sure it’s compatible with the area. BUCKLEY: Yes, sir. R. SMITH: And also Chris Trimper is here on behalf of Windsor to answer any questions you may have on the property or from the Windsor Corporation. BUCKLEY: That would be for the Conditional Use hearing, not, we won’t need that for the zoning hearing I don’t believe. TAYLOR: No. BUCKLEY: This is just on whether or not we’ve made a mistake and, you know… STALEY: Want to correct it. BUCKLEY: …correcting the mistake of leaving it out of that one district. R. SMITH: Yeah, and I think that was, it’s always been amusement-related property… BUCKLEY: Right! R. SMITH: …and thought it was just an error in the situation, but if it went through we could have a golf course related to that. BUCKLEY: Correct. Okay, does anyone have any questions of Mr. Smith? Any further comments? Testimony? Okay, Mr. Blaine Smith. SMITH: Just a thought came to my mind, what other types of Conditional Uses are permitted in DMX District currently, as a comparison? BUCKLEY: Okay. SMITH: For the weight of it. Under current code, under the zoning, you could have aquariums, night clubs, public/private garage, theaters, opera house, your public utilities and essential services, and then we added small wind turbine, by Conditional Use. So those are things that are also included as Conditional Use.

BUCKLEY: Okay, alright. Well it seems to me that the Conditional Use for the golf course, the miniature golf course, is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood in that district, um… SMITH: And the DMX District is a mixed use district, which is commercial and residential, so it does anticipate commercial growth. BUCKLEY: Right, yes, sir. And the Conditional Use does give it the opportunity to control it within the neighborhood. SMITH: Yes. BUCKLEY: Any other questions? Anything else we need to put on the record, Mr. ESHAM: You’ve covered all the opportunities for the public? BUCKLEY: I think so. One final, one final opportunity to make a comment, pro, con, or neutral. Alright, I will now, does the Commission have enough information to form a decision in this public hearing? BROUS/MILLER: Yes, I’m good. BUCKLEY: I will entertain a motion to close the hearing then. TAYLOR: So moved. BUCKLEY: I have a motion by Lauren… MILLER: Second. BUCKLEY: and a second by Peck to close the hearing. All in favor? COMMISSIONERS IN UNISON: Aye. BUCKLEY: (gavel) So moved. Alright. Are we deliberating tonight, folks? TAYLOR: Yeah. BROUS/MILLER: I’m fine with this one. BUCKLEY: Go right ahead, sweetheart. BROUS: I think it should’ve been there in the first place, yes, that’s how it should be. MILLER: Probably one of those famous miniature golf courses in Ocean City, Batman ran it from the Boardwalk. Mike Kady ran it years ago, and I think there should be one downtown if there can be, and this is a great opportunity and the way to do it. BUCKLEY: Yeah, well it seems like we just missed it when we were changing all these zoning codes.

TAYLOR: Well, I think if I remember correctly, at the time it was, when condos were big deal, hot stuff, and it was that they were a better tax base, better use of the property of the property for a tax base than a miniature golf course because they took up so much space and wouldn’t return the revenue. But clearly things have changed and umm… STALEY: They’re forever changing. BUCKLEY: It’s not all our decision on economics either, it’s what the, hopefully the highest and best use will be determined by the economy and not us. TAYLOR: Yeah, and it’s user-friendly, it will be mostly pedestrian, it doesn’t add extra traffic to downtown and so, um… BUCKLEY: And we are a tourism industry and it’s something that continues to promote the tourism and it’s a family-oriented activity. TAYLOR: You burn money at a slower rate than other activities! STALEY: Yes, how ‘bout it? MILLER: Do you want us to make a motion? BUCKLEY: I figure if we can have a nightclub we ought to be able to have a golf course, you know? I will entertain a motion. MILLER: I make a motion that we move forward to getting it amended. BUCKLEY: Okay, we’ll move a favorable recommendation to the Mayor and Council for their approval based on the finding of fact, so. MILLER: Right. BUCKLEY: Alright, and a second? BROUS: Aye. BUCKLEY: Lauren? TAYLOR: Joel did. BUCKLEY: Oh, Joel seconded, I apologize, I missed you. We have a motion by Peck to move forward to the Planning- to the Mayor and Council with a favorable recommendation for the miniature golf courses to be included as a Conditional Use in the DMX District. STALEY: Um hm. BUCKLEY: And a second by Joel. All in favor? COMMISSIONERS IN UNISON: Aye.

BUCKLEY: (gavel) So moved. Meeting adjourned at 7:45 PM Respectfully submitted, Karen G. (Kay) Stroud Zoning Analyst January 28, 2013

3636

TOWN OF


TO: The Honorable Mayor, Council President and Members of Council THRU: David L. Recor, ICMA-CM, City Manager FROM: Matthew G. Margotta, AICP, Director of Planning & Community Development RE: Code Amendment – Determining how to calculate required parking in mixed uses DATE: February 15, 2013

ISSUE(S): Clarifying standard to remove ambiguity of interpretation SUMMARY: Having received a legal challenge to interpretation & practice

involving a mixed-use project, the Planning Commission determined it was necessary to amend the existing language.

FISCAL IMPACT: None RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission unanimously recommends the

proposed new language to make the Code explicit to reflect our ongoing policies after the public hearing held on November 20, 2012.

ALTERNATIVES: None RESPONSIBLE STAFF:

Matthew G. Margotta, AICP, Director of Planning & Community Development R. Blaine Smith, Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning

COORDINATED WITH: Not applicable ATTACHMENT(S): 1) Recommendation

2) Transcript of Public Hearing

Agenda Item # 5E (2)

Council Meeting 2-26-13

RECOMMENDATION TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

TO AMEND CODE SECTIONS 110-933(e) AND (k) RELATED TO PARKING REGULATIONS

DETERMINING HOW TO CALCULATE REQUIRED PARKING IN MIXED USES

File PZ #12-14100002

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

On Tuesday, November 20, 2012, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider amending Code Sections 110-933 (e) and (k) related to parking regulations determining how to calculate required parking spaces in mixed uses.

(e) Where a fractional space results after tabulating the total number of required spaces, the parking spaces required shall be construed to be the next highest whole number.

(k) In the case of mixed uses, or uses with different parking requirements occupying the same building or premises, or in the case of joint use of a building or premises by more that one use having the same parking requirements, the parking spaces required shall equal the sum of the requirements of the various uses computed separately, except that in such mixed uses the computation shall not be subject to the base minimum requirement specified in section 110-932(b) above for individual uses; and that the parking requirements for permitted accessory retail and services uses in a hotel, motor or motor lodge containing 50 or more dwelling units may be reduced by the following percentages:

(1) Retail sales, offices and service establishments, 30 percent; (2) Restaurants and dining rooms, 50 percent; (3) Ballrooms, banquet halls, meeting rooms and auditoriums, 70 percent.

The Planning Commission initiated this amendment. There were no comments

from the public concerning the proposal.

The Planning Commission reviewed the current ordinance and listened to testimony from Zoning Administrator Blaine Smith and Joseph E. Moore, Esquire, concerning a challenge from an out-of-state attorney as to the final tabulation of parking spaces for mixed uses. The Commission found that by amending the code as recommended it would allow for clarification but would not change the intent or the enforcement of the code’s interpretation.

At the conclusion of the meeting, the Commission voted unanimously (6-0) to

forward the recommendation. For your information, the transcript of the public hearing is also included. /ks

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION November 20, 2012

PRESENT IN ATTENDANCE Pam Buckley Blaine Smith Chris Shanahan Kay Stroud Peck Miller Lauren Taylor Joel Brous John Staley This meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 20, 2012, in the City Hall Council Chambers located on Baltimore Avenue and 3rd Street, Ocean City, Maryland. Pam Buckley, Commission Chairperson, called the meeting to order. BUCKLEY: Alright, we have a public hearing now, and prior to the public hearing, I will read this, or state this that any person who may object to any one of us taking part in this public hearing, does anyone in the room have an issue with us, so let the record state that no one has a problem with all the Commission members in attendance taking part in this public hearing, being that this is one that has been requested by Planning and Zoning, we do amend the format just a bit and we’ll take all the testimony and then questions and such. Mr. Smith, I guess I’m going to swear you in – do you, something… MOORE: Do you solemnly… BUCKLEY: Okay, you do it sir. MOORE: You do solemnly declare and affirm that the… BUCKLEY: That’s what it is, solemnly… MOORE: …the following statements that you’re about to give under the penalty of perjury will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? SMITH: I do. BUCKLEY: That’s a long one; we don’t usually get those, but I do need to learn how to do that because I know as Chairman I can that right? MOORE: Yes, ma’am. BUCKLEY: That’s what I thought. Alright, introduction of the case by the staff – oh I need to read the case, the public hearing. We are now to consider amending Code Sections 110-933(e) and (k) related to parking regulations determining how to calculate required parking spaces in mixed uses. Item (e) Where underline a fractional space results, after tabulating the total number of required spaces, the parking spaces required shall be construed to be the next highest whole number. Item (k) In the case of mixed uses, or uses with different parking requirements occupying the same building or

premises, or in the case of joint use of a building or premises by more than one use having the same parking requirements, the parking spaces required shall equal the sum of the requirements of the various uses computed separately, except that in such mixed uses the computation shall not be subject to the base minimum requirement specified in Section 110-932(b) above for individual uses; and that the parking requirements for permitted accessory retail and services uses in a hotel, motel, motor (sic) or motor lodge containing 50 or more dwelling units may be reduced by the following percentages: retail sales, offices and service establishments, 30 percent; restaurants and dining rooms, 50 percent; ballrooms, banquet halls, meeting rooms and auditoriums, 7 percent, 70 percent. This is Planning and Zoning file number 12-14100002 and the applicant is the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Smith, please present the case. SMITH: Okay. The language that you have read into the record is being proposed to be amended with those items that are shown in yellow highlight. So everything that is highlighted in yellow is new language and the purpose of putting the new language into the Code is to clarify, we’re not changing the Code in our opinion. Joe and I met with Guy Ayres and he felt it did need clarification by Code amendment, that it could not be editorial change. It’s not stylistic in nature. Under current Code and for 27 years, I have interpreted the Code, for example, Lauren, you have a hotel. And it says, say a gift shop, under the retail parking, the Code says 1 car per 200 square feet of gross area, five spaces minimum. So she only had, say 100 square feet of gift shop, she’s got to have five spaces minimum. Whereas it’s in a hotel, you’ve got more than five spaces in the project. When you tabulate parking for that mixed use, be it the restaurant, be it the gift shop, be it the hotel rooms and what have you, there is, sometimes, if you’ve a restaurant that is about 300 square feet, that would be 1.5 parking space. I won’t say five because you’ve got to meet the minimum first in a mixed use project, because the project’s got more than five spaces in itself, so you could say 1.5 space for the retail, it might be 15.6 space for the restaurant because it’s got more sitting area or whatever, or some other use might have a percentage, and then you’ve got other rooms, which could be say, 110, plus the 1.5 plus this. When you get, this is saying that when you get to the end, and it ends up being 120.5 space, you round it up to 121 because you can’t get a half-space. The Code says very clearly you round up when you have fractional space. We’ve been challenged by somebody that you round up each and every time, and you need the minimum, each and every time (indistinguishable) even if you’ve got 1,000 seat, you get the five space, five times the 200. He’s trying to tell me I have to inflict five spaces on a small area. If the project has the five minimum, it’s satisfying the minimum, but then the cumulative parking is tabulized (sic) otherwise, that’s what this language is trying to say, that you don’t round up and tabulate it until the end. If you were dealing with a small carry-out store, that has, let’s say 600 square feet, you couldn’t do it with just three space, you’ve got to have the five space, that’s understandable, because you need a base minimum, you know, when you’ve got small elements like that, but you, you’ve got a mixed use project, if one of those didn’t have its five minimum, it might (indistinguishable) your parking demand. It really does, the five minimum is when you’ve got an individual use that’s got limited area, you’ve got the five space minimum. BUCKLEY: Right. SMITH: So you’ve got an adequate amount from the get-go. BUCKLEY: Right.

SMITH: So that’s how I’ve administered this Code for as long as I’ve been here. BUCKLEY: Right. SMITH: But this gentleman has told me I’m doing it wrong. And we’re trying to get the language to do it the way we’ve been administering it, and that’s why this is done, that you basically round, you total the uses separate, but not then the minimum, if you’ve got more than the minimum and if you do round up, you do it at the end, not with each individual item. MILLER: Blaine, this is really just for mixed-use projects. SMITH: Yes, that’s the effects of it. MILLER: And you’re just re-assess- BUCKLEY: Restating what we’ve… MILLER: Redefining it the way we always have… SMITH: And the (indiscernible). MILLER: Right. BUCKLEY: We’ll just make it what, because we were, (indiscernible) take this in discussion, and we wanted to, right, we wanted to make sure that there was not an issue with someone coming in and not understanding the zoning as it applies to these mixed uses, I mean, we’re now, seeing more and more of them. TAYLOR: How much difference does it actually make – we already did this once. It only, the maximum difference it can make is three parking spaces, right? MILLER: No. SMITH: It can be one to five, maybe. BUCKLEY: Yeah. SMITH: It depends on how many variables are in the project. BUCKLEY, TAYLOR: Yeah. SHANAHAN: Does the party that challenged your decisions have a precedent from other counties or jurisdictions? SMITH: No, no. He just took our code literally, and said I can read it different than you did. SHANAHAN: Okay.

SMITH: No, he’s advised that this hearing is taking place tonight. MOORE: Yes, I – I’ll speak very briefly with you when you finish your point. SMITH: It’s, you know… BUCKLEY: Okay. SMITH: …and the project that he differs with has oodles of parking! That’s a different matter. BUCKLEY: Okay. Well, I mean, I think the way we’ve been allocating parking, and requiring parking has, as far as the numbers go is working, so I don’t know. SMITH: We’re not changing the standard. BUCKLEY: Right, we’re just relating and making it less complicated. SMITH: Yep. BUCKLEY: For the reader. MILLER: More predictable. BUCKLEY: Okay. TAYLOR: But I, you know, we can’t, because we didn’t advertise it, but if I were looking at this 70% reduction for ballrooms and auditoriums is… SMITH: That’s been in the Code from way-back. BUCKLEY: Yeah. BROUS: What, I was about to say… SMITH: We’re not changing anything relative to demand. TAYLOR: I think at that, whenever this was done, it was that all of the events were attended by people in-house, but that’s not the case anymore. We have more hotels now with more meeting space. BUCKLEY: Right. TAYLOR: And so, you do wind up with more situations where there’s (indiscernible) parking. BUCKLEY: We need to put that on our to-do list, Kay. We’ll look at that next. BROUS: What’s your recommendation?

BUCKLEY: What, the percentages? TAYLOR: Maybe 50, yeah. BUCKLEY: Like a restaurant and a dining room. BROUS: 50’s kind of high… BUCKLEY/TAYLOR: Yeah. BROUS: It’s not a huge issue, but… TAYLOR: Well, it is when you look at banquet rooms that can seat four and five and six hundred people, that’s a lot of cars. If you’re saying you don’t have to park 70% of those people? BUCKLEY: You’re only parking 30% of them! TAYLOR: That’s what I mean. SMITH: It’s worth the discussion, but you know, probably many times that I’m thinking, let’s take the Clarion for an example when they had their prime rib special at night. Many times the occupancy of that hotel is not 100% all the time, people are coming and going. So, the amenities or accessories if they necessarily compete with the parking all in all, and then you’ve got the taxis, the bus, the neighborhood walk-ups like that; I think you do, I’m going to call it a knee-jerk reaction, but if you start varying from the 70% because, there are different times when parking will not work all, 100% of the time. But generally the projects that have the amenities, let’s take, like the Reflections at the Holiday Inn. I don’t know that if, because of how the occupancy of hotel works, you could, if it’s a popular, like the Ocean Club is popular and the Reflections is probably popular, but I don’t know that have we have found that, if they’ve got per (indiscernible) parking, the ones that don’t have nonconformity are the ones that probably suffer, you know, if they don’t really have the accompaniment parking, with this formula. So sometimes we might see some projects that are deficient, but if it meets the formula, I think normally, and especially the project at-hand, their restaurant and gift shop never (indiscernible) that hotel, because this is a hotel that we’re dealing with. BUCKLEY: Okay. SMITH: But this may be a worthy discussion long-term… SIMULTANEOUS COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS/STAFF: SMITH: …but if you go through what you’ve got for that purpose, it probably, in a peak period (indiscernible) that it works okay, on the average. BROUS: I’m thinking of down, basically downtown, if you have like a, to say for instance like the Captain’s Table. Most of the time people are there for the hotel, but you have like a local big black-tie affair, the hotel guests are there, dinner time you’ve got the ballroom full of local residents coming to go to a function there in the summertime, then there’d be conflict.

SIMULTANEOUS COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS/STAFF: SMITH: Now, the one we’re talking about now, that one does carry some nonconformity, so sometimes if you’ve got nonconformity with the project it can be burdensome. But if you’ve got what this calls for, I don’t see as difficult. TAYLOR: Yeah. BUCKLEY: Okay. MILLER: You can’t plan for… SIMULTANEOUS COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS SHANAHAN: Let sleeping dogs lie! MORE SIMULTANEOUS COMMENTS INDISCERNIBLE TAYLOR: The Phillips property is the only one that’s big enough for this to be an issue probably, I mean nobody else is going to be building a huge hotel I don’t think. SMITH: Right. And the ones that did, and meet the formula, normally will function. TAYLOR: Right. SMITH: Yep. BUCKLEY: Okay. Any comments? Comments, questions? MOORE: I would just say in answer to Chris’s question. BUCKLEY: That’s Mr. Moore speaking, by the way. MOORE: Thank you. Joseph Moore and I’m a lawyer… BUCKLEY: You’re a lawyer, so you always tell the truth. MOORE: But I want the Commission to know that the person who brought the problem forth, who simply refused to agree with Blaine’s calculations, as a courtesy, I did send him your advertisement. He’s in Chicago. BUCKLEY: Okay. MOORE: And he’s an attorney for a substantial hotel in the town, and I sent him that as a courtesy so he wouldn’t think that I was trying to pull something over on him, so. BUCKLEY: Okay, alright. Do we know, does the Commission have enough information to go ahead and close the hearing? MILLER/TAYLOR: Yes.

BUCKLEY: I have a motion by Peck and a second by Lauren. All in favor? COMMISSIONERS IN UNISON: Aye. BUCKLEY: (Gavel) So moved. Alright, we here to consider amending the Code, do I have a motion on that? I have a motion from Mr. Shanahan… SHANAHAN: Motion to accept the amendment as written. BUCKLEY: Okay. The second is Mr. Brous to accept the amendment to the Code as written. All in favor? COMMISSIONSER IN UNISON: Aye. BUCKLEY: So moved (gavel). Meeting adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Karen G. (Kay) Stroud Zoning Analyst January 3, 2013


5. NEW BUSINESS

F. Presentation from Martha Bennett, Finance Administrator, regarding Banking Services and Request for approval to “piggyback” the Anne Arundel County, Maryland, contract

TOWN OF


Agenda Item# 5F

Council Meeting February 26, 2013 TO: The Honorable Mayor, Council President and Members of Council THRU: David L. Recor, ICMA-CM, City Manager FROM: Martha J. Bennett, Finance Administrator RE: Banking Services through Bank of America Merrill Lynch DATE: January 9, 2013 ISSUE(S): Requesting to piggyback on Anne Arundel County contract for

banking services. SUMMARY: Per the Town of Ocean City Purchasing Policies and Procedures

Manual, Chapter 4, Section 4.6.G, I am requesting to piggyback on Anne Arundel County's contract for banking services. Bank of America is extending the pricing terms of the Anne Arundel County's contract to the Town of Ocean City for all existing accounts as well as any other banking services requested based on the Anne Arundel County's competitive bid process for pricing and services.

FISCAL IMPACT: The estimated reduction of banking fees is $800 per month.

RECOMMENDATION: Accept the proposal to piggyback on Anne Arundel County's contract

for banking services. ALTERNATIVES 1) To continue with our current operation and pay higher fees than

the Anne Arundel County contract. 2) Bid banking services to attempt to receive a lower bid than Anne Arundel County.

RESPONSIBLE STAFF: Martha Bennett, Finance Administrator

COORDINATED WITH: Roger Baskerville, Assistant Finance Administrator

Joe Sobczak, General Services Director ATTACHMENT(S): 1) Offer from Edmund Bianchi, Senior Vice President of Bank of

America 2) Town of Ocean City Purchasing Policy and Procedure Manual, Chapter IV, Section 4.6.G

Revised on 12-14-10 18

4.6 EXCEPTION TO SEALED BID PROCESS

A. Architectural, Engineering or other Professional services required for the purpose of conducting studies, evaluations, or establishing Contract Documents, designs, and specifications for municipal facilities as deemed necessary by the City Manager.

B. Legal Representation Contracts for services required, but not feasible to be

handled by the City Attorney, as determined by the City Manager and/or Mayor and City Council.

C. Medical Service Contracts.

D. Service Contracts on computers, copiers, radios, typewriters, telephones, answering services, pest control and HVAC units owned by the Town of Ocean City.

E. Gasoline/Diesel Fuel Purchases and repairs required to operate the fleet of vehicles/equipment owned by the Town.

F. Heating Oil Purchases for the heating of all buildings owned by the Town.

G. Piggyback Purchases for goods and services on any other Municipal, County, State or Federal Government contract.

H. Sole-Source Purchases of goods that must match, fit, or hook-up to existing

equipment owned by the Town that is only sold by a single supplier/manufacturer, or when goods are being purchased for resale to the public.

I. Emergency Purchases of goods and/or services as defined in Chapter 2.4 Emergency Orders.

J. Entertainers, performers, artists, musicians, actors and other talent providers at City approved events.

K. Expenditure of “Capital” Grant funds anticipated to cost less than $25,000 that utilize FTA/MTA with a local match that is less than $10,000. The intent of the “exception” is to permit expenditure of these funds in accordance with FTA/MTA Procurement Guidelines without being additionally burdened by local procurement guidelines. Prior to solicitation of goods and services exceeding a total cost of $10,000, and in accordance with the Town Procurement Guidelines, the Mayor and City Council are to be informed. Recommendation for Award is to


5. NEW BUSINESS

G. Presentation and Request for Approval of FY13 Budget Amendment #1 by Jennie Knapp, Budget Manager

TOWN OF




FROM: Jennie Knapp, Budget Manager RE: Introduction of FY 13 Budget Amendment #1

DATE: 2/18/13

ISSUE(S): Introduction of FY 13 Budget Amendment #1

SUMMARY: The budget amendment recognizes Room Tax exceeding budget

estimates for first quarter of FY 13. Additional funds are taken

from fund balance to cover Room Tax exceeding estimate for 2nd

half of FY 12 and FY 12 unspent advertising funds. Fund balance

is also used to cover the Inlet Lot parking controls and to cover

prior year purchase orders

FISCAL IMPACT: The amount taken from prior year reserves (fund balance)

increases $1,059,855 from $2,749,395 approved in the FY 13

Adopted Budget to $3,809,250.

RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Budget Amendment #1 for FY 13

ALTERNATIVES: None

RESPONSIBLE STAFF:

Jennie Knapp, Budget Manager

COORDINATED WITH:

ATTACHMENT(S): 1) Budget amendment ordinance

2) Detail of changes

3) PowerPoint presentation

Agenda Item # 5G


ORDINANCE 2013-

TOWN OF OCEAN CITY OPERATING BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2013

ADOPTED AMENDMENT # 1SOURCE FY-2013 FIRST READING CHANGES

Section I, General Fund:A. Anticipated Revenue:

Property Taxes $ 41,442,940 $ 41,442,940 $ 0Other Taxes 14,359,087 14,588,755 229,668Licenses and Permits 3,883,300 3,921,363 38,063Revenue From Other Agencies 4,395,639 4,440,489 44,850Charges For Services 8,725,492 8,731,492 6,000Fines and Forfeitures 675,000 675,000 0Other Revenue 424,344 826,106 401,762Prior Year Reserves 2,749,395 3,809,250 1,059,855

Total Revenue $ 76,655,197 $ 78,435,395 $ 1,780,198

B. Anticipated Expenditures:General Government $ 3,665,533 $ 3,666,245 $ 712Public Safety 33,072,659 33,662,945 590,286Public Works/Beach Maintenance 4,783,375 5,212,513 429,138Sanitation and Waste Removal 5,568,131 5,568,131 0Highways and Streets 4,900,408 4,919,317 18,909Economic Development -Tourism 6,730,104 7,227,878 497,774Culture and Recreation 7,366,729 7,601,107 234,378Debt Service 4,551,710 4,551,710 0

Sub Total $ 70,638,649 $ 72,409,846 $ 1,771,197To Transportation Fund 1,927,997 1,927,997 0To Airport Fund 116,976 125,977 9,001To Convention Center Fund 1,483,575 1,483,575 0To Vehicle Trust 488,000 488,000 0To Capital Projects 2,000,000 2,000,000 0

Total Expenditures $ 76,655,197 $ 78,435,395 $ 1,780,198


Section II, Water Fund:

A. Anticipated Revenue:

Water Sales $ 3,349,934 $ 3,349,934 $ 0Water Fixture Charge 3,486,777 3,486,777 0Service Charges 186,794 186,794 0Capacity/Impact Fees 55,440 55,440 0Prior Year Reserves 102,808 161,966 59,158

Total Revenue $ 7,181,753 $ 7,240,911 $ 59,158

B. Anticipated Expenditures:

Personal Services $ 1,926,770 $ 1,926,770 $ 0Non-Personal Services 3,121,098 3,180,256 59,158Debt Service 1,068,885 1,068,885 0Capital Outlay 1,065,000 1,065,000 0

Total Expenditures $ 7,181,753 $ 7,240,911 $ 59,158

Section III, Transportation Fund:


Bus Revenue $ 2,951,577 $ 2,945,077 $ (6,500)Train Revenue 1,073,051 1,073,051 0Federal and State Grants 2,652,782 3,069,840 417,058Capital Asset Sales 0 12,930 12,930Transfer-In From General Fund 1,927,997 1,927,997 0Prior Year Reserves 0 53,981 53,981

Total Revenue $ 8,605,407 $ 9,082,876 $ 477,469


Personal Services $ 3,653,751 $ 3,653,751 $ 0Non-Personal Services 3,421,656 3,691,966 270,310Capital Outlay 1,530,000 1,737,159 207,159



Section IV, Wastewater Fund:


Wastewater Treatment Charges $ 11,041,867 $ 11,041,867 $ 0Service Charges 958,578 958,578 0Build America Bond Subsidy 133,381 133,381 0Capacity/Impact Fees 96,800 96,800 0Prior Year Reserves 101,226 151,604 50,378

Total Revenue $ 12,331,852 $ 12,382,230 $ 50,378


Personal Services $ 4,199,765 $ 4,199,765 $ 0Non-Personal Services 3,476,670 3,527,048 50,378Debt Service 3,555,417 3,555,417 0Capital Outlay 1,100,000 1,100,000 0


Section V, Airport Fund:


Fuel Sales $ 729,600 $ 729,600 $ 0Rents and Other Revenue 351,530 351,530 0State and Federal Grants 427,500 427,500 0Service Charges 108,000 108,000 0Transfer-In From General Fund 116,976 125,977 9,001Prior Year Reserves 150,000 297,330 147,330

Total Revenue $ 1,883,606 $ 2,039,937 $ 156,331


Personal Services $ 311,695 $ 311,695 $ 0Non-Personal Services 975,829 1,132,160 156,331Debt Service 146,082 146,082 0Capital Outlay 450,000 450,000 0



Section VI, Municipal Golf Course Fund:

A. Anticipated Revenue:Service Charges $ 1,737,052 $ 1,737,052 $ 0Sales and Concessions 446,097 446,097 0Other Revenue 56,628 56,628 0Prior Year Reserves 0 28,370 28,370

Total Revenue $ 2,239,777 $ 2,268,147 $ 28,370

B. Anticipated Expenditures:Personal Services $ 1,046,401 $ 1,046,401 $ 0Non-Personal Services 1,042,618 1,048,586 5,968Transfer to General Fund 150,758 150,758 0Capital Outlay 0 22,402 22,402


Section VII, Convention Center Fund:

A. Anticipated Revenue:Service Charges $ 1,813,428 $ 1,813,428 $ 0State and County Grants 1,549,102 1,549,102 0Food & Beverage Tax 1,110,000 1,110,000 0Transfer-In From General Fund 1,483,575 1,483,575 0Prior Year Reserves 1,087,642 1,150,534 62,892Contributed Equity 0 0 0

Total Revenue $ 7,043,747 $ 7,106,639 $ 62,892

B. Anticipated Expenditures:Personal Services $ 2,967,379 $ 2,967,379 $ 0Non-Personal Services 1,648,058 1,710,950 62,892Debt Service 2,328,310 2,328,310 0Transfer to Debt Service Reserves 100,000 100,000 0Capital Outlay 0 0 0



Section VIII, Information Technology Fund:


Service Charges To Other Funds $ 1,743,443 $ 1,743,443 $ 0Prior Year Reserves 0 44,841 44,841

Total Revenue $ 1,743,443 $ 1,788,284 $ 44,841


Personal Services $ 920,978 $ 920,978 $ 0Non-Personal Services 822,465 867,306 44,841Capital Outlay 0 0 0


Section IX, Service Center Fund:


Service Charges To Other Funds $ 5,360,362 $ 5,360,362 $ 0Prior Year Reserves 0 23,206 23,206

Total Revenue $ 5,360,362 $ 5,383,568 $ 23,206


Personal Services $ 1,825,261 $ 1,825,261 $ 0Non-Personal Services 3,535,101 3,558,307 23,206Debt Service 0 0 0Capital Outlay 0 0 0



Section X, Vehicle & Equipment Trust Fund:


Service Charges To Other Funds $ 2,380,353 $ 2,344,992 $ (35,361)State and Federal Grants 1,984,500 3,602,793 1,618,293Sale of Assets 150,000 150,000 0Transfer In From General Fund 488,000 488,000 0Prior Year Reserves 0 140,833 140,833

Total Revenue $ 5,002,853 $ 6,726,618 $ 1,723,765


Non-Personal Services $ 760,721 $ 785,721 $ 25,000Debt Service 0 0 0Transfers Out 0 0 0Capital Outlay 4,242,132 5,940,897 1,698,765


Section XI, Risk Management Fund:


Service Charges To Other Funds $ 2,109,754 $ 2,109,754 $ 0Interest Earned 65,081 65,081 0Prior Year Reserves 0 854 854

Total Revenue $ 2,174,835 $ 2,175,689 $ 854


Personal Services $ 236,940 $ 236,940 $ 0Non-Personal Services/Claims 1,937,895 1,938,749 854Capital Outlay 0 0 0

Total Expenditures $ 2,174,835 $ 2,175,689 $ 854


Section XII, Pension Trust Funds:

A. Anticipated Revenue:Employer Contributions $ 6,128,044 $ 6,128,044 $ 0Employee Contributions 1,715,000 1,715,000 0Investment Earnings 3,925,000 3,925,000 0

Total Revenue $ 11,768,044 $ 11,768,044 $ 0

B. Anticipated Expenditures:Benefit Payments $ 4,225,000 $ 4,225,000 $ 0Non-Personal Services 600,000 600,000 0Reserve for Employee's Retirement 6,943,044 6,943,044 0


Section XIII, OPEB Trust Funds:

A. Anticipated Revenue:Employer Contributions $ 3,858,750 $ 3,858,750 $ 0Employee Contributions 155,000 155,000 0Investment Earnings 235,000 235,000 0

Total Revenue $ 4,248,750 $ 4,248,750 $ 0

B. Anticipated Expenditures:Benefit Payments $ 850,000 $ 850,000 $ 0Non-Personal Services 55,000 55,000 0Reserve for Retiree Health 3,343,750 3,343,750 0



Section XIV, General Capital Projects Fund:


General Fund Contribution 2,000,000 2,000,000 0Bond Proceeds 0 0 0Inlet Lot Parking Revenue 290,000 290,000 0

Total Revenue $ 2,290,000 $ 2,290,000 $ 0


Street Paving 2,000,000 2,000,000 0Reserve for Future Capital Projects 290,000 290,000 0


Section XIV, All Funds Expenditure Summary:

General Fund $ 76,655,197 $ 78,435,395 $ 1,780,198Water Fund 7,181,753 7,240,911 59,158Transportation Fund 8,605,407 9,082,876 477,469Wastewater Fund 12,331,852 12,382,230 50,378Airport Fund 1,883,606 2,039,937 156,331Municipal Golf Course Fund 2,239,777 2,268,147 28,370Convention Center Fund 7,043,747 7,106,639 62,892Management Information Services Fund 1,743,443 1,788,284 44,841Service Center Fund 5,360,362 5,383,568 23,206Vehicle & Equipment Trust Fund 5,002,853 6,726,618 1,723,765Risk Management Fund 2,174,835 2,175,689 854Pension Trust Funds 11,768,044 11,768,044 0OPEB Trust Fund 4,248,750 4,248,750 0

Sub Total $ 146,239,626 $ 150,647,088 $ 4,407,462

LESS: Interfund Transfers (27,597,254) (27,570,894) 26,360


Capital Projects Fund - General 2,290,000 2,290,000 0

Grand Total $ 120,932,372 $ 125,366,194 $ 4,433,822

Section XV, Special Authorization - Budget Manager:

The Budget Manager shall be authorized to reallocate departmental appropriations among the variousobjects of expenditures as she deems necessary. Such changes shall be approved by the Finance Administrator & City Manager.

Section XVI, Restrictions - City Manager:

A. The utilization of any contingency appropriation shall be accomplished only with priorauthorization from the Mayor and Council.

B. Utilization of appropriations established in the Capital Improvement Fund may beaccomplished only with the express approval of the Mayor and Council.

Section XVII, Tax Rate:

An Ad Valorem Tax Rate of $0.4585 per $100 of assessed valuation of real property and a rate of $1.29 per $100 of assessed valuation of corporate and personal property tax is required to fund this budget.

INTRODUCED at a meeting of the City Council of Ocean City, Maryland held on March 4, 2013.

ADOPTED AND PASSED, by the required vote of the elected membership of the City Counciland approved by the Mayor at its meeting held on March 18, 2013.

DAVID L. RECOR, CITY MANAGER RICHARD W. MEEHAN, MAYOR

KELLY L. ALLMOND, CITY CLERK LLOYD MARTIN, PRESIDENT

MARY P. KNIGHT, SECRETARY

ADOPTED: Date

MOTION TO ADOPT BY:

MOTION SECONDED BY:

VOTE: FOR: AGAINST:

Changes Since Adopted Budget

General Fund Revenue:

Other Taxes 229,668 Room Tax over estimate

Licenses and Permits 38,063 Prior year Critical areas and Stormwater mitigation project balances

Revenue from Other Agencies 44,850 159,965 prior year grant balances; 119,000 NSP Outdoor Exercise Equipment grant; 35,885 Public

Safety grants; (270,000) County Tourism grant

Charges for Services 6,000 Donations for Sunset Park Winterfest decorations

Other Revenue 401,762 326,585 balance brought forward in Mounted unit donation account; 1,415 Beach wheelchair

donation; 73,440 Tree of Life project balance brought forward; 322 interest earned on prior year

project balance

Appropriated Fund Balance 1,059,855 305,601 FY 12 Room Tax over estimate; 87,531 FY 12 unspent advertising funds; 400,000 Inlet Lot

parking controls; 221,722 prior year purchase orders; 36,000 District Court roof; 9,001 Airport

mower attachment

1,780,198

General Fund Expenses:

General Government 712 Prior Year purchase orders

Public Safety 590,286 67,529 prior year purchase orders; 160,287 prior year grant balances; 35,885 FY 13 Public Safety

grants; 326,585 Mounted unit donation balance;

Public Works/Beach Maintenance 429,138 9,172 prior year purchase orders; 400,000 Inlet Lot parking controls; 36,000 District Court roof;

(27,791) Sunfest labor expense; 11,757 Critical Areas project balances;

Highways and Streets 18,909 4,066 prior year purchase orders; 26,306 Stormwater mitigation project balances; (11,463) Sunfest

labor expense

Economic Development - Tourism 497,774 92,903 prior year purchase orders; 622,800 increase in advertising budget; (270,000) reduction of

advertising budget due to loss of County Tourism grant; 46,071 Sunfest labor expense; 6,000

Sunset Park Winterfest decorations

Culture and Recreation 234,378 47,340 prior year purchase orders; 119,000 NSP Outdoor exercise equipment; 73,440 Tree of Life

Project balance; 1,415 Beach wheelchair donation; (6,817) Sunfest labor expense

Transfer to Airport 9,001 Additional funding for mower attachment

1,780,198

Water Fund Revenue:

Prior Year Reserves 59,158 Prior year purchase orders

59,158

Water Fund Expenses:

Non-Personal Services 59,158 Prior year purchase orders

59,158

Transportation Fund Revenue:

Bus Revenue (6,500) Budgeted local match for grant purchases was $203,000. Actual amount was $196,500.

General Fund contribution kept in Transportation and used to lower revenue estimate

Federal and State Grants 417,058 475,449 prior year grant balances brought forward; (58,391) grant adjustments

Capital Asset Sales 12,930 Proceeds from bus sale

Prior Year Reserves 53,981 1,153 prior year purchase orders; 52,828 prior year grant balances brought forward

477,469

Transportation Fund Expenses:

Non-Personal Services 270,310 1,153 prior year purchase orders; 12,930 purchase of bus shelters; 253,277 prior year grant balances

2,950 grant revision

Capital Outlay 207,159 275,000 prior year grant balance; (67,841) grant adjustments

477,469

Wastewater Fund Revenue:


Wastewater Fund Expenses:


Airport Fund Revenue:

Transfer-In From General Fund 9,001 Funding for mower attachment


156,331

Airport Fund Expenses:

Non-Personal Services 156,331 147,330 prior year purchase orders ; 9,001 boom mower attachment

Golf Course Fund Revenue:


Golf Course Fund Expenses:


Capital Outlay 22,402 Prior year purchase orders

28,370

Convention Center Revenue:


Convention Center Expenses:


IT Revenue:


IT Expenses:


Service Center Revenue:


Service Center Expenses:


Vehicle Trust Fund Revenue:

Service Charges to Other Funds (35,361) Reduction in cellular antenna rental estimates

State and Federal Grants 1,618,293 1,267,493 prior year grant balances (bus purchase); 350,800 additional grant funds

Prior Year Reserves 140,833 Local match portion of prior year grant balances

1,723,765

Vehicle Trust Fund Expenses:

Non-Personal Services 25,000 Fund removal of equipment from water tower during painting

Capital Outlay 1,698,765 1,408,326 prior year grant balances brought forward; 350,800 additional grant funds;

(60,361) reduction of contingency for radio purchase

1,723,765

Risk Management Revenue:

Prior Year Reserves 854 Prior year purchase orders

Risk Management Expenses:

Non-Personal Services/Claims 854 Prior year purchase orders

Budget Amendment # 1 General Fund

Revenue Changes

• Other Taxes $ 229,668

• Licenses and Permits $ 38,063

• Grants $ 44,850

• Service Charges $ 6,000

• Other Revenue $ 401,762

• Appropriated Fund Balance $ 1,059,855 Total Increases $ 1,780,198

Expenditure Changes

• Grants $ 315,172

• Advertising $ 352,800

• Prior Year purchase orders $ 221,722

• Prior Year donations $ 401,440

• Inlet Lot Parking controls $ 400,000

• District Court Roof $ 36,000

• Critical Areas project balances $ 38,063

• Winterfest donation $ 6,000

• Airport Mower attachment $ 9,001

• Total Changes $ 1,780,198

Water and Wastewater Funds

• Water Fund:

– Appropriation of prior year reserves in the amount of $59,158 to cover prior year purchase orders

• Wastewater Fund: – Appropriation of prior year reserves in the amount of $50,378 to

cover prior year purchase orders

Transportation and Airport Funds

• Transportation: – $463,386 prior year grant balances brought

forward

– $12,930 proceeds from bus sale used to purchase bus shelters

– $1,153 appropriation of fund balance to cover prior year purchase orders

• Airport: – $147,330 appropriation of fund balance to cover

prior year purchase orders

– $9,001 transfer from General Fund to cover portion of mower attachment

Golf Course and Convention Center Funds

• Golf Course:

– Appropriation of $28,370 from fund balance to cover prior year purchase orders

• Convention Center: – Appropriation of $62,892 from fund balance to

cover prior year purchase orders

IT, Service Center and Risk Management

• IT:

– $44,841 appropriation of prior year reserves to cover prior year purchase orders

• Service Center:

– $23,206 appropriation of prior year reserves to cover prior year purchase orders

• Risk Management:

– $854 appropriation of prior year reserves to cover prior year purchase orders

• Revenue:

– ($35,361) Reduction in cellular antenna rental estimates

– $1,267,493 Prior year grant balances

– $350,800 Additional grant funds

– $140,833 Local match portion of prior year grant balances funded from Equipment Trust prior year reserves

• Expenses:

– $1,759,126 Bus purchases from prior year and additional grants

– ($60,361) Reduction of radio contingency funds to offset revenue reduction

– $25,000 Fund removal of Town’s equipment from water tower during painting

Equipment Trust Fund


5. NEW BUSINESS

H. Presentation of FY14 General Fund Revenue Projections and Discussion of General Fund Budget Parameters by Jennie Knapp, Budget Manager, and David L. Recor, ICMA-CM, City Manager

TOWN OF




FROM: Jennie Knapp, Budget Manager RE: FY 14 General Fund revenue estimates

DATE: 2/26/13

ISSUE(S): Overview of FY 14 Projected General Fund Revenue

SUMMARY: Presentation of an overview of projected FY 14 General Fund

revenue. Presentation of each category with an explanation

provided for the projected increases or decreases within each

category. Overview of funding challenges for FY 14. Inclusion of

anticipated budget schedule.

FISCAL IMPACT: $1.5 million revenue reduction from the adopted FY 13 budget,

assuming no funds will be taken from fund balance in FY 14.

$3.2 million revenue reduction from the adjusted FY 13 budget

as presented in Budget Amendment #1.

RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable

ALTERNATIVES: None

RESPONSIBLE STAFF:

Jennie Knapp, Budget Manager

COORDINATED WITH: David Recor, ICMA-CM, City Manager

ATTACHMENT(S): PowerPoint presentation

Agenda Item # 5H


FY 2014 Revenue Overview General Fund

PROPERTY TAXES

• Real property assessments decreased 1.4% since FY 13.

• Commercial group 1 was reassessed this year.

• Constant yield tax rate is .462 Revenue from property taxes in FY 13 was

$39,257,605. Revenue from property taxes in FY 14 is

$39,272,063.

OTHER TAXES

• Income Tax is expected to increase, bringing in an additional $75,000.

• Highway User Tax is anticipated to increase $270,113

• Admissions Tax is budgeted to increase $35,000 • Slots/Casino Revenue estimated at $450,000 • Room Tax is budgeted to increase and is budgeted

at $13,000,000. • Category increases nearly $ 1,151,045.

LICENSES AND PERMITS

• Planning and Zoning fees are largest component of this category and are expected to increase $13,300. Building Permit fees are budgeted at $550,000.

• Room Licenses and Alcoholic beverage licenses are expected to increase a total of $10,000.

• Cable TV franchise is expected to increase slightly and has been budgeted at $910,000.

Category increases $6,387.

INTERGOVERNMENTAL • County Grants are funded at the same level as

received from the County in FY 13, $3,615,133. • State Police Aid is anticipated to be fully funded

by the State and has been budgeted to increase $151,088.

• Grants to cover the partial salary and benefits of the Emergency Services Director and Emergency Planner have been included at $109,500.

• Additional grants funded as they are received Category decreases $185,719 from adjusted FY

13 budget.

SERVICE CHARGES

• Festival revenue for Sunfest, Springfest and Winterfest are expected to increase $65,800.

• Recreation program, admission and rental fees are anticipated to increase $63,585.

• Fees generated by the Fire Marshal’s office are expected to increase $7,500.

• Passport application fees are anticipated to increase $7,000.

• Category increases $143,988

Fines and Forfeitures and Other Revenue

• Revenue collected from Police tow fines is expected to increase in FY 14. The towing expense included in the Police budget is also expected to increase.

• Forfeiture funds and donations recognized in FY 13 are not included in FY 14.

• Interest earnings are expected to decrease $24,000. • Categories decrease $371,562.

Fund Balance

• The FY 13 Adopted budget appropriated $2,749,395 from fund balance.

• Budget amendment # 1 appropriates an additional $1,059,855 from fund balance.

• FY 14 revenue assumes no appropriation from fund balance.

FY 2014 Revenue Summary • Property Taxes ($182,032) • Other Taxes increase 1,151,045 • Licenses and Permits increase 6,387 • Revenue – Other Agencies (185,719) • Service Charges increase 143,988 • Fines and Forfeitures increase 45,000 • Other revenue decreases ( 416,562) • Fund Balance (3,809,250) • Total revenue reduction (3,247,143)


5. NEW BUSINESS

I. Bid Opening – Bond Counsel

RFP FOR BOND COUNSEL Request for proposals were sent to the following companies:

Ballard Spahr LLp 300 East Lombard Street, 18th Floor Baltimore, MD 21202

Bryant Miller Olive, P.A. 111 Riverside Avenue, Suite 200 Jacksonville, FL 32202

DLA Piper The Marbury Building 6225 Smith Avenue Baltimore, MD 21209

Eastwick Rose Wright & Levin 201 N. Charles Street Baltimore, MD 21201

Funk & Bolton 36 S. Charles Street, 12th Floor Baltimore, MD 21201

Hogan Lovells 100 International Drive, Suite 2000 Baltimore, MD 21202

Kutak Rock LLP 1101 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036

McGuire Woods LLP 7 Saint Paul Street, Suite 1000 Baltimore, MD 21202

McKennon Shelton & Henn 401 E. Pratt Street, Suite 2315 Baltimore, MD 21202

Meyers, Rodbell & Rosenbaum, P.A. 9801 Washington Blvd, Suite 750 Gaithersburg, MD 20850

Miles & Stockbridge 10 Light Street Baltimore, MD 21202

RFP FOR BOND COUNSEL - - Continued Request for proposals were sent to the following companies:

Saul Ewing LLP 500 E. Pratt Street, Suite 900 Baltimore, MD 21202

Shapiro Sher Guinot & Sandler 36 South Charles Street, Suite 2000 Baltimore, MD 21201

Venable LLP 750 E. Pratt Street, Suite 900 Baltimore, MD 21202

Whiteford Taylor & Preston Seven Saint Paul Street Baltimore, MD 21202

RFP NOTICE The Mayor and City Council of Ocean City, Maryland are accepting sealed proposals on the following item(s):

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR BOND COUNSEL

Sealed proposals must be in the City Manager’s Office, City Hall, 301 Baltimore Avenue, Ocean City, Maryland no later than 11:00 A.M. Tuesday, February 26, 2013. Mailed proposals must be received by this time as postmarks will not be considered. The proposals will be acknowledged by the Mayor and City Council at their regular Work Session on Tuesday, February 26, 2013 at 1:00 P.M., at City Hall, Council Chambers first floor, Ocean City, Maryland. Copies of these proposal packages are available at the Town of Ocean City Finance Department, 301 Baltimore Avenue, Ocean City, Maryland or by calling (410) 289-8858. Notice published in the Ocean City Digest on Thursday, January 10, 2013