Everyone today is Thursday May 8th, 2025. I got a reminder to solve what day it is. The Council is meeting today to continue with review of the FY 26 operating budget and amendments to the capital improvement programs. Item 1 today is the budget consent calendar for the operating budget and capital improvement programs. These are budgets that committees went through and either had no change or minor changes to them this year so they're on consent. I will entertain a motion to approve the consent calendar. So moved council member Luki moved council member, welcome the second all those in favor. Please raise your hand and that is unanimous of those present. All right, next we're moving on to our work sessions, and the first item is the inflationary the pack. Thank you. Take your time. And this is an item that does show up in different department budgets, but because it's across the board, we wanted to take this up as the full council. I'll turn it over to our council staff to walkary adjustment to nonprofit contracts. The main information here is that the county executive is recommending this 3% inflationary adjustment and it's totaling about $5.2 million across multiple departments, the specific number being $5,252,556. The executive's recommended 3% adjustment is resulting in an increase of $5,137. And $5,137,901 in tax-supported funding and $144,655,000 in non-tax-supported funding. You'll see a table on the next page of your packet, which shows how the proposed 3% adjustment is distributed across all of the departments and NDAs. Of note is that about $3.5 million of that, or 68% of this total amount, is within the Department of Health and Human Services. The executive's recommendation for the 3% increase is also consistent with the increases. The executive has proposed for organizations providing services to persons with developmental disabilities and the supplement to the adult medical daycare providers as written in the original budget that was transmitted back in March. Council staff also notes that each 1% increase or decrease in the inflationary adjustment is equivalent to $1,750,852. With that broken down, 1.7 million of that is tax supported and $38,218 of that is non-tax supported. Thank you. Thank you. And I just want to say thank you to members of our nonprofit community who are with us bright and early this morning and I will turn over to colleagues first council member Albinas. Thank you so much Madam President. I know all of us support this because of the reasons we know are very real and raw right now. Need is increasing across the board. It has not subsided since COVID and obviously the actions of this presidential administration just in the last hundred plus days, which feel like hundred plus years, has really exacerbated and impacted our community, especially those most vulnerable. So, and this council has been very supportive of our staff and of our county employees. And nonprofit organizations, just like county government, the vast majority of their budget and operating budget is made up in people. And we know of the inflationary challenges and increases that are impacting these organizations, but really it's the personnel that they have to recruit and retain that are critically important to be able to expand and extend the services that we provide within county government. So I wholeheartedly support this recommendation. Feel strongly that it needs to stay in through the budget process because we have to put our nonprofits in the staff for their support. I would like to thank the staff for their support. I would like to thank the staff for their support. I would like to thank the staff for their support. I would like to thank the staff for their support. I would like to thank the staff for their support. I would like to thank the staff for their colleague, can some member Albert Knoss. I, and I had to say it, just because of the number of emails and calls and text messages throughout the whole day, even a night that I have received from our friends. And as chair of the economic development committee, I have said in the number of sectors part of for workforce., we don't function with how a dynamic and strong nonprofit community in this who you are. And I don't think anybody, I don't know how I can speak for my college, but I have never heard a single council member say that they don't wanna have this increase or don't support this increase. So I don't know where the fear came from But I I'm here to say also that I will 100% will yes on this particular item. So thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Balkham Okay, three in a row so So of course we rely on our nonprofits to do so many things in our community to do the work of the government. And this for me is about parity. I ran a nonprofit for a very long time and it's so difficult to meet our just basic inflation costs, particularly in keeping our staff. And I know that when nonprofits try to stretch a dollar as far as they can, the first thing that goes is increases for their staff. And that's just, it it's not fair when the county we unanimously passed a compensation package that is 6 to 8% increases and and so I I know how desperate our nonprofits are for this money and so I will be supporting this thank you council member Freight. Thank you very much. I could just say did out to Councillor Verr-Balcom per usual last couple days but I just want to reiterate we're asking our nonprofits to take on health and human services roles to provide services to some of our most vulnerable residents and we can't have that conversation without the broader context of all the services that we're providing all the costs that we have. Their costs are going up for the services that we're asking them to provide as part of the broader social safety net. I don't think we can have it as a separate conversation, which too often it is where we talk about the health and human services in the county government, and then we talk about our nonprofit providers. And the reality is there is really a social safety net of which our nonprofit providers are a core part of, and we have to have the conversation together. And so I'm very much, as I have previously been, strongly in support of providing our nonprofit providers with this support. It is less than the additional support that we're providing for those who are serving in county government, but it is the minimum of what is required to be able to maintain the services that they're providing on our behalf to serve our community. So I just want to express my appreciation to them. Summer in the room, others are not, because they're doing the work right now. I just want you to know how much we appreciate you. Thanks. Councillor Lutkey. Thank you, Madam President. You know, as a member of the HHS committee, of course, a lot of our nonprofit providers are working in that space and delivering the work that we as county government can't do directly. We need to have these partnerships. And certainly value everything you do tremendously. And of course, I support the 3% inflationary judgment. I think I was really caught off guard or really surprised that anybody was made to feel anxious about that. And for that, I am sorry, because that should have never happened. And I don't know where that came from. But I know that I personally, as I, you know, spoke to many of you over the last week or so, was very forthright in saying I had not heard a word that this was ever in question or that anyone you know had concerned about it and I just I just want to say particularly at this time when there is heightened anxiety around a great many things that I'm sorry that you had that extra thing placed on your plate because you shouldn't have had to and I'm happy to bless this today. Council member, the last. Thank you very much. Clearly there's a theme that you're hearing from the body and that we need our nonprofit partners right now more than ever. We need to make sure that our social safety net is as strong as possible and it is our nonprofit partners who do that work. And over the last few days, those of you who called and emailed and texted us, I would have preferred that you be helping our residents. It was It was effort that was misplaced, and I'm sorry that a directive was shared. We value you, we're here with you. We are going to provide this support and keep doing the good work that you do. Councilor Mermink. I mean, I'm loving this. This is definitely something that we all stand together united on that we know that our nonprofits are an essential core part of our county infrastructure. Needs are increasing, not decreasing, and we need to make sure that all of our nonprofits who are our partners in this work have what they need to continue moving forward and to address again what is an increasing need. I know that you all are seeing those increases already. It's already a struggle to serve everyone who's now coming to your doors and we know because we send many of our constituents we rely on you. We send our constituents to receive services from you all the time. So we do absolutely need to make sure that you have what you need. And this is, as has been said, this is really the bare bones. This is the minimum to continue moving forward. Certainly as we all know, we don't know where we're going to land with revenue. And most of the options before us do have us going into looking at items and having to trim from things that were approved by committees already that were said to be by the county executive and approved by committees. But that said what you are hearing from us today is that we have a commitment, a commitment to ensure that our nonprofits have this increase, have what they need to keep moving forward, and we thank you so much for your service. Council member Katz. Thank you very much, Madam President. I really wasn't going to speak on this. I felt this was a non-brainer. This one made no sense that we were going to do anything, any different. And then I started hearing about the misinformation that was being discussed in the communities. And it concerned me, but I certainly know that we're going to do the right thing right now. The work that the non-profits do are separate from government. Everybody's talking the same thing, but you're an extension of government. We could not. We government could not do what you do as efficiently and knowing your the communities you work with. We need to make certain that that you're funded and it also is interesting to me that non- profits are organizations. They are. They're organizations, but they're made up. The reality is they're made up of the people who do the work. And we have to pay to make certain that the people who do the work are first. You're never going to be paid to the degree it should be by government. But you need to be paid to as much as we can pay you. So with that, I certainly support it. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Sales. Thank you Madam President and I echo the sentiments of my colleague serving on the Health and Human Services Committee. I hear all throughout the year what these resources mean to our residents and the nonprofit organizations, the leaders that provide these services, who reach the communities that we aren't always able to reach and who see the people in our communities that we may not necessarily see here in our chambers. And so I am overjoyed and grateful that in such a difficult budget season that we all share the sentiments that we wish we could do more, but this 3% adjustment is just the start to show our appreciation for the work that you all do all throughout the year. And so we will be calling on you more in the coming months because of the decrease in resources from the federal government. And almost feeling like an island, our resources are now comprising over 50% of the state's budget, where we are providing a lot of resources to the state. And we are getting less and less support from the federal government. And we're going to have to do more and more for our residents where a large majority of our residents were impacted by the federal cuts, live here in Montgomery County. So thank you so much for your patience and your resilience. Councilmember Councillor Bicepres and Joanda. Ditto, thank you. Can't wait to support it. Councilmember Aronaz, Chair of HHS, we're almost 70% of this will go. We talk about this a lot. He's on the Education and Culture Committee as well and all of us care about the work you do. And I know this is not going to do everything, but it's something that we can do to show that support. And I'll continue to volunteer like many of us do, so you'll get some free labor out of us, I think, continue. Thank you for everything that you all do. Thank you, and I'll just round it off by saying, I'm glad you all are here. And we know all that you do in our community. And we know, as I think a number of folks said this morning, the 3% is kind of a floor of what you need. And we are here with you to work in partnership as we weather the storms that are facing us right now. And we know it's a very anxious time and I just really appreciate the partnership we do have now in looking at ways at how we're gonna continue together to serve our community. Like my colleague, Councilmember Balkham, I worked for and helped run a nonprofit knowing those ins and outs of the daily pulls and takes of what a nonprofit has to do to survive particularly in these storms is really hard. And I just want to thank you all. And I'm going to call the hand vote on this so you all can get out of here and don't need to listen to more of us today. But again, just appreciate the collaboration and work you're doing very much so. So with that we have the 3% increase for our nonprofit providers that was in the county executive budget. All those who are in favor please raise your hand and that is unanimous. Thank you all again for joining us and we look forward to continuing the work together. All right, we will now move on to our office of food safety resilience and I'm going to turn it over for what is going to be a long day for councilmember Alvin. as he reports out on the great work of the HHS committee. So Chair Albinas, it's all yours. Thank you. Apologies in advance, you guys are, I'm sure I'm going to get tired of hearing my voice, but you'll be in good company because my kids often feel the same way. Thank you all so much this morning. I'll just make some brief opening comments and then obviously turn it over to our extraordinary team. I want to thank Council Member Sales and Lutki for their outstanding partnership and leadership. And I'm going to state the obvious here. We all know that the need is growing in too many categories to count. And we know that the disorienting policies being set forth by this administration are disproportionately impacting our vulnerable community. We also know that we have a remarkable social safety net infrastructure here in Montgomery County that we have been investing in for generations. And you will see as we go through this operating budget for more of those investments. And we've also seen real strategy and vision. And there's no better example of that than our Office of Food System resilience. The Office of Food System resilience, of course, was established in the midst of COVID when we saw that we had a great tapestry of nonprofit organizations doing wonderful work in partnership with the county, but that too often those organizations were flying blind. The work was not coordinated, and we needed to have a home base in order for us to be more appropriate, appropriately and strategically dispatching something as basic and important as food and nutrition to our community. And so I want to thank Director Bruskin and her team who continue to do outstanding work and I feel I sleep I really honestly do I sleep a little better at night knowing that the Office of Food System resilience and systems like it exist in our community because it is going to help us moving forward. Miss Bruskin I'll give it over turned over to you to make some brief opening comments and then I will turn it over to Ms. Clements Johnson to walk us through the packet. Oh, I, I apologize with the your indulgence council president. Okay. Absolutely. Good. Good morning. Thank you so much for the opportunity to come before the council this morning and discuss our community's food security needs and food systems challenges and opportunities. And so much appreciation both for your partnership and consideration of our proposed budget requests. As we've shared with HHS Committee in our earlier session, we're both following what is happening and what is possible. And we remain steadfastly committed to closely following developments at both the state and the federal level and keeping our leadership informed as to how that is directly impacting our communities. So while we've certainly talked about what is possible, I think it's also important just to center updates that have happened, you know, even since our HHS committee session of what we know is actively happening. We know that the Meals on Wheels federal agency that oversees those funds has been dismantled. And so though the budget funds may exist, the administration that keeps those services going is not staffed. We've heard from the Capital Area Food Bank that 28 tractor trailers of commodity foods that were coming to them for distribution in our community have been canceled. And those were high value items like proteins and other resources that are supporting food distributions of over 50 of our own county providers, our Maryland Market Money Program, which provides matching dollars at farmers markets. I heard from a farmer just yesterday of how the previously $30 cap on purchases has now been scaled back to $10 per purchase, which doesn't get you very far when you're buying, produce, and other food products for your family. There's been a directive to share client data related to nutrition assistance programs. And so we're looking at what that means for our snapout reach providers. And finally, that there's been 40% increase reported by our food assistance providers in their costs of sourcing food. And 85% of our budget is really, of our program budget is dedicated towards buying food. And so even though there may be flat funding, the way that looks on the ground for the resources that are available is severely diminished. And so really appreciate the opportunity and the leadership here to connect what we can do. Here is a community and leveraging that expertise of a nonprofit community that was just celebrated to support a residence however we can. So thank you. Thank you. And just even the tracking of that information and having it being coordinated is a giant step forward from where we were just a few years ago. So we look forward to moving forward. I'll just give a quick overview. The Executives budget recommends a slight decrease of 1.79% from the FY25 operating budget. And that is largely because of two one-time grants that were eliminated, one in the amount of 1.1 million from the Capri area, Food Bank and Man of Food Center, supporting food staples. And then the other was 1.75 million food staples program transitioned through pandemic providers. We remain nimble so that and a partner and so as information adjusts on the ground, this body stands ready to support yours in our community's work. Just Clem and Johnson, if it's okay, I'll turn it over to you. Good morning and thank you Council Member Abonoss and Council Members. Just highlight a few items. Council Member Abonoss mentioned that FY26 recommended budget item on page one of your packet. The committee recommended that reduction of $100,000 to the Community Garden and Grant Program. I just want to state that the Community Garden Grant Program was originally funded in FY24 as part of the strategy to end childhood hunger. So this is the grants went off cycle and paused in FY25 to better shift the timeline of the grant to better align with the growing seasons. So the budget of 200,000 is anticipated to assist five to 10 organizations. I believe the committee went with a reduction based on affordability guidance, and that this was starting a new cycle so it wasn't affecting any grantees as of right now. I will also highlight that your packet also mentions two positions that are listed in the packet as budget neutral, but of course, they still have budget impacts. There is an admin specialist, two position being added being added and a program manager one position being added. Those are currently supported through broker contracts and so the recommendation is to shift those but they will be fully offset by the reduction in contractual expenses but the budget for those items are listed in your packet. So for FY26 one of the positions will be $83,779. And for the program manager position, FY 26 recommended expenditures will be $90,065. And I'm available to answer any questions. Sorry. All right. Well, I'll just kick us off and say thank you. As I think as the chair said, as Council Member Alvin said, having you all in place to help coordinate these services, collect the data, report back to us and trends has been usually helpful. And so just wanted to say that and thank you for all your work. And just to let my colleagues know, we do have a committee recommendation of a reduction of $100,000 that we will take a hand vote on today, but first I'll turn it over to Council Vice President Joanda. Thank you very much. Also just very appreciative of your work. We've been on a long food journey together and you all are a huge part of it and it makes me very happy and relieved. I know it's going to be difficult but the fact that we have you in place with what's going on. As Councilman Rauwan-Auz-Menshin, the fact that we can even track these things, try to redirect resources, know it's going to be difficult but we're in a lot better positions than many. And I thank you for that. Of course, we'll support just wanted to point out, obviously, and my role as chair of education in culture, the food and work is really connected to our students. And several of the budget changes before us are related to students like the school-based food assistance program, which we're proposing to expand to 20 schools more than the 60 that already have projects in place, and then for the pop-up pantry services, which are students and families used. So these are gonna be even more important. Appreciate the executive for including them, and thank you for being here, and looking forward to supporting to supporting thank you Madam President. Councilmember Fanning is ours. Thank you. I understand you know exactly probably what I'm up about to say the Community Garden Program is it's so important. I understand the reduction I get it but I'm wondering if you can please speak about how knowing all the cuts that we're going to be having at the full level. This garden so people understand this is where community members is not just to socialize. We're actually growing food for people in need in their own neighborhoods. That's how important this is. Are are the actions or strategies that you're gonna have in terms of helping identify other sources of grants that can perhaps supplement any cuts that we're gonna be having in this area? Thank you very much. I completely agree that this is a perfect example of a program that helps people in the moment, but also really builds our resilience and strength as a community for the future. And that is something that we always need to hold in balance as we make budget decisions. And I know there are difficult decisions to be made, but through our FY24 gardening grant programs that were 1800 residents that were directly receiving food through this program in addition to getting those nutritious benefits. They're also getting the educational and the emotional wellness benefits of having access to land and to space and to soil, as well as the community. And I think these programs are a great example of a relatively modest investment that's made in the expertise of our community-based organizations and our residents themselves. And we saw a 50% increase in the amount of land that the organizations, the seven organizations that were funded, having in-food production because of those grants. And so I think as we move forward, our goal is always to support our organizational partners in their 70 nonprofits that are funded one way or another through our office. Work with nonprofit Montgomery, work with the Food Council to build their capacity for seeking additional outside resources. And that is something that we have always strived to do and will continue to do and we hope through the strategies that we've been putting in place through our own grant programs are building their capacity through experience to have the data and the expertise needed to communicate about their program to seek other sources of funding. And so, you know, we have a once incredible talents on our team working with them specifically around data collection, and that can hopefully lead into other sources of funding. But the reality is a cut will mean that we'll have as much money to steward. These organizations are currently operating. And so I think we'll have to make some difficult decisions about what we choose to continue supporting, as well as what we, if we'll have the ability to bring on any new opportunities. Thanks. Sorry, Council Member Featson. Thank you so much. I just want to echo my appreciation. I'm currently serving as the chair of the Food and Agriculture Committee at Council of Governments and I can just share with colleagues how much of a significant role that Heather plays in the regional food conversation and the leadership that she has provided the partnership with me and with with COG staff and with all of our regional partners. So I am very much in support of this budget, very much appreciative of everything that you have done to get the office to this point. I appreciate Miss Nardi for your work as well. Oftentimes behind the scenes, but very much a critical part of the work. It's gonna be needed now more than ever before, given all of the federal impacts that we are facing. And it's an opportunity for us to show our medal like the birth of this office, which came out of the pandemic in a crisis created an opportunity. And unfortunately, I think we were hoping that the next crisis wasn't going to happen so quickly, but here we are and we have to be prepared for it and provide the basic of basic necessities. Food is the first one. Food, shelves are clothing, food is first. So thank you for your work and just wanted to lift that up. Thank you. Council member sales. Thank you. I cannot speak highly enough of Heather and her entire team. From before this office was created, the work that you've done to get this off. And during the pandemic, following the pandemic, I just think this work is incredible. And just thinking about the cuts to the community garden, I was thinking of the proverb, give a man a fish, you feed him for the day, but teach a man to fish you feed them for a lifetime. And you know, we have provided resources to the parks and recs department for community gardens. So this could be an opportunity to collaborate and spread this initiative further. And it's the the farm in up county that does the underground railroad. What's the name of that community farm? button farm the button farm yes yes yes the button farm and so I remember we did that mother's day event at the mobile community home and they provided all of those vegetables and plants for residents to start their gardens in that mobile community so This is an opportunity to tap into the many partners that we already have. And if there's any introductions that you need to ensure that we meet the needs, because I'm sure there's going to be a wait list with the limited funds for the community gardens. So don't hesitate to reach out. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Albinas. Thank you so much. I appreciate the comments of all colleagues. And I have visited this program and I can speak in the first person. I have the opportunity to meet with the folks that benefit from it. It is a terrific program. This is going to be a theme as we go through the HHS budget, sort of picking like the least worst options. And because it's the programs in a bit of a state of transition, it made sense to make the reduction now, even though of course we didn't want to make it. So, but just want to provide that context. Thank you, Council Member Albinaz, this is gonna be a tough day. And I know that and I very, very much appreciate your leadership on HHS and the entire committee. But we do have before us a reduction of $100,000 from the county executives proposed budget to the office of food system resilience. All those in favor of that reduction, please raise your hand. And that is unanimous. Thank you so much. And as we have been saying to many departments, there is a great deal we don't know about what's going to happen in the next few months ahead. And I know you are in contact very much so with the HHS Committee and all of us as you do this work. So let's keep in constant contact. And thank you again for all your work. Yeah. Council Vice Joandah, do you want to speak to the consent calendar earlier? I would. I'd like to just be recorded as floating in the affirmative for the consent calendar. Thank you, Madam President. All right. Thank you. Council member Mink, if I could do the same. Great. Thank you. Awesome. Thank you very much. We're going to have a slight change to the agenda and just it's all HHS this morning, but we're going to first do the public health department so that item 10 is going to go first and I'll turn it back over to Chair Abhinaz. Thank you. We'll let our colleagues get situated but needless to say our public health team has done extraordinary work both prior and during and post-COVID and many of the recommendations you will see set forth before us today build off of the infrastructure that we were able to develop through COVID. I'll note just so that colleagues are not surprised. There are going to be some slight adjustments and amendments made to some of the, I will move some committee recommendations that I don't want to do. But in the spirit of the conversation we just had and in an effort to try as we reconcile the budget over the next several days put this body in as best a position as possible to make tough decisions I will be moving some some adjustments and changes to what we discussed in the committee and as we go through the packet Ms. Clements Johnson will be able to enumerate those and articulate them better than me. But before I get started, since this is Dr. Bridgers' first opportunity to speak before us today, I will yield to him to mix them open in comments. Good morning, Council President Stewart, Council Vice President Jawondo, HHS Chair Albernos, and the entire Council sitting this morning. In the interest of time, I will definitely refrain from my usual salilla queen. Suffice it to say that the department supports the county executive's budget. I would also like to thank the executive and the county staff who continually partner with the department of Health and Human Services to ensure that HHS's critical fiscal timeline, lifeline, all of those things are available for our most vulnerable residents, which has been a recurring thing this morning. Lastly, I would like to thank our service chiefs who you will hear from today. And they've joined me and I think it's paramount that you hear that granular level detail from them because they have meticulously evaluated a budget that supports equity, fiscal responsibility and stability. And I will end with the county's motto in my French speaking voice. Gardez Bein, keep well. Thank you Council Member. I will. Councillor Chaillot. Thank you, Dr. Bridgers. I appreciate that a lot. So, and thank you, Dr. Ashford. I know that you're representing the public health team this morning, an extraordinary team. Would you like to make some opening comments on behalf of public health team? Sure. Good morning. Thank you, HHS Chair Alvarez. President Stewart, Vice President Jwando and the Council. I have the unique honor of being able to lead the incredible public health team, which really serves as the safety net, which again, we heard the importance of through the discussions we had this morning, many of the partners that are the hands of the work that we do. We're here in support of the inflation area adjustment, but just want to say we are the last resort for many of our residents. When for whatever reason they can't access the system that many of us have the privilege through our private health insurance. When they can't access systems where they can receive culturally competent care or providers that speak their language, that is what we do in public health services. For managing across the lifespan, really providing those medical homes, our safety net is run by our team, and we have a dedicated group of individuals that do that work every day. I know it is a challenging budget year, and there a lot changing at the federal level, which is, you know, trickling down and impacting us. We're going to continue to do the best that we can with what we have and we appreciate and thank the council for your support in these incredibly challenging times. Thank you. Thank you. Madam President, I turn it back to you. Great. Thank you very much. Ms. Cle, I turn it back to you. Great. Thank you very much. Ms. Clemence Johnson, do you want to walk us through this section of the packet? Can I request that we start off with the DHHGETS overview? There are two budget items that are unconnected to a service area. I apologize that it wasn't listed in your agenda. No, that's OK. Yep, that's good with us. Yep. Okay, thank you so much. So we'll start on page two of your packet highlighting that for the FY26 recommended budget for the Department of Health and Human Services is an increase of 43,728,543 dollars or 8.56 percent from the FY25 operating budget. There is a total increase of 65.62 FTEs. On page four of your packet for HHS, we usually highlight the vacancies and labs, as this is the third largest department within County government. As of April 1st, there was 184 vacancies. One thing that our department director highlighted was that even since April 1st there have been some great efforts to hire, especially with the changes happening at the federal government. There was recently a job fair that DHH just participated in and recruited for around 40 positions. And I will highlight that this vacancy, even 184, It's significantly reduced from three years ago when the vacancies were more like 350. So I think it speaks to the work of OHR and DHHS to get those positions filled. I'll stop to see if there's any questions. Okay, there are two items that are not within a specific service area within DHHS. The first is a salary equity adjustment. This is for $994,000, $34. This item is related to an equity adjustment originating from a memorandum of agreement with Maggio for our social workers and therapist positions within DHHS. So this is a one-time adjustment. It's more of a requirement since it is connected to our Maggio agreement and there was approval by the Committee of 3-0. And the next is the annualization of the infrastructure positions approved by supplemental 25-35. That's 1.3 million 11 FTEs. This was approved by the Council in January 2025, recognizing some of the infrastructure challenges that at the HHS shared. These positions, some of them are revenue generating, others of them are not. I think there's also two school health nurses included. There's a position within services to in-impervent homelessness and some with the chief operating officer. So the committee recommended approval 3-0. Okay. So we can flip to public health services if you're going through your packet and ask my colleagues and I go through the agenda will probably be flipping back and forth because the packet isn't really organized. According to the agenda, but there are a number of items within public health services that are recommended. I think this area has the most items. Councilmember Alonel, did you want me to go through each of them? Yes, please. Okay, we will start. So the first is, so we're going from largest to smallest. The first is the increase to the Montgomery Care's reimbursement rate to 45% of the cost of care. So Montgomery Care provides primary care services through around 28 plus Montgomery cares clinics throughout the county. They see folks that are uninsured and make incomes less than 250% of the federal poverty level. This reimbursement rate is to help support the clinics who provide that care every day to our residents. And so this increase of 963,361 reflects a reimbursement increase from $102.15 to $113.36 per encounter. So the committee recommended approval to the one. We'll note that councilmember Luki voted not to report the executive's recommendation and staff had recommended proposing the primary care increases in tranches. So the tranches were in schedules of three, it was $6, $335 and $2. If additional information is needed as reference in the general packet and I can answer any questions. Yeah, I'll just speak to this really quickly. First, very much appreciate it, Council Member Luki's comments, and she'll probably want to elaborate, but she was just doing her best as we all were, as we went through the budget to try and find savings where we could find them. But she stated very clearly, and as I'm sure she will now, she wholeheartedly supports our primary care organizations. I'll just say three things about this. one. This was one of the items that we did not fund in last year's operating budget that gave me the most heartburn because we have seen the results of not fully funding the primary care's request. Several of our primary care clinics have had to let staff go and their expenses have gone up and that was even prior to the transition to the new administration. And so we still don't know exactly what the adjustments will be to Medicare and Medicare, but we know they won't be positive. And we also know that our particularly vulnerable residents, those that don't receive federal support for whatever reason, could be documentation issues or otherwise, rely heavily on these particular clinics. And this 3% represents just as the 3% inflationary increase of our nonprofit organizations, the floor. And this is something we're gonna have to look at moving forward because these clinics clinics are critical as we all of my colleagues know to our overall public health infrastructure and many of them provide culturally appropriate services that are not provided in other such settings. So for those reasons the committee recommended supporting this recommendation. Thank you. I'll turn to Council Member Luquina. Thank you. Yes. Since the HHS budget is so large to begin with and we were at the beginning of the budget process as we were taking up this item and I greatly appreciated our analyst team, our staff team trying to come up with ways to help us look at everything in full or more complete context. That is why I supported their method, which is not what the committee went with, but it was simply to give some flexibility in the analysis as we look at the totality of things as we have been doing this week. But certainly I concur with everything that Chair Almerna was just stated regarding the importance of the primary care coalition, the work they do, and the fact that even with the increase that we are going to be able to give, it's still not what is needed overall in order to make the appropriate adjustment. So I certainly appreciate their work and what we have to do here today. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Sales. Yes, I just want to quickly echo the sentiments of my colleague while I did support this very small but you know not insignificant increase you know what is significantly below the market rate hourly rate for our primary care providers who provide this much needed service to populations as our panel has mentioned don't have access to the luxury of having private health insurance. And so I hope my colleagues can support this line item. We know that most of the folks who frequent our clinics are the people who may be serving us in the community in our restaurants or in other places. And so we wanna ensure that everyone has access to the best healthcare. And however we can do that to ensure we don't lose any of our primary care providers. This will help us ensure that we stay consistent to meet their needs. Thank you. Thank you and I just want to underline and I ask the chair of Arbonauts because I really appreciate him highlighting the fact that last year many of us have talked about unfortunately that we did not fund the HHS budget at what we should have and we have acknowledged that we have done supplemental throughout the year and I think it's important because we are making very tough decisions in this budget to realize that some of these things that are under increase our enhancement in my mind truly are not increases in enhancements is because we did not fund you last year and this pretty much fall this one falls under that category. So thank you. Ms. Clements Johnson, I think you can continue. Thank you. So the next item really speaks to the same thing is that so there was an increase in the encounter rate for number one. Number two is that increase in the budgeted amount encounters. So this is a recommendation that the budgetate number of encounters increased from 72,000 to 78,000. And it also recognizes the expansion to a new clinic called the Exomic Center of Maryland located in Gatersburg. So this reflects that budget item. The HHS committee did take the staff's recommendation to reduce the specialty care line of the budget. So there's the increase in the primary care and counter rates. There's an increase for specialty care overall across the network. And then there is the addition of the ICM clinic and the funds needed to support that. So the staff's recommendation was to cut the specialty care line item in half. I will note that the number in your packet is incorrect as it did not include or reflect the reduction in indirect that would be needed also. So the corrected number is $81,827 and that will be reflected on your reconciliation sheet. So I will, so this is supporting 6.3 FTEs at 848,700 in the $9. This is really replacing federal funding for our existing positions. The position support the HIV clinic, the dental clinic, two SDI clinics, including our new clinic in Germantown and community outreach activities. So this is funding current positions if it is not funded. That will mean that the DHHS would have to try to find other funds or let those positions go. The committee recommended a provoked three to zero. Yeah, I think it's worth pausing here because this is one of the things that I think is the most disturbing about what we're seeing and this was a trend that actually had started prior to this White House. And what we're seeing in the rates of particularly of STIs among our young people and other things in this category in our HIV race. So Dr. Ashwara, I don't know if you want to speak to this item. Sure. And if you go through the YouTube archives, I believe our last Board of Health update, we, the second to last Board of Health update, we actually shared how our STI rates are increasing. we were right on the cusp of having a syphilis outbreak, which is now under control. But we are seeing rates of STIs go up, and the team has been working incredibly hard, not just through treatment, but also through outreach and education, and you can't really have one without the other. You can't provide clinical services that nobody knows about or we're not in the community. Spreading the word on how to access those services are at events, bringing testing and things to the populations that we're trying to serve. The teams worked incredibly hard to make inroads and establish partnerships with Montgomery College. And we have been doing a lot of work to really expand our services to Germantown. We just started, got the Germantown clinic up and running. So unfortunately, we've seen cuts from the state and I anticipate, you know, We don't know what's going to happen, but we don't have the funding to continue services at the current capacity. So if this is not funded, what that means is we will likely need to see services at our Germantown clinic and we will need to drop the number of clinic days for our HIV program and we would need to lay off staff that are providing these services. So that is what I would add. And Madam President, the only thing I would add to Dr. Ashwas comments is I like to recognize and thank Dr. Davis for all of her work in this space. Montgomery County continues to lead the state of Maryland in managing communicable diseases. If you recall three years ago, we had an inbox outbreak and everyone in the county replicated our strategies and our services. It is because of our great health team. So this is one area I like to emphasize support. Okay, we will continue to move forward. The next item is number four, support for the Care for Kids program. This is recognizing the supplemental that the Council approved in January 2025, just that there's a growing need in the program. The number of children are increasing, therefore the number of services, wraparound services, specialty care, medications are needed. So this increase of 33, 785 is replicates the supplemental to ensure that they can continue the same level of work in FY26. All right. Next item is the, the come up to partner with the community dental practices serving at 300 East County residents without access to dental services. So the executive is recommending this, the executive is recommending this program to target residents in East County. The funds will use to directly reimburse dental providers for dental treatment. So treatment not provided directly by county dental services, but they will contract with dental providers in East County to provide expanded services for those residents living in that area. Councillor Merramek. Thank you. I wanted to thank the Committee for their support of this and thank HHS for ensuring that this made it into the budget. This is here obviously because we know that it is a critical need. There are places where we have residents who don't have access because of, you know, the geography of where they are and we we have residents in places who don't have access because of income. And we have places where those intersect. And this is a really strategic way to get essential services to folks who very clearly need them. We're obviously going to be having more people who are losing access to dental insurance. This need is only going to be continuing to increase. And this is an economical and strategic way to get some of that critical care to folks. We know that when people don't get dental care on time, that that in particular is something that causes increasing health, other health effects in the body that eventually become a lot more severe. And that's something that we obviously disproportionately see in low income communities and communities of color. So this is also an equity issue. So really appreciate the county executives recommendation and the committee support on this. Great, yeah, Council Member Glatt, I'm sorry. Thank you. So I mentioned, this is gonna be a tough day. So let me just say a few things about this. Clearly, as Councilmember Mink mentioned, we know the dental work is important. I very much appreciate the efforts of the public health team and health and human services, also our friends and colleagues at Action in Montgomery and a number of other key stakeholders who have pushed us to develop the strategic plan that we have developed and this is certainly part of that. When we originally had this conversation, the mobile health clinic was not yet available, it is now online. It took us years to finally get the vehicle in part because of the residual impacts of the COVID era. But I've had the opportunity to see that vehicle as extraordinary and has been reported to us. It will be spending a great deal of time in the east part of the county, other parts of the county as well. And so reluctantly, we are, as we look for potential line items for reduction, this could be one, because there are other services providing support for our East County acknowledging it doesn't extend the way that we would like for it to. So I would like to hear from our colleagues in HHS to expand on this particular effort, Madam President, I'm not ready to move it at this particular moment, but there is a possibility we may be moving this reduction, again, in an effort to try and minimize the operating budget. Thank you, Chair Albert Nozen, and totally understand. So I'll just provide a little bit of background. The East County, the Colesville Clinic, dental clinic, which is located in East County, has been closed since I believe 2019? Yes, yes. 2019, which means that all of the residents in East County that were receiving services at that clinic either are not receiving services or they're having to travel pretty far. A lot of clients will either go to our Silver Spring Clinic at Fenton Street or have to go to our Rockville clinic. When we think about, we've been thinking about our broader strategy. We have brought to the HHS Committee, you know, an update on our dental program. You know, the team has been working very hard on trying to address the very large weightless. We've been doing internal administrative changes to try to make our operations more efficient. We have revised our oral health solicitation, which will give the department some additional levers to actually deliver care differently and work differently with our providers and contracted clinics. This dental pilot was part of a broader strategy when we talked with DGS about reopening the clinic and fixing that Colesville clinic, the amount of money that that would cost in time from a capital improvement perspective just to get it operational because of the amount of a best-assist statement and just new dental equipment didn't seem like a good use of funds and resources, but that doesn't mean that those residents don't still need services. So we thought that this would be a great opportunity to potentially not just expand services, I shouldn't say expand, get services back to East County, but also test a new model of care where we would actually engage in a public private partnershipvate partnership. So the East County dental pilot would not be the county delivering services. Our wait, you know, we're trying to get through the wait list. We currently have the demand exceeds our supply capabilities. What it would be would be us partnering with community providers. We would be able to invest in community providers to be able to see these clients and make sure that they can get care and services closer to where they actually live. Now the mobile health clinic is launched as officially in the community. As of last week, it's went to two sites. I spoke with Dr. Rogers yesterday and sounds like they saw quite a few people on Tuesday. So we are very excited about that. The Mobile Health Clinic serves the entire county, and so it won't be able to provide that level of services to East County. Also, the scope of services that are provided on the Mobile Health Clinic are more limited, again, given resource constraints, than what we would be able to provide clients through this East County dental pilot. So I will leave it at that and see Dr. Boyce if our wonderful dental director wants to add anything. Good morning everyone. I just wanted to add yes the mobile health clinic is now in the community and our goal is at the beginning of the new fiscal year to add more restorative care as far as dental to that. But I do want to also highlight that one of our key partners with the county, the mobile dentist will no longer be as of the end of this fiscal year. are retiring Services and they have a lot of partnerships right now with the county in different areas. Aging and disability, homeless program. Those are areas that we are trying as a department to fill even with the mobile health clinic. It's a huge gap. And so you now have the East County residents who definitely need that help. And now we're entering another area of gap. And so yes, while the mobile health clinic, it's scheduled to be very busy. I don't think it'll be able to fill all of that. So please take that into consideration. East County with our school-based program, we have heard it from the schools about the need. And so we are finally getting into that area, but the need is greater. The parents need help too. So it is just please consider the entire need there across the whole services we're trying. Thank you. I appreciate that. So I'll just make an overarching 30,000 foot comment that connects to a comment when I made when we discussed our school systems operating budget. If we don't move forward with an income tax increase as a body, then we are going to have to make some very drastic reductions to all of the conversations we've had over the last few days. Sadly, because HHS's budget reflects such a large percentage of the executive branch's recommendation, there's no way it's a math problem that we're gonna be able to achieve the reduction to the county executive's recommended additions without having to make some very challenging decisions. This is a great illustration. All things being equal needless to say we would love to keep and in fact enhance increase where we can. And so for those reasons I very reluctantly move that this be added to the reconciliation list, but acknowledging the importance of its work and I certainly won't be heartbroken if it's not supported by colleagues. But I also, you know, we have to reflect reality here. We're going to have to make some tough decisions over the next few days, particularly next week. So that's why I reluctantly move this forward. All right. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Councilmember Luki second. I have some folks in the queue. So we have before us an amendment to add to the reconciliation list, the dental practices for the East County. Just so we're all clear on procedure. So because this is coming to us at this time, we will after colleagues speak and ask questions, take a hand vote, and if a majority of the council would like to add this to the reconciliation list, it will be added to the reconciliation list that we will consider next week, which is different than when we take up reductions that have been proposed by committees. Does that make sense to everybody? Yeah, and I'll know that this will not be for every line out of my promise colleagues. Right. This is just for a handful that are news since our conversations within committee, but that's why we're spending more time on this than we will some other items that we'll be discussing this morning. Right, and the idea is that this is not a committee recommendation and to give everyone time to also, if we put it on reconciliation, to think about it with everything else. So with that, I'll turn to Council Member Sales. Thank you, Madam President. I wish we could fund every line item on this budget. but you know I cannot speak highly enough of ADG and the invaluable role that they play in providing culturally competent care in our community. And the services that they provide from community outreach to our underserved communities, particularly among AAPI populations. And I know that the county executive also deeply values their contributions. They were so helpful during the pandemic and they have pivoted to adapt to every need in our community. this was for a new one-time contract for this fiscal year. It doesn't impact ADG's ongoing ability to continue delivering the other services through other existing partnerships that they have, through ongoing community-storated programs, and the generous funding that they receive from other sources. So this proposed reduction does not signal a withdrawal of support. It does reflect the need to apply consistent standards to all new funding requests, especially in a year of increasingly unpredictable fiscal constraints. I'll know quickly that we are talking about item number five at the bottom of 13. So we will be talking about ADG in like the next three four, but the DHHS, no share comments. Yeah. This is not for the 200. No, this is for the three number thousand. Yes. What is being proposed, the amendment on the floor is to have this reduction added to the reconciliation list, which would be a reduction of $300,000 for East County residents for dental services. Yeah, so that's the line item we're looking at. Yes. So this was regarding the dental services that they provide. I know that we have the mobile clinic. I know that the university that Shady Grove is also standing up weekend hours. and if you can speak to the expansion of the USG dental clinic. Yes, I will ask Dr. Boyce to come back up. We officially launched our partnership with USG about two months ago and it has been going very well. We are meeting all of their requests to give them clients maybe a little too good but I will let Dr. Boyz expand. So yes that agreement was finalized at the beginning of the year in February. We started collaborating together and sending patients over to them for services. Some of these patients have been able to receive actually same week services or the next day, which is wonderful. Again, this focuses on adult patients. So far, we've sent about 150 patients over there. They have told us their clinics are full. Our patients do not show up. They come. They are very grateful. The word is spreading. It is beneficial to the students. The students are also coming to our clinics to participate and learn doing screening events, which is just fabulous. So we have more scheduled dates for that. We are looking hopefully to expand this later and looking at this as the standard or kind of like this pilot us how we can collaborate with more of our community partners. It's a big operation. Our staff are the ones doing the preauthorizations, the reviewing, all of those things that come in with all of this, but it is working well. Good, I remember going to Howard University's dental school when I was younger. So to have something that's close in the community is going to help a lot of our residents. So thank you for that. Thank you, Council Member Mink. Thank you. I think that equity and parity for East County residents is gonna be a theme of some of these conversations. Could you speak to the access to dental care in East County versus other areas of the county acknowledging that the needs are great everywhere? And this is a pilot that you're hoping to be able to expand as a strategy to also increase care in other places. We have taken action to expand care in other locations in previous recent budgets. And we still have the coldsville clinic that's been closed. So if you could just kind of speak broadlight to that, that would be helpful. I guess I forgot to state my name. My name is Dr. Trisha Voice. I'm the dental director for the county. And we appreciate you. Yes. So one of the challenges with East County, even as we were exploring this potential opportunity was we were looking at trying to find even those doctors and dentists in the area that took Medicaid. That was a challenge. There is a significant void and again, that was echoed by when we went to set up services for our school-based program. That was echoed by the school teachers or the CUNY services liaison. The other thing is the distance for them to travel to a county clinic or even a collaborative partner can be somewhat challenging. So East County has definitely been void even as we look at partners, there's gonna have to be a significant effort or it's really looking at practices who border that area. So access is challenging. While University of Maryland, Shady Goses, great. Again, the bulk of people who are going there are from our K-thirstburg area because it's only 15 minutes away. So, you know, taking off time from work, traveling, those are all really social determinants of health that have great impact in accessing care. So yes, you're correct. It's a huge challenge from that standpoint. And can I just add one other point when we talk about the broader strategy? So one of the challenges we haven't done until we know that Medicaid dental coverage is relatively new. And unfortunately, the reimbursement is not great to the point where private practices in the community don't want to take it. Our oral health fee schedule through the county actually pays slightly more than what state reimbursees through Medicaid. So this is not just a strategy of coverage, but this is also a fiscal strategy that we have been considering if we can get into contract with community dental providers that will take our uninsured clients. That frees up more space for us as the county to take more Medicaid patients that we can bill and reimburse for. So we are actually able to expand our capacity to see more clients because we have community partners that will probably be able to see people faster That would be willing to take on our uninsured clients that Freeze up space within our county clinics to see more Medicaid clients that we can reimburs and get revenue for Which right now we don't get revenue for the uninsured clients that we are covering It's a great point. Thank you, and I just wanted to make another point, and a recent meeting as far as dental and Medicaid, there are a lot of concerns as to what is going to even happen with that. There was a push recently because of the rates being so low, trying to get the rates increased, we were basically told that will not happen. Okay, so, and then there was also a push because there are some non-covered items for adults to try and get those in there that will not happen. Okay, so and then there was also a push because there are some non-covered items for adults to try and get those in there that will not happen. That was just basically we were told. So any, you know, you're now looking at providers who weren't even happy with the status of it, they're going to be less likely to take those patients. So I just want to kind of paint that picture is what that outlook is going to look like. I don't know there are how many people are still going to have Medicaid right? Are they going to now be relying on county resources? That's the other question. So there's a lot of question marks there. Thank you. I think those are a really important points especially as we head into this time when we know that Medicaid is under direct attack. We are expecting rollbacks imminently. And it is our responsibility to ensure that we have the infrastructure here, that we have thought ahead, and we have some infrastructure. And obviously, that's what we're all trying to do in a variety of ways we're trying to think ahead by making sure that we have funding for all the different things. We don't have enough funding for everything. But I think that you raised some really important points about how this really directly lines up with the needs that we already have and the needs that are going to be increasing. And if you could speak briefly about the health risks when somebody does not receive dental care. And I'll note that I actually not too long ago just before the change of administration and we still have a meaningful Department of education, one of our clinics to help folks get rid of their student debt by finding out that they're eligible for that. We met somebody there who had really severe dental needs that had been ongoing for a long time, but had not, you know, someone who had not been able to afford treatment and, you know, to find and to get to someone who would be able to provide her with that care. And it was really, you know, it was not something that we could just let sit, obviously. But it was a very, very difficult problem to solve. And we actually, we actually reached out to American diversity because we know that Mayor Modi has so many connections in in the community, but it's a lot of that kind of pulling strings and trying to find a friendly private provider who's willing to, and so this is the way of systematizing that, that I think makes a lot of sense. But when we think about delaying this and about access and about long-term health consequences, why is dental care kind of the tip of the spear for that? Why is the dental care so critical when we look at impact on the rest of the body and delayed dental care? I think people forget that teeth are connected to the rest of the body. I mean, really. And so infections, while they can start out being localized, again, they're connected to the rest of the body, and they're entering the bloodstream going elsewhere. People also remember that the oral cavity is kind of a window into everything else going on. You have, we have a lot of clients who have uncontrolled diabetes. Their teeth are falling out because of this. It's connected to other diseases. You're seeing this because of other things going on. So neglecting your dental care, a lot of times we end up being that emergency clinic in the county. By the time they're coming to us, things have really gone awry. But then sometimes we're finding other things that are going on that are actually contributing to this issue. So, and then basically, if your teeth are hurting, are you eating correctly and nutrition-wise? So, everything is connected. I know it comes across as something significant, but a lot of times, especially with our client base, there are bigger issues going on. Thank you. Okay. I appreciate the conversation and I do appreciate the tough decisions and the efforts that the chair is making to be responsible as we look at the budget. I certainly understand the effort there. I would ask that colleagues not make this something that is on the chopping block. That's up for consideration. This is not about adding a new, nice to have. This is really attempting to bring equity to East County and access that they have been lacking that we have been seeing on the ground is desperately needed. And I would ask that this not be one of the pieces that we put up for consideration to fight against other new programs and new enhancements. Thank you. Council Member Sales. Thank you. Just wanted to share the other line item of the $333,785 for especially dental behavioral health. Can you tell us more about the, that line item and how others can access those resources for dental services? That's the Care for Kids item, supporting the supplemental that was approved in January. So there are, they can talk about the mid-Land, but part of the services are similar to I'll say my gunry cares and that children, they can access primary care but also in salary services, including other specialty care services like, you know, ophthalmology, things like that. And then there's also a line for specialty dental care. That specialty dental care line within care for kids is supported through mostly contracts. So the children as part of their primary care are seen at county dental clinics. But if they need specialized care, the care for kids program through the primary care coalition maintains contracts to provide specialized dental care. Sometimes when children need to be, I don't know, yes, natural and under anesthesia, they'll use that line item. So that, that 333, 785 totally supports the increased need within care for kids, especially dental medications, primary care visits, and what's so heavy. Thank you. And so while this item is being proposed for the reconciliation list, this other item, how are we going to raise awareness about these other dental resources if this other item doesn't make it through budget. Well, I don't want to speak. But I would say that they don't work in correlation because the programs are different. So county dental services is really focused on the general residents of the county. The only children that they do see are care for kids' children. So all the referrals flow through care for kids to the county dental services clinic. It's part of the comprehensive service package of being a care for kids' client and this takes into account the enrollment growth, which council, thank you, gave us a supplemental for earlier in the year. And I just wanted to add, in the last few years, coming out of COVID, we've seen an increase in the complexity of cases coming that requires specialty. There's a lot of advanced medical conditions that these children are coming with in addition to oral health. We do, PCC does have a contracted provider, but that provider will not see those children with those advanced medical conditions, with advanced medical conditions for their oral care. So that has been a challenge too. We're trying to work with the University of Maryland to see what we can do about sending patients there. But that, the specialty item has increased due to the, for dental needs because of the level of complexity that we're starting to see more and more. Well, I just want to be very clear that we're not using county specialty care dollars to then pay our county dental clinic. So the specialty care dental line is only to reembarge contract it providers. So in terms of physical, they're very separate. So when children are referred to county dental services, that's all in kind. Councilman Brahmannas? Thank you, I'll be very brief. So just tremendous respect for Councilmember Mink, who often attends their HHS committee sessions because of her deep rooted passion and interest in this subject area. This is a taste of the kinds of conversations we have within the committee. We've had multiple work sessions around the dental issue. We've made great progress as a system. Obviously more progress needs to be made. And we will be having ongoing discussions within work sessions to continue to invest in this really, really, really key area. But as I said at the beginning, reluctantly move forward items that, you know, for consideration and also for transparency. Because understandably in previous years, there's been frustration over reductions that were made, not in sessions such as this. And in light of the conversations we've had earlier this week, that's why we're proposing a few small but important changes to what has been recommended with the committee. This is one of them. I assure colleagues again, we will not be doing this for all items, but this was one that we wanted to uplift. So with that, I yield back to you, Madam President, but obviously there's a motion in second on the floor. Great. Thank you very much. Again, this is to put this reduction on the reconciliation list that we will consider next week. All those in favor of adding this to the reconciliation list as a reduction. Please raise your hand. 9 to 2. Sorry. 8 to 3. Oh, can you raise your hands again? Because make sure the clerk got it. Okay. 8 to 3. Thank you. All right. Let's move on to the next item. The next item is number now. Excuse me. Number six on page 14 of your packet. This is related to the transition or the phase two part of the dental program conversion. The dental program uses contract staff and they would like to transition them to merit. So this 140,227 will support the transition of five principal administrative aid positions. Okay. We move on to item number seven. This reflects a new service line that is recommended within Care for Kids, which is reproductive health services. So the funding would support reproductive health and family planning for youth enrolled in Care for Kids. Of course, we know Care for Kids brand from zero to 19. So a certain segment in age of that population. The council staff made a recommendation to tranche this item for potential reduction as there are title 10 clinics in the in the county that provide these reproductive health resources. There are at least three clinics one that is part of our Montgomery cares and Montgomery cares network. I won't call them out by name. So there are reproductive health resources in the community for this age group. So that was the reason for the recommendation in the committee move this recommendation forward. And these items, these two tranches are currently listed on the reconciliation list. Councillor Morales. Thank you. Thank you. So, same prevailing issue. Obviously this and so much of what we're discussing is important but what we tried to do is if there were other services being provided, even though obviously we'd love to expand as much as possible. That was where we made some tough decisions, but acknowledge completely the importance of this particular line item and light of everything that's happening in the world. But just wanted to provide some context regarding the committee's recommendation. Great, thank you. Council Member Awanaz on this. And I just would ask Dr. Ashford to speak to this. I know our title. This is an area I know well in a previous life. And unfortunately, our title 10 clinics are seeing their funding cut dramatically, especially when it comes to reproductive health care. And we also know the barriers at young people face needing to go to multiple places to receive this type of care. And while I fully appreciate the exercise we're taking here, I just would like Dr. Ashford to speak to this and the care that's needed in the community. Yeah, absolutely. So when our care for kids' clients as Ms. Clemens Johnson shared, some of our Montgomery cares clinics do provide these services as part of their FQHC Bless you structure. But it is not available at all of our clinics. And we know that if our young people have to leave one place to go to another just to pick up their birth control prescription, the likelihood that they're going to do that is slim to none. And we talk a lot about equity and social justice. And I am a reproductive justice champion, which means you have the right to decide when to have children or when not to have children. And you have autonomy over your body to do that in a safe place. And so I view this really as a reproductive justice issue. If we are not giving these young people access to birth control to make those decisions for themselves, and we know given their status, they are, it is unlikely they will be able to access these services other places because they are on care for kids. We are increasing the risk for unintended pregnancy outcomes. They then get to be part of our teen pregnancy program in the schools and we know that those babies probably won't be born into the best financial situations and we then continue the cycle. So this from our perspective is a very much big need. It is a reproductive justice issue and I know it is a tight budget session season, but it is a small from my perspective investment to prevent potentially very lifelong and expensive downstream consequences. Okay. Councilmember Baltham. Thank you. Council President asked one of the questions that I was going to ask in terms of the availability of care elsewhere. Can you talk just briefly? In the packet, it talks about the title, title X, title X, title X, clinics. Where is that funding coming from? That's federal funding. Okay, so my concern about this is what happens if that funding goes away. That's critical for me. And I wasn't even thinking of the travel perspective. So, you know, we all know teens and we all know that their behavior is whatever is easy for them. And if we put obstacles in their way, then that's difficult. So the tranches perhaps the chair or Dr. Ashford could talk about the tranches in terms of if we We launched we tranched it, if we looked at half of the money, just the need, I'm sure you need more than you've asked for, but could we do one tranche, restore one tranche and leave the other one on the rec list? What would that do and could that be a possible solution? So if we, so there's a couple, thank you for the question, customer of Rebellion. There's a couple of options here. Either if we did one tranche versus the other, ideally we'll use the data to see where we might target our services. So we could either say we're gonna provide services at all of the clinics and every clinic will get a set amount. And when it's gone, it's gone and we'll have to wait till next fiscal year to resume those services. Now I'm sure, and Dr. Davis in the back, from a clinical perspective, stopping your birth control for four months until the new fiscal year starts is likely not the best clinically sound decision. So what we would likely do is say, okay, where are we seeing the highest preponderance of young people, particularly female or birthing individuals, and targeting services there so that we can make sure that they have a continuity of care for the entire fiscal year if we tranched it out. And then when you made the determination of the cost, the 180, how did you come about that? That was just by looking at the cost of the birth control that we can get at a reduced rate as a, you know, local health department. And then the number of care for kids' clients within that child bearing age from when they start their men's seas through the time of the program. Okay. So I'm, I'm, I'm torn, not about restoring it. I'm torn between whether we should restore the full amount or 90 90 thousand I don't know the will of the the body so I'm gonna make a motion that we restore this full item second all right all right we have council of vice president Jawanda going to make similar motion. I'm glad you made it already. Council Member Bako, I agree it's a small amount for a super important preventative strategy. And if to the point that was made in the last conversation around dental, there was a memo out yesterday from the Congressional Budget Office outlining how states and localities will have to react to the deep Medicaid cuts. This is one of the items that's mentioned. It's one of the items that's targeted, reproductive costs and reimbursements and such. So I think we have to do this and I know these, and I would, I will support the motion. Thank you. Council Member Alpinos. Thanks. I appreciate the robust conversation. I think all of this makes perfect sense. And I will also support the motion. I just want to note that, and as was stated at the beginning by Ms. Clemens Johnson, we have done supplemental appropriations regularly, particularly the health and human service base in reaction to changes that have been made in the federal government before, and we stand ready to do that again. So while we're discussing these items within the context right now of the FY26 operating budget, this is an example of where we may have to make additional investments based on what comes down the pike. So thank you. Great, all right. So what is on the table now since this was a committee recommendation to put this as a reduction, we have a motion and a second and a third, I think, to take this off the list as a reduction and to put it back into the base budget. So all those in favor, please raise your hand. And that is unanimous. And thank you, everyone. Thank you, Dr. Ashford. And I agree with Chair Albinaz that, you know, we know there's going to be more but to have this amount. So because going off your first control is not a great thing. So appreciate the work there. I'll turn back to Ms. Clemens Johnson. We move to item number eight, which is a HHS committee recommended budget item not included in the county executives recommendation. This is a support behavioral health co-pays for the care for kids clients in the amount of $6,750. It would support approximately for 150 care for kids can family so they would have no out of pocket costs for their behavioral health visit and the committee recommends approval through to zero. Okay, I'm gonna combine the next two items, number 9 and number 10. The county executive recommended the reduction of two contracts, one for stroke prevention and one for health education. It was noted that the health initiatives, the age African-American health program and the Latino health initiative provide similar services. And so the executive recommended this reduction, noting that they felt that the Minority Health Initiative were already engaged in supporting this work. Okay, we will move on to item number 11 on page 15 of your packet. The HHS Committee Recommended Budget Item is supporting the American, excuse me, it is a council executive recommended item but the HHS committee did vote in approval. This is for the American diversity group free medical clinic. There was a lot of conversation during the HHS committee about supporting this clinic individually in the scope of the primary care medical services that are provided through the number of the host of services that DHHS provides, namely Montgomery cares. So ADG provides clinical services in East East County and they have been committed to this work for quite some time. But this was, it was noted that this is like one time seat money to support a physician, a nurse practitioner, and other support staff not on a full time basis. They will continue to try to leverage their volunteer physicians and they would like to explain their clinical hours and increase the number of patients seen. The committee recommended two to one, but wanted to note the following that this would be one time funding and would be a new contract. They also noted that there should be clearly defined criteria to ensure consistency and equity in the county's investment in community medical clinics that serve unique populations and address urgent needs. And then there was also a question about with this being one time seed money, what does this mean ongoing for the American diversity group, but the vote was two to one. Okay. Okay. Council Member Mank. Thank you. I appreciate the committee's vote on this as well to move this forward. I want to clarify a couple things as I did at committee. First is that this line item is not for an expansion in services. This is for maintenance of services. I think that there was some confusion for two reasons. One was that their original request to the county executive was larger and that would have included an expansion. And the other is that over the course of the year, just recently for the first time since they're opening, they had to decrease services because the funding field is so different, you know, difficult out there. They've really been, they spend a lot of time, you know, many of you know Mayor Modi a lot of times spent between clinic hours, going after grants and private support. And you know, he has really been trying, the clinic have really been trying not to come to the county because they know that they want the HHS funding and the county funding to be able to go as far as they can and take a lot of pride in working really hard to ask the county for that. But everybody is going after grants and private funding now to an increasing degree. and it's a very, very, very tough field out there. And so as a result of that and as a result of, you know, increased costs as they compete with, you know, providers and who are really working at a very reduced rate and they have to make difficult choices for their household about where to spend their time, as well other staff who are who are working hours there to be able to they just have not been able to keep people on board and so for the first time They have recently closed their Sunday hours. That is An important day because they're open on weekends and that is why I'm a big part of why there's such an important part of the healthcare infrastructure in the county because many of our county clinics do not have weekend hours. And so this is where a lot of folks go when there are those urgent needs on the weekend. They're also one of their biggest refers right now are the hospitals. Because hospitals know that on the weekends they can turn to American diversity group. They Also, one of their biggest refers right now are the hospitals. Because hospitals know that on the weekends, they can turn to American diversity group. They take clients actually not just from East County, although they're obviously critical to East County. But because of their hours and also because of their language supports that they have there, they have seven non-English languages that are represented at that clinic, including Hindi or Urdu, Pashto, Nepalese, well Spanish, of course. They serve a lot of clients who really can't be served adequately elsewhere as everybody knows. A language line is just not sufficient when we're talking about getting medical care in the need to interface with a real person. So, but they also serve from other areas, mobility impaired residents who need transport, as well as clients who don't have access to week and hours somewhere near them. So they go and they get rides and they pick people up and they bring people to their clinic from Damascus, Latensville, Dickerson, Poolsville, Barnesville, parts of Darnstown, as well as obviously across East County. And I also want to be very clear that they also are working to help connect residents to an enroll in insurance and healthcare programs including Medicaid, getting them in touch with the minority health programs, getting folks who enrolled in Montgomery cares and care for kids. So they are a part of our county health care ecosystem in a number of ways. They are a trusted partner and they're also helping to move people into other programs that are county funded as well. So I just want to be really, really clear that again, this is not about an expansion other than the fact that they are trying to come back up to open those, be able to keep those Sunday hours open again, which they are not right now. And it's a reduction in what they had asked for originally from the county executive. And if we don't have this infrastructure, they are going to be people who are not able to receive care. care and also that the the refers that they're getting the referrals that they're getting from the hospitals like the hospitals know them. Adventist has given them grants to help to sustain their work. So they are very much partners there too. They are, whereas Adventists told me they send their frequent flyers there to try to get them to not be frequent flyers in the ER. So with that, I ask that we protect this budget line. Thank you. And just to make sure everyone's clear, this is our committee recommendation to add this to the reconciliation list. So it's not a reduction. Right? This was to keep it in the budget. It was to keep it in the budget. It was recommended by the executive. Right. So it's not on any list to reduce. So we had a lot to go through. I just want to make sure people are understanding where we are. This is no one is suggested reducing this at the moment to keep it in. Councilmember Bacchum. Thank you. I can't add any more to what Kristen said, Councilmember Mink said about the value. It's remarkable that the value that we have received from ADG through the years without any contribution from the county. And so I support this. I do, however, want to talk about the process aspect of adding this. I appreciate that this is one time funding, and I think it's really important to convey that to ADG because they are a trusted partner. However, there is the question about are they doing an N-round to get into our budget? And I think that that's a really important aspect that we need to have a fuller conversation in the convening time between this budget and next budget. So I think that that's really, I just wanted to lift that up that we, because very often what happens with one-time items, they're gonna come back next year and say we can't continue to do services without additional funding next year. So I'm sure that the chair will have that conversation in the intervening year. So I just wanted to highlight that. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Almanac. Thanks. So we did have a robust discovery conversation about the American diversity group. I've had a chance to visit them and I'm familiar with their work as well. And I want to say three things about this. One, I'll pick up where Council Member Balkham just left off. That was my concern too. There are other volunteer organizations doing great work in our community that thank goodness they're doing that work in our community. So we did discuss establishing more firmly moving forward a set of criteria for recommendations. The public health team does a phenomenal job of looking at the landscape and where the holes are. And so there was a strategic recommendation made by them because then... the public health team does a phenomenal job of looking at the landscape and where the holes are. And so there was a strategic recommendation made by them because they identified a hole within this system. But I was concerned that there wasn't necessarily as competitive of a process as there are in other areas for them to be able to receive funding. I don't disagree with anything that Council Member Mings said and do understand and recognize their investments and their ability to reach more diverse populations than we can on our own. I was prepared to move this, but in light of the conversation that we had earlier that lasted a really long time and the fact that we have to get through so much of this here in the budget. I'm going to hold off on moving this particular item to the reconciliation list, but acknowledge one last time that I don't know how we're going to make all of the numbers work at the end of this process. And because HHS's budget represents such a large portion of the budget as a whole, you know gonna have to go through this. And so that's a headache, we're gonna have in about 72 hours, but it's an headache, we're gonna have to have collectively as a body. So, but I don't think it's worth moving in, the reduction at this point, given the amount of time that we've invested in how much more we have to go. Thank you, Council Member Almanaz, and so we'll move on to the next item. Thank you. So I'll just briefly know, number 12 speaks to the community reinvestment and repair funds. The council was briefed on this earlier in the year when we added the commission. This is state funding part of the general fund but special funds and can only be used for the purposes outlined by the state and the county. The community reimbursement commission has not begun meeting yet, but will in the next month or two. I'll say the vast majority of this funding, only 100,000 of it is for administrative costs. The other 2.4 million will be used directly for grant programming in FY26. And we'll continue on as long as the cannabis laws at the state level do not change and that is it for public health services. Great thank you and I think the only item that's on the table that and chair Albinas and Ms. Clems Johnson correct me if I'm wrong here that we should take a hand vote on is the reduction of the 81,827 when we talked about the new clinic at the Islamic Center of Maryland. Is that correct? Correct. All right. All those in favor of that reduction, please raise your hand. That is 9 to 2. All right. All those in favor of the reduction, please raise your hand. All right. Those opposed? Oh, sorry. It's you. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Joando. Appreciate that. All right. Thank you. Dr. Ashford for this morning. We will now move, I think, onto Ms. Clemage, not administrative, administration and support services. Chair, Avonaz, is that? Correct. All right, I'm gonna, this is your show. I'm gonna turn it over to you. Do you, Abhin? Okay. For the support service, we're gonna do that. Okay. Thank you, colleagues. So we moved up our public health team. We're now I think back on track. And so we will now be discussing the Department of Health and Human Services Administration and Support Services. I turn it back over to the team to walk us through the packet. Thank you. So we are starting on page five of your packet with this admin and support section. There are a few changes but most notably changes in consideration by the committee that will be discussed. The first item is house bill grant changes, HB669. This is a grant that dates back to 1996 that we receive for support services. The increases and decreases every year, this year the amount is 15.4 million. The HHS committee recommended approval for this item. And the next item is number two, increase in security services at DHHS programs. This is going to support the increased cost of this security service contract at four different HHS buildings. Most of these, all of the buildings are very public facing, serving Medicaid clients and things like that. So this is just to reinforce that contract. And for the next, well, I'll just do mine. So there is a, as we saw with the public health services, there was a recommendation from the CE to reduce the Latino health initiative contract for media relations. They are gonna bring this, that they no longer need that money in the contract as they are not using it for that service. They, LHI uses a different model of marketing. I think they call it social engineering, something like that. So they just didn't see that there was a need to maintain this money in the contract. So the HHS Committee voted in approval of the CES recommendation. And moved to my county. All right. The next two items, item four and item five on page six are related. The county executive is recommending the transition and shift of funding for the pop-up pantry services. That was $53,107. And for $753,775 for the School-based Food Assistant Program, all to transition to the Office of Food Systems Resilience, which was of course reviewed earlier this morning and the committee recommends approval of the counting secondives recommendation for both. All right, in the last item, for not a last item, excuse me, the last item for reduction is a correction that removed the ARPA funding. It was incorrectly included in the FY25 budget. So OMB just noted that they were taking that money out. So you'll see that error in some of the multi-program adjustments within the budget. So if'll see that error in some of the multi-program adjustments within the budget. So if you see this big large item, it's related to this old ARPA funding item. And so the next item we move is in recommended restoration by the HHS Committee of the MVMA, non-competitive contract for FY26, in the amount of $89,941. So for FY25, this item does not show up and the county executive recommended budget as a budget line item. It was just part of the base. And so what DHHS was in transition of doing is for FY26, this funding of $89,941 lives within the African-American health initiatives budget under the Office of Community Affairs. They wanted to transition it from their contract to the Healthy Community Funds. That was part of the recommendations that came over but wasn't explicitly detailed in their packet because it was just a shift in how they chose to use their funding. It wasn't a reduction to the contract but not a reduction to their overall budget. So there was advocacy and a recommendation by Councilmember Meep to restore the contract for NVMA. So this placed $89,941 on the reconciliation budget item. It needed to be added if the contract needed to be restored because the recommendation had already, the recommendation eliminates the contract. So the item on the reconciliation list would restore or start the contract for FY26. And the Etch HHS committee recommended this 3-0. There are several memos from Councilmember Mink and Information in General as this item came up last year for elimination about the background of this contract. So I can address any technical questions about how to move forward or addressing any questions about the contract as well as the department. Thank you and return over to Councilmember Mink who hopefully be able to navigate us through this. Thanks. Yeah. So I was just talking with Sonia Moore yesterday about this and really appreciate HHS helping to I think get this cleared up. The confusion I think came from the fact that the that MVMA already has within has within the healthy communities fund, which is a competitive grant fund. They are basically at the cap of what they can receive there due to another program, which is different from this program, provides different services, although they do work in tandem with each other. The existing one that they have in the healthy communities fund provides a variety of social activities for seniors, Vietnamese speaking primarily, the very robust programming, and then this contract, the $89,000 one provides case work that helps them to connect to various healthcare services and role in social security, etc. as well as provide some tutoring to some Vietnamese speaking youth. And so they again they work well together but they're separate and they would have been MVMA would have been fine with having it with the funds shifting to the Healthy Communities Fund except that and just competing for it there except that there is a cap on how much one organization can receive within the Healthy Communities Fund. So it would have essentially meant that it would have made it impossible for them to win both contracts because they're at the cap. And so acknowledging that there really is not another organization who can serve this population in terms of the languages that are spoken and the cultural needs that are there they do a tremendous amount of really critical work on a relatively small budget I have been through their reports about who they're serving and I've also been to many of their events that they want to make sure that they're able to continue doing that and so really appreciate we have an email that we received. Thank you Mr. Hodge yesterday, suggesting, as when I spoke to Sony yesterday, Dr. Murray yesterday, Dr. Murray yesterday She asked that we just shift that 89,000 back out of the healthy communities fund and Designate it for NVMA so procedurally my Understanding is that we would have to do that as as two motions. of them we've basically already done, right? We've designated the NVMA 89,000, but this should be just a cost functioning as a cost neutral shift. We have not reduced the healthy communities fund by the same amount. And again, that had gone up in the kind of executives budget as a result of the shift with the intent that they could compete for there. So what I would like to do is just confirm with colleagues that it's okay with them if we do it this way as requested by HHS that we do add a reduction of $89,941 for the Healthy Communities Fund. This is all within the Asian American Health Initiatives budget to be very clear. So it stays, it all is going to stay within there. And that we ensure that the $89,000 line which is on there as an addition, just because this is our process, that we ensure that we fund that. That we don't treat that again as fighting it out the same as the other items on the reconciliation list because I want to make sure that we don't overall reduce $89,000 from both places. Essentially those two pieces should work in tandem together to be a cost neutral shift to fix and address the issue that has come up, which is that again the shift into the healthy community's fund was intended to let them fight the issue that has come up, which is that again, the shift into the Healthy Communities Fund was intended to let them fight for the contract there as well. They cannot do that because they are at the cap. And so the request is to just shift that back out. So would like to put that up for a conversation and see if colleagues would be amenable to that. Councillor Arvindas. Thank you. So a couple thoughts and then I'm going to need a phone of friend on this one for sure. So first of all, once again, thank you councilmember Mink. She provided information to the committee regarding MVMA's work that we were not aware of. And she also shed some light on some of the contractual issues and was able to clear up a few things. Having said that, this does still remain a contracting issue between the Department of Health and Human Services and NVMA. And I know that work has been done to address those issues. And so my understanding, and Mr. Howard, I'm gonna need your help here because you had sent an email this morning or last night that I thought provided some important clarity. But my understanding is that what the committee recommended remains true, which is that we recommended that the recommendation of the executive for the funds and the fund to remain there. But what we did as a committee, per the suggestion of Council Member Mink, is recommend that we, in addition to that, add funding for the contract for NVMA. But what the committee decided unanimously was that that be part of the reconciliation process for consideration, not that it be put in the base. So I would just like some clarity and I totally understand an interest in placing it in the base, but that was not what the committee had voted for, the committee had voted for it to be considered among the other reconciliation items. Acknowledging, it's going to be difficult to get off the reconciliation list as a whole, but that was my understanding of where we landed. Mr. Howard or Ms. Clemens Johnson from an administrative perspective. Clear that up. Of course, not a problem. Yes, the committee placed the 89,000 plus on the reconciliation list as an addition so that that action still stands before you There's been no recommended change to that But I believe councilmember mink is also requesting is a separate action to place that corresponding amount as a reduction to the healthy communities Fund I'm gonna get the name wrong with it. A H.I. How these communities? Yeah grant fund and add that and then when there the two separate actions, if the council were to agree with that proposal. And then when you are doing your reconciliation process, again, those are two separate items, but you could kind of consider them, like as you make your decisions in tandem, like if you were going to do one, you would do them both. So it would be a nut neutral transaction. But again, that would be the decision of the full council as you're going through the reconciliation process. I just want to make sure that the funding for the fund remains in place because that obviously is critical so that we don't inadvertently take away from the fund. So just want to make sure that that action doesn't do that. It would put it both up for consideration. So depending on what the vote of the body is, is that yes, that you could do one or the other or do both so that you could vote to approve the reduction of the Healthy Communities Fund and approve the increase of the 89,941 and that would be a net neutral change or the HHS Committee vote as it stands right now is to keep the 89,941 within the Healthy Communities Fund. I think the total funding right now is 1.5 million. So 1.5 million plus that and then also adding the 89,941 which would restore or create a contract for MBA, MBA, MBA and FY26. As of right now, there is not a FY26 MBA and contract in the recommended budget. Got it. So, 100% understand, but it sounds to me like our committee recommendation still holds true. So I don't quite understand the difference between what council member Mink is proposing and what the committee is recommending because it sounds like they both get us to the same place. Thank you. Yeah, it's a good question and it is admittedly a little bit confusing. Yes, so the only and I'm not making the motion yet because again I would appreciate kind of like a collegial understanding about where we're going to go from here as Mr. Howard noted, but basically what I'm suggesting is to make that action, make that line item that the committee placed on the reconciliation list at my request to make that cost neutral by also adding a reduction to the Asian American Health Initiatives Healthy Communities Fund. and when I spoke to, when I spoke to director Moore last night and her, the email from Mr. Hodge, that we got, that was essentially her recommendation. She said that, you know, I understand that you placed the, you know, after we confirmed that they would not be able to pursue both contracts within the Healthy Communities Fund as was the described intention of making that shift that it would be impossible for them to compete and receive both of those contracts. So that shift would end one of those contracts. Then she noted that her understanding was that we had put place at $89,000 for MVMA onto the reconciliation that we had done that but that we had not pulled it out of the healthy community's fund, which again they had shifted that was artificially. That's one of the things I could just ask, yeah, I apologize. And I appreciate all the work you have done on this, but it is incredibly confusing. I'd really like to hear from this. what do you all need? You hear the intent, I think. You've had many conversations. Many. Can you tell us what you need for us to proceed? I will attempt to yes. So my name is Mark Hodgson, the chief operating officer for HHS. So the kind executive agrees that putting this money back or allowing this money to go for NVMA is okay with him. Because of the way the budget proposal was written though, the money is currently in the grant funds. And so as it stands now, they would have to apply for that because there's no other funding for them. If we move and then the committee put the committee put the funding on the reconciliation list as an addition. So the 89,000 stays in the grant funds, they're at, it's my understanding that the, in addition on the reconciliation list for 89,000 dollars, that would be specific to MVMA. So, but that leads to my question and maybe Craig can help with this too. If the council agrees to that $89,000 edition, they're going to have to designate MVMA for that because that's not something that, because right now, there's no money, there's no contract for FY26. So for MVMA or anybody for that matter because it's now in the grant funds. So if you are pulling out or adding $89,000 for a specific nonprofit that in the budget language, again, this maybe you guys can correct me, you will have to designate them as a sole source for this particular money. Is that correct? Am I understanding that correctly? That is correct for if the council decides to add the $89,000 and designate to MVMA. We would have to come over as part of the Section G that the CAO submits to the council. Yeah, I have a couple of people in line, but Council Member Lutti, do you mind if Council Member Balkham goes first with a clarifying question on this point? Go ahead. I might be able to make it clear. Because at committee we had a very robust discussion about this, right? And I want to sort of walk us through this, maybe this will clarify it for others who are in the Q2. Currently for this existing fiscal year, NVMA does have a contract for $89,000 that has run through HHS. Separately, they were awarded a grant for $147,000 ish somebody. Okay, through this separate fund, that's the Healthy Communities Fund, which is part of the AAHI program. Okay, and within that fund that AAHI has and gives grant awards to, that one has a cap of a maximum award of 150,000 dollars. Is that right? Okay. And HHS did not seek to renew a contract for the separate $89,000 contract. Right? Okay. Let me finish my questions. Let me work through this. I don't need help from anybody else. Thanks so much. Everybody needs to stop that. That's been a trend this week and I'd really love it to stop. Okay? Because I will call it out. Now, within that, if as proposed by the committee, the $89,000 and whether we choose to do a sole source contract for NVMA for the work as noted and in the supplemental memo and as discussed at committee, that this organization does, would be done as a sole source contract if, in fact, as a body we determine that it should be removed from the reconciliation list and included in the budget, right? Okay. That action does not affect AAHI's grant fund budget. So we can just leave it at that and consider it that way without adversely impacting the AAHI Healthy Communities Fund budget. Is that right? Okay. And so my understanding based on the emails we received and the conversation that Councilmember Mink had with Director Mora was a separate action that would consider a net neutral, if you will, posture, but it is in fact entirely possible for us to consider this without adversely taking action against the Healthy Communities Fund for AAHI, correct? OK, and AAHI have, they had the opportunity to weigh in on this at all as to whether the impact of reducing their healthy communities fund budget by $89,000 would in fact impact them. They haven't but it is an $89,000 increase from the previous year. So it's because the funds were moved over. Correct. Correct. So they are $89,000 net higher as proposed in the FY 26 budget. Okay, but then there was, I assume in this decision making by the department, some decision to allow AAHI flexibility in how those grants would be awarded. Is that right? Okay. And the department and or the program has the authority to shift the $150,000 cap for that grant fund. Should you choose to do so? Yes, that is a department decision. Okay, so that is an executive branch function that the department could in fact choose to do as well. Regardless of whatever we do. Okay, that's all. Thank you. Are you? Councilmember Bacchum? Thank you. That did not clarify everything. So the question was, so when you, the first, the initial question was about reducing the fund balance by or adding the 89,000. So reducing AAHI fund balance of the 89,000. They had that that was an increase. Did I hear you correctly? So they got an increase of 89. So reducing their fund balance by 89 would leave them whole. So the proposal that Councilmember Mink suggested of reducing AHI by 89, adding 89 to the the MbMA would make the REC list net neutral. Correct. Okay. Yes. The, that doesn't, that doesn't resolve the issue of the naming MbMA specifically as a contractor. That still remains regardless of what happens on the rec list. Okay. All right. Thank you. Can I ask you a clarifying question? That's only if we select the addition though. Yes. Right. If the council decides that this additional $89,000, regardless of how you decide to do the grant fund, we would have to be told to give this to MVMA. All right. Council member glass. I appreciate the discussion. I also appreciate that HHS has a process and that just like with our grants office, there are processes. They might not always be perfect, but we work through them. We highlight and channel the concerns of the community and the nonprofit organizations and work with you all. I think it very well may become problematic if the council starts picking specific organizations because we have very specifically chosen not to do that with the grants process. And I know none of it is perfect. We're working through it, and we are channeling the concerns, and I appreciate all of the channeling that my colleagues are doing. But you are the administrators, you are the content experts, and I defer to the process. If at another point in time we need to change the process, let's have a conversation about that. The HHS committee, a geo committee, a full council committee. But right now we have a process and I'd like to keep to that process. Councilmember Abinas. Thank you. Appreciate the conversation just two points. There is precedence for the council providing sole source contracts, but they have been done at least since I've been around in collaboration and unique circumstances in partnership with the executive branch to address immediate needs that were not originally identified both of the situations that I'm thinking of happened during COVID. So while we have the ability to do this procedurally, I am uncomfortable providing and I'm thinking of happened during COVID. So while we have the ability to do this procedurally, I am uncomfortable providing a sole source contract for an organization that has been an active negotiations through contract negotiations with an HHS. And HHS made the recommendation to try and resolve this by having them competitively bid for those contract acknowledging there's a cap of 150,000 and that was why I ended up supporting the recommendation to put it on the reconciliation list because you've provided a solution that actually they can't formally apply for because the caps at 150 so the 89 would be on top of that they wouldn't be eligible to apply or they'd have to decide whether to apply for the 150 or some other combination. So I still stand by the committee's recommendation, but the question on the table is do we support providing the sole source contract for NVMA? And that I guess is the motion that Council Member Mink is making or not, or just a contract for NVMA. Council Member Mink. So yet to be clear, there's the budget line to restore their contract is already committee approved and supported and I appreciate reiterating the support and it's already on the reconciliation list and it's already designated for MVMA. The part that we're missing is the my intent was not was to neither increase nor decrease the budget of the Asian-American health initiative with that. My proposal, which was reiterated by Director Murrow when I spoke to her last night, and again, I want to be clear that this was her suggestion. I don't know if she was aware of this is also what we had talked about, But this was her suggestion and ask, which is in the email that we received for Mr. Hudge yesterday, was also to neither increase nor decrease the Asian American Health Initiative. It was upon understanding and confirming that their plan to move the 89,000 into the competitive grant fund where NVMA could then compete for it, that that is impossible because it would be an impossible outcome for them to win both contracts. Understanding that, she asked that we, and I'm going to go back to the email, shift $89,941 out of the Healthy Communities Fund. That's the part that's not on the reconciliation list. That would be functionally a reduction because it was added in the County Executives budget there. And designated for MVMA. So the MVMA line is, the adding part is already on the reconciliation list, but the reduction of the Healthy Communities Fund is not, which, yeah, if we wanna increase AH as budget, like that's, I'm not, I'm certainly not going to be the one to complain about that, but I'm just trying to do what we're all doing here and be fair and square and find, find, you know, not, I don't want to add, I'm not attempting to add cost here. So my, my motion would be if colleagues were amenable to as, I think, Mr. Howard said, to treat these basically as a pair. So if you wanna leave it in the Healthy Communities Fund, then you would not take the reduction for the Healthy Communities Fund if I was to move that in order to vote on it, and they would end up on the reductions list. And then you would take the, we would ensure that that 89,000 ends up in one of those places, acknowledging again that the request here that I got from Director Moira was to choose the one where MVMA gets the designated line. So treat those two items if we add the reduction as a pair. So we either take the reduction or eliminate the addition of the 89,000 for MVMA designated, which is currently on the reconciliation list. And then also take the reduction of the same amount for the Healthy Communities Fund which would make them hold and return them to where they were in the previous year or to remove the addition that the committee recommended and that director more suggested that we put on there but don't take the reduction for the Healthy Communities Fund because again, the ask here is, I certainly don't want to end up reducing AAHI's budget overall, either it's important work. So, Council Member Mink, are you making that motion right now? Is our folks comfortable treating that as, and as I'm going to say this? We're spending 10 more minutes on this item. We have a lot of HHS items and other budgets to get to and I very much appreciate everyone's time and so I respectfully ask if you're going to make the motion to please make the motion. All right and that is I'm going to hold on the motion until we can have conversations offline I'm happy to offer it as a reduction at a future session on most. the motion. All right. In that case, I'm going to hold on the motion until we can have conversations offline. I'm happy to offer it as a reduction at a future session on last foot. Yep. That's what I'll do. All right. There will be a future opportunity for me to add a reduction to the list. They're well. Right. Now. I would I guess we have everyone here now. And we've had the conversation. So I would ask that if I'll make the motion to add the reduction. Thank you. Do I have a second for that to add a reduction of $89,941 to the Healthy Communities Fund? Do I have a second? I'm not seeing a second. So what stands now in the HHS Administration Supporting Services is a committee recommendation of the addition of $8941. That will be on the reconciliation list that we will take up next week. I have a few other colleagues in the queue, so we'll do that and then we are going to conclude our morning session. Again, I just, I cannot express enough my deep appreciation for everyone at HHS and our own staff time, for their time today as we work through this budget and other folks who are on our agenda this morning, but that we will ask you to return at one o'clock. I have council member Katz and then Alvarnos. Thank you very much, Madam President. I think what we've really maintained is that we've been able to make a more confusing topic, even more confusing. And let me just be clear where I am. I'm in favor of number seven, the way it's written, to restore the MVMA non-competitive contract for FY26 for $89,941 as is one page six of the packet. I don't know how you're gonna do it. I don't care. I don't care for the mechanics of how we do it, but that's where I am. Thank you very much, Madam President. Councillor Bravin. Thank you. I appreciate the conversation. Ultimately, what we are recommending as a committee that is that that MVMA still be considered within the operating budget, which is what we're recommending. All right. Okay. Thank you. All right. I think we are conclude with this now. All right. Yes, with the admin and support of services section. All right. Great. All right. We are going to break now. Thank you. And we will return this afternoon. Great. Yeah. One o'clock. We're done until one o'clock. So everyone can get lunch, take a breath, get some water, and we'll be back at one. Yes. Meanwhile, Virginia's done all this other major development for transportation, and now they're getting ready to build massive BRT at scale. I don't know what it's going to take to wake people up to what's happening here, but people need to wake up. I'm disappointed in this action. I've certainly heard from many residents. Janune, everyone, hope folks were able to grab some lunch, get caffeinated for our afternoon session. we're going to continue the work session from this morning on the Department of Health and Human Services. And we will continue with item five, which is aging and disability. And I will turn over to our council staff. I'm not sure which one is who's starting. No, we're good. We're good. No. See this is what happens when you give me a break and I obviously have not had my caffeine so chair Abanaz you're ready. No thank you just welcome Dr. McGee thank you so much for your leadership we of course you're gonna go over the aging and disabilities division now and We'll turn it over to Ms. Cassalia and Ms. Clemens Johnson. Okay. so much for your leadership. We, of course, are going to go over the aging and disabilities division now and we'll turn it over to Ms. Cassalia and Ms. Clemens Johnson. Okay, great. So as we move through the packet, I can just dive right into the items if that is okay. Okay, great. So you'll see in your packet, it starts on page seven. So I'll just go straight into the first item. But also just for reference, you'll see that item too is a county executive amendment. We'll just cover that one last because it is in amendment. So just getting straight into item number one, this is the 3% increase to the developmental disability provider supplement in the amount of 650,000 to $820. dollars. For this item the county has provided this supplement community-based organizations for like over 20 years and it provides a range of services to support adults with developmental disabilities. These services are primarily funded by the Maryland Developmental Disabilities Administration, but state funding has not been adequate to cover the higher cost of doing business in Montgomery County. The total FY26 funding for this item is $22.3 million and for this item the HHS committee recommended approval. We can continue thank you. Okay great. Moving on to item number three this is the 3% increase to the adult medical daycare provider supplement in the amount of $66,664. The county provides the supplement to eligible organizations due to the state's Medicaid reimbursement, making it difficult to cover costs that are higher in other parts of Maryland. Something of note is that DHHS confirmed that there was a technical error in the calculation of the recommended FY26 appropriation for AMDC and the 3% inflationary adjustment for the FY26 budget should be $72,690, which would be an addition of $6,000 and $6, so making the correct total budget for FY26, $2,495,682. And for this item, the HHS Committee recommended approval. Okay. Thank you. So for item number four, this is for the respite care rate increase in the amount of $112,045. Respic care is provided through a contractor and the additional requested funding would be needed for the rate increase. In FY25, the Respect Care Provider Rate Increase was not funded and DHHS utilized savings from underutilized contracts in order to fund the rate increase. And for this item, the HHS Committee also recommended a purple. Great. Okay, for item number five, this is to continue serving over 100 older adults with senior nutrition services at the Silver Spring Recreation and Aquatic Center. This is in the amount of $147,875. The senior nutrition service at the Silver Spring Recreation and Aquatic Center provides hot lunch meals to seniors and older adults in Montgomery County. However, in FY25, the program at the Aquatic center was not funded. To continue rendering services, DHHS utilized ARPA funds, which allowed the program to shift some of the area agency on aging expenses into ARPA. ARPA funding is not available for FY26, so without approval of the county executive's recommendation, the program would then have a reduction in in services and for this item the HHS committee also recommended approval. Okay. Okay. For item number six, 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 $101,225. The Senior Nutrition Program provides hot meals annually at a variety of sites to seniors and older adults. The program also receives funding from a variety of sources with the primary source being from the federal government. And for this item, the HHS Committee also recommended approval. For the proposed eliminations, I'm just going to group them all together. There's three of note. So item number seven, this is the elimination of the Carisic Child Care Program due to underutilization. This was in the amount of $35,404. The Carisic Child Care Program serves a diverse population of typically developing children, children with developmental disabilities, and children with chronic medical conditions. The contract for the program provides medical childcare, tuition waivers, to families, and an FY24 and year-to-date FY25. There was no spending on that contract. And so therefore, the proposed elimination does not impact children who are currently served by the program and for this the HHS committee recommended approval. For item number eight, this is to reduce the my turn program due to under utilization in the amount of $15,000. The my turn program provides resources and educational information to assist families and caregivers who are caring for children who are diagnosed with an intellectual or developmental disability. The program provides financial assistance for recreational activities such as summer camps as well as limited medical supplies to county residents that are aged from ages 3 to 13. For this, the FY25 total budget for my turn was $403,039. And the proposed reduction is expected to have no service impacts. So for this item, the HHS committee also recommended approval. Okay. And lastly, for the reductions, this is item number nine to reduce the community companion's contract also due to underutilization in the amount of $150,000. The Community Companions Program works with special needs families and offers aftercare, school break and summer break activities for children with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The contract for the Community Companions Program provides subsidies for participants and the total budget of the contract in FY25 was $272,184. The number of children served by this program tends to fluctuate, but during the school year there are typically five to seven children who receive subsidies from this contract, and for this item the HHS committee recommended approval. Okay. Okay. Okay. So revisiting item number two, which is on page seven of your packet. This is the County Executive's amendment for a 1% rate increase to support the developmental disability providers. And this is in the amount of $2,829,840. So during the 2025 state legislative session, a 1% rate increase for the developmental disability providers was proposed for a total of $28.7 million, but was ultimately removed from the final state FY26 budget. This action provides a one-time $2.8 million appropriation, which was calculated based on FY24 projected revenues to provide a 1% developmental disability provider rate increase for FY26. And for this item, the HHS committee has recommended approval. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you for that overview. I'll turn back to Chair Albinos. Thank you. I just wanted to briefly discuss item number two. I appreciate the staff report. So this of course was in response to the state significant reducing the DDA budget. At the state level, we all received advocacy from community-based organizations who understandably were quite upset with those reductions. I give a lot of credit to the executive for proposing to help supplement what they lost in this year's operating budget. But I'll just note for colleagues, this is one time funding and it probably is going to have to remain one time funding. It would be very difficult to sustain this moving forward, and we wanted to highlight this for purposes of the entire council to acknowledge that component. Because we already provide a tremendous amount of supplemental support to our disability providers who do incredible work. And we so appreciate their efforts. But I want the message to be to the state that we really, really hope that they will once again and continue to contribute because we will not be able to sustain this moving forward. Thank you. So the only items here are additions that will be put on the reconciliation list for us to consider next week. There are no reductions for us to take up at this time. I'm not seeing any colleagues with questions. I just want to say Dr. Medi, thank you. You have been amazing and out at so many community organizations. And I just want to say having many of the senior housing, multifamily housing in my district and the care with which you listen and help those residents, I just really, really appreciate everything. Thank you, I sincerely appreciate that. It is my joy and my pleasure to be able to do this work. So thank you. Great. Thank you so much. All right, well, thank you for that. We'll now move on to the Behavior health services budget in HHS. Thank you. Dr. Bridges, is your team here? Absolutely. Ms. Martin is right there. Oh, there she is. Yes, Ms. Moody is here to back up. And have a tertiary back up. So we have a plan. Okay. We're really looking over. I'll just be very brief in setting this one up. I once again want to publicly acknowledge that the council president had many policies from which to highlight and make a priority through her administration behavioral health was what she chose. And it's because we all know this has been an ongoing issue. It's been the number one issue in the public health survey administered by the Department of Health and Human Services now in consecutive years and it impacts every geographic region of the county and every demographic and is only going to get worse as we we know, again, the decisions that are being made at the federal level. So with that, I turn it over to the team to walk us through the packet. Good afternoon, everyone. The county executive has recommended a FY26 operating budget of $66,495,344 per fiscal year 2026, which is about an 8% increase with 281.9 FTEs or a 7% increase from the FY25 approved. Moving forward through the recommended additions from the County Executive, you'll note that the HHS committee did recommend approval and concur with the County Executive for all items. Starting with the first, we have a $107,500 increase to comply with the state requirement that necessitates county staff assume abuse intervention program services provider provision. And so the county is deemed a comprehensive domestic violence service provider, which requires specific services for the county residents, including the 24 hour hotline, emergency shelter for victims, and, counseling services for victims and the abuser intervention program. And part of that stipulation as a state recognized comprehensive domestic violence service provider is that all services but one are provided in-house and the county is determined that that would be the shelter services which we will also discuss in the next item. And so this increase reflects DHHS bringing in the abuser Intervention Program in-house from operating to personnel costs for this service and the HHS Committee recommended approval. The next is a $425,000 increase for the county's domestic filing shelter, as mentioned, which is the outsource component of the Comprehensive Domestic Violence Service Provider recognition. DHHS is currently rebitting for the provider for the shelter services and as noted in the staff report on page 10 that the original, the first RFP that was announced did not accrue any bidders to the process. And as a result, and that was based on the FY25 approved amount and as as a result, DHHS connected with potential providers and other jurisdictions, and determined that $425,000 was the necessary amount of funding to reach the minimum, like, to be able to secure a provider. So now DHHS is working with a potential provider that is reliant upon this increase to move forward in their contract. And so the DHS committee also recommends approval as well. The next is the Anualization of Decommapark Therapist in the Crisis Center, which will be fully offset by revenue from the city to come apart for a $249,194 increase. So the city of Decommapark currently has collocated to County Crisis Center Therapist at the Decommapark Police Department. And this would help help provide the annualization of those personnel costs, noting that the county would receive those reimburse costs through as the salary is put out. So sorry. So the $249,994 was recommended by the HHS Committee and it analyses the positions for fiscal year 26. All right. The next is a $206,414 reduction, which would annualize the reduction of federal grant for the mobile crisis outreach teams with full year funding and a full time employees build to the general fund. So the FY25, the executive recommended and the council approved a $1.5 million increase for the replacement of MCOT federal grant funding but general funding to both maintain the existing services and add two additional teams for seven MCOT team totals. So however in fiscal year 25, the MCOTs were still grant funded for the first three months and now that they're shifting fully to the general fund, this proposed change reflects the reduction of the grant funding utilized in fiscal year 25. And then concurrent increase of the same amount is reflected in multi-program adjustments for the general fund, annualizations. Now that I'm caught teams are fully general fund funded. The next is a $555,400 reduction of ARPA Substance Use Services grants. So the state provided one time ARPA grant for the screening, brief intervention and referral services for substance use at hospitals and DHG, just BHCIS with behavioral health and crisis services at the expectation for all ARPA grant funding to be utilized for the specific pandemic related limited time services. And they do note that hospitals have the abilities as self-determined if they would continue the service as it is billable. And the committee recommends approval with the reduction. Finally, there's a $357,219 reduction of elimination of one-time fiscal year 25-980 grants. We all note that the county's national 988 suicide and crisis lifeline and the Montgomery County hotline counselors both serve to support supportive listening lines, risk assessment facilitators and connectors to additional resources. And that our local behavioral health authority oversees the contract with every mind for the 98 like fine services. And then in fiscal year 25, there was an increase of $1.3 million in grant funds. And this is just reflecting the one time nature in reduction in this FY26 recommended operating budget. however, there's no assumed service impacts and they expect equivalent funding for fiscal year 26 and grants that have not yet been identified from the state level. All right, and the last item is related to the capital improvements program. That's how we're going to go through that. Yeah, right? Yeah, keep going. Okay. You're on a roll. Yes. So the last is related to that diversion centric CIP project where the county executive had submitted several amendments for this project throughout this current calendar year. So the first was in January 2025 as well as in March 2025 in addition to a fiscal year 25 supplemental that the council has approved and then most recently in April 2025 to reflect all of the changes from both the supplemental for fiscal year 25 and the amendments made in January and in April. So this CIP amendment as approved by the committee, I've recommended approval for by the committee. One reflects the $253,000 shift from the through fiscal year 24 period into your fiscal year 25 and beyond to reflect the actuals and close out after fiscal year 24. The next is a $650,000 advancement of Geo Bond and State Aid Authority into fiscal year 26, which was that supplemental that the council did approve recently. And then the third is $500,000 and in new state aid specifically for the diversion center project. And so the funding related to the supplemental for 25 and the $500,000 increase in state aid is related to a stabilization unit that is required by Comar. And this will be specifically placed in the Rockville Pickard Drive location and will allow walk-in services and youth oriented service provision. All right, Councilmember Avonado is anything else to add for that, buddy? All right, I think there's nothing I I think on this one to add to the reconciliation list. And so I think all those in favor of the behavioral health and crisis services budget, please raise your hand. In the committee recommendation, thank you. Thank you all for waiting, Dr. Martin. Thank you so much for being here with us virtually and appreciate all the work. And just want to also know the Capital and Fervent's program amendment specifically as well. Yeah, we would like to separate hand for that. For the capital improvements, amendments, all those in favor, please raise your hand. It is unanimous. Thank you for keeping us on track. I appreciate it. All right. Now we are done with that budget. Next, we are moving on to the children, youth, and families within HHS. And I'm still turning it over to Chair Abhinaz. Yeah, this one will be pretty quick. There's just a couple of items. Yep. True. Too Shay. Yeah. Totally jinxed it. Just last. Yeah. With the council president's indulgence, I turn it back over to the staff. All right. So the Children, Youth and Family Service area within DHHS was reviewed in three separate sessions. The first was just an HHS session focusing on the two items which we will discuss now, but there are also two joint sessions with education and culture on school-based services provided through health and human services as well as the early care and education. So we'll start with the HHS only items. So the county executive has recommended two reductions. The first is for $42,000 for post adoption services or referral services available from the state. So currently the county and the state both offer post adoption services with similar scopes. However, DHS now plans to leverage the states post adoption services contracts as well. So the county's child welfare services office states that the recommended $42,000 reduction in county funding will translate to approximately eight local families being referred to the states post adoption services contract. and the counties FY26 recommended amount for the post adoption services is at $208,000, and DHHS does not expect negative impacts to service unless state funding amounts were to change from the FY25 approved. And the committee recommends approval. The second is a $348,478 reduction for the summer electronic benefit transfer or EBT summer and winter school break children's food program to be fully funded by the state. So in 2024 the state transitioned from the the summer EBT program to Sunbucks expanding eligibility and award amounts. Specifically the Sunbucks provides approximately $40 per month for June, July and August, which is about about a $10 increase in the previous program per month for each eligible student and does not require a local match. The executives recommended budget reduction reflects that statefully funding the SunBucks program, and for example, in June to September 2024, about 88,738 unique students receive SunBuck benefits, totaling about $10.6 dollars. The committee also recommends approval of that. Anything else to share out where I was? No that's it for the HHS specific. I'm now going to yield to you. Council President to yield to Chair Jowondo, Vice President Jowondo because the next two were joint committee sessions chaired by our Education and Culture Committee Chair. Okay. Council Vice President Jo, we'll take us through the next items. Thank you. I'll try not to mess up the role here. So the Joint ECHS committee met on April 24th and we discussed school-based health services as well as the Lighthouse Initiative. Had a great conversation. The Joint Committee were recommended approving unanimously all of the County executives recommendations except for a 114,134 dollar expansion of the Silver Spring International Middle School's Lincoln Gis, it's a learning program to full day. That was placed on the reconciliation list as a possible reduction due primarily to space constraints. It's not that we don't want that to happen. It's just I know know the Council President and District Council member would agree. It's just it's not going to happen at this point and they're going to come back. We're going to come back later in the year and see about progress about expansion there. The so the viable location was the issue. I'll turn it over to Miss Rodriguez Hernandez if I left anything out on that point or if anyone else was coming on the list. Nope. Okay. So that was the recommendation for school-based wellness services. All right. Since we have the recommendation to take a reduction because this project is not ready at the school. Though we are on full record of being supportive of it. To do something else. Okay. I'm just going to walk through the packet and or there has been additional information from government county public schools both on Green Castle Elementary School and on Silver Spring as requested by the committee. If you would like that to be shared as well. Sure. Please. Okay. Alrighty. And I also know that we do have a high school on the Centro and Expanded Wellness Services CIP amendment to also review as part of this. So the executive proposed the enhancement of $214,134 for the linkages to learning programs where both Greencast Elementary School and Silver Spring International Middle School currently have part-time services provided in their facilities. The enhancement was to move move both of them to full time. And as noted by the Chair of the Joint Committee recommends approval of about $100,000 for full-time linkages to learning at Green Castle Elementary School. And DGJ just did provide an update on the needs assessment for that school and noted that the addition of the third full-time staff member would help to increase the number students served and clients served from additional 20 per month. And for Silver Spring International Middle School, which was about $114,000, $134,000, the Joint Committee also recommended the reduction in place on the reconciliation list due to the effect that the facility, the full linkages to learning full-time suite, it will not be ready by August 2025 and we'll note that MCPS did provide an update on the bottom of page 21 stating that there is the potential for existing facilities to hold the expansion two full-time services. However, there is no known completion date for when the actual linkages to learning suite will be ready for full-time services. Thank you very much. All right. So on page 19, we have the two reductions that the committee recommended in the full-time linkages to learning staff at Green Castle Elementary School and Silver Spring International Middle School. All those in favor of the reduction, please raise your hand. And that is unanimous. But we really support them. I can't wait. When it's ready to come back and let us know. Turn back to Council Vice President Jouando. And I'll turn it back to Council staff. All right. So just noting that reduction was for the Silver Spring International Middle School full-time expansion. Yeah, you can just run it only. Okay. So the next item would be for the High School Wellness Center and Expanded Wellness Services, where the Joint Committee reviewed in January 2025, the executives recommended a for 26th Capital Budget in 25 to 30 CIP amendment, and March 2025 the executive transmitted an additional amendment to include a technical adjustment to the High School Wellness Center and Expanded Wellness Services Project specifically for Springbrook High School. So the adjustment shifts the $3.9 million out of fiscal year 26 and $2.1 million into fiscal year 27 and $1.9 million into fiscal year 28. So the change updates the expenditure schedule to align with the actual expected three year completion date for the construction of the Wellness Center at Springbrook High School. And the total cost of the project is estimated at 4.5 million. So about 600,000 remains in FY 26. So the Joint Committee recommends approval of that amendment as well. We did. Oh, I'm sorry, Madam President. I just wanted to go. I know you said it kind of quickly as we did. Green Castle was approved. It was just the only reduction was the with Sims for the space constraints. And yes, you stated the spring group one. That's we concurred. Do we need a hand vote on the CIP? Yes other items that were recommended for approval by the committee. Just quickly go back to the committee. I think that's it for that. We also have the like has initiative and all the other items that were recommended for approval by the committee. Just quickly go over that lighthouse item that this is a one-time funded item, but it has the program has occurred every year. The budget for this year is $7,089,067. The HHS Committee recommended approval. Okay. I guess we take a hand vote. All those and improve the life house budget. Please raise your hand and that is unanimous. Now we're done. Now we're done with that one. All right. So that I'm going to admit I'm a little lost. Yeah I just want to make sure that we covered everything. So we covered everything we need to do that was HHS and EC. So now are we on the Children's Opportunity Alliance Fund NDA? So we still have to cover Early Care and Education, which was the third Early Care Education and Culture and Health and Human Services Committee. Okay. So that's several program areas under Children, Youth and Families, and the Early Care and Education NDA and the Children's Opportunity Alliance NDA as well. Right. Okay. So we started out on page 18, and now we are shifting over to page 22. Okay. If you could just keep telling us the page number. Thank you. Thank you. And so I'll just start here that we met on the joint EC, HHS committees met on May 2nd, and we discussed the early childhood, early care and education items including childcare subsidies, children's opportunity and alliance in DA, early care and education, early childhood services, head start, pre-kindergarten and CIPM amendments related to childcare renovations and playgrounds. We unanimously recommended maintaining the count executives proposed budget for each of those that are detailed in the packet. The Joint Committee was very happy to hear about the ECE initiatives spend down compared to last year. And it was a much smoother committee, so hopefully we've been much smoother today. And those are remember we had lengthy conversations around that and really appreciate the collaboration of everyone to get to a much better place. We also had agreement between the joint committee to with all stakeholders that the county executive would shift funds between COA and ECEs, NDAs, the million dollars that was shifted over last year. And that will be dedicated to creating pre-Kind of Art and Seats. And in particular, it will help us buffer against any federal changes to head start funding that we know unfortunately are coming and have already come in some cases and provide a more complete year round of day seats that is compliant with the blueprint requirements. One more piece of good news is the cross community up county Chalkers Center is coming along with fruition and the up county area will appreciate that. There was a memo from Council members Luki and Mink at the committee, joint committee to propose a $250,000 in additional funds for COA, for children's opportunity alliance, NDA, and that has been added to the reconciliation list in three tranches. And then I will now turn it over to Council staff to navigate us through this. All right. I think that was a great summary of the recommendations from the Joint Committee. As Chair Joando mentioned, the first was a $535,781 increase for the Early Childhood Services program area under Children, Youth and Families. And so this would help shift five positions moving from the non-departmental account to the Early Childhood Services budget in the HHS program area and reflect the more permanent nature of their roles in expanding and strengthening early intervention services and the committee recommended approval of that. And that also reflects a shift of positions into the consolidated local implementation grant as well. So they were the shift of those positions as well. The next item was $175,340 to help supplant a Maryland family network grant reduction with general funds. So in fiscal year 25 the Maryland family network grant was reduced from $554,000, $38,299,692 and so DHHS is prioritizing the personnel and maintaining them through the general funds. And similarly, with the Infinite Early Childhood Mental Health Reduction, where there was a reduction in fiscal year 25 compared to 24, where they are moving these two grant funded positions into the general fund for $130,888. And that's for the early care and child services, early childhood services under the Department of Health and Human Services operating budget in children, youth and families. For the early care and education NDA, as Chair Joao and Doe mentioned, that the funding for early care and education initiative to continue ongoing services amounts to about $4,038,634. And I'll concurrently discuss also the shift from the Children's Opportunity Alliance into the EC-NDA of that $1 million. So as noted in fiscal year 25, the council required that the early care and education NDA spend down their Carey Forward Balance, where they received an appropriation of about $10 million originally, with $10 million in that carry forward balance. As a result of that, the NDA was able to support additional childcare seats publicly funded subsidized childcare seats throughout the county. And so the funding of the $4,038,634 is to maintain the support of those seats and additional services provided through the NDA as a result of spending down the Carey Ford balance and increasing the number of seats available through that spend down. And then the $1 million shift was concurrently agreed upon with the Children's Opportunity Alliance and the Early Care and Education Initiative Steering Committee on how to allocate that funding whereas noted it will be prioritized first for any shortfalls between Head Start or Early Head Start on the federal level, and then supporting blueprint seats for both moving it from part time to full time day, as well as 180 days to 365 days a year. So it moves from part time to full time day and year. And that was both were recommended for approval by the joint committee as well. There is also a note about shifting the existing expenses from personnel cost to operating expenses to reflect the elimination of five vacant merit staff that were fully funded by the early care and education NDA as well. And those staff were originally going to support the expansion of two family involvement centers, two new family involvement centers in the county. However, they have been shifted to operating expenses to help support ongoing services. And that was approved by the committee as well. And then the Children's Opportunity Alliance NDA has a 231,200 dollar reduction of one time fiscal year 25 enhancements where the Children's's opportunity line supported data dashboard, public awareness materials and campaign information, blueprint supports, inequity coach and staff and board trainings, and the committee also recommended approval of that reduction. And then as the chair mentioned, there is the $250,000 recommended enhancement for the children's opportunity lines of one time general funding as proposed by council members mink and lukegae originally And as it says in the packet we split that up unanimously and had a lot of discussion about What these positions are gonna do and and one is already in place. This is to make it full time And I'll let the sponsors if they want to speak But we split it into three tran of 75, 75, and 100 from Montgomery moving forward. So it might make sense just to mention briefly what the each are. So council members, no, I'm just gonna add, the first community that is on was the first community that was on was the first community that was on was the first community that was on the first community that was on driving the organizations for forward, committee engagement, outreach, and education as well. So, this is a very important thing to do. I'm going to start with the second. I'm going to start with the second. I'm going to start with the second. you I know that. I thought! And do you know what else? How much money do you think we collect? I love. I think it's 100 million billion. Oh, I wish. If it was everyone would be rich. Yes. Our budget in Montgomery County to take care of over 1 million residents is actually 7.5 billion dollars. So a lot of money, yes? Yeah, money has a hundred dollars. Oh really? Okay. What do you think we spend more than half of that budget on? Justx and tails and stuff that are used for school. Good answer. OK. Our budget is spent more than 50% on you all. All of our schools, early childhood education, so pre-K, kindergarten, all the way up to high school. High schools are very long times. It'll be here before you know. The council is your home. I work for you. So if you ever need anything, I'm only a phone call away. Or you can come and visit me next time at the council and hopefully you have fun learning more about. I like your dress. I think you, I love your dress. That's my favorite color. And who's gonna be a council member when they grow up? One, two, three. Oh, I love it. We're gonna have all you take in our jobs at a few years. Seriously. [♪ Music playing in background, cheering and cheering for the crowd. Talk to me about why we're here in a laundromat in the Long Branch in neighborhood in Montgomery County. We're here to get the word out today about Medicaid. We're 20 million Americans across the US have been now disenrolled from Medicaid for administrative paperwork reasons. This is one of the zip codes in the state that has one of the highest rates of procedural disenrollment. Thinking about how do we actually get through the paperwork, get the word out about not only how do you rec certify the benefit, but then after that, how do we actually understand the benefit and use it? Can I hold it or you got that? We find that linger vats are about 70% female, and about two thirds of people are living in multi-generational housing, and so it's really, really valuable time with the busiest families. Often in black and Latina neighborhoods across Maryland to make sure that people have the information about keeping their Medicaid insurance, making sure you have SNAP. And we can go through the SNAP application together. That they understand how to use the processes and more importantly that we help people all the way through the process. That's what Fabric Health does? The work is actually happening the way that Joanne is doing it, right? Through the roads, how do you introduce yourself, getting to know families, getting the thing done, right as we professor waiting there? The first surprise that we're able to call on the spot to the state and make sure that they're renewing their Medicaid to make sure they're not losing their benefits. And some people don't even know that they have to renew a year. Right now I am loading up her card with $10. There we go. Families who... They run... And some people don't even know that they have to renew every year. Right now I am loading up her card with $10. There we go. Families who they don't realize they need it. So because if people can't see us remotely, we're not here. So we can pick it up where you are. Thank you. All righty, we were at the tail end of the $250,000 proposals from the Council Members' Week in Lookeh, where we were at the tail end of the $250,000 proposals from the Council Members' Mink and Luki, where we were discussing the three entrants. So the first was the community engagement liaison for 75,000. The second was 75,000 for the community ambassador pilot. And finally, the $100,000 for the Montgomery moving forward state advocacy effort to continue their work on encouraging the workforce career ladder, the workforce registry, and the creation of early care and education statewide task force as well. Okay. Great. And that yeah, that was unanimous for three tranches. And I just wanted to say as we wrap up and take a hand vote, we've got everyone up here and as smoothly and as quickly as this is going, it's a testament to the work. Not only the importance of this work, the fact that we did expand seats, we start every meeting and discussion talking about how many kids are out there, the 37,000 that don't have seats today, how do we drive towards that number? And I just really want to thank you in front of the whole body on behalf of everybody for the work you've done to get to a much better place. I know they're still rough edges, but we're in a really good place in the kids of Montgomery County are thankful, and I'm happy that the work you've done to get to a much better place. I know there's still rough edges, but we're in a really good place. And the kids of Montgomery County are thankful. And I'm happy that the work will continue. So with that, Madam President, I'll turn it on. Thank you so much. And I just want to also add my thanks to everyone who's working on this issue. It goes to EC and HHS, but I don't think there's not one of us up here who is not very much invested in the outcomes of our early childhood education. So thank you so much for that. So. in HHS, but I don't think there's not one of us up here who is not very much invested in the outcomes of our early childhood education. So thank you so much for that. So we have no reductions to take votes on across these budgets. There is the one addition of the three chances that will go on the reconciliation list, but just to make sure we're on the record, we had the overall children, youth, and families budget within HHS, and we just need a hand vote on that because we didn't do that. So all those in favor of that budget, please raise your hand. That is unanimous. Next, we have the Children's Opportunity Alliance Fund, NDA, all those in favor of that budget. Please raise your hand. That is unanimous. And then finally, the early care and education, non-departmental account, the NDA, all those in favor of the committee recommendation, raise your hand, and that is unanimous. And so thank you. and then finally the early care and education, non-departmental account, the NDA, all those in favor of the committee recommendation, raise your hand, and that is unanimous. And so thank you, thank you for being here, very much appreciated in all your work. And now we will, we did item 10. Just one CIP, I am sorry. I'm related to playground. Playgrounds, yes, I did know of that. All right, we're not moving on yet. Playgrounds, very important. The final is a amendment to the fiscal year 25 to 30 CIP for child care renovations playgrounds. On March 6, the Joint Committee reviewed and recommended approval of a January 2025 transmitted amendment from the county executive that reduced the total project by about $2.5 million and shifted about 1.9 million into the beyond the six-year period. However, in April 2025, the County Executive Transmitted an additional amendment to reflect the addition of $850,000 in state aid, specifically to be used for child care renovation playgrounds. The project description form highlights that the new funding will accelerate the work previously scheduled for a fiscal 027 into 26 and added additional capacity in the out years. However, the executive branch is still finalizing the updated project schedule and funding allocations and is noted in March. The executive staff will provide a comprehensive re-evaluation of cost estimates across all child care renovation projects to be performed for the FY27 to 32 CIP. And the Joint Committee recommends approval of this amendment. All right, all those in favor of the CIP amendment, please raise your hand. And that is unanimous. All right, now we're done. So we did item 10 this morning. So now we're moving on to item 11 and we're still in a Health and Human Services and we are on the services to end and prevent homelessness Seth and I will turn it back to Chair Albinaz. Thank you everyone so as we received an update from the incredible Seth team we learned as confirmed that the number of our unhoused population has continued to increase. And so we appreciate their tremendous efforts and leadership. Ms. Clemens Johnson, if you can let us know where exactly we are on the packet, what page number we're on, just to make sure everybody's on the same page. Yes, correct. Page 16. 16, perfect. Thank you. And so with that, Ms. Clemens Johnson, I'll turn it over to you. Good afternoon and thank you. We are discussing the services to end and prevent homelessness. Budget for FY26 recommended. On page 16 of your packet, there is a list of five items that have been recommended and approved by the committee. One is a CE amendment that we will talk about last. The total increase to the CF programmatic increase to the CF budget would be 13.2 million if all items are recommended by the council. I will start with item number one on page 16. The short term housing and resolution program to provide up to 12 months of rental assistance and navigation services to help households resolve their housing crisis. This item is $6,930,000, $10.00. So sharpest purpose is to address the growing population of families experiencing homelessness for the first time for minimal need with ongoing services. That program provides up to 12 months of rental assistance. This was really DHHS goal to shift from using motel sheltering for families and to help them sustain their current housing. So this program reopened. It was a COVID-related program and it reopened in February of 2025 thanks to a special appropriation approved by the county council in December. That was a 1.6 million investment from the council at that time and this investment is requested for 6.9 for FY26. As of February 2025, around 80 families have been housed and the committee recommends approval. Okay, we'll move to the next is the eviction and rental assistance programs to provide housing stabilization services and the amount of $2,946,932,000. Again, this amount would annualize the special appropriation 2542 funding provided through the housing stabilization services, eviction prevention, and rental assistance program. The programs have different eligibility requirements but aim to keep residents from becoming unstable in their housing. All right, we will move to the next item number three, increased funding to maintain rapid rehousing program due to increased rents of COVID-19 funding. So rapid rehousing intervention is a quick response, desired to provide services to those needing housing quickly. There was funding from the HIF and DHHS that supports this program. In the DHHS budget alone, this would increase the funding by 103% for FY 25. FY 26, excuse me. Okay, and the last item is to replace opera funding with general funds to support primitive supportive housing for 39 households. So this 1.2 million is replacing some ARPA funding that we won't have for FY 26. The 39 households are currently supported with ARPA dollars. If this funding is not provided, those 39 households would need to be should be shifted to likely some other funding within in DHHS, which they currently do not have. So there is a recommendation to approve the 1.2 million from the HHS committee. And there was a county executive amendment submitted April 25th for two diversion specialists brokers. This is replacing COVID-19 area grant funds of $177,000. DVirtuan Specialists Enhance the Systems Capacity to Permit Homelessness and Reduce Reliance on Emergency Shelters. During the committee meetings, actually the behavioral health and crisis director came and spoke about their work with CF and how they work together and utilize the diverse and specialist even to help prevent people showing up at the crisis center. So there is a recommendation from the committee of approval of the 177,000. Chair, thank you. Chair Albinazin, anything else, Dad? No, that's it. Just the staff crushed it. Thank you all so much for your work. Really appreciate it. I believe that concludes the HHS specific committee recommendations. And we now go to a joint HHS and PHP committee sessions which were chaired by chair Freed. Great. Actually, the council member make did you want to? Okay. Yeah, just wanted to note again that the diversion specialists that those as noted in the packet that that's not new positions that is a continuation of existing positions. So if we don't fund those, then that will be a reduction in our diversion services and each of those diversion specialists has a case load of about 60 people per month and the rates in FY25 are about 80% being diverted. Thanks, Matt. Great. And I just want to note, Christine Haing has joined us virtually. So thank you. know you've had a very busy day and we appreciate you joining us for this session. And before I turn it over to Council Member Freeson, I do want to note the, as Council Member Albinos noted earlier, when we were doing another HHS budget, how important the sharp money is in last year when we didn't fully fund this and actually reduce this? We had to come back and do a settlement in December. And this keeps our families out of motels and into housing. So I just kind of wanted to underscore really the need for us to keep these things in the budget. So in my turn, you would have council member Freetson or back to council member Alvernos. I think we need to vote on the SEF budget. You want to do on this budget first? Okay. So all the additional two diversion specialists brokers will be added to the reconciliation list. And so there are no reductions with this budget. So all those in favor of the SEF budget, please raise your hand. And that's unanimous. All right, now I'll turn over to Councilmember Freeds. Thank you. We met as a joint committee. Thank you to Chair Albernaz and to joint committee members to go through the rental assistance programs. These are funded through the HIFT, the kind of executive recommends an increase of 2,339,178 the FY25 approved operating budget for rental assistance programs funded through the HIF, the FY26 recommended DHHS housing initiative fund rental subsidy program was reduced due to the shift of the housing unlimited Contracted DHCA was just moved from one department to another for fiscal year 26. So that was a no net change dynamic from one part of the budget to another. The FY 25 cost of the contract to HHS is $797,916 and the cost to DHCA is $1,019,664. and this is due to the increased cost to serve additional clients. The Joint Committee recommends approval of the FY26 recommended HIF rental subsidy programs as recommended by the county executive and that was a six-nothing unanimous vote. Okay. Council member Abernall, do you have any comments on that? All right. Not seeing any other questions or anything. All those in favor of this budget and the committee recommendations. Joint committee recommendations, please, there's your hand. And that is unanimous. Council member Abernall, is there anything else on HHS? No, just thanks, everybody. Thank you. I just thank you Director Bridges to everyone in your department. Please extend our great deal of gratitude and thank you for your patience today as we went through this. Thank you to our amazing staff for collecting all this and helping us walk through this today. We are now turning over to the Department of Recreation. Thank you Madam President. All right. Who do I turn this to now? Who's right? I think Andrew, not a split. Okay. It's a non-recreation. You're doing a rec. We're on the ABB. We want you to get to the school based, school programs, then we're in. All right. All right. All right, over now. Right. To Council Member Freetzen, as we have our Department of Rec come up and I do want to note that this will be Director Riley's last county budget. So we should have like balloons come down or something for you. All right, we're sad. We're sad. All right. I'll turn it over to Council of a Council of Member Freason. All right. There is going to be a time for us to just absolutely sing the praises and shout from the mountain tops of both how much we appreciate director Riley, but also how sad we are to see you go. unwelcomeelcome news but it's certainly well deserved by you but I will save my additional comments for later lest we have every single colleague feel the need to get in the queue to to join and because we want her to continue to do work and the limited time she has in this role doing the spectacular work she does. But welcome to director Riley, welcome to the whole team. It's great to see you again. I just want to express all of our appreciation for everything that recreation does. It's an unbelievable array of services and offerings. It's hard to fully capture and quantify everything that at the Department of Recreation, touches, aquatics, and camps, and after school programs, and playgrounds and parks and exercise facilities, our youngest and our oldest residents and so much in between. We talk a lot about parks and the mental health and the recreation and the quality of life dynamics and certainly Department of Recreation is right there with it as well. I just looked yesterday and I think I saw table tennis open play, family paint and sip, 55 plus appreciation lunch and teens night out, art class, plum gar 55 plus, a trip to Glentstone, a pickleball tournament, and white oak day. And I was just what I captured quickly by checking out the website. So suffice to say you all and your entire team are incredibly busy and with a limited staff and major challenges there, which I know all of us understand and appreciate. So before we get into this, I'd happy to turn it over to you, Director R you have any initial comments and I can go through the committee's recommendations. Sure thank you I'll keep it short. I just want to thank the county executive OMB and all the staff who help put the budget together and support us throughout the whole year and of course to each and every one of you have come to all of our events and all of our activities. We appreciate your support. So thank you. Thank you. Speaking of all that work, committee recommendations, I'll go through them quickly. Increase costs of $98,782 for an overtime adjustment. We added an agreed, concurred with the $10,662. This was a one time fund that actually looks like it won't be necessary based on the additional information. I expressed my shock that the bank was gonna charge the Department of Recreation $11,000 to print out checks. It seemed like we're a pretty good client. And normally, even personal banking accounts, they offer that to new clients free of charge. So it turns out a friendly conversation. And that was able to be dealt with. So we're able to address that. I'm not sure if we're going to need to reflect a change so that we can actually reduce. I believe that 10,662 on the rec list no longer is necessary. So that will be part of the committee's recommendation because we asked to look into that and they dealt with that. Except the increased costs for 711,270 for utility cost escalations for the Silver Spring recreation and aquatic center that was just based on the updated costs from DGS. Included in that you'll see a series of breakdowns 22,512 for staff parking reimbursement, which as we know has been, some of we've heard quite a bit from staff, increased costs of 6,763 for fireworks contracts, and increased costs of 5,850 for the summer camp nurse contract. Additionally, the PHP committee recommended the following to add $47,319 to increase the PLR. I'll just note this was something that was also recommendation last year was ultimately not funded off the reconciliation list. This is a nominal amount of money, but it notes the fact that the level of PLR, which is allowing just to maintain the current level of service so that the deterioration from regular wear and tear doesn't overwhelm the facilities that we already have, hasn't even reached back to the FY08 levels. Pre-recession is former director, Alburnaz can attest. We did ask the department to share with us what could be done with those funds. And so they estimated around it off number of 50,000. It's included in the addendum for the public and for colleagues. You can see half the equipment in a fitness room to be replaced. All the cardio equipment, reapply the coat to two pools. Replace the bleachers in a gym. Renovate two different kitchens and community centers. These are these are not, you know, major, you know, huge projects, they have a massive impact on the use of these facilities that we are doing. So that was included onto the reconciliation list. And then lastly, just wanted to note, a reduction of 159,806 to count for the consolidation of funding going towards the Kid Museum NDA in order to consolidate all of the Kid Museum funding, which over the course of several years based on our ongoing partnership and support, we were funding them in a number of different areas. We had created the skills for the future. We had ongoing contracts through Department of Recreation and then a standalone NDA and it was cumbersome and confusing and hard to manage both from an accounting standpoint and for the organization itself and to be a better partner. This was something that was supported by the organization and something that the committee and the department very much supported as well. So no net impact. It's the same number of dollars going to the kid museum, but it's shifting from a variety of different places within the budget to shift net neutral into the NDA for this budget and the goal is for subsequent budgets moving forward. I'll note that 3% inflationary increases in other dynamics would have been true in outside budgets or in one budget so there's no impact there either as we discussed earlier today with our nonprofit partners but that was the committee recommendation. So the one change is the shift just from the county executives recommendation and then the other change is the 47,000 on to the reclist for Pilar just to get before more inflation back to pre recession. I kept saying pre pandemic because that is what we usually use as the point in time, but it's the pre recession fiscal year 08, you know, 18 years ago levels. So with that, that's the committee recommendation. And then note the banking is is slightly different from what was in the packet, but we had updated information that could be netted out. So hopefully that'll offset some of the P.L.R. suggestion. And now we'll turn it over to the council vice president Jawanda to go through the joint committee's recommendations. Wonderful. Thank you and I was among both of these communities. It was fun and and and I would just say the Pilar we almost didn't put it on but we we decided that it really is so bad that we need to put something on there. So I hope we can get them keep them going forward. The joint committee met and approved investments in expansion of Excel beyond the Bell, which is an amazing program that we continue to improve upon and expand to specifically who is recommended to 688,246 to expand EBB to Waters Landing Elementary and to East Silver Spring Elementary School. That's a a it's really important expansion in both parts of our county. Additionally we unanimously recommended the approval of $98,398 to fund a program manager to position to oversee and effectively implement the EBB expansion and that's really important along with these two new programs to keep the standards up. And then we also talked about not a budget implication, but just something council might want to know about out of school time access. We recommended to follow up meeting with collaboration council. We got a briefing to just kind of get a better handle and have a plan going forward to make sure all of our kids have access to out of school time like EBB and we will be the joint committee will be taking that up so those are the recommendations from the joint committee. Great thank you miss coming to anything to add I think they went through a lot. Beautiful summery snow notes. Great thank you all do you want to write any before. No, appreciate it. All right. Terrific. All right. So we have the recreation budget before we get to the CIP amendments. As we noted, there's a shift for the Kid Museum and the committee recommendations with one reduction in the amount of money that we thought the bank was going to charge, but I guess some public shaming in a committee session. And then we think that. So all those in favor of the committee recommendations for the Recreation Department budget, please raise your hand. And that's unanimous. And I think we had two CIP amendments. Let's just go to council? Miss Cummings? Okay. That's good. That's good. We do have two CIP amendments for the Department of Recreation. The first one is the Silver Spring Recreation and Aquatic Center. And just to note, we had discussed this previously at Committee in February, but there was a little bit of an update. The total project cost is $3.2 million over the six-year period. So while $2 million was previously approved by PHP, an additional $1.2 million was submitted in April. And the additional $1.2 million is going to be reconciled through Geobon funding and the FY26 CIP project. And in the County Executive's amendments received, there was also, I know on this women poll slide replacement, this is a net change of $1,7 and ninety one thousand dollars every the six-year period and Sorry bear with me Yes, it's just an updated PDF It's a cost to decrease to reflect the deferral of the German town outdoor pool project to align with the planned accessibility improvements in the ADA compliance project. Do you have any questions on those CIP items? Not seeing any, all those in favor of the CIP amendments, please raise your hands and that's unanimous. Awesome. Thank you very much for being here and that's the Recreation Department budget. Next we have skills for the future non-departmental account and I think I'm turning this over to Council Member Freedson. Sure. It's shifting over. Yeah so we talked about this already. Skills of the Future, the idea is to shift it over to the Kid Museum NDA. So this was noted previously. So we can take a vote on that. But essentially, it's just a shift from having skills the future have a separate NDA versus, including it all in the Kid Museum NDA for clarity and for ease of understanding and for accounting purposes. So just a shift. All right. So this is just a shift, but let's just take a hand vote like we have on other things for the committee recommendation for the skills for the future NDA, all those in favor. And that's unanimous. Thank you very much. And now we will move over to the Kid Museum NDA for the FY26 operating budget and Council Vice President Juwando is going to handle this one. All right. Thank you so much to our partners and I maybe if we could give Kid Museum a Cedar 2. Not everyone has to leave, but just yeah, exactly. Exactly. The County Executive just obviously we all love Kid Museum and we appreciate you all being here and your great partner. County Executive recommended an increase of $57,499, which represented the year share of the 3% inflationary investment for non-profit service providers, Education and Culture Committee voted unanimously to support that recommendation. We also talked about the broader landscape of Kid Museum funding, and we've talked about this a little bit throughout the course of the budget. For example, that at the time of the committee, and I'm hoping there's not more, but I will ask you to give an update. You had lost a grant, a federal grant from the museum, library sciences of 159,000. Or excuse me more than that actually, it was a 700,000 something. It was 235. Oh, the 230. Yeah, I think the total, you had another grant that was potentially- Put the fix at risk of that amount. And so we talked about that. The committee in FY25, the Kid Museum received $159,000 from the Department of Recuriation, $302,000, $1.6, $1.6 from the skills from the future. In addition to the NDA, as we just discussed, we're now going to consolidate all those in to the NDA, but it will still be marked at what you're doing with the amount so we don't lose that because there are different functionalities with the money. In a coordination with PHP, we did that and then I would just with the President's permission just allow, kid, if there's anything that they wanted to add based on anything new that's happened. Thank you. It's a pleasure being here and sitting in for Karo who is attending a conference right now, but I'm very pleased to be here and very much appreciative of the support. We have fortunately not terminated any other grants at this time, but are continuing to watch the federal landscape as we do have a federal earmark and other applications for FY 26 federal government awards. So we are very appreciative of the support. It is critical to us during this time. So thank you. Thank you. And those are unanimous recommendations. Terrific. Not. Yeah. Council member, absolutely. Sorry, just being a math nerd. The page four, I fully support this, but page four, there's the table three. It's just a math error on that. And I think it was noted in the work session, but not in the packet. Thanks. Thank you. Thanks for catching that. All right. Seeing no other questions or anything, all those in favor of the committee recommendation for the committee. Kid Museum, please raise your hand and that's unanimous. Thank you all and thank you for your patience today. Our last item for this session before we go into our by-county meeting this afternoon is our community use of public facilities and I will turn this back to Council Vice President Joando. Thank you and last but not least, CUP, come on down. The E&C Committee unanimously recommended approval of the Count Executive's proposed FY26 operating budget for cup. This was an increase totaling a 12 million $192,169. It's an increase of approximately $751,000 or 6.6 over FY25's budget. This includes 4.4 million in personnel costs and 7.8 in operating costs with no change to staffing levels. In the committee also unanimously supported the executives proposed updates to CUP's fee structure, including a, and we had a lot of discussion about this and a lot of charts and graphs. But the fees hadn't been increased since when? When was date? Okay, you weren't on the mic, but the 2009 I repeated for 2009 so another long time ago We it was a 10% increase for nonprofits County residents and before and after school childcare providers a 12.5% increase for commercial users and out of and out of county permit holders to recognize that we want to prioritize in county. As I mentioned, there was a lot of discussion about this, not no increase since 2009. And in some cases, the chart that's reflected in your packet, some fees are going down for some people, but and for the ones that's going up there, for the most part, not very large increases. And we had some discussion and to see how about that as well. This is a reflecting recommendations from Cups 2024 fee study. And it's an enterprise fund, so they have to restore their fund, which really got hit hard during COVID. And this will help bring them some of the way back. It's going to be a multi-year process. So with that, I will turn it over to there's nothing to add. Did I take all your thunder? Okay. Not at all. So yes, just the count executives recommending an overall three year multi-period increase for the 10% to 12.5% for the for the next fiscal year, however, of course the council can only improve for this fiscal year. And so they just didn't know that the fiscal plan included in the support and in the executive's recommended budget reflects all three years of increases. However, council staff and office management budget included fiscal plans that just showed the one year increase as well for the record. Yes, and I will mention too. The long awaited MOU with MCPS and CUP is going to be delivered this summer. That was a promise, correct? Well actually we finished it early. Oh, it's in place now. All right, there we go. I'd like to hear that. I'm excited. Sorry, a little probably too excited, but about it in MOU, but it's been a long time coming. It's a living document too. It's a three-year document. However, we do have the opportunity to renew or to, for a year after the three years, or we can also, and I'm sorry, for the record, Ramona Belpier, and Director of Community and Public Facilities. We have the opportunity for one year and we have the opportunity each year if there's a change with the consent. And I'm sorry for the record, we're Mountivel Pearson Director of Communities, public facilities. We have the opportunity, we're new for one year, and we have the opportunity each year if there's a change with the consent of the parties to amend. Got it. Glad to hear that. So Madam President, those were the recommendations. Great, thank you. I have Council Member Fanning Gonzalez. Thank you so much very quickly. And I wholeheartedly agree with the committee's recommendation. I just have to say it on the record. I do get very frustrated with the system of Cuff. And as you may know, I get so many complaints because people, you know, it's greater we have the MOU with MCPS, but we need at some point to really rethink how the system takes place. it is very confusing for people when they're reserving spaces between the red department, parking planning, now MCPS, it's a mess and we end up, especially this reconcilment, we end up getting all those phone calls and even for me it's confusing. So at some point, at the end of this year, at some point, we really need to rethink the whole system. That's it, thank you. All right, not seeing any other questions. We have a recommendation from the committee based on the County Executives recommendation. All those in favor, please raise your hand. And those opposed, so that is 10 to 1. Much easier doing that way. Thank you very much for coming. That is our last item for this afternoon at this session. The council will be meeting with our colleagues in Prince George's virtually at 3 p.m. today for our by-county meeting. And then after that we are adjourned and then we will come back tomorrow for more. Thank you all and appreciate everyone's patience today. Wayne, a Silver Spring native built B-Mighty fitness with one goal in mind. To offer his clients a diverse range of options to help them discover their inner strength and push beyond