DOCSLIB.ORG

FY19 Approved Current Expense Budget and Budget Message

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
FY19 Approved Current Expense Budget and Budget Message Approved F Current Expense Budget I S and Budget Message C A L Y E A R 2 0 1 9 Steven R. Schuh County Executive Cover 2 Approved Current Expense Budget and Budget Message Steven R. Schuh County Executive Mark Hartzell John R. Hammond Chief Administrative Officer Budget Officer Anne Arundel County Council Michael A. Peroutka Chairperson Peter Smith Derek Fink Andrew C. Pruski Chris Trumbauer Jerry Walker John J. Grasso Cover 3 Prepared By The Office of the Budget Anne Arundel County, Maryland Assistant Budget Officers Jessica Leys Hujia Hasim Budget and Management Analysts Tomi Adebo Naomi Carrigan Kurt Svendsen Steven Theroux Administrative Support Michele Kirby Cover 4 Cover 5 Table of Contents FY2019 Approved Budget BUDGET MESSAGE County Executive’s Budget Address ........................................... i Long Term Goals .................................................................... 1 Land Use and Environment Core Group Budget Overview .................................................................... 4 Office of Planning and Zoning ................................... 190 Financial Policies .................................................................... 20 Department of Inspections and Permits ..................... 197 Financial Summaries .............................................................. 22 Department of Public Works ..................................... 208 Position Summary .................................................................. 32 Human Services Core Group Operating Budget Highlights ................................................... 35 Department of Aging ............................................... 228 Capital Budget Highlights ........................................................ 36 Department of Recreation and Parks ......................... 239 Health Department .................................................. 250 CURRENT EXPENSE BUDGET Department of Social Services .................................. 261 Revenue Section Public Safety Core Group Revenue Summary – General Fund .................................... 38 Police Department ................................................... 268 Revenue Summary – Other Funds ..................................... 56 Fire Department ...................................................... 278 Revenue Detail – General Fund ......................................... 63 Department of Detention Facilities ............................ 285 Revenue Detail – Other Funds ........................................... 73 Office of Emergency Management ............................. 294 Expenditure Section State Agencies (County funded but not assigned to Executive Branch) Legislative Branch Circuit Court .................................................................. 300 County Council (County Auditor & Board of Appeals) ........... 83 Orphans’ Court .............................................................. 303 Executive Branch Office of the State’s Attorney .......................................... 306 County Executive ......................................................... ….90 Office of the Sheriff ....................................................... 310 Office of Law .................................................................. .97 Board of License Commissioners ..................................... 317 Office of Administrative Hearings ................................. ….103 Board of Supervisors of Elections .................................... 320 Administrative Core Group Cooperative Extension Service ........................................ 323 Chief Administrative Officer ....................................... 106 Other Office of Central Services .......................................... 116 Ethics Commission ......................................................... 325 Office of Finance ...................................................... 131 Partnership for Children, Youth & Families ....................... 328 Office of Finance (Non-Departmental) ........................ 138 Office of Budget ....................................................... 156 Glossary ................................................................................. 330 Office of Personnel ................................................... 162 Office of Information Technology .............................. 169 APPENDIX Office of Transportation ............................................ 175 Annual Report, Water and Wastewater Operating Fund .......... 333 State Agencies (treated as part of Executive Branch for Listing of Long Term Contracts ............................................. 334 funding and service coordination) Grants Listing ...................................................................... 342 Board of Education ................................................... 181 5 Year Forecast (Revenue & Expenditure) ............................. 390 Community College .................................................. 185 Capital Budget & Program .................................................... 391 Public Libraries ........................................................ 187 ABAO and Amendments ....................................................... 446 Cover 6 Budget Message FY2019 Approved Budget But like any good business plan, this one has reached the end of its useful life and will be retired at the end of this calendar year. You will be relieved to know that this is the last time I will discuss our five point plan with you…but rest assured I will have a new plan for my second term if the voters choose to send us back. That being said, let’s talk about the near future. Our proposed budget includes a property tax cut, substantial pay and staffing increases for educators, improvements in school security and police compensation, and record levels of road maintenance. HISTORY I celebrated my 50th year in Anne Arundel County just a few months ago. Fiscal Year 2019 Budget Message Remarks as prepared for delivery When I was growing up, Anne Arundel County was still a rural backwater with a small May 1, 2018 population, a small economy, and very little going on of Statewide or National importance other INTRODUCTION than our wonderful Naval Academy and historic State House. Good morning. Before I begin my presentation, I would like to acknowledge some the dignitaries All that has now changed. here today. Anne Arundel County now has a 42 billion dollar economy and a population that will soon I also want to acknowledge a man who has given two and half decades to this County as our surpass that of the City of Baltimore. Budget Officer. John Hammond has served County Executives of both parties, with dedication, and always with a sense of humor. The budget I am about to present to you is his last, and I Our median household income of $92,000 is now the fourth highest in the Maryland, up from would ask everyone here to join me in giving John a round of applause. We will miss Santa fifth in 2014, and now ranks 23rd out of 3,000 counties in the United States, up from 26th in Claus and his fire engine! 2014. And there is now a lot going on of Statewide and National importance: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, members of the Council, thank you for giving me this Fort George G. Meade has emerged as the third-largest Army base in the United States. opportunity to present our 2019 budget proposal and to update you on the current condition of The National Security Agency has assumed a position of immense importance to Anne Arundel County. America's national security. We are home to one of the largest gaming floors in the United States at Live! Casino and This is my fourth budget address and the final budget message of our first term. Now seems an Hotel. appropriate time to reflect on what we have accomplished together, and what priorities are The City of Annapolis has awoken from 150 years of slumber to become one of the most included in our Fiscal Year 2019 budget proposal. popular tourist destinations on the East Coast. As you know our Administration has been guided by our five-point plan designed to help our Anne Arundel Community College is now regarded as one of the finest institutions of its County become the best place to live, work and start a business in the State of Maryland. That kind in the United States. plan has served us well and, as you will hear in a moment, has largely been accomplished. And the small, municipal airport that I knew as Friendship has been transformed into BWI Thurgood Marshall International Airport, Maryland's only international airport. We have brought 67 million dollars in tax and fee relief to our citizens and businesses. We now have, not one, not two, but three new high schools in development. We have broken ground on critical public safety infrastructure projects. We made County government more efficient and customer friendly. And we are in the midst of the largest waterway clean-up effort in County history. 1 2 M 1 Budget Message FY2019 Approved Budget VISION We committed to the citizens of Anne Arundel County that we would address head on the problem of overly large schools in the County, especially our high schools, which continue to Obviously, Anne Arundel County has incredible positive momentum. I have believed for some have the highest average enrollment per school of any jurisdiction in the entire State and among time that, with the right combination of policies and programs, our County could become the the highest in the Nation. policy and economic leader of the State of Maryland.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • IN the COURT of APPEALS of MARYLAND No
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 94 September Term, 2005 _________________________________________ SDC 214, LLC v. LONDON TOWNE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., et al. __________________________________________ Bell, C.J. Raker Wilner Cathell Battaglia Greene Eldridge, John C. (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ. __________________________________________ Opinion by Eldridge, J. _________________________________________ Filed: November 9, 2006 This case concerns the interpretation of a restrictive covenant which states that a six-acre parcel of land in Anne Arundel County “shall be undeveloped, except for educational facilities in conjunction with the Anne Arundel County Board of Education.” The disputed issue is whether the quoted language means that the Board of Education was required to have been involved in the planning, design or construction of the educational facilities, or, on the other hand, whether the Board’s involvement in the use of the educational facilities is sufficient to permit such facilities under the covenant. I. The parcel of land which is the subject of this dispute is approximately six acres, located in the south east quadrant of the intersection of Maryland Route 2 and Maryland Route 214 in the Edgewater area of Anne Arundel County. The parcel had been part of a 1390-acre tract of land which a developer, Rose of Annapolis Limited Partnership, intended to develop “as a mixed-use community known as South River Colony.” In 1988, the developer Rose of Annapolis entered into a “Development Agreement and Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions” with each of several community associations representing “citizens who reside in the general vicinity of the Property.” The respondent London Towne Property Owners Association, Inc., was one of these associations entering a Development Agreement and Declaration -2- of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions with the developer.
    [Show full text]
  • Request for Proposal
    Town of Capitol Heights 1 Capitol Heights Boulevard Capitol Heights, Maryland 20743 May 7, 2021 Mayor and Town Council: Rhonda A. Akers, Council Member Caroline Brown, Council Member Renita A. Cason, Mayor Pro Tem Latonya G. Chew, Council Member Faith T. Ford, Council Member Elaine Williams, Council Member REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL TOWN OF CAPITOL HEIGHTS LOBBYING SERVICES The Town of Capitol Heights, Maryland is requesting proposals for conducting Lobbying Services on behalf of the Town of Capitol Heights. The Town seeks responses from individuals/firms with a proven track record in advocacy/lobbying with the State of Maryland to assist in developing and successfully pursuing the Town’s legislative priorities. The Town of Capitol Heights requires a well-managed and financially sound Consultant with demonstrated skills and technical ability, high levels of customer service, responsiveness, and satisfaction, to fulfill the requirements outlined in this RFP. The primary focus of the Consultant is to assist the Town with improving its efforts to influence legislation, capture revenues available to local government and assist the Town in identifying, applying for and receiving competitive grants, earmarks, and other discretionary funding available to meet municipal objectives. The Town of Capitol Heights also seeks to be apprised of proposed legislative action that could be perceived as a threat to its municipal services or authority. Legislatives threats would be promptly reported to the Town with a recommendation for action. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY Capitol Heights is a Town in Prince George's County, Maryland, United States, located on the border of both the Northeast & Southeast quadrants of the District of Columbia.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court for the District of Maryland
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND TERRI ENDICOTT, * Plaintiff, * Civ. Action No. RDB-18-3824 v. * VIDEO PIPE SERVICES, INC, * Defendant. * * * * * * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Terri Endicott (“Plaintiff” or “Endicott”), pursues this action against Defendant Video Pipe Services, Inc., (“Defendant” or “Video Pipe”).1 Endicott was struck by a pick-up truck owned by Video Pipe and operated by a Video Pipe employee and asserts a single count of motor vehicle negligence against Video Pipe under vicarious liability principles. (Compl. ¶¶ 5-6, ECF No. 1-2.) Video Pipe filed a Third-Party Complaint against employees, Robert O. Smith, II and David Clark Smith (“Third Party Defendants”), alleging that the employees negligently used the company vehicle in an unauthorized manner. (ECF No. 16.) Presently pending is Defendant Video Pipe Services, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 50.) The parties’ submissions have been reviewed and no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2018). For the reasons that follow, Defendant Video Pipe Services, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 50) is GRANTED. 1 In its corporate disclosure statement, Defendant notes that its name has changed to Mobile Dredging & Video Pipe, Inc by virtue of merger. (ECF No. 2.) BACKGROUND In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, this Court reviews the facts and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007). On January 13, 2016, plaintiff was struck from behind by a truck owned by Video Pipe and operated by third-party defendant, Robert Smith.
    [Show full text]
  • AA-144 Summer Hill
    AA-144 Summer Hill Architectural Survey File This is the architectural survey file for this MIHP record. The survey file is organized reverse- chronological (that is, with the latest material on top). It contains all MIHP inventory forms, National Register nomination forms, determinations of eligibility (DOE) forms, and accompanying documentation such as photographs and maps. Users should be aware that additional undigitized material about this property may be found in on-site architectural reports, copies of HABS/HAER or other documentation, drawings, and the “vertical files” at the MHT Library in Crownsville. The vertical files may include newspaper clippings, field notes, draft versions of forms and architectural reports, photographs, maps, and drawings. Researchers who need a thorough understanding of this property should plan to visit the MHT Library as part of their research project; look at the MHT web site (mht.maryland.gov) for details about how to make an appointment. All material is property of the Maryland Historical Trust. Last Updated: 06-11-2004 e<>. o1c.t4 l'{O ti Form 10-300 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STATE· (Rev. 6-72) NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COUNTY· NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES INVENTORY - NOMINATION FORM FOR NPS USE ONLY ENTRY DATE (Type al 1 entries complete applicable sections) COMMON' 1--~-;i.!Jmn~r-1lill _____________________________________________________________ _ AND/OR HISTORIC' f2. ~OCATIO_N_~--~-------------------~-------~ J STREE-T AND NUMBER: I S011th si d; Maryl~rnd ~- ~ - ,.,, A CITY OR TOWN: CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 7;/.1 m;1,, e--,._ -J:: n~,·"' • 1 1 - F 011-rt-h STATE t CODE COUNTY: f CQL)t M~rvl <>n.-1 I ")A _, __ 1 I nnc: j3.
    [Show full text]
  • Before the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
    BEFORE THE WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. ORDER NO. 367 IN THE MATTER OF: Served June 17, 1964 Applications for Certificates ) of Public Convenience and ) Necessity by: ) ) • D. C. Transit System, Inc. ) Application No. 64 Washington, D. C. ) ) Alexandria, Barcroft and Washington ) Application No. 43 Transit Company ) Alexandria, Virginia ) ) Washington, Virginia and Maryland ) Application No. 60 Coach Company, Inc. ) Arlington, Virginia ) ) W M A Transit Company ) Application No. 23 Bradbury Heights, Maryland ) ) The Gray Line, Inc. ) Application No. 65 Washington, D. C. ) APPEARANCES: As shown in the Conference Report attached hereto and made a part hereof. Applications for certificates of public convenience and neces- sity authorizing continuance of operations being conducted on the ef- fective date of the Compact and on the effective date of the Compact as amended, pursuant to Section 4(a), Article XII, Title II, of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Regulation Compact (grandfather clause) were timely filed by D. C. Transit System, Inc.; Alexandria, Barcroft and Washington Transit Company; Washington, Virginia and Maryland Coach Company, Inc.; W M A Transit Company; and The Gray Line, Inc. Public notice of these applications was duly given and every interested party was afforded every opportunity to present its views to the Commission in the disposition of these applications. Under the Compact, no formal hearings are required in disposing of these applications. However, as noted in the attached Conference Report, numerous informal discussions and conferences were held between the Staff of the Commission and all parties of record con- cerning the issues involved. The only issues involved were whether or not the applications were timely filed and whether or not the applicants were bona fide engaged in transportation subject to this Act for which authority was sought.
    [Show full text]
  • A Market Feasibility Study Of: Addison Apartments
    A MARKET FEASIBILITY STUDY OF: ADDISON APARTMENTS A MARKET FEASIBILITY STUDY OF: ADDISON APARTMENTS 6500 Central Avenue Seat Pleasant, Prince George’s County, Maryland 20743 Effective Date: May 14, 2018 Report Date: June 13, 2018 Prepared for: Cary Weinstein Gershman Mortgage 3773 Cherry Creek Drive, Suite 110 Denver, CO 80209 Prepared by: Novogradac & Company LLP 6700 Antioch Road, Suite 450 Merriam, KS 66204 (913) 677-4600 June 13, 2018 Cary Weinstein Gershman Mortgage 3773 Cherry Creek Drive, Suite 110 Denver, CO 80209 Re: Market Study for Addison Apartments located at 6500 Central Avenue in Seat Pleasant, Maryland Dear Mr. Weinstein: At your request, Novogradac & Company LLP has performed a study of the multifamily rental market in the Seat Pleasant, Prince George’s County, Maryland area relative to the above-referenced proposed new construction mixed-income low income housing tax credit (LIHTC)/market rate property. The purpose of this market study is to assess the viability of Addison Apartments (the “Subject”), a proposed new construction 88-unit LIHTC/market rate multifamily development with 28,300 square feet of ground floor commercial space. The following report provides support for the findings of the study and outlines the sources of information and the methodologies used to arrive at these conclusions. The scope of this report meets the requirements of the HUD MAP program, per the HUD MAP guide dated January 2016, including the following: ñ Analyzing appropriateness of the unit mix, rental levels, available amenities, and site. ñ Estimating market rent, absorption and stabilized occupancy level for the market area. ñ Investigating the health and conditions of the multifamily market.
    [Show full text]
  • AGENDA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JUNE 6, 2016 COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 8 P.M
    AGENDA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JUNE 6, 2016 COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 8 p.m. I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. QUORUM IV. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS/AMENDMENTS V. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION VI. PRESENTATIONS A. Local Government Insurance Trust Body Camera Grant VII. CITY BOARDS AND COMMITTEES VIII. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS IX. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT X. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of May 16 Meeting Minutes Documents: 20160606 - MAY 16 MEETING MINUTES.PDF B. Approval of Proclamation P-13-16 Recognizing David J. Deutsch for his Years of Service to the City Documents: 20160606 - PROCLAMATION P-13-16.PDF C. Approval of Resolution R-18-16 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Annexation Agreement With Karington, LLC Establishing the Terms and Conditions Governing the Proposed Annexation of Approximately 381.5297 Acres of Land, Located on the South Side of Maryland Route 214 and West Side of US Route 301 Into the Corporate Limits of the City of Bowie Documents: 20160606 - RESOLUTION R-18-16.PDF D. Approval of Resolution R-24-16 Approving Variance Application BV-2-16, a Request by Mr. Solomon Jackson to Allow the Construction of Approximately 45 Linear Feet of Six-Foot High Fencing Along MD 197 When, According to the Prince George's County Zoning Ordinance, Such Fencing Shall Not Be More Than Four (4) Feet High, at 12012 Maycheck Lane Documents: 20160606 - RESOLUTION R-24-16.PDF E. Approval of Resolution R-25-16 Bt Two-Thirds Vote Authorizing the Waiving of Bidding Requirements to Allow for the Purchase of an International Diesel Dump Truck by Piggybacking a Baltimore County Bid Documents: 20160606 - RESOLUTION R-25-16.PDF F.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Environmental Impact Statement: Bicentennial
    I FILE COPY FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT BICENTENNIAL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON PROJECT IT-06-0143 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION JANUARY 1976 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT BICENTENNIAL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON PROJECT IT-06-0143 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION JANUARY 1976 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT BICENTENNIAL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM WASHINGTON, D.C. PROJECT: IT-06-014 3 This transportation improvement is proposed for funding title 49, U.S.C. 1601. ET. SEQ. This statement is submitted pursuant to section 102 (2) c of NEPA of 1969 (PL 91-190); Section 14 of UMTA Act of 1964 as amended? and Section 4(f) of DOT Act of 1966. PREPARED BY: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Urban Mass Transportation Administration January, 1976 . FO.REWARD The Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) includes the original Draft Environmental Impact Statement (October 197 5) plus Chapter 7 and attachments v/hich are included as part of this docu- ment. This document addresses all substantive comments made by various agencies and interested organizations on the Draft EIS on the Bicentennial Transportation Program in the National Capital Area. It also includes answers to the comments made during the public hearing on November 5, 197 5, conducted by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) and its consultant. The Draft Environmental Statement represented a documentation of the environmental impacts of the Bicentennial Transportation program proposed for Washington, D.C. and the metropolitan area. The draft statement was the result of an impact assessment conducted by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) and its consultant.
    [Show full text]
  • Pgpost Template
    The Pri nce Ge orge’s Pos t OMMUNITY EWSPAPER FOR RINCE EORGE S OUNTY SINCE A C N P G ’ C 1932 Vol. 86, No. 45 November 8 — November 14, 2018 Prince George’s County, Maryland Newspaper of Record Phone: 301-627-0900 25 cents “We are pleased by the state’s HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH significant support of our effort Board Approves $6 Million for to rebuild an improved ice cen - A6 ter facility,” Prince George’s See page for Veteran’s Day county Department of Parks Fort Washington ice Center and recreation acting Division Events Around the County Program Open Space Funding Used to Rebuild Facility chief of the of the Park Planning and Development Division HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH By Press officer of recreation facilities, and open room, dance studio, skate rental alvin Mcneal said. “this fund - MD Dept of Natural Resources space areas. the program has space, snack bar and other ing is an affirmation of the im - been managed by the Maryland amenities, like locker rooms and portance of a facility, of this cal - local Chapter of omega Psi Phi annaPolis , MD (october Department of natural re - family-friendly changing areas. iber, for the community.” Fraternity to Recognize 31, 2018)—the Board of Public sources since 1969. the tucker road ice skating More than 6,000 conserva - Works unanimously approved a “We are very proud of our center, home to the tucker tion and recreation projects Community leaders, Students in Maryland Department of natu - partnership with Prince road Ducks, is the only ice rink throughout the state have been ral resources item that provides George’s county and our work in the southern portion of Prince assisted by Program open space “Achievement Week” Program $6 million to Prince George’s to promote recreation and George’s county.
    [Show full text]
  • Company to Add, Change, And/Or 326,327, 328
    BEFORE THE WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. ORDER NO. 516 IN THE MATTER OF : Served August 6, 1965 Applications of WMA Transit ) Applications Nos. 311, 312, 313 Company to Add, Change , and/or 326, 327, 328, 337 'Q", ""A's "F" Extend Routes and ) "T", in Prince Georges County, Docket No. 81 Maryland, and Washington, D.. C. APPEARANCE: STANLEY H. KAtEROW . Attorney for WMA Transit Company. WMA Transit Company filed applications to change, add, and/or extend the following routes: Application No. 311 - Add Route "Q" between Carrollton and Beltway Plaza as follows: From the intersection of Quentin Street and Lamont Drive , over Quentin Street , Lamont Street, Lamont Drive , Riverdale Road , Maryland Route 450, Maryland Route 564 , Telegraph Road, Cipriano Road , Glenn Dale Road, Greenbelt Road, Beltway Plaza service road to bus stand at Klein's Department Store , and return over the same route. App lication No. 312 - Extend Route "F" to Glenn Dale Sanitarium as fo -Lows : From the intersection of Volta Street and Varnum Street , over Varnum Street , Whitfield- Chapel Road, Maryland Route 704, Maryland Route 450, and Glenn Dale Road to Glenn Dale Sanitarium and return over the same route. as follows: From Prince Georges Hospital over Hospital Drive, Baltimore Washington Parkway, Mary- land Route 450 and Capital Plaza Service to bus stand at Montgomery Ward and Road 71 return over the same route. Application No. 326 - Extend Route "T" to Maryland Route 3 as follows: From Belair Shopping Center over Maryland Route 450 to Maryland Route 3 and return over the same route.
    [Show full text]
  • Maryland.Gov MARYLAND
    www.dnr.maryland.gov MARYLAND FISHING 2016 GUIDE WHAT’S NEW for 2016 See page 6 Also inside... • License Information • Seasons, Sizes & Limits • Fish Identification • Public Lakes & Ponds • Blue Crabs • Oysters & Clams NONTIDAL | TIDAL | CHESAPEAKE BAY | COASTAL BAYS | ATLANTIC OCEAN Take Us With You On the Water UNLIMITED TOWING just $158 THOUSANDS OF TOWS AND YEARS OF EXPERIENCE work in your favor—we’ve been there, done that, and seen it all! Our captains are licensed and trustworthy. With over 600 boats in 300 ports nationwide, we’re only a quick call away to assist you on the water when you need it most. Get Unlimited Towing for $158 and just show your BoatU.S. Membership card for payment on the water. Download the NEW & IMPROVED Call or go online now to join! BoatU.S. App! 1-800-888-4869 BoatUS.com/towing Unlimited towing details and exclusions can be found online at BoatUS.com/towing or by calling. FishingRegs MD_8.25x10.75.indd 1 11/4/15 10:38 AM www.dnr.maryland.gov 38 40 page 24 44 CONTENTS 45 What’s New For 2016����������������������������� 6 Put-and-Take Striped Bass����������������������������������� 38–39 Trout Fishing Areas������������������������22–23 DNR Addresses Sport Fish State Records Rules & Phone Numbers���������������������������������� 8 Special Management Areas & Procedures�����������������������������������������39 Trout������������������������������������������24–25 Natural Resource Police Blue Crabs���������������������������������������40–41 Information���������������������������������������������� 8 AllSpecies��������������������������������������26
    [Show full text]
  • Division of Archeology 10 January 19SO Mr. Eugene T. Caziponeschl Chief, Bureau of Project Planning State Highway Administration
    Division of Archeology 10 January 19SO Mr. Eugene T. Caziponeschl Chief, Bureau of Project Planning State Highway Administration P. 0. Box 717 300 West Preston Street Baltimore, Maryland 21203 Re: Maryland Route 214 (Central Avenue), from Capital Beltway to Hall, Prince George's County P732-O15-O18-371 Dear Mr. Camponeschi: In reply to the review of the above report by the State Historic Preservation Office, dated 18 October 1979, we would like to offer the following comments: We concur with the methodological goals of the SHPO office, especially regarding the need for explicit reporting of survey techniques. Figures 5 and 6 are identical in aeral coverage to Figures 2 and 3, which clearly show the intensive survey areas. Separate maps were provided to increase map legibility. We understand the ueed for delineation of in- tensively surveyed areas for compilation of "write-off" zones for future projects. However, intensive survey provides much the same end result as identifying an area which has been re-contoured and paved for a parking lot; both situations can be considered "write-off" areas. If the SHPO requires separate syinbols for urban development and intensive survey, these can be provided on future reports. Artifact photos in this instance would provide only Halted additional data. The three pro- jectile points are of fairly standard types and the pottery is umlecorated. A Phase II report will presumably include re-analysis and illustration of previously recovered artifacts. Future Phase I reports will include artifact illustrations as appropriate. The type n»mes of projectile points and pottery are given in the text on pages (MJ.
    [Show full text]