Good afternoon everyone. Today is Friday, April 25th, and this once again is our Health and Human Services Committee, where we will be continuing our discussions regarding the FY26 proposed budget as presented by the county executive. Just a couple of housekeeping items. Our colleague council member sales will not be joining us this afternoon. And so it will just be council member Lutke and myself. And I do want to express my appreciation to everybody for your flexibility. It's unusual for the council to have a Friday afternoon session, but we are still recovering from the gas leak that was in the council Office Building, which precipitated the need for us to load up a bunch of these Council sessions. And I also just want to continue to request humbly that everyone remain flexible because things remain fluid with regards to the operating budget and new information as it comes through. And we have a couple of dates designated just in case we need them if we're not able to get through every item and we may not be able to. So just keep keep a hold on those items, my colleagues in HHS and OMB of course. But we have three items before us this afternoon to discuss. The first is the Office of Food System Resilience, followed by DHHS's administration and support. And then we will end the day discussing our Department of Health and Human Services aging and disabilities division. But we start with our OFSR team. And I will turn it over to Ms. Clemens Johnson to tee this up. Good afternoon. We will be and I will turn it over to Ms. Clemens Johnson to tee this up. Good afternoon. We will be beginning the budget discussion with the presentation from OFSR. I will get this shared so that we can start. Good afternoon. Thank you so much to our Mr. Chair. if you want me to say the start-up. Good afternoon. Thank you so much to our Mr. Chair and Councilmember Lutky for the opportunity to get to connect today and discuss the proposed OFSR budget for FY26. I'm Heather Broskin, the Director of the OFSR. I'm joined by my colleagues here. Katherine Nardy and Juan Cruz, who will speak in just a few moments. Also in the audience we have Kira O'Brien and Yeti Aragva and at home Deanna Tato-Niktashon, very well-deserved leave. So what we share about today is the work of many talented folks. We thought before we got into the specifics of our budget proposal that it would be helpful to recap both the political and policy and funding environment that is important to consider in our budget landscape as well as share the strategies that are centered in our budget proposal that both address immediate needs as well as build deeper long-term resilience for our community. You all have seen this before. It has slightly different shading, so but the data is the same. But we always think it's important to start this conversation centered around our our constituency, our residents, and recognize that we have over 40, or about a close to 40% of our residents who live below the self-sufficiency standard, over 300,000 of those residents. And all of those residents who are living in that shaded green area make too much to be able to benefit from federal nutrition assistance programs, but do not make enough to confidently and consistently put food on the table. We also wanted to revisit this again today because the reality is with impacts on the federal workforce and the overall changes that we're seeing in federal employment. likely that there are folks who are residents who are living in that gray area who are also at risk for food insecurity now. And so I think it's critically important to keep that in mind that while our efforts are strategically focused on those and our residents who's in comes, put them in those shaded circles. It really is the whole community that potentially will benefit from the food access strategies and certainly the entire community benefits from the long-term resilience that we're building. Talking a little more specifically about some of the funding shifts that we are tracking in general. Our effort is to balance caution and awareness with what is potentially on the horizon, but also really focusing our efforts on what is within our scopes of facts and control. And so there's a lot that remains to be seen as the federal government explores its budget reconciliation process. we've recapped a few of the primary factors that we're watching right now. So it was proposed that there would be significant reductions in SNAP benefits. What that specifically means is a rollback of the Thriftie Food Plan, which determines how much each household receives in terms of benefits. And what that looks like is a 20% cut for most families on their SNAP benefits. It's also important to remember that there's about 12 and a half million dollars per month in purchases made with SNAP benefits in Montgomery County every month. And so that has trickled on effects on our retail sector, on those who are employed at farmers markets. And so that would be about $3 million per month that would not just be increased need, but also would be decreased investment in our local economy. We're also seeing there's potential administrative changes, increased work requirements, increased verification requirements, not just for SNAP, but also school-based meals. I have the opportunity to talk with the director of Food Nutrition Services today to confirm that the projected changes for eligibility for universal meals. So that's free breakfast and lunch at schools that is funded through the Community Eligibility Provision because schools in Montgomery County are so economically diverse, it makes changes in eligibility much more of a challenge for us here. And so the 60 schools that currently get free breakfast and lunch for everyone, likely 50 of those 60 schools if the proposed changes go into effect will no longer have those resources for its students. And so, you know, I think it is not active currently. It is not current policy, but it is very much a possibility. And so I think it's just something that we're closely following and just want to make sure that everyone is aware that, you know, that's something that we're looking at. Or there's also policy impacts in addition to funding impacts that could potentially make big impacts on our local food system. So tariffs obviously will impact not just the actual food supply, but if we look at the supplies that are used in food production, aluminum for cans, the fertilizer that our farmers use to produce their crops, that we won't see immediately, but we'll show up as time progresses and our current food supplies shift. So I think we just want to make sure that we're aware of this and keeping it in context, but also moderate our concerns until there's actual developments. That said all of these concerns are a perfect example of the types of challenges and crises that we are seeking to buffer our community from through our resilience building strategies. And so the budget priorities that you see here remain constant from our previous years because they were designed specifically to prepare and insulate Montgomery County from things that happen outside of our scope of control. And so before we get into the specifics of our budget requests, thought it would be helpful to give a few examples of what those budget priorities look like in practice. And if we are seeking to build a more resilient food supply and food assistance network for our residents, there's a few key strategies. And so we've listed here both what those strategies are as well as where they show up in our specific programmatic interventions. So in Montgomery County we have a diverse community that we celebrate. The food preferences and needs of that community are no less diverse. And so that means that we in our food assistance strategies in particular need to be sourcing a wide variety of products. And as we all know, consolidation and an efficiency and supply chains can only go so far before it makes us vulnerable. And so we have developed a wide variety of strategies for where the food that's distributed in our system come from, balancing both cost efficiency through bulk purchasing. So programs like the Capital Area Food Banks core funding, which ensures that we have some higher value staples like proteins that are available to our food assistance providers that are being sourced from national producers but also regional producers and wholesalers that are Manifield Center, community food assistance partners order through and also a significant amount of our funding goes to sourcing from local producers. So if we are bringing our food in from a variety of different places, we're buffering ourselves from disruptions, both in terms of specific products, as well as if there are other issues and crises that come up. In addition, the North Star of all of our work is food sovereignty. And that is where we really get at the root causes of food insecurity and center everything that we do in terms of increasing food access around resident choice of what they're eating where it's coming from, if it's their own garden, if it's a, if it's a local retailer, if it's a farmer's market, we wanna give them the opportunities to make those choices. And I think you see that as centered in our RISJ evaluation of our budget analysis that it takes time for strategies like this to take root. They have generational reflections and impacts that are harder to measure in a year by year basis, but this is really where the shift happens and where we get to food access that is not based on point in time service delivery and rather residents making their choices related to feeding their families. And then we also know that the Montgomery County can't do all of this work alone, both in terms of covering the costs of the needs of our community and also simply providing the skills and resources that are needed to accomplish that work. And so leveraging public and private funds through partnership has been a critical strategy. some recent examples of that and have been our partnership with the Morningstar Foundation to invest in infrastructure. We continue conversations with the philanthropic sector in one of the greatest strengths of identifying strategies and priority areas where we want to invest. It makes it much easier to solicit external funding and also find funders who have shared partnership so that we can collect our funding together to make a greater impact. We also have had the opportunity to, I've had about a literally 15 minutes before, we have the session that we also have been able to leverage funds from Marvidco to support aggregation projects here in the county. So we can take these dollars and stretch them further in alignment with other organizations. Similarly, it's not just money but it's also transportation, staffing, talent that we can leverage both internally so I want to call out the very appreciated partnership that we have at DHHS, particularly their navigation and linkages to learnings teams to support the MCC groceries program. They have case management capacity and cultural resident assistant capacity that our team can't do alone. And so we can leverage those resources for our program success as well as external partners that have trucks or other tools that we can connect to our network. We also know that food access challenges are not just about income sufficiency, and that the reality is when we look at food access in the long term for our community, everyone's ability to feed their families is potentially at risk and less we become more self-sufficient. Whether it's due to food safety issues, we know that federal investments in food inspections are being scaled back. And so if the safety of our food supply is a concern or if climate disasters create disruptions in our food supply, self-sufficiency is going to be key. And that means producing more food right here in Montgomery County and our broader region. And so that creates a need for a three-pronged strategy that OFSR has implemented to achieve these three goals and it requires very specific and strategic investments because all three of these legs of the stool need to grow at the same time for success. And so we need to increase local food production capacity while we also grow market demand and a variety of our programs incentivize sourcing from local producers and we can plant the seeds that then will create structures that other institutions, whether it's government, education, healthcare can also invest in making purchases through our local supply chain. And then finally, the connective tissue of infrastructure, both people, technology, and actual physical infrastructure that's required to connect those two pieces of the puzzle. I'd like to highlight here what this looks like from a budget perspective and a budget strategy. As we all know, we're now looking at your three of this journey. And when we started in FY 24, we had a pretty singular strategy that was primarily focused on the individual contracts and Staples program strategies that were developed during the pandemic, which worked really well in an emergency, but didn't provide us holistic data collection analysis or strategic or specific investments that are really needed to shift these systems. And we know that just like our residents, our organizations are incredibly diverse and one size fits all funding strategies is not going to reach all of our residents as we best would like to. And so we have slowly shifted this system in ways that identifies what are our priority areas to invest in and then competitively make whatever resources are available to the organizations that do this work. In FY25, we're funding 70 different organizations through our grants and contracts, which really underscores the expertise of a wide variety of partners here in the county and not just nonprofit providers, but also healthcare partners, schools, doctors, offices, community-based settings. And so we also want to make sure that we're equitable and transparent and that we're able to easily pivot. And so a diversified strategy like you see here enables us to shift as individual or each year really requires. And then finally the FY26 budget itself. see it's a combination of contracts and grants as it has been in past years. It's important to note that every dollar that's here both feeds people today and invests in our circular economy, but it also has long term return on investments on building our resilience for future crises. I also want to note that about 85% of these funds are used for food purchases and I think it's really important to note in this in these current times that flat funding or a consistent level of funding does not mean a consistent level of services because as we see at the grocery store as the cost of food rises our food assistance providers assistance providers experience the same. And what we're hearing from them, even those that are buying in larger volume, and for some products, they're still paying retail prices. So the cost efficiencies that have been there in the past are not necessarily as available, and the impacts will emerge over time, so are difficult to predict, but I think it's just important to note with so much of this based on a commodity really, it's hard to know how far they'll take us. And so we're still confident with all of these diversified resources that will have the opportunity to continue building that stronger system while providing a continuity of services for our residents. So strengthening the system requires collaboration within County government and also directly with the communities we serve. This integrative approach centers the current needs of residents while preparing for and building resilience to respond to future needs. One way we're doing this is by working with the Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security to develop an emergency food system response blueprint. We're engaging the perspectives of more than 30 different Montgomery County government agencies, including 95 plus unique individuals from Montgomery County government to conduct asset mapping assessments, vulnerabilities assessments, and participate in emergency simulation workshops to understand what the impacts of an emergency or crisis would be on our local food system and determine what resources are available, what the gaps are, and how we can best respond in those scenarios. looking to establish this blueprint by the end of calendar year 2025, and we've identified a number of specific partners to participate in an emergency planning committee that will meet on a more regular basis to move this blueprint forward. We're also engaging with partners at the state and national levels to understand best practices that have already been implemented to develop these types of blueprints across the country. We just yesterday met with DC's Homeland Security and Emergency Management team to understand what they have done to landscape this emergency response situation, what they are planning to do in their scenarios what we can incorporate here in Montgomery County and how we can work regionally to ensure that all of our assets are being leveraged in case of a disruption. Again, we're also working directly with our county partners and community-based organizations to understand what their needs are and what they need to be able to respond to the current situation and into the future. As Heather mentioned, we're seeing demand for food security, food assistance services rising across the county. We're hearing from partners on a regular basis that they're seeing more residents show up to food distributions. One way that we can help to buffer this is by expanding the use of recovered food and redistributing food that's still safe to eat but is available at lower no cost to our food assistance network. We've identified a three pronged approach that has been hugely informed by the perspectives and insights of our food security community to think about how we can build infrastructure into the system that can safely store food until it is ready to be distributed so that we can build better coordination across the system and amongst food recovery operators so that they are better informed about what resources are available. They're being more efficient with the resources that are available, and they're leveraging best practices and technology to be able to communicate across the food system. We're also thinking about building into our, sorry, FY26 Community Food Assistance Grant an option for those that are heavily engaged in food recovery work, to have additional funds to fund the logistics of that work. Currently, the Community Food Assistance Grant Program focuses on the purchase of food. But with emphasis on food recovery and redistribution, we can build more operational funds into that grant program directly so that those organizations are better equipped to handle recovered food and have the staffing and operational logistics in place to do so. We're also thinking about how we can better communicate the resources that are available to our residents. In addition to having feedback directly from food assistance providers that there's been an optic in the need for food, We've experienced this directly in our office having residents come time and time again to our office on the sixth floor of the EOB and asking where they can get food. So we know that that means our communication needs to improve and we need to provide the resources and develop those resources that are accessible and in plain language so that residents know where they can seek food assistance. We've developed this food assistance flow chart with the insights of community partners to help people get to where they need to go if they need assistance seeking food immediately that day. There are links built in here where folks can identify where they can pick up food that afternoon. If they need assistance with their eBT card, there's information built in there. We have thought a lot about how we can use our website as a pathway to provide information to residents. And we've workshopped the county's food resource page, which now sits on our website and is having close to 1500 weekly site visits to be more accessible, plain language, to have as much information as possible. And we've encouraged all of our community food assistance grantees, all 49 of those organizations, to put all of their distribution information on that website so that it is a resource hub for county residents to go to that can be translated so that they can find food as soon as possible. In the meantime, we're also building the capacity of our Food Assistance Network and our partners to respond to the uptick. We have provided technical assistance sessions on a recurring basis offering OFSR community connection times on a number of dates throughout the month where they can sign up for a time to meet with any member of our team, asking questions they may have, get assistance with their data system that they're using to collect information with how they are going to store food or what partners they should collaborate with to access additional resources, answering all types of questions from our 70 plus unique OFSR grantees on a regular basis. We're also working with the Montgomery County Food Council to offer peer learning circles so that organizations can learn from one another on what's working well, where the challenges and pain points might be, and where they can collaborate, as well as other quarterly trainings focused on data collection, grant writing, and where they can access resources from local food businesses and farms. We'll soon be launching our annual Food Assistance Census, which will continue to give us insights around what our food assistance providers are seeing, what needs they have, how their demand for services looks on a recurring basis, and we'll inform our strategies going forward. We're offering regular partnership opportunities like community launches and listening sessions with our partners, and we visit our partners onsite multiple times per month. I'll actually be at one of our partner sites tomorrow for a food distribution and my colleagues are often doing the same. And we really wanted to be able to visualize here how each of our programs are truly integrated and working together to support referrals and to connect residents to the program that best suits their needs. So for instance, if a food assistance program participant screens positive for food insecurity, yes, they'll receive tailored medically relevant food assistance through that program, but they can also be referred to a community food assistance grantee partner to get food in the meantime so that they're not just relying on that once a week food as medicine intervention, but more often more frequent food assistance through another partner in the community. And at the same time, those community food assistance grantees may be referring clients to a SNAP outreach or nutrition benefits outreach provider partner. If that family qualifies for federal nutrition benefits programs or maybe isn't taking advantage of free and reduced price meals for their children at school, there are tines there. If a nutrition benefits outreach provider partner identifies a family that doesn't qualify for SNAP, maybe falls into the self-sufficiency gap. They have information on how to refer those families to MC groceries so that that family can continue to get support in a different way, and still have dignified and flexible food assistance opportunities. And MC groceries, we work closely with the linkages to learning team and MCPS that is referring families back to school-based food assistance in the case that MC groceries might not be the best fit for their family and so on and so forth. And each of our programs are intentionally built this way so that families are getting the support that is most relevant and helpful to their needs. So as you can see, we're starting to build on our original efforts when we started. And so I want to tell you a little bit about the new things we're doing, we have done already in the fiscal year and around our data strategies. First, I want to show you our data evaluation framework. Our evaluation guides both our data collection strategy and outcome-based reporting, and it also informs our grant performance plans. So we begin by setting evaluation metrics aligned with the specific objectives of each grant in partnership with the Office of Grants Management. These metrics define how we measure the success of grant initiatives. And next, we formalize our data collection approach through grantee agreements, which clarify expectations and report requirements. And then once agreements are in place, we develop reporting platforms and support partners through info sessions, guidance, materials, etc. And finally, we implement automated reporting because we want a streamlined reporting to reduce administrative burden and provide real time insights. We find that being able to leverage our data allows us to better respond to ongoing needs and form strategic adjustments. Next in response to changes in the federal level and in my colleagues area of address this, our office has reinforced our support for the county's food system by engaging partners in emphasizing our data protocols. We reassured partners that the Office of Assistant Facilions does not collect, store or fund or access and potentially identifying individual level information from residents using Grand Funded Food Assistance programs. Our focus here really is to support partners in fulfilling their reporting commitments during this transitional period while continuing to serve residents and provide guidance we need it. This fiscal year, we've continued to strengthen our data framework by creating common impact metrics. So the black check marks represent the metrics we've already collected. While green check marks indicate those, we began collecting in 2025 and moving forward. So these metrics enable us to gather consistent aggregated outcomes across programs supporting standardized operations and deeper impact measures. We also refined our tracking of local sourcing. We now distinguish spending across farms, retailers, wholesalers, and other distributors to better understand how funds support the local food economy. Here I wanted to just give you a sample of what our tracking looks like. So this is an example of how we monitor the impact of performance of the community food assistance grant, which you've heard about. This sample chart displays the average number of households served during the first quarter. And in blue, you'll see the average services provided by our level 4 grantees, those receiving the highest award amounts. So through our reporting system we also monitor pounds distributed, local sourcing, grant spending and reporting compliance, both in the aggregate and by individual partner performance. This is a practical example again of how we also use geographic data to inform funding decisions by mapping areas of need Where identified where resources will have the greatest impact and in collaboration with the Office of Agriculture and the Montgomery County Food Council We've created a cold storage map that shows cold storage assets across farms and food assistance providers in the county So this data supports our infrastructure strategy by revealing unfunded areas and service gaps and it helps us reach communities that might otherwise be overlooked. So we also leverage the county equity index, the community equity index from the Montgomery planning. We can see the most of our cost storage resources represent by the green dots here. Overlapped the areas of this proportional disadvantage in red and orange. Ultimately geographic analysis like this assists us in addressing inequalities and inequities and fostering more equity equitable resource distribution. In this slide beyond just our internal data and what we can leverage from county and our partners, our evaluation framework values resident feedback to align strategies with real community needs. For example, through our evaluation, we've learned that MCGorosreys, our retail food access program, is relatively serving working families who have not previously received food assistance. This shows the program is reaching residents in the affordable account as intended. And we've also implemented a client satisfaction survey for our community food assistance partners. Each provider receives a unique QR code and a link for distribution. And over the past two months, we've received 633 responses. Top-rated foods include fresh fruits and vegetables, eggs and meat and poultry and fish, and additionally 60% of respondents shared that the program helps them afford other basic needs. Special thanks here to the Language Access Division for translating the survey into the county's top six languages. These translations were coded directly into the survey, allowing us to hear from residents in their native language. As voices, we wouldn't reach otherwise. Here, lastly, what I want to leave you here is that we are committed to sharing our outcomes and impacts with partners, grantees, and specifically residents. And so here's a sample of how we communicate our progress through social media newsletters and other media channels to keep stakeholders informed and engaged. So thank you for the opportunity to share some highlights and we look forward to questions and discussion. Thanks just in general comments up front. I continue to be very impressed both with the work, just the strategic planning, the presentations. It's really making a difference. I'm hearing nothing but extremely positive things, especially by the stakeholders who are in the space who appreciate the leadership and the coordination. And who could have known that that would be even more important now, you know, based on what's coming. Just a couple of questions up front. I had the opportunity to attend what we hear on the council called a Lunch and Learn, in which Ms. Preskin, you came with your incredible team to present. Could you just elaborate briefly, if you can, on, and you mentioned this in your opening remarks, but on the current status of federal funds is you all are aware of potential programs that have been lost. How are we tracking that information among, obviously, most directly, the member organization that receive grant funds from the county, but maybe others who may not as well and acknowledging this is a regional issue, not just a Montgomery County issue. How are we tracking impacts on the district of Columbia and our neighboring counties and jurisdictions? Thank you for that question and I'll say that the food community both not just in Montgomery County but throughout the region and nationally is very interconnected recognizing that much of what we experience here is seen in other communities and we can certainly learn from each other both what they're seeing on the ground as well as the strategies that they're implementing To respond and so we have the opportunity and council member Freetson is the chair currently of the Metropolitan Washington Council of government's farm committee And so that committee under council member Freetson's leadership is actually convening a regional discussion on federal impacts in June of this year and so I think there are formal opportunities like that to connect both our elected officials as well as policy leaders from the region. And certainly what the impacts look like in Virginia or in DC are different than what they are in Maryland, but in a lot of ways they're the same. And just like that, there are also more informal groups that are through some of our led by DC, a lot of them are led by COG, local food policy directors, and also the state of Maryland has through the Department of Emergency Management, a food system resiliency council. I'm an appointed member to that and actually chair the policy committee for that group, mostly following the state legislative session, but certainly also tracking federal trends. And I think those spaces are critically important for resource sharing. And so I think that is to answer your question related to how are we connected with each other? There's also, as you might imagine, pretty robust research that regularly comes out from national organizations that are really informing what we're seeing and following. In terms of the immediate impacts on the ground, there has been a cancellation of the local food purchasing agreement and the local food for schools programs. Those were created during the pandemic and were not, you know, budgeted by Congress to be permanent programs, but I think they had provided really critical resources for buying products from local farms and distributing them to schools as well as through food assistance networks. So that funding goes through the end of this growing season pretty much, but the subsequent years have been canceled, though they had been originally expected. So there is that amount of funding by work really closely with the Capital Area Food Bank as well to understand what that looks like for them because they both coordinate the LFPA program for Montgomery County, but they also administer a wide variety of federal resources like T-FAP foods and commodity foods. And I heard from them earlier this week that there are a significant number of tractor trailer loads that have were expected and have been canceled. And so those are resources that were coming directly to our partner network. And often, and again, those are programs that were expanded during the pandemic and are now being scaled back. But those were proteins, you know, things that are expensive for residents to buy, challenging for food assistance providers to source affordably. And so, you know, I think we, that's a good example of how our core funding partnership with the Capital Area Food Bank can at least strive to buffer the system somewhat because we use those dollars primarily to source proteins and expensive products specifically for our partner network. Thank you, that's helpful. It's obviously, it's all interconnected. We're discussing this operating budget acknowledging it's going to be a moving target throughout the entirety of the fiscal year and there may have to be adjustments that are made to reflect the reality on the ground as you just give a good example of. Did you have any opening questions or thoughts, Council Member Luke, here? Do we want to go through the packet? I just want to thank you for your slides. I say this every time you're here because I love your slides, because they are well organized, and they tell the story of your work so thoughtfully and carefully in a way that resonates. So to the, anyone else out there coming before us with some slides, talk to directorreskin about how with the together because they they always are very thorough. So thank you. Thank you. I agree color coordinated to that right. All right. Ms. Clemens Johnson. Why don't we go through the packet? Good afternoon. Thank you chair. Our nurse. We will start on page one of your packet. The county executive has recommended a decrease of $253,791 or 1.79% from the FY25 approved operating budget. I did want to know that this decrease reflects the elimination of one-time items totaling 2.85 million so that is reflected in the detail of your packet. There are recommended increases of 2.5 million in programmatic enhancements. Collectively, there are six items that we will discuss. The 3% inflationary will be discussed at full council. And so we will go through the packet and talk about those items in detail. There is a compensation increase of 57,996 that is included. And I do, and part of what I just mentioned of the six items is there is an addition of two FTEs shifting from contract to merit, reflecting a net neutral charge change in the budget calculations. I have spelled out the dollar amount for those positions so that they can still be discussed and considered as we talk through the budget items. Council staff has identified two potential reductions for the committee's consideration that was not included in the executive's recommended budget. The potential reductions would result in a savings of $250,000. And part of the work of the Office of Racial and Equity Social Justice is supporting the Office of Food Systems Related to Billions and their analysis of their equity, their racial and social equity, and how they move forward with that work within County Government. They state that the office demonstrates a comprehensive and thoughtful commitment to racial equity and social justice in each area of the gear framework and that there are specific activities that help to ensure racial equity principles are embedded in the daily work and I think we just heard a lot of that detailed in the presentation. I'm well part of the packet in with letter C is the council president's approach to the FY26 operating budget and I will just kind kind of state that for all of the budgets that will be discussed today. I think what's most important to note is how the reconciliation list is handled this year. That only items that are recommended for reduction additions, additions, additions by the committee or reductions by the committee will be included on the reckless. So anything recommended by the executive that you approve as is will just remain in the budget and will not go on the reckless. On page four there is detail of the office along with the operating budget equity tool analysis. I won't go through that detail but we can circle back to that if you wish. And then what's net listed next are budget items. I will stop there to see if there are any questions. Not a question just to general comments. So deal with the elephant in the room. The county executive recently sent over an amendment to his proposed budget that polls his recommendation for the budget based on a 3.5% property tax increase and is now recommending that we base it off of a income tax increase as allowed per the state. There are still some questions that Council has regarding what the actual numbers are that may come over. So there's's some back and forth right now as there you would expect between Council staff and the executive branch. That is hovering over everything we talk about today. And so it's difficult to make formal formal decisions because information is happening on the fly. We'll do our best to go through the packet as we always do and once again tremendously respect the great work of Ms. Clemens Johnson and the entire Central Office team. But even some of the recommendations that she has made are predicated on information that has now very significantly changed. So, and we have to see where the council lands on whether or not it will even in fact accept the county executive's recommendation to amend the budget based on an increase in income taxes. So, just wanted to have that out there. Ms. Clemens Johnson did her job as requested by our council president. That may adjust how we approached this before this body and I just wanted to be upfront about that. And this is different than the conversation we just had 48 hours ago. So we're going to do the best we can. So background and context. Ms. Clemens Johnson, if you can continue. Yes, we will proceed. So item 1.1 of your packet, I'll say on page five, that list out the charts of the recommended changes. We are starting with the highest value change, which is the transfer funding from DHHS to the OFSR school-based food assistance program, and expand that program through 20 additional schools that require assistance. This is a $1 million item. The budget item reflects four non-competitive contracts managed by DHHS and FY25 that will be transferred to OFSR in FY26. And I will say this is part of the larger work of transferring the bulk of the food-related support services provided in DHHS to OFSR. So that is reflected here. So OFS HARCH has shared that the scope of work for their original DHHS contracts are all school-based food assistance programs, which overlap with the school-based food assistance program program. So in order to streamline the processes for those organizations they are transferring those funds from DHHS to OSFSR and will be added to the grant programming in FY26. So on page six you'll see a chart of the grants that will be transitioned and that detail is there as long as well as the contract total of $753,774. And on table four, it shows the total recommended budget for the grant program, including the funds that were just mentioned. there is an increase of $300,000 to bulk up the program. And there is the existing operating budget for the school-based field assistance grant program for a total recommendation for the grant of 2.3. But of course, we are talking about the recommended budget total in that line three of this chart. So the office provided information on- I think Councilor Miliki had a question. Yeah, if someone could just clarify so in table three There's the it says the women who care ministries weekend bags fender decline to renew so is that amount going to be allocated to a new better It would be and put out for a new bid to another provider So that along with the other three contracts that were in HHS that were specific to weekend bags, but administered or school-based food assistance, but were administered completely separately from the grant program are all being consolidated in one program, which, and so those funds will be included among them. So some of the funds, so specifically the kind contracts and the Mana Food Center contracts, those were for designated services in FY25 that we anticipate to those funds will be those programs will continue to be supported through the School Based Fruit Assistance Grant Program in FY 26 on a competitive basis. Gotcha. But I think it's mutually beneficial in that we have organizations that for one program may have three contracts in a grant and so just operationally that's not ideal for anyone. I think the goal is, and you know, Katherine works exceptionally hard in hearing each school with a food assistance provider and facilitating that relationship. And so this will allow that assignment process and to be much more smooth and intentional. Gotcha. And that explains why there's two different line items for FY 25 for the mana kids in need distributors weekend bags because they were two separate areas that were being served or two separate. I think some of them were community grants that transferred into contracts and so they had all been non-competitive contracts. Okay. Previously. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. It's also council staffs understanding that I believe Manna has acquired kids and needs and so that organization exists under Manna. Yes. So that's what the little slash is. Gotcha. Yeah. It's in transition. Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. And I forgot to mention just a little husky. I mean, Katzman Mink has joined us virtually. So. I will just go through and provide a little bit more additional details to talk about the work in FY25. The school based food assistance grant programs awarded 1.25 million to 11 organizations and they are projected to support 6,000 MCPS students and households at 61 schools. Between September 2024 and February of 2025 the grantees distributed a total of 141,000 pounds of food and 26% of this was sourced from DMV regions and locally owned businesses. Nearly 12,000 total MCPS students have been served with more than 8,800 total households receiving weekly by weekly or monthly food assistance. There is additional details about how the schools were chosen, which were through a survey process that OFFF SR had oversight of and that details within the packet. And then on page 7, Council staff made the recommendation based on the Council President's guidance on affordability to reduce the increased funding amount so that $300,000 line down to $250. This is just to try to capture savings as requested. If the reduction was taken the new amount would be $1,370, $75. Ms. Preskin, any thoughts on that? I think our goal is to take the resources that we have and steward them in ways that are both transparent as well as strategic. And so we hear from the schools that more resources would allow more families to receive support. So some of it could be expanding services at new schools. Some of it also could be serving more families at those schools and also in cost saving strategies. We had to, you know, scale back the distributions to once per month as opposed to every two weeks or weekly. So I think there's a variety of ways in which additional resources will be able to support more families. Yeah, my preference would just be to hold a line. I think we, I'm on the Education and Culture Committee. And schools are one of those few saved places that families now feel they have to go, particularly folks from our immigrant community. And so I think you're going to see an escalation of accessing, for example, our health and human service, programs and services that we provide as well, which is a good thing obviously, but they're anticipating numbers going up. And I think we will likely see that in the food security space as well. So to the degree to which, even if it's a modest amount, we can hold the line and keep those funds there. I think that would be a good thing right now. Councilor Mouli-Kassin? Yes, yes, I was nodding along. Sorry. Chairman, I'm a microanalogist for that. So I agreed that it said to vote. So the reduction is not taken. Item 1.2, restore funding for capital area food bank for bulk purchases to ensure a product availability amid supply chain disruptions, $750,000. I will note that the FY25 item was a one time funded request, so that's why this is noted as a restoration. So this budget item will support a curated supply of produce and shelf stable and frozen protein products purchased by Capital Area Food Bank and made available for free to the county provider network of 50 plus partners. This secures a secondary supply of products to complement those source directly by organizations through their CFA grant funds. I do just want to flip down to the direct expenses for the purchase of food, which are $681,818 in indirect at main cost of $68,182. Performance data was shared by the office. That noted that the funds are projected to source approximately $735,559 pounds of food. I think one thing to note is that the capital area food bank also operates direct distributions at 73 locations in the county, including family market sites for children and families, grocery distributions for seniors and mobile poplubs. And from July 1st to February 28th of this year, with the support of the Montgomery County funds, the capillary of food bank has distributed 10.8 million meals across all sites in Montgomery County. Staff has suggested that the committee can concur with the county's executive's recommendation. That objection. Okay. The next is a similar item, restoring core funding for the Man of Food Center. This budget item is needed to support operations and administrative expenses for Man of, and their key program services and partnerships. This funding will ensure continuity of their existing direct service delivery and extensive services for the county network, such as food sourcing and distribution partnerships with community organizations. Manna is the county's designated food bank, and without the fund, thus this funding provides critical response infrastructure for both food procurement and distribution, without these funds, the organization's service capacity to meet present demand, as well as reliability and future crisis will be significantly limited. Just know for some of their performance data, an FY25, this contract included over $1 million in purchases alone, recognizing the value of the investment of $350,000. Other major expenses include the staff to deliver and distribute the food and to rescue, store food from rescue partners, around $4 million space, rental space, participant transportation for those who are without a means to access the man of sight. The $350,000 will help raise the number of monthly distribution to county families and reduce appointment wait times. For the committee's consideration is to concur with the county executive's recommendation. I think without objection, and I just wanna note the executive director of Manifood sent me a message earlier this week expressing, he's not able to be here today with their staff because they're having a big retreat today. And so they get a pass, but he's available to answer any questions as we have them, but I concur with staff recommendation. The next item is 1.4. Provide on-cycle funding for community grants in the new amount of $200,000. This is expanding residents' access to land, education, and resources to grow their own food, which is critical to community health and wellness, food security, equity and climate goals, and food production resilience. In FY24, $210,559 in resident and community garden grants were awarded to seven organizations. Funding was awarded in June of 2024 with a 15 months performance period and supported a 78% increase in food growing space across funded partners and engaged 1900 residents to date. So the program is imposed due to an extended grant period of the FY 24 cycle and the need to shift the timeline to better align with the growing seasons. With the budget of 200,000 OFSR, and the PACE, the FY 10 total organizations could be funded through this grant program in FY 26. This would further expand the square footage of the residential and community garden space for residents and engage more than 2,000 total county community members. Based on the council president's guidance, council staff is recommending that the committee consider placing the total increases into tranches. So this would be a tranche of 100,000 and 100,000. The office may be able to detail if we considered, or if the committee considered tranches, what or how many organizations could be supported with a reduced funding, potential reduced funding. Ms. Presky. Thank you for the opportunity to address this one. So I would say that this is not a new program, although it appears as such, this is one of the initiatives that was funded in the implementation, special appropriation for the strategic plan to end childhood hunger. And so it took a pause in FY25, because by the time the money came in in FY24, it wasn't actually able to take root part in the phone for that year. And so I think this is one of the strategies that may have lower pound value, but in terms of how much food is distributed in the community, but its value is tremendous in its education. And I think it's critically important to note the emotional wellness that is scientifically reaffirmed that that is an important way for both children and adults to manage stress as well as access nutrition and develop those skills that will enable their foods sovereignty. And this really gets back to that question around our core priorities. And so I think that this is a very community-driven strategy. For the most part, these grants resourced very passionate community members and projects that just hadn't had the resources that they needed to get off the ground. And oftentimes, unproven projects need seed funding to get started so that they can then grow, especially if you have land that you want to create a gardening space on. You really have startup costs. And so I think that's the challenge with reducing these funds, also recognizing. And Mr. Chair, that is the there are difficult decisions that need to be made. But I think this is a perfect example of one of those long-term strategies that we will see the benefits over generations as much as anything. So I've seen this program just as it's been developed in action. And there are a lot of the ancillary benefits to it. But because it's getting up and started, what I would feel comfortable with just speaking for myself is that we put 100,000 in as a recommendation, but the other 100,000 in going on the reconciliation list for discussion among other items. Yeah, I had a couple of questions just to clarify when it says residential and community gardens space for residential is that multi-unit wellings is that where it's at? I mean I've been to the community gardens what I haven't been to is what what would be considered a residential one if you could explain that. Yeah so I think the great example of that would be one of the funded projects is operated by cheer. And it's in a residential neighborhood of single family homes, where they have land that they would like to make available for community gardening. And so cheer identifies residents in the broader community who are connected with their services, primarily from immigrant communities who historically have had access to be able to garden to support their families, but live in communities where they can access green space. And so it facilitates the establishment of gardens on those private properties and then the connection of the homeowners and the community members to simultaneously garden in those spaces. So some of it is shared space, but some of it is on individual properties and the products that are grown at that garden are then often taken home by the residents that are working there. And for the, as you talked about, like the seed money starting this program back with the allocation from the FY24 budget cycle. So, you know, would the money that gets appropriated, any money that gets appropriated to this for 26, be for new programs or is it allowed to be allocated to those who have already taken from funding related to this? Because there's a big difference to me. So traditionally with our grant programs, which we don't have a long history of tradition being on the two years long, but typically we have found ways to balance the evaluation of applications for continued services and that always has been a priority of the county executive of ensuring the places where residents are going for their services will continue but also creating opportunities for new ideas. And so, depending on the amount of funding that there was, I think we would evaluate both new and continuing, but I think it would really require understanding the circumstances of the returning programs to determine what was behind the need to receive continued funding. But I anticipate that I think all of those organizations are certainly looking for resources. And in the meantime, the Food Council brings together a gardening subcommittee where these grantees are convened regularly and share receive additional funding opportunities and as well as sharing best practices just in their overall operations. Gotcha. Okay, thank you. I concur with you. Okay. Reconciliation. Great. Next is item 1.5 on page nine. It's a transfer of a non-competitive contract from pop-up, from pop-up pantry services from DHHS to OFSR for $53,107. This amount contributes to the overall staffing and supply cost for the program, which includes nutrition education and pop-up pantries to students and parents at MCPS schools that are also served with the school-based food assistance. At least 24 public pranjuries are offered during the year. So this reflects one additional contract shifting from DHA to OFSR, though there is no anticipated change to the contract or services provided. So I think you're stating the contractor will be the same, you all will just become the monitor of that contract. So for the committee's consideration is to concur with the county executive's recommendation. Without objection. Okay. Next is a budget item, non-budget item. As mentioned earlier, there are two positions that are proposed to shift from contract to merit. They are listed in the budget as net neutral, but they do have a cost associated with them that the committee could consider. So the OFSR contract to merit positions are recommended as a net neutral addition, the office shared the following regarding the two FTEs. That shifting these duties to the employees positions will be cost neutral and value added to the agency, government and community overall. Outsourcing staff supports adds a minimum cost surcharge of 10 to 20 percent in contracting, you know, and it highly limited benefits to contractors and results in the loss of consistent staffing and institutional knowledge through temporary workforce. So the funds for these two positions are not associated with a specific contract with food assistance. It is utilized through an employment contract. So I just wanted to note that the details of the position are on page 10 of your packet. So one position is an administrative specialist too, which is a GS21. The details of that position are listed in your packet. If you look through the budget details, the FY26 recommended expenditures for this position are 83,779. The FY27 annualized expenditures would be 111,705. I'll go into the next position and then pause there, is that the shift to transition a community partnerships coordination staff from contract to county term, which would be a program manager one, a GS23 position. The details in your packet about the work that they would be doing, supporting all aspects of really the programming that is happening within OFSR. The budget states that the FY26 recommended expenditures for this position will be $9,065. The FY27 analyzed expenditures will be $120,086. Council staff does not have a recommendation but of course these FTEs and dollars can be considered for any changes that you would like to recommend for the reconciliation list. I agree with the executive's recommendation on this one. Sorry, that concludes the detail of the OFSR budget changes. Our note on page 11 is the chart summarizing the committee decision points. For the first item of the transfer, we will remove the reduction. And for the provide on-cycle community for community guarding and grants, we will submit one tranche for the reconciliation list for reduction. And else is supported as the county executive has recommended it. Great. Thank you all. Thank you all. Much appreciation for the opportunity to get to talk today. I think if there's one thing that brings me solace in times that are challenging, it's having partners like here at council and much appreciation to Ms. Clemens Johnson for her partnership as well. So thank you for your time and leadership. Thank you. I'll let her note every time after you guys speak, I'm always hungry. So thank you all very much. Appreciate your leadership. Look forward to the continued partnership. All right, next we're going to move on to the next item on our agenda. And I'll also note just we have shifted the Office of Human Rights Conversation will be on Monday. Next Department of Health and Human Services Administration and support and let's take a one-minute pause. you you All right. Thank you for that. We will now move on. Where is that? And if I could ask the folks in front of us to introduce themselves, appreciate it. Although we know everybody here. Hello, I'm Deborah Lambert with the Office of Management and Budget. Jason Arndell, Budget Manager for Health and Human Services. Mark Hodge, Chief Operating Officer, HHS. James Briebs, Director of the Department of Health and Human Services. Great, so I'm going to turn it over to staff. Thank you, Chair Albernolz, and we will get started on page one. The County Executive recommends, and just to be clear, this is the administration and support services area of the DHHS budget. The County Executive recommends an increase of $7.2 million or 8.6 from the FY25 approved amount for this service area. The recommended increase includes $7.2 million in programmatic and staffing enhancements. This staff report will go through each of the enhancements and talk through those details for the committee to render any decisions that they would like. The executive also recommends a decrease equating to $50,000. The committee will need to determine if it supports that proposed reduction as well. And then the executive budget also recommends a shift and re-alignment of the following programs and we will talk of there are three mentioned here and we will talk about those some we just talked about in our OFSR conversation. So complimentary conversations. So I will flip to page two to highlight the budget chart on paid summary chart on under letter A. And I will skip down to letter B and just highlight the vacancies that there are 26 vacancies in the admin and support services section of the 26 positions. Five positions are grant funded and 21 funded through the general fund of the 26 positions 11 are in the office of community affairs, including two positions within the LHI initiative and one position in the African American health program. There are 12 vacancies in the office of the chief operating officer and three in the office of the director. I'll pause there to see if there's questions. Okay. And we did once a note in the multi-program there was an error that included the um, our food item. Uh, so if we see here it's it's 9.9 million so the error looks huge. Um, so that is included in that item. I also wanted to highlight that we talked through a different service area one day this week in the department stated that the that the Arbra area was included in another multi-program adjustment area. Am I correct? It was in the department stated that the ARPA area was included in another multi-program adjustment area. Am I correct? It was in the public health services budget? I just want to make sure there's not duplication of it. Yeah, it's sort of been moving all around, but it's removed as an overall, but it also was charged in the wrong place and fixed in the multi-program as well. Okay. to make sure because like, our app is over here, our app is over there. So I wanted to make sure that we were clear about where those errors were in the budget. So we will start with the programmatic update. The budget document highlighted the community connect system. And we just wanted to pull that information out for the benefit of the committee. The narrative mentioned the benefit of the systems to customers and providers like the abilities to see benefit approvals to service payments. Council staff requested, you know, how are they using the system as the community engaging with the system? Are they able to look up their information? So DHHS provided the detail that's in your packet. They gave examples like currently the Working Parent Assistance Program and County Health Programs are fully integrated and actively utilized by customers. Additionally, programs within HHS like rental assisting and the Housing Initiative Programs are expected to go live in FY25. So I think as the department continues to use this system, it will be helpful to get updates about how our residents are engaging with the system, how they're able to check on their benefits and for it to continue to be a beneficial thing for our community partners to use. Yeah, Dr. Bridges, if you can just speak to this, I'd be especially interested in the cultural competency of the services rendered and how that works. Sure, thank you, Council Chair, Alburnos. So we spent a lot of time in developing this decision support system. We've also had key stakeholder engagement before we actually launched the system. So it is a unique client portal. So when we look at the cultural competency, we've gone through the racial equity and social justice review, we've done our due diligence, and we've made it really accessible to the community. I know this will come up again doing our ECEI conversation where Dr. Nimhart has gone through and she's done a lot of work and makes sure to ensuring the system is culturally competent I mean, when you think about the key stakeholders and how minority health and energy departments, all the communities have had an input to ensure that it's one accessible, that it's understandable, and that it's health-literate. Thank you. And then it says we're expected to go live in 25. we just be a little bit more specific what when when are we thinking? It's live currently so but for just for we're comparing assistance and I think that's it for over a moment. Other modules are being built including a provider module so people, so providers can submit their invoices directly into the portal. Because this was funded with ECI funds, we'd anticipated more deep questions on May 2nd when we come for that. And so Dr. Nimart would have much more specifics. But one thing about the community connect portal, I've been meeting with tabs, Dr. Nemhard and I've been meeting with tabs. They see this as a potential for doing much more across the county, not just in HHS. And so, wreck programs, for example, could go into the portal to sign up for these. Some of their contractors could send invoices, things like that. So there's a broader discussion that's now happening that Tebs will likely take this over in future years to expand this for other county programs. And the only point that I would add is the uniqueness of this system is the interoperability. So when we talk about looking at data systems with Montgomery County Public Schools and some of the challenges that we've had with that, this is a decision support system that really is unique that could not only impact our agency but other agencies and partners as well. Great question. Obviously this is a really big thing for the external users who are using it, right? And it makes it seamless and it helps. On the back end of it, internally at the agency, will this allow for standardization of invoice payment times and processing and that kind of thing? Like will it have that kind of functionality on the county employee user side to help streamline workflow and that kind of a thing. Uh, somewhat I guess that part of the slowness, um, that's, if that's the right term, of processing these invoices is getting a clean invoice from the vendor to begin with. Right. So does it have the proper backup documentation as I have all that? This is instead of emailing that to the contract monitor, uploading it into the system, doesn't guarantee cleanliness of that. So they're going to continue to be back and forth. But it does, we could potentially, I guess we'd have talked to Tabs about building something that would allow them a place to upload the invoice, a place to upload the backup documentation that would make it cleaner, I think, for them an easier to understand because sometimes for some of our vendors who've been doing this for a very long time, it certainly is something that they're used to doing, but for new, especially some of the, for working parents' assistance for some of our childcare providers, that this is not something they use every day or submit for invoices. So I think there are some things we could do to make it easier for them. Yeah, is that cleanliness of the invoices that slow down or speed up the process? Right. And it may also provide useful information for you too, as to whether the system is flagging, this has to go back, this isn't correct. Right, and then you're able to extract that and go, what's going on here, and which type of providers within the HHS landscape seem to have the most challenges, like if it is child care, well, what is the hiccup there? Why, you know, how can we address that? But it would give you useful information in that agency versus vendor relationship as well. Thank you. Okay, the next item for update is the Service Consolidation Hub. There is not a budget request. However, the hubs have been a program that we have talked about every year basically. And we received updates as we, as the county has transitioned things and the hubs were founded during COVID and were mostly focused on providing food. But I think the support that the hubs provide has transitioned and there are other services provided. But as of FY25, DHHS put out a request for proposal to see qualified experienced organizations located in the county to operate the hubs to provide food, essentials, and community resources to approximately a thousand households a month. The FY 26 budget for the program is currently three and a half million, which is part of their base budget funding. On page four of your packet, it looks list the zip codes where the organizations who are providing hub services must, if they choose what a service area they must provide services to those zip codes. There's also detail in the packet number four about why DHHS transition to an RFP model. And a lot of it was kind of related back to the contract's discussion that you all continue to have to encourage competition, transparency, and fairness in the process, cost savings, approved quality and accountability. I think standing up the hub, hubs during the COVID-19 was a emergency response in that DHHS is trying to be strategic about how they move forward with supporting the hubs. So there is service data for FY25 that is listed in your packet on page five. The new hubs will tentatively begin on July 1st once the awardees of the RFP are posted any current hubs that will not be retained in FY26 will be notified. DHHS has stated that their goal is to make those notifications no later than May 30, 2025. Scott is a little bit of anxiety. Just want to get your overall thoughts. I concur with the approach. I think it's time for us to continue to evolve as we have information on the ground, but needless to say, these are important partners and they're doing great work. They're doing the best that they can given the circumstances, but you care to elaborate on this as much as you can at this point, I'd appreciate it. So the negotiations are happy now, the vendors that were selected from the RFP are now in discussions about budgets and contract language and things like that. So we do expect that to end and be completed by the end of next week. I will say that the vendors that submitted their proposals, almost all of them had a leg up as current providers, which certainly having that experience led to higher scores in general. So yes, it does create anxiety for lots of people to think for hubs for any contract for provided this been with us for such a long time. But I feel very confident that the right choices were made here. We can now flip this to a competitive process as opposed to non-competitive with minimal difference. That's helpful. I just have a question about how does it codes were chosen to correspond to the service areas? Because like for example, the Upper East County has only three zip codes in it, but 20861, which is 10 minutes from Burtonville, is assigned to the Gathersburg consolidation area, which would be a half hour drive or ride or what have you. Do you know how they were selected? I don't know. Sorry, that can get that. So we'll follow the link of that information for you. Yeah, thank you. The question was asked with me as well. So the team will work on it. I'll guide you with that. Thank you. All right. Okay. When we move on to item update number three on equity and language access, I wanted to bring this to your awareness because the council supported this increase in FY25 in the amount of $252,690. So this was to support the language resource contracts, excuse me, that have been underfunded for a number of years. The services provided include in-person interpretation and translation services and phone interpretation. The contracted services are utilized by all DHHS programs and the three vendors were all chosen through the competitive process. So DHHS reports that the funding was split between phone line interpretation services, we're 130,000, and in-person interpretation services for 122,690. Both services have continued to increase in demand. And number four items are our Maranoid Health Programs Office of Community Affairs. This, the Office of Community Affairs houses the African American Health Program, the Asian American Health Initiative, and the Latino Health Initiative. This also includes the Black Physicians Healthcare Network. There were no suggested increases to the program, but there was public testimony and inclusion on your packet about the services provided through all of those three programs. They provided programmatic summaries and just wanted to share about the work that they have done this year and that is including in your packet as an addendum. And also the budget is listed here if there's any questions, those can be posed to the department. So there was, so there will, there is a budget item related to the Latino Health Initiative and the reduction of one of their contracts that we will talk about in detail when we get to the budget section. I did was requested to provide more information on the Maryland Vietnamese Mutual Association contract managed by AHI. And this is on page 9 and circle 14 to 15 of your packet on page 14. there is an addendum that provides background on this contract. It was discussed last year during our FY 25 budget discussions. It was recommended for elimination and the county executive sent a memo on May 2nd of 2024, recommending restoration and the council approved that restoration. NFI 26 came to's knowledge, was not part of the budget that DHHS would be eliminating the contract and transferring those funds to the Healthy Community Fund, which is a competitive grant process that is managed by the Asian American Health Initiative. In addition to the memorandum that is included in your packet, a memo was received from councilmember Mink yesterday to members of this committee to consider restoration of the contract. I don't know if restoration is quite the word or how it would be framed because the money is not leaving the budget. It is still being maintained in the budget, but there is a request that it no longer fund this contractor. I believe councilmember Mink is available to speak to the her memo, and I will look at how she's juggling a lot right now. I'm not sure if she's specifically available at this particular moment, but councilmember Mink, can you hear us, and if you are, would you like to chime in at this point? Hi, yes, I am here. And would you be able to come back to me in like one, oh no, okay, I am here and maybe it, the, okay, actually no, I'm not here, I'm sorry, if you have any difficulty discussing familiar with this issue. We have your back. Deal with what you've got to deal with. No worries. It's also written on page nine of this contract. So we can revisit it there if that was if it's if needed. Yeah, I think we can address this right now, because there's actually, as we learn just before this committee session started, because we're not discussing a reduction. It's a shifting over of the funds, which is well within the Department Health and Human Services purview, and not subject to this body, because we're not dealing with a reduction again. We're just shifting the money over. Now, I would appreciate the opportunity to have you all talk more specifically about why that recommendation was made and clear up any potential confusion. We had some very compelling testimony and a number of residents from the community that benefit from this program that came to our public session, you know, a couple of weeks ago. So if you could just elaborate on why the decision made was made to shift the funds, that'd be great. So one of the the main reason this was an easy one for us to move from a from a non competitive listitive list into the competitive. So without having to adjust any of the funding. So by moving this out of the original base budget and into the Asian-American health initiatives, health communities fund, this allowed the money to then go for a competitive grant, which MVMA is certainly welcome to again apply for should they want that. We are aware of the advocacy. We are painfully aware of the advocacy in some cases that they have been calling lots of people and meeting lots of people. We've had several conversations with them, Asian American Health Initiative, Program Manager has several conversations with them. We've been trying to get them to, we just received November invoices, for example. So we've been working with them to try to understand what they want to do with this money moving forward. The most recent conversation we had with them was if they just get the money, they will do whatever we ask them to do. So they said they would even go back to, if they could take it out of the grant money and put it in CYF, they'll start tutoring again. So we're getting mixed messages from them about what they would do with it. I think they just want the money and not necessarily for the specific programs that they want to do right now. So that's why we're getting mixed messages. We're not getting a lot of cooperation for them to submit invoices on time. And not I'm not trying to dismiss the services that they provide but for for in any $9,000 contract we're spending a lot of time on this. We would prefer to make it a competitive process there. They have the opportunity to get the money again and we're hoping that by applying for for that, we have a more clear understanding about what the services they want to provide, because right now we're getting mixed messages, as I mentioned. I have a thought, but I'm going to yield the Council on Reludic and then I'll try and back in. Yeah, so I totally understand the why of putting it over there. I guess one question is are there other groups that will be subjected to this new process? Could you talk about that and how that's going to work? So thank you Councillor Wemble looking for that. Just to add to what Mr. Hodg or Ticolated earlier, this is again the department's move to have all of our contracting and our grants move to a more competitive platform vehicle. The Healthy Community Funds is at vehicle where we've heard not only from other communities but specifically in our A.A.A. the H.I. Asian American Health Initiative community that is not as equitable as it should be. So the ability to have capacity building mechanism makes it fair. And so clearly those individuals who have applied for grants in the past and who receive awards and or contracts have the not only the institutional knowledge but the program knowledge and are able to apply for not only a grant in this case but other contracting vehicles so for that reason or those reason alone I think that the move would be now the MVMA still has another grant it's been previously awarded twice in the past. And this is just another opportunity in a more competitive arena, if you will, for yet another piece of work to be bit out and contract. So for the other grant that you just referenced, that you said they've gotten twice before. Is that from this same fund that this money is shifting over to? I'm seeing people nodding. Okay. So like if they've already been awarded that, are they allowed to apply for a second amount? Yes. Okay. And is there a cap? Yeah. There's a $150,000 cap for any partner who wants to apply for that particular fund. The healthy communities fund. Okay so for whatever they have under the existing healthy communities fund that isn't this $89,000. Would an ask for the $89,000 via the competitive grant program push them over the limit that fund has? Yes, yes it would. Right now they're receiving $147,000. I'm not clear, I'm not gonna get this information for you when the grant period is for those previous grants that they have. So if one of them is running out, it opens it up for the $89,000 for them to apply for. Yes. So there's, all right. So we have some unknowns in terms of, right? Because I mean, if it's by fiscal year, then essentially the only amount they'd be eligible to apply for competitively in addition to, it would be $3,000, right? So that would in fact be a change. Okay, I don't know if councilmember Mink is back, but can I note something that council staffs understanding that the healthy community's fund administration of the grant is transferring from a contractor to the office of grants management for FY26. I'm just wondering with that change will there be a change in caps and eligibility that the council member can I'm not sure so we can we'll get back to you. Okay. I think it's not a, it's a HHS decision. So we can absolutely change the cap, if that's the case. Moving into the Office of Grants Management. It's in PCC now. PCC takes money off the top to administer it. So it does provide more funding for us overall. I think that opens up the opportunity for higher amounts. But yeah, we'll get back to you. I just want to note for the record, there aren't a lot of organizations that serve this population. And so understanding there are contractual issues that need to be worked through, but if a new competitive RFP is issued, we have to take that into account. There are many organizations in this space. So just wanted to note that back to Councilor. Sorry. Um,'ll hear I am. Yeah, I think for me and I don't know if councilmember Mink is back on or not and certainly if she is I want to let her have an opportunity to speak but my little sidebar here was knowing that there are some unknowns and also fully respecting that there are some challenges with the administration of the existing contract, right? But to my point of if there's a cap and then the total extra amount you're eligible for is $3,000 respecting that the amount isn't being cut out of the budget but is just's just being put over to this other fund. And yet we have a cap. There are some unresolved questions. I feel like we'd all love to know the answer to. And because this is not in the budget, if you were, it would have to be something that we'd flag and put aside on the reconciliation list to talk about further, but I don't know if Councilmember Mink is online. Okay. She's in the middle of many things. That's all I will leave it at that. But so I had outlined that we might want to flag this for further discussion and place it on the reconciliation list. Agreed. So a question for council if I may be in the absence of council. I remember me weighing in. So a question for Council, if I may, the in the absence of Council, remember me weighing in. It's a question that whether or not there's a cap or whether or not there's an allowable adjustment made with the $89,000, just want to be clear what the ask is so that we can spell out and delineate what those variables would be. So we'll work with Council's setting. Thank you. Thank you. So kind of be clear about so is there a vote to place $89,941 on the reconciliation list or should we just include it in the packet for full council discussion? I think it's the latter. It's the latter because it's an unresolved issue and we need several critical pieces of information in order to have that discussion at full council. Thank you. Understood. I'd also candidly like to give the opportunity for our colleague and friend Councilmember Mink to fully weigh in on this issue too, so a little bit of it to be continued. All right, let's move on. Okay, so we will start with the budget items. They are listed on page six and in seven of your packet. I will start with the highest value one, which is number one, point one. The increase in the house bill grant changes, which are 15,473,562. This is a longstanding reimbursement that the county has received since 1996. Each year there are changes in the amount that the county received and it really supports positions like mostly like within child welfare and those social services aspects. I just wanted to note because the increase is so large we asked DHHS for additional information. They noted that the you know the puts and takes that happen every year allowed them to shift the funding of positions from general funds to the grant, therefore saving money within general funds. Within this year, DHHS did receive three new positions that are reflected in the FTE increase. I think without objection. Okay. The next item is the increase in security services rate at DHHS programs, $14,698. So this reflects an increase in increased cost for security, the contract services. The locations where DHHS provides are listed in your packet and most of them are most public serving offices where people sign up for social services and Medicaid and things of that sort. The security services are managed through the sheriff's office security contract. Without objection. And council members I just want personally thank the HHS committee for affording us to space in the county executives recommendation because we understand the challenges that we have in the community that are co-occurring and for those individuals who support but we also need to support and protect our staff as well One of the front lines up personally as a director one to say thank you. Thank you All right, I don't 1.3 is the reduction of the Latino Health Initiative primary care coalition media relations contract for or a public service announcement are no longer for provided. This is a reduction of $50,000. So the LHI addresses the health, language, economic, and professional disparities impacting Latinos in Montgomery County by developing innovative program interventions in responding to community's needs. So some of the functions of LHI flow through a contract with the primary care coalition. What LHI has found with this particular section of the contract is that they have not spent any dollars on public service announcements in FY25. LHI's media funding for PSAs and FY25 is being spent on their updated marketing materials. And then in response to not providing the PSAs, they're just leveraging different media outlets that work better for the community that they serve. So this recommendation is reducing that money from the contract. So LHI plans to utilize the form of contract funding to update their marketing materials. Okay, that objection. Okay. And 1.4, it is listed at its own budget item. So we had to call it out in the budget section is the error in the removal of the ARPA funding. So that reduction is noted here. And we just wanted to put that for your consideration. Okay. Okay. Items 1.5 and 1.6 relate to the community action agency and you will note that you have heard this in the Office of Food Systems resilience conversation that we just had. So within this program area under admin and support, the CAA had been responsible for monitoring certain food service contracts and and the executive branch, as Ms. Clemson noted, is working to transition all food service-related items into the Office of Food System Resilience. And so both 1.5 shows a reduction of $53,107 for the pop-up pantry services that's shifting to OFSR, and then $753,775, which is also shifting to OR in that managed the Weekend BAG program offered at school sites. Great. And so that covers all of the budget recommendations in the administrative and supportive services area based on the chart on 10. It correctly reflects the budget decisions of the committee and we can close out this surface area. Wonderful. Thank you all. We'll if you could introduce yourself, Dr. Bridgers, if you already introduced yourself, you don't have to do it again. Good afternoon, Dr. Patrice McGee, Chief of Aging and Disability Services. Great. Grace, Pedersen, OMB. Thanks, Grace. All right. Okay, good afternoon. So to cover for Aging and Disability Services, I'll first begin with the executive summary. The county executive is recommending an increase of about $5.5 million or 7.03% from the FY26, sorry, for the FY26 operating budget for aging and disability services. And FY25, the approved amount was for $73.3 million. There's no increase to the number of FTEs, which remains steady at 210.25. The executive's recommendation, the executive's recommended increase includes 1 million, about 1 million dollars for five programmatic enhancements. This includes the following, about 650,000 for a 3% increase to the developmental disability provider supplement. 147,000 to continue serving over 100 older adults with senior nutrition services at the Silver Spring Recreation and Aquatic Center. 112,000 for the annualized respite care provider rate increase. About 101,000 to accommodate increasing food costs in the senior nutrition program to prevent a projected reduction of approximately 11,700 meals. And lastly, in the amount of 66,000, a 3% increase the adult medical day care provider supplement. The executives recommended decreases equate to around 202,000 for three items. This includes the following. A reduction of 150,000 to reduce the community companion's contract due to underutilization. 35,400 and $4 to eliminate the Caracic Child Care Program due to underutilization. And lastly 15,000 to reduce the My Turn Program due to underutilization. On page two of your packet, you will find Table 1, which showcases the FY25 approved operating budget and the recommended budget for FY26. To cover vacancies, there are currently 10 vacancies in aging and disability services. Four of these positions are grant funded and six are funded through the general fund. The majority of the vacancies are for social workers positions which make up seven of the ten vacancies. A summary of the vacancies is detailed in your packet and is there anything that the department would like to add regarding vacancies? Yes, I'm just like to report that DHHS participated in a job fair on the 16th where we were able to engage with some highly qualified individuals. As you know, there is a nationwide shortage of social workers, so it is a challenging position to fill, but we were able to engage with some individuals in a very hopeful, I think since the production of this packet, we're actually down to two social work position vacancies. So we are working diligently to fill our vacancies in Andy. And also like to add, I want to personally thank Dr. McGee and the worker she's done, but also our chiefs two years ago when I became the director, we had 350 vacancies. We're now down to 161 vacancies. So it speaks to not only our chiefs, but our great staff who are behind me. And a shout out to OA TAR. Yeah, that is good news. Heading certainly in the right direction. And as we've all been talking about it, lots of different ways of job market has significantly shifted in the last three months. And so we're seeing a significant increase in the number of applications for positions at every level across the board. That trend will continue, which presents some opportunities at the local level for us to have a wider candidate pool from which to choose from. And as I always try to put a plug in, retention is just important as bringing folks on. So making sure the team that we have is supported and feels heard and respected is just as important because they of course spread the gospel and let prospective friends and colleagues in this space know this is a great place to work. So gotta keep that up too. So continuing on for the multi-programme adjustments, table two contains the three multi-programme adjustments that represent a greater than a 10% change to the program for aging and disability services. There are only three that meet that criteria with the largest adjustment being in assessment and CCMS. You'll find that pages 2, 3 and 4 contain details about the background and functions of aging and disability services. Specifically, 4 services for seniors. The FY26 recommended budget summary is available at Circle Pages 18-24. The summary includes details on the $65.1 million in tax-supported resources identified for older adults, including funds for community organizations that augment county services for older adults. In addition, the recommended budget also includes 23.8 million in non-tax supported resources for older adults. Aging disability services is housed under the Department of Health and Human Services, and so for that OBET analysis, please refer to the operating budget overview for DHHS for information regarding that. to be in compliance with the Racial Equity and Social Justice Act, bill 27-19. Pages 4-6 will cover some of the programmatic updates that I can go ahead and just dive into right now. So first beginning with the updates on the Ombudsman program, the long term care-budsman program currently has nine FTEs assigned. On-budsman staff must be designated and certified to perform on-budsman duties, per-regulations from the Older Americans Act, and the designation process can take anywhere from three to 12 months. Currently the team consists of seven field-based staff members who address complaints on behalf of county residents, who reside in its 34 nursing homes, 238 assisted living facilities and group homes. There is one state designated office services coordinator and 11 volunteers, and the program plans to grow the volunteer base. If we could pause there for a moment, thank you Ms. Cassalia. So obviously there was an effort through the legislature this year to transfer over responsibility as we had been given during COVID oversight. And those efforts are still ongoing. But I just would like the department's feedback and input. This, this, these folks are overwhelmed with the number of cases that we're seeing. It's an area of deep concern of me. And I really appreciate the effort of Senator Kramer to try and at least address this at the local level. But if we could get an update now, if it's appropriate on where things stand with those efforts to try and assume more of that responsibility, which I think as long as the funding comes over with that responsibility, it is I think more effective for it to be here at the local level. Absolutely. Thank you, Chair Oppenel, for that question. So just to clarify a few things, so the long-term care and buzzman program are team of advocates that reside in our homes. So it's not the same as the inspections team, totally different delegation. So this team has since the sunset of the MOU in 2021 has seen a significant uptick and the complexity of complaints that we're receiving in our residential homes and as well as this team has also gone through an overhaul if you will. So it has experienced some significant staffing shortages. We we are in the process of rebuilding this team. Pre-COVID, we had more than 50 volunteers in the program. And now we're down to 11. So we've seen a significant hemorrhage in our volunteer base, which we depend heavily on our volunteer base in this program to meet the needs of all of our facilities. So with that being said, we are working diligently. There's a new state embusman that is in the seat who has a totally different work ethic as more boots on the ground with the jurisdictions. To understand this program, this is Title VII of the Older Americans Act. It is a pretty much the program starts and stops with the state embusman, right? Has complete jurisdiction and authority. So with the new embassment, state embassment's approach, she's very boots on the ground with the team, making sure that we are meeting the needs of our residents and those facilities equipping them with the information about resident rights and, you know, bartering conversations with the facility owners to ensure that residents' needs are being met. So this team, like I said, has gone through an overhaul with their working diligently to meet the needs of the team. Previously, when the MOU was in place for the inspections team within the public health service area, our local embusmen worked in tandem with that inspections team. As you mentioned in laid out, there has been significant efforts from our advocacy groups, such as the Commission on Aging, who has really championed this cause since the sunset of the MOU, Senator Kramer, Deliga Coles, and our intergovernmental relations, the County Executive, submitted, written testimony to the delegation, just really speaking to to the need for there to be oversight in our facilities. So where we sit now, the legislation did go through. I believe that there's a 50-50 split in the legislation that passed. We are in process, Dr. Stoddard, who is leading the call to the county executive side, we're going to be convening meetings to talk about what that looks like, Dr. Ashford with Public Health, myself really talking about what that looks like, because it's not gonna be an overnight process if the county did resume that body of work. It's going to require us to one, build the team out again, right? And but then also those inspectors also have to go through a certification process. They can be anywhere from three three to 12 months So it is a process that we have to work through with our state partners So we're going to continue to meet and engage and determine how we are going to do that processes forward So that we can meet the needs of our residents and these facilities and for that particular inspection team I think it's important to note we're talking about the 34 nursing homes. Okay. Thank you, Dr. McGee, Councillor Lutkin. Thank you, and yes, I'm glad we found some resolution to making sure these inspections are gonna move forward. I said we were one bad incident away from a pro-publica story, right? I don't want that for our jurisdiction. I don't want that for our residents living in long-term care facilities. But my concern is that the language was in the barfa. It's not in a bill. It's for a year. So can you speak to that and how that's going to work since it's so temporary? I will get back to you on that. We do not have that information right now. But meetings are going to begin next week to really talk through what this looks like. Okay. Great. Thank you. Great. Thank you. And I, you know, the entire council is on the record. We sense a note listing. This is a priority. And so we'll get updates and please work through us so that we can update our colleagues because we remain very interested in this topic and want to be very supportive of it. Absolutely. We'll do. Thank you. Okay. We can move on. Okay. Moving on to the villages program. Currently Montgomery County has 30 active villages and seven developing villages for older adults. Image one on page five shows a map of the villages in Montgomery County. Volunteers provided over 10,000 direct services, including 6,169 rides. With a combined budget of $919,884, the village's total volunteer time of 49,175 hours can be valued at over 1.6 million. The committee may be interested in knowing more about where the seven villages are that are being developed in the county. I would. So I will get that information back to you. Exactly where those villages are being developed. Yes, because I don't have that information in front of me, but I will make sure that the council is provided with that information. All right, so we'll get that at a later time. Moving on to senior care services and the senior care grant. The total FY25 senior care grant from Montgomery County is $2.1 million. The state's proposed reduction was $334,866, which is a 15.2% of the total grant amount. However, my understanding is that that reduction did not pass. The Montgomery County Senior Care Program is projected to spend 100% of its FY 25 grant amount. Moving on to the state level developmental disabilities administration changes. The state budget for the DDA was considered for large reductions in the Governor's proposed budget. And by the close of the state legislative session, many cuts had been restored. The Governor's proposed budget included a $56 million reduction in the geographical differential rate for FY25 and eliminated the program in FY26 for a cost savings of $112 million. Providers of services for individuals with developmental disabilities in Montgomery County are beneficiaries of the rate differential and stood to lose revenue with the elimination of the program. Negotiations between the legislature and administration resulted in a restoration of the GDR for FY25 and a cap on the rate for FY26 at 10% higher than the traditional reimbursement rate. The final budget also preserved low intensity support services and and dedicated hours calculation identified by advocates as critical to many individuals receiving services from the DDA. While these restorations were a significant change, the legislature ultimately did not include a 1% rate increase valued at $28.7 million for providers of services for people with developmental disabilities that have been included in the governor's budget request. Yeah, let's pause here and talk about this. So, first of all, I want to publicly acknowledge and thank the incredible community-based organizations and families and advocates that organize so effectively. I also want to thank our colleagues in the delegation and the governor's office for recognizing the unbelievable so effectively, I also want to thank our colleagues in the delegation and the governor's office for recognizing the unbelievable impact had these cuts gone through and what that was going to mean for our local communities. But some trust was lost and there was some real damage done and I am concerned that we were able to bandate and limp through this budget but there's another one on the horizon that won't certainly be any easier. So I'd love to hear from the department and Dr. McKee how we are preparing. If goodness forbid there are similar reductions proposed moving forward and acknowledging the incredible role that these community-based organizations provide in our compete in our community just would love to hear your perspective on on that Absolutely. Thank you for that. So I just want to echo the sentiment and the thanks to the DD providers and and all of the advocacy groups that really stepped up. They really showed the importance of amplifying unified voice and advocacy and how those efforts can impact and make change. So I want to say thank you to the D.D. provider providers in our community that stepped up as well as the support received here by council by the county executive to really amplify the voice and speak up regarding the $457 million cost containment proposed for budget cut in the GDA budget this year. So a couple things I want to highlight one, the reduction to the geographical differential that would impact five jurisdictions, including Montgomery County, Howard, Charles, Calvert, and Frederick, receive a 15% differential currently. The budget closed, the general simply closed with the budget proposal, a 10%, capping that at 10% versus 15%. That has to go through a CMS waiver amendment. So that will not happen July 1. DDA does have to develop a disability administration. We live in acronym world, so I'm going to try to speak those things out. They have to actually go through a waiver amendment process to achieve that goal of reducing it to 10%. We have been in conversations with our advocacy groups, Macs, as well as our intergovernmental relations about strategies. Should that move forward with that? Should that happen? What we could do during the next General Assembly, some legislation that we could reintroduce to offset those costs and things of that nature? I know one of the things that was said at many of the hearings was that there was a black hole, if you will, in the DBA budget. And the auditors couldn't really understand how they got to this point. And so I believe there's also efforts on the state level to have more transparency in that budget, to be able to communicate those things with our community, our duty provider community as well as the local jurisdictions if you will. So there are efforts underway. We are keeping a close look on this. And this is not, I just want to point out, this is something that we're looking at across A&D. Many of not all of our programs are regulated at the federal and state levels, so those changes are significant and impactful. So we're keeping a close look on all of the things, all of the potential implications that are going to affect our older adults and our persons with disabilities. So again, it's important, and I say this for all of our advocacy groups, it is important to amplify the voice. And so there's proof in that right here. I know how challenging this year has been and I have many dear friends in the DD Coalition Leadership Sphere. And it's not that, you know, for years it wasn't that they weren't trying to say hey there's some issues within the DDA right and and functionality challenges and things of that nature and while the initial proposal for the budget was shocking to everyone. One, I'm trying to be glass half full here. It put a big spotlight on things that needed to have happened in public, conversations that needed to be done, focusing on that transparency and recognizing that in the middle of all of this we had a shifting of health secretaries too. Right? So I know this is an ongoing issue as you noted, whether they do or do not apply for the waiver, remains to be seen, what other types of things they need to do, what regulations they might be trying to put in place. To make sure everyone is on the same page and has a level understanding of requirements and services. And, you know, I know that there's history here too over the past five years maybe, ish. The budget really got quite substantial, right? And sort of nobody paid attention to it, and now it's all come to a head as we are facing many, many challenges, right? So I know that this community will continue bringing strong advocacy to the table to make sure that practical pragmatic decisions are going to be up for discussion that makes sense for the community that is supposed to be being served by these tax dollars. So I appreciate the work that you are doing here in the county on this front. I know you collaborate across jurisdictions with other central Maryland counties that are similarly situated and affected and that level of collaboration on these issues will make a very big difference and I'm hoping we all come out better in the end so thank you. Council staff just wants to note that we received an amendment for the aging and disability but it particularly as it is related to the DD providers there is a one-time requested appropriation from the county executive to provide further support giving the reductions. I don't believe staff is not prepared to talk through the details of the budget as we just got it yesterday and what that increase means if the committee would like to talk about it, we can provide whatever details that we can at this point. But we will need to revisit the amendment as we go through the HHS budget process. Yeah, let's wait till Monday, I guess. It's going to be here before you know it. So, yeah. Great. So moving on to some of the budget discussion items. Starting at the bottom of page six and moving into page seven, you will find table three, which summarizes the county executives proposed budget changes. And as we move through the packet I'll touch on each proposed budget change for committee review. And I believe we can pause after each one for discussion if needed. So first beginning on page seven is the 3% increase to the developmental disability provider supplement in the amount of $650,820. The county executive is recommending a 3% increase to the developmental disability provider supplement in this amount and the 3% increase matches the 3% inflationary adjustment which was recommended for all nonprofit contractors which will be reviewed by full council at a later date. Typically, state reimbursements have not been adequate to support provider organizations. So historically Montgomery County has provided supplemental support to these organizations. The FY26 recommended amount is 22,344,858 dollars. And DHHS shared with council staff that there are currently 41 providers in the DDSupplement, but up to three new providers may be added. This is still uncertain as the contract creation process is currently still in progress. Table 4 shows the number of clients that are served by the DDSupplement and their respective fiscal years. The target for F-Y26 is 3,871 clients. This year, the Council President shared guidance on affordability and based on this, Council staff is recommending tronching the DD supplement. Tronch 1 is for 2% at $433,881. And Tronch 2 is for 1% at $216,939. So with the context of the conversation we just had, I think predictability is especially important for this very important sector. We appreciate and respect the council staff's recommendation, but we're gonna go with the County Executive's recommendation for the whole of now. Moving on to the 3% increase to the adult medical daycare provider supplement in the amount of $66,684. The county executive is recommending this 3% increase which matches the 3% inflationary adjustment recommended for all nonprofit contractors which once again will be reviewed by full council at a later date. Montgomery County has provided support funding for adult medical daycare since FY 2019, as the state's Medicaid reimbursement rate makes it difficult to cover costs for the providers. The current Medicaid daily rate for adult medical daycare is $116.59, which is an increase of $3 from FY25. At the state level, there has been extensive conversation surrounding proposed budget reductions for the DDA, and when asked about the impact of potential reductions on adult medical daycare services and providers, DHHS informed council staff that AMDC could be impacted impacted by cuts since AMDC is a service provided through the DDA waiver service. And therefore, any reductions to geographical rate differential could, therefore, impact providers. Aging and disability services understands that the DDA plans to pursue a geographical differential rate decrease with a cap of 10 percent instead of a total elimination and the current cap right now is 15%. The DDA, as was covered previously, must submit a waiver amendment to CMS, which is the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, to change the geographical differential, which on average can take 6 to 8 months and the result of this would not be known until mid-year FY26. Please note that DHHS confirmed that there was an error in the calculation of the recommended FY26 appropriation for AMDC, and the correct amount is $2,495,682. The committee will need to consider increasing funding by $6,000 and $6 in order to correct for the calculation error. This would bring the 3% inflationary adjustment to $72,690. Based on guidance by the council president for affordability, council staff is recommending Tronching this item Tronch 2 sorry Tronch 1 excuse me is for 2% at $48,460. Tronch 2 is sorry, Tronch 1. Excuse me is for 2% at $48,460. And Tronch 2 is for 1% at $24,230. Well, thank you for the information regarding the adjustment just for the same reasons I supported the inflationary adjustment for Montgomery Cares and the reimbursement rate. I think the same issues apply here with the looming cuts to Medicaid that will undeniably, sadly go into effect. Whatever we can do to put these organizations in a slightly better position to be able to absorb those reductions, I think we should pursue. Because we're talking about so little money here in the grand scheme of things. Feels like nickel and diamond if we trunched this particular item. So I speak in, you know, what we'll concur with the county executive recommendation. Yeah. So. Moving on to the annualized respite care provider rate increase in the amount of $112,000 and $45. In FY24, proposed funding for the annualized respite care provider rate increase was not approved, and in response to DHHS did not make changes to the FY25 rate. Level 1 agency rates in FY21, sorry FY25, were $33 an hour and the ask of 112,000 is for funding for the level 1 agency rate increase that was implemented in FY24. The rate increase took place in FY24 because of the impact of the rising county minimum wage on respite consortium providers and the rate increased from $31 an hour to $33 an hour. Currently, the funding only provides the program with sufficient resources to continue operating at FY24 rates, and the extra costs are being passed onto families. As a result of the proposed funding from FY24 not being approved, the contractor experienced a funding shortfall alongside increased demand for respite services. In FY25, the Resovit Care Provider Rate increase was not funded and DHHS utilized savings from underutilized contracts to fund this increase. And without funding for the Resovit Care Provider Rate increase for FY26, DHHS will not be able to cover the increase and provide the same level of service. Based on this information, Council staff is recommending concurring with the county executive's recommendation for this particular budget item. Without objection. The next item is to continue serving over 100 older adults with senior nutrition services at the Silver Spring Recreation and Aquatic Center in the amount of $147,875. The county executive is recommending this increase for the senior nutrition services at the Silver Spring Recreation and Aquatic Center, which provides hot lunch fields to seniors and older adults in Montgomery County. And FY26, DHHS stated that they anticipate that the demand and the number of individuals seeking fields to seniors and older adults in Montgomery County. In FY26, DHHS stated that they anticipate that the demand and the number of individuals seeking services at the aquatic center will increase steadily as a site becomes more well known in the community. Currently, the congregate meal program at SSRAC is not increasing usage or marketing, but if funded, the program will resume marketing of the site. In FY25, the program at SSRAC was not funded and to continue when rendering services, aging and disability services utilized the title three grant to fund SSRAC due to the availability of ARMA funds, which allowed the program to shift some of the area agency on aging or AAA expenses into ARBA. The service impact required a capping the number of meals of various meal providers to balance the budget. And the program surveys participants annually to measure program impact. The most recent survey results showed that 93% of participants believe the program improves their health and 84% believe that they are eating healthier meals and lastly 78% reported that the program helps them remain living independently. Based on this information, council staff is recommending concurring with the county executive's recommendation for this budget item, specifically based on the lack of ARFA funding for FY 26. There would be a reduction in services provided to seniors if this item were to not be funded. Yeah, I definitely concur with the staff in County Executive's recommendation. I would just note to my colleagues in the HHS, I just know for a fact that many of the seniors that participate in this program, this is their primary meal of the day. But that's not reflected in some of the data. I would encourage you to ask that question moving forward to underscore the importance of this particular program. And then of course, such is about the meal. The socialization is just as important as the meal because it helps seniors who are often socially isolated. And this is like the county's version of adult medical day because it's often culturally appropriate food and it's just it's just a great program. Thank you for that and if I could add to that a couple of things one you know we the our single nutrition program is a prioritization right so it is governed by the Older Americans Act so first things first is the reauthorization of that act. This Title III program alongside many others are at risk right now because the federal government has not reauthorized the act. There was bipartisan support to reauthorize the act in the last administration that didn't get across the finish line. So I am, again, speaking to the need for advocacy, the need for calls to be made, because this act particularly earmarks funds for these programs and services that we administer through our area agency on aging. So it is vital that it does get reauthorized because this program, and like I said, many more are at risk. This particular program, this particular funding line, it's an essential and vital that we get this funding. Again, we have prioritization in this program, home delivered meals being the first line of defense, if you will, the being our first priority, and then our congregate sites thereafter. As you mentioned, Chair Abhinaux, we do provide culturally appropriate meals, as well as provide meals in our adult daycare. So those lower prioritizations which are really not lower prioritizations but that's how we have to rank them under our regulatory guidance. They would be subject to funding cuts right so instead of serving five meals or seven meals a day we'd be I mean a week excuse me'd be down to maybe three, two or three meals. And as you stated, these may be the only meals that a senior receives, healthy meal throughout the day. So it is a vital service that we are providing. And with looming federal cuts, you know, it's something that, you know, I want you to, I appreciate your championing the cause as well. be helpful in team to bring this up with our council president and potentially get a letter over to our delegation expressing our support through this, through the Office of Intergovernment Affairs, you know, just putting, um, planning, planning a flag. Um, and I'll just know one last thing on this particular item. I think, um, the Silver Spring Recreation and Aquatic Center is the most metro accessible of all of our recreation facilities. So all the more reason to invest more in programming there. All right, so without objection. Moving on to the next item, this is to accommodate increasing food costs in the senior nutrition program to prevent a projected reduction of approximately 11,700 meals. This is in the amount of $101,200 and $25. The county executive is recommending this increase for the senior nutrition program, which provides hot meals annually at a variety of sites to seniors and older adults. The site that is estimated to provide the largest number of hot meals in FY 26 is the Chinese American Senior Services Association on Conquerkit, whereas DC meals on wheels provided the most home-delivered meals and more information about the number of meals and estimated meals can be found in tables 6 and 7. The senior nutrition plan receives funding from a variety of sources, primarily from the federal government and more information about the funding sources can be found in table eight. For this item, Council staff recommends concurring with the county executive's recommendation. And with that objection. So starting at the bottom of page 12, I'll now move on to cover some of the recommended decreases from the county executive. The first being the elimination for the Caracic Child Care Program due to underutilization. This is in the amount of $35,404. The county executive is recommending a reduction for the Caracic Child Care Program. However, this proposed reduction does not eliminate the program. It only eliminates the contract that funds subsidies for the program. Additionally, the proposed elimination would not impact the children who are currently served by this program. The contract for the CARESIC Child Care Program was designed to provide medical child care tuition waivers to families with children who have severe medical challenges and significant out-of-pocket medical expenses. In FY24 and year-to-date, FY25, there was no spending in this contract as the contractor did not have any families who were determined eligible. For the committee considerations, the county executive has recommended this item for reduction. However, DHHS has suggested that they shift the contract funds to the annualized respite care provider rate increase. Council staff recommends that the committee seek clarity from DHHS on how this money could potentially be used to support the respiteite Care Provider rate increase. Additionally, it would be valuable to understand what the potential impact of eliminating the subsidies on the program. Sorry, the potential impact of eliminating the subsidies specifically on program participants. Just to offer some clarification, the one time utilization, the utilization of the underspent was used to provide the increases in this current fiscal year. With the actions that Council just recommended, a committee just recommended, these funds would not be needed for next year to provide the level of services needed in the respite rate. I don't have any issues. Nope. Without objection. Next, moving on to the reduction of the MyTurn program due to underutilization. This is in the amount of $15,000. The county executive is recommending reducing the MyTurn program by $15,000 due to underutilization. The FY25 total budget for the MyTurn program is $403,000 and $39. However, $270,927 of that is in personnel costs and $132,112 is for operating costs. The proposed reduction in the funding would impact the program's ability to provide limited financial assistance to families of children with intellectual or developmental disabilities. However, no meaningful impact is expected for clients because of the service has been underutilized in recent years. DHHS stated that the utilization rate from FY24 showed that 48 children benefited from the financial assistance funds in the My Turn program. However, when DHHS was asked about why a reduction had been proposed for the program before the status of state funding was known, the department responded stating that even if participation increases in FY26, the program is expected to be able to absorb this $15,000 reduction without service impacts. For the committee consideration given the feedback from DHHS, the program is expected to experience an increase in demand for FY26 and it would be beneficial for the committee to understand the rationale behind this reduction. I would love to hear more. And so one of the things that's happening with the My Time program, you're over here, we've seen under utilization of this service, especially since COVID, where the financial assistance for this particular program goes towards the use of summer camps and swim lessons and things of that nature. So we've seen a lack of participation in this service. One of the things that I'd like to highlight is, again, going back to the DDA changes for fiscal year 26 is the reduction of the LIS, the low end impact and support services program, the financial cap that is supported by the state and that program is going to be cut in half. When we're talking about an uptick in the MyTurn program, we're anticipating seeing some increase utilization in the MyTurn because individuals aren't getting the level of service that they were getting through the list program. But to that point, because it's been so significantly under U.L.I., we believe that there will be little to no impact to our families even if we increase that utilization and service. Also we are taking a look at how we are providing education and outreach to our communities regarding the My Turn program. We made some changes to our program because you know it's vital for to start that transition period because just because you receive adolescent services doesn't mean that you automatically get adult services and so that transition age at 14 is vital so we've increased our age for the eligibility of my turn. So again these are some mechanisms that we're putting in place to really bolster our service in my turn. But again, you know, we don't think that there will be a significant impact with this reduction. Thank you. I think without objection, it's a good explanation. So moving on next and also to our last item is to reduce the community companions contract due to underutilization. This is in the amount of $150,000. The county executive is recommending a $150,000 reduction to this contract which offers aftercare, school break and summer break activities for children with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The contract provides subsidies for the program and the total budget of the contract and FY25 was $272,184. DHHS stated that the underutilization was due to low participation and the department has requested that the contractor promote the program and increase outreach, but there has not been any follow-up or targeted promotion. The number of children served by the program fluctuates, but during the school year, there are typically five to seven children who receive the subsidies from this contract each month. For the committee consideration, the county executive has recommended this item for reduction. However, DHHS has suggested that they shift the contract funds to the annualized Respect Care Provider Rate increase and therefore council staff recommends that the committee see clarity from DHHS on how this money could potentially be used to support the Respect Care Provider Rate increase. Same answer as the previous one, the savings for this year were used to cover the Respect Rate increase this year but are not needed assuming the two items that were recommended by the committee are approved. Okay. So in my final comments on pages 14 and 15 of the packet, you will find a table of the proposed budget changes for committee consideration. Thank you. Ms. Consalia, great job. Just want to be clear that we will update the chart based on because we have recommendations for Toronto's so we will eliminate those things as well for the reckless. All right, so no reckless. Yes, sorry. So that concludes our aging and disability conversation this afternoon, which concludes our session this afternoon. Thank you all very much for your flexibility. And with that, this hearing is adjourned. We want that. Yeah.