This meeting is being recorded. Good morning. This is the Council's fifth fiscal year 2026 budget work session in which we will discuss proposed amendments to the fiscal year 2026 executive proposed capital and operating budget. The proceeding this morning is a hybrid meeting which is being conducted in person and via WebEx teleconference. The public may view through live stream available through the county council website. At this time I will do a roll call of our council members, Dr. Jones. Good morning, everyone. Good morning, Miss Young. Here, Mr. Rigby. Here, and Mr. Youngman. Here. We'll now proceed with our agenda, capital and operating budget finalization. I think refers to the fact that we have one more work session scheduled for Monday. If you, for whatever reason, feel that something is still pending, that we need to schedule for them, let our administrators know, please, maybe by the end of today. this point in time. I'm not aware of that need Pending issues capital and or operating I Know at least as far as I'm concerned that that involves C0337 safe and. Could I ask Isaiah to pull up? Do you have access to the attachments that we got? What, whatever this Sunday, Sunday force? Funding source document. That shows how the respective grants and loans and pay go and general fund bonds are being used for each of the respective safe I'm going to put a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to go to the bathroom. Is that what you heard? Is that is that? during my I think it's attachment C that they're looking for. further down where it talks about the revenue. Yeah, this is one of the other ones that we have to I'm sorry. Sorry about that. I'm sorry. It's in the portal. Yeah, it's in portal. So this is the one you're looking for. This is one of them. It actually have each of the sub components like T1 for example, and C3 and for the North Tunnel, how much is the total span, but under it also said how much is total grants awarded and how much is the loan awarded so far. There's attachment to it has actually the components of the grants. So like there are three different grants that make up for whatever the dollar show up. there's two attachments but to answer that question. Okay there was a recent Baltimore sudden article that talked about FEMA funding. Do you know what I'm talking about? Is there any FEMA funding that's being used to pay for safe and sound projects. FEMALE? I. Well, is the mic Mark Richmond online? I think it's either no, it's probably very limited. It's primarily rely on, we feel alone. That was the biggest of chunk. There are some federal alone. There's a password thing we're voting alone there, but Mark might be able to speak on the operating. You want to help? Yeah, Mark. Hi, this is Mark. The only federal funds that we're getting for safe and sound are the $75 million WIFI alone, which is already we're already drawing that down. And the other is an $850,000 federal discretionary grant that we're currently working through the application paper work for. There's, and we have actually we also have Maryland resilience loans $5 million for four of the projects. Two of them have been closed on the loans closed this week and the other two are being held up due to the federal funding. The two that are held up are NC 3 and T1. All right, I'm glad you're here, Mr. Scepter, because the article says in April, Brian Shepter, W. Chief of Staff for the Howard County government said it was uncertain whether $20 million in funding from FEMA would be released at some point in the future. Yeah, I'm happy to clarify that. So at the time, we were under the impression that the money's at the $4, $5 million low interest loans were all FEMA funded. I turned out that two of them were entirely state-funded, which are the ones that mark just reverence were closed this week. There are two outstanding that are subject to FEMA approval, and they are still pending review by FEMA under the new administration's guidance. So those again are for NC3 and T1. Okay, so then it says Maryland Department of Emergency Management was able to help close two low interest loans of 5 million each for North Tunnel and Maryland Avenue culverts. That's correct. Loans for NC3 and T1 Ponds are pending FEMA review. That is correct. According to SAFA. OK. You took down the term. Can you go through one more time, Dr. Sun, the $10 million in in state grants that Senator Hester and Courtney Watson secured for this project in this last fiscal year. Where are they reflected? So the that was not reflected in the budget man. That amendment that was just prefiled is because prior year, there's appropriation for $10 million a federal grant. Unfortunately, that one was rejected. So that already was not successful. But we do have a prior appropriation of that $10 million nova grant grantee, if you remember, so that was actually authoritatively, are going to be used to accommodate receiving and spending the new state appropriation, which we really appreciate that be able to get the $10 million. So it's already included in the appropriation, basically. But you're not. I'm looking at you. How are we? How are we? No. put it in the appropriation basically. But no, law, I'm looking at you. How are we, no, this is this fiscal year budget. This fiscal year budget should receive grants that we receive in this fiscal year. Should it not, we can't not account for them in this fiscal year because something we put in last fiscal years didn't materialize. That, that's not how it works, is it? No, like a CIP, because it's a continuation. So prior appropriation, if it's not spend grant, then that can still be used to receive new grants on that there. That's just the general accounting, accounting rules allowed to do that. And that's a typical way. Capital project appropriations do not lapse at the end of a fiscal year. So if there's appropriation to receive monies in the project that aren't in Combertor spent, then they're available to receive revenue. I understand that, but this exercise is for the purpose of approving appropriations, receive this year and dedicated to certain projects in the capital budget. And this year's fiscal year 2026 does not reflect the $10 million secured for us by our state delegate and senator for this fiscal year. Did they not secure money for us last year as well? I think if the, so in terms of appropriation as Mr. Cook just said, because last year there's already appropriation authority for receiving different grants, federal grant there. That's not a materialized. So that authority of receiving and spending is already sufficient. So no need to add additional spending authority. If the concern is about public communication, I guess we can add in a remark saying, clarify that on the project page, if that can make public understand that we did get new funding, but use a prior probation committee. That's probably just, I guess that's the concern, right? That's probably the best. Yes, dark story. We can do it that way. So the narratives to clarify on that. Okay. Yeah, that could be worked out. Okay, that would be helpful. I mean, what we're trying to do is track what monies are being used for what projects. And if you're not even accounting in a given year's budget book for the actual monies that you've either received or reasonably expect to receive, I mean, what stops you from putting $230 million in grants this year, whether you have them or not, and then chasing them down over the next 10 fiscal years and saying, I don't have to amend C0337 because we got a little bit more money and that was reflected in fiscal year 24. So yes, because originally tried to get a proportion as close as possible. Otherwise you would look at the budget as if you already have a huge appropriation but actually the fund is really not available. That will be misinterpretation about how much truly available. be spent. That's why since that we do have spending authority was not able to get implement materialized because unfortunately federal government rejected that. The grant has happened to be $10 million that can be used for this purpose. But we will be happy to add the narratives in the project pages to clarify on what's happening here. All right, I have asked repeatedly for that. I just pulled up fiscal year 2025, Elecate City improvements and enhancements and it shows almost $45 million in expenditures, attributed to almost $29 million in grants. So what of those $29 million grants did we get or not get last year? I think there's a separate question. I think it's also submitted on that. But I don't know whether Mark Richmond, you have a handy that you want to go over that. That's right. I don't have it on my fingertips right this minute. Yeah. You guys know this is a budget hearing, right? Yeah, now this is a budget hearing on an item that is getting close to half a billion dollars. And this is the first year that we've seen any actual attribution by project for costs and apparently last night we received that. I'm not sure when. I was here until 530 and I didn't see it. And some other piece of information that may or may not describe what we've been asking for, which is for each of those projects not not just what we expected to cost today with our best good faith estimate. But what we have used already in terms of funding and what we expect to use in funding to complete those projects that we at least now claim that we have enough money to complete. Right? So is that the chart that shows this, Dr. Sun? Yeah. It has, it shows all the, Okay, so can you show me the $10 million that we got last year from our state representatives? That grant. There's a separate worksheet if you don't mind. There's another, or something. No, no, no, this isn't the. Yeah. What is this project? What is this? I don't understand what this spreadsheet is showing if. This one was showing for each of the project components, like for example, the T1 or a Maryland Avenue, how much was the total year to play spending? And how much we have being spent in total grants and how much have been spent total loans. There's a separate worksheet shows the detail, like if there's a 7 million loans, what is the components of different loans? Or if there's a 10 million grants, what's the details of that grants and which year we get awarded that grants? All right, we're going to keep looking for. Mr. Anderson, I think it's one more of its attachment. Attachment two of that same portal question. 11349. It has a breakdown for every single component of that project so far, all the different grants awarded in individual years for that component on that. Okay, so this is what I'm going to do next is I'm going to add up everything that's been reflected in the budget books and compare that to what's in this chart. I didn't do that yet. Those numbers should match, right? But actually the year of the budget, the funding award not necessary in the same year of appropriation, that's why there was the confusion. I'm not confused. Okay. Do you understand my question, Dr. Sun? I'm going to go back and add up all of these appropriations and the sum total should equal the sum total that's reflected. Is this the chart you're talking about? No, but this one is related. This one is related. But this one, it's tricky because this is about last year there's a question doing to propose the budget, it's not even adopted a budget, asking for the change of out years of projection from prior projection for out years, the difference, what that make up for the difference. So a lot of this is really placeholder for future years to come for the changes there, why there are new assumptions there, some are place holder like certain grants that people just say, okay, we hope we'll get that on put it there. So that's explanation on that there. And under that, there are some update like clarification about like 26, what is the details of the numbers? The other one I think you were talking about, so this is- Wait, before we leave this, over what time frame does this apply to? Forever and ever? So next like six years, because the original question was asked the future years outlook in last year's six year budget in proposed budget is different from prior years multi-year projection. What are the difference of of those increase of the funding? So here's trying to explain, like we are expecting this, and we were hoping to get that, and that's the explanation of all those difference, like the changes there. And some actress stop even same as the final approval, but because we were asked the comment, what is the status updated for those original questions. That's why it's a little complicit because it's talked about change to original and explain the change from last year's proposed budget from prior year. And it's not for one year, it's like all the next several years. And these are the explanations. All right. Can we please for the love of all that is holy, find the chart that Dr. Sun is talking about, and put it up on the screen. Ms. Harris seems to think it's like proceeding this or something. It's an answer to a certain, no, I just wanted up there so she can walk us through what it is. No, these'm looking for that chart for you to explain to us, Dr. Sen. I'm sorry. I hate to put Mark there, but their project manager probably know more. Do you have the chart of the details of the grants for every single year, the one like any of the second attachment? I just asked. Okay. Could I use your question? Miss Dr. Sun, which question again is it that it was responding to? I couldn't put it on the the screen for some reason that doesn't allow me to do that. Where is it? It's it's one one three four nine attachment to okay. All right. Well, I'm sorry. This came in and it's apparently all of us who don't have this well, it came in at the same time as another 80 emails about the school budget. So it's kind of hard to, we keep missing the important stuff we need. Cuz I didn't see this. Well, and I didn't either and my concern is- I'm looking. But- I'm sorry, go ahead. Chair Walsh, we're looking at the portal and the document that Mr. Anderson is displaying. That is one of the attachments. And then the other attachment was attachment B. I think the one under that that he displayed. Those two, that one and the one above it, the two attachments that are attached to the question. Dr. Sun, is there some other chart that we're somehow missing? Yeah, no, there's an attachment to there. Let me, I think I find it. I can put it on the screen. Oh, no, I guess I cannot put it on the screen, right? There was another piece of information that was requested by the council, which was some modeling analysis of what happens if certain remaining projects that don't seem to be fully funded yet do not actually obtain. Could someone advise on the status of that request? Are you talking about the impact on the project? If some funding is not materialized? Yeah, the modeling question. The modeling question. Yeah, we got to reply that said the engineers wouldn't be, wouldn't have until next week. Right. They're doing, the consultants are working on the modeling autonomous scenarios that expected, hopefully early next week, but this week they're not going to finish that model. Okay. We vote on this budget on the 21st. My understanding is they're hoping to get it early next week. That's what the team have been pushing consultants to generate. Okay. The plan is to have that in the portal by close of business Monday. Okay, thank you, Mark. All right, I'm not going to be labor this. None of us have looked at it. The good news is we finally have something apparently that purports to be what we have asked for every budget year since this project has begun. The bad news is it was given to us four business days before we vote on a budget. And 12 hours before we actually discussed it in public. Budget should not be a game, a mystery, or a riddle. I know this council has one more year of this. I certainly never want to do it again in my whole life. Are there any other matters that council members wish to reach concerning pending issues capital and or operating? Before we leave this, we do not seem to have this chart that you're talking about, Dr. Sun. I see our fiscal now raising their hands in, in nobody in this room other than you, Dr. Sun, seems to think that we have this. It was provided. This is from the portal. Sorry. But that's the, that's the one that you're saying is not the, we still don't have the chart, Dr. Sun's describing. There's attachment too. This is one attachment. There's another attachment there. Yeah. I'm not going to say that. I'm not going to say that. I'm not going to say that. I'm not going to say that. I'm not going to say that. I'm not going to say that. I'm not going to say that. I'm not going to say that. I'm not going to say that. I'm not going to say that. I'm not going to say that. I'm not going to say at 100% sure. Yeah, thank you. We are moving on to financial discussion, which includes debt services, pay-go funds, non-department funds, and expenses, contingency reserves. We have a lot of time for a presentation. And then after that, we'll get to budget amendments. Is there, Dr. Sun, do you plan on making some kind of opening statement or remark about this financial discussion? Deseroes, I don't have anything to add. This deseroes of the counties really driven by the debt payment schedule. Just as everybody knows that in the county, most of the capital projects for all the public's projects, they are primarily rely on the Geo bonds, which is a 20 year bond that the county has to pay off in the 20 years on that one. So debt is incurred and that's get reflecting any operating budget because we have to pay annual principal interest on that there. That's the biggest part and there are some other death funding supported bonds as well on that. So that that was just based on that and every year as we all know like there's a lot of needs on that. So we continue to every year, appropriate new capital project and that's going to get incorporated in those debt service numbers on that. And that's for all the projects, not just only the county agency, but also community college, a library, a school system, all the capital projects that's all captured there. But it's pretty straightforward on that there. So I don't have much to add. The only thing is just to keep in mind because the debt service, it's a long term obligation. The moment you incur that, it is really next 20 years the county government has to pay it, it's using taxpayers' money. That's why we have been very mindful about to try to keep the managed or wrong death level, other than they don't have anything to say if any question be happy to ask. Miss Young, you start us off today on questions. You do on financial discussion, which includes not only debt service but pay-go funds, non-departmental funds and expenses and contingency reserves. You want to do one by one? I think we should do it one by one. Okay. Go crazy. Okay. All right. I'm starting with debt services. Do you have questions on debt services? Yes. Okay. Just one. Where's Raffa? Hiding in the back. We see you. On the ass in the back. Thank you for joining us, Director of Finance, Raffa Euhi-Lee. I have to look at the clock to see if we're still in the morning. And we are, Yes, good morning. Good morning, Councilman. Nice to see you again. So I notice that debt service is now our third largest department by the amount of money that's in it, 145 million. And last, this past year, SAC, our FY26 SAC report recommended reducing capital investments to essential projects, which actually was something that we also did on the House Bill 1450 task force involving school spending that we limit capital investments to essential projects and using Pego towards bringing down debt service. That strategy was not pursued this year. Can you tell me why it was not pursued? I think the strategy was pursued. We are spending, I think, from the budget. There is about 70, something million dollars from pay go funding. However, we do have a lot of capital needs in the county. And there is no way we can use pay go to pay our way out. So we have to issue debt because it's low interest, and we spread it over time. So it allows the county to be able to spend money on all the other high priorities that we have. So I don't know that you would be the right person to talk about which of these projects are considered essential. I see Ms. Cabellan is back there. Maybe you would be the right person to go from the list. So I don't. Mr. Young, that you have any debt service questions? I do so We've got that service on bonds and but we also have some debt service on the working capital line, right? Yes, right so of all our bonds, and this is you can round this number to the nearest 10% or whatever, but of the bonds that we have outstanding now, how many of them or what percentage of them could we retire? Because a lot of them aren't to that date yet. Yes, but one of the analysis we do every year is that bonds fall off because we've been issuing bonds for a long time. So every once in a year, we pay it off, but we equally add new ones. So like the ones that once this project is approved, the capital project for these will start issuing bonds for, not in February, but it's going to be February 2027. What we do with that is that the first year, because once the budget is approved, summer is always construction period, they are going to take your cost. So what we do is that we have the bond at the special notes, which is a line of credit short-term facility that we will issue. So that's the first 20 reference because it's equally bond, but we only can keep that for three years. So we use that for three years, but every year, once we use some of that, we'll retire it and issue the 20-year bonds to set to lead that facility open. By our own regulation, we can keep their facility more than three years. So what's the rate on that? It depends. If you have a facility because the bank is making sure that they have the amount available for you, so it's money on demand, so you pay a little interest and then once you draw, you pay a certain interest. So that is the style to the software rate which is the can tie the interest rate on rates that are future. So that they use the software which resets everything at the business point or so and that is what we use in calculating. What software stand for? I have to get back to you. We're so used to very used to be live or the, but they've changed it because live or this saw that they were playing games with the rates because I was a London interest, Banker rates. So it's this sofa plus a point and a commitment fee for Yes, unused. And then back to the bond question, you know, of the amount of bonds that long-term bonds that we've already issued and sold, like if we said today, you know, we want to buy back bonds, or we want to pay off bonds, you know, pre- them. What percentage out there could we prepay? Do we have bonds as strong as luck? We have a 10-year window where we can do, I think, Councilmember Riggby asked a question, was it Wednesday, refunding? And that's what we do. So every 10 years, we look at our bonds. Before we used to have the ability to what we call advanced refunding, but the Fedra, the Congress, took that away. So we can only go to advanced refunding. So you have to wait for the 10 years to know because the way you structure a bond and you can do refunding. When we do, and I think our policy does state, that when we do refunding, we want to at least achieve a 3% or higher in net present value. It doesn't mean we can't refund bonds even when we don't make that rate, but we are trying to make sure that we are not doing it refund it because it's cost associated. We want to make sure we actually realize savings from issuing bonds. Yes, you can defuse the bond, but unfortunately, you have to put it in escrow when they invest by the bonds, they are hoping that they have that bond for 20 years, 30 years, for metro bonds. So, when you do pay it off, you just do pay it off and put in escrow so that the escrow cannot pay the bond holders. So you're looking, so let's say something's out the 10 years, it's at least eligible. You're looking at, and I can't think back 10 years ago, but interest rates were probably halfway decent 10 years ago. So you're looking at what am I paying on those bonds versus what am I making on those reserves and there's a hurdle that you use? Yes. Just like you would refine your house. Yes, exactly. Is it worth it? Yes. Okay. Thank you. I don't have any questions on debt service. Do you, Dr. Jones? I'm sorry. I tried to unmute and almost left the whole web experience. I apologize. No, I don't have. Then I like locked my phone. I'm so sorry. No, I don't have. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. No, I don't have. I'm there. Then I like locked my phone. I'm so sorry. No, I don't have any questions. Thank you so much. OK, thanks. I mean, first I want to commend you on reducing the long term debt that we have outstanding. Obviously, it's increasing for the community college, but that's around the workforce and trade centers. Is that correct? Okay. And then the other thing I just wanted to confirm is that our total debt service is increasing by 1.5%. Is that correct? Yes, we're correct. Yes. Thank you very much. Just one last question. I realized there was something I didn't ask. There was a discrepancy that our auditor noted in the Agricultural Land Preservation Fund Cash Flow Statement between the debt service that was presented there and the amount published in the FY2026 proposed budget book. and the administration pointed out why the discrepancy was there. So thank you for that. But the reason was that there was, let's see, that there were, that there more money had been put into the agricultural land preservation fund cash flow statement because there was a belief I guess that another property would be purchased and my question was, are there any properties in the pipeline to be purchased? All right. There you go. Don't go too far. Yes, there is a property in the pipeline now. I'll be expected to go to settlement in August of this year. I believe it's 50 some acres. I'm going to phone a friend and see if DPC is available here. Do you know how much it's anticipated to cost? Not off the top of my head, but let me get back to you with that really quickly. Okay. Okay. That's it. That's it. Art, do you want to start with Pego then please? I'm assuming no start with that. The Net OPEB liability OPEC, other post employment benefits for people who are watching and don't know what that acronym means. And that's for retirement benefits. And we pay into that account for our county employees, for our school district, for our community college. Is that right? Yes. Okay. And do all of our state employees who we pay for, of which there are many? Do they also get, oh, pepper, do they have a state pension that's separate from ours? I state it does have the all right. The state does keep, they have kept their pension benefits so far. Okay, we're not paying for that yet. No, yeah. Okay. If there's anything we need to do, as we need to cut back on that. But. But the only difference there is the schools, library and it comes to college. So those are the three major state agencies. But the only difference is the schools library and the community college. So those are the three major state agencies that participate in the county's OPEB. Yes. All right. Okay. So the OPEB liability increased from 18.6% in 2023 to 21%. And C-Biz analysis, and I assume SEBIS is the one who services that OPEB fund and doles it out and looks at it and makes sure that every year we've got enough and that their things aren't going south, right? Yes. Okay. Um, CBI's factors contributing to those changes included 43.1 million gain in per capita claims costs and retiree contribution rates. That means that, well, kid, obviously, the retiree contribution rates is self-explanatory, but per capita claims costs again in that. So there was again in how much we had to pay out, is that what that means? Again, the way they look at it is an actuary. So they look at the costs that we are paying and they look at the contributions we are making and if the cost We made 43 million dollars Well, well, we saved 43 million dollars. Maybe that's a better way to put it. I think that Includes the event because we invest the funds that we currently have so all of that is included. Well, I was getting to that Okay, because I'm seeing that too. The only thing that looks like it was a loss was 9.2 million loss due to medical trend rates and a $45 million gain due to the discount rate increasing from 4.6% to 4.8%. Yes. So we're doing really well in our OPEC right now. Is that correct? Yes, we are. Again, we've been very fortunate that the market has been really great. So we are making money and of course we don't control healthcare costs and I think that's why you saw the loss there. Healthcare costs has been going up, so that cost will be recorded as well. Okay, that's all my questions about OPEP. No, don't go anywhere. I know you keep wanting to jump to that vaccine. the OPEB reserve versus actual aerial cost. So let's call that that 20% ish number. That has always included the teachers even though we weren't making all of the contribution. But the ratio on our books did include the obligation or does it not? It does. We put all of that together on our books so we count everything because we are the ones making contribution to pay down the liability. The school does pay the service cost which is the annual cost. However, this was years ago, I think it was 2008, that the rule went into effect, that we now have to show in our books the future liability of what the cost for retirees are going to be head care costs. So that's really what it is. Because we've all been paying it. Retires are always getting the benefit of head care, but we just paid on an unannrored basis. But that was misleading. To the public to say, hey, we are OK. But we have now, if you look at it, almost $1 billion in future liability, the one the public to know that. And that's what we are trying to pay down. OK, so the balance sheet part of that. Yes. No change this year. We've always accounted for everything. The only changes, we're just picking up a little more, well, all of the annual contribution for this. Okay, got it. So I wanna add to that, as was Mr. Ahele just mentioned that, because when they look at that, it's not only just look at the annual, but also look at the long-term liability and how much the percentage fund the fund did ratio on that. That part, I mean, we are doing our best every year when we can, but at this point, I was thinking it's less than 20% as do below the medium. Yes, we're doing our best. We are under 20%. On the average, Maryland is almost close to 48%. Oh, I didn't. Well, every year, there's a discussion about that with the credit rating agencies. Yes. And every year, it seems that the credit rating agencies are fine with our percentage. Because every year, thank you all very much. We in Howard County get a AAA bond rating. Yes. Okay, just wanted to point that out. So hold on. So even though the norm is a lot higher than Howard County, the rating agencies aren't stressed out about that. I can explain. And the rationale behind it is kind of a little bit convoluted. One, some of our neighboring counties, not all, quite a few of them that we compared to do not include the school systems in their computation. And that's what they do, but we are the ones, this is the method that we are using because when we want to pay that liability, we want to make sure that when our school educators retire and that their head care benefit is there. And I think that's a paramotor issue for us in Howard County. Other counties may choose a defend method. So when you take that out, their funding ratio goes up because I think I've mentioned to all of you before that the funding ratio is 66% public schools. And the balance of 34 is now for all the other component units. So if you look at the $1 billion in reliability, the actual reliability for the other component, you know, the county is less than 400 million. But the case, we are committed to making sure that when workers retire, including our educators, that they are taking care of. And that kind of makes sense. Like if the school system is two thirds of that liability, we're at 20, 45, if I bring that in, we're done up in the mid 40s. All right, took it out, not brought it in. Okay. The theory behind Pego is that it's used for one time expenses, only right, even if it's in the operating expense or operating budget. Yes. Who makes the determination whether something is or is not one time versus recurring? Depending on what the Pego item that is submitted or we look over, you know, ultimately we do. We do the administration. Administration and also after the department submits budget in tandem with administration. Okay. So there are a number, I mean, this year it's down from 70 something to 22 million. But there are items like ballistic vests and equipment. There are items like tree planting, hazardous tree removal, things that certainly sound like things that would happen on a year to your basis, on a recurring basis, if you will. What happens if you put something in here that is in fact recurring and not one time? So right now, like the types of things that are, you know, especially in the items that you mentioned, they are all one time. Oftentimes departments may have, you mentioned ballistic vests, that's something that's on account for our unknown. Or often there may be a pilot for our understanding to see if this is the type or need. So in that case, it is a one time expense. And then if after that evaluation period, there is a need, then that could become an operating expense. But it certainly doesn't start off off with that there's no assumption that it's an operating. You see this for example worth workforce stipends those are truly one time so we can go down any other specifics but on the ones that you have mentioned they're truly one time. Well I mean we talked about this yesterday EDA is getting the same exact amount it got last year. And there was some confusion in the auditor right up about whether it was for two different kinds of expenses or the very same kinds of cybersecurity expenses. But I think the point I'm making is so long as someone puts the word pilot or one time in for one of whatever this itemized list is under non-departmental expenses pay as you go funds under operating so long as you have three council members who vote to support it it can be called one time and be paid for out of pay go funds. The intents are really true you know if it is a pilot then it is one time. If it is a one time expense, such as necessary equipment that you mentioned, you know, in the case of police, you know, there may be a year where there is a need for a specific type of ballistic. So that is a considered one time expense. Ms. Gaines, you have to... Oh, I thought you were pointing at you, I think. We talked with police. And last year, 70, something million included ammunition. Yeah, the types of ammunition are unique and sometimes unanticipated. There may be a need for rifles, for example, that's new. They are also very emerging technologies or emerging equipment that needs to be tested, so it is considered a one-time. OK. Well, Chief Dura told us that they were advanced by ammunition. And the accounting records we have shows that that didn't actually occur. That most of that money, at least, to date, is unexpended. And you did explain that some of this year's so-called one-time funding was for rifles to augment the ability of the police to respond to certain types of situations. But my point being that this seems to be very lenient, very at the discretion of the executive or whatever other body would wish to put something on this list. I don't see really any pure logic here. And so my suggestion is that I can call something pilot education, pilot education, pilot one time. and I can put it on this list and pay with it for pay go operating funds Just as easily as an executive can put it on this list and call it one time funds. I think we can try to address a specific question So the reference to ammunition with the police department from the current year There was a significant supply chain issue was It was very difficult to get ammunition ordered. So they went ahead and wanted to do a three-year supply to increase augment their inventory. So this is not part of their normal practice. So that's why we were able to put that under Pego one time purchase because of this special circumstance we had. But their own going, if we didn't have that issue every year they may need ammunition that goes in their base budget. Okay. Pilot programs, you have new programs that are being tested out. It could be for one year, it can be for two years. They can be funded under Pego. Once a pilot program ends, if the program is successful and just decide that that funding is gonna be allocated to it, then it goes into the relevant agency's budget. So for every single one we have here, we've discussed it and felt comfortable that it's one time by nature. And, you know, we can... Okay. It's office of Law involved in any of those discussions. I mean if you have one that's debatable we can ask your opinion but no I mean we don't review every single item with the Office of Law. Okay so if this council elected to add $8 million to for example the Education Health Fund And as a onetime expense. We could put an underpego, non-departmental expenses in the operating budget. I don't know how you would do that. To want, if there is a request by the Board of Ed for one-time funding and it's been approved by MSDE, you know, then yes. But I think we funded fully what was requested and approved by MSDE with one time funding. That is procedurally correct. Brook, this year we did collaborate with the school system to submit to the Maryland State Department of Education 1.5 million in one time funding. This is stuff that has related to safety. There are one time safety needs, the Maryland State Department of Education then approved it. And we were able to get that done collectively with HCPSS and the Board of Education. I'm so glad you mentioned that. Because my understanding is that you submitted 10 million and 1.5 was approved. So that's not the case? No. we submit a 1.5 million to the Maryland State Department of Education. So we make sure that there is a key understanding of what the State Department of Education finds acceptable. To our understanding, we know that safety is a priority and they see that as one time funding so that has been submitted Okay, my understanding was that a significant portion of what was requested was not approved and my bigger point is that there's not that entity overseeing in this page of the budget that we're talking about now what the executive Exclusively determines to be one time versus recurring. That one time process does have its checks and balances with the Maryland State Department of Education and HCPSS and BOE. We are confined to that process regarding one time funding. Yeah, that's my point that checks and balances doesn't exist for the balance, for what's presented on this page of the budget. We'd be happy to go through all the items because you know to Brooks point we have evaluated everything pilots are wonderful to evaluate to better understand if this is something that the county is going to take on as ongoing. There have been successful pilots that end in one year or two years as he has mentioned so that is why's considered a one-time expense. So we'd be happy to kind of go through those, but we have made strong determinations that everything submitted is truly a one-time. Okay. Dr. Jones, you have any questions about Pago? I do not. Thank you so much. And this is a wonderful discussion. I. Thank you. Ms. Ruby. I sure do. So under current law, I use Pego is restricted to funding capital projects. Reduce existing county debt. Capital outlay, which would be things like ammunition, ballistic vests, snow removal equipment for bike lanes, operational items. Those would all be included under capital outlay, which is a listed expense under the law for PECO. Is that correct? Yep, that is correct. Yeah, thank you. And then there's also non-recurring expenses, which I would imagine are things like RCSP grants which are very clearly to the applicants one time grants. Yes, that is correct. Okay. So just again to reconfirm for the public. The use of Pego funding is restricted to funding capital projects reducing existing county debt capital outlay and non-reoccurring expenses. Thank you, Council Member Rigmi. That's absolutely true. We are very aware of that and thank you for illustrating those uses and we take it seriously and strongly adhering to what's allowable. Thank you very much. Ms. Yan. We could talk about operating in capital, Pega here just capital. Okay, All right. So I'm looking at capital pay go. And I guess getting back to Ms. Walch's question about things that may or may not look like there one time. Just the word systemic renovations says to me that that's something that happens every year. It's systemic. It's something that happens every year in the school budget. Systemic. And putting it in one time doesn't actually make sense to me. If I can try to answer that, because the systemic doesn't make it recurring, because it's all capital improvements. So when we make systemic improvements, it sends the life of that asset. And at times, maybe 10, once it's more than one year, it's no longer a recurring cost, it's considered a capital cost. And so that's how we use this one. So systemic, if you are renovating your AC unit, you are not renovating your AC unit every year. It's going to happen maybe once in 10 years. So that's a huge systemic renovation. But it's a capital. And also based on the charter and the general, like an industrial standard, any cash transfer to CIP is treated at one time because typically it was usually expected to be funded by bonds, et cetera. When that one does a cash there, you can use cash to reduce, as the offset the debt, as the alternative, so it's more cost saving. So any transfer there, it's not guaranteed in the future, we'll get it going forward. So that's treated as all the CIP transfer from Pego. It's one time by nature. Okay, I have two more questions. One is the five million, so there was $20 million in FY 2025, pay go funding for the flyer building. And there's another $5 million in FY26 for the flyer building. And I just, right now, obviously we have put in most of the money, if not all of it, for the flyer building. And I'm wondering who in the Howard County government is overseeing that investment? You know, I am part of that oversight regarding the source for Columbia community concepts incorporated. We do believe that this is such a strong investment into the downtown area. As we know there was a pandemic playbook. I agree. I agree with all that. So all of that. I'm just wanting to know who is providing oversight. That's all I want to know. Who's looking at- I know who's looking at- We all have- I do have- I do have- I do have- I do have- I do have- I do have- I do have- I do have- I do have- I do have- I do have- I do have- I do have- I do have- know how is that being assured this time around? So this is a nonprofit and the one side agreement has done. Yes, one side agreement is done that we do have reporting mechanisms to ensure that projects are on track as considered. So we do have a team that evaluates grants and does have that accountability and I am also on part of that too. So it's you and who else is on that team? We have I and my deputies and then we have administration as well so it's a lot of oversight in fact. I was just at you know with any construction of a capital project that's done by a non-county entity that'll go through county development processes as well. And so, what we aren't necessarily reviewing those architectural processes from our office that's going through, you know, our different departments that have to review those different permits. And so that's just broadly speaking. So do you give them advice at some point? If it looks like, I mean, they're saying, oh well, this building might end up costing $68 million and You're saying huh. We've given you 25 so far We've told you that our max is X and then if you want to get more money you're're going to have to figure out how does that work. Yes, so there is a accountability. I mean, this is a PPP, so it's unique. There aren't many of these. There's only one other one that I know of, and that was the $400 million courthouse. So that also is a little. So in these funding streams, our grant is intended to supplement. But in this case, such as the case of the hospital, for example, they are not going to pay for the big capital costs that are needed for those renovations. So in this case as well as the hospital and other capital projects, we are trusting that they have worked with their construction to ensure that those partners who are in vendors that they use are on track with their spending. So ours is only a portion but they have to make up any other above and beyond that. And if the total cost was told to us above and beyond, they're making that up. So our portion will always go towards the construction and the renovations for any specific project, but it's no way the total cost. I mean, these are large projects, even with the source. This is only a percentage of their cost. It's not the full cost. And I understand that, which is why it's a PPP. Do we have a maximum limit that we're? The maximum limit is what we've obligated. What we've appropriated. And what we've appropriated, yes. Okay, so that's what we told them was the maximum limit. Correct. Correct. Okay, then, and you mentioned this, this was my second question about the hospital. We've given them 11 million so far, is that it five last year, a million the year before, and then five this year. Yes, I can chime in on that if you'd like. So we provided $2 million to Howard County Medical Center for the expansion of their behavioral health unit, which was completed. And then last year, we appropriated $5 million for the Emergency Department expansion project. So this is these two, five million, so what's going for the emergency department expansion. Okay. So my question with that is first, have you asked the hospital for anticipated What what they anticipate they will be able to do with this expansion? literally how many people will be served as opposed to the number of people who are reserved right now? I'm sad to say I'm still hearing from a lot of people that they are having extremely long waits. And I did think that the behavioral health wing was supposed to help out with some of those waits. So I'm wondering, number one, if you've gotten any information from the hospital about lessened weights because of the money that we were able to give the hospital for the behavioral health wing, and then number two, what they anticipate that $10 million will do for lessened weights for the emergency room. And I guess number three, when will they start construction? Because our county is really, really anxious to be able to walk into an emergency room and not have to wait for hours to know. Absolutely, we share in that. You know, and this is something that's not unique to us, but also the state of Maryland. You know, we do, the state of Maryland does have uniquely long wait times for ERs. So Howard County is not unique. I recognize that. And that's on the state legislature. OK. I'm just once again putting it on the shoulders where it belongs. Okay. Yes. So we appreciate that. You know, you know, in that regard we do talk to Dr. Shafiq Ahmed and his team. You know, what we've heard from him as well as many other experts, whether it's on, you know, the reading commission and whatnot, is that this is a very, you know, complex problem that requires a multi-pronged solution. So when we see this, When we do these investments, we are seeing incremental change. And until, you know, complex problem that requires a multi-pronged solution. So when we see this, when we do these investments, we are seeing incremental change. And until, you know, what Dr. Shafiq Ahmed has said, you know, very clearly, until we get that done, where we're actually adding to the 29-bed observation unit, you should see a greater throughput. You know, I think what we are seeing already is the qualitative impact with the behavioral health patients, because what they have is a dedicated space rather than being in integrated, in inappropriate placements, and also that helps on the front end. So all of these pieces are working through this. the know, the county executive is also, you know, we're working with the Maryland Hospital Association as well, you know, on a discharge unit and that we've been able to quantify the number of minutes to days, you know, that have been saved overall on wait times. And, you know, we know that these are incremental changes. And until the construction is complete, we do anticipate that once that construction is complete with the 29 observation unit beds, then the throughput should come down. But again, this is just a multi-pronged solution for a very complex issue. Did they start their construction? So on the emergency department, we can sure that they just recently completed the design phase for the project and so the construction phase will be starting very soon as with the hospital. We're hoping this is not going to happen. We're hoping this is not going to happen. We're hoping this is not going to happen. We're hoping this is not going to happen. Yes, we're hoping this calendar year and we can follow up with you to confirm those details Okay, and is is the Hopkins system Also contributing money toward this project Yes, so the total cost of the project is estimated about 30 million dollars or so and so how are county has commitment for 15 million dollars the first five was in last year's budget The second five so we should expect this again next year. We'll be seeking preparation from the council next year for the remaining five million. Okay. Okay. Um, I'm not going to be able to make my appointment today. Thank you, Laura. She stuck on the I will eventually do that. I don't laugh too hard We all will you got a deer in the head, you know I Go back on the hospital It's our regional analysis. I mean, it's great that we're adding these 29 beds and I mean we know what behavior your health can do we know what an observation unit do, but we don't operate in a vacuum. And I keep saying this is a regional thing. As soon as our wait time drops below suburban or Carroll County or St. Agnes, the ambulances are just coming back to us. So our taxpayers are putting $30 million to create 29 beds that's just absorbed in this regional system. And I think it's an ice cube in the ocean and I think that we're spending money and the public is going to expect those wait times to go down a lot and they're not until other hospitals start doing it until the state lifts it up and deals with it. Yeah, I think that's a very valid point and one of the reasons we're working with Maryland Hospital Association because they bring that regional perspective of wait times across Maryland. This is a project that they're working on certainly with our state legislature, with other major medical centers. We don't want our investment to be just a single drop in the bucket. We really want to make sure that it's part of a broader coordinated strategy. And so we plug it to Maryland Hospital Association into our process. I know the state is working on directing some capital funds to hospital expansion efforts. And so that is definitely on our minds. Okay, well I heard is we're putting our money in before that study's done. And at some point, based on that study, the state's going to be giving money to some other hospital systems. Not other county governments. So again, we're back to, and look, I know it's weird because we have this one hospital for Baltimore City to do this. They have how many hospitals, but how many hospitals? But the reality is, is why are we supplanting investments, the state should be making, or why isn't the reimbursement system being looked at? Because you know, we all, most people probably know, we have this unique reimbursement system in Maryland. And I've just never understood why it's on our backs to deal with our hospital unless we can start checking for Howard County paperwork at the door and making sure that excess capacity is just going to county residents, which of course are not. I'm joking. Well, I think the value is there. Not only is it our only hospital, but you know, we agree that there is, there are different solutions that are going to occur regionally statewide. You know, we can't wait for saving those critical minutes in the ER. I mean, that's just what it comes down to. We believe that every minute counts. And so, you know, the investment is worth it, worth every life. Okay, well, I'll get off the hospital. One to the source. Yes. And I think this is an important one, because this is a big one. And you guys started to talk about that. Who in the administration, like if you look at the CSP process, I think we have people that run that program, that check financial, check governance, make sure that these are financially stable organizations before we put money in. So I'm just going to keep that as an assumption there. but who's made sure that this entity has the money to finish their project, to open their project, and run their project? And it's not just picking on the source. They're just the ones in the budget now. But in general, when we do a partnership like this, who underwrites them? Like you'd underwrite an equity investment? So in general, we do have reporting requirements. But for projects such as these or such as the hospital, we have frequent meetings. We're at the table, we talk about this to ensure that the funding is there for the completion of the project. Our biggest concern, and this is why we kind of push together for this investment because of the value of it. But yes, there's just, there's frequent accountability in that regard. I mean, but I mean, meetings is great, but like, who or what department in county government has the expertise to properly underwrite a $30 million investment into a private entity. It came up with my radar screen with that Maryland integrative health thing two years ago, which got a million bucks. They were already in financial trouble and they went away and I don't, think we lost that million dollars. We did. Okay, that's great. But you know this like this like we talked about 337 and it's a lot of money and all that but at least like we're in total control of it right. Like we know that we can hopefully get it done. I just feel like, and we ran into this with the NCC like five, six years ago, is like what strategic financial person that's either a banker or an investment banker or consultant is looking at these things as far as like, are they worthy of a $25 or $30 million equity investment from the taxpayers and are we going to get what we're going to get? I mean I can chime on to that certainly we don't have any equity bankers or investors in the office. We do. It's been a portability which we've been asking for six years to be a standing year-round operation.. Well, I can tell you at least on the fire building and I'll allow any others to chime in. You know, part of the process of determining the future of that site was to go through an RFP process, right, with review committee that looked into the different proposals that were received and awarded this property to Columbia Concepts as the selected vendor to redevelop that site. So from the beginning, there was an RFP process that kind of went through that. And I think we can speak to that in more detail and share more on that if you'd like to. Who reviewed those RFPs and did the financial piece of it? Our departments. So the experts that you mentioned, and I didn't to kind of just say that the earlier you said not just meet to meet, you know, I mean in these meetings they're substantive, there's presentations involved, they're, you know, the financials, the design proposals, what not. So I do want to underscore they are substantive and then also on that point that RFP,, we always have government representatives who are representing all the major facets to be able to evaluate budget, finances, proposals, et cetera. And that's a common practice. OK. Well, I still think that we're missing this one big piece. And maybe something like this comes every two or three years. And it's not worth having someone around. But I think we can evaluate design all day long because we have DPW and they build stuff. And I think we've got really smart budgeting and finance and people around. But I don't know who, as an individual, in the government has background doing this piece that I'm talking about. And I think it's always been a missing part of it. And honestly, they could probably try to figure out ways to save some money on things. So again, I think that we do have a few people on spending affordability. And maybe it's them, or maybe it's like this finance executive group, whatever it is. But it's like people that you can call on when you have a big RFP like this. So, OK, that's all. Has an agreement with that entity actually been negotiated and signed? Yes, we do have agreements, you know, right now. Yeah, there's a great agreement in place that governs the use of funds. And so that is really what we go back to for making sure that funds are spent according to You know the parameters that the county sets out and if there's any sort of you know Recoarser protection at the county needs those are embedded in the grant agreement What about this PPP agreement? So I don't believe this is formally considered a PPP This is a you know is a grant to a nonprofit to facilitate the redevelopment of that Columbia flyer building, which the county has sold to that entity. So there's no formal PPP in place, I believe. What agreements remain to be signed on this contract, on this project? I mean, we've done the grant agreement, and the grant agreement is to the nonprofit. And so that is the agreement that spells out the funding and the expectations. I thought in your remarks, Ms. Cabellan, you said that there was an agreement still in the works or something. No, I was referring to this agreement, the grant agreement. I think it's a good idea for you guys to bring that to a monthly meeting or something. I assume it's more than I do, but I don't know anything. Like I don't know whether there's an actual need for $5 million for that project this year or whether it could wait until next year. I don't know what the spend of the $25 million that we appropriated last year has been. The timeline would be helpful to know. And I don't see a lot of utility in advancing whatever our final completed commitment is without assurance from the other side that they're going to match that and do the work. And I haven't heard or seen any of that. So I'll just respond to that. One, we know that the design and the construction are under already underway. There will be a groundbreaking has already commenced. So one, I will say that we don't want to hamper this, because I started to say this, and I'll just say this for the good of the group. What we know of is that there was a pandemic playbook. And the reason why I say that is because there's been a rise in youth unrest, mental health needs. And this is a place that is going to be explicitly focused on youth, especially in violence prevention. So in the midst of federal lay midst of federal layoffs, when you have families that are hurting, you know, this is a place for these youth to come in. There will be mental health, you know, violence prevention, programming, as well as recreation and wellness in some of our hardest hit zip codes and surrounding that. It's gonna be, you know, focused on really helping county wide. So this is why it's really necessary and critical in our eyes to continue the funding because yes, we have in school but we also need appropriate after school activities. And I think this is really appropriate, especially in the area where there is density. So, you know, I would just say that their need is there and we would be happy to speak to this in the future as well. Okay, super great. I mean, no one is quarreling with the need for that kind of programming, perhaps as part of our education as well. But that does not absolve anyone from showing the accountability, the transparency, the good investment as compared to any number of other alternatives. Maybe happy to. No one's quarreling with the mission where I have an issue with the transparency of this process in that I have no idea where we are in it or what the end point looks like. We would be very happy and we agree with that. I just got so briefing to dive into more detail. Okay, we'd be happy to. I only have one other question on Pego and it's really kind of like my first one which is the charter is pretty explicit that any unencumbered, unexpended funds, laps and go back into general fund if they're not. and this part of the analysis that we received this year as the last year's fiscal year 25 pay go, non-departmental expenses. Only some portion of that money had been spended or spent, specifically 28 million or so had not. We received a notice from budget that $10 million associated with flea, maybe $6 million for flea, $10 million for something else was going to be transferred at the end of the, oh, I know the Housing Opportunities Trust Fund was going to be transferred at the end of the year. I don't want to hear about that yet. Okay, what that means is that the housing opportunity trust fund made no use of 10 million dollars that this council agreed to appropriate last year. Like, why are we doing that? I understand you can move it, but if that fund has not been used, what was the utility of that? Yeah, there may be, we can follow up with you more information on that, but a lot of that funding has been used, for example, I think director Simmono talked about the older adult rental assistance program that is funded from the housing trust fund. And so we can circle back with more information, but I believe all of that funding either has been used or at least has been dedicated to specific projects that we briefed the council on last year. So we can certainly follow up with that level of detail. I also wanted to add, I think we asked our budget team to just pull the latest sort of unencumbered pay-go appropriation from FY25. I think as of this week that balance is around $12.8 million. So it's not, I think it's down from that 28 million figure that you referenced which may have been from sometime in April or earlier this month. Well we'll get to that 12.8 that's an amendment that I filed that is I agree the uncombred amount of paid. And if I may add well that was the unencumbered amount but as of today I think think we have about 10.7 million either encumbered or anticipated to be spent in a short amount of time. So the balance that we are projecting is about 2.1 million. That's going to go back to fund balance. We asked about earmarks. And we're told that only as of April 14th, only about a quarter of a million dollars were intended to be earmarked from prior fiscal years. This is not a earmark. I mean, this is actual spending or creating pieces. I know. I'm asking another question. Oh, OK. I'm sorry. Has that also changed? Is there not going to be more than a quarter of a million dollars in earmarked funds from Pire? I am not sure. I mean, even council is going to be submitting an earmark so we haven't fully started the process of receiving earmark requests from departments which is submitted online through So once we get those requests, we review it to see if they meet eligibility and policy guidelines and we go from there. We haven't received the request yet. As I mentioned, I think at a prior work session, we start the process shortly like middle of May, third week of May typically Okay, I've had this conversation about 10 billion times with law this year The charter doesn't say if there's an earmark or if we're gonna try really hard to spend it The charter says it lapses if it's unencumbered or unexpended at the end of the fiscal year We went through this conversation and the capital budget on the abandoned projects and you guys send us a list of things about how you want to do it. It shouldn't be discretionary. It's not discretionary. It's black and white law. If you want to change it, put it on a ballot. I mean, it's actually an audit was initiated by what a few years ago regarding earmarks and we amended our policy. So we have clear guidelines of under what circumstances we earmark. So we follow that process. We follow that policy. Okay, but just on Wednesday I heard about a million dollars from EDA being earmarked for something else in the following year. Like, the record is coming. It meets the policy requirements. And we can talk about individual cases and explain why it's eligible. But my problem is systemic. My problem is calling a whole bunch of stuff year after year recurring and paying for it out of operating Pego. My problem is systemic. My problem is DPZ telling us three fiscal years in a row that they're going to use Pego non-departmental expenses for a development rewrite, a development code rewrite, that then they repurpose. They keep all $2.5 million in use it for anything else they want but not development code rewrite. When you put those lists of items with recipients and dollar amounts, it vanishes from scrutiny. It's completed discretionary when it goes down and it vanishes from any scrutiny after the fact. And you're telling me, well, this 251,000 that we reported is your marks, that may change. I don't know. And guess what? You will have no site. You will not see it. It will do whatever it wants. And again, this exercise that this council has engaged in since April, I'm not sure why we do it. This is theater. The my problem is systemic. I don't want to go through one by one. If you want to go through one, let's talk about DPC and the development co-vri-write from fiscal year 22, 23, 24. Or maybe it's 23, 24, 25. Regarding DPC, again, this is my recollection. Circumstances are rosy. We're in. or maybe it's 23, 24, 25. Regarding DPC, again, this is my recollection. Circumstances arose, you weren't able to spend the money, the money lapsed, so in the upcoming year, because of that, we requested to have it reappropriated. So it wasn't repurposed. Again, I'm going by my recollection, but I think we've done that twice. And I think both times it's because of the need to wait until the general plan was completed before they hired consultants to use that funding. So the funding lapsed and was reappropriated. That's my recollection. In fiscal year 25, you asked for $321,000 for ammunition. Chief Dura said to us, to our faces, it was because of the expected rising costs. It would be easier to buy three years in a row, upfront, only 93 of that was expended. And it will be expended. And it will be expended. It's a timing issue. The fiscal year is not over. That funding will be expended at the end of the year. I mean, you can look at any appropriation at a certain point in time. Part of it will be spent. Part of it will not be spent. It's a timing issue. But we're looking at it in the next month. So we can make a judgment about the whole fiscal year, because the fiscal year hasn't ended. So how can we make that judgment? I don't, I don't, I don't know if it's your place to make a judgment about the whole fiscal year because the fiscal year hasn't ended. So how can we make that judgment? I don't know if it's your place to make a judgment about the pace of spending. Well, my judgment is whether or not the next year's pay go should be approved, given an inability to pay a third or to spend a third of the prior year's pay go 11 months into a fiscal year. It is being spent. Not according to the analysis that we have. Not according to SAP accounting records. SAP is showing you what's been obligated at a certain point in time. The plan is to spend that full amount that's been appropriated in the example of the ammunition. Okay, are there any, well, I'm one, two. Do you have one more pay go question? Okay go crazy. I have one. Maybe well I understand Mr. Fitchett is only available to noon. Is that right Mr. Fitchett? So I am going to have him jump in and do the the tip and the library amendments. Do you want to just do that now and then come back to Pego? Could I close out like, yes, because I'm going to end the round, could I? OK, yeah, yeah, be right. Thank you. So just to confirm, under the law, Pego funding is restricted to funding capital projects, things like systemic renovations under education budget, or any capital project in our budget book. Yes. Reduce existing county debt. Yes. Capital outlay. Correct. So capital outlay is you know one that I feel like we could use a little bit more fleshing out of. So for funzies, I asked chat GPT for some examples of capital outlay. Those include real estate purchases, buying land for buildings or operations like office spaces, things like that, machinery and equipment, vehicles for for transportation, computers or technology for office work. Yes. Renovations and improvements, costs associated with renovating existing facilities such as upgrading or remodeling office spaces. That is correct. Furniture and fixtures. Purchasing office furniture, shelving, or display cases. Display cases is an interesting one, but I don't think we have any of that. But at least for office furniture and shelving. Chat GBT is on point so far. Okay. Infrastructure development. Investments in infrastructure, such as roads, utilities, telecommunications systems that support operations. Correct. Still correct. Okay. Intangible assets, acquiring patents, trademarks, or software licenses that provide long-term benefits. Yes. Director. Director Achila is excited. Because guys be just providing a county for that now. Speed up. Okay. So, who else is service? So, he's now and I said. Oh, and like the, um, um, um, deal improvements to the impermaning improvements, the constituent management improvements. Yes. Okay. Well, I thank you, ChatGPT, and thank you for human professional expert confirmation, because obviously you can't just, as we all know, you can't just rely on ChatGPT, but I thought I would phone a friend for an assist, even if it's a robot. And then this question is probably a bit more for Mr. Mammow and Dr. Sun. But you know, when, and I really hate when people compare household budgets to government budgets because they have very different functions, but at a, I think this point is rather salient when you are making a say you need to for your own home you need to do your you need a new roof you need new siding you need new windows you need new gutters that's a lot for anybody who's a homeowner that's a lot of money and you have some cash on hand but you're not able to pay for the entire renovation just with cash. So you might pursue a line of credit, but you'd also want to use some cash to reduce the amount that you have out on credit. So you're reducing your long-term expenses. So you'll do a combination of a cash payment similar to Pego and finance the remainder to make payments on. And it seems like we use a similar approach here at times as well. Would you be able to touch on why we would use this combination approach and not just bond everything out? I think I think you're talking about, Mr. Grigor, you're talking about a CIP pay go transfer, right? That's again, like as you said, if there's a one project that's $10 million there and typically will probably use bond to finance and given 20 years you have to pay interest and principal and then every year as a budget you have to spend money on that there, which is kind of lower your ability to support other operating needs. So if you have cash on that, maybe you have two million and we use cash, then you only need to finance or you have five million, you only need to finance the other five million. And then so that's the encouraged way to address and view it very positively by the industry on the financial world and also credit rating agency because you're kind of like using lower costs and it's a very wise way to use surplus funding on that, for one time, investment. Right, you're really reducing that sort of cost you're paying to borrow money over time. You're spending less money on interest and more money on actual things. And thank you. And then the last thing I just want to echo, and I will echo this piece, is that I think there is some cleaning up to be done of accounting, because I recognize that probably for most departments, they're more focused on the doing than rather than going back in and saying yes, SAP, this is, you know, what this thing is. But I think it's important that they do stay on top of that and do enter that because otherwise it gives the appearance. And that, you know, creates space for confusion. And in the space of confusion, that's when sometimes people on the public tend to jump to conclusions and things like that so I you know I really will put a plea in there for the accounting and at the same time I would assume if you have say dollars going towards a land settlement you can't expend those dollars prior to that settlement can you someone say that I see a lot of nut and head. That is correct. OK. Thank you very much. All right. We're going to pause in Pigeon and go to, I think, there are three amendments concerning downtown Columbia. I thought I saw Mr. Carl D'Aurin so back there. What? We're going to go straight to theago. If you have Pago questions? I just knew we were going to lose Mr. Fitchett at noon, so I wanted to fold this in now. I just saw it. I know. I can see it clearly. I know. I see your few. I see five days down there. Should I be there? Yeah. I mean, if it's going to work, please run us, Mr. Fitzhitt. I don't know. I don were smiling. I'm like, I love when Carl comes to this. All right. Thanks for joining us, Mr. Fitchett. I think there are three amendments germane to what you're doing in downtown Columbia. I don't know if we have a lot everyone who comes in to make brief remarks. I don't know if you want to do that. I just really know what it will be on this about. But we wanted to speak with you briefly about two projects in our capital budget book that are relevant to what you're doing in downtown Columbia and the first is our budget item C0319. It's called TIFF projects and it relates to the What is it the jug handle? Is that what we're calling it the jug the jug handle? So the amendment is the amendment is amendment 11 to CB 36 and it has a number of funding changes for 10 different capital projects. But in the case of C0319 it adds $3 million in grant funding which I understand comes from the state and is directly passed through to the developer in this case Howard Hughes Corporation. Right? Is that right? That goes from the state to the county to us to reimburse us for the work that we've completed. Okay. the developer in this case, Howard Hughes Corporation, right? Is that right? Yeah, it goes from the state to the county to us to reimburse us for the work that we've completed. Okay, and that's for this jug handle or the North South connector? Yes. That's what it's called in our book, I think. And then the second one are two amendments that I put in both relating to the Central Branch Library, which is Budget Item L0020. One puts a condition on keeping the $5 million that was proposed to be removed from contingency, saying that this thing's got to move, that the land would convey to the county by a date certain. I picked September because it seemed like a reasonable amount of time. I think we all know the issue. I think we all know what steps would need to take place. The amendment references a prior appraisal. I know that bless you two years old now. But that's how long this has kind of been languishing. And so that was the point of this amendment that I have. It's a amendment, amendment 14, thank you, to CB36, which says, this money stays where it is, but we got to move. We're just kind of spinning our wheels and have been for a number of years and no one thinks this project would get cheaper the longer we wait. I think a lot of this maybe is moot because again my understanding is that state funding is explicit or not tied to being used at the lakefront location. So whether we put conditions on it or jerk it back into contingency, which is my second amendment, amendment three to CR89, it's going nowhere unless it or that money at least is going nowhere unless it's used for the purposes of that lakefront facility. So your colleague came to the work session in the ordinary course for that library capital project. And the singular question we sent in advance was, under what terms or what obstacles what prevents the Howard Hughes Corporation from conveying a fee simple that land and that property to the counties so that we can advance this project finally. And I can speak to that. I mean, we're certainly open to selling the property. Our intent was never to hold the title to the land, you know, once the library's completed. We're open to a sale. It is complex. It's not like we're selling kind of, you know, 20 acres out in the middle of, you know, somewhere for home-builder to build houses. This is right in the middle of a very active business district. It's a very prominent piece of real estate in the county. There are existing parking spaces on the site. There are existing parking obligations to tenants, including whole foods and the other businesses and tenants that operate in that area that need to be figured out. And I think that's why, I mean, I know it's been a long time, it feels like a long time, it has been a long time. But the county has been working on this and moving it forward. It took a long time to go through the outreach process to look at the different sites that were considered for downtown and the county completed that process on narrowed it down to either the existing location or the lakefront location. And then recently the county engaged Medco to sort of help with the transaction. It is definitely a complex transaction if it's going to happen. And Medco has now engaged in some studies. I know they've been working on analyzing different parking options. They've been also I think working on the potential for event revenue from the new library. So, you know, and that's so it's a process that they're undergoing. I think we're looking forward to soon having some more feedback from Edcos, the work that they've been doing. So it's slow, but I think the process is moving forward. Yeah, go ahead. I'm sorry. And I'm going to pretend like that was all just setting the table. Now we'll go into our ordinary rotation. It was a good setting. Hi, Mr. Fitchett. This question is not actually for you, but for Mr. DeLorenzo. I went back through the letters that were sent back and forth between the county executive and the library boarded trustees in the library last September in October, which were a lot of fun to reread. And the one thing that the county executive made very clear in those letters is that no matter where the library was located, that the maximum amount that the county could afford, given our debt service and our ability to pay for a project like this was 75 million. He said that in a number of ways. I assume that you had some assistance in writing those letters. And I think one of the issues that we have had is, and Mr. Fitchett, I'm not just putting this on your shoulders. I think this is maybe as much on the library as shoulders as anywhere else is the type of building that would be put there is really not just a library. I think everybody agrees that a library without a fan space and a maker space and a commercial get-gen and my preference as you know would have been to put Toby's there and then we could have saved $68 million and put it in exceptional cultural center, really, is more how I would see this than a library. But I didn't see a lot of movement. You, you, I am assuming, did two charts. One chart showed what it would be to rebuild the library where it is now, which does not seem like a good idea to me, but that's just personal. The second one was to build the library at the lakefront. The library at the lakefront was, and I think it was an archaedis review of how much archaedis thought this could cost. And both projects, one project had a, the project of the library had a $43 million delta, meaning that if you took the $75 million, and then added what our K-dust thought it would cost to build, we were short $43 million. The library, but rebuilding word is now had a $27 million delta. That's if we, that's what our K-dust believed if we rebuilt the library today at that spot, the library would need to raise in order to over and above the $75 million that the county executive was willing to put toward that project. And I guess this could get back a little bit to the tip revenue, but I'm sure Mr. Fitchett is understands that most of the TIF, and this isn't, again, this is not just specific to Howard Hughes. This is how TIF, my understanding now, how TIF revenue works around the country when you use this type of financing, that the tip revenue doesn't really start coming in for maybe seven to ten years because it takes a while to get projects going, to get buildings leased up, to get people in apartments, if that's what you're building, et cetera, et cetera. And when we went down to look at the Atlanta belt line, that was one that's a very big tip project down there. And that's exactly what they told us. And that's what we're seeing happening here in Howard County. So it's not unusual. It's sort of typical of these types of really big projects, which means there's not gonna be a lot of tip revenue coming in in the next two or three years. So that is a long way of saying how do you see this and how does the county executive see this? Sure. I think you hit on you know the other salient point here and I believe we talked about it last month. I mean we were to break this down into two components, two barriers to solve, is one is the site and the location itself. But the other important point is that regardless of the option, there is a gap, right? And so none of the options currently have at a cost that can be absorbed by the TIFF model. And I think you referenced the $75 million amount that was in last year's letters. I think when we presented the TIFF model a couple weeks ago, we're still at that $80 million level, right, that the TIFF model can afford. So really, the affordability level hasn't changed. And so we resolving the site is one step to this. But the other critical step to this is how do we fill that gap, assuming that there is agreement and consensus on the site. And right, whether you're looking at rebuilding the existing branch or whether you're looking at building a library at a new branch, you're looking at anywhere from, I mean, I'm just going to use your number 40 to 60 million in a gap. And so to what Mr. Fitchett was saying about looking at parking revenue, looking at event revenue, that's the whole purpose of those studies is to see can that gap get made up through other funding sources. I believe the library system has also talked about fundraising, you know, very generous, the state contribution that's before us today. So yes, I mean, I think you're hitting on. You both hit on the two points, right? Where is the location going to be? We have to resolve that. How are we going to resolve the budget deficit, regardless of where we put that project? And so those are the two really major policy questions that we have to answer to progress this project forward. right? And so I think, you know, they can happen interchangeably. I mean, I think, you know, you're to your amendment where you put the September date. I mean, securing the site, identifying the location is, you could argue is the, you know, you start there and then you start to fill the, and then you start to see if you can solve the budget problem there after But I think they're both equally important issues depending on how you want to tackle them You know we can debate and we can discuss but yes, I mean I think we've hit on two of the critical Critical kind of barriers that we are working with Medco on to try to solve and and the hope is that you know The hope is that we can come with something constructive to solve it. So yes, I agree with your comments. To answer that, I mean, I think identifying the site and knowing where it is is critical to filling that gap. Because I mean, I've heard from the library, I haven't heard directly, but I'm guessing that appeals to our federal and state representatives are going to be more interested in funding the iconic, the type of marquee project that was envisioned at the library versus a renovation of central branch. I think the location has a big impact on the kind of fundraising and where it comes from versus whether it's somehow, you know, completed at the expense exclusively of high-tech. We still have not even talked though about the third site, which actually that's my personal preference, which is the one in Maryweather District, with the affordable housing on top of that library that was in the original DRA. And I can envision doing that with senior housing on top of it. I think that's a huge need, huge need here in Howard County that we haven't paid any attention to for the entire time that we've been on the County Council and that would be the perfect place. We could still make it a beautiful library and I hope we would have the help of housing money. What am I saying? What am I saying? Okay maybe we would have a little bit of help. Yes for housing but I don't know, I don't know where that would, you know, I'm not sure. But actually, I think that going back to the original agreement is probably the right way to pursue this project. And I think it wouldn't hopefully be as expensive. And maybe we could move it along faster. But who knows? I mean, there's obviously lots of opinions still. So Mr. Youngman? Well, as the person that I think just likes this project the most, I'm going to defend you guys and say that the lack of progress probably because of us, because, you know, we threw it into contingency and slowed it down and created the public process and all that. But that, notwithstanding, a couple things. I went back to that grant and I thought Our research and the Gary question said that it had to be used on a new library. Now maybe we can get in the weeds on whether a renovation, tear down, same site, whatever, what constitutes a new library. But I do not think it is location specific. You are correct. The state budget bill language is not location specific Though we in speaking I think you use the term explicit versus not explicit in speaking with some of our state delegation colleagues it has Been verbally expressed to us that that was the in his hands even though it doesn't match the language So if the community came up with with a site and let's just say it's an imaginary site, we haven't talked about, put that to rest. This wonderful project and everything's great about it. The delegation's telling us that the $5 million is not good. I think we should, I think, you know, it's always fine to go back with, you know, I think it's fine to keep the conversation open., you know, convince them that, you know, we came up with equally great alternative option and see how they respond. I mean, I don't think we should ever close the door to that. Because that's the 5 million that is subject to the amendments and the, that's what we're talking about. It's not like some future grant that you really get. Exactly. like how can we spend that money right now? Can you guys spend that money doing any work on any different site? Well, I think legally we can, right? It's all about the spirit of it, right? And also keep in mind, I mean, and this is an important nuance that I actually kind of learned this year, even though that funding was approved in the state budget bill, it still has to be authorized by the state board of public works. And the board of public works will probably be asking those same questions of the sponsors of that. So how's that from mine? So how's that process work? Let's say we leave it in the budget, we don't put it contingency, do you get to go spend it? Well, no. No, wait for them before we can spend it, we have to have it, we have to have it released by the Board of Public Works. So we technically have not, even the five million that you provided us a couple years ago, we still technically have not spent because we have not gone to the Board of Public Works for it. So we're out of pocket for like the console. No, actually, no, no, actually, we had some prior year, we had prior year. because we have not gone to the Board of Public Works for it. So we're out of pocket for like the consultant? No, actually, no, no, actually we had some prior year, we had prior year appropriation of a couple hundred thousand dollars and that's what we used to pay for the Arcade's consultant. So we haven't had to tap into the five million yet, thankfully. And Medco is also being financed through that prior year appropriation from, I believe four or five years ago. I mean, you were here, Greg. You weren't. Christy was here when we talked about this two weeks ago. Yeah. And when I realized that I think three people were on board with Lakefront Library, I wasn't pointing in you. Yeah. That's going that way. Three, three. I just pivoted to then what, what the hell are we waiting for? Like why, if you have the votes? Well, and don't let, I mean, I wish I could stop the stuff. I don't want to go on the floor. And I think we haven't pursued the Board of Public Works process, I mean, purposefully yet, because there is so much uncertainty around how to use those funds. And so really, we're talking locally as the county, the state has a very powerful part to play in the release of this 10 million. I think what I appreciate now is the fact that it's in the budget bill is one thing. The fact that it gets through the Board of Public Works is a second component to this. I'll back to the amendments themselves and how it would impact that process? Should we give it back to the state to help them with their deficit? I believe that without inaction it reverts. So I think that is to, I think the amount of time is five years. If I'm not, I don't quote me on the exact number of years. I can go back and check. I think that is the amount of time is five years. If I'm not, I don't quote me on the exact number of years, I can go back and check, but I think there is, I think it's a five year. What year are we in now? Well, if they- I think Gary's looking that up. Are you looking that up, Gary? I mean, I guess I'm just worried. I'm just worried how we're looking it up. I'm not looking it up because I don't have the the state bills with me It does have it does have a shelf life I'm an expire and the state put it in in fiscal year 24. So this is that was this is the third fiscal year since that funding was approved. So presumably six seven eight by fiscal year 28 would be the last year without any action, if there's no action thereafter. Is my understanding? The Lakefront is a gorgeous location. I don't know, nobody could deny that. In a building, an iconic building there would be, would be really special and make a really nice statement. But in my mind, it is balancing priorities. And when you've got the great needs that we do with the school district, most of the people here in this room today are from the school district, and they are short, really short on cash. And we need to balance those needs with spending up, I don't probably, if it was a $43 million Delta without the parking garages, by the way, I remember that was part of the letter. Then we're looking at $150 million at the lakefront. If there was a way to find other funding so that we weren't spending that kind of money on a library I would say great. But I think if we're going to build a new library probably the most cost effective place to build it would be at the Maryweather site in the original DRA. Well, and I think I mean that's related to why Well why you're here, Mr. Fitzgerald why hard uses here. I mean, 309 is a third installment, right? In monies for a north-south connector that in total are $21 million. I think, again, I think depending on where the location is, that funding is possible. And the assurances from the library are that the operating expenses don't actually change that dramatically from its current location to its new ones. So this is largely a capital expense. So if that deficit can be met by private fundraising, philanthropy, all of that kind of stuff, plus maybe state more, the state has delivered $21 million towards the North South connector in the last three fiscal years. Ideally, the $10 million that we've received is the beginning of a next cycle of contributions. So long as we meet the conditions that implicitly were applied to that first tranche. But so Mr. Fitchett, before we lose you, what I mean, amendment number 14 to CB 36, conditions that $5 million on the purchase of a property, if he's simple, located at 10, I don't know how to get, you don't actually say 10,227. 10, 227, Wink of the Circle, Columbia, appraised in May 19, 2023 for approximately 14 million, on or before September 15, 2025. What is that possible? If it's not possible, what remains to be done between now and mid-September? I think it is possible. It really is just, it is a complex, it really has to be part of the overall deal. And which involves parking. We have to understand, and I know Medcow is looking at different possibilities for solutions of parking. The original proposal that was put forward on the Lakefront Library included a level of underground parking, which is very expensive to build, as well as structured parking within the building. It was a significant number of parking spaces, roughly 250 spaces below ground, as well as 250 spaces within the building. Part of that is replacing the existing parking that's there, that's services, those existing tenants, Whole Foods and others, and then part is to support the library. I know Medco is looking at different options for, first of all, do we need that much parking or can the read less than the total of 500 spaces and then also are there different possibilities for locating the parking in different locations, it would be less expensive. So that's again what we're waiting for Medco to come back with. But so we have to have, before we can't just, it's not like 20 acres of farmland that's gonna be converted to housing. This is a very complex piece of property. There's the replacement parking aspect to it. There is also, the only reason that we would sell it to the county is because of the vision for the library. So we need to have assurance that the library would be constructed there. We don't want to sell the property there and then have it sit and have it not happen. And we don't want to have it have something else be built there, for example. The only reason we would sell the property to the county is for this purpose. Now, I have expressed, you know, it doesn't have to be exactly what the vision or the, you know, the renderings that we put forward. I would say it doesn't have to be exactly that, but it has to certainly be, you know, that level of design, that sort of, you know, inspired by that vision that was put forward back two years ago. So I think, you know, figuring out how those assurance, those assurance would be part of the sale. Again, having the solutions for understanding how the parking is going to work and also that we are going to be getting the iconic library, the community is going to be getting that iconic library that was envisioned. And if it doesn't happen, the fallback is always the mayor where they're sight. That's already in the DRA. That is an option for the county and it's always remaining an option for the county. It's just because that was not moving forward. There was a certain amount of work that was done on that in 2018 and 2019, but it didn't seem to be moving forward. And then you would present this as an alternative option to locate the library at the lakefront, which we think is, again, we think it's a great vision. We think the library shares that vision. We think, certainly, many members of the community believe that that is a, you know, would really be a great addition to Columbia to Howard County. And so that's why we're working and trying to figure it out, trying to make it happen. Is there, well, I mean, that dedicating it for a singular purpose, I think, is something easily accomplishable in a deed or a conveyance. Of course, I think that can be accommodated. The parking issue, though, we had that conversation with your colleague two weeks ago, which is part of that parking is for the library. Part of that parking is not for the library. So by saddling the library project with the complex array of parking agreements that hard to use may have with any number of tenants all over the place in that location, I think we'll do a really good job of just seeing that project. And I think it's maybe what's held it up for this long. I have to believe that this kind of, I mean, we keep saying iconic, this kind of iconic visionary project right there in the midst of all of these other Howard Hughes investments conveys a certain benefit there that an office building or something else or even a library at the Maryweather original location would not. There is, you know, and this is the conversation we have with Kristi is she was going to be flexible in terms of what how her to use was willing to contribute to this project. But the end to answer there was that they would comply, you know, that how her to use would comply with the law and not seek out a single source contract. But again, I think none of this advances until we know where the location is. And I think in the midst of needing a new library, if that's what we need, we're going to have to make a decision and move on, regardless of where it is. But I think- I you go back to your amendment then? Yeah. Because your amendment specifically requires that by this coming September we pay howard to use $14 million for this land. No. And we wrote it deliberately to say that we just wanted to be very specific about the location because it has not been included in some other documentation. So we identified it by street address. And then we noted that it was appraised on May 19, 2023 for approximately $14 million. There's two reasons we included that. One, that was two years ago. And we're still nowhere. And two, that is the amount it was appraised for. I mean, we got that document back at the time of the budget deliberation. So then what does your amendment, if it doesn't involve money, what does your, I haven't had a chance to read your amendment. What does it require? That we just leave it and we leave the 5 million in contingency unless we agree to to take it out by September 25th and this is this is a condition on expenditure of the 5 million it would come out of the agency so the county council would have to agree by that date to- We don't agree to purchase. We would have to agree to place the library on that piece of property. We don't have to agree to purchase, but by that date, the county council would have to agree to that. Or the $5 million would stay in contingency. No. No, OK. It's my understanding that the agreement of this amendment would be us saying we want the library at the lake front. And it's a condition on the dollars that they would use those dollars as part of the having the library at the lake front. It comes out of contingency. And it should be used. OK. So long as the fee simple conveyance occurs. Okay, so we're back to the fee. I'm sorry. I'll have to read it to really understand. There's a second one and it's 13 to the same bill. Okay, and 13 just puts it back in contingency. Like what are we doing here? This is going nowhere. I mean they're kind of one of the other. One, two. Let me see if Dr. Jones has a question. Dr. Jones, do you have anything to add to our library discussion? No, I don't. I'm just waiting for the discussion for amendment 12. Okay. I sent you a text. Oh, okay. All right. We'll go to Mr. Rigby and I'll look at my phone. So I guess there's two things that have been sort of surfaced in public, but I just want to make sure that this is also out there. The library did say that operating costs would increase if they were shoehorned into the Maryweather Crescent Area 3, whatever the more vertical they are shoehorned into that corner and have to go more vertical, then operating costs would increase. So that is something I think for us all to keep in mind. And I have a lot of concerns. I know that when the DRA was written, it was a very different time. It was 2015, which feels like a lifetime ago, I think, to all of us. It was a different time in terms of construction costs. It was a different time in terms of financing. It was a different time in terms of federal policy and approach. But to Miss Young's point, with the federal government's posture as it is in terms of the deep cuts they're taking to HUD and other types of housing programs, I'm not sure it's going to really be feasible for us to do these community asset on the bottom housing on the top projects as much and I just think that's something that we all need to be mindful of parking. I general approach in life is to look around at what resources I have available and start from there whether it's heads gardening whether that's budgeting talking about parking when we look at this. If you go and do an overhead view of the Lakefront parking lot, they've 10,020, whatever the address is. You have the one level garage, just next to it on Winkapin, is that correct Yes. And is that Howard Howard Hughes owned and managed parking? Yes. Okay. And then across the street across the pedestrian bridge you've got mall parking. Is that correct? Yes. But that is not Howard Hughes. Correct. But it could be owned by anybody willing to purchase it. It broke feelings to sell it. It broke failed just willing to sell it. Referring to the parking garages adjacent to Lord and Taylor, for example. Yes. No. I'm working on an additive here, not saying that there should be zero parking at the lakefront, but I do think there's a way to creatively get there. I mean, the most affordable structured parking is the structured parking that's already built in paid for. So we have these two garage, I just feel like when it comes to the parking, there's gotta be a way to, for you to use some of that garage over there, your garage that you own for some of your tenant parking. And then potentially utilizing the garage across the street because it's just a walkover, it's not particularly far. And then having some subset less within the actual footprint of the building because you're going to need parking for parents with young children, people with mobility issues, I mean anybody with mobility issues. And then, you know, I would also want some general parking there as well. But, you know, for these larger times when you're going to have big lakefront events, things like that, there do seem to be some other parking options that may exist as part of that solution. So I just, I want to be there to surface it because I don't think that feels like we're looking at trying to get all the parking problems solved within this one building footprint. And I think that if we general plan talks so much about regional parking and shared parking, and it's always this challenge of like, well, how do you really do it? But this could be an opportunity for us to figure out how we're going to do that, both by you taking your tenet spaces that you have needs for, accounting for some of that over in the Winkapins Circle Garage, and then just us thinking smartly and strategically about what assets exist in that little hub. And I'm always going to be a revenue back bonds girl for this garage. But because I just do not think we should be having free, like, taxpayers shouldn't all be coming together to pay for temporary car storage. But I'm just putting that out there so that you guys can think constructively, no pun intended, but constructively about how to get to these spaces. The biggest question is, is this September deadline possible? Can you meet that? Do you need another date in there? Because we have like, congratulations, you've aligned the council on a vision. On a location date. No, I haven't seen it. No, you move that date and you lose me. Like, I just, I just want to know if it's true. Is it a real date or is it, do we want it done or is it, is it not possible to get it done? I think with focus from, and the backing of this council and the backing of the administration and focused resources of Carl's time, of Medco's time, we certainly are willing to put in the time resources to get to a transaction that could be brought back by that date. I think September is what, four months away. With focus, we should be able to achieve that, yes. I don't want to rush and slap dash and have a mess in September. I'd rather have a thoughtful, functional project. So if that can't happen until October, then, you know, but I don't know. Does that 30 days give you that much extra time Okay, miss Yan Davis-Handa was up. Oh, no go after him. Thanks How do you sell us the land before the DRA is restructured there we go? We have the housing people that need to consent to this change What planet does that get done in 90 days? I would say you know the I the actually being under the contract with the existing land, you know, by September. That's probably a stretch. But having having having a deal that like, you know, because again, it's not just about the land sale. It's it's about solving the parking. It's it's a much more complex transaction than that. So all those things, it really would be like by September. I think we could have a term sheet or a memorandum of understanding or something that lays out all the relevant, the significant terms, there probably will still need to be training of documentation after that and the actual sale of the parcel, would you be something, would you subsequent, but we could have I think that the pretty definitive outline of deal terms that could be presented and agreed to by that time. That's what I would say. Yeah, I, okay. And then just because we're probably going to come off of the library and I know I'm on an island on this. You're not. But we did a public process. And even the people who use the library didn't choose this iconic thing at the lake front as their number one choice. So. Which public process? Well, the survey they did. Which I think was flawed because it was too heavily people that used the library. I think it would even be less popular if it was people that didn't use the library. But I just don't use the resource. Okay. Okay. Look. Yeah, I do. I do because it's just like we say to the school system is like, I know it's important to a lot of folks, but you know, we have the other half of the county that cares the most about parks and cares the most about the library and cares the most about the community college. And we're trying to balance all that out in the hunger games over budget dollars. It seems like it's kind of a no brain or lake versus merry weather because it's going to turn out to be almost the same cost. But I know that we talked about even renovating at the current site could be close almost the same cost. But, you know, and I know that we talked about even renovating at the current site could be close to the same cost. But I mean, look at $3.37. I mean, what is this thing end up costing with an architect that's used to working on things without a very tight budget? And I just, I think I need to make that statement for all the folks in the county that think this is not a priority, even though I know that we have a consensus of the council ready to go that way. Back to, you know, maybe we can try to get under contract and there's just a bunch of conditions. But man, we're even negotiating that DRR is with the housing folks is going to be there. I do not see how we can pursue this project in this way without renegotiating the DRR. I really don't. I mean, not that I'm not open to that because I am. I have been very open to that. And when love to see this take this opportunity to renegotiate that DRA, and I know David and I have been on that same page for years. So if there's a way to do that, otherwise, that's not what this agreement allows. And I think that we have to be, if you're going to say, oh, well, we're just going to ignore the agreement, then to me, that's a breach of contract. And if we're going to breach the contract in that way, then I guess anybody can breach the contract, including the county. And if the county wants to breach the contract, then all the things that are in that DRA, we as the county also can ignore for the future. And I don't think that that's a good way forward. If that contract was heavily, heavily negotiated. Not that I'm not, again, very open to renegotiating it. As is, and I know that David has, again, we have been hoping and talking to Christie about this for a while. But so far, what I have been getting from Howard Hughes is that there is no desire on Howard Hughes's part to renegotiate the DRA. So I'm not sure how without that happening, and for those of you who don't know what the DRA is, it is the development rights and responsibilities agreement between the county and Howard Hughes that sets forth the housing, the public buildings, how much housing, how much low and moderate income housing, the county is going to take on its responsibility. How much of that housing, how it uses, is going to take on as a responsibility where that housing or more or less where that housing is going to be built because there's actually specific sites listed in that agreement and there are even a number of units that are going to be built over these public buildings and that's why we have Toby's going up right now. If you wait. If we have to, sorry, I just want confirmation of one thing. Okay. All right. So if a amendment 14 passes, which is saying that, you know, it basically selects the Lakefront Library site. It shows a demonstration of support from this body for the Lakefront Library site. Then we would, in theory, have a confirmed library site. And then would it be possible to release the Maryweather site for housing? Yeah, I think it would certainly be good to have clarity from the council on the site that's preferred but I don't think that alone you know that doesn't solve all the other sort of challenges and problems that need to be worked out that again Medco is in the process of work. I think we need to have more clarity than just a direction that the county wants to build that before we would be able to say, okay, it really is kind of all together. The DRA, as it's written. It's not allowed for that. It specifies that the library would be part of the project in the marijuana district. There are provisions in the DRA for changes or alternative sites. And I don't want to pretend to be a lawyer. I'm not a lawyer and I've learned my 30 year real estate career that like pretending to be a lawyer usually gets me in trouble. So I'm not pretending to be a lawyer here. My understanding from the Office of Laws that they have a pined on this and they believe that the transaction that was previously proposed could be done within the structure of the DRA. Oh, that's interesting. That's not for me to- Okay, well, we're going to stop now. I'm sure there will be inquiries into that statement. This amendment is the first step. Everyone knows that there's more complicated things to follow it. Everyone knows that they're not ideal. But I think this amendment number 14 reflects at least my version of a good way to demonstrate a good faith gesture towards moving this great way to move forward. I think it's a great way to move forward. I think it's a great way to move forward. I think it's a great way to move forward. I think it's a great way to move forward. I think it's a great way to move forward. I think it's a great way to move forward. I think it's a great way to move forward. I think you do have three council members who agree it's at the lakefront. So I would take advantage of that timeframe if that's what the administration and others want to pursue. Okay. All right, we are gonna go back to Pago. I don't remember where we were on the list, so I'm gonna just start with Deb again. When we're done with finance. What, we need to do everything before we launch? No, no. Well, contingency reserves. You have a ton of questions on contingency reserves and non-departmental funds and expenses. Not a ton, but a handful. So yes, I'd like us to get through those and then take a break and then resume with budget amendments after lunch. I mean, if you- I mean if you- I'm going to pass this bucket of junk food around to everybody that's been sitting here for three hours. Yes, you should do that. Seriously. First of all, you should stop. Deb, do you have more pagol questions? I do. I mean, we- we'll go ahead. I wanted to go through some of these Pego items. So last year we had, I think it was a million five in Pego for a million for the Key Bridge. and it looks like we didn't spend any of that money. None of it. That's correct. Okay. What was the thought process when we put that money in there? So originally we did receive some letters that we were going to be receiving like inflation costs due to the port not being opened. So for instance, gasoline and things like that, prices were going up and people having your drives up at routes and things like that. And we didn't know what all of the impacts of the bridge would be at that time, which is why we put that in there. Okay. I asked that because now we have 2.5 million in for this federal contingency and I know that we need to be supporting our federal employees but there was a similar Emergent issue that happened last year and we didn't spend any of that money and now we have another Emergent issue that's happening this year plus we have a million dollars in contingency reserve. So I'm wondering why do we have to call it federal employment 2.5 million? Why don't we just put it in a contingency reserve place? And if we end up needing to use it for federal employment issues, then we can. If we don't end up needing to use it for that reason, then we have the flexibility to use it for other things as opposed to tying up a million dollars like we did last year with the key bridge. I can maybe start off on that. So the funding you see in the contingency reserve, I think this year is one million dollars. That's what I said. Yeah, traditionally that's the funding that is used if we have any overages on something like snow removal for example. So that is recurring funding that's in the operating budget for that contingency reserve. I think the funding we're discussing in the Pago item is one time. And so a different funding source that we're talking about there. So that's the first piece. On the second piece, I think regarding the key bridge, we were very pleased that the state of Maryland was able to open up the port of Baltimore in record time. And I think that mitigated a lot of the concerns that we had about costs coming onto the county. And we recognize that those costs did not materialize. And so we're not spending down on that funding. It will return back to fund balance. I mean, I think about my daughter driving through the tunnel every day instead of over the key bridge and how much money that's costing her as a result of the key bridge being disappeared. And the gas fumes of the money. And the gas and everything else. I mean, that's a huge cost. That's like $200 a month. And she lives here in Columbia, by the way. So, I mean, if you wanted to really help people with costs, I suppose you could have helped them with, getting them through the tunnel instead of the free key bridge. What kind of costs were you guys actually thinking about? Originally when that was put in, we had received letters from some of our vendors stating that they were going to increase costs to the county. Oh, our costs. Our Howard County costs. Yes, our costs. The vendors were going to pay the trees more money. Yes, because they were going to be having to take larger to long on the routes. OK, yes, now. All right, so that's what it was in there for. Is there a way to put, again, we could end up not spending this federal employment money. Is there a way to give it a more broader name so that if we do need to spend it on our federal employees we can. But if we're going to spend it on something else, we have that flexibility, like last year's Key Bridge, where we didn't end up needing that money, but then we tied up a million dollars. And what kind of things, what do you think we could end up spending the federal employment for you? Sure. You know, it is called federal impacts and emerging needs, because right now, you know, while we know some of the impacts that we have absorbed, such as we are saying around, you know, our emergency management, some of the workforce challenges, we talk extensively about Head Start the other day that that is a, you know, possibility. There are unknown costs and there are still policy measures that may come out from the federal government. So we believe that federal impacts and emerging needs is pretty broad, but provides us the flexibility under overall economic impacts. Is it enough money, for example, if we find out that we have even less money coming from female, that sounds like we don't have any money coming from female at this point, but let's say even less, that we could do some sort of transfer from this fund and put it back into our emergency services department. Can we do that? I mean, I would say that, yeah, the idea if there is loss of federal grants for you know any costs that the county has in the upcoming year that this is an available funding source we could leverage to help mitigate that. Unfortunately to your question we really don't know what the scope and scale of loss of grants could be. We know that it you know the total number of federal grants we receive is far greater than $2.5 million. But there's still not a lot of clarity on what exactly may be cut, what's in the President's budget versus what's going to get through Congress? Those are still open questions. And to your point, it may not be enough. However, we are balancing a lot of competing needs. So that was as much as we could put in right now, and we do feel like at least it would get us through initially. Right. I think you guys said earlier that Anorondo County put 10 million in. And at first I thought, well, that's a lot. And then I started thinking, what did they take away the food program from the school? Exactly. What if, right? I mean, what if they take away this and start? And head start, which is, I said, that's a big thing to me, you know, that they take away head start. But what, I guess when I first read it, I thought, oh, we're going to help federal employees, And I thought $2.5 million is not going to be enough to help federal employees. I mean, it doesn't even come close. So you're thinking broader initiatives. So I'm thinking is there a way to put more money into that fund. I'm actually now thinking that Anorondo County might be on the right track. Anyway, I don't know, that's, you still have time, you can amend one of your amendments. Okay. That was just my thought about this. And then the HCPSS Teachers Lone Program, 300,000 in 2024, 300,000 in 2025 and 300,000 in 2026. Do we know how much of that was spent? Do we know it was at zeroed? That's correct. The funding that was distributed, I think in the first year, was FY 24 that we did this. It was fully expended on teacher loan repayments and other costs related to the program incurred by the school system. This year, that funding will also be fully expended. I believe it's still showing in our budget book, but usually that payment occurs at the end of our fiscal year. Okay, that's great. Great news. Okay, Howard County Arts Council. Wait, what, Deb? Okay, you want me to? Mr. Yemen. I just had one more question. And this kind of goes on the question I asked before, which is these entities that get payego, but they've gotten them for a couple of years, but they haven't gone through the CSP process. Community College Institute. Why aren't they a CSP by now? So Community College Institute is a CSP grantee. If you see funding, Pegogo funding going to a nonprofit, for example, it is to pay for one time costs or programs. And so this is an example where they have some capital related costs for their green pharmacy garden site that this funding would be supporting that, not operating costs for the organization. Because this is a big part of what CSPs need to do is they need to file reports, they need to show governance, and they need to be able to do their own fundraising. What fundraising are they doing? That's correct. A great amount of the time, and for most grantees actually we ask this in our grant applications to detail what other funding sources they're bringing in for projects. And so one example that's coming to mind is you'll see 250,000 in here for the conservancy for their nature-based place-based project at their site. And that was a project that also secured $400,000 in state capital funding this year. So we, throughout our CSP process, really encourage all of our grantees who are sending applications to demonstrate that they are bringing in other funding sources and leveraging other funding sources. For some organizations that's more possible than others they better you know fundraising operations. That's something that we continue to to really impress upon them. Okay so I make sure we're keeping our eye on the ball both.. Are they fiscally sound? Are they gonna be around next year? Is it a benefit to Howard County, taxpayers, residents, kids, whatever goals there are, and that they're doing their own fundraising, and all the stuff that we hold, the other kind of normal CSPs to their standards. So, okay, thanks. Yes. On April 30th, one of my colleagues asked through the portal, what does the funding for CEI support? And the answer provided by this administration was, the funding is to support the Community Ecology Institute. I didn't read that. Thank you. So much. Like a running man's a guy that runs. Yeah, I'm not sure how that happened. I hope that was a typo. But as you know, our incomplete Enter, you know, premature entering. But you know, as Felix just mentioned, you know, that one time is you really focus on the capital cost related to the green pharmacy. And then we can sure an update the response is centered into the portal. That's what I mean. Again, my problems are systemic and not specific. But, but you guys know, right? I mean, what do they do? Yeah, no, we do. And I think that that must have been an error in our portal response. I mean, isn't it for them to redo the, to renovate the house at the green pharmacy garden? Isn't that what it's for? Yes, yeah. Well, that's an easy, I knew that. Yeah. That's easy enough to say. We're beyond the portal at this point. There you go. Go back and check the portal. I know, but I'm just saying that's the kind of information we get through. That was a legitimate question, because someone I asked that question in April so that we didn't have to have this conversation, could have already gotten to budget amendments, and that's the kind of answer we get. Yeah. OK. I'm glad that Miss Young touched on the 2.5, especially in comparison to Anne Romer County's 10. Because in addition to that, we're cutting into our policy reserve by a third. So, you know, there are really going to need to be cost-cutting measures implemented, starting, you know, pretty much now. Like departments need to be able to come next year to say, you know, this is how we're managing what we're doing because we're looking at, we've heard that FEMA's not reimbursing. We've heard that, well, we owe a workforce that that's not being reappropriated by the federal government. We've also, you know, they've teased these head start cuts. Not going to be surprised if they actually happen. It's not a priority to the federal administration. You know, there's so every single department, you know, obviously that liability, our exposure is much more than 2.5 million, but knowing that and that we're cutting in to our policy reserve by a third. I mean, it's just, it's really making me feel sick about next year. And so part of the question is, how are we going to respond to these? I was looking back through the summer, the conference titles for MECO. And the title this year is turning the tide, or no, it's not turning the tide. It's the future of funding, the changing role of local government. Because all of these things, people rely on congregate meals for our elderly population, pre-K for our youngest residents. I'm worried that we are not in a position to face what's coming next year well as a county. And we even got into the school system and had their school meals cut. So I guess the question that I really have and I appreciate that there is a marker there, but what are we doing to position ourselves? and I don't envy you because it's like I met with office of transportation one day. We were talking about the grants and then that afternoon it was like everything's frozen and we're reviewing everything. So it's almost impossible to stay on top of the quicksand, but how are you managing to stay on top of it and how are you kind of not looking just at this moment, but looking up and out as to what's coming? We truly appreciate the empathy, you know, we know that since COVID, the impact to local governments has been, you know, tremendous, it's been really tough across all of our departments to continue managing like this. And just as we're emerging from the pandemic, we are getting hit with the federal impacts. It's not just you, right? It's all across the county, across the county. And as CEO Gans had mentioned yesterday, those costs cutting measures, we didn't even wait to already implement those. I think there was some commentary around just a couple of thousand on this cost saving measures with energy savings days or, you know, and whatnot. However, we cannot emphasize enough that that's where we are. We need to, you know, really, really, we look through every single position. We look through every single position on what we can, you know, freeze six months, nine months, or, you know, leave open or 12 months. So we've done that due diligence and all of our departments know, there's had to be some tough decisions. So yes, the contingency at 1 million because that's what we can do. But all we need is a tough snowstorm and then we're going to have to get really creative with our departments on budgeting otherwise. Yeah, I'll just add to that to part of the preparation is just understanding our exposure. And so being able to assert in our operating budget how many federal grants we are receiving which departments those are in, which positions those are affecting, which programs. And so we've done that inventory of federal grants across the county enterprise. And that just helps give us a picture of what potentially could be at risk. And then the second piece of that is just following very closely what is happening sometimes on a daily basis in DC and then having close conversations with our federal partners in the Senate and the House of Representatives. The county executive testified earlier this year before a Senate panel, really to underscore some of our concerns on the capital funding side of things. So there's a lot of those efforts that are going on to a just inventory, know what the exposure is, and that helps us prepare when we do hear these funding changes that may be coming down to be able to pivot as needed. I mean, I think traditionally we've looked at state and federal partners as sources of help, but lately it just seems to be sources of harm. They're shifting so many costs so quickly to local governments at the federal level and even at the state level. At the state level is only about 10 million that they shifted to us this year, but it's a continuing worrying trend. And I don't think 2.5 is enough, but I also recognize that we're receiving fund this, fund that, fund everything with nothing, emails. So it's not enough, and it's not going to be enough when these financial bombs go off. Okay, we're going to do one more round on this financial discussion. Pick your topic. Yes. Because I'm hoping that that will take us 20 minutes or less. We'll break at one come back at 130 and start with budget amendments We haven't talked about Okay, go ahead all right Be more questions for you guys on non-departmental One time CSP funding went from $200,300 to $153,000. Is that correct? I believe that's correct. I would ask our friends in DCRS to join us for that discussion. Okay. That is correct. All right. Thank you. That's it. Yeah, that's it. I just wanted it. So all I wanted to know. Howard County Arts Council went from 1.5 million to $81,000. Where's their money? It's somewhere else. That is correct. So they receive operating CSP. The 1.5 million in last year's budget was for the Arts For All program. This year's $81,000 is to pay for one time moving costs associated with their relocation to the core. Arts For All were the, that was the 1.5. That was the statutory? Those are the public art program. That's the public art public art. Well, statutory. Yeah. OK. Do we own all those all that public art now? Once those public art pieces are preferred. So there's actually two public art programs. The one I think you may be referring to is art sites, which hosts temporary art displays on the public. I'm asking what the 1.5 million was for so that so that's the permanent public art program That's a new program last year that we did in partnership with the arts council Those have not yet been procured the arts council has started that process in the county will own those Upon completion of the project so the arts council has the money, but we haven't seen the art. Correct. OK. And in the $81,000, actually, I would love to take a tour of the old courthouse. I did hear from some people they did not think it was even close to being ready by November. I don't know that you all do. You all really think it's going to be ready by November. I would like to see it with my own eyes. I see Zach back there smiling. You can take me Zach right through that courthouse. As soon as we're done budget. You're smiling too big. You don't think it's going to be done by November. Okay. All right. I think we're very confident it'll be completed by end of this calendar year, 2025. Well, you know, actually, and that's the point because that would make a huge difference to the Howard County Arts Council. is then they could tell all of the organizations that have their special events for December for the various holidays that they can actually have their events there in December and they don't have to worry about moving until January. That would really be important to them. Yes, and we've been in very close touch with Colleen West about the moving timeline and know that for the Arts Council moving at the end of November, early December, is there preferred time to move. So that is very much our intention. After December is actually their preferred time to move. I was also in very close touch with her recently. So yeah, I mean, it's not that big of a deal. It's only one month. But as long as we're looking at $81,000 in moving costs and it has to do with them moving, I think that if it's a public discussion, then it would be better to have happen in January. Okay. Thank you for that feedback. All right. I just got it last weekend. So unless you've talked to him more recently. And then bike lane leaf removal equipment, which was in FY25 unobligated. I take it that you are never going to put that back again. Yes, that is a one time equipment purchase for. It looks like it didn't get purchased. So we're currently working through the purchasing process right now. Department of Public Works has tested out several different models. It's, you know, most of these are produced overseas where there's, you know, much more prolific bike lanes. And so they are currently going through that process of reviewing an appropriate piece of equipment. So it is still going to get your, your, do you request it again? We are in the process. We have about four vendors, so pretty much what Felix just said. And we would anticipate making the purchase in 26, though. So likely not going to happen this fiscal year. OK. Well, that saves you. You're taking it out of this year's budget and putting it somewhere else. Thank you. Mr. Yermen, do you have any more financial discussion questions? I only have one more, which is, and everyone's talked about it today, is this notion of all of these extra pockets of money that the county has for contingencies. There's $1 million in just plain old contingency for things like snow removal. We have a code mandated rainy day fund budget stabilization account. That should be at 7%, is that right? That's correct. But the administration has made a decision to exceed that by a certain amount. That is correct. We have a policy reserve which is an additional 3% of our total budget. And that was fully implemented in FY21. 21. Okay. So like if I'm looking at our act for the last fiscal year completed on page 87, it talks about both the subsequent year's budget stabilization account of $10 million and the policy reserve of $43 million being deducted from general fund balance. The policy reserve is in addition to the rainy day fund. That's correct. Office of what authority does the council have to weigh in on those amounts set aside? It's not a standalone budget item number. There's reference to it in the budget book. We'll take a look at it, but generally speaking speaking the charter provides for the rainy day fund. So that is and then the rest is fund balance which is under the charter budget provisions the executive proposes how much of fund balance for example to spend in a given year? No, my question is, does the council have any ability to say I don't think you need to put aside X dollars additional to the law mandated rainy day fund? Well, a rainy day fund is driven by a technical calculation because 7%, that 7% change because the general fund changed. It's a formula driven. I'm not I'm asking what authority the council has right over the policy decision of how much additional to a rainy day fund should be set aside. You're not talking about the rainy day itself. Okay. Yeah. Okay. We'll get back to you. Okay, thank you. Because that amount, you know, additional to a general fund balance, which is grown significantly over time, we are sitting on a policy reserve that's four times what it was when this administration came into office. I appreciate the fiscal concerns, conserve it, whatever you know what I'm trying to say. But I feel like we're hoarding these pockets of money in all these different places to the detriment of ongoing operational expenses and those kinds of things. We never spend them. They're just sitting there accruing investment income that then surpasses our expectations. But every year when we go before, sorry. Every year when we go before our triple A bond rating agencies, they have encouraged us to grow this fund for times like these. This is a fiscally sound practice to have a policy reserve. And quite frankly, that's why we do have a triple A bond rating unlike other jurisdictions. And what has occurred right now with the state getting downgraded by Moody's has really has us kind of insured really looking at this, proceeding with caution. And so I just wanted to kind of underscore that we have taken the rating agencies advice seriously and that's why we have built it up but we will be talking about the amendment that's before you later. Okay. Two, three. All right. And this will conclude our discussion of finance. Can someone walk me through all the places where we're utilizing fund-balanced to cover reoccurring expenses within departments? Let me rephrase, who would like to do that? I can just talk about in general on that there. I want like that specific like in fire we're utilizing X amount which is a 208 increase of over the prior year. Yeah I understand. Which I recognize we were doing because we shifted our fire tax to our property tax so we would have more funds available for schools knowing that we would be pulling more from that fire fund balance, but it's still important in germane to this conversation. So if you want to tell me where to start in the budget book and we'll walk down through that, be great. Oh, yeah. I will. So I'll start with a concept and then talk where I can on some more specific and I need to look into the details on that. So conceptually, there's two things related to use one time or fun balance, no matter which found on that. One part is using one time for ongoing expenditure, the others overall, what's the etiquette level that needs to sit there as a reserve on that. So these are two different things, but sort of connected. I think they'll definitely touch on that when you get to the health fund. So the first piece about the use one time money, it's usually it's discouraged. I mean, sometimes the situation is there that we have to mitigate overall cost increase here and then kind of tap into the practice. But the general idea is that it is not discouraged because then the next year the costs are still there. That's building the base, but it's only no longer there. So whatever the coming years revenue first have to replenish the missing piece anymore to support that. But then every fund is different. Like a fire fund, as you just talk about, it's a little bit different in the sense that there are more costs coming down the road because we have more fire station. But at the same time, the fund was healthy and we tried to maintain tax, not change for fire for as long as possible for now, like at least the next few, several years on that. And then so even we, so we are using some fund balance there to support ongoing to get us as long as possible before it's necessary another rate increase for our residents. So that's why it is a structure imbalance in Tom ongoing revenue versus ongoing expenditure and that gap is going bigger. But there are reserve there, which is try to push back as long as possible the necessity of raise tax. The other ones like a no matter general fund, we're kind of make a hard decision collectively for the elective issues together about using one time to support in school as one example is that again, same concept that going to next year, keeping the same cost before even adding more, the cost there, but the funding wouldn't be there. And we have to kind of add to next year's problem. But at the same there are immediate needs here and there was a lot of service needs there about employee keep there so that's a delicate kind of flying line to work how do you mitigate this versus all those service pressure at the same time right but also interesting because I just want to confirm that us pulling from our one time policy reserve, the 14.5 million, that that will then get baked into next years. In the base in expenditure, right? Okay. And because that's a base that going to, but next year that piece of funding wouldn't be there. So next year, whatever the new funding, the first piece will be used just to replenish existing use from all to make the level expanding. And the rest, which will be a smaller amount, will be used to address all the needs next year from school, from debt service, from all agency, you know, everything. But that's just like, again, that's just a reality. And then again, we hear all those needs and demands and, you know, that that's just a difficult decision. The other part is about like, so it is, from financial viewpoint, obvious it's discouraged to do that, but in reality you have to answer all those service needs as well. So this is a very tough year, I think. So all the people who are sitting here tried to balance all this financial and service and the different needs here. It is difficult. And what I add on top of that is that, okay, on the federal side, there's so much stuff going on. It's putting a negative impact on the county and the state is adding to that. All the things make it even more stressed. So now it's kind of like trying to buy us a little more time. Eventually, some long-term solution will be needed. I think more than one leader here mentioned, I introduced work sessions here. Jointly, that has to be very candid to painful discussion about going forward next year and beyond how do we have more permanence. But because a lot of permanent solutions is we are not, and no matter you cut back some kind of services or you resex, it's all painful when you try to talk about more sizable permanent. Now we're like, okay, doing everything possible savings as leaders from the county side. They did everything on the county side and did best there, but it looks like they're still a gap in terms of needs and resources, so that's like you some temporary, very unique strategy this year. Try to avoid more kind of a drastic action needed there, so but it's kind of by time. Eventually, there's do need this hard conversation from all of us, and eventually that's going to be having some consequence here. Yeah, well I mean nothing changes throughout this next year. We're not going to have those funds to put these band-aids on. Yes, eventually that's kind of like, again I would say that process is going to be tough but it needs collaboration across all the key stakeholders to work through this and come out as more sustainable solutions there. So this year's a prep year for Buckland up for next year because it's going to be... It's a very unique, I think we expressed clearly it's a one-time effort. I mean, we did it in the last decade. The only time we did before it was for COVID on that, that's that year second time. We made it very clear. It's a very unusual one time, one time temporary strategy. Yeah. And what are the other places where we're pulling from? Looks like there's some happening in recreation and parks. Definitely within our health fund, technology fund. Yes, yeah. I think the early Mr. against their Aussie here also mentioned in the Department of Administration as one example there like we we actually manage some internal service fund to extremely low level and even like think one one of the main steps deficit currently because we try to mitigate cost increase in terms of chargebacks to contribute those fund there. So as a result we can slow down which will be baked into the proposed budget in terms of county agencies cost increase so there are some funding will be allocated and which which resulted in a pretty high increase to the school funding. Again, obviously not meeting the request from Board of Ed but that's represent the county part efforts try to try to maximize support. We're never going to be able to get 108 from what 64.8 68.5 so that that is a issue, just off the bat. But then for next year, should we be anticipating because of our reliance on the fund balance this year, for example, within DTCS, that we would see. It would be tougher for all those different costs items you just talk about, because again, we are not funding at the level of the true costs. So next year we just have to kind of, you will experience more cost increase because this year we're not funding at the level of true cost on that year. The other thing is, the separate topic but very connected is about the overall fund balance level on that. There is because I think the easiest way to Understand is for personal finance typically It's advised you are set aside least three months of your expenditure or somewhere as you are saving In case of emergency, I think for a financial ward is not that difference and the typical I think it's like if it's three months like for the counties, but more more than $400 million for a general fund on that city in the reserve. And then I think GFOA have a guidelines is basically minimum minimum there that needs to be at least two months of unrestricted funding sitting in the reserve. And for us, that means $270 million in general fund on that. But that's just like a more like minimum recommended level because we are triple A. We are given more higher bar on that there. A triple A is much higher using muties. That's the triple A level is typically 35% or higher on that there. So again, it's a delicate balance there because again, we would try to maintain best possible financial status at the same time. We have to answer the real needs on daily basis on that and try to mitigate through all this. So then come to a hard decision, try to balance that to the extent possible. That's a difficulty essentially in front of all those key decision-makers together on that there. Well, I mean, there's definitely like a grasshopper in the ant tension for any lovers of children's fables out there. But I mean, we couldn't have anticipated COVID. I don't think we could have anticipated the extent of, I'm not even sure what adjectives reverbs to use about the federal government's actions towards local governments and state governments. And the citizens and residents of America that they're essentially targeting with their cuts. But, you know, we need to have that reserve. Thank God we have that reserve for these types of times. And this administration is going to be here for a while. And these actions, they're gonna take, are gonna continue for a while and that's going to be certainly longer than two months or six months of saved expenses to cover our costs. So we will have to have to cut costs. Yeah, that's the that's the natural likely situation. The other thing I really to reserve is that we all heard about the state bomb rating change on that, which is troublesome on that. That's reaction to both their structure imbalance issue and the overall exposure to federal government. It's not naturally directly linked to county level, but we kind of need to be. Right. We exist within Maryland. Be diligent and on that, they understand that situation. And even before this, historically, I know there are a few different jurisdictions in Maryland. Montgomery County once was put in a negative outlook. Prince George's County last year was put in negative outlook. So a few years ago, Baltimore County was there. And typically what they react is they immediately have new policy. Like years ago Montgomery start implementing 10% reserve sitting aside. That asked the year to, they hope, become one of the instrumental way for help them maintain that. Tribal aid. Baltimore County one year, their reserve dropped to 14.7% level of total. They got the warning and put a negative reserve and they have a 10 percent policy implement immediately holding that in the reserve. And then after a couple years they were able to be coming back. So we just, and I think Farfax County did 10 percent reserve as a policy. So it just like in general that's why I tried to help them to. Again, there's competing needs because there are people who want to use it. But at the same time, from a financial view, there is a reason why there is a standard of what I'm trying to hold there because to give people understanding that you have the ability to react if there's something really draconia happening, no matter which, natural disaster or other things there, you have etiquette reserve to be there. And the other thing is, the county has been tripled for a long time, which is really wonderful, wonderful. And it's really one of small percentage of all those traditions. Enjoy that. It really speaks to the Wall Street have. Investor has a lot of confidence in the county. Say the county is low risk. They are, not only today but also for many years because they buy the bomb, it's 20 year bomb, they were like, you know, this county is great not only now but also in many years ahead on that there. That's why those reading we care about is not only because O triple way we give lower interest rate because it's a very good indicator independently from financial real world say Say, you are one of the best of the best there. Again, that's why people like say, why do you care about this? There's a great reason we care about and try to look through their lines and say, here's from the financial real point there, this is what's an etiquette thing we want to do our best to try to maintain that and avoid sliding down to the extent possible. And the last question was because I see it's 105 and this is just like a line number item but what is the balance of our health fund our employee health fund this year after actions taken. I think this is a project to a negative $699,000. So our health fund? I'll have a benefit fund. Yes, after all this, it's going to be project to be an in negative. That's correct. All right, well, I'm going to go eat my feelings at lunch and I'll talk to you all when we come back. Okay. We'll resume with budget amendments beginning at 130. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Okay. Okay, Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Thanks. I see. All right. We're back on. Work session, operating budget. Actually, we're done with a-we're now we're going to budget amendments, both capital and operating. And I told Vice Chair Chones that we would start with his. If you are with us, Dr. Jones. By my read of the summary, that would be a amendment 12 to CB 36 and a amendment two to CR 89, which I think is like a pair. Yes, can you hear me? Can you see me? Oh, yeah, both. Yes. Okay, great. All right, good afternoon, everyone. So in a nutshell, I felt and I have said three or four times, maybe two times, I think three times, publicly that given this constraints that everyone and the belt tightening at one's feeling, not only in our jurisdiction, but all around the state, but specifically for Howard County, I think we can punt this a year or two with the spectas, the renovations that we have planned. I think $700,000 is a good chunk of change. It will be great to have those renovations right now, but other departments could use it a little bit more than us renovating our spaces. And I feel that education would be a start, at least in the conversation. So that's what this amendment or this pair of amendments is about to just put our renovations a year or so. Good, okay, thank you. Yes, Mr. Yermmen? Where did the number come from? And from DPW's perspective with project is getting punted. May 12, CB 36. Are you asking DPZ or are you asking me? Well, I'm asking you, but Zach's making his way up. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I have no idea. I thought that was hard to begin with anyway, but I wasn't in the nuances on exactly what the sub line items were for the $700,000. So it's not specific. It's, we just took a little money and they got to figure it out. It's fine. Yeah, I get it. Wait. Why are you saying no, though? Oh, it's okay. So this specific to Banachar renovation Yes, yeah, I knew it was for the Banachar reservations. I'm just not sure of the Internals of each line item within the $700,000. Okay. Okay. And was there, did we, did the executive cut from, is there a place to put back $700,000 in the, in the school's capital budget? No, it's like, it's a issue. You know, I'm not saying they use the, they use the, they have something. Oh, XC, I see. So it goes to contingency. I didn't hear that response. Sorry, Dr. Jones. I was just saying that from the looks of the amendment, it goes to contingency. Right. And with the understanding, if you read a little bit further down at the end, that, you know that with the hope and understanding that it would be spent wisely with our colleagues and friends over on the education side. But it goes into the education. It goes into HCP assesses contingency. It can't. It can't. It's very maxed out on capital. So it's just going to general funding contingency. So it's going to, but it's going to HCPSS contingency. It's not. It's no such thing. I didn't think so. It looks like it's going to county contingency with a condition that it would be spent for HCPSS. But there's not my read of it. But there's not another piece of this that specifically transfers the money to HCPSS. Mr. You're you're you're shaking your head. It's there's not another amendment that does that Now the only other amendment is the amendment to 89 But it's again with the $700,000 should the process. Go ahead, no. The process would be that the Board of Ed would request 700 in additional capital from, can executive, then he would send us a request to remove it from contingency to then appropriate to the school system. I don't know the specifics of how to move out contingency. Does that work? Works. You don't know, I don't know if you heard how to move out of contingency. Does that work? Works. You don't know, I don't know if you heard Dr. Joe's. Yes, good. I'm sorry if I made this a mission, Michelle Herod. The county executive has fully funded the capital budget for the education, so we could not move it to the school system. We could. We could move it to operating, right? You know. What? It's bond funding. Oh, it's bond funding. That's why we kids have a bond funding. So Dr. Jones requested, as Ms. would be stated, that we move the funds into contingency with a condition that the executive consider utilizing those funds for the Board of Education and either this year, well it would probably be in future years unless the Board of Ed requested additional funding. So does the Board of Ed have time to request additional funding? And they put in a request before Wednesday for the $700,000 for capital expenses above and beyond what they have already asked us for? In which case, Dr. Jones could amend his budget amendment to push that money over to the capital for the school district. I believe the school district did that last year. Mr. Comforty, do you recall that? Miss Malo, you were, weren't you, I think you were part of that group that did it last year. You, can you come up? Which- So my recollection is that at the last year, at the last minute, like two or three days before the budget, was voted on, that the school district had a budget amendment for some amount of money that you thought you might be able to get in capital funding. I'm remembering $4 million. It might not have been that high. And then- I'll start looking. Okay. In the meantime, Mr. Cook, did you have something to add? Yeah, the amendment provides that if the cut were made, it would go into capital contingency in the county budget. And it would be, and moving it out would be contingent upon the use of the funding if the board were to ask for it after FY26. So you wouldn't get this year? As I think Ms. Herrod mentioned, the board's capital budget has been fully funded. And it will Okay. 26 budget. All right. Anything else on these on this pair of amendments? Dr. Jones, are you good? Yeah, I'm good. I mean, it's quick and easy for me. I mean, I didn't realize it would create the nuances that we've just discussed. I don't know all the ins and outs. I'll leave that to the subject matter experts sitting around the table of how to make this happen and to tell us and education and even the Office of the County Executive, which is the best way to do it. But as we've all received, dozens and dozens of emails, more money is needed and this is just a little bit of it. If we can make it work great, if not, we'll find another way. Okay, thank you. Okay. I think next we should go to the administration's amendment which restores some 15 million or so to the school system. I will take any help in identifying that number. So amendment one to CR 92, right? And what's the number that I don't know I'm trying. We have Miss Sager here from the administration. You have a what? Miss Sager. Okay. But do you know the number of the amendment so that we can look at it? Is it only the one amendment one to CR 92? That's the one that gives the detail, but Dr. Sun could probably provide additional information if there's others in council bill 36 that address this. Okay. Amendment one, CB 34. No. Which... Do you guys have the number? I think it. Nobody does. If your reference is me. Referencing amendment one, CR 92, that's the one to amend the school budget resolution. And this is a one prefiled by administration. That's including 14.5 million one time use of prior fund bonds from the general fund county funding and also 5 million anticipate more state aid to school system there. And that's combined together provide 19.5 million additional appropriation than what's in proposed budget for the school budget. So that's what is for. Okay, so that's your 92 amendment one? Yes. And did you say 19? Is that what gets, so 45 passes, this is the amendment that then formally puts it in the school budget. That's correct. Right. So it's tied to 45. Got it. Got a mention that I was contingent on the passing of the emergency bill. Yeah. But why is it 19 five? I was 14 five. So there are two sorts of funding. One is the county funding. That's a $14.5 million. The other is anticipated more state funding to school system. OK. OK. OK. Is this a well? You're up first. Missy. Go ahead. You sound like you have a question ready to go. Well, I do. OK. Is this amendment one? This amendment one is not conditioned on anything, right? I mean, we just went through Dr. Jones's. This is if CB45 passes an amendment one passes, then these estimated 19 and a half million dollars additional are made available to the census. Correct. Okay. Okay, okay. We'll continue it. So there was a letter that was sent to the school system before this amendment was announced or the concept of this amendment was announced, which asked the school system to make a corresponding contribution from its own existing proposed budget, right? And that entailed three different categories of cuts. Yes, the county executive did provide a letter to the board of education on May 8th to consider three different options for call savings. Okay, and so I was hoping to talk to both the school system and the board about its response and its ability to meet or, you know, I don't know. I guess they're not conditions of this 19 and a half million dollars. They're suggestions. What is, well, let's take each one of them one by one. The first one was to change projections related to the health fund so that an additional $8 million in savings would be achieved. Can you speak, Mr. Hall, to the schools? What's the impact of doing something like what the executive proposed and that made letter to the school's health fund? Yeah, so thank you for that question and thank you for having us today. Mr. Barnes sends his regrets that he could not be here. He wanted to be but had a conflict that could not be rescheduled. So I'd just like to start by saying, thank you, we certainly appreciate the county executive and the county council continuing to search for ways to fund the school budget during these challenging fiscal times. So the board did and the administration did receive the letter from the county executive and have certainly taken that into consideration and we will be presenting some scenarios on ways to close the budget gap which is about $54.3 million between what the Board of Education requested and the county executive proposed. After we made some technical amendments based on the state legislature changes this year, the 29.2 million that we've been talking about is the amount that we calculated that would need to be funded in order to not have to make significant cuts to existing programs in the school system. This proposed amendment of 14.5 million would get us about halfway there and then the Board of Education would seek alternative ways. And like I said on the 27th of March, we'll be presenting scenarios to the board that will include some of the things that were recommended in the letter along with other choices. So that will all be forthcoming and the board will deliberate and make decisions based on that. The Health Fund is challenging for us. We've got about $17.9 million in reserve at the moment. Our benefits administrator Gallagher and the actuallials recommend a fun balance of around $30 million for our health fund based on the amount of claims that we process and pay out each month. That aligns pretty closely with board policy. So So we are below that amount at the moment. We also have an estimated approximately $9 million of claims that have been incurred but not yet reported. And so that is a liability for the school system. We also just had a meeting with Gallagher, again, our benefits administrator yesterday. And their suggestion is based on the most recent claims data that they've seen for January, February, and March of 2025 to add about another $5.5 million to the FY26 budget to cover healthcare claims. So adding those two together, we're already on the hook for somewhere around $14 million. And so certainly there is a decision to be made by the Board of Education. If they want to draw that down, you know, by a few million dollars. But it does present some risks. Our stop loss insurance for catastrophic claims kicks in at a million dollars. And so we're on the hook for the first million. And so, you know, a couple of those, or just a bad year of claims, could throw potentially throw the health fund into negative or into very close to negative territory. And I think most people here are familiar with what the system just came out of a few years ago with a negative balance in the health fund and had to come back to the county council for additional funding and support there. And so those are the risks and the challenges that we'll be presenting to the Board of Education for them to deliberate on. Okay, thanks. I know we have a number of board members present. I think we lost Dr. Chen, didn't we have the lunch break. But we have Gemmaolo with us, Megrix, Jackieoy, or do we have any others online? Miss Malad, do you want to weigh in here? You're sitting right in front of a microphone? Yes. So I want to kind of reiterate about the encouragement not reported. So last year as of June 30th, they estimated that we should have a balance of at least $9 million in order to fund those incurred but not reported. And with the increase in costs that we're seeing, I expect that to be closer to $10 million. So of the 18, approximately 18 million that we have in fund reserve, 10 of it is non-negotiable to be spent. And that gives us very little if any wiggle room given the fluctuation that we're seeing in, like, your fund balances to basically flatten out any volatility so that you have cash on hand in order to pay it. So with an expectation that you're going to have a minimum of about $10 million in claims, that takes it down to an available amount of about $8 million. That $8 million should be part of that buffer in case there's increased claims. And you'll see in the packets that I gave you of our upcoming board meeting reports, monthly operating budget, that in fixed charges, category 12, that we are running high to the tune of about 5% greater than where we were last year at the same time, given that we are running about 5% higher and we have yet to see the impacts of tariffs coming through the pipeline, particularly with regards to pharmaceuticals. my concern that if we draw down the health fund reserve and we have a small fund balance, then we are not giving ourselves enough of a buffer to pay for those health services that have already been incurred as well as we roll into the next year. We have no buffer against volatility. Okay, so if the school recommends that you don't or the board elects either way not to pursue an $8 million worth of savings through health fund, maneuverings, what then does, you know, what does the school system end up having to do without that $8 million suggested to be used in that way by the May 8th executive letter? So, is your question, if we use the money or if we don't? If you don't. If we don't, then there's a cup. Well, there are a couple strategies. One can take one is to reduce programmatic offerings. One is to increase class size. Another is to look for other avenues. There were two other avenues listed in the memo to see if those avenues are feasible. when 85% of your budget is personnel, your level of flexibility goes down significantly, and we will be automatically looking at cuts. You can't make up $8 million without programmatic cuts. True. Or personnel cuts. Is that a hand raised? Sort of. Okay, go ahead. The other side of that is if you do use the fund balance and you have a couple big claims, what do you do? If we do use the fund balance, the health fund balance, and have a couple couple of claims We have no backstop at that point hasn't the county executive assured you that we would be the backstop We have no backstop in terms of our own funding So we would need to come to the county for a supplemental appropriation however However, the goal would, we don't know when that supplemental appropriation would need to occur. And we could be in a position where our cash flow makes it so that we don't have sufficient cash flow to cover high levels of volatility and the ability of, I don't know what the county executive's team's ability to have that kind of immediate turnaround on supplemental appropriations. Given the historical pace of budgeting, I'm reluctant to believe that it would happen overnight or in a very short amount of time. That being said, the other potential problem would be that it might not become evident until the end of the fiscal year. And then how is there going to be, when you're planning for the next budget, is there still the bandwidth to give a supplemental appropriation? And it's how much risk are you willing to take? So there is. So it's the during the year as well as once you reconcile at the end of the year, you wouldn't want to be showing a negative balance there. Like we've all that is what goddess and the trouble a lot of us in this room have been there before. Right, and we actually, like not only did you feel the pain, but our educators felt the pain and when we were in health deficit before. Well I think we're all a little smarter, more aware that we're not going to wake up one day and there's going to be a 40 million dollar number between parentheses there again. Well we'd like to go a little bit. We're going into the red on our health fund this year. Yeah, I know. We're going into a deficit on the county's health fund. Well, we go into a deficit on a lot of county funds knowing that, you know, if at the end of the year to reconcile, we need to make a supplemental out of fund balance. do, which what we would have to do with school system as an agency that we fund just like DPC or whatever. I guess the difference I see is that HCPSS has a health fund deficit they work with the county to fix that. Has the county has a health fund deficit who do we work with to fix that? We don't have someone that we can go to that would give additional dollars the same way the school system does. Has the county guaranteed that they would work with you? Is there an MOU? Is there a letter of agreement? Is there and I will say this about the county and their ability to be nimble when it comes to responding to emergency requests. The county is pretty good at that. That I am not, that doesn't scare me. If you guys need money because you see yourselves going down the drain, then I see frequently since I've been on the county council that our county executive's office has responded and that sometimes we do emergency legislative session. And when it's not even our regular legislative session, because somebody needs money to be moved from one place to the other. legislative session and we when it's not even our regular legislative session Because somebody needs money to be moved from one place to the other so that piece doesn't Concern me but the your end of the year piece That concerns me because you should be made whole if you end up at a pocket and and it does concern me how much of an agreement the county executive's Office has come to with you all about whether they're willing to put that money back in your pocket if need be. I'll defer to the County Executive's team because I think it would be better coming from them. It would be better coming from that. And we know Ms. Cabellan is going to say we are guaranteeing that. What I will say is this is that I want to harken back to our earlier conversation about our triple A bond rating, the enormous challenges that are going on across the county about federal impacts. And we truly are in a time of extraordinary challenges. There are still those uncertainties with the federal government. There are still uncertainties around the impacts of some state kind of state issues right now. But what we have done before is that the county executive is the one and this leadership team is the one that did two things. One, we implemented a policy reserve so we could have a point in time like today to be able to do something like this. He also was the one because of his leadership did pull out and provide full funding to get out of the health fund deficit. This is the same leadership team. While we don't have a strong written MOU, to predict the future, we just can't do that right now because of the other factors such as the federal impacts. So we are grappling with really tough decisions, and we are taking a level risk that does have some discomfort, but we're doing this because we know that that 14.5 does bring half the commitment, and there is also a pathway that has been provided that is viable, that could be viable. So it could be viable, and I'm certainly not shooting down the idea sure but I am very concerned which is why I have an amendment in here for 4.1 million dollars not a lot but something to help ease the mind of the school district because I I think that the fear after their previous experience of not knowing for sure that that I mean maybe it's just a letter agreement but at least something that the school district can look at when the time comes and they say okay we need $3 million to satisfy these claims. Maybe it's hopefully it's not $8 million, okay. But it's $3 million and we have this policy reserve and then they at least have something in writing that recognizes, so they'll just go back to, oh, you could go back to budget hearing number six on the operating budget during this, you know, hour, you know, five, whatever it is. And and record this conversation. But I think it would be helpful if there was something in writing that recognized the potential and recognized the counties. If not guaranteed, the fact that they will do everything possible to help the school district. And frankly, if they don't do it during the year, they're going to have to ask for it in their new budget for FY27 in order to satisfy it, or else they're going to have cut teachers. Sure, I'd like to also give Deputy Chief Staff a chance to chime in as well as our senior policy advisor. Yeah. I would just say, you know, to your question, Council Member Young, yes, in the situation where, you know, there's a potential for a deficit in the school system health fund. In the next year, we will work with the school system to address that as we have done in the past. And so we are happy to provide that level of commitment and certainly have been working closely with school system budget staff and the board of education and are going to be working on that very closely. I couldn't find that letter. Isn't that already in that letter that outlined the 15 and 15? No, I believe the letter talks about our past actions to both the drafts. But not about future ones, yes. Yeah, I can't find it. But it can reaffirm it is definitely not our desire to see that health funding ever go into deficit again. Let me just ask you one more question, Mr. Hall. You actually mismallow alluded to it that you know that there's already two big bills that are outstanding or that are coming in. One that may be a million dollars each. Do you have an insurance middle person? I assume who who looks at all these claims and gives you fairly good insight into what's going on with claims history so that you know when big things are coming down the road. Yes, Gallagher is our benefits administrator and helps us navigate some very complex numbers and we meet with them, our benefits team meets with them every week. And I just want to clarify, we have not experienced any of the large claims this year, but it's always a potential. And we do have stop loss insurance that would cover us for anything over a million dollars. You just got three, four years ago. There was a year ago. There were some really big that led to the health deficit. You're just got here, Garret. Yeah. Can I ask a follow-up about health fund or about the assumptions? Like what's going into them? Sure. Mr. Amanda, did you want to add something? No, I think Mr. Prishin covered it. Oh, OK. OK. So I think you said, what was the recommended number? Was it 17? So the recommended is around $30 million, about two months worth of claims. And when Gallagher takes that assumption, is that based off of superintendents proposed, board proposed, actual likely real dollars that we could actually spend, what are the inputs going into that assumption? Because if it's including additional, like a significant amount of additional positions, then I would imagine that that's going to be accounted for in there. So we budgeted our increased health insurance costs for our new positions separately. And so we have $10.9 million in the Board of Education's budget just for our existing employees and the increased costs that we're going to see there. And so the new positions would be separate from that. And the inputs that go into it are the actual claims data for HCPSS and then national trends that they're seeing across all of the different public entities that they work with. I mean, I think that everybody here is united around. We all united last year to try and give your a large ship. So perhaps expecting you to make significant changes within one year was not feasible. But we all united around the concept of making sure that you had, you backs up funds, you had time to make operational changes. Because if those operational changes aren't made, we're right back here next year and the year after that and the year after that. So we all united last year so you would have time to make operational changes. Understand a lot of that was planning. We are all united around it this year as well from the council to the county executives. So I don't know what assurances you need to hear from us that I mean we, we don't, we want you to be funded so badly. We're creating our own health fund deficit and making sure you don't. So we, like, I think that there's enough, I don't know what else you need to see demonstrated from us that we would work to backfill your health fund deficit because we don't wanna end up where we were before. We understand if you're in a health fund deficit, we essentially are in a health fund deficit for you because we ultimately backfill that. So, I mean, we're aligned there. I hope that this delays any concern. We are not in a position to make that. We are just not in a position to make that assurance. Like, that is not with, I mean, again, this is part of the theater that is us approving a budget. So if that money, what the operational changes are there, that you're talking about, we fired, I mean, we let go how many teachers last year. Class increase sizes in secondary schools. I'm never talking about class increase I'm talking about operational changes changes need to meet. Do you want me to explain them? Or do you want me to, I mean, are you guys, I can say right now that if that came before us to vote on, I would vote yes for that additional dollars to go to your health fund deficit. I'm in that position to say that about my actions, and if that came before me, then I would support it. Okay, I'm gonna, go ahead Ms. Ballam. We did make operational changes. We cut 192 positions. And I do also want to emphasize that when we're talking about the getting to the 29.2 million that we need to close the gap, We have already taken out all of those new positions that the board originally requested. So what's left is only the 10.9, which is a 7.5% increase over last year compared to what are what Gallagher is saying we need. So Gallagher is saying that we need to increase that amount to above 7.5% increase because of actual claims data. So just wanted to share that. And as has been done in previous years, because if nothing changes, nothing's going to change. The operational changes I'm talking about are the ones that state is asking you to make, that the state board of education, the standards they are asking locals to re-align to. Whether that is for college and career readiness, math and reading standards, all those things are how you do things. We don't have to keep operating off this 1992 model. I mean, that's what I'm referring to. I thought we've had these discussions year after year. The blueprint-related changes. We are making blueprint related changes. We have increased, we're one of the highest areas in the state that has apprenticeships because of career and technology. We are increasing our enrollment in that area. We have opened up community schools. We are working towards the science of reading and how we support that and using the NST models in alignment with blueprint. We did cut 192 positions in order to make the operational changes that we are required to make as well as we received additional funding last year to preserve certain programmatic offerings. And if those are the things that you're speaking about, obviously if we don't use the health fund, those are some of the same superintendent parrances already said. or some of the same considerations of program eliminations that would be on the table. It is crazy to me that we talk about this at budget because these are conversations that should be happening in the community with educators and parents throughout the year. It shouldn't be, do we need to cut third grade strings this year? It should be what is is the third to fifth grade experience like, and how do we meet these standards? But it's never that conversation, it always happens at budget. I just, it's no way to plan and execute all the programs that you guys have to execute. So, you know, I would say the new administration, myself included, have been in place for about 10 months, 9, 10 months now. And so we are working through those conversations. One of the things that Superintendent Barnes charged my team with this year was making sure that we did start those conversations with the community earlier and more effectively. And so we started back in October going around and meeting with different community groups, different advocacy groups, our students, our parents, and explaining the budget situation. And you're right. The blueprint by definition is forcing local governments and local school systems to change the way they do business. The challenge that we face, of course, is that our community is not interested in a lot of those changes, but there's not enough money to do all of what we're currently doing and everything that the blueprint is putting on the school system. No one has written us an email that says, please increase school class sizes. No one has sent us an email that says please fire more teachers. No. That is we have received more emails about education this year than ever. Oh, I don't know that music here because every time they've read the music, we help them then ethnic. Guys, I think that we're missing that when superintendent Barnes was here last week, you know, we talked about messaging and we talked about helping the community to understand the difficulty that you're in, that the sport of Ed's in, and I, you know, we had that conversation, didn't we? Did I imagine that? I think we did. I mean, as the point of fact, she says we have to do GT instruction, right, through Comar. We had a teacher share that with us, but it doesn't say you have to do GT instruction exactly the way you've done it for 30 years. That's where I'm saying we need to be talking about what this experience is like for our educators and our students because everything is based off of how we've always done it and I recognize. A lot of this is pent-up frustration baggage because this has been going on for what eight years of discussions around how we're going to change But but that's what I'm saying, you know Comar says this is what you need to do. It doesn't say it needs to be done exactly the way that HCPSS has done it for the last 30 years and instead of having holistic conversations about how to improve the student and educator experience with the resources that we have, we're instead in these conversations that can't possibly be implemented because we've thrown everything in the kitchen sink in this budget again. And it leaves parents and educators all very confused about what's really going on. And that's why I'm saying that we need to be having these conversations about how is that GT enrichment done? Not how do we slightly incrementally change it from the way we've been doing it for 30 years? And I really want to make sure that my point is clear. No one is saying cut GT. We're saying how do we do it differently in a way that meets the students needs, meets the educator needs, meets the requirements from MSDE, and is in within a reasonable amount of money that the county can actually expect to achieve next year. What would make you think that any of those changes would mean that it would cost less to deliver GT? Sure mean, sure. Let's start. You have no way. We're getting so far off topic here. I would like to hear board member McCoy's take on this. And then I think we got it. We these are all things that we could talk about forever never. But what we got to talk about now is what the budget before us and what consequences that leaves this school year or this coming school year end. But please go ahead, Ms. McQuay. First of all, I'm not Jim Malo and I don't have all the numbers and I don't report to have all that, but I'm an educator, right? And recognizing that this administration's only been in place for 10 months, right? And has not really significantly changed the staff. So if you're expecting new thinking from the same staff, in order to get that, it's going to take time. Or you're going to have to change staff. And if you change staff, you're still hoping that they get what you want done, right? There's no guarantee. And so, this year has been, let's figure out what we have year. And so, no major changes have come about as a result of that because we still have the same old thinking. Right? And we have the same people doing things the same way, but being asked to do things differently. And so you got to shift. So it's not as easy as you're saying. And even if all the money were given to provide the funding for the superintendent's proposed budget, what we have been able to do with that money this year, meaning that everything stayed the same, it's still disastrous for our students. We've got special education needs that are significantly under staffed and underfunded. And we're making up for the foolishness of the transportation fiasco. So it's not like, it's not business as usual. We've had just compounded things and then the COVID effect, you know, trying to meet the needs of our students mental health Which is unprecedented? We need more staff for that So even if we got all the money that the superintendent requested We're still not meeting the needs of our students and that's our bottom line I'm I think that'd be the case even if you got all 108 million requested. Even if you got 200, 300, 500 million, it's a general fund growth was 300 million a year. And we gave it all to schools. That's why ultimately it has to be changed how it's delivered. I think enrichment can be delivered in ways that aren't CEUs and aren't, you know, this 30-year-old model. I absolutely, and I know that because educators tell me that it's possible. But I think you're spot on with the pace of change, what it takes for change. And if you have old ways of thinking, you're not going to get to change outcomes. So I hear that, and I will. I mean, new ways take time as well. Because you can't change all the staff. You can't flip the whole boat upside down and expect it to. Yeah. Yeah. A second suggestion in the Executives May 8th letter was leveraging available fund balance school fund balance. And I think that suggestion was in the amount of $5 million. Could you speak to the likelihood of that? And as I stated up front, all of these are going to be under consideration for the Board of Education, along with other ways of closing the remaining gap. So with the fund balance, we had a starting fund balance or end of year fund balance at the end of FY 24 of $7.6 million. We recently submitted a supplemental appropriation that was approved by our board and sent to the county council that would draw that down by $2.4 million. So leaving us with a year end projection of about $5.2 million, we do believe that we built some buffer in there so that we wouldn't be running right up against zero as we come to the end of the fiscal year. And so, you know, somewhere between five and a half and seven million dollars. And so that certainly is a possibility to use some of that. How much of that the board, you know, chooses to use would be up to them and would be based on their tolerance for, you know, risk. Obviously, if we draw that down too low, as Ms. Mallow suggested, there is a possibility that we would be back here seeking additional funds from the county next year. And so that is going to be part of every scenario that we bring the board, and they will consider and determine what is appropriate for that. Ms. Malo, did you want to add anything? Sure. Again, we're looking at how much risk are we willing to accept. The board policy states that we will try to keep our fund balance at 1%, which is best practice. That would be $1,12 million. So we're nowhere near there. and I think when we look at where our current spending lies this year, we have found that we've already needed to request supplemental appropriation. We've needed to increase and use investment income from this year. So we've increased our revenue, projections, and already spent it. And then the other factor to keep in mind is that we budgeted in turnover savings of $13.8 million in order to fund this year's budget. It's my understanding that we are not on pace to have achieved 13.8 million in turnover savings. As well, the majority of money that we have historically used that have gone into fund balance have been turnover related or federal money related during COVID. And when we look at the category of special education, we have had vacancies for things like speech language pathologists. But what we've had to do in turn because we are required by law to provide those services is we've had to hire outside service providers. And so the amount of expected revenue that has come in and been unspent is significant. It's expected to be lower this year. And Mr. Conforty can speak to trends. I would say that when I look at the level of risk, the health fund is, that's a high level risk. Taking down our general fund balance is another high level risk. When we've already had to outlay money this year and we are expecting increased costs. With the tariffs, with the current economic policy of the federal administration, we know that costs are going to go up. And again, if we take that buffer down, yes, we have historically counted on the administration, but that's an exceptionally high level of risk that we're being asked to accept and take responsibility for. And we had not only did the county have to put in money to cover our fund balance, we had massive cuts. We had programmatic cuts, whether it was the elementary school model. the county have to put in money to cover our fund balance. We had massive cuts. We had programmatic cuts, whether it was the elementary school model, whether it was paradegicators at every grade level. We had to make cuts. We had to cut our textbook funds. We had to cut supplies. So we had so much sacrifice to get over that hump that it's a little daunting to look at a recommendation to user fund balance, user fund balance, user fund balance because that money's going to be replenished from the existing revenue. So absent additional cuts to absent additional cuts, there's no way to regenerate that fund balance, and it is against best practice. Okay, thank you. The last recommended, I guess, savings was adjustments to, well, factoring in increased investment income. During the last three years, HCPSS has averaged $7.3 million in annual actual investment. The fiscal year budget drops investment and come down to two. Is that a more promising avenue of increasing funds available to next year's fiscal year operating budget? Yeah, and again, we're exploring all of these and at the end of the day the Board of Education will weigh in and make the decision. We provide guidance based on our expertise. I do think that this is an area where there is some opportunity to increase that amount. You know, historically, for the school system, $2 million in investment income would be extremely good. Over the past several years, for two reasons. One, the yields have been higher as interest rates have been higher. And two, we've had more money in large part because of the federal COVID relief monies, being able to pick up that normally would have hit the operating budget to be invested, leaving additional money that can be invested to earn interest. So when we were building the budget in the fall and the winter, the U.S. economy was booming, the Fed was consistently lowering rates, you know, meeting after meeting. That of course all has changed now and the Fed held their interest rate steady at the last meeting and said that they don't anticipate changing that in the near future. And so I think that it is fair that we could bump that up, you know, by two to three million dollars, you know, in the area of four, four and a half million to put in the budget. And so that is something again that will be included in all of the scenarios that we present the Board of Education to weigh in on. Okay, thank you. Why am I still talking? I'm going to say one more thing and then jump in here. Someone else please. I will say that with the amount that's proposed to be put back in by Amendment 1 to CR 92 to category 12 fixed charges, which includes health insurance, health fund, right? The board initially requested $280 million, and the executive initially funded $252 million. This amendment would increase that to $259 million. But that still leaves, should I just have the math, still leaves $21 million unfunded in category 12 fixed charges, which includes health insurance, right? I mean, I'm doing the math right. I'm going to add a little bit of the little bit of the little bit of the little bit of the little bit of the little bit of the little bit of the little bit of the little bit of the little bit of the little bit of the little bit of the little bit of the little bit of the in category 12 fixed charges, which includes health insurance. Right? I mean, I'm doing the math right. I don't have those numbers in front of me, but yes, 280 minus 259 is 21. Oh, really? Really? Yes, CFO for you. Really good. And I can ask Mr. Kincorri to give some details on that if you would like. Okay. I'm just saying that I mean there's no quite you know the only category that was fully funded was a very low dollar value of community services. But fixed charges was at least in dollar value the biggest cut that was made to the to the boards proposed. And even with this addition in the Amendment number one is in no way close to closing what filling the gap from what was originally proposed by the board. I don't know if this is a good time to interject some of the amendments. I think it is. I do think it is. Okay, well that's why I'm looking at you and just testing out. Okay, so I have an amendment for 4.2 million and assuming that you had an amendment for 12.2, right? But now 10 of it is. You know, that's, it's a specific education. Okay, all right. Well, and there was more money that came to light today that I'm thinking I could add at some point to this amendment. So we're looking at 90. Oh, thank you. Thank you, to Terry. Thank you. Thank you. All right. And it's up on the board. I great good. What it's C B36 sorry. I should warn you all the right at the beginning that there was a drafting error in this budget amendment. So I'm actually going to have to add a technical amendment to address the drafting error. But that doesn't change the nature of what you're seeing here, which was to take $500,000 in pay-go funding at a park's resurfacing. Of course I can see Mr. Moonahan is here, ready to tell me how this would be the most hurtful thing that's ever happened in his history as the director. So I don't know if you want to know. You have to wait. Let me just explain the whole thing first because you know how much I love park resurfacing. So you knew I would go there. And then there's $1 million out of the Transform Constituent Management, which is CO380. And then then 2.5 million out of fleet operations and 200,000 out of ban anticipation notes. So that adds up, and I see Mr. Healy is here to tell me how that would be the terrible thing to, but that adds up to 4.2 million and that money would go to the school operating fund. So that's the basis of it. That's the gist of it. There's a whole lot of amendments that are attended to this because this thing has to move out of that and then there's another thing has to move in here and given that I actually just saw it this morning before I came in I can't actually tell you that I am fully conversant with the way things are going to have to move from one place to the next but I do know the gist of what we're taking out and where we're putting it. So. Can I ask one question? Nick is waiting to get out here. Come on. He wants to tell me. Oh, I can't take $250,000 out of park resurfacing. And I think there's an administration. 500, also, $535. Yes, all right. OK. From the same capital project. My question, though, is are you proposing moving stuff out of the capital budget to put into the schools operating? Yes, pay go. Capital pay go. And we can do that? Yes, that was my understanding. I mean, I think this is the same issue that- That's why I thought you were moving it into operating. It was my understanding that I could move it into operating. Pego cannot be spent on that. You have an amendment to CB-45? Yes. Oh, this is contingent on that. Yes. Right. I got it. Is the whole thing contingent on that or just the capital transfers? You're asking me. Remember, I saw this amendment this morning before we walked in here. So I am. I cannot answer any technical questions. Your Walsh it would just be the, I pay good funding. Okay. That needs is. I am sure any technical questions. Sure. Well, she would just be the pay go funding. Okay. That means it's contingent on the amendment to council bill 45. Okay. Thank you. All right. We moved it to pay go so that then we could take it out and put it into our. All right. So that's why there's so many amendments to these amendments. Okay. Okay, now I do remember that. I want to go ahead, Director Minahan. This is the worst thing that's ever happened that day. Thank you. It's so unexpected. I mean, really, I mean, thank you so much for telling me that. Actually, which projects would it affect? How would it affect them? Thank you for the opportunity to express what the impacts to recreation and parks and the projects that were to be funded with the pay go out of in 3983 parks resurfacing. It's two projects. One is the Alpha Ridge Pickleball Courts, and the second project is the Savage Loop Trail Access, trails number three and four. So I'll address each project, and then I just have a quick closing statement about Reckon Park's funding gap as it relates to capital projects. So as most of you are well aware, Pickleball continues to grow in popularity and remains fastest grown sport in Howard County, while tennis participation also is increasing. So dedicated Pickleball courts helps preserve tennis court access while meeting the demand for the Pickleball community. The construction of new Pickleball courts directly response to the significant increase in popularity of the sport It also offers valuable low impact Recreation social engagement and physical activity benefits specifically for the 50 plus community We are experiencing a great deal of demand for existing Pickable courts especially out in western Howard County where we've had some significant altercations, court hogging, arguments. We've addressed through some roles changes, but certainly to meet the increasing demand, additional pick up all courts are warranted. So building these courts aims to alleviate overcrowding and reduce weight times for players. The second project is the Savage Loop Trail. Access trails number three and four, number one and two have already been completed. The Savage Loop Trail is one of the county's busiest trails. The steep terrain and heavy foot traffic has led to deteriorating conditions and erosion issues. And Mr. Mrainingham, this is the project that the Savage Community Association has been specifically advocating for. Yes, for some time now. The present condition will worsen leading to trail closures of the number three and four access trails if not resolved. As I stated number one and two have already been stabilized and improved. The number four trail includes the purchase and the installation of a 30 foot fiberglass bridge. So reducing pay go allocations to in 398-3 by $500,000 would compromise both of these projects. And then just on one final note, we have a backlog of projects. We try to balance new development and replacements from year to year. So there's already a lot of prioritization, our program open space funding. Since I presented the capital project, we don't have that number yet. I do have that number since presenting to you a month ago we anticipated a much lower amount. We anticipated cautiously 2 million and it came back 1.8 million which is down from like 4 or 5 million just in the preceding year. So that's really a big driver for our big source of funding. And so we're seeing reduced funding across all funding sources for capital projects related to wrecking parks. Thank you. My people are trying to sell more houses to get the transfer tax back up. But you know I can only do so much. I have a lot of houses. I don't have an account sale. Oh my god I stay on topic Director Mooney-Han you while we have you could we Could we maybe hear from you about the administrations a amendment 11 to CB 36 which seems to Have a lot of this is that the reduced grant funding? You're talking about that's the open space information that we have now that we didn't have when we had the budget book. I have not read that particular amendment, but there would be an amendment associated with reducing that grant funding. There are, well, there's one, two, three, four, five, six out of ten of the projects at Iishunah Meman 11 are all rec and parks. So it looks like parkland acquisition is reduced because of open space funding. Yes, that's works for the open space. 135. But there are others that just talk, like the Ilchester Park reduces grant funding by 550. Those were bond bills that we submitted that we did not receive. Okay. In other cases you're supplanting that with pay goes. So you're doing that for rockburn branch and you're substituting and transfer tax for the Patatisco Female Institute. You're restoring money for value-mead flood mitigation. Did I get them all? Okay. That one's not mine. Okay. All right. Thank you. Yes. Can I speak to the million dollar cut for the other piece for the transform, constituent services. I just want to clarify what that money is for is our DILP system or our permitting system actually goes end of life in December of this year and that is the money in order to replace our permitting, the permitting system that we currently have in place. So I just wanted to clarify that as well. Okay, does anyone want to, well, I'm not gonna elicit complaints, but okay. All right, any other things that administration would like to say about this amendment number two? No, okay. No, thank you. Okay. Okay. I mean, I guess I'll just make one final pitch to at least three of my colleagues. Two, maybe two, maybe three, okay? That I recognize that these are important considerations for the administration. And there might be a way to find another million dollars somewhere else to make sure that Dope can get it into the life system. But I do think that in order to, I think we're asking a lot of the school district, especially if we're not willing to give them a letter, the guarantees that they will be refunded or they will be made whole on their insurance, health insurance fund. The other pieces I'm not as concerned about that were brought up today because I do think our county can act quickly. But I think this gives the school district the the cushion that they a little more of a cushion. It still doesn't give them as much of a cushion as they need, but it gives them at least a little more of a cushion to make them feel like, okay, you know, they can breathe a little bit more. And I think that that's really important to to relay the fears of the people who are elected officials on the school board who were put there to look at things like this type of risk and make a decision at the best decision that they can make knowing that this is what they've got and that they're being put in a difficult position. So that was the purpose of this amendment. I tried to be judicious. You know I'm not sure. I know that Nick does not feel that way, but And I will, I tried very hard to do my best and not look at things that I thought would hurt the county as well and where there might be a little bit of extra money that we could move over to the school district. Mr. Young, and you have anything to add? Something good. Well. Thank you. Okay. I didn't hear it. Oh, I'm next. Okay, I'm looking at you. I did have one directly related educator or education related amendment, which was Amendment 17 to CB 36. It's basically a follow-up, let me flip to it. To what I think we all agreed to, or at least, well, at least the majority of us agreed to last year, which was to encourage the board in the school system, although I think it's the board that's the signatory, to enter into a-year agreement with our teachers. This year, the version of that is to strongly support preservation of that agreement. I know, you know, to the extent we can't feel that gap and it's unpalatable to the board, that the balance between the 14.5 extended the administration and the 29.2 identified in our earlier conversations that you don't want to use the health fund balance. That those, that that contract or contracts might be an issue, but I think it sets a really bad tone to have finally accomplished something that so many have worked towards in getting that multi-year contract and the concessions that are reflected in that contract. We hear every year the cost of living adjustments made to every other employee in this county and they double what the people that you negotiate with have conceded to. So that is my amendment 17, did I say the number right? Oh, it's up there, so helpful. So helpful. And I think we have 17 in the front. Well, it's up on the board. And it says the County Council continues to support the multi-year educator compensation agreement agreed to by the Howard County Education Association and the Howard County Board of Education and urges the Howard County Board of Education to preserve the agreed to multi-year agreement. I will tell you that the May 8th letter and it's notion that we would cut into health fund balance I found really unsettling. I was chair when we finally closed that gap so I was at the Board of Ed building for the photo op where we all celebrated ourselves for having spent the prior three years filling it. So to have to have a letter come out that's like hey we're going to go in a backwards direction. I understand by different means but to me I would love to see some willingness on the administration side to to work especially on that $8 million identified as the health fund, because I'll tell you that I will spend the next four days looking for $8 million. And I will call it a one-time expense or put the word pilot in front of it. And if I can get two people to vote on it, it will go just like that same page in in the budget book that we've approved year after year for no defensible reason, honestly. But that's where I am on this. I have no idea what you were talking about, where we were all in uniform agreement about operational changes. I thought last year was painful, and we are in a position this year that's even more incomprehensibly painful. The operational change that I thought we all agreed on, or at least many people agreed on, is that we need to keep a commensurate or whatever the right word is. We need to keep the same investment in our school system that we have historically and that has failed. I think we ask for an actual apples to apples comparison of the charts that everyone's shown up with. I forgot that well like one of the new stations did a chart too. Dr. Sun years is the only chart that's flat across. I think Tully Tollover claims that historic investment has been as high as 56%. We are under investing in schools year after year and this is the the consequence of that. This notion that we're choosing between before being a premier place that would drive people to live here and meeting new standards to meet like baseline requirements to have pre-K. I think it's a false choice that we don't need to be meeting if we continue to deliver the same education that brings people here year after year and makes them stay here even after they lose their federal jobs. But I'm happy to have company in this endeavor. I'm not sure how successful you're going to be on the cap of pay-go side of years. Miss Young, but I will be looking for $8 million and I will take any help that I can have in the meantime to get there between now and Wednesday. Why don't we, if we're talking to the administration, why don't we get Mr. Armad up? Mr. Huneo, I just want to confirm that. I just want to confirm that. Somebody up. Consternation about HCPSS reducing but still being in the positive on their health fund, but we do not have consternation about the counties health fund Because we have we have out here there employee benefits fund It's not like we're pulling from all over but we have 44 million dollars in policy reserve we have Untaplesation account for that you want to use our rainy day fund for our own actions. We have a $475 million general fund balance as of the end of the last fiscal year. We have a clear fire by our school system. This is not required. This is twice what it was. We can't suggest it by our credit raters. One out of three credit raters. The other two are a fraction of that. This is not the same situation between a school system and a county budget. It's just not. They would come to us where we would fund them and we don't have anyone else to go to, except for ourselves. And $475 million in general fund balance as of the free thing. That would need to cover everything. My question about the amendment is that, and this is really more for the school system, but we are not in the same position like Prince George's County or Baltimore County where you are looking to reopen negotiations. Is that correct? Around health benefits are in general. No, around like compensation for your employees. So related to amendment 17, which says we support the efforts to get to a multi-year agreement. So we have a tentative agreement in place right now with HCEA for a three-year compensation deal. Okay and we do not believe we're in the position that other counties are in where they're having to reopen or again I'm not going to you know you know or maybe if you can't say that you can tell me yeah I'm not going to start getting to the council we don't deal directly with union negotiations so we are not as familiar with all the ins and outs of bargaining units I'm not going to speak for what the Board of Education might choose to do but I don't think that that's anybody's first choice okay would be to reo wouldn't the desire would be to not. Thank you. Before we leave schools, I just, when we talked about message in communication and programmatic changes and all these different things, you know, because we talked about it last time, I went and I pulled out the six year forecast in the book I mean the increase in county funding that's being budgeted for next year is $107 million. I mean, that's not even remotely- Of new funding, 170 million. And the state in the state 55. And again, they're getting mandates pushed down, am I understand that that. But it's like our capital budget book where we look at this year, and then we look at those following years where that's never going to happen. So again, it's this continuation of this conversation. I finally got a great analysis of this, what percent and jury spending on. It's the problem is when you include pay go in that number and this goes to the thing that Liz is always complaining about is on these years that show these big declines. It's not because school funding went down because pay go went so far up. The denominator in that fraction went up. And I mean, the funding to the school system is up high 30% over the last handful of years. One thing we're also going to have to start grappling with. The community is going to have to start grappling with is school enrollments going down. Our percentage of seniors is going through the roof. Our percentage of families that need special needs both within the school system and outside the school system. And subsidies of everything is going up. And to think that that relationship, like that 53%, or whatever that number is, is going to stay relatively steady while the number of customers is going down in one and the number of customers in, let's say seniors, is going up by double digit percent. I don't think it's an expectation that, that like in a perfect world that would be awesome but as times change and as the counties trends change it's that that might change. I mean I think it is flat and I've looked at it nine ways to Sunday it's flat but I don't know that it's going to be able to stay flat. Well, I'm just remember though that MSE Department of Legislative Services said that the county should be funding the school system at $760 million. And we are well over that. And that is part of the operational changes that I am referring to. But yet, operational changes can't be the things that we all as a local community value, which is fine arts and sports. And yeah, you can deliver GT a different way. I get it, but as long as everybody has access to it and all of those things. Right. When music doesn't mean GT like GT strings, music doesn't mean third grade strings. Music can mean so much. It doesn't have to just mean that. Well, you know, we were third grade strings family. But um... I was like, I was like, Shela. But I just, but I think that this is part of that bigger conversation as we kind of end this is, we already know next year's numbers aren't going to work. So like, what has to give and how do we explain that to the community and how do we figure out different ways to do things so we don't lose the stuff that the legislature doesn't care if we cut. Because we don't want to cut it here. We don't want to cut it here. $107 million new dollars next year. That's not going to be, that's not mathematically possible. Yeah, and I just, it's been a while since they said legislature. Like they need to understand that this forcing us to reprioritize this is just, it's putting our board of ed in an impossible position. Because they pay the price if they reduce fine arts. yet like nobody wants to give up anything. And, you know, they, the community's demanding things of the Board of Ed, that the Board of Ed can't deliver, even if we go above and beyond. But that's why the education session needs to be told. Okay Ms. Malagy, have anything to add to this please? I thank you for acknowledging the unfortunate position that the board is in. I did wanna make sure that you were aware that we've added 458 students since the official enrollment in September 30th. That is 65 students a month. So granted it's not concentrated in any particular area but it does look like we are now leaning towards reversing the trend and back to increasing enrollment. What doesn't go up every year during the year? I come in, I come in. You have to look at the same, actually it is. That's the number every year. What do you? Do you think that next September will be higher than this past December? I do. I think the trend is leaning in that direction. And I think partly because mortgage rates have come down nominally. But also, you know, I think the economy is, we still have people in the area that are coming to Howard County. And I think that while it will affect the long term rate at the state reimbursement, just now that I do think we are looking at and going back to previous transpired of the pandemic. And one last thing, Mr. Reeliter, I do think that one of the reasons why it is easier to sell powered county than almost every other county that is in this area is because of the reputation of our schools. Maybe they, maybe the extras like third grade strings and some fine arts programs and banded in fourth grade and GT and elementary school, et cetera. That might seem like that's extra. It's not to me, that's why I said. It's not to me either. We don't want to give that stuff up. We don't want to give that stuff up. And that's what. It's not to me. That's why I said it's not to me either. We don't want to give that stuff up. We don't want to give that stuff up. And that's what keeps attracting people to Howard County. And for people that say. And for people that say. And for people that say. And for people that say, And for people that say, And for people that say, And for people that say, needed. That's where the state is saying improvements needed. That is why the state is having new standards. That's why we have to realign to them because we are not meeting the needs, the basic needs of our students. I agree, I love all these things and participated them in as a child and I want kids to participate them, but it's really hard to listen to these discussions when we don't, it doesn't feel that we are meeting the, like, step one needs before we even get the step two. I don't know why you think that our school district isn't doing that. Do you have proof that our school district isn't isn't meeting the needs of reading a math comprehension? Is that what you're suggesting? Miss Young, I would encourage you to look at the state-based data. So you're saying that they're not and that they're giving too much time to grade strings Is that? Okay, this is such an unproductive silly conversation, but it really is a important message though to the public Because there's a lot of people out there that are like I don't use the schools anymore. Give me a tax credit You know, well, you know again that value of your home that you are going to, you know, enjoy some day, isn't going to be the same. If we're not doing well as a school system, we all recognize that. I tell people that all the time. I recognize it. All right, I felt like before we left education, someone on this side of me thought we should call Miss Cabellin and Mr. Ma back up here. Did I match that? Oh, I did. And then I didn't let them talk about that. And then they do to flee complied and the you joke or started talking about like, okay. Did you have a question or what are you going to help me find eight million dollars by Wednesday? That was my question. Was there a question? No, I think that you had said you wanted the administration to start looking for $8 million and I was like, okay, well, maybe they should at least be involved. Okay, I guess I'll just kind of go back to the numbers. You know, this year our original proposed budget is a 5.1% increase. So, and then that's 39 million in a new recurring county funding. Also, we're taking on 6.7 million more for teachers pensions. And then now with this 14.5, that brings up to 53.8 million above M O E recurring. So we believe we have done, you know, we are are at the edge and we have done a lot. Our teams have stayed up on cost savings measures for the county to get here. We're, you know, we don't do this without trepidation and seeing what's going on with the state and moody's. However, this is our edge. And we do want to, in collaboration with the school system, the superintendent and BOE, you know, meet that 29.2. So this is why we have put in half. And discounting 2024 in which our, over MOU, 70 million, if you recall, that was because MOU dropped that was the there and was that the whole harmless year in which MLE dropped the significant amounts of the actual over MLE number was 70 million the true number over the previous year was 45 so at 53 million dollars this is the highest truly in Howard County history and Chair Walsh you questioned some of the numbers in the letters I'll just break down how the administration arrived to some of those numbers. What we're working off of, and to the, this is for the public because our public is very well educated, it's our public pays attention to our conversations, and we wanna ensure that any correspondence that goes between us and the board or school administration is above board that they can be tracked publicly and the figures in our letters can be tracked publicly. So we're working off of page 611 off of the board of education. So requested operating budget. At the time it was on April 1, when that was passed and then the governor's budget passed on Sinai Die about a week later. At the time that the school's budget was passed to the board, on April 3rd, the Governor's bill would have caused both the requirements to implement the collaborative time and the funding to do so for four years. DLS estimated that fully implementing that requirement would require the hiring of at least 12,000 additional teachers through the state, as amended on-signing a die-through conference committee. By the House and the Senate, it kept the funding to implement a collaborative time at $163 for the next fiscal year until 2029, when it would jump to $334 per student. That if you look at the governor's bill, it's crossed out so it doesn't appear like it's there, but if you go to the budget reprint, you can see it there and it was confirmed by the AIB chair barns and the house. So that is a shift from when the schools passed their budget versus where we are now. And then back to the page I reference, prior to today, I don't think it's publicly disclosed that the line item for the payment from General Fund on this page to the Health Fund backed out the new positions that were added in. Ms. Mallow stated that it would be 10.9 now, but then the recommendation from the actor is bumped it back up to about 15 million. This is the first time that I think that's been publicly shared, so I want to put that out there as well. We usually at this point in the budget process have the privilege of having heard various scenarios from the Board of Ed and how we balance the budget, if you recall, in the past few years, fiscal years. And I've been here and then prior, when I was at MSTE, we've always seen, Snares, AVC, D&E, we haven't had the privilege of having a board work session recently. Last week was canceled, this week was canceled. There's not one in the books for next week, I think, I'm sure Hall of State at the next meeting would be on the 27th. So we're using the data that is available to us to come to the figures in the letter that you referenced based on the board's proposed budget back on in the beginning of April. And finally, I just want to give the final assurance that I know there is also some apprehension around the school's health fund, but you have the county executive's commitment that should that health fund dip. We are working collaboration right now and we will do the same to ensure that it does not dip again. Can I just ask one last question of the school? What is your proposed operating budget for this year? Is it 1.2 billion? FY 25. FY 26. 26 is 1.2 billion. 1.2 billion. And the county's operating proposed is 1.61 billion. The school district, I just want to bring some understanding to the public about this. The school district has a $1.2 billion operating budget, 10,000 employees, 57,500 kids who they're taking care of every single day, maybe 50,000 parents who are also involved, which is a third of our population that is being touched every single day by what our school district does. We have a $1.6 billion budget. We have around 4,000 employees that we support. Admittedly, a lot of them are from the state of Maryland, okay? But about 2,700 are county employees. That's a much smaller number than what the school district is trying to fund right now. The school district, I don't know if you know this number, Mr. Hall,, how many square million feet of buildings that you have to take care of? You might not know that. I don't have it off my face. Okay, but of course now Brown was here. He would know that. He would. Okay, where is he? You can call a friend, yes. He only has. I think it was 78 million. That's what sticks in my head, but sometimes I remember numbers weirdly. So that's a lot of building that the school district has to operate, maintain, renovate, and I don't think that what our school district is asking for what they provide is such an outrageous amount of money. And I just, it hurts me to have this thing going on out here in our community that, and I'm not saying that that's what you were trying to do in Miss Cabell. And I'm not. But I do hear it. And I know that that means that they're hearing it from other people that the school district is overfunded. The school district is overfunded. And when I hear that, I tell people these numbers. I say, wait a minute, this is what the school district is doing with the amount of money they get. And they're getting a lot less money than what our county is getting. we're paying for fewer employees employees and we are also taking care of many, many fewer square millions of feet than what the school district has to take care of. And even though the millions of square feet that we are taking care of, we don't have 57,500 little feet going through those buildings every day. Along with, I don't know, 10,000 staff. It makes a difference. And I just want you to, I want the community really to understand that we are not, We shouldn't be apologetic in any way in giving the school district. And I also think giving, I mean we're not really giving the counties in charge of this, but it's the tax payers money. I do want to clarify that providing this additional 14.5 from the policy reserve is a very big, a big step, and showing that commitment to the school system. The one number that I just want to do in apples to apples comparison, you talk about the child population that is under a purview as well as 340,000 residents, which does include safety of all of our residents, the roads that are maintained, the snow that's taken off people's streets, trash pickup, the beautiful parks that we have, the health, the barrier removal, all the after school programs that DCRS provides housing. I mean, I can go on and on, and we have half the number of employees to do that. And so it's a lot of work for, you know, our workforce, but we maximize those dollars. We maximize the programming in our operating budget. And we certainly ensure that higher counties get excellent education, but also in health and safety. across the board, you know, a place where people love to live, work, play, and thrive and grow. So that is why, you know, that I just wanted to have that apples to apples comparison of the populations that we serve. Okay, nope, nope, nope, nope. We appreciate that, Ms. Kabelin. I'm just going to say that. Thank you. We are bringing our discussion of this very important topic to a close. I wanted to thank everyone who came back and talked with us today. I know scheduling was difficult. Chair Mosley wasn't able to make it because of a pre-existing appointment. I know we have Vice-Chairlyn Finchenn this morning, but we lost him over lunch. We have Meg Rick, Jackie McCoy, and Gemma from the board, Brian Hall, and many others, maybe not so many others, but from the school system and playing from the administration. I really appreciate it. It's a hard topic, but it's important. We have 20 minutes to discuss any other budget amendments. My colleagues would like to. I will take this time to make a pitch for the only other amendment I have that hasn't been discussed yet. Well, no, there's two, but I'm amendment 15 to council bill number 36. Good. Is an amendment that deals specifically with C0337, the Safe and Sound flood works projects for Old Ellicott City. Dr. Sun, I have no idea what happened this morning. My understanding is that our administrators, we're projecting up on the screen the only documents that we've received from you and and Okay Okay, okay, okay, so what Okay, so I have a printout of that and so what so what I believe we have is something entitled past expenditures Expenditures and Currently Encombert updated as of April 11, 2025. It has little pretty colors for each of the seven or so projects. It reflects only expenses, right? Past Expenditures and Currently Encombert. The second chart that we have is entitled, Summary and Status of E.C. Safe and Sound Grants Loans awarded or notified of award and then by each project right it lists whether a grant or loan and the type in the fiscal year has been received. I am looking for something that's more on an annualized basis which is in a given fiscal year we received X dollars from X sources and used them to pay for Y projects. You must be tracking it that way. I'm not sure why it's so difficult to get that information. I think that, I think with two reference there, didn't that already have the title like T1 and then you have the like five, six different years each of the grants and that's all go to that one component project. Yeah, but that's not saying, so that's already have a breakdown by those different projects. No, no. Are you saying you spent the entirety of, for example, fiscal year 23 state LBI, local bond initiative of $12 million in fiscal year 23 for the UC North. The amount is what was awarded. Yes I know I would like a corresponding when we spent it. So I know how much of that $12 million grant from fiscal year 23 we still have left. This is not I mean this is what a budget is isn't it? I mean I't. So what I'm saying is, I have an amendment number 15 that says, on a quarterly basis from now on, we should get regular reports. I asked that the administration break these projects into the seven that they should be. Each of them should be their own standalone capital project. You apparently have declined to do that. In lieu of that, I asked that we get these quarterly reports. And I'm going to say right now, I'm going to amend this amendment to more specifically provide in budget words. It's someone who speaks in them that is not me, can say, that says what these annualized costs and spends are. Like again, I don't want to play wordle with C0337. And like I just want to look at a chart and know we have expended 90% of a fiscal year 23. I don't want to play Whirlpool with C0337. Like I just want to look at a chart and know we have expended 90% of a fiscal year 23 state bond. But I cannot glean that information from these two documents that you provided us last night. It's not the last night, but anyway, that doesn't really matter. It's earlier than that. But I think some of the complexities for CIP is sometimes one PIGO can have different components of the funding and the spending may be part of that there. I mean, if we want sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. expectation to want to know how much of that fiscal year 23 state bond we have spent and have remaining to spend on which projects? None of that was a question for you. This is now rhetorical. I'm speaking rhetorically. I'm just saying that this is my amendment number 15. I continue to strive for easy to understand information about a project that is of most importance to many, many people. And I'm going to amend it so that it is explicit in terms of what it expects to see in those quarterly reports. That's all I'm saying. And that is, I mean, if anyone has any questions, hopefully it's straightforward. I still don't know why we get stuff like this, like this is somehow clarifying, it's not. Yes, it's not, yes. And I'm not gonna word it, someone who speaks in budget is gonna word it, and then someone who thinks they're gonna keep getting money for C0337 is gonna report on it if this amendment passes. That is all I have on my amendments. Mr. Gubernator. I was raised to another amendment. Number 16. Yeah. Mine? Yeah, no, but I'm not always going to go to someone else rather than Gibber job. The amendment one to CB34, which is the salary thing. The new paid rates for the fire department. How much does where you ended up differ from what was assumed for the budget book? I would let Ms. Dr. Sun speak about what was assumed, but where we are is a 1% July 1, 2025, and a 3% January 1st, 2026. Okay, so for this year, and then, and it have out years not and not for this fiscal year if you're asking what that is So what I don't need all the out here. So what's the next out here? It's just one additional year. Oh, okay. Yeah same thing. No, it's a many or four many year four so four four, so four and four. So that, and sorry to interrupt. Council, that is consistent with what police received and what this council approved and what we agreed with. Okay. Wait, I'm sorry. I was not paying attention admittedly. Oh, I've been paying attention every single second to that happy part. I've when I was talking but did you just say 4% 4 4 mid-year so 8 in a single year? Okay. No. Okay. 4 than 4 so 8. Yes so it's okay. Okay okay okay. So in the reason why I'm asking this is the fire fund has a lot of money in it. We took two cents away and now we're gonna eat into the $127 million that got accumulated by three, which is a step in the right direction. But I just, and you said consistent with police, so that's important to me, because I wanna make sure that, because we have this fund that's got so much money in it, like our criteria for negotiations is the same. You know, like what you do with firefighters doesn't have to compete with what we can do for teachers. And I just want to make sure we're not taking advantage of that because this fund is so flush. We absolutely aren't. And I just want to clarify, there's additional things that come out of that firefight as you know. So we're working on acquiring ambulances, applying fire engines, truck sliders, things like that as well. Because if, I mean, even with these increases, I guess they're mid-year. But I mean, they're consistent with police. I think that's where I wanted to see. If they were not consistent with police, I'd be looking to say long term, we probably need to do more adjustments out of the money going into this fund. Because it's, we clearly are strained to the bone, other places, and they are consistent. Okay, thank you. Oh, and then, there you go. Am I next? I'm going to make a crack about man jobs and lady jobs. Like what? Why? Man jobs and lady jobs? Well, who gets? Well, I'm support this statement. I know. I'm not going in order now, and I've clearly lost all filters. So I just want to make sure everyone had a chance to talk about some amendment. And that actually goes for administration. I mean, I think a lot of years might be technical or reflecting like some change in funding source. We went through some of that with Director Mimihan. But I just want to make sure everyone had a chance to talk about like their favorite or least favorite amendment was. I have had no time to read all these amendments. It's like the answer to your favorite amendment. Yeah, my favorite amendment. Yeah, my favorite. Okay. Well then I'll tell you about my last one. I had five. We talked about two when Howard Hughes, Howard Hughes, whatever. Howard Development Core, Howard Hughes was here, and that was the library either putting it back in contingency or fixing a date to get this thing off the ground. We just talked about a minimum of 15, which is getting more details on a more regular basis for the safe and sound works. We talked about an education. I have the multi-year, keep that thing intact. Please, please, please. The last of mine, and hopefully no surprise based on the questions that I've asked over the course of these very long weeks, is this notion of what we call Pego and what we do when what we call Pego is in spent in a given fiscal year. And the worst, worst example of that is the DPC, repeat appearance on that list over three fiscal years, not this year, but 25, 24 and 23 before that. And I didn't go back and look at the timing, but I think it was called development code rewrite, even as probably everyone in the room accept us new that there was not going to be a development code rewrite. But that development code rewrite was put in a pago list as though it was going to be used for that purpose, approved by this theater-like body, and then not used for that purpose. And in many ways, I mean, I think Director Eisenberg came in and told us all manner of other things she was going to use it for. Either Dr. Sun or Mr. Mammoth said earlier today, it's not. But this notion of saying you're going to use something for one thing, not using it for that, hoarding it for some successive number of years, and doing whatever you want with it, with no accountability, no transparency, no after the effect. How can that possibly be what this entire exercise is about? So I have this amendment 16 to 36, which just goes after last year's operating expenses This go. Our analysis, our analysts pulled the information from SAP and figured out that $28.78 million hadn't been spent. Then we get the explanation that okay 16 of those going to be used to the housing opportunities trust fund. Mr. Fichina will be following up with you to figure out how we already spent $10 million. It's not in that fund yet. But okay, if we're going to move 16 million of that, unexpended money to its final destination, that's fine. That's still left. The figure that's in this amendment number 16, which is 12, 810, 143. And I say take it out. And if you want to come and get it, then you can explain why you want to get it. I will admit that only part of this amendment has legal sufficiency. Let me turn to it so I can tell you which part. The part moving $12 million into contingency has legal sufficiency. The part that explains why a file the bill does not. And I've tried and tried, and very smart lawyers, not including myself, have tried and tried, to figure out a way to legally get to this concept. But the condition I wanted to impose is don't put your name on that Pagolist in a successive year if you could not be bothered to spend what you got on a previous Pagolist for what you said you were going to do. Don't come back here and tell me another lie to my face about why you are entitled to these funds if you can't spend them the way you said you were going to. I am told I cannot do that and I have tried a thousand different ways and had many phone calls with, again, many smart people. I can't do it. I think after today's education discussion, I'm going to go another way anyhow. So that's why I wasn't really going to get to this unless there was air time. But I think it's a real problem. And I don't know the fix. that will you candidly, lost like you should put a bill in that says, you guys have to report on what you do. You guys should be doing that already. I think the law already says that. The law already says things like unencumbered funds laps. Like we just don't do what the law says. And I really, really wish we hadn't approved that Pego list last year. That was obscene. But for that reason, I feel like, and we're seven years into an eight-year cycle here. I still don't know what the solution is, but I think there's a really big problem, and I don't know how to fix it, and I certainly don't know how to legally fix it. But that was the gist of this amendment number 16. I don't know. Yeah. So in this, I mean, how do things like, when you're referring to this, are you referring specifically to the Pego portions? Or because sometimes it's, I guess my question is, you're referring that you should not apply for additional pay go if you haven't spent your previous pay go or are you saying if you haven't spent your departmental funds as well? No, your pay go. Okay. Like, DPC was the example. DPC showed up for three years in a row on that list saying Development Code rewrite. Again, in the final year it showed up. I think everyone but us knew there was not even gonna be a Development Code rewrite, but yet there was that thing. They didn't spend the prior funds. They hadn't engaged to consultant. None of that had happened, but here it is again. Where's Miss Jones? I know. One million and 70. I mean, you just walked into a buzz saw yesterday. I didn't, I do want to come on up. Yeah, but it's the, I just, or the police had ammunition that was a really good explanation except for when we looked at SAP, they hadn't spent the money. And yet, there they are back. Now we need rifles, now we need know more body worn camp whatever it is. Again I have role concerns about what we call recurring and not recurring that's a separate issue. This issue is just specifically what accountability there is after the fact for these extraordinarily generous funds that we're extending that in many cases and and a significant number of cases some times sometimes it is, I get that. But in many cases it's not. And yet it seems to be able to be hoarded or repurposed with very little, even notice, let alone like explanation or accountability. So, yeah, thanks for, okay. So, the purpose of the Pego last, this last, this will, thanks for. Okay, so the purpose of the Pego last, this last, this will, this fiscal year was for redevelopment. And it was, there is no intent to hoard or repurpose it for another for something else. So the purpose of it was redevelopment money. Redevelopment often takes a longer, it's like it doesn't have fiscal year boundaries, right? So, and it's a strategic fund, it's thoughtful. So that fund, that money is directed to restaurant park and root one. And in my opinion, redevelopment funds shouldn't just be rushed and spent out the door, they need to be looked at and how can we make the dollar amplify as much in the country to create jobs and retain jobs. So while it might look like we are trying to hoard money, that is not the intent and it's very, and it's something that you can, like, so business things, you can look at the community and see if we're doing something. It's not like we can say we're doing something and then you can't go to a physical location and see if something's going on. Same with the pay go that's coming up. I mean, the way the nature of it is we get our microloan funding. Well, the microloan funding is a revolving loan fund. Well, it's a fund. It's a loan fund for businesses that have microloans that may not be able to get a bank loan, right? So just by nature they don't have the exposure necessarily about financial statements, about how to apply for our application. We're trying to give them this to give them a good jump so that one day they can be bank ready. These loans take longer. We assign them a mentor where they kind of go back and forth. They might go back and forth for five or six months before they get an application with a mentor that actually passes and then we can give them the money. But that's what it's targeted for. It's targeted for small businesses that don't really know a lot. They're not big businesses, right? And you can see the results in the community. You can see that candles by candy opened to second location in Ellicons City Main Street. And it's from our fund. You can see, and I got a delights, expanding. You can see these things in the community, even our other funds with catalyst loan funds. Like Miss Rigby was at the opening for Apple Core last weekend. Across the street was Queen Take Book. You can see that we are, so businesses are coming on board. They're small business owners. And the boundaries might not be within a fiscal year. We have an underwriting team that helps these businesses. And as they come in, we review review the applications make sure they get up to speed if they're not already there and then we give them the money. But it might go you know past a fiscal year but I guess my my my what we're trying to do is help business so we have to get money out the door. So I'm not trying to hoard anything. I'm trying to help the community and you know and it helps our commercial tax base and it helps our economy. And the reason why the state of Maryland is what it is because the economy isn't growing the way they thought it was gonna grow. GDP is less than what they thought and now there's a budget crisis. And so I think the last thing you need to do is, is take away economic development funds. We need more now than ever. So that's my opinion. And you guys have been at some of these business openings with me, so you see the results. OK. Yeah. Thank you. And I would just add on. We have like three seconds, Mr. Fischin. So you're going to be our final comment in all work sessions, because we're not having a Monday one. Thank you for that. I would just say for FY 25 Pego funds, again we can provide an updated list of where we are today. More than 85% of those funds have been dispersed or expended. We still have a month and a half left in this fiscal year and we are expecting the vast majority of those funds to be dispersed or expended by the end of this fiscal year. So I would just throw that out there that You know that may have been practice in the past. We are working very hard with our departments to make sure that if we're putting in a budget to the county council to approve that we are spending those funds in that fiscal year. Okay. Thank you. We appreciate that information. With that we are adjourned that is last of our work sessions on fiscal year 26 operating capital budgets. Happy advance birthday, Chair Walsh. Thank you. Oh, cool. Oh. Oh. Wait. It's over for that one. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. you