PS COMMITTEE #1
July 12,2010
MEMORANDUM
July 8, 2010
TO:
FROM:
Public Safety Committee
~Michael
Faden, Senior Legislative Attorney
\
Minna
K.
Davidson, Legislative Analyst
IJ-
KCC5..1f)
. . .
~.
\
SUBJECT:
Worksession:
Bill 21-10, Special Capital Improvements Project - Glenmont Fire
Station 18 Replacement
The following individuals are expected to attend:
Richard Bowers, Fire Chief, Montgomery County Fire and Rescue Service
David Dise, Director, Department of General Services
Edgar Gonzalez, Deputy Director of Transportation Policy, Department of Transporation
Joseph Miklochik, Director of Real Estate, State Highway Administration
Steven Semler, President of the Kensington Volunteer Fire Department, and Marcine
Goodloe, President ofthe Montgomery County Volunteer Fire and Rescue Association, will also
be available to respond to Committee questions.
Bill 21-40 would authorize the County to plan, design, and construct the Glenmont Fire
Station 18 Replacement.
It
is necessary to replace Fire Station 18 because the existing station
must be demolished to accommodate a major intersection improvement at Georgia A venue and
Randolph Road. The Bill, Legislative Request Report, Project Description Form (PDF), and
Executive's transmittal memorandum are attached on © 1-6.
Background on Special Capital Improvements Project Legislation
Special Capital Improvements Project Legislation:
County Charter Section 302 (© 7)
requires, among other things, that all capital improvement projects which are estimated to cost in
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
excess of an amount to be established by law, or which the Council determines to possess
unusual characteristics or to be of sufficient public importance, shall be individually authorized
by law, with certain exceptions for emergencies and otherwise legally mandated projects.
County Code Section 20-1 (© 8-9) establishes the process to authorize individual projects
required under Charter Section 302. The statement of purpose for Section 20-1 says:
(a)
Purpose.
The purpose of charter section 302 is to afford citizens an easier
opportunity than previously existed to petition especially important capital improvement
projects to referendum while assuring that public consideration may be fully informed,
and also without unnecessarily disrupting the orderly planning, design and construction
which is the objective of capital improvements programming.
Code Section 20-1 defines which types of facilities are included in this requirement,
establishes a formula for a cost criterion for projects subject to the requirement, and sets out a
procedure for projects that must be authorized.
It
provides that no special capital improvement
project shall receive an appropriation (except for preliminary planning) unless a law authorizing
the project has been enacted by the Council.
The current cost criterion for Special Projects Legislation, established by Executive Order
236-09, is $12,863,000.
Special Capital Improvements Project Legislation for Glenmont Station 18:
The
Council first approved a Glenmont Station 18 project in the FY09-14 CIP. At that time, $1.6
million was scheduled for project design. The full cost of the station was expected to be
determined during the design development stage. For the FY11-16 CIP, construction and other
costs were added to the Expenditure Schedule, bringing the total project cost to just over $13
million, exceeding the cost criterion for Special Capital Improvements Project Legislation. Bill
21-10, Special Capital Improvements Project - Glenmont Fire Station 18 Replacement,
sponsored by the Council President at the request of the County Executive, was introduced on
April 20, 2010.
Public Hearing on
Bill 21-10
The Council held a public hearing on Bill 21-10 on June 22. Representatives from five
organizations testified. Their comments are briefly summarized below. Their full testimony is
attached as indicated.
Council action on the bill was tentatively scheduled immediately following the public
hearing. However, after hearing the testimony, the Council deferred action and requested that
the Public Safety Committee review this matter in more detail and provide a recommendation to
the Council. Following the public hearing, the Public Safety Committee Chair sent several
questions to Executive staff to provide background on the projects and clarify issues raised in the
public hearing testimony. Executive responses are attached on 67-74. Kensington Volunteer
Fire Department responses are attached on © 75-87.
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Richard Bowers, Fire Chief, on behalf of the County Executive
12-13). Supported
the bill. Discussed the importance of the Georgia Avenue/Randolph Road intersection
improvement, but noted that it will require that the existing station be torn down.
Discussed the possibility that the relocated fire station may be eligible for a Federal
contribution, but only if the replacement facility is owned by the County. Highlighted the
narrow window of opportunity to relocate and construct the fire station, and the need to
move forward to avoid any potential interruptions in emergency service in the Glenmont
and Kensington areas.
Marcine Goodloe, President, Montgomery County Volunteer Fire and Rescue
Association
14). Did not take a position on the bill. Expressed concern that some
efforts in Montgomery County are threatening the LFRD volunteers' rights of ownership
and involvement in station decisions. Discussed the Kensington Volunteer Fire
Department's (KVFD) long-time ownership of and service from the existing station.
Expressed concern that without any notification or inclusion of KVFD, the County is
arranging for a new Station 18 with the State. Advocated for inclusion of KVFD in
planning for the new station.
Michael McAteer, President, Glenmont Civic Association, Inc (GCAI)
15-17).
Opposed the bill unless a specific plan for redesign of the Georgia Avenue/Randolph
Road intersection has been through Mandatory Referral by the Planning Board.
Expressed the opinion that the fire station does not need to be replaced because it is still
functional, and, in GCAI's view, could continue to exist even with the intersection
improvement. Did not support providing funds for a new fire station when a site has not
yet been selected and the fire station has not yet been designed. Expressed concern that
planning for the intersection improvement has not gone through an open process, and
because Mandatory Referral of the intersection improvement has not occurred, Bill 21-10
would be in violation of the Regional District Act. (In fact, the intersection improvement
did go to Mandatory Referral, and a site has been selected for the fire station.)
Steven Semler, President, Kensington Volunteer Fire Department
18-34).
Opposed the bill. Expressed the following concerns: that the County intends to replace
Kensington Station 18 with a County-owned station which does not take into
consideration Kensington's long-time ownership and service from the existing Station
18; that KVFD was not notified of the Special Projects Legislation for the Glenmont
Station 18 Replacement and is not mentioned in the legislation; that the site identified for
the replacement station may not, for a variety of reasons, be available; that the cost for
the proposed replacement station is excessive and KVFD might be able to build one,
using a Federal replacement reimbursement and less expensive building techniques, at no
cost to the County; that KVFD hopes to incrementally restore service from Station 18,
but this may not be possible if Station 18 is County-owned and operated; that the County
has not acted as a good partner in the combined Fire and Rescue Service operated by the
County and the local fire and rescue departments, which is established in Chapter 21.
3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Reverend Ellis Moore, Pastor, Georgia Avenue Baptist Church
35). Opposed the
bill. Expressed concern that relocating the fire station on property across the street from
the Church would increase noise and traffic and have a negative impact on the peace and
quiet that their location currently affords.
Current Status of the Intersection Improvement
The current Project Information Fonn (PIF) from the State's Consolidated Transportation
Program is attached on © 36.
It
indicates that engineering, right-of-way, and advanced utility
work are underway. Construction of the overall project will begin in FYI4.
Regarding the status of Mandatory Referral, the Planning Board reviewed the intersection
improvement at its meeting on December 9, 2004, and approved the Mandatory Referral with
comments. In general, the Planning Board's response to the SHA's submittal was positive. The
Mandatory Referral packet is attached on © 37-56.
Council Approval and Current Status of the Glenmont Station 18 Replacement Site
Council approval of the site:
As required under County Code Section 21-4(b), the
Council approved the site for the Station 18 Replacement by Resolution 15-1483 in May 2006
57-58). The approved site is the "WMATA Triangle Property" located on the west side of
Georgia Avenue directly across from Glenallan Avenue.
It
was anticipated that if the Glenmont
Parking Garage were sited on the WMATA Triangle Property (rather than on the east side of
Georgia Avenue) the fire station would be co-located with the garage.
The proposed fire station site went through a site selection process run by the
Mid-County Regional Services Center. During the period when the Council was reviewing the
replacement station site, WMATA held a hearing on the Glenmont Parking Garage, and some
individuals who testified also took the opportunity to comment on the fire station. Among
others, the Georgia A venue Baptist Church opposed the fire station site because the fire station
activities would disrupt church activities. The Council's approval resolution for the site urged
those involved with the project to work with neighbors to respond to concerns regarding noise
andthe movement of non-emergency vehicles.
The packet for Council action on the site approval is online at
http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/councilipdf/agendalcoli2006/060525/20060525
21 i.pdf.
It
includes additional background on the site selection process and issues raised by the
community.
Current status of the site:
When the Public Safety Committee reviewed the MCFRS
CIP earlier this year, the Committee was told that for reforestation and stonnwater management
reasons, WMATA needed more land for the parking garage than was previously agreed.
WMATA would know how much land would be available for a fire station after they received
approval for the garage project, but it was not clear when final approval would occur. The Fire
4
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Chief was concerned that if the available land for the fire station continued to decrease, it might
not be possible to fit a station on the site.
More recently, Executive staff told Council staff that WMATA now has a good
understanding about how much space will be needed for the garage, and has clarified how much
land will be available for the fire station. The Department of General Services (DGS) has
engaged a firm to do fit testing for the fire station, and has determined that the replacement
station will fit on the available land. DGS staff anticipate that acquisition of the land for the fire
station will proceed soon.
Glenmont Station 18 Replacement Issues
1.
Cost of the replacement station.
According to the current approved PDF (© 4), the cost
for the Glenmont Station 18 Replacement will be just over $13 million. In their public
hearing testimony, KVFD provided examples of a new fire station in Ocean City that will
cost $2.6 million plus architect and engineering fees, and a new fire station in Brunswick
that will cost $3.7 million (including $1.3 million from the local department for a social
hall).
The Public Safety Committee Chair asked Executive staff to provide a specific
comparison showing why the Glenmont Station 18 Replacement will cost so much more
than the examples provided by KVFD. Council staff would note that, although land costs
are very different in Montgomery County, Ocean City, and Brunswick, the County has
not yet acquired the land for the replacement station. At this point, the replacement
station PDF includes only those costs associated with designing and building the station.
2.
Reimbursement to KVFD for the existing station.
The existing Station 18 was built
with County bonds in 1953. As was the practice at the time, the station was titled to the
KVFD, and the KVFD has owned it ever since. The State Highway Administration had
been working with the KVFD to arrange to compensate them for the demolition of the
existing station. Essentially, there were two options. They are described briefly below,
but are described in much more detail in the KVFD letter to Committee Chair Andrews
and the attached letter from the State Highway Administration which are on © 59-66.
1) The State would provide $1.2 million to KVFD as just compensation for the existing
facility, along with potential relocation benefits. This offer was based on the
depreciated value of the existing station. KVFD could keep this money for its own
use.
2) The State requested approval from the Federal Highway Administration to
compensate KVFD for a functional replacement of its building. The Federal
Highway Administration approved the request, provided that the new building and
land are owned by the County in accordance with federal rules. The State determined
that the amount of the federal functional replacement would be approximately
$4 million. The federal functional replacement would allow KVFD to rebuild the
5
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
facility using today's materials and without a deduction for depreciation. A federal
functional replacement would only replace what was in the existing building.
It
would not pay for any enhancements or improvements.
3. Who pays to replace the station; who owns the station. KVFD has expressed interest
in choosing the federal functional replacement option offered by SHA. In their public
hearing testimony, they suggest that, based on the examples of other less costly stations
in the State, they could use the federal functional replacement money to build a new
station at no cost to the County. Alternatively, ifthe County wants to build the
replacement station, they believe that it would be possible for KVFD to contribute the $4
million in federal functional replacement money to the project in exchange for 50%
ownership of the station, the right to co-manage the station with the County, and the right
to operate volunteer apparatus and equipment from the station.
It
will be easier to evaluate KVFD's first suggestion, that KVFD build a less expensive
replacement station, after the Committee receives the comparative information about
station costs which the Committee Chair requested.
Regarding the second suggestion, it is unclear whether it would be possible for KVFD to
assume 50% ownership of the station. First, the federal functional replacement rules
require that a government unit own the replacement building.
It
is not clear whether this
requirement could be waived, 50% County ownership would satisfy the requirement, or
County could meet the requirement by owning the station and leasing it long term to the
KVFD. The Committee Chair has requested clarification on these issues.
In addition, current County Code Section 21-26
10-11) only allows for joint
ownership of a newly constructed station ifthe LFRD has contributed, or is legally
committed to contribute, at least 50% of the on-site cost of the station, including any land
cost, and of the station's proportionate share of off-site costs directly attributable to the
project. If the $4 million that KVFD receives for the federal functional replacement is
less than 50% of the cost of the replacement station and land, under the current law
KVFD will not be eligible for joint ownership.
4. Who will manage station operations? Will KVFD be able to deliver emergency
service from the station? When the Public Safety Committee reviewed the FY11-16
MCFRS CIP, the Committee was told that at that time it was anticipated that the
Glenmont Station 18 Replacement would be a County-o'wned station, and that KVFD
involvement in the project had neither been defined nor ruled out.
The Committee Chair has asked Executive staff to clarify their plans for the use of the
station and the role of KVFD. He has asked whether KVFD will be able to restore
volunteer operations at the replacement station if sufficient volunteer staffing is available.
6
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Options for Committee Recommendation on Bill 21-10
Approve Bill 21-10 as submitted by the Executive. This would enable the County to
move forward with design of the project. Council staff recommends this option because it is
important to avoid delays, given the tight timeframe to complete the new station. Although
the Bill would authorize Montgomery County to build the station, Council staff does not think
that this would preclude the County from negotiating further with KVFD, nor would it prevent
the County from establishing a joint funding and ownership arrangement with KVFD if such an
arrangement is feasible in the future. Bill 21-10 refers only to Montgomery County because the
legal requirements apply to projects in the County's Capital Improvements Program.
1.
2.
Approve Bill 21-10 as submitted by the Executive. Send the Executive a letter
detailing any Council requests for cooperation between the County and KVFD. If the
Council wishes to request that the Executive take certain things into consideration or work
cooperatively on certain issues with the KVFD, the Council could approve the bill, and
simultaneously send the Executive a letter detailing the Council's requests.
Defer action on Bill 21-10 until the Council returns in September. This option would
3.
provide more time for the Executive to try to resolve issues with KVFD, but might delay other
progress on the replacement station.
4.
Do not approve Bill 21-10. Under this option, it would not be possible for the project, as
currently proposed, to move forward.
This packet contains:
Bill 21-10
Legislative Request Report
PDF
CE transmittal memo
Charter Section 302
County Code Section 20-1
County Code Section 21-26
Public Hearing Testimony
Bowers on behalf of Executive
Goodloe, Montgomery Co.Volunteer
FIR
Assn.
McAteer, Glenmont Civic Association, Inc.
Semler, Kensington Volunteer Fire Dept.
Moore, Georgia Avenue Baptist Church
PIF, Georgia Ave'! Randolph Rd. Interchange
Mandatory Referral packet, interchange
Resolution 15-1483, Approval of Fire Stn. 18 Relocation
Letter from KVFD to PS Chair Andrews
Responses to Committee Chair questions
fire&res\legis\21-10 pspac I00712.doc
circle #
1
3
4
5
7
8
10
12
14
15
18
35
36
37
57
59
67
7
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No. _ _ _
---'2=-1.!----'1~0
_ _____:-____:
'Concerning:
Special
Capital
Improvements Project - Glenmont
Fire Station 18 Replacement
Revised: April
14, 2010
Draft No.
_1_
Introduced:
April
20, 2010
Expires:
October
20, 2011
Enacted: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Executive: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Effective: _----:----:_ _ _ _ _ __
Sunset Date: -'N""'o=n-:.::e::..-_-:::--__.. _ _
Ch. _ _, Laws of Mont Co. _ __
COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
By: Council President at the Request of the County Executive
AN ACT
to authorize the planning, design and construction of the Glenmont FS 18
Replacement, Project No. 450900, in the Kensington-Wheaton planning area.
By adding to the laws of Montgomery County 2010
Boldface
Underlininq
[Single boldface brackets]
Double underlinina
[[Double boldface brackets]]
*
*
*
Heading or defined term.
Added to existing law by original bill.
Deletedfrom existing law by original bill.
Added by amendment.
Deletedfrom existing law or the bill by amendment.
Existing law unaffected by bill.
The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland approves the following Act:
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No. 21-10
Sec. 1. The laws of Montgomery County, Maryland, are amended to read as
2
3
follows:
Montgomery County, Maryland, is authorized to plan, design, and construct
the Glenmont FS
..lli
Replacement, Project No. 450900, in the Kensington-Wheaton
planning area.
This authorization includes all necessary planning, design, site
4
5
6
7
improvements, furniture, fixtures, equipment, and structures.
Approved:
8
Nancy Floreen, President, County Council
9
Date
Approved:
10
Isiah Leggett, County Executive
11
Date
This is a correct copy ofCouncil action.
12
Linda M. Lauer, Clerk of the Council
Date
F:\LA w\BILLS\1020-I025 Spec.CIP\BiIl21-10.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
LEGISLATIVE REQUEST REPORT
Bill 21-10
Glenmont FS
18
Replacement
DESCRIPTION:
The County Executive requests that capital project No. 450900, Glenmont
FS 18 Replacement, be authorized as a "Special Capital Improvements
Project" pursuant to Section §302 of the County Charter and Section §20-1
of the Montgomery County Code.
Section §302 of the County Charter and Section §20-1 of the County Code
require certain capital improvement projects to be individually authorized
by law if the locally-funded cost is projected to exceed $12,863,000 in
FYIl dollars. The estimated locally-funded cost of this project in the
County Executive's FYll Recommended Capital Budget and FYll-16
Capital Improvements Program (CIP) is $13,032,000 for planning, design,
and supervision; site improvements and utilities; construction and other
costs.
This project provides for the construction of an approximately 19,900 gross
square foot fire station to replace the current fire station located at the
intersection of Georgia Avenue and Randolph Road.
This project has been coordinated with the Department of General Services,
Department Technology Services, Department of Permitting Services,
Montgomery County Fire and Rescue Service, Mid-County Regional
Services Center, the MaryJand State Highway Administration, and local
utility companies.
The total estimated cost for this project is $13,032,000. Of this, $1,747,000
is for planning,· design, and supervision; $1,046,000 is for site
improvements and utilities; $9,254,000 is for construction; and $985,000 is
for other. The estimated locally-funded cost is $13,032,000. The funding
source for this project is General Obligation Bonds.
The new facility will accommodate the needs of the present and projected
user departments noted above under Goals and Objectives.
To be requested.
Not Applicable.
Blaise DeFazio, Office of Management and Budget; and Jeffrey Knutsen,
Project Manager, Department of General Services - Division of Building
Design and Construction.
Not Applicable.
PROBLEM:
GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES:
COORDINATION:
FISCAL IMPACT:
ECONOMIC IMPACT:
EVALUATION:
EXPERIENCE
ELSEWHERE:
SOURCE OF
INFORMATION:
APPLICATION
WITIllN
MUNICIP ALITIES:
PENALTIES:
None Required.
F:\LAW\8ILLS\1020-1025 Spec.CIP\LRR 21-10.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Glenmont FS 18 Replacement·- No. 450900
Category
Subcategory
Administering Agency
Planning Area
Public Safety
Fire/Rescue Service
General Services
Kensington-Wheaton
Thru
FY09
0
Est..
FY10
Date Last Modified
Required Adequate Public Facility
Relocation Impact
Status
March 31, 2010
No
None.
Preliminary Design Stage
Beyond
G Years
EXPENDITURE SCHEDULE ($000)
Cost Element
Planning, Design, and Supervision
Land
Site Improvements and Utilities
Construction
Other
Total
G.O. Bonds
1Total
Maintenance
Energy
Net Impact
Total
1,747
0
1,046
9,254
985
13,032
i
13.032
13032
I
0
0
0
99
0
0
0
0:
0
0
0
99
Total
' 6 Years
1,648
0
1,046
9,254
985
12,933
12,933
12933
290
337
627
FY11
459
0
FY12
192
FY13
212
FY14
493
FY15
292
FY16
0
152
525
143
1,012
1,012
1012
0:
0
0:
0
224
2,354
183
2,973
2,973\
29731
0
0
0
0
521 :
5,487
427
6,928
6,928\
69281
0
0
0
0
149
888
232
1,561
1,561
1 561
132
153
285
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
459
459[
4591
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
158
184
342
FUNDING SCHEDULE ($000)
0
99
991
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT ($000)
o[
01
0,
DESCRIPTION
This project provides for an approximately
19,900
gross square foot fire station to replace the current fire station located at the intersection of Georgia Avenue
and Randolph Road_ The recommended replacement fire-rescue station is a modified Class" station designed to meet current operational reqUirements and
accommodate modem fire fighting apparatus, The project includes gear storage, decontamination, information technology rooms, and four apparatus bays.
ESTIMATED SCHEDULE
The design phase will commence upon land acquisition and it is estimated to last twenty months, followed by approximately six months for bidding, and a
'
construction period of approximately eighteen months.
COST CHANGE
The cost increase is due to the addition of construction expenditures.
JUSTIFICATION
The Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) plans to build a new intersection at Georgia Avenue and Randolph Road. The current station is located on
the planned intersection site. The replacement fire station' will be located on a different site but in proximity to the service area of the current station.
OTHER
Special Capital Projects Legislation will be proposed by the County Executive.
FISCAL NOTE
The project provides for the design and construction phase costs. Debt service for this project will be financed with Consolidated Fire Tax District Funds. There
are no funds for fire apparatus included in project budget.
OTHER DISCLOSURES
- A pedestrian impact analysis will be performed during design or is in progress.
Land acquisition will be funded initially through ALARF, and then reimbursed by a future appropriation from this project. The total cost of this project will
increase when land expenditures are programmed.
'
APPROPRIATION
AND
EXPENDITURE DATA
r:
D
a_te.,--::cF_irs_t-=A:'-p':-p_ro"-p_ria_t_io_n_ _ _-'FY...;...:1.:::-0_
c::'
COORDINATION
Department of General Services
Department Technology Services
Montgomery County Fire and Rescue Service
First Cost EsUmate
:
Department of Permitting Services
Current Sco:tp::::::.e-::-:c--_____
FY_1_1_ _
1_3,_0-:-32-1/
Maryland State Highway Administration
Last
FY's
Cost Estimate
1,644
WSSC
PEPCQ
330
Appropriation Request
FY11
WMATA
FY12
9,406
:Appropriation Request Est.
Mid-County Regional Services Center
o
i
Supplemental Appropriation Request
ITransfer
J$DOOU
01
Cumulative Appropriation
,Expenditures
I
Encumbrances
1,331
25
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
GO
rQlLL
lal L.L
(OILL
cc
5eF
1-1­
~c...n
14(;:: Y}20fl.a._
Ioll_
L
{OILL
OFFICE OF 1HE COUNTY EXECUTIVE
055744
Isiah Leggett
County Executive
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850
MEMORANDUM
April 7, 2010
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Nancy Floreen, President, County Council
Isiah Leggett, County Executive
\
co
~
-<
Special Capital Improvements Project Legislation:
MCPS Food Distribution Facility Relocation
Glenmont FS 18 Replacement
Travilah Fire Station
3
rd
District Police Station
Equipment Maintenance and Operations Center (EMOC)
Olney Library Renovation.and Addition
In
accordance with Section 302 of the CoUnty Charter and Section 20-1 of the
Montgomery County Code, I am forwarding the attached Special Capital Improvements Project
Legislation Authorization and Legislative Request Report for the following projects:
• Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) Food Distribution Facility
Relocation (No. 361111) .
• Glenmont FS #18 Replacement (No. 450900)
• Travilah Fire Station (No. 450504)
• 3
rd
District Police Station (No. 470302)
• Equipment Maintenance and Operations Center (EMOC) (No. 500933)
• Olney Library Renovation and Addition (No. 710301)
This
request is necessary because the local cost of these projects exceed the FYl1
Special Capital Improvements Project Legislation cost threshold of$12,863,000 as set by
Executive Order 236-09. The purpose of these projects is set forth below.
The MCPS Food Distribution Facility Relocation project is part of the Smart
Growih Initiative and provides for design and construction of a new facility on the Webb Tract
site on Snouffer School Road.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Nancy Floreen, President, Comity Council
April 7, 2010
Page 2
The Glenmont FS 18 Replacement project provides for an approximately 19,900
gross square foot fIre station to replace the current fIre station located at the intersection of
Georgia Avenue and Randolph Road.
The Travilah Fire Station project, located at the northwest intersection of
Darnestown and Shady Grove Road, provides for the design and construction of a new fIre­
rescue station at the county-owned site.
The 3
rd
District Police Station project, located at the northeast intersection
quadrant ofNew Hampshire Avenue and U.S. Route 29, provides for the site selection, planning,
and design, and construction of a new 32,844-gross square foot (including auxiliary buildings)
3rd District'Police Station to serve Silver Spring and vicinity.
The EMOC project is part ofthe Smart Growth Initiative and provides for land,
planning, design, and construction of a new EM OC to support a doubling of transit ridership by
2020; as well as current transit, highway maintenance and fleet operations.
The Olney Library Renovation and Addition project provides for a 5,000 square
foot addition and full interior renovation ofthe existing interior space to the Olney Library.
I
recommend prompt passage of this legislation so as to advance these projects.
IL:bh
Attachments
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Page 1 of 1
Sec. 302. Six-Year Programs for Public Services, Capital Improvements, and Fiscal Policy.
The County Executive shall submit to the Council, not later than January 15 of each even-numbered
year, a comprehensive six-year program for capital improvements. The County Executive shall submit
to the Council, not later than March 15 of each year, comprehensive six-year programs for public
services and fiscal policy. The six-year programs shall require a vote of at least five Councilmembers for
approval or modification. Final Council approval of the six-year programs shall occur at or about the
date of budget approval.
The public services program shall include a statement of program objectives and recommend levels
of public service by the County government, and shall provide an estimate of costs, a statement of
revenue sources, and an estimate of the impact of the program on County revenues and the capital
budget.
The capital improvements program shall include a statement of the objectives of capital programs
and the relationship of capital programs to the County's long-range development plans; shall recommend
capital projects and a construction schedule; and shall provide an estimate of costs, a statement of
anticipated revenue sources, and an estimate of the impact of the program on County revenues and the
operating budget. The capital improvements program shall, to the extent authorized by law, include all
capital projects and programs of all agencies for which the County sets tax rates or approves budgets or
programs. The Council may amend an approved capital improvements program at any time by an
affirmative vote of six Councilmembers.
The fiscal program shall show projections of revenues and expenditures for all functions, recommend
revenue and expenditure policies for the program period and analyze the impact of tax and expenditure
patterns on public programs and the economy of the County.
The County Executive shall provide such other information relating to these programs as may be
prescribed by law.
j;r;
All capital improvement projects which are estimated to cost in excess of an amount to be established
by law or which the County Council determines to possess unusual characteristics or to be of sufficient
public importance shall be individually authorized by law; provided however, that any project declared
by the County Council to be of an emergency nature necessary for the protection of the public health or
safety shall not be subject to this requirement if the project is approved by the affirmative vote of six
Councilmembers. Any project mandated by law, statutory or otherwise, interstate compact, or any
project required by law to serve two or more jurisdictions shall, likewise, not be subject to this
requirement. The County Council shall prescribe by law the methods and procedures for implementation
of this provision. (Election of 11-7-78; election of 11-4-86; election of 11-3-92; election of 11-5-96.)
Editor's note-See County Attorney Opinion dated
4//7/99
clarifying that the Council may place
conditions on appropriations prior to June 1, with certain limitations. See County Attorney Opinion
dated
2/5/96
explaining that the budget must include recommended expenditures and revenue services
for the Board of Education and including the legislative history of the section. See County Attorney
Opinion No. 90.008 dated
11120/90
discussing the use of consent calendars to consolidate capital
improvement bills and proposed amendments to the County Code to permit more than one item on the
consent calendar at a time. [attachment]
http://www.amlegal.comlnxt/gateway.dlllMarylandlmontgornlpartithecharternote/charterof...
7/112010
(j)
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Page 1 of2
Sec. 20-1. Authorization of special capital improvement projects
by
law.
(a)
Purpose.
The purpose of charter section 302 is to afford citizens an easier opportunity than
previously existed to petition especially important capital improvement projects to referendum while
assuring that public consideration may be fully informed, and also without unnecessarily disrupting the
orderly planning, design and construction which is the objective of capital improvements programming.
(b)
1.
Definition.
A "special capital improvement project" as used in this section shall include the costs relating
to the detailed architectural and engineering design, construction, reconstruction or equipment of the
following types of capital projects:
a. Major facilities estimated to cost at least four million dollars ($4,000,000.00) in county
funds, exclusive of interest on county bonds; provided, however, that the county executive shall, by
annual executive order, adopted no later than October 15, revise the four-million-dollar cost criterion to
reflect the annual change in the latest published composite construction cost index established by the
United States department of commerce or its successor as publisher. County funds for the purpose of
this section include the proceeds of county bonds or notes and unappropriated surplus and current
county revenues, exclusive of contributions, gifts or grants from federal or state governments or any
other sources.
b. Facilities, other than major facilities described above, which the council determines to
possess unusual characteristics or to be of sufficient public importance to warrant designation as special
capital improvements projects.
2. All buildings, roads, utilities, parks and related improvements which are proposed for
development on a single, unified site and which are identifiable as separate facilities shall be considered
for designation as special capital improvement projects. Site acquisition costs shall be included as a part
of the total cost of a special capital improvement project; however, the cost of site acquisition itself shall
not be subject to the requirements of this section. Preliminary planning costs relating to capital projects
shall not be included in determining the total cost of a special capital improvement project. Unless
explicitly required by law, special capital improvement projects do not include the capital projects of the
Revenue Authority or any agency created by state law or authorized by interstate compact, including,
Montgomery College, Board of Education for Montgomery County, Maryland-National Capital Park
and Planning Commission, Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, the housing opportunities
commission of Montgomery County, Washington Suburban Transit Commission, and the Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.
(c)
Procedure.
1. The county executive shall be responsible for submitting to the county council, at the time
the capital improvement program or amendments thereto are submitted, proposed legislation for each
project which falls within the category of a special capital improvement as defined in this section and for
which it is proposed to appropriate funds for purposes other than preliminary planning or site acquisition
costs, unless the project has been previously authorized as a special capital improvement project.
2. Until such time as an appropriation is made for the detailed architectural and engineering
design of a capital improvement project, other than a major facility as described in subsection 20-1 (b)
l.a., any council member may introduce legislation to authorize such capital improvement project as a
http://www.amlegal.comlnxtlgateway .dlllMarylandimontgornlpartiilocallawsordinancesreso...
7/1/2010
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Page 2 of2
special capital improvement project.
3. Any authorization enacted under this section is valid for 5 years after the authorization
becomes law, except that an authorization for a project funded substantially by revenue bonds is valid
until modified or revoked by law. The Council may reauthorize a project before or after an existing
authorization expires.
An
authorized project need not be reauthorized if a contract for construction of
the project is executed before the authorization expires.
4. If a project is approved by the affirmative vote of 6 Councilmembers, and the Council
declares that the project is of an emergency nature and its immediate approval is necessary to protect the
public health or safety, the project is not subject to the authorization requirement in this section.
5. No special capital improvement project shall receive an appropriation unless a law
authorizing the project has been enacted by the county counciL The resolution adopting any such
appropriation shall contain an explicit requirement that no funds shall be expended under the
appropriation until the authorization law has become effective.
6. Any project not previously considered a special capital improvement project and which has
received an appropriation must be authorized pursuant to this section before any construction contract is
executed if the estimated cost of the total project is revised to exceed the four million dollars
($4,000,000.00) cost criterion or any subsequent revision thereto exclusive of preliminary planning
costs, after completion of either the design or architectural and engineering stages of the project. Unless
a project is previously authorized pursuant to this section, the county executive or the county council
may not transfer funds to or authorize a supplemental appropriation for such a project prior to the award
of a construction contract if the cost ofthe total project exceeds the four million dollars ($4,000,000.00)
cost criterion or any subsequent revision thereto exclusive of preliminary planning costs when the cost
reflected by such transfer or appropriation is included in the total estimated cost.
(d)
Application.
The provisions of this section 20-1 shall not apply to a capital project which has
met the cost criterion requirements of subsection 20-1 (b) l.a. and has received an initial appropriation
prior to the effective date of this section, provided that any change in the scope of such a project, the
cost of which change exceeds the cost criterion requirement set forth in subsection 20-1 (b) 1.a., shall be
subject to the provisions of this section. (1977 L.M.C., ch. 37, §2; 1979 L.M.C., ch. 51, § 1; FY 1991
L.M.C., ch. 11, § 1; 1992 L.M.C., ch. 35, §3; 1994 L.M.C., ch. 23, §
1.)
Editor's
note-See County Attorney Opinion No. 90.008 dated
11/20/90
discussing the use of
consent calendars to consolidate capital improvement bills and proposed amendments to the County
Code to permit more than one item on the consent calendar at a time. [attachment]
For the effective date of 1992 L.M.C., ch. 35,
§
3, which amended subsection (b)2. of this section,
see the editor's note to ch. 42 of this Code.
http://www.amlegal.comlnxtlgateway
.dll/Mary
land/montgornlpartiilocallawsordinancesreso...
711/2010
(f)
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Page lof2
Sec. 21-26. Title to assets; sale or disposition.
(a) Title to fire, rescue, and emergency medical service apparatus and facilities, purchased in
whole or in part with any tax funds before July 30, 1980, may be retained by the local fire and rescue
department unless the appropriation resolution that funded the purchase specified otherwise.
(b) All apparatus and facilities purchased with tax funds after July 30, 1980, must be titled to the
County and must be assigned in accordance with the adopted master fire, rescue, and emergency
services plan. A newly constructed fire station, purchased with tax funds after July 1, 1999, may be held
under a title reflecting concurrent ownership by the County and a local fire and rescue department if:
(1)
plan;
(2) the local fire and rescue department has contributed, or is legally committed to contribute, at
least 50 percent ofthe on-site cost of the station, including any land cost, and of the station's
proportionate share of off-site costs directly attributable to the project; and
(3) the Chief Administrative Officer has signed a contract with the local fire and rescue
department that assures, to the fullest extent legally possible, that the station will be available for fire
and rescue purposes until the station is disposed of under subsection (c), and that the station will be
operated according to County law, regulations, and policies.
(c)
The Chief Administrative Officer must approve each sale or other disposition of any apparatus
or facilities to ensure that the sale or other disposition does not adversely affect the public interest. If the
Chief Administrative Officer does not approve a sale or other disposition, the County Council may by
resolution approve the proposed sale or disposition. The proportionate share of the proceeds of any such
disposition attributable to fire tax funds must be used by the local fire and rescue department for fire,
rescue or emergency medical services, or be returned to the fire tax district. In a dispute over the source
and amount of original financing, or over the value of the apparatus or facilities, the County agrees to
binding arbitration under the Maryland Uniform Arbitration Act to resolve the dispute.
(d) The County acknowledges that
it
has no ownership claim to any equipment, apparatus,
facilities, or property acquired without any use of tax funds. This Chapter does not authorize the County
to require the transfer of ownership of any such equipment, apparatus, facilities, or property to the
County.
(e)
The County may accept title and all encumbrances to any fire, rescue, or emergency medical
service apparatus, equipment, facility or property from any local fire and rescue department that requests
the transfer of title, even if the item is subject to an existing debt. The Chief Administrative Officer
must approve or reject the transfer after considering any recommendations by the Commission. The
Chief Administrative Officer, after considering the Commission's advice and recommendations, must
develop procedures for the orderly disposition of assets of any local fire and rescue department that is
unable to provide fire, rescue, or emergency medical services so that the assets continue to be used to
provide fire, rescue, and emergency medical services in that community.
the station complies with the adopted master fire, rescue, and emergency medical services
(t)
Any funds accruing to the County from the sale or other disposition of any apparatus,
equipment, facility or property must be applied to the funding of fire and rescue appropriations approved
by the County Council.
http://www.amlegal.comlnxtlgateway.dlllMarylandimontgomlpartiilocallawsordinancesreso...
711/2010
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Page 2 of2
(g)
For purposes of operation, the Chief Administrative Officer, after considering the
Commission's advice and recommendations, must assign fire stations when built or acquired to a local
fire and rescue department or, with the concurrence of the County Executive and County Council, to the
Fire and Rescue Service. This Section does not preclude the Fire and Rescue Service from operating a
fire station as otherwise provided by law. (1980 LM.C., ch. 64,
§
3; 1998 LM.C, ch. 4,
§
1; 1999
LM.C, ch. I
§
1; 2004 L.M.C"ch. 5,
§
1; 2009 L,M.C. ch. 5, § 1.)
Editor's
note-See County Attorney Opinion dated 3/4/04 explaining that County-owned fire
stations may be assigned through the master plan process. See County Attorney Opinion dated 6/19/03
discussing the approvals needed to assign operational control of a new fire station to a local fire and
rescue department.
Section 21-26, formerly §21-4U, was renumbered and amended pursuant to 1998 L.M.C., ch. 4, §1.
http://www.amlegal.comlnxtlgateway .dlllMaryland/montgomlpartii locallawsordinancesreso... 7/1/20 I 0
(jj)
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Public Hearing Testimony
Glenmont Fire Station 18
June
22/23,
2010
My name is Fire Chief Richie Bowers and I am here on behalf of
County Executive Isaiah Leggett in support of the Special CIP Bill 21
10 Glenmont Fire Station 18 project.
The importance of this project is connected to a high priority county
and state transportation project that will improve the intersection of
Georgia Avenue and Randolph Road through the construction of a
grade separated interchange. The transportation project will begin to
address the significant number of 911 calls at this intersection.
Emergency response data indicates that numerous personal injury
collisions, pedestrians struck and other types of emergency incidents
occurred at this intersection
over
the past several years. The road
project will improve safety and provide relief for traffic congestion and
pedestrian traffic. As a direct result of this project the present
.Glenmont Fire Station 18 will need to be relocated.
The Kensington Volunteer Fire Department owns the existing site and
station and has operated and served the Kensington-Glenmont
communities with pride, honor and distinction for many years. The
State of Maryland and Kensington Volunteer Fire Department
have
held discussions regarding the State's purchase of the land. The
state has offered fair market
value
for the property based on
appraisals but no agreement has yet resulted from these discussions.
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
The state has indicated its preference that an agreement be
established resulting in the timely relocation of the fire station.
The relocated Glenmont Fire Station may be eligible for a Federal
contribution disbursed through the state under the transportation
project. However, this funding requires that the public safety facility
be county-owned. The details pertaining to the Federal contribution
are not yet finalized but the requirement that this be a publicly owned
facility is certain. While this poses an outcome difficult for the
Kensington volunteers to accept, the result will be a new, first class
fire station
and
a much safer roadway interchange. The design of the
Fire Station will meet the immediate and future emergency response
needs of the densely populated community.
This project has a narrow window of opportunity for the crucial road
project to be started and completed and for the Fire Station to be
relocated and constructed. As the Fire Chief I cannot permit any
interruption of emergency service delivery in the Kensington
Glenmont areas. This project must continue to move forward.
As your Fire Chief and on behalf of the County Executive we
appreciate your support and approval of this Special CIP project.
Thank you!
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
MONTGOMERY COUNTY VOLUNTEER FIRE RESCUE ASSOCIATION
TESTIMONY - STATION 18 - KENSINGTON VFD
BEFORE THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY COUNCIL -
JUNE
22, 2010
The Montgomery County Volunteer Fire Rescue Association and its members are having
growing concerns at what appears to be some efforts in Montgomery County that
threatens the Local Fire Rescue Department Volunteers rights of ownership and
involvement in stations decisions. We are constantly making corrections to incorrect
statements made about volunteer owned stations renovations or replacements rights. The
failure to include Kensington VFD (KVFD) in the new Station 18, discussions is not
equitable.
It
discourages all volunteers and adds to our concern. Today with the
fmancial concerns of Montgomery County, volunteers are helping more and more. They
continue to save the County millions of dollars. Therefore, volunteer rights of
ownership and inclusion needs to be enforced and expanded, not ignored and prevented.
Action needs to be very carefully considered that would place roadblocks or hinder
volunteer contributions, rights, or participation.
For over 100 years, volunteers have worked hard to provide professional operating,
administrative and auxiliary service. Additionally, they provide major financial
contributions by providing the majority of stations, buying apparatus, and other needs
without County tax funds. For many years, Volunteers have welcomed County
participation in their stations without MOU's, or other such demands as are now required
of volunteers for renovation or rebuilding of their stations. Nor has the County ever been
charged rent for use of the volunteer stations. The changes to the volunteer owned
stations are usual1y due to growing volunteer needs, apparatus, equipment changes,
and/or needs and even career personnel requirements.
KVFD has owned Station 18 since 1953. Due to State road needs, that station is being
eliminated. Previously, meetings took place with the State, County, and KVFD. KVFD
properly exercised their ownership rights and concerns at specific meetings. Without any
notification or inclusion of KVFD, the County is arranging for a new Station 18 with the
State. This action ignores the 58 years ofKVFD using their Station 18 to serve the
County. This lack of courtesy and recognition cannot be justified by referring to loans or
any other issues, We also believe KVFD inclusion is in line with the intent of Chapter
21 .. Insuring this type of inclusion would be a benefit to the County, as in this case,
KVFD could provide input as to what extended they wanted to be included and
recognized in the new Station 18, and even possible funding assistance.
We sincerely hope that the County Council will recognize and insure the need for proper
volunteer inclusion in these matters, thus insuring the protection and encouragement of
volunteer participation in our PrivatelPublic combined service. Thank you ...
Marcine D. Goodloe, President
Montgomery County Volunteer Fire Rescue Association
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
REMARKS OF
MICHAEL MCATEER, PRESIDENT
GLENMONT CIVIC ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED
BEFORE THE
MONTGOMERY COUNTY COUNCIL
ON BILL NO. 21-10
JUNE
22,2010
I am Michael McAteer, president of Glenmont Civic Association Incorporated (GCAI).
Our association has represented Glenmont since 1993.
GCAI and the Glenmont Community are strongly opposed to Bill No. 21-10. This Bill
would authorize an appropriation of over $13 million to relocate the current Glenmont fire
station, which is at the southeast comer of the Georgia Avenue and Randolph Road intersection.
Built in 1953, the fire station is owned by the Kensington Volunteer Fire Department.
It
is an historical Glenmont landmark with architectural significance.
It
was designed by a
recognized master architect.
It
makes no sense to relocate the fire station because it is eminently
functional and does not need replacing.
It
is ideally located to respond to emergencies in
Glenmont and beyond.
Justification for relocating the fire station is that State Highway Administration (SHA)
plans to build a new intersection at Georgia and Randolph. The fire station "is located on the
planned intersection site."
In recent years, GCAI has monitored vague plans for reducing traffic congestion at this
intersection. If specific plans have emerged from SHA or the County, they have been written
without community participation. GCAI and the Glenmont Community have never been given a
voice in finding ways to increase traffic through this intersection. If they had been given an
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
opportunity, the Glenmont fire station would be the last thing we would give up
in
exchange for
intersection improvements.
In
fact, we think the current fire station and intersection
improvements can peacefully coexist.
What Bill 21-10 presents is
not
an opportunity for public participation
in
the planning,
location and design of the Georgia AvenuefRandolph Road intersection. Rather, it provides funds
to relocate the fire station when neither a site has been selected nor the fire station designed. The
authors of Bill 21-10 have not made a case to Glenmont for a new intersection and a relocated
fire station. Their planning process appears to have been done behind closed doors in a way that
excluded the public in Glenmont.
Bill 21-10 is more than bad planning and poor communication with the pUblic.
It
says any
redesigned GeorgialRandolph intersection must take out the fire station. Fortunately, neither
SHA nor the County can take action without their plan first being subject to review and
recommendation by the Montgomery County Planning Board -- under Mandatory ReferraL
Section 7-112 of the Regional District Act provides that "no road shall be located,
constructed or authorized in the regional district until and unless the proposed location,
character, grade and extent thereof has been submitted to and approved by the Commission."
Further, "the widening, extension, [or] relocation of any road
in
the regional district shall be
subject to similar submission and approvaL"
The purpose of this State law is not to give the Planning Board final say on roadway
changes. Rather, it allows the public to review and comment on the sort of plans that seem to be
under wraps
intersection.
SHA and the County may proceed contrary to recommendations from the Planning
Board, but they
may not proceed
without first giving the Board an opportunity to provide
Mandatory Referral advice. In the case of the SHAfCounty plans for changes in the
GeorgiafRandolph intersection, Mandatory Referral advice would be provided after the public
has had an opportunity to review and comment on plans for the intersection.
plans for relocation of the fire station and redesign of the GeorgialRandolph
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Enacting Bill 21-10 at this time, when there has been no Mandatory Referral of the
GeorgialRandolph intersection redesign, would be in direct violation of the Regional District
Act.
I urge the Council to rej ect Bill 21-10 unless a specific plan for redesign of the Georgia
A
venuelRandolph Road intersection has been through Mandatory Referral by the Planning
Board.
Thank you.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Kensington Volunteer Fire Department, Inc.
P.O. Box 222, Kensington, MD 20895
301/929-8000
301/929-8008
Organized l899
***
Incorporated 1925
TESTIMONY OF
KENSINGTON VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT
IN
OPPOSITION TO
BILL
21-10
TO PROPOSE APPROPRIATING $13+ MILLION FOR
"GLENMONT FS-18 REPLACEMENT"
TESTIMONY PRESENTED BY
STEVEN R. SEMLER, PRESIDENT, KVFD
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Continuously since 1953,
Kensington Volunteer Fire Oepartment
("KVFD") has, and still
currently,
owns and operates
Kensington Volunteer Fire Department Station 18. There is
no
"Glenmont Station 18" much less basis for characterizing this legislation as a
"Replacement"
for such an entity that does not even exist.
The
State
is forcing the destruction of current KVFD Station 18 at the intersection of Georgia
Avenue and Randolph Road as part of a road reconstruction project. Multiple generations of
KVFD volunteers have staffed KVFD Station 18.
1. Chapter 21 ignored: The policy of Chapter 21, Montgomery County Code, is to protect and
preserve volunteer fire departments and to, at least, favor co-ownership of replacement
firehouses. Sec. 21-26. The pending legislation disregards Chap. 21 as though it never even
was enacted by this Council, let alone even exists, because the legislation utterly disregards
the ownership of KVFD of firehouse Station 18 which sought to be replaced by the County as
a County-owned Station, by this legislation. Existing law enacted by this Council expressly
repudiates this attempt to blindside KVFD by appropriating money to replace a volunteer
owned firehouse with a County owned firehouse and treating the legacy of our ownership ­
and tens of thousands of man-hours of volunteer service, blood, sweat and tears -- as though
it never existed! Indeed, nowhere in this legislation is KVFD even mentioned, and KVFD was
not even warned, let alone notified of the introduction of this legislation. This attempted end
run around the letter and spirit of Chapter 21 must be repudiated by this Council by
withdrawing or defeating this proposed bill.
2. Land not secured and availability in doubt: The County is seeking appropriation of $13
million to build a new firehouse on a proposed site which is owned by WMATA and upon which
WMATA has, so far, refused to sell to the County apparently because of pending citizen court
challenge to a new garage the County also wants to put on another part of this same parcel of
land. We understand that if WMATA can't build the garage, it won't sell part of the designated
parcel for a firehouse - thereby leaving this Council in the untenable position of having
appropriated $13+ million for a firehouse but no place to build it!
Station 5
10620 Connecticut Ave.
Kensington, Maryland 20895
301-929-8005
*
Station 18
12251 Georgia Ave.
Wheaton, Maryland 20902
301-929-8018
*
Station 21
12500 Veirs Mill Rd.
Rockville, Maryland 20853
301-929-8021
*
Station 25
14401 Connecticut Ave.
Layhill, Maryland 20906
301-929-8025
'S)
'/
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
3. KVFD believes it can rebuild a replacement Station 18 at no cost to Montgomery
County and thereby save the County the $13+ million dollars. Therefore, KVFD believes that
this bill would be an extravagant waste of money at a time that the County is out of money!
This is so because this is an eminent domain dispute between the State and KVFD, for which
the State owes eminent domain compensation to KVFD in exchange for the State's proposed
destruction of KVFD's existing Station 18. With that compensation from the State (not from
the County), KVFD can build a new firehouse at zero cost to the County. Thus, even
accepting the State's previous low-ball eminent domain offer to KVFD of approximately $4
million (Attachment "1 "), the current evidence indicates that KVFD can build with that sum
from
the State
KVFD's own replacement Station 18 of approximately the same size as this Bill's
proposed $13+ million replacement:
• Example 1: Ocean City (MD) Volunteer Fire Department currently is building an 18,000
square foot five bay
I
ten apparatus firehouse for $2.7 million. An artist's rendering of
same, with floor plan and budget, is attached hereto at Attachment "2".
• Example 2: Brunswick (MD) Volunteer Fire Dept. is building a new five bay firehouse
for $2.4 million, under a grant awarded it by FEMA (Attachment "3").
It is patently abusive to the citizens of this County for this legislation to seek $13+ million from
the County coffers when KVFD should be able to get sufficient money from the State from
eminent domain proceedings to build its own new firehouse at NO COST TO THE COUNTY.
The County should stay out of this and allow KVFD to get money from the State to build a
replacement firehouse and save the cash strapped County coffers the $13+ million wastefully
sought by this legislation.
4. Alternatively, if the County insists on building this new firehouse, KVFD believes, on the
advice of counsel, that it can structure a transaction with the County to qualify the County to
receive $4 million from the Federal Government under the
Federal Functional Replacement
Program
("FFRP") (Attachments "1"
&
"4"). KVFD would do so in exchange for being given
50% ownership of the new firehouse, coupled with KVFD right of co-management and right to
operate volunteer apparatus and equipment from that new facility. This would reduce the
County's cost under its own proposal, by $4 million! But, there has been no attempt by the
County to dialogue us on this option.
Executive Summary Conclusion: This entire matter needs to be scrapped and redone from
a fresh piece of paper. It abuses the law. It abuses the contributions of generations of Station
18 KVFD volunteers, and
it
flagrantly wastes County money when a new firehouse can be built
at no cost to the County or, alternatively, with a $4 million contribution form KVFD under the
FRRP coupled with co-ownership by KVFD and the County.
Background
A. BRIEF HISTORY OF STATION 18
KVFD Station 18 was completed in 1953 to serve what was then the forming outer perimeter
of the DC suburbs. It was a community center as well as a firehouse. It was designed by noted
architect Ted Englehardt, who had designed the main terminal at national airport, parts of the
University of Maryland and NIH campuses, among others. The dedication of the firehouse in
1953 was one of the largest events in Montgomery County history, attended by, adjusted for
population increase, by the equivalent of 5000 citizens now, featuring a parade with over sixty
pieces of fire apparatus (then most of the County's inventory), and high school bands. The
building
has continuously served the County for the past
57
years, and currently.
For most of
those years, Station 18 was staffed completely, or nearly completely. by volunteers through
2001.
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
At that time, the County asked KVFD to staff what has become 70% of the shifts at KVFD
station 5 to help save the County money since Station 5 had more apparatus and was more
costly for the County to staff in terms of cost of labor, thus achieving millions of dollars of
payroll and benefits for the County. In fact, many volunteers currently at KVFD Station 5
originally volunteered at Station 18 and are the sons, grandsons, and even great-grandsons of
KVFD volunteer firefighters who lived at Station 18. We cooperatively relocated volunteers to
Station 5 to aid the County, but plan to incrementally restore volunteer operations at Station
18, including the addition of ambulance service there which does not now exist.
Indeed, KVFD's dynamic growth of our volunteer cadre will enable that goal- we now are
providing volunteer apparatus manning hours at the rate of 70,000 hours per year, and
have
over 100 applications in the pipeline for new volunteer EMTs and firefighters which will
facilitate our volunteer expansion.
Taking away this KVFD Sta. 18 as a volunteer firehouse will
destroy that legacy --indeed, will disrespect it - and destroy our plans for future service which,
incidentally, would save the County a fortune in labor costs which is precisely the Council's
objective in creating the volunteer-County fire service "partnership" which Ch. 21 MCC seeks
to promote but which this proposed Bill utterly ignores. Our people, we respectfully remind the
County, work only for the pride of service, and not for pay. This proposed legislation does
violence to our hallowed history of community service out of KVFD-owned Station 18, by
ignoring it as though it never existed, as indeed is radically demonstrated by the fact that the
name "Kensington VFD" does not even appear anywhere in this proposed Bill 21-10. This
intentional slight is an offence to the generations of KVFD Members who gave their blood,
sweat and tears to the service of the community and still do so out of KVFD Station 5 and who
yearn to return to Station 18 as the firehouse from which their fathers and grandfathers ran fire
service calls as volunteers.
B. BRIEF HISTORY OF THE STATE'S EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEDINGS
AGAINST CURRENT KVFD STA. 18
In 2005, the State of Maryland commenced condemnation proceedings against KVFD to
destroy Station 18 due to the State Highway Administration's ("SHA") plan to build a new road
interchange at Georgia Avenue
&
Randolph Road. In eminent domain proceedings the State
offered KVFD $1.2 million for value of the land upon which KVFD Sta. 18 sits, plus $2.7 million
in relocation costs. Because KVFD's appraiser valued the land-alone at $3.0 million, we
sought that higher amount for the land component. The State refused and sued us, but
suddenly withdrew its lawsuit in 2006, and reimbursed us our $60K in defense costs. After a
lack of funding for construction of the State Road Project, led to a several year delay, the
County has NOT contacted KVFD about Station 18 or about KVFD's role in its continuation.
Instead, as a final slap in the face to KVFD's six-decades+ of service to the Community from
Sta. 18, the subject Bill 21-10 - without any notice to KVFD - suddenly appeared for hearing
on the County Council's docket a few weeks ago! Not only does the proposed legislation fail to
mention KVFD; it offensively treats KVFD as though its legacy at Sta. 18 and its Members
never had any part of Station 18, nor, even, that Sta. 18 ever existed!
Statement of Position Against Proposed
Bill
21-10
I.
BILL 21-10 IGNORES THE STATUTORY COMMITMENT OF THIS COUNCIL
IN CHAP. 21, MCC, TO PRESERVE AND PARTNER WITH LFRDs.
The very essence of the Council's objectives in enacting Chapter 21 of the County Code is
preserve and enhance local fire and rescue departments ("LFRD's") in this County. Thus, a
"combined system of public [DFRS] and private [LFRD's] resources is essential". Sec. 21-1 (a)
(emphasis added); that this relationship is intended to be a public and LFRD
"partnership
...
which
preserves
community-based perspectives
ofthe local fire and rescue departments."
(emphasis added).
3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
The law places on a higher level of protection stations which were built before 1980. Thus,
LFRD stations which were built before 1980 remain LFRD stations (Sec. 21-26(a), while those
built with tax funds after 1980 are titled to the County subject to the right of the LFRD to have
shared title to new stations if they pay half of the cost of the new station (Sec. 21-26(b».
However, as to stations like KVFD Sta. 18 which were acquired before 1980, they "may be
retained by local fire and rescue departments".
The subject proposed Bill 21-10 stands on its head the very legislative purpose underlying this
Council's enactment of Ch. 21. For, the proposed appropriation Bill 21-10 ignores the
purposes of the statute which is to protect LFRDs joint "partnership role" in providing fire
protection in this County by, among other ways, preserving the scope of LFRD facilities from
being transferred to the County, with special deference to LFRD stations such as KVFD
Station 18 which were built before 1980. For here, there was no attempt by the County to
engage KVFD in dialogue about KVFD ownership, or even co-ownership, of the proposed new
firehouse after the State shelved its road plans years ago. This bill was just suddenly "popped"
onto the County legislative agenda without any notice to or attempt to engage KVFD in
dialogue about the new Station .18. Astonishingly, the proposed Bill 21-10 does not even
mention Kensington Volunteer Fire Department - let alone the existence of KVFD Station 18
and its role in serving the community 24 x 7 x 365 days per year since 1953. And, the County
did not even attempt to dialogue KVFD on a KVFD-purchased replacement or even a co­
ownership replacement of Station 18. Such attempt here of statutory leapfrogging violates the
entire purpose of partnering volunteer LFRDs in Chap. 21 to preserve volunteerism and save
the County millions of dollars in costs since our volunteers work solely for the pride of service
at effectively zero cost to this cash-strapped County.
Worse, compounding this affront to the Council's purposes in its enactment of Chap. 21, the
proposed appropriation Bill 21-10, also attempts effectively to financially lockout any LFRD
from replacing its own station by sandbagging it in this appropriation request Bill for a
replacement station that costs more that 5 times what a replacement station should cost ­
doing so with not even an attempt to justify such extravagance which is unacceptable at any
time and unconscionable in current times of financial straights in the County. No LFRD can
compete with such extravagant proposals as that which is contained - without even a
semblance of attempted explanation or justification in this proposed Bill 21-10. Bill 21-10 seeks
$13+ million for a firehouse - without the cost of land. Such a firehouse can cost $2.7 million
(see next section). Yet, by demanding, as it does in this proposal, $13+ million for a firehouse
that should cost $2.7 million, KVFD the County is effectively attempting financially
lock the LFRD out of the deal. Even worse, we have not even been provided with or any plans
or even a depiction of the Station for which this $13 million is sought to be appropriated.
II. THE COUNTY IS INAPPROPRIATELY BEING ASKED BY THIS BILL 21-10
TO APPROPRIATE $13+ MILLION FOR A FIREHOUSE FOR WHICH THE
COUNTY HAS NOT EVEN ACQUIRED LAND OR A SITE, AND FOR WHICH
NO CONSTRUCTION PLANS HAVE EVEN BEEN DISCLOSED!
This Council is being asked by this Bill 21-10, to appropriate $13+ million dollars to build a
firehouse for which
the County has not yet even secured
a
site to build it upon!
Moreover, we
haven't even been provided with a proposed plan of the new firehouse and are utterly
incapable of understanding how it possibly could cost as much as $13+ million!
The failure of the County to have acquired the land for which it seeks to build a firehouse with
this proposed appropriation is not coincidental: the County wants to acquire the land from
WMATA, but WMATA does not want to sell the land for a firehouse unless it also can build a
garage on the same site; but the garage go-ahead is stalled by litigation by a civic association.
Thus,
it
is far from certain that the proposed site can be acquired, thereby putting this Council
in the anomalous position of now being asked to appropriate $13+ million to build a firehouse
for which no home has been secured!
4
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
III. THE COUNTY SHOULD ALLOW KVFD TO BUILD A NEW FIREHOUSE FOR $ZERO
COST TO THE COUNTY
The State, which has sought to condemn current KVFD Station 18 because it is in the path of
a State proposed road construction project, has previously stated (attachment no. 1) that
KVFD would be entitled to at least $4 million from the State for eminent domain compensation
due to the State's forced-destruction of present Station 18. Even if KVFD was to accept this
minimal proposed sum from the State, KVFD should be able to build a beautiful new firehouse
for $2.7 million just like Ocean City Volunteer Fire Department is now doing. See artist's
rendering, floor plan, and budget at attachment no. 2, for a five bay drive through station with
each bay holding two pieces of apparatus (a total of 10 apparatus). Of course, the proposed
replacement for Station 18, will not be required to hold nearly as many pieces of apparatus,
but the point is that a beautiful large new firehouse can be built by KVFD alone, without
any construction cost from the County, by KVFD using the proceeds the State has offered
KVFD in the eminent domain proceedings.
This "eminent domain money" is money that KVFD
could keep for itself but prefers to use to build
a
new firehouse for the County at no cost to the
County.
How could the Council possibly responsibly appropriate $13+ million (plus land) when
KVFD can build, and continue to own the replacement, at no construction cost to the
County?
This issue becomes magnified when the $13+ million sought to be appropriated here is seen
against the fact that County employees are being forced to take furloughs because of the
County deficit. Why should the County spend $13+ mlllion when KVFD can build its own new
firehouse for zero construction cost to the County?
This legislation should be rejected in favor of allowing KVFD to build a replacement to Sta. 18
on any site in the Glenmont area offered by the County. KVFD offers to do so, so long as
KVFD is statutorily assured that 1) the new station would be continue to be known as
Kensington Volunteer Fire Department, 2) KVFD's right to resume volunteer operations in
such a new Station 18 is preserved, and 3) also is assured the right to have an equal voice in
decisions affecting the firehouse.
Note that the $2.7 million Ocean City firehouse construction budget is not a fluke estimate. It is
consistent with a FEMA grant awarded just a week ago to Brunswick Maryland Volunteer Fire
Department to build a new five-bay firehouse to FEMA construction standards, for $2.43
million. See attachment no. 3.
IV. ALTERNATIVELY, THE BILL SHOULD BE REJECTED TO ALLOW KVFD
AND THE COUNTY TO ATTEMPT TO STRUCTURE AN AGREEMENT FOR
KVFD TO CO-OWN THE PROPOSED NEW STATION 18 THAT WOULD
QUALIFY THE COUNTY FOR A $4 MILLION CONTRIBUTION FROM THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT UNDER THE "FEDERAL FUNCTIONAL
REPLACEMENT PROGRAM"
Under the Federal Functional Replacement Program ("FFRP"), 23 CFR 710.509 (attachment
no. 4) the federal government will grant money, in lieu of eminent domain proceeds, for a
govern~ent
owned structure being destroyed for a public project if it is replaced with another
government owned structure.
The State has advised that it can obtain a $4 million grant from the federal government to be
paid to the County if this transaction can be qualified under the FFRP (attachment no. 1).
5
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Upon the advice of our legal counsel, KVFD believes it could join forces with the County to
qualify the entire transaction under the FFRP, to get the County a $4 million grant from the
federal government for the new firehouse, providing that a binding agreement was reached
specifying that 1) the new Station would be continue to be known as Kensington Volunteer
Fire Department, 2) would be co-owned by KVFD and the County, 3) KVFD's right to resume
volunteer operations in such a new Station 18 would be preserved, and 4) KVFD would have
the right to have an equal voice in decisions affecting the firehouse.
The essence of attempting to qualify the transaction for FFRP status would be to structure a
transaction whereby the County would, through an agreement with KVFD, become the owner
of the existing station being removed for a public purpose and that the County's status as
public ownership of the replacement facility would be satisfied by the County's part ownership
of the new structure along with KVFD. (The FFRP public ownership requirement does not
state that the new facility must be 100% owned by the government. 23 CFR 71 0.509(b)(3».
This alternative would reduce the County's cost of the project by $4 million while serving the
interests of both the County and KVFD.
Conclusion
Bill 21-10 should be rejected. It violates Ch. 21 of the County Code because it ignores KVFD's
historic ownership of Station 18 which should be allowed proudly to continue to flourish, as the
County contemplated in Ch. 21. Further, this bill makes no sense because the County has not
even acquired the proposed site for this new Station, and the future of this proposed site is, at
best, uncertain. Moreover, KVFD can build a replacement firehouse at no construction cost to
the County instead of the $13+ million sought here in this proposed legislation. Alternatively,
KVFD can cooperatively structure a transaction with the County to attempt to qualify the
County for a $4 million payment to the County under the Federal Functional Replacement
program, in exchange for co-ownership of the new station which would continue to be known
as KVFD Station 18.
Respectfully submitted:
~e:~
Steven
R.
Semler, President, KVFD
6
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
M,artiti
O'Malley,
GQvel"norj
Anthony G,B.rown,
il.
(Jowtnor
8
fo
t
e
IDgtIway.
I
La,
..
AdminiS!~ation
:
.....
.
BeVetlcyK.
sWdim.~Staley
JiecreialY
.•
Neil
i:
Pedersen,
Administrator
Maryland Department of
Transporratian
May
24, 2010
.MI'. Steven R Semler, president
KensingtoIi Volunteer Fife Departmeilt
P.O. Box
222
Kensihgtol.l, MD
20895
Dear Mi': Sem1er:
Tb,ankyou for yourletterr<::lated tQthe MD
97
(Georgia
Avenue)
at Randolph Road Interchange.
Construction project. The State Highway Acl.ministration (SEA) is pleased to respd,ndto your
irtquiry_
.
Pursuant to
YQUf
request under the Public Information Act" Maryland Code Ann. Gov't sections
10.611 - 1
O~628;
the
SHA. is
forwafdingyou
the
attached
letter
rrolnSHA to 'Mr: Timothy L
Firestine) the Chief
Administrative
bfficer of MontgoJiiety''Colluty
Gov~:mm~nt
dated April 25"
2 007 . This
letter
is
in
reference tb. the functional replacement Wi11pensalidn fur fire Statio.Il
18
due to tbe'plannecijnter<;hange of Georgian A
v~nUe
and Randolph Road. Since the search.tirhe
for this information did not exceed two homs and eIectrbniccopies
of
the req(leste.d.materials·
are
being forwarded? there will be lio
fees for'
search arid cOPYlpgcosts related to
this
request.
Thank you again for your letter, If
may be. offurther a,ssistance, plea,se do not hesitate to
cpnta;ct
me
Of M:r, 1effreyFoldeu,
Acting
Assistarit Chief, Highway Design DiVISIon, SHAat
410-545-8814, toU-free
888-228-5003'otvia
emall atjfdldeni@sha.state.md.us.
Sincerely,
/cLrJ~4
,EnClosure.
cc:
Kirk G. McClelland
~
Deputy Director, Office of
HighWaY
Development
Mt Jeffrey Folden, Acting.As,sistant Chief, Highway De!;;ign Division, $HA
My telephoIie numbcrltoll-frcenumbe.r
:l4ary/a71d
Relay
Service for
Impaired
Hearing
or·~---;:;'(V~,C-;",-:"7
..
-;':--,,.)-oS-ta;-"1h-'i-de
Toll
Free
Slree.r Address;
707 North Calvert Street·
Baltimore.
Maryland 21202 •
Phone:
410-545-0300 •
www.maryl:lJiclroads.com
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
01
F-e:'0
it;,
kAL
· Ma:rtln 01i1a11ey.
Gov.~.··"
I"
.
AnthonyBrown,!A.
Governor',
L1J1rrrt
State
Hlntn;umr
AiJmlnlsira~u, ~J
T
.T<lhn
D~
Porcari;
SeC'T'~laiil
[
Neil
J.
Pedi!twi,
Admini,slro.0r
April25~2007
Mr.
timothiY
L.
Firestine
Ghief
Adnilitistrative
Officer
Montgomery County
Govqmment
lo'l
Monroe
Street .
Rocl<;viIle, Maryland 20850
Dear
Mr, Firestine:
On January 3,
200~,theStateHighway
Administrati9n(SHA)
entered
into negotiations
with
tl~e,J<en:sington VolunteerFireJ)epart,~ent
(VFD)
top1:irchasetheVED's
enth:eproperty
located
a~the
COI'l1er
ofMD
97 (Georgia Avenue) afRandolph
Roa.d.
This prqposed
acquisition
was
necessitated' bytheplannedintercl1ange·of
Georgia
Avenue·!iI)d.
Randolph Road.
TheStat.e
began
tf).e
negoti~tiGns
by
offering
the:
VFb
$1.2
mrilion:.as just
compens~tion
for
theexistihg
facilIty,
along
with
potentl
al
relocation
benefits.
This
offer included the
df:preciat~dvaltleofthe
~xi'stlng
YfD
facility...
After
negotiationsfaHec!
to
produce
a
quick
~greernent,
SlIArequested approv&!
,from the
f<tderal}fighWayAdrninistration (FHWA)
to
c.o£l1pensa.te
theVFD
for
a functional replacement
of
its
building, This wouldaHow
the
VFD lor:ebu,ild
tnefaciLity,
using today's matetia\sand
without
a
deduction
for the
depreciation
6ftheexisting
facil~ty;
Thc;FHWAapproved
SHA's
request to
~ompensate
the
VFD
for afunctional
rep'Iacement,
provided that
thr:'!
new
building
and
land were
owned
by Moritgol1leryCouIity. Under federal
ru1es
ror fUnctional
replacement .
compensation, the new
facilitYll'!ust
be'
owned
by a governmental unit.
The
SHAthencommi~si.Q.ned
a study
to.
deteIDline
the
cost
to 9uilda
functional
replacementfor
theex.i!)ting
VFD
buildi'(lg. That costwaS'
detennined'to
be <ipprm{jmately
$4
million.
The
VFD
presentcdacounterprop6sal that
wassigQifieantly
higher
than
SHA's
off~r,.
Pre:')tlI}1a.b1y,
the.
difference betwee.h
tbe
tWQ
figures can
be
attributedto upgrades
that
the
VPD
wishes to include
lIi
the new building
which
would
clearly tre
ariimprovementover
the
existirtg,buj'ldlng.
Under
the
federal
ftmctipnatreplacementguidelines, hdwever,SHA
is not
responsible to
pay
for anyenhancementsinc1uded)n the
replacement
building.
j
My teJepbolHl
number/f<iU'fr~
number.i!f
4JO.545-04W!Jr 1-800.204·0770
.MarYland
!!.!slay
S~IJ
for Jmpaire4
HCri.ring
or
Speech
.i.St:lO.735.2258 Statewide Toll
}'r~
Street Address:
707 Nartn Galvert Street • Baltimore,
Maryland
21202 •
1'7u:me4,10.54.5.0300 •
www.marylandroads.oom
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Mr. TimothyL. Fii'estine
Page Two
The
SM
and
Montgomery County
~~ntthe:VEI)
ajointletteton$eptemoer
13,
2006.
Thls
letter
requested
tha,tfh~
V.FD workwlth
the
County and
Si-rAXo
reachan~icable
agteyinent on1hisacquisition and relocation.
TheSHA
'Would be responsible for
the
cost of a
function~l
replacement,
of
the
existing
builCling,and
the
VBb
Wouldrre:g()tiate with
MOritgoiuery
County
for
fUnding
ofbefterme:ntsJ~:{beincbtpofated
filo';i ne\Vfac1lity.
The
County
and SHA
have
not
yet
succeeded
irLteachinganagreernep.tWith
the
VFD.
.
.
the
SHAhad. filed
cQndernmi.i:io~
to
l;l.cquitG
theYFI)
prop.erty
,on
JuneQ41
2005, and
the
rna
f~er
was'
set
for
jl~tYtrial
on
January
29,
2007. This.
lett~ti9
to
inform
you
thafSHA
bas
abandone,d
this Qondemnatio,n.;.tction.. There are several reasons
for
this.decisipn,Jochldihg
that:
-.
M<i
restlltof
]Ji'evtous postponemepts,the Circl1it CourtdfMcintgCitnery County would
probablynpt graptanotqer
extensIon.
lU1derJederallaw>
the plaintiffnonnallyonly needs toissuea.'''nlnety
(90) day
lettel'/'
49
CPR § 24.2Q3(c); in order
to
ryqriin~
aqO!ZCUpanUO
it~C(lte
..
a
property
which
is thes\lbject
of
an
emjnep.t
:d6f11aihprOceedlng~TIle
VFD
f~cility'ts
the
qU1y
flrestatiortjh
thii>f'ire
protectiondistrlct,
'h9.wever;
and
its
Use
cf!iri:lotbediscontmued
untile.itherar:epfa.cement
. location
is
~l?ptoved
and anew facility is
built.
ot a
tempora.~:t
fa.cIlity
is'in Use. The'SHA
thus will be unable
~o
use
its
powers
of
eminent
dOill;;tin 10
acquire p.ossesslon oHM VFD
property
for
pUrposes ofGonstrllctirlg
themtefsec.ti.Oti
improvements.
the
availability
of; and
approvalJor
paymerttor,
relqCa,tiOh
expenseS
are' distinct
processell;,which ltre
not adJUdicated
ina condemflati<m
pro(:e~dil1g,
This. meanslhat,
if
the State were to
preY~H
at
tnal,
thecouItcould
hot
award anymoney to VFD for its
'relocation
expenses"
.
If
jb:e:a~quisltioh
ofthe VFD propertyweretoproceeii, to
trial,
and
the
c.ourt
:were
to
awardYPDju,st Gompensatiqn fbr
its eXlsfingotIildi:ng
and
Land,
any
possibHi:tyot
treating
thisprbperty-as
a
candidate
for
functionalreplace:mentwould
be.
eliminated.
Under.23
C~R
§71 OSQ9(b)(4). in order for SHA
to
considerVFD forpaynrent for a
Junctional
ieplacern,enttvFDrnust
1,,:afve
any
ri~htsjt
may
have to receivejust
compensation.
..
..
..
U!:1det federal law, the
cooperatipll of1{ontgomeryCpunty
is
required
to
satisfy
FHWA
thatSHA.ts.
proffer ofpaynlent
WDuldb.e
for a
public use faUingVlitfiin
the
fede'r'alfunctIQJ]al
replacetrtent
rule.
'As
noted
eatHer,
t'fi,at
DJle,req~tes
a gQvern:mentaI'
entity
t09wn
tlief1inctio\1al
replat?e~~gt.
AIUwughthe:VFD
performs
a
critt~ql
pl,lblic
purpose
~a
rec¢ives
fUnding
fotits
m-ain~eI1anceand oper~tionqfrorn M-'op~gotiiery CQ.urtty~.MoiltgomeryCounty
wQul<;lnpt
be a
pady
tOanycminenrdomainproceeding,
h~allsetiH~
to theV,fD
facility,
as
well
as
to the real
estate
on
whichJtis
locat¢d, isheldexCiusive}yhy the VFD"
whkhis
~private,
non­
govemmentalQ(ganization..
Thc1lI1ique
circuflistiln~es
of
this;caSe therefore dictate thatthe
project cannot
proce'ect
uiltiLan
agreement
is
in
place
that
provides that Montgomery Cop.nty will
'own both
the
land and
the improvements
fot
the
relOcated
fire
station,
such
that
the federal
fiJllctional
replac~ment
rule is satisfied.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Mr. timothy
L.
Pirestine
Page Three
The SHArecognizes
that the improvements
to MD'97 and
RandoIphRoad are ahigh
priority for;
Montgomery
County,
The St-IA
remains
wi1l1ngJb
contdbute$4.
!llmiqI\toW2,rdttlJ:~
relocation.ofthe
VFn
bv;ilcj:ing iftheconditions
On9Wi;l~(sh~p
referred
tbaobveare
met and
the
land-<)fi. which the current
fire
stationh:
Jqcllted is coiiveye<;i to,SHA at no lldQitiopal
cQst..
~Alsd)
apy
h<;tterritentJtiade to
the VFD
im
pravernents;
b~yQn:a'fhe:
$4
tniiUbri
l
wilt
not
pe
the
responsibility
of.SBA..
It
isthehope.of
SHAthatanagreemen~Gal1
bereacnetl betweelitbe
VFD
Md the Count),' that
wil~
allow for
the
~uccessfu,lrelbcatibnof'thefire d~partmeh~
iUiClthe;
constrtlction
of tllel}1tlch needed road
imp[oyef,I1ents,;
The S}lA stands
read;y to
\York
with the
County
to
ti'iake
this
,projectliappen. If-you
have
any questions)
please:
do not'l1esitateto contactMr.
Joseph
?vi.
Miklochik,Direclor ofReal
Estate,
SHA
at
410,,..,545-282&, toll-free
S&S-204-42450rviaemaiIatjrniklochik@Shfj,;state;
rnd:us;
SHA
wilt
b,e pleased
to
asslstyou~
Ofcourse,
you~l1otild
never hesitafe
to
Gontayt
me
directly.
Sincerely;
Neil
1:.
B
edersen
Admini~ttator
Mr.
Thomas W..Carr., Fire
Chief',
MontgonieryCounty
Fire and
Ress;ue
Service
Me Arthur
Holmes.,
Jr.,. DIrector, Montgonlery Cotinty Department
of
Pub
tic
Works
and Transportation
..
Mi-.Joseph
M.
Miklochik,Director
qfRealF:state,
SHA
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files  PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
FIRST FLOOR
PLAN
2009 NEW
FIRE
STATION
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
SECOND FLOOR PLAN
r--2-00-9-N-E--W-F-IR-E-S-T-A-TI-O-N
---i
VOI.01l'n:1lR
rntlI
co.
i
~~~~
WEST OCEAN
cm,
""""LAND
I'l'A'l'1OIII'
Al
OeMI' em
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
OCVFC STATION #5 PROJECT GENERAL BUDGET
AS OF: 6/1/10
'. BUDGET ..
, ..... '·'ActUAl
. ITEM
DESCRIPTION
,'. . 'AMOlJNt ·
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
150,000
36,000
1,996,000
290,500
VARIANC~
. AMOUNT .
1
2
3
4
5
ADD
ADD
ADD
DEMOLITION
NEW WATER SERVICE
ANTANNA RELOCATION
GENERAL CONTRACTOR
FURNITURE, FIXTURE, EQUIP.
GEO-TECHNICAL SERVICES
BOC INTEREST
OWNRER'S REP.
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
27,550
214,000
1,996,000
370,500
10,000
32,165
10,000
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
(700)
64,000
(36,000)
80,000
10,000
32,165
10,000
TOTAL
NOTE:
Plus A&E Fee
$
2,500,750
$
2,660,215
159,465
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
FrederickNewsPost.com
UtIJJ!
lfr.ei\uitk
N.tuu.i~pusj;
rredeIi~
MD
Fire department gets $2.4 million for new
station
June 9, 2010 - 4:39am
Brunswick ----Brunswick Volunteer Fire Co. is receiving $2.43 million for the construction of a
new fire station.
U.S. Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-6th, announced the company's grant application to the Department
of Homeland Security has been approved. Official notification is expected within the next few
days.
"It's totally overwhelming for the entire department for us to receive this award," Brunswick Fire
Chief Roy Lipscomb said.
The funds will be used to construct a station with five drive-through bays off Route 17 at the
Brunswick Crossing development, he said.
It will replace the company's two stations and allow the operation to be under one roof.
The fire company is planning to borrow another $1.3 million to construct a social halL
Bartlett's office received notification of the approval through congressional sources,
spokeswoman Lisa Wright said.
The Frederick Republican said in a statement that volunteer companies are the backbone of small
towns.
"This $2,431,161 grant brings federal taxpayers' money back to Frederick County to provide the
Brunswick Volunteer Fire Department with an improved station that will better protect its
firefighters as well as all of the residents and workers in Brunswick and southern Frederick
County's homes and businesses," Bartlett said.
Copyright 2010 The Frederick News-Post. All rights reserved.
by Meg Tully
@
The Frederick News-Post
Brunswick ----Brunswick Volunteer Fire Co. is receiving $2.43 million for the construction of a
new fire station.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
U.S. Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-6th, announced the company's grant application to the Department
of Homeland Security has been approved. Official notification is expected within the next few
days.
"It's totally overwhelming for the entire department for us to receive this award," Brunswick Fire
Chief Roy Lipscomb said.
The funds will be used to construct a station with five drive-through bays off Route 17 at the
Brunswick Crossing development, he said.
It
will replace the company's two stations and allow the operation to be under one roof.
The fire company is planning to borrow another $1.3 million to construct a social hall.
Bartlett's office received notification of the approval through congressional sources,
spokeswoman Lisa Wright said.
The Frederick Republican said in a statement that volunteer companies are the backbone of small
towns.
"This $2,431,161 grant brings federal taxpayers' money back to Frederick County to provide the
Brunswick Volunteer Fire Department with an improved station that will better protect its
firefighters as well as all of the residents and workers
in
Brunswick and southern Frederick
County's homes and businesses," Bartlett said.
Copyright 2010 The Frederick News-Post. All rights reserved.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Revised as of April 1, 2009]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 23CFR71 0.509]
[Page 379]
TITLE 23--HIGHWAYS
CHAPTER I--FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
PART 71O_RIGHT-OF-WAY AND REAL ESTATE--Table of Contents
Subpart E_Property Acquisition Alternatives
Sec. 710.509 Functional replacement of real property in public ownership.
(a) General. When
publicly owned real property,
including land and/
or facilities,
is to be acquired for a Federal-aid highway project, in
lieu of paying the fair market value for the real property, the State
may provide compensation by functionally replacing the publicly owned
real property with another facility which will
provide equivalent
utility.
(b) Federal participation. Federal-aid funds may participate in
functional replacement costs only if:
(1) Functional replacement is permitted under State law and the STD
elects to provide it.
(2) The property in question is in
public ownership
and use.
(3) The replacement facility will be in public ownership and will
continue the public use function of the acquired facility.
(4) The State has informed the agency owning the property of its
right to an estimate of just compensation based on an appraisal of fair
market value and of the option to choose either just compensation or
functional replacement.
(5) The FHW A concurs in the STD determination that functional
replacement is in the public interest.
(6) The real property is not owned by a utility or railroad.
(c) Federal land transfers. Use of this section for functional
replacement of real property in Federal ownership shall be in accordance
with Federal land transfer provisions in subpart F of this part.
(d) Limits upon participation. Federal-aid participation in the
costs of functional replacement are limited to costs which are actually
incurred in the replacement of the acquired land and/or facility and
are:
(1) Costs for facilities which do not represent increases in
capacity or betterments, except for those necessary to replace
utilities, to meet legal, regulatory, or similar requirements, or to
meet reasonable prevailing standards; and
(2) Costs for land to provide a site for the replacement facility.
(e) Procedures. When a State determines that payments providing for
functional replacement of public facilities are allowable under State
law, the State will incorporate within the State's ROW operating manual
full procedures covering review and oversight that will be applied to
such cases.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
REMARKS OF
Rev. Ellis Moore, Pastor
Georgia Avenue Baptist Church
Before the
Montgomery County Council
On Bill No. 21-10
June 22, 2010
Greetings:
My name is l:lIis Moore, Pastor of Georgia Avenue Baptist Church, 12525 Georgia Avenue, Glenmont,
MO, 20906. Georgia Avenue Baptist Church is composed of 943 plus members who have worshipped in
the above location for 57 years. We enjoy the peace and quiet afforded by our location in the Glenmont
area.
The church membership and I are opposed to the construction and relocation of the Glenmont Fire
House on the adjacent property across from Georgia Avenue Baptist Church. We are concerned about
the increased noise and traffic the proposed fire house would bring.
We appeal for you to reconsider the fire house relocation.
Thank You,
J~71cruL
Rev. Ellis Moore, Pastor
Georgia Avenue Baptist Church
12525 Georgia Avenue
Glenmont, MO 20906
301946-1331
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
STATE
HIGHWAY
ADMIN/STRATION~"
Montgomery County
~-
Line 2
PROJECT:
MD 97, Georgia Avenue
SECONDARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
DESCRIPTION:
Construct interchange improvements at Randolph Road. Sidewalks will be included
where appropriate. Wide curb lanes will accommodate bicycles.
JUSTIFICATION:
This project would relieve congestion at the existing intersection.
SMART GROWTH STATUS:
~
Federal Funding
B~
Year of Obligation
FFY
PHASE
PP
PE
RW
CO
2010
FFY
2011
FFY
2012
FFY
2013
FFY
2014 - 2015
FEDERAL
CATEGORY
Project Not Location Specific or Location Not Determined
X Project Within PFA
Project Outside PFA; Subject to Exception
Grandfathered
Exception Approved by BPW/MDOT
B
ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS:
InterCounty Connector (Line 1)
0
0
0
1371
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
STP
STATUS:
Engineering and Right-ol-way underway. Construction for advanced utility work underway.
Construction for the overall project will begin in FY14. County to provide $14.4 million for Right-ol-way
and Advanced Utilities. The cost shown is SHA share only.
SIGNIFICANT CHANGE FROM FY 2009 • 14 CTP:
The cost decrease of $18.8 million is due to
more detailed Right-of-way and Construction estimates, a favorable bid price and reduced inflation.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE:
[R]
SPECIAL
[R]
FEDERAL
D
GENERAL
D
OTHER
SIX
YEAR
TOTAL
BALANCE
TO
COMPLETE
FUNCTION:
STATE
-
PROJECT CASH FLOW
TOTAL
ESTIMATED EXPEND CURRENT BUDGET
PHASE
COST
THRU
YEAR
YEAR
FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY
($000)
2011
.... 2012 ........2013........2014........2015 ....
2009
2010
1,097
Planning
1,097
o
0
0
0
0
0
4,910
Engineering
3,793
180
267
340
0
0
330
15,550
Right-of-way
2,414
6,150
0
0
1,346
5,640
0
Other Principal Arterial
FEDERAL
-
Other Principal Arterial
STATE SYSTEM:
Secondary
DAILY TRAFFIC: (USAGE IMPACTS)
CURRENT (2009)
-52,500
PROJECTED (2030) -
o
1,117
13,136
30,100
44,353
4,786
0
0
0
10,841
10,841
0
Construction
Total
Federal-Aid
40,941
62,498
8,209
0
7,304
3,423
1,323
2,936
2,355
340
6,320
1,954
0
6,480
351
0
180
126
12,176
12,176
0
16,261
16,261
0
59,100
OPERATING COST IMPACT:
N/A
STIP REFERENCE #M08541
1210112009
PAGE
SHA-M-2
~_~._6.6
®
__ . _____ •.•• ••• _••
' . 4 •••• _ •••••
~
~
e~.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
,
RE:
THE MARYLAND-NATfONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION
Office of the Chairman, Montgomery County Planning Board
December 23, 2004
Kirk McClelland, Chief
OHD Highway Design
State Highway Administration
Maryland Department of Transportation
Mail Stop C-l 02
707 N. Calvert Street
Baltimore, MD 21202
MD97 (Georgia Avenue) at Randolph Road Interchange
Contract No. M0854B21
Mandatory Referral No. 04815-SHA-l
Dear Mr. McClelland:
The Planning Board reviewed the MD 97 (Georgia Avenue) at Randolph Road
Interchange project at our regularly scheduled meeting on December 9, 2004, and approved the
Mandatory Referral with the comments noted below.
We would like to express our appreciation for the thoughtful, and hard work your staff
has done in achieving a design that balances the needs of drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists
in
such a constrained location. We believe that this attractive project will be a great asset to
Montgomery County.
We offer the following detailed comments:
1. Revise the traffic signal warrant analysis for the intersection of Randolph Road and
Livingston Street to include traffic volumes from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 am and 7:00 p.m. to
8:00 p.m., and evaluate traffic signal warrants 5, 6, and 7.
2. Work with the affected property owners to ensure that building the planned private street
in the northeast quadrant of the Georgia AvenuelRandolph Road intersection is not made
more difficult by the proposed utility relocation.
3. Construct additional sidewalks in the northeast and southeast quadrants of the Georgia
AvenuelRandolph Road intersection to improve pedestrian comfort.
4. Ensure that all ramps for the off-road bikeways are the same width as the bikeways
leading up to them.
Montgomery County Planning Board.
8787
Georgia Avenue. Silver Spring. Marvland 20910
Phone. (301) 495-4605, Fax. (301) 495-1320, E-mail: mcp-cnairman@mncppc-mc.org, VWlWmncppc-mc.org
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Kirk McClelland
12/23/2004
Page 2
5. Post signs prohibiting pedestrians from crossing the west leg of Randolph Road at
Glenmont Circle.
6. Provide an accessible crosswalk on the south leg of Georgia Avenue at Sheraton Street,
or prohibit the crossing and provide a crosswalk on the south leg of the Layhill Road
intersection.
7. Consider providing raised medians along Georgia Avenue within the project limits to
defer mid-block crossings.
8. Provide lighting levels that meet the recommendations of the International Illuminating
Society ofNorth America.
9: Provide a second row of street trees behind the proposed sidewalk in the northeast and
southeast quadrants of the Georgia AvenuelRandolph Road intersection. Work with the
property owners south of the intersection to see if they will allow a second row of trees to
be planted behind the sidewalk on their property.
10. Provide additional landscaping in all four comers of the intersection to enhance the look
ofthis important intersection.
11.
Consider providing an infonnation panel adjacent to the sidewalk at the proposed bio­
retention area explaining how the facility works to serve as a public educational tooL
Thank you again for your good work on this much-needed project and we look forward to
continuing to work with you on other projects. If you have any questions or comments
concerning our review, please call Larry Cole at 301-495-4528.
~~!~
~ck
P. Berlage
Chainnan
DPB:LC:gw
Sincerely,
­
Itt
10
McClelland re MR MD97-Rando)ph Road interchange
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
, ':JI
_
THE MARYlPND-NATfONAL CAPITAL PAnK AND PLANNING COMMISSION
Montgomery County Department of Pork and PicJrlntng
MCPB
ITEM NO. 9
12-09-04
December 3,2004
MEMORANDUM
TO:
VIA:
Montgomery Cpunty Planning Board
I
I
)'.
Jeffrey ZyontZ:£hief
Countywide Planning Division
Richard C. Hawthorne, Chief
Transportation Planning
Khalid Afzal, Team Leader
Community-Based Planning
~
FROM:
PROJECT:
Larry Cole: 301-495-4528, for the Park and Planning Department
L
C
MD97 (Georgia Avenue) at Randolph Road Interchange
Contract No. M0854B21
Mandatory Referral No. 04815-SHA-l
Maryland State Highway Administration
Plan Approval
REVIEW TYPE:
APPLICANT:
APPLYING FOR:
COMMUNITY-BASED PLANNING TEAM AREA: Georgia Avenue
RECOMMENDA TION: Approval with comments to the State Highway
Administration (SHA) and the Department of Public Works and Transportation (DPWT).
Staff recommends that the Board approve the proposed project (see Attachment 1:
Location Map) with the following comments to SHA:
1. Revise the traffic signal warrant analysis for the intersection of Randolph Road and
Livingston Street to include traffic volumes from 6-7am and 7-8pm and evaluate traffic
signal warrants 5,6, and 7.
MONTGOMERY COUNTYDEPARTMENT OF PARK AND PlfiNNiNG.
8787
GEORGIA AVCNUE. SILVCR SPRING. MARYLAND 20910
l'MW.mncppc.org
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
2. Work with the affected property owners to ensure that building the planned private street
in the northeast quadrant of the Georgia AvenuelRandolph Road intersection is not made
more difficult by the proposed utility relocation.
3. Construct additional sidewalks in the northeast and southeast quadrants of the Georgia
AvenuelRandolph Road intersection to improve pedestrian comfort.
4. Ensure that all ramps for the
leading up to them.
off~road
bikeways are the same width of the bikeways
5. Post signs prohibiting pedestrians from crossing the west leg of Randolph Road at
Glenmont Circle.
6. Provide an accessible crosswalk on the south leg of Georgia Avenue at Sheraton Street,
or prohibit the crossing and provide a crosswalk on the south leg of the Layhill Road
intersection.
7. Consider providing raised medians along Georgia Avenue within the project limits.
8. Provide lighting levels that meet the recommendations of the International llluminating
Society of North America.
9. Provide a second row of street trees behind the proposed sidewalk in the northeast and
southeast quadrants of the Georgia Avenue!Randolph Road intersection. Work with the
property owners south of the intersection to see if they will allow a second row of trees to
be planted behind the sidewalk on their property.
10. Provide additional landscaping in all four comers of the intersection to enhance the look
of this important intersection.
11. Consider providing an information panel adjacent to the sidewalk at the proposed
retention area explaining how the facility works to serve as a public educational tool.
bio~
Staff also recommends that the Board send a letter to DPWT requesting a
reconsideration of their previous disapproval of the traffic signal at Randolph Road and
Livingston Street.
PREVIOUS BOARD ACTION:
The Planning Board reviewed the Project Planning report on March 2, 2002, and
concurred with SHA's recommended design concept, which was the same as that shown in the
Glenmont Sector Plan. The current design of this project is consistent with that concept.
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project would construct a grade-separated interchange at the intersection of Georgia
A venue (MD97) and Randolph Road. All turning movements would take place at the current
level of Georgia Avenue. The Randolph Road through lanes would be depressed under a bridge
carrying Georgia Avenue.
The project limits are from Mason Street to Layhill Road (MD182) along Georgia
Avenue, and from west of Judson Road to east of Glenmont Circle along Randolph Road. Seven­
foot-wide sidewalks with eight-foot-wide landscape panels would be provided throughout the
project, with the exception of the north side of Randolph Road, where an eight-foot-wide off­
road bikeway with a seven-foot-wide landscape pane] would be provided. A ten-foot-wide off­
road bikeway would be provided in addition to the sidewalk along the west side of Georgia
Avenue as an extension of the Glenmont Greenway.
Five-foot-wide on-road bike lanes would be provided along Georgia A venue. On-road
bike accommodation would be provided along Randolph Road via fourteen-foot-wide shared use
lanes.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The proposed improvements are Critically needed at what is one of the county's most
congested intersections. With the recent funding of the proposed interchange at MD 355 arid
Montrose Parkway/Randolph Road, the subject project moves to the top of the County's priority
list for State funding for roadway construction, and the second construction priority overall, after
the second Glenmont Metro Station parking garage.
Staff has worked closely with SHA during the development of this project, from the
project planning to the current semi-final plan stage. SHA began the project using the concept
that was outlined in the Glenmont Sector Plan and has continued to refine the design to ensure
that the Master Plan-recommended pedestrian and bicycle accommodation is provided to the
greatest extent possible in a very constrained right-of-way. In addition, SHA proposes to
construct a
1,000-foot
extension
to
the Glenmont Greenway. This extension would provide a
great enhancement to the area.
Staff believes that SHA has done a very good job balancing the competing issues in a.
very tight urban area.
Comparison of Impacts, Planning Phase vs. Design Phase
The chart below shows the impacts that were originally anticipated during the planning
phase and those currently anticipated. The greater area of impact shown for the current design
reflects SHA's agreement to follow the Master Plan streetscape recommendations for greater
sidewalk and landscape panel widths rather than the standard widths reflected in the planning
concept summary.
3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
The area of impact is greater in regard to future parkland on the Old Glenmont School
site (the Glenmont Greenway extension), but staff believes that this is desirable to achieve a
greater landscaped offset that would result in better sidewalk and Greenway facilities. The other
impacts listed on the chart, the residential and commercial displacements, are actually less than
were anticipated during the planning phase.
Anticipated During
Planning Phase
Right-of-Way Impacts (Acres)
2.9
Anticipated with
Current Design
4.2
Displacements
Residential (No.)
-2403 Randolph Road
-12306 Grandview Ave.
Business (No.)
Glenmont Auto Service
-Amoco
-ExxonIMobil
-Chevy Chase Bank
Other (No.)
Kensington Volunteer Fire Dept.
HistoriclArcheological Resources
(2)
Total Take
Total Take
(4)
Total Take
Total Take
Total Take
Total Take
(1)
(0)
Temporary Impact
Partial Take
(2)
Total Take
Total Take
Partial Take
Partial Take
(1)
Total Take
Total Take
None
None
Parkland (Acres)
Old Glenmont School Site
-Temporary
-Permanent
Glenmont Greenway
-Temporary
-Permanent
0.25
0.55
0.61
0.63
0
0.006
0
0.002
4
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Three properties would be taken in their entirety to constnict the proposed interchange.
The AmocolBP gas station at the northeast comer of the GeorgiaiRandolph intersection, and
Glenmont Auto Service further east, would be taken because the space needed to construct the
pennanent improvements would adversely affect their operations to a point that they would not
be able to stay in business. The fire station at the southeast comer of the intersection would be
taken because it is in the space needed to construct a temporary detour roadway and because of
accessibility problems that would exist during and after construction since the entrance to the
station right now points to the middle of the existing intersection. SHA is working with the
Kensington Volunteer Fire Department on the relocation/replacement of this facility.
Bicyclist and Pedestrian Accommodation
The sidewalks and trails would be provided at the width recommended in the Glenmont
Transit Impact Area and Vicinity Sector Plan (September 1997), seven feet and eight feet,
respectively.
The recommended landscape panels with street trees would also be provided with five
localized exceptions: one to avoid taking a home on Randolph Road west of Georgia Avenue,
two east of the intersection at the police station and at Chevy Chase bank to avoid conflicts with
the existing buildings, one on Georgia A venue south of the intersection where it is constrained
by a Metro airshaft. and one on Georgia Avenue north of the intersection to avoid taking a gas
station.
The recommended sidewalklbikeway widths are intended to ensure that pedestrians and
bicyclists can comfortably move about the Metro station and commercial area, which is expected
to see redevelopment. The landscape panels are important to ensure that pedestrians and
bicyclists feel comfortable being adjacent to major highways and as an aesthetic enhancement
that will assist in the area's redevelopment.
Staff recommends that SHA ensure that all ramps for the off-road bikeway are the
same width of the bikeways leading up to them,
so that we do not create pinch points at
intersections.
The following is a description of the pedestrian accommodation at each intersection
within the project limits.
Georgia AvenuelRandolph Road
Striped crosswalks and pedestrian signals would be provided in all quadrants of the
intersection. The crosswalks are well oriented, balancing the desire to provide the shortest
crossings possible with the need to keep pedestrians in the driver's view. A design change that is
planned but is not yet shown would shift the crosswalks at the two free-right tum lanes farther
back so that pedestrians would cross behind the first vehicle waiting to tum. This would
eliminate the need for
dri
vers to keep their eyes on both on-coming traffic and pedestrians, and
staff believes that this would improve safety for pedestrians.
5
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Since the Glenmont Greenway and extension would be on the west side of the
intersection, and the fire station and gas station properties on the east side of the intersection
would be purchased, a rare opportunity would be created for the public to create a coordinated,
attractive, pedestrian-friendly environment at all four comers of the intersection of two high­
volume roads.
Staff recommends that additional sidewalks be constructed in the northeast and
southeast corners
to allow pedestrians to "cut-the-comer" and stay farther away from the busy
intersection (see Attachment 2). These sidewalks would partially duplicate the "dual path"
condition of the Glenmont Greenway on the other side of Georgia A venue and better enable the
project to create a consistent level of landscaping on all four comers of this important gateway.
Randolph Road at Judson Road and Grandview Avenue
The proposed grade of the Randolph Road lanes leading to the Georgia A venue
underpass would prevent left turns to and from both Grandview Avenue and Judson Road, which
would be restricted to right-inlright-out only. All access across Randolph Road at these
intersections would be prohibited. (See Attachment 3).
SHA's staff has stated that they are open to installing a new traffic signal at Randolph
Road and Livingston Street, which is west of Judson) to mitigate the loss of access caused by the
significant restrictions at these two streets and the permanent detours that will be required for
some residents. The signal would improve vehicular accessibility for residents of the
neighborhood and would give pedestrians a signal-controlled crossing of Randolph Road on a
street that leads directly to the Glenmont Metro Station. This signal was recommended in our
Glenmont Concept Plan Pedestrian Circulation Study, published in October 1999.
DPWT Traffic staff has objected to the installation of a traffic signal at Livingston Street
because the only warrant that SHA showed being met is specifically limited to unusual
conditions such as office complexes, manufacturing plants, and industrial complexes that attract
or discharge large numbers of vehicles over a short period of time. Staff believes that the end-of­
the-line Glenmont Metro Station and its 1,800-space parking garage may be considered as a
similarly unusual condition. The addition of a second 1,200-space parking garage at the Metro
Station, noted as the County's highest priority above, could further increase the peak traffic
flows in this area. Pages five and six from SHA's signal warrant analysis are included as
Attachment 4.
The Four-Hour Vehicular Volume warrant was only four cars short in the fourth highest
hour (6-7pm) of the 60 vehicles per hour minimum needed to justify the signal, whereas the peak
hour (7-8am) is far in excess of the minimum at 150 vehicles per hour. Staff believes that since
this peak hour was the earliest in the day the traffic counts were taken and that the last hour of
the day almost met the minimum, SHA should expand the traffic counting period by at least an
hour on either end to see if this warrant can be met.
6
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Warrant 5, for school crossings, is noted in the report as being not applicable but staff
believes that this should be evaluated. Wheaton High School's student area straddles both sides
of Randolph Road west of Georgia Avenue. While there is a traffic signal at the intersection of
Dalewood Drive on the west end of the school site, there is no other traffic signal in the one-mile
distance along Randolph Road between the school and Georgia Avenue. High school students
are expected to walk up to two miles to get to school, per Montgomery County Public Schools
policy, and a crossing at Livingston Street would be the safest viable option.
Warrants 6 and 7, for a coordinated signal system and for crash experience, were not
evaluated but staff recommends that they be evaluated to see whether these warrants would be
met and further justify the installation of a traffic signal.
While they are within the limits of the project, both Randolph Road and Livingston Street
are County streets and any changes require DPWT's consent. Because of DPWT's objection,
SHA's current design does not include the signal but they have said that they can include it if
DPWT drops its objection. SHA staff reports that they have received quite a bit of public
comment in support of the signal.
One of the citizens' concerns is that the interchange would eliminate the gaps in the
traffic flow that now exist when Randolph Road traffic stops at the red light. These gaps are used
by pedestrians to cross Randolph Road at Livingston Street. Once traffic is free flowing and the
gaps are reduced, the pedestrian crossing may become both more difficult and more hazardous.
The Livingston Street intersection is only three blocks from the Glenmont Metro Station
and has bus stops whose patrons need to be safely accommodated. Staff believes that all
reasonable measures must be undertaken to improve pedestrian safety and accessibility to transit
and a traffic signal at Livingston Street would significantly advance those objectives. While the
subject of this Mandatory Referral is a SHA project, the decision on whether to provide this
signal is in DPWT's hands.
Staff recommends that the Board request that DPWT reconsider its (1isapproval of the
traffic signal at Randolph Road and Livingston Street.
If
DPWT does not permit SHA to install
the traffic signal following SHA's revision of the traffic signal warrant analysis, staff believes
that DPWT should determine what other traffic control devices are needed to ensure that
pedestrians will have sufficient, safe opportunities to cross Randolph Road during rush hour.
Randolph Road at Glenmont Circle and the Shopping Center Entrance
Striped crosswalks would be provided on the north, south, and east legs of the
intersection. A striped crosswalk will not be provided on the west leg because the configuration
of the entrance to the underpass would make it difficult for pedestrians to understand which way
to look for oncoming traffic. To ensure that pedestrians understand that
it
is unsafe to cross this
leg,
staffrecommends that signs be posted prohibiting the crossing.
7
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Georgia A venue at Mason Street
This unsignalized intersection would be made handicapped-accessible, but not to
Americans for Disabilities Act Best Practices guide recommendations. Single ramps that point to
the center of the intersection are used rather than the recommended dual ramps that provide
better guidance for blind persons. This intersection is the main crossing point between the
apartments on the east side of Georgia Avenue and the recreational facilities on the west side of
Georgia Avenue. A striped crosswalk would be provided across Georgia Avenue, most likely on
the north side of the intersection.
Georgia A venue at Sheraton Street and at Layhill Road
The intersection at Sheraton Street is not proposed to
be
made handicapped accessible
nor are crosswalks proposed. Sheraton Street lies roughly 350 feet from the Layhill Road
intersection and 450 feet from the Randolph Road intersection. SHA does not want pedestrians
to cross here because the intersection is unsignalized and because of the large volumes of traffic.
The plans provide for drivers to make left turns into and out of the shopping center driveway,
however Sheraton Street is restricted to right-in/right-out.
Even if we accept that pedestrians would have to cross at the nearest signalized
intersection, they cannot do so easily. The south leg of Layhill Road does not have a striped
crosswalk because of the large amount of southbound left-turning traffic from Layhill Road.
Therefore, crossing at this intersection would require that three legs of the intersection be crossed
rather than the leg that is closest, a trip that would be 450 feet longer than crossing at Sheraton
Street. The rule-of-thumb is that pedestrians are generally unwilling to walk more than 300 feet
out of their way to get to a crosswalk. Even with the conditions as they are now, pedestrians do
cross at Sheraton Street, including to the bus stop on the east side of Georgia Avenue. Staff
believes that they must be given reasonable accommodation.
Staff recommends that an accessible crosswalk be provided
at
least on the south leg of
Georgia A venue
at
Sheraton Street, or that the crossing be prohibited and a crosswalk be
provided on the south leg of the Layhill Road intersection.
If an accessible crosswalk is not
provided at Sheraton Street, the bus stop at this intersection should be moved to the nearest
accessible crossing.
Georgia A venue Medians
The medians on Randolph Road are narrow and the grade change at the approaches to the
underpass makes mid-block pedestrian crossings of Randolph impossible. Mid-block crossings
would still be possible on Georgia Avenue however, since it would have wider, flat, landscaped
medians.
8
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Staff recommends that SHA consider providing raised medians on Georgia Avenue to
deter mid-block crossings.
Such mid-block crossings are not known to be a problem in this area
currently, but staff believes that raised medians should be considered on all divided major
highways in urban areas to prevent such problems from occurring. Examples of slightly raised
medians exist along Wisconsin Avenue in Bethesda and along Georgia Avenue in Silver Spring,
between Wayne Avenue and Colesville Road, which was recently constructed in connection with
the signalized pedestrian crossing between the Discovery Building and Ellsworth Drive. These
medians have proved successful in deterring mid-block crossings without negatively impacting
the aesthetics of the areas involved.
Glenmont Greenway
SHA is proposing to construct a 1,000-foot extension to the 1,200-foot Glenmont
Greenway that exists along the west side of Georgia Avenue from Randolph Road to Urbana
Drive (one block north of Layhill Road) over the Metro tunnel. The Greenway exists as a Park
facility that is separate from the sidewalk that runs along the west side of Georgia Avenue,
varying in width, but generally about loo-feet-wide. The facility consists of a ten-foot-wide
bikeway with pedestrian-scale lighting and still-immature shade trees.
The extension south of Randolph Road would
be
constructed on land that
it
now titled to
Montgomery County, but the Greenway would be operated by Parks after construction. The land
has two major facilities, the Glenmont School, now used by the Conservation Corps, and a
baseball field that is used by the Wheaton Boys and Girls Club. While the Greenway would
come quite close to the baseball field, and the construction would require the temporary closure
of the field, the permanent operation of the field would be unaffected.
The Glenmont School has been proposed to be rehabilitated as new facilities for the
Conservation Corps, as well as housing Victory Youth and possibly a day care center. Should
this change in use go through, the Greenway would be constructed completely offset from the
road and the sidewalk through the entire length of the extension.
If
the current use stays in place,
the Greenway would have to share the proposed seven-foot-wide sidewalk for a distance of about
one hundred feet.
While SHA would be constructing both the bikeway pavement and landscaping for the
Greenway extension free of charge to M-NCPPC, some contribution would be needed for
lighting the path. SHA is limited to spending $2,500 per pole for pedestrian lighting. Staff
estimates that our share of the cost for the eleven proposed light poles along the Greenway
extension will be $33,000, to be paid for under our Cost-Sharing Non-Local PDF No. 761682.
OUf
actual cost will depend on the bid prices of SHA's contractor for the project, as selected
under the state's· competitive procurement process. SHA wil1prepare a Memorandum of
Understanding for our review and approval, which will include the cost sharing provision as wen
as the maintenance of the Greenway.
9
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bicyclist Accommodation
Off-Road Bike Accommodation
Off-road bike accommodation would
be
provided via the proposed bikeway along the
north side of Randolph Road and the Glenmont Greenway, including the extension, along the
west side of Georgia A venue.
On-Road Bike Accommodation
On-road bike accommodation is not called for in either the Glenmont Sector Plan or the
Planning Board Draft of the Countywide Bikeways Functional Master Plan, but SHA proposes to
include such facilities along both these roads in accordance with their general policy for on-road
bike accommodation. Five-foot-wide bike lanes would be provided along Georgia Avenue within
the limits of the project.
Bike lanes would not be provided along Randolph Road because of insufficient room, but
on-road bike accommodation would
be
provided via 14-foot wide shared-use lanes. Staff
believes that the shared-use lanes would provide a safer environment for bicyclists than bike
lanes because the numerous right-tum lanes in a fairly short distance along Randolph Road
would require lane shifts that might be confusing to both drivers and bicyclists. It is also unlikely
that the County would continue the bike lanes along Randolph Road beyond the project limits in
the future because of the limited amount of space and because the SectorlMaster Plans only
recommend an off-road bikeway.
Lighting
SHA has not completed the lighting plans for this project yet, but
staff recommends that
SHA provide lighting to the recommendations of the International Illuminating Society of
North America
to ensure that all sidewalks, bikeways and crosswalks are as sufficiently and
safely lighted as the roadways.
.
LandscapinglStreetscaping
Street trees would be planted throughout the project where there is sufficient room
between the curb and sidewalk. Trees would also be planted in the median where there is
sufficient width to support them, and shrubs would
be
planted in narrower medians. Other plant
materials such as perennials and grasses would be planted in the medians and along the
Glenmont Greenway.
The Glenmont Sector Plan states that a second row of street trees is desired along the east
side of Georgia A venue. While there is little additional right-of-way to accomplish this goal for
most of the project length, the fire station and gas station sites will provide such an opportunity
when they are acquired.
Staff recommends that a second row of street trees be provided behind
the proposed sidewalk in the northeast and southeast quadrants of the Georgia
10
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
A venue/Randolph Road intersection, and that SHA work with the property owners south of
the intersection to see
if
they will allow a second row of trees to be planted on their property,
either in an easement or by means of an Entry Agreement A similar planting was done
previously by SHA when they improved the Four Comers intersection of Colesville Road
(US 29) and University Boulevard (MD 193). Staff also recommends that additional landscaping
be provided in all four corners of the intersection to enhance the look of this important
intersection.
The retaining walls and abutments for the bridge structUre would have a simulated stone
finish. Ornamental light fixtures are likely to
be
.installed at the four corners of the bridge as well
as an ornamental fence on top of the bridge parapet, however the details of these items have not
been finalized.
Utilities and Future Redevelopment
Utility relocation will be a major expense on this project. Because of the density of
development and the proximity of buildings to the roadway, SHA has determined that there is
not enough room between the buildings and the proposed curb on the north side of Randolph
Road east of Georgia A venue to accommodate overhead lines. For a while during the design of
this project, it was anticipated that the overhead lines in this section would
be
placed
underground. SHA has recently decided however, to route them behind the buildings fronting on
Randolph Road.
The Glenmont Sector Plan recommends that a private street be built through this same
area to run from Randolph Road at Glenmont Circle Drive to Georgia A venue at Sheraton Street
(see Attachment 5). In order to maximize the potential for orderly redevelopment in this area,
staff recommends that SHA. work with the property owners to ensure that building this
planned street is not made more difficUlt by the proposed utility relocation.
Environmental
This project is not within a Special Protection Area or a Primary Management Area. The
limits of disturbance do not encroach on wetlands, a floodplain, or a stream valley buffer. There
are no steep slopes or erodible soils of concern. There are no forest resources or significant or
specimen trees present. Any potential soil contamination from relocated uses should
be
remediated in accordance with appropriate regulations prior to construction.
Stormwater Management
The project would treat stormwater runoff associated with the increase in impervious
surface by means of a bio-retention facility located in an easement on the Glenmont Shopping
Center property. This facility would be about 50 feet wide and 170 feet long and would be
attractively landscaped. Since this is such a visible location with high pedestrian traffic,
staff
recommends that SHA consider providing a panel adjacent to the sidewalk explaining how the
facility works to serve as a public educational tool.
11
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Forest Conservation
This project is exempt from Forest Conservation because it is a State Government Project
reviewed for forest conservation by the State Department of Natural Resources under the Code
of Maryland Regulations.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
SHA
had several meetings with a focus group during the planning phase of this project.
During the design phase, SHA had one additional meeting with the focus group on
November 18, 2003, and a full public meeting on June 1,2004.
LC:gw
mmo to
MCPB
re
04815-SHA-l
12
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
<"
Glenmont Metro Station
WHEATON
REGIONAL
SHOREFIELD
RD
LOCATION MAP
MILEAGE: 0.77
SCALE
1000
:
1":=
~---"-
ufX
1000
1000
I
i
2000
feet
0
Attachment 1
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
~
§
r
~
§
(1
t
~
Crosswalk to
ICenmont Shoppln\
. move back
Center
~
(j)
~
Staff recommends
"-l\'....
',.#~.
additional sidewalk
~~
­
Amoco/BP
gas_§_!~tion
~o
be removed
~..
"S:.\
. \1
-I~-I~.---
.
RANDOLPH ROAD
------,
I
.IUIUIH1UIJ}'IHltUfUfHtlfUI
To
underpass~_
::tdf_
::#-
--~,
~
From underpass
_========
L,
--.;"'-..,,;;-.==-'=-,....,.,~----=---=-.
Crosswalk
IO~
move
bac k
'>
<
7S>c:: .:
_
!'-,.
~
'"\
~
@f
0
t:-'
Y\
.
'i:l. -:
~
tf~
§i.
§
a
~
,
c!/Y
b
#
§f::
~~
Staff recommends
additional sidewalk
S
.s>
Fire station to be
relocated
0/
Attachment 2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
I
I
/ I
I
/
~~
/ ;-/f..,-1:1
. ,-­
I
I
f
/ J-'1I::
I
I
I
I
I
Limited to
right-in/right-out
only
Iq
""1-01.
Q
'Ig
Y
//
fq
I
g
q
IN
f3
HI
!!?o
o
~QI
£t
HI
:i!:
H I '
o
HI /
I
utr'~
1If-/~
1/1
It'
II
~
H
J
,$a
j/
~\iil
€~
I
/
/
/
·.:".u~
~l:3
rOb
'
wr-
i5~
.....­
l'do
a::v
/
\1119P, R
I!!..;/
"'>;~
...
b_;_~,='==---ii!I"---l'rorr'-GeOr<;lia
Avenue -
__
_-r---~-'
u
. .
-=--- .
r
~~~Ul'J$"~----.
-I
~
..
'"'~~!=>
Proposed medians
-r
V
,
/
"
~~/
#y' "
/
/
')/
/
"'J
/
/
, I
/;~
11"­
11/
/~
~
Ii
Limited to
right-in/right-out
only
, j
r.
/i
".
./-J.#
~
'f<
- : (1
-ill
if
r
-Ill
.ElII/
(!l
",~I
~
III
~J11
'
' '''':
JI
P
lj
?J
...
0
s
Attachment 3
:-1
©
3
:z" /
~'"
(@
i
a
a.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Randolpb Road 'at Livingston Road, Signal Warrant Analysis
SMA
Randolph Road from Judson Road to Livingston Road. A summary of the' traffic signal
warrants
is presented in Table
4. A
detailed analysis of,the
warrants
is included,
in
the
Appendix.
T
a
hIe 3
.
T
ra
m
V I
umes
~
or
leo
Igna
lW
arrantEva
I
uation,
Period
Randolph Road ­ ED and WB
Proposed
I
Existing
Livingston Road -
highest
approach
Existing
Proposed
l
"
i
7-8
am
8-9
am
9-10
am
10-11
pm
11-12
pm
12-1
pm