work session. The proceeding this morning is a hybrid meeting which is being conducted in person and via WebEx teleconference. The public may view through live stream available through the County Council website. At this time I will do a roll call of our council members Dr. Jones. Good morning everyone. Good morning Miss Young is joining shortly. Miss Rigby. Hello and Mr. Youngman. Here. We will now proceed with our agenda. I do believe we have three items on them. The first being grant funding to General County projects and I see we have Dr. Sun with us. Behind that we have the Elecats City Safe and Sound FUB works program that should take us through lunch and after lunch we will get to downtown Columbia including after lunch, after lunch, including TAATF, New Cultural Center, Transit Center and the new library. Rotation of questions would begin with Ms. Young but since she's not here, Ms. Youngman, you're going to be our starter. But Miss or Dr. Sandu, do you have, do you have any remarks you want to make before we get to? Yeah, I'll be happy to. Thank you. Good morning. Council Chair, Council Member Sarah, Holly Samba, Jimis Trader. I think they will share the little summary of the C projects that regarding the status update on the grants on that. There you have that right. So I will do what I will do is I kind of do an overview for all of them, and then after that if you have questions, both myself and also I believe there are so few project managers are available to answer questions there. So the same project actually have a multiple projects involved grants, but to most of these are state grants, there are very limited federal grants on that there, so I will just go over the list. First one, C0367, the federal and state grant. This is a one that has a probation $20 million, but use primarily to accommodate the ability to receive and spend COVID grants there. So at this point, it's primarily upper-founds there. So so far, there are a little more than $15 million dollars has to be awarded the rest of our primary placeholders on that wait wait Dr. Sun do you have like something that we can read off of with you I think we have I actually have the I think I have multiple copies or this is one of the documents we've received this morning no So this is the portal last week. But I have the copy of the. Would it be one of the addendums? Which one? And the gold. Ten. What's the title? That one that's like a dendom is it no Strangerson's working on getting it on the screen. I think it's a denim age. All right, I somehow did not have that in Friday or today's. All right, well, we have it now. Okay. Okay. I'll continue. So the first one is C0367 and that's one to. Can you hear me? Yeah, thank you. That's better So this is the one used to track receiving and spending federal Grants for COVID and that's primarily for reporting purpose because Apple has very specific reporting Requirement there so so far about 15 million having awarded the rest are place holders here So it's not necessary. We have any penny grants there. It's mostly is just used to track what has been used so far. And at this point, as you all know, that we already have been pretty much committed all our per funding, 100% on that there. So there's really not much additional grants pending there. So is so five millions like our exposure is far if that money got clogged. Like we haven't spent it yet. It's not necessarily, it's not spent, but also we don't necessarily have any funds on there. Because the 20 million originally is a likely a place holder for appropriation on that. At that point, we don't know exactly how much grants we're going to receive and spend against COVID grants. Now, is awarded money where we actually have received the funds? Yes. What about of that money? What have we actually spent? What have we actually put into projects? First, it's like sitting in the the bank waiting for the project to start. And I'm not I'm only asking this because I think that at least I would want to know this on every project is that's the money that's at risk if the federal government says hey we want our we want our five million dollars back. Well I can't give it back if Mark already put it in the tunnel Right that upper Actually, I think I think finance is on the course well My understanding is upper money based on initial conversation The what's already awarded I at this point I cannot say no risks It's completely complete. I'll risk there but what's already awarded my understanding is that you have very very little risk on that. It's only the one that has not get awarded from our per. Because most has been already dispersed so far. Our dispersed to nonprofit or to the project contract. Good. Okay. The next one is a little bit usual in-term arrangement. This is the C0319 Texture incremental financing projects. Again, later this project will be probably discussed in advance. But there is $18 million historical appropriation for Jack Ho and then it was a state funding there was $29 million I think in 23 and 24 respectively that amount there I was saying is a little unusual because there's agreement between state county and private developer here that allows the state to distribute the funding directly to vendors there not through the county. At the contract said they can't and that's what actually they did what I mean the state. So those funding didn't even come through the county at all. That's why it was it was actually not going to our system. It just go directly from the state to the vendors on that. So that was, that's what happened to those. And I just, I think I was just aware, I think based on states, religious legislation approved. It looks like there will be another $3 million just kind of funding for FY 26. The next one was a new culture center. That one, and there's a half million dollars, I talked with Kall, and that one also is direct to stay funding to the Housing Commission that doesn't go through the county on that there. But all the money has already been awarded. C0370, US1 corridor state, streets for all, this one was managed by OOT, transportation, that that's a federal funding that has already been received and spanned. Detention center renovation, that was the state funding that's already awarded. North Laura will pull $2 million, that's already awarded. High-rigged building renovation, that's already been awarded. Limwood School parking lot, that was original state appropriation of $100,000 there but that project is actually in a process of closing so that's not going to move so we're not going to do a state for that fundee reimbursement. Alexey the improvement this one last year there's a 10 million federal grant applied NOAA funding. Unfortunately, that one was not received, not approved last year. So there's a capacity of prior year appropriation of the tentating left that can be used for future purposes. That's part of reason that FY26, that project, including loans, but doesn't include any grants, new grants appropriation. And one piece of good news is what we learned is that the state actually approves another 10 million dollar of grants for a non-stunnel project. So what's going to happen is the prior year, this left an authority authorized, but in Materialized authority, we can use that accommodate this expect a new 10 million dollars on that there so I want to share that piece of information from everybody that we just learn about that. Is there any question or just keep going? For the bus stop improvement, this one has both states and the federal lending. So there's a couple of them. There are two pieces of congressional direct spending grant. One is $750,000 there for flash bus stop construction. That one was awarded there and still in the process of contract signing. The other piece of $1.5 million also congressional direct spending grant there was actually not awarded unfortunately. So that's also for FlashBus Stop construction but that one didn't got it. However, we did got some state funding from MTA for RTA bus stop improvement, STIG 2, and that one is $400,000. So everything combined against the prior authorization, that's about 1.15 million capacity still left, meaning that we could do apply for and receive new grants if there's opportunity arise there. In talking with transportation, they're based on the projects status currently. They might pursue that in 27, but they're looking, keep an eye open on any other grant opportunities there. So that's for the bus stop. I'll save anage management to the last because that one actually has a couple of federal grants there. Community Resource Services there, that's 1.9 family state funding. Most of them already get awarded. Excuse me, there's only $200,000 there in the process of talking with property owners on that regarding agreement. So that agreement is still pending. A systemic renovation, that's one have multiple state grants on that. Part of them was already awarded there. There's a arrangement that's happening that the 1.075 million original state grant was planned here later was actually appropriated and used in C. there were three seven, so there's about 1 million capacity left in this project that can be used for future potential grants. And my understanding is also a relatively smaller piece of state grant that look like will be received against this capacity in FY26. Former Circuit Court renovation, Put in all the anticipated grants already in material26. Former circuit court renovation, pretty much all anticipated grants are already materialized. There's only 125,000, but that's my understanding in talking with project managers. It was not tied to any specific grants. It's just like there's some, because passively left for potential needs there. Now go back to the energy management improvements, C0329. This one is the one that does involve a few different grants pending. So let me get the details. So at this point, we're aware of three grants applied and it's due in the process of understanding the final results. One of the mistake grants is $2 million here. It's from Maryland Energy Administration for Geothermal Heat Pump System at High Ridge Road Building, that one was applied and does anticipate it. There's another, it's a federal grant, it's a congressional year mark application, $1.2 million for solar and battery storage and North Laurel Community Center. That one is applied and it's really hard to tell whether we'll be able to get that. There's also a pass through, federal pass through in Maryland Department of Transportation, $646,000 there for fleet EVs, and that's also applied and pending decision. Now prior total appropriations more than this, is actually there's a 13.9, almost $14 million dollars. Some of the appropriation original was was hoping to to get the federal FEMA BRIC program. That was was hoped to for campus micro my progrip there. But that was that The fund was non- was not materialized and the program has been shut down by the federal administration according to project managers here. So as a result, we actually do have some actual capacity from prior appropriation, about $3 million. OCS is very actively pursuing other grants we're eligible and try to continue to find funding where possible for those energy saving projects there. Last but not least is there that the county does have those in the C project C0214 category contingency fund. If you recall that one does have a appropriation for, but that's for potentially available and anticipated grants in the middle of the year. And that could be used for any project popping up in the middle of the year. And that's not tied to any specific grants there. So that's just a just general summary of all the items there if any have any questions myself and the project manager will be happy to answer. Thanks. It's young we start with you today but if you don't mind I'm gonna ask a clarifying question or two. That 13.1 million that you were talking about with energy. Is that on this chart? 13.9 million? Yeah, it was the one from the force from the bottom. Okay. And so this whole conversation arose because of the statement and our writeup and the question accordingly that went through the portal that talks about 206 million and unrecognized federal grant funding from a total of 213 in prior federal grant funds. It sounds like about 75 million of that is in that contingency fund you just ended with O214. Great. But so is one of these columns on this table that you just gave us adding up to the remaining 132 million? Like, I mean, I'm just trying to do the math in my hands. Yeah, that's a fair question. A couple of things to mention that there is the answer yes or no. Is this one of these columns add up to 132? No, no, because the one that was, I think, what you put the number is from, I'm sorry, I don't want to go too technical, but to explain to you the information in the question was poured from SAP report that was one that was a column showed and recognized grant. I recognized the grant is not equal to what's a pending grant because that number was used what is appropriate versus what's so-called revenue in grants. And revenue means build expenditures there or collectible there. There are a long way. So when you have a probation then later you will have a ward and then you will set up the ward ward, and then you will spend it. And then you get reimbursement. So it could take a couple of years until you actually spend and buy for reimbursement. If you already get a ward of $5 million, but maybe second, third year, you spend $200,000 and build. And that's a build amount of what's show revenue. So whatever the difference they will show, recognize. I thought what's concerned more is about what is pending award, not what is not build yet. Because build is only very teeny piece of all those on that. Yeah. So in other words, the $200 million does not represent what's the pending award, not materialized. It's only the cash not coming because the process. Does someone who does this for a living want to help me? I mean, I don't really, I don't really, I don't really, if Mr. Ahele is on, it really is... Dr. Sun is saying it's the distinction between what is recognized on our financial system as revenue versus what we have received in actually received in grant funds. Okay, so you're quarreling with the world unrecognized because it should be what? The unrecognized, they haven't updated the financial system when and Mr. Ahele. I'm here, yes, if I can chime in. Thank you, Raffee, here, good morning, Councillor Chair and Councillor Members. Good morning. I want to thank the sun is saying is that when we apply for grants, it doesn't necessarily mean that we are going to have it to record in our system. So as we budget, we have to show you how what we apply for. That does not translate to our financial records yet. Once we see the award, as Dr. Sun mentioned, some of them are still pending waiting their approval. Until we get that approval, we don't record it in our system, because the award letter from the Fed or the State is what tells us that we are going to get that money. Right now when we are applying for it as we go for our budget, it not going to be in our financial system and I think that's exactly what it can result in the straight or at least how does it strengthen the spin as well. Okay so is the 206 pulled from like all grant funding somewhere in a budget book? Is that like where's that big number? Oh, this is not my question, friends. Yeah, it's, yeah, it is from the budget book. So we would have looked at what was either prior appropriation and the current appropriation for grant funding and the auditors compare that against what is noted in the financial system. Okay, so that's why there's a discrepancy. So there's a discrepancy because of how it's recognized between the aquifer and how it is in the, well, it's finesse reported and how it's reported in the budget book itself. So there needs to be like a, I guess, a reconciliation as a whole that stuff. Okay. Yes. Because, is this that reconciliation or is that something else? This, this provides information to the council of grants that were actually received in the status of the grant. So this, from, from my perspective, it answers that question. Okay. Yes. Okay. I mean, I, I continue to be fascinated by us receiving spreadsheets that don't have total rows. Like what? Like I'm, okay. I mean, I could tell it didn't add up to 132 or 206. Right. So the original, like this was a gem, because we just wanted to ensure that all the budget office was able to accoint for all the grants that came in and at least give us, give us the indication of how that reconciliation tied up. And that was a genesis for that question. OK, all right, good. All right. Please go ahead, Ms. Young. So I just have a couple questions about the sheet. I'm curious. The tax increment financing projects, the God 18 million, and those grants went directly to developers per agreement. Who were the developers and what were the projects? I'm gonna answer that. I certainly can. Thank you. The developer is HRD. And the project is the Joe Kando. The Joe Kando. The one that was open. Yes, Joe Kando. Yes. Yeah. And all. And so they did it just go to one developer then. I just went to HRD. Yes. Okay. We went to HRD, yes. And that was how the agreement was written. That the money could come to us or directly to the developer. They weren't ready to develop. All right. Thanks. Oh, wait. There was one more. Community resource and services, state appropriation, pending agreement for 1.75 million. And I was wondering what that was for. Do you know Raffo? I'm seeing you looking at the screen. I think I have that on that there. That was there's a $200,000 on that there. I was for DCRS Family Support Center on that. That contract's not signed there, because there's a little bit of negotiations, a project, a property owner related to. So it's a building. It's a, they're buying a building, They're renting a building. They're operating funds. I would, the photo, Mr. Sharon Walsh, I think she's available on the phone as well, if you want to. Sharon Walsh? Yeah. The other Walsh. The other Ms. Walsh? Yes. Yeah, I think that would be helpful to get the answer to that question. Is she there? Are you sure she's there? Yes, she's on. She's on. Thank you. The community resource and services grant. You come up here. Yes. I'm Mr. Los Enter. Thank you. We've got an answer. We've got a person with an answer. Thank you or an attempt, but we appreciate all of your attempts. Okay. The Family Resource Center is least space in Patuxent Woods. It was the space that was opened up in was it August of 23 perhaps? Don't remember the exact date off the top of my head. So the that grant oh I went there I went there for the grand opening. Very cool. Love that space. And so that money went to create that space. But we lease we pay the county pays for the lease. but what was created on the inside is what we used that grant for. I believe so. Okay, got it. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you Miss Ayaki. I'm gonna skip, David, and go to me. Last year, we got a list of all the grants that had been applied for specifically for C0337, which is the Ellicott City Improvements. And they summed to about 85 million. My point being that there's way more than just the 10 million at issue in your chart. Dr. Sun, can you speak to a $25 million raise grant, a $5 million CRISI grant? Do you know what I'm talking about? You talk about 26 or 25 budget. We just have a list of grants that presumably have been applied for or to be identified. I mean, I have a list from last year. Future grant to be identified. Anticipate and next state FY budget. Future grant. That was a good one. 26.2 grants that's already awarded 18.2 million and also the two. I'm sorry. What? Yeah, what? In your notes, it says 10 million was rejected. Yeah, 10 million from last year NOAA grant was rejected. Okay. Thank you. Just clarification on the you mentioned the raise grant. We were not awarded that. Okay. And what was the other one that you mentioned? Christie. We didn't even go after that. We were going to need input from CSX. And it didn't pan out as applying for. Okay. How about comprehensive flood management grant for Maryland Avenue 5 million? Yep. We did get that. Yes. Okay. And the state bond bill, it says on our list from last year 55.5 million. I think we got 10. And we. I think we got 10. Yeah, I'm not sure with the 55.5. Thank you Courtney Watson and Kay for a hazard. How about, and then it says for FY26 Grant North Tunnel, 7 million FY27 grant North Tunnel, 3.5. Are those part of this? I mean, there's one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, 11 actual or potential grants identified last year in response to like how are you paying for this? What's that 85 million that didn't, you know, didn't have actual county funds or pay go associated with them, not that pay go isn't county funds, but again, I can kind of match up 85 to 78 million, but there's a lot more in play here. I mean I can share this with you during a break and then we can talk about it in the very next segment. Can you send them the thing? Someone just sent it to me this morning, right? Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. All right. I mean, because I saw this like this and was like this could be the majority of them if it's really 85. I'm gonna get them. Okay. One, two. Dr. Jones, do you have any questions? Good morning. No, I don't have any questions. Thank you. Mr. Rigby. Okay. Three, four. Are you done? Ms. Golding, do you have any idea if Mr. Youngman would have any questions here? We skipped him in the first round, but I don't. Oh, he said none? Yeah, he's okay. Okay, thank you. Okay, perfect. Those are the only, my questions all relate to C0337. So if Miss Herida sent Dr. Sun and and our marks the, okay. Okay. It's the next session. Ha ha ha ha ha. Ha ha ha ha. marks the okay. It's the next session. The second item on our agenda is that you know is that item and so C0337 is the the flood works project so-called safe and sound. I'm assuming we're going to have Mark Deluca and Mark Richmond maybe also US USF Cabetting, no director of department public works. Okay, and we have Holland back online. Okay. Any understanding you do have a presentation and we did get a copy of that this morning, okay? Yes, we have a short presentation. Just to update you on the status of the project. Next slide. And of course, as you've seen before, this is the graphical representation of locations of where the projects are. The reason why we included this on this particular day is because we wanted to show the green is complete. The orange is under construction, so we have two projects under construction. Currently the tunnel and H4, and then we have the yellow which is projects under design. We have Maryland Avenue culverts under design that has been progress the furthest, and then we have T1 and NC3. Next slide. Then we have just the latest shot of H7 here, taken from a drone. You can see the structure. Next slide. This is Quaker Mill. This is what it looks like today. And I should also mention that these completed projects, Well, we have cameras on several of the projects, even though they're under construction, just to kind of monitor construction and some other activities. But we do have on these projects, they are outfitted with cameras that we can, excuse me, access remotely and also in the EOC and we have depth gauge, water depth gauge equipment which is a combination of just regular measurements on a placard and and also radar or sonar to verify the actual depths of water. Next slide. Here is H4. It's still under construction. The picture on the right is just showing some of the ground stabilization after the excavation of the bowl. And the picture on the left represents the configuration of the pond from the design of what it will look like from the concept drawing from the design documents. The lower level of terms like acquisition, design, and funding, things like that are all green indicating that all of these things have been realized. We have all acquisitions, design, permitting, funding, and it is under construction. Next slide. North Tunnel, which you may be most familiar with, here's the alignment of the North Tunnel. And we've kind of annotated this drawing with some features like the Papillon Drive site and the outfall. We've also listed that in terms of acquisitions, we were showing this as yellow instead of green because we have one or two additional acquisitions that we have not closed on, but we're in the process of closing those out. But as of today's date, we have not closed on them. Design is complete permitting, funding, and construction is underway. Next slide. Here's a picture of the papillon site. And if Zach is on, I'd like for him to explain the construction of the site. Good morning. Can you hear me? Okay. Yes. Yeah, we can. Good morning. Yes. So at the papy onsite currently, we are in the process of mining the mining granite for the mining shaft, which is the large cylinder that you see towards the right side. We're approximately 30 feet down there and preparing for the next blast. And then as you move farther west, we have operations installing piling for the future diversion structure as well as mucking out the drop shaft as well as our maintenance structure. That's temporary, of course, for the project, and our locker rooms and safety office for the tunnels crews. When this construction is complete, the stream, which we temporarily relocated, parallel to the road, will be reinstalled in a horseshoe type configuration, like was previously through the site, and the site will be reinstalled in a horseshoe type configuration like was previously through the site and the site will be reinforced. Next slide. So we have the Maryland Avenue culvert which as I was mentioning before this is a project where we have advanced the design, the most out of the remaining projects. And we are actively engaged with CSX on the design of it and of the track relocations because of it. And so as far as acquisitions, we're good with acquisitions. We're at about, well, I would speculate to be 95% of design, but it can be somewhat of a moving target. We are working with CSX very closely with CSX and permitting is also a function of CSX right now. Funding, it's in the red because we do not have the money for construction. We do have funds available, but not enough for construction. We don't necessarily have a final number of what it would actually construct, or how much the construction would cost. But we are, it's really going to be a function of whatever this final design turns out to be. And of course, construction is blank because we are only anticipating bringing this up to final design. And the reason for this is we will still apply for grants, but grant opportunities are whittling down. And so while we will apply for state grants, we're not expecting a lot of federal grant or federal help from this point forward. And so as we get money, we will bank that money and when we get enough money. And if it's the direction that the administration wants to go, we'll pull the trigger on construction. This is NC3. This is on the new cut. It's the only structure on the new cut. Currently, we're in schematic design. We know what we want this to look like. We've shared this design with MDE, but it has a long way to go in terms of getting it to final design. The next steps here would be for us to engage with a construction or construction manager at risk and secure the construction funding. So as far as acquisitions, we are good with the acquisitions for this project. The design needs to be advanced from a schematic phase, permitting similarly funding. We do not have money for construction for this project. We do not have money right now to finalize design. And of course construction is blank at this particular junction. So we would be, after we use our resources and funding for the Maryland Avenue callverts to get that project moving first, then we would turn our attention to NC3. Next slide. This is T1. This is the only structure on the, on the timer. And it's in preliminary design. We have advanced it with the help of our state partners. We've been given the money to advance a design on this. We're currently in design, but it should only take us to about 30%. And then we'll look at those concepts to see if we want to continue with this design to move it towards a final design. And permitting, We are, we have not gone in for any permitting. This is funding where we have our partner GreenVest who is providing the funding through grants and of course no construction yet. Next slide. And before we go on to this slide, I just want to make the observation that Maryland Avenue callverts in large is, if you think of the town as a funnel and the outlet is the finished part of the funnel goes into the Patapsco. That is Maryland Avenue culverts. So it enlarges the hole that allows a lot of the water to release into the Patapsco. So while the tunnel doesn't have that restriction because it is the conveyance to the Patapsco. For the tyberane, for the new cut, really depends on Maryland Avenue culverts being in place to function properly. And even to mitigate it, while we're waiting, even to mitigate any floodwaters, while we're waiting for construction or final designs to take place in future years for Newcut and T1. So now I wanted to talk about these channel constrictions and I'll have Zach talk about these. He was closely engaged with these morning again. So the mental construction project is near completion. We have removed the rear portion of everything except for the first floor of the 80, 95, which we're currently using to support new exterior walls along the first floor there. What you see the photos here of the rear portion of the capplins where we've removed the rear portion that previously spanned the channel as well as the front of capplins which nearest completion and we're proud that we'll be able to reopen that later this summer as a micro-retail incubator with support from the Department of Housing and Community Development at the state level. Next slide, please. And then this shows the completion of the four buildings that we removed last year when we were here with the council. We noted that when you're completion of that, we've completed that. Go ahead to the next slide, please. This would be a video, but we can skip that. Go ahead to the next slide, please. This would be a video, but we can skip that. Go ahead to the next slide, please. And then we have activated the area along Lower Main as an interim expanded Tiber Park. And this is a photo from last year's Main Street Music Fest, which took place at that park. So other efforts that we've made significant progress along that are semi-related and funding in C0337 includes the expanded type of park which we're continuing with concept design for. Next steps include community engagement, streetscape which we've done a number of projects including sidewalk work, so forth, so on. Wayfinding we are meeting with the Historic Preservation Commission at this month's meeting to present our initial concepts there. We are working through and met with the Historic Preservation Commission recently to review concepts as well as did a web-based community engagement for St. Paul. Pocket Park and the vehicle drop arms are close to design completion for the prototype and we anticipate moving forward with construction of the prototype later this summer. Mark that's all the ones I have. Okay, thanks. Thanks, Zach questions All right, miss him Maybe I miss this I don't I I don't know there's a lot of pieces of paper here But But last year, I recall that Ms. Walsh asked you for a list of all of the projects they're costs and they're anticipated costs. So we could just get a handle on the big, big, big picture. And I think you might have put that together, but I didn't see anything like that this year. Did you send it? Did you send that to us and I overlooked it? Well, I can tell you what we sent. Typically, what we have sent as requested has been an accounting of all the protestors and written for the project and the amount of those purchasers and the amount spent in remaining and then we also showed appropriations in another column or two and so the money that we've asked for per year and that appropriation as it was recorded in the budget book. And you can see the ebb and flow of the money. And then so you can also look and see of all the money that was appropriated, you can then go to look at how much money was actually encumbered. And then you can see how the burn rate or how money was spent. So we did not actually do that last year. We did that in previous years, but we didn't do it last year. We did it because we were responding to what was in the portal. But we did subsequently, I believe, get that to you to you to miss walls. So we did supply that again this year. So. But only in the format that you just described. So we would have to go through all of that to make a determination is to actually the final final number. I'm just curious about the big number. Do you know the big number? That is the big number. Is it 400 million? Is it 200 million? What's the big number? So Mark has it memorized and so on. OK, all right, Mark. Tell us the big number at the bottom. I don't think I've got the number. Wait, yeah, that can be. The number is like two. Back up. This is what I said last year. I'm gonna say I'm gonna know, because I watched it is a far So that was my word is that we are now six years into this and Mr. Youngman said it last year 400 million dollar, you know a third of a billion dollar budget item and It doesn't occur to you guys to delineate by which of the seven large projects you have spent funds, which categories of funds and what remains to be spent. That has never been given to us. That is my first question every time it is my turn on C0337 for the last, let's say, four or five years. You send us lists of what you spent. And my questions today are we're going to go through all of them and put them in one of those seven categories, or Zach's Barbie Dreamhouse, or whatever else they are. But why can't you do that? This is what happened last year, is you said you would do it, and that we would meet back in 20, you know, for a 20-minute conversation, then we blew through the time that day so we didn't even get to you. And I have the documents you submitted to us and they bear no relation to what we asked for then, what was asked for in the portal six weeks ago. What, I mean, you have to be tracking this by project, aren't you? Yes, we know how much we're spending on each project. Why won't you tell us? So I can't offer an answer to that, but I can give you those total. Why not? Who is making that decision? I don't know. I mean, Dr. Kabette, Mr. Kabette, everyone's a doctor. Mr. Cabette, I mean, the first year you were new, last year I watched, you sat back there, which is where I would sit if this was my show. But you're in this now. And I don't know if Dr. Sun is listening or if it's rough you or if it's someone from the administration, but this is like patently insane. We have one function under the charter as a council And that is to monitor or look at or pretend that we're overlooking this. And you straight up say, we refuse to give you an articulation of what by seven major projects that have been identified for at least the last five years, what they cost, what we spent, and what money is we've used to pay for them. I don't want any more of your silly lists where you break it into a thousand parts. Or I get to play a word game with which addresses go to which projects. This shouldn't be Alice in Wonderland. It's not a riddle. These meetings would take so much less time if you guys actually just answered the questions. But in this case, it's the same question every year. I mean, my version is we're done with this. Put it down on a piece of paper, get somebody to give you permission to give it to us and then be back here. And that's what we did last year and I'm chair this time. So you're going to get to your subject matter. I can't, I really don't, I mean again, last year I said it wasn't mad. Guess what I'm mad now. It doesn't look like you're going to do T1 in NC3. It really doesn't. We talked about last year the complete hijinks that is you guys getting into a P3 agreement with GreenVess and there seems to be some kind of argument that if you get state funding then it doesn't come through the purview of this body. That is not correct. But maybe also talk with some lawyers while you're doing this. Because this all came up last year. I'm not doing danger of it. I mean, just go watch last year. This is virtually the same. This is virtually the same. There's zero county dollars in here this year. But we're coming back to this because we don't have it. It was Mr. Youngman's first question last year. What does this stuff cost? And you know what you told him? You told him the tunnel cost $140 million. That's not right. Maybe that's the contract that you've entered into with the tunnel boring. But I don't even think you have a design done for CSX. You didn't last year. So I don't think we know what that costs. We have a list of acquisitions. Those are for North Tunnel. Or at least some of them are. If I'm solving my riddle right, just because you refuse to bundle the true cost of these projects, does not put the onus on us to do it. I'm happy to defer to my colleagues and you can ask questions now if you want to make sure that they come back with an answer. I'm ready to put the onus on us to do it. I'm happy to defer to my colleagues and you can ask questions now if you wanna make sure that they come back with an answer. I'm ready to put the whole thing in contingency. I'm done with it. This is a really big deal. And it has been. Understood. Understood. So I think on that, on what we did submit, and Mark can go through this, is that we do have it totaled, and when we're talking about total cost, and it does reconcile with the budget. And also it shows what the tunnel has cost us and what the other projects in total have cost us and what has been what we consider to be legacy costs within 330337. So I think you'll find that on that paper. I don't want to have a one to be replaced. This is Tim. Dear Lord, I can't do that. Where's my other sheath? My FDA. Can I see that? First of all, this chart we have now doesn't even talk about FY26. And that's what we're doing right now, it's FY26, right? We're talking about what we expect to spend next year. This chart from last year has FY25 on it. No, this is this year's chart. I don't even know. This is this year's chart. So it has last year, but not this year. And you have CSX amendment to PE agreement fee. That's tunnel, right? North tunnel. You have EC building demo. I assume that's Maryland culvert. That's why we're demoing, right? It doesn't say Maryland culvert. Pond T1 preliminary design. North tunnel. Okay. With yet annual service fee, that's North tunnel, right? Yes. Howard County Housing Department easement who knows I mean that's our are continuing money laundering scheme with the Howard County Housing Department Is that for some easement underneath? They're building for North Tunnel. Yes. Are we getting an easement from every single property along the one mile length of that tunnel? Some are easements and some have been fee simple. So every single property that tunnel goes underneath for a mile we have an agreement. Yes. Now. Miss Aiyaki can you please come up here and confirm that? Because that sounds like an awful lot of easements and given that we can't build sidewalks 20 feet long it is shocking to me. We have almost completed all of the acquisitions. We are close to finalizing negotiations with the last remaining property owners, but a lot of the tunnel run is actually under county owned property like you have, like near the old courthouse in that area. So I mean overall the number of easements or acquisitions was actually not very extensive. And there was a list, we did provide a list. And I don't disagree with you. I mean, in the way that you want to see it formatted, we can do that. OK. So. I can't put anything. I'm cussing now. 8095, Maine exterior renovation. Zach, you know, I'm going to call it Barbie Dreamhouse. What is TFG raise grant support that I thought we talked about a raise grant earlier with Dr. Sun? So that was just a TFG as one of our grant consultants and we pay them and it comes out of that fund. So which project would that be attributed to? So that one in particular, it could be any of them, but on that one in particular is probably the tunnel. Well, Maryland, that. And then the last one in 25 was Kaplan's rebuild or renovation. We have a list that looks twice as long for the year before, which includes more of the property purchases, including Mount Ida. We bought Mount Ida for $4 million because of the tunnel. But when you tell Mr. Youngman last year the tunnel costs $140 million. It doesn't include something like a $4 million purchase, does it? No, it did not. $141 million is for that construction contract. And then there, and I think we showed that. Then there are the design costs, and there are the, but the acquisitions were separate. They were always separated. So with the design costs and the construction contract construction contract for 141, the tunnel is approximately 180. And then the rest of the amount, which is probably close to 30 million or more, slightly more that is what has been budgeted for the other projects. Do what? They're just in here. First C0337. Yeah. Yeah, it does show for the whole project and not specifically how each project sums up under its own title to the total. So it does it by individual purchase order. And the reason why you don't see as many purchase orders is because most of the the purchasers have already been opened now in 2025. And... purchase order and the reason why you don't see as many purchase orders is because most of the purchase orders have already been opened now in 2025 and all we're doing in 26 is really some budgetary cleanup. All right. I mean, I really, I don't want to have this conversation again until we actually have the information that we need. If anyone else wants to ask questions or like point out something they'd like to see when you return, that's great. But I'm not kidding. It goes into contingency. I can't. I mean, at least I will move that it does. This is. Yeah. I agree that we need, that's how I started my question. Do we have something? And that was going to be my first question, and it's hard because I know you guys are like right in it, right? You might look at a GL or a purchase order and know what it goes to. especially now now that some of these projects are kind of at a, maybe we can build them, maybe they don't work out type, we need almost like a whole sources and uses for each component of this. I'm not trying to create work. I'm just saying like, for the tunnel, what is the complete all-in cost of the tunnel? Everything from properties we had to buy, that we don't really need, but properties we had to buy, easings we had to buy, the engineering, the soft costs. If the fire department needs to go by a piece of equipment, so it can deal with an emergency during instruction. All that, if we were still to stage where we could flip a switch, tunnel, no tunnel, what's that cost? And I never feel it's sort of like when we renovate space here, but we don't add in the building cost. I'm sorry, the moving cost, right? Like of those decisions. There's an all-in cost to each one of these projects that's not just construction costs and I feel like that's what we're missing and we should be able to then stress test this whole project to each one of these little projects and say, well, God, thank goodness we got the tunnel done, because that's going to take a lot of water off Main Street. And that's going to really deal with the Hudson. But what if we can't get T1 built? It's going to save us $X millions of dollars. But what's that due to the water depth? What's like, we never stressed test the flood model or the hydraulic, hydraulic, whatever it is. The model for now that we agreed to do the tunnel, which was an add-on after we knew we needed to do NC and T1, do we need to do both those projects now? Because we're to hold them, Hudson's going into the tunnel. We don't know that. It's just become this, I hope, maybe I'm being overly optimistic that this is only going to be $400 million by the time it's done. But it just doesn't seem like we're doing any sort of understanding of what the organ cost of each sub-project is and what the value on the ground of it is. It's all still part of this whole big. Here's the current state and here's where we're trying to get. And I don't know how to get there. I know the accounting part and the creation of each individual project is you guys can pull that together, you have information. I mean, should we be asking the administration for it? I mean, it sounds like you have it. It's just a matter of changing the presentation of it. If I could just say this, for the operational issues that you just brought up, Councilmember up council member You know team does look at the model and if it can really a recalibration is needed, you know that can be done So you know let Mark and Mark you know address that specifically, but as far as the financial numbers You know will confer as a team and and see what gaps need to be filled From the data that we've provided so far. I mean like if we can't get the Maryland callverts done, Maryland doesn't have any callverts, then two more buildings need to come down and do we need to kind of know what that looks like? Yeah we're gonna save money on the callverts but now we might have to spend money on something else. Let's make sure we're not spending money on stuff that might be wasted of money in a couple of years. It just, and I know it's so complicated. And we are under some time pressure. Like you want to get it done for the next storm, right? You know, we're telling people. But it's like so much is happening at once that I don't, I think we've kind of lost a little control though. What happens if this doesn't happen the way it is? We're still looking at it like it's one big systematic project and everything ultimately is going to get done. And are we now at a stage where we should be looking at, if we pull this one thing out and it's going to cost us $40 million, is the incremental change on the ground really that much, like almost creative value proposition and resell that project. So you have the data. Can you pull it together like that? Like as if each pond or each thing was like its own project? Yes, we can do that. Okay. And if it's, and I know we're asking you guys for it, but I can tell you I'm certainly willing to ask Upstairs for it if that makes it easier for us to get it. I mean, I know that you guys are And then I really think and I think that Liz started going there Like what does the model look like if T1 doesn't get built? What does the model look like if the new cut doesn't get built? Because not only are there real possibilities, but it might even just be... We've got new place where we don't want to spend the money anymore. So, and I guess there's a cost to that, because you've got to have consultants, engineers, rerun that model. But it's, I'm a big proponent of this project, a big proponent of anything we need to do to protect old, elegant city. But, you know, now that we're in it, I just think we need to be looking at the different pieces of it better. So, I'm sorry. Yeah, I was going to say I just wanted to check in and see if Dr. Jones had anything to add at this point and then I, hey Dr. Jones. Hey, no, I don't know how I'm having to add great discussion. Definitely share some of the concerns. Not as much as I've heard, but a great discussion nonetheless. Thank you. I will go in place of mistwalsh and then we can trade after maybe. But I know no one wants to hear me go on about Ellicott City. So I won't. I'm just going to say that it would be, I'd rather have the amounts be able to say truthfully, fully and honestly, like, this is this, that is that. And when it is this riddle to solve, it is hard. And the other piece is really understanding. I very much appreciate this chart. I'd love to know kind of what goes beneath it. We've got acquisitions. Well, how many acquisitions? You know, the complexity of the acquisitions. The design options for if we don't get some. I mean, we've certainly had them where we struggle to get them in other projects and we have to redesign. But it is a big chunk. So having that information accessible to us is important. Sorry Dr. Sun, it seems like you have something you'd like to add. Yeah, thank you so much. Sorry I missed a part of the conversation but I want to add what I know at this point and also think of a few of our finance director can add from technical side on the financial side. On the policy side, my understanding, again, I assume the team probably already share with you and we did put a little bit in a quarter is that from an administration's viewpoint, the highest of priority already is on the North Tunnel. So that's all the funding has been secured, and also the Boast grants and loans are towards that there. And we are very confident because my understanding is the funding is already secured at this point, including what's awarded alone that so far, so we have the authority to spend that, it's going to be a focus on tonneau. So that's that's what we're going to focus on and Both 26 27 the construction will primarily on the nost tunnel and including there was a crossing piece on that and the GMP to part on that right it was also correct Yeah, so that's all that's the biggest focus on that and that's where the money goes as well on that. After that, the general approach from the administration is really we are primarily going forward. Because we have been investing so much money, going forward will primarily be rely on state, safe funding, and if federal funding available to move to other potential components or pieces or additional work possible on that there but we'll try to limit the additional county funding because we haven't invested so much so far and are achieving a lot. It has already completed different components and also are committed to get NOS tunnel done in time by 2027. So that's the clear focus on that. All the funding, all the staff so far is for that. And moving forward, it's a lot of this will be really depending on how much and how soon we would be able to get to the outside resources to be a Frank. I think that's the general approach we have there. I assume that you can probably share with you all, but we just want to emphasize all that. What you just said goes back to what we just ask, which is, and really Mr. Youngman was the the questioner on this, and that is you just said we've achieved so much Mr. Youngman just said what have we achieved and what do we absolutely have to achieve in order to ensure that electricity is safe so really it has to come from you all the engineers the people who are in charge of this construction. I appreciate you coming down, Dr. Sun, but this is on you. I mean, it's you're the ones who have been looking at this for years now. So we need your expertise, we need your eyes, we need your opinions about this. And I did have one last question. And that is who in the department is actually other than the two of you who are here right now? Mark Deluca, Mark Richmond, Zach Hollenbach. Who else is in charge of this project? So we have an organizational chart. I don't know when we showed that last or if we showed it to the council. I don't remember ever seen that. With names. That's I I would like names. Yeah. So we have done that. There are many, many pieces to it. And there's a financial piece. There's a budget piece. Lots of people are involved in the project. The project is headed up by our group and public works. It's me. It's Mark Richmond, it's Zach, the people that you mentioned were the primary county players. There are some other project managers that are aiding in some of the other projects that we're doing concurrently. But and in Mark's group and also in Zach and Sharon's group. So we have other project managers below us that are working it in the county and then we have the team of consultants, depending on who the consultants are for their particular projects. And of course, then the regulatory agencies and contacting out with them. The tunnel is probably the most complex, has the most players in it, has the most things that need to be considered and then you know for acquisitions for example we have Emily's Group Real Estate Services that handles it. And then, up to the administration, we have the Deputy Chief Brian Shepter is our interface with the administration on the project. And just curious whether anybody in the entire group has any had had any experience building a tunnel before we started this project? Yes. And who was that? Well, I've had tunnel experience. I did a tunnel experience. Okay. Metro work as a private consultant. Well, I didn't know that. I have underground experience as well. Not building a tunnel from the ground down, but rehabbing and working on underground structures. And we also have a contingent who works for us part time on the tunnel, who has previously completed tunnels for another jurisdiction. Yeah, built two tunnels. Plus the consultants and the engineers, right? Right. And I asked a question in the portal. And I was a little surprised at the answer. I asked if there were any cost ever runss on the tunnel and the answer was no. And then I did, you know, just some general research and saw that there's only been one tunnel built in the United States of America that didn't have cost overruns. And I'm thinking, are we going to be the second tunnel in the United States of America that doesn't have cost overruns? Are you going to come back next year and say, okay, yeah, no, we're not that could be the second tunnel in the United States of America that did not have cost overruns. I will be right. We may say that. We may say that next year. I think it would be lovely if we could say that. So the form of the question sometimes is important. OK, I had a feeling it was the form of the question. All right, how should I have asked that question? Have there been cost increases? Would that have been the better way to ask it? Have there been cost increases since we initially entered into a contract with the constructor of the tunnel? Well, I mean, with the form of the question, we could only answer it, you know, at this point. Okay. And it's the question. I want to know how much more is it going to cost? Right. than what it originally was anticipated or even the contract that we entered into. Do we know that? We must know that. Well, there are. I'm assuming, let's just say from the very beginning, from the very beginning, the construction company that's building this tunnel said, it's gonna cost us, X amount, say, $5 million to set up, what are you calling that, that big, the place where you're putting all the equipment? Something? What's that? Or? Yes, yes. So, let's say they said at the very beginning, it's gonna cost $ million dollars. Oh, guess what now cost six million dollars What do you call that a cost increase? inflation that would be a change a change. Oh, okay So now I have the word all right, so I want to know what the amount of changes have taken place in in this specific contract, in the tunnel contract, and how much have those changes cost the county so far? That's my question. The only change that has taken place on the tunnel to date was to add in a state loan once the document closed. That was funding that was originally anticipated to be part of the tunnel there have been no change orders to the construction contractor today but I also want to kind of expand on that that's great wait a minute I got to say that's that means we will be the second maybe a second tunnel project in the United States we can't go on that so if you're missing the point again though we have a guaranteed maximum price contract with the construction manager at risk or right? So that entity has agreed to do its scope of work for $140 something dollars, right? But that scope of work is not the entirety of the North Tunnel construction from, you know, first, whatever to let the right in the town. Right, it doesn't include these, in the dad and dad and dad and dad and dad and dad and dad and dad and dad and dad and dad and dad and dad and dad and dad and dad we have to build a new railroad bridge. Well, we actually held those out. That's correct. Yes. We held those out as another guaranteed maximum price. Once we learn all the parameters that are going to be involved in that, and we have to budget for that amount. So as part of the monies or the appropriations, it's already included. And when we provide the breakdown, you'll see that. But the point I really wanted to make to Ms. Young's question was that part of the construction manager at risk process was to bring in the contractor early and work out any communication issues that they had with the designer, with the design team, and bring their expertise into it and say, well, we can't build it like that. Or we can build it like that, or we could build it slightly differently, and we could save money. It's not 100% value engineering. It's like, oh, you wanted us to use this type of rock bolt. Well, we use this other type of rock bolt and work out those kinds of things. If we hadn't had that iterative process in the very beginning with the contractor at risk, then that would have been a surprise to us because they would have bid the job, the way that it was designed. And then when they would have come to that point where they would say, well, we don't do rock anchors like that, we wanna do it like this. And here's a change order for X amount of dollars for us to do it that way. And then the design engineer might agree to that. The owner may agree to that. And so that's the way some change orders come about. And we went through painstakingly iterative process with the contractor, with the designer, with the third party, another engineering firm that was looking over all of the work to provide that kind of peer review and we came to that. Now, we could have an unforeseen condition that will end up being a change order. We could more than likely hit, we may have to, I don't know, see they're anticipated so we don't exactly know, but we kind of know where our risks are and we try to identify that in what we call a risk register. So part of that iterative process was to develop this risk register and try to minimize or eliminate those types of risks. So we may pay more upfront for a project, but we shouldn't have unexpected conditions during the construction, which should limit change order work as a result of scope change because we missed something. And that's the guarantee That's why they will give a guaranteed maximum price. All right. Thank you. I appreciate that. How long is it going to come, how it take for you guys to have the actual information that we would like to see? Well, I don't want to see any reason why we couldn't provide that at the broadest time frame this week within a few days. Okay. All right, well then we'll slot you into another meeting after some reasonable amount of time to look through it. All right, I'm prepared to leave this then now. Unless anyone has any questions, I heard Dr. Jones chime in. Was he able to ask questions? OK. OK, just one. Yes, Mr. Heath. Just wanted to quickly make a quick clarification in the financing. Yes. Because the amount that we have for FY26, what we're asking for this project is water quality loan. And especially with an interest environment, we definitely want this loan because they are very low risk and the interest rate is very low. I don't think we'll get that anywhere, even with a triple A. It's less than 2%. And our triple A is very close to 4%. So just wanted to quickly make sure that we will be saving the county some money by using this loan and of course the water quality loan won't be giving us a loan unless the council has acted. Authorizing us to that you have approved this budget for us to naturally negotiate with them. Tell your friends, Mr. Healey. Is the look I'm going to do everything you can to make sure you provide information? I'm just trying to do my job here. Thank you. That loan you just mentioned, that's the with he alone. I think yes, but still, is there a volume of it? No, we're still voting. Is that the new one that Katie Fryhester was involved in setting up? I think she was evolving all of them. Okay. It's the second revolving one we've gotten from the state. Okay. And yes, the state delegation has been very helpful in securing these loans. Yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Haley. I hear your point. Chair Walsh, if I may, public works comes back to us for their operating discussion on May 7. Do you want to add it to them? You want to do that? Seven. Work for everyone. That sounds great. Thank you. I don't know what today is. This is the 28th. Okay. All right. Good. Thank you. All right. We'll see you then. Do we want to, I think we should just go forward with downtown. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. I'm going to, this is why we need a bigger dius, Michelle. I can't find anything. And now I have part of your documents in this pop. All right, so next up we have downtown Columbia. Are you coming back up with us, Mr. Haley? Yep. Where is Mr. DeLaRenzo? Isn't he a star witness here? He is. He mentioned that he was going to be available around 11.30. It's not quite 11.30. OK, you want to take a five minute break till then? There you go. Yeah. And then we'll get started with if you could check with Mr. Delarante. I'm going to check it. Oh wait, he just wrote me. He's heading down now. He's coming. Okay. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. you you I'm going to start with the first step. I'm going to start with the first step. I'm going to start with the first step. I'm going to start with the first step. I'm going to start with the first step. I'm going to start with the first step. I'm going to start with the first step. you Thank you. you you you you you you I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you I'm going to start with the first one. I'm going to start with the second one. I'm going to start with the second one. I'm going to start with the second one. I'm going to start with the second one. I'm going to start with the second one. I'm going to start with the second one. Um. I like how at Refu is joining us both virtually and in person. That's a nice trick, sir. Yes. David and I enjoy our little private view of the West here. That was a highlight for me. Okay. I did make my mouth. I hope you have a good time. I'll go. Do I? Do I? Do I? Do I? That was a high life from the end of the year. Oh, okay. I didn't make the move. I didn't make the move. I hope you had a good time. Do I, am I waiting on anything I see, or can I just start? Oh, yeah, okay. We're ready. We're ready, right? We have everyone. Tell me, do you have a different hat? I've got a different hat. All the different hats. Thank you. All right, we're back and we're starting on the third item on our agenda which is downtown Columbia. We have a lot of time for a presentation. Did you guys have one? Oh you do okay. We do have a five minute presentation for you that Raffew and Emily prepared which provides fiscal overview and update on downtown Columbia Tax Re tax revenue which we thought would be a helpful place to start. So you should have that presentation. I believe we share it. Oh, yeah, we did. All right. And before you begin, Emily, can I say that we're so we'll get into the tax increment financing projects and hopefully transit center before lunch so we can let Mr. Dickerson return to you know running the office of transportation and Then to the extent necessary will continue after lunch with Whatever remains new culture center and also library So can we also make sure that if anybody has any questions for Chrissy Smith that we also get her on before lunch so that she can leave. I will give library and- I don't know how we do library because I think library is going to be here at 1230 so we're accommodating that schedule by waiting till after lunch but I feel like the Howard Hughes part is the library. I don't have a lot of questions, so maybe we could. Okay. Yes, please. Okay, thanks, Sydney. All right. Okay, sorry. Go ahead. Thanks, Sydney. So, with that, Raff, you and Emily are available to provide a presentation on downtown Columbia fiscal update. Yeah, everybody would be in the presentation. Thank you. Good afternoon, Emily Mezzler with Munich cap. Consultant to the county related to the TIFF. Every year, I'm asked to come back. And as part of the budget process, just to provide an overview of the status of the fiscal impact analysis and essentially how the project is proceeding. So we decided to summarize it in a few slides for you all this year just because it's a lot of information in the process that we go through. So the next couple of slides are really just going to summarize the analysis that Munich kept completed for this year looking at the fiscal impact analysis for the TIFF area in downtown Columbia. So just starting out, that annual review includes the review of the TIFF area fiscal impact analysis, which is the area covering the land that HRD owned and has the TIFF boundaries in it. And then there's a second fiscal impact analysis that's the remaining area fiscal impact analysis that picks up all of the development up to the downtown Columbia Plan area maximum densities. And then we have a capital improvement projection which takes a look at the capital improvement projects that are improved in the DRA pertaining to the TIF and including or discussing the TIF and then all of those three analyses are wrapped up into a summary of fiscal results. So those four analyses are the analyses we update and review every year. Next slide. In updating those, we do go through each of our very many schedules and look at assumptions to be updated that goes through or starts with talking to HRD, asking them if they're aware of any updates in the development density or timing. Once we have that information from them as to what's in the TIF area development and those changes, we also take that to DPC and run it by them so that they can let us know if that matches any permitting changes or if there's any concerns that they have with that schedule based on what they're seeing actually occur with timing and development. We also provide all of the budget schedules to county finance and budget and they will give us the most recently adopted budget amounts, line item amounts, tax rates, as well as any other statistic information that flows to the fiscal. As a reminder, we work very closely to prepare the format of the fiscal with the county teams over the years. So this is actually just updating information that they've helped us develop in the formulas and methodology. We do also look at appeals for that year. That information comes from Maryland SDAT. So we'll get a list of current appeals that are either outstanding, that have been confirmed or have moved off the books and we'll take that into account. We get a list of updated tax credits. There are three different types of tax credits applicable to this project. Lead credits and then two EDA credits. Two of the EDA credits have since rolled off, but the lead credits, we do have to just make sure that we're getting them into the analysis because they reduce the real property tax increment revenues available for the TIFF and then ultimately what's flowing through the fiscal impact analysis. As I mentioned earlier, we get updated statistics from the county. We also look at the Act for and just take a look at that and make sure that it's lining up with any information in there as far as residents labor for student generation factors. We ask the school district for updated student generation factors and they are also tracking real time data for the apartments and development that's there. So they're telling us every year if we need to be mindful of any changes on the student generation rates. And then lastly, we pull in the capital improvement budgets and timing through discussions with staff. Most specifically, we speak with Carl and make any changes to those capital improvements, whether it's the cost or the timing of those. And then we're also talking to finance and budget pertaining to the bond assumptions for interest rates and how we may look at those capital improvements being financed over time. The major assumption in the TIFF model here at the bottom is just that we also review the updated assess values that flow through our model. That is a major assumption that's tied to the role-property tax increment revenues. So we do a significant amount of research every year through discussions with SDAT to understand what's happening in the market, specifically downtown Columbia and Howard County related to assessed values, appeals, net operating income, capitalization rates, because net operating income is the basis which Estat values property for role property tax purposes when it is income producing property. So we have those discussions with Estat. We also compare that information to what HRD is telling us that they're seeing as actual rents and expenses from existing leases and tenants. But again, we are checking that with SDAT to see if that's trending with their market data. That is like PWC or we use another market research base that gives us cap rates and NOI for market data. All of that gets rolled up and we are checking that against the assessed values in our analysis, which are used to calculate the role property tax revenues in both Fiscal's which generate the significant most significant portion of revenue flowing through the FIAs. So all of those are the assumptions that we review every year and update if we are asked to update them. Sometimes they don't change. So for example, if you go to the next slide, I'll just walk you through some of the, you know, primary considerations and updates that we saw this year. In speaking with DPC and HRD, we didn't see any changes to overall development density in the TIF area or in the plan area, the density and the mix between what was in the TIF area and the remaining area didn't change from last year. We had last year pushed the development timing back quite a bit to account for delays in development. You can see that I actually summarized it here because I thought it was important last year when we did this. We delayed multifamily four years, office 11 years, retail 15 years, and restaurant 12 years. And in 2025 we did not make any changes to that. We left it all assuming those delays were continuing to be in place. It's not like anything's picking up pace from last year to this year, so it status quo as far as timing of those development densities coming online from what we assumed last year. We did update the appeals for 2025. The only thing I would say there is that there's nothing out of the normal from what we've seen year to year in appeals. There are some that have come in. They continue to be, you know, as a result of occupancies or vacancies, I should say, and on office and multifamily values. But nothing majorly different than we've seen in years prior. And then the other big change for this year was that we had updated budget base amounts for 2026. There was a non-departmental expense line item that we saw a significant decrease in year over year from for the change in fund balance. So that dropped our overall expenditures and the fiscal impact analysis on the operating side quite a bit. So that had a positive impact actually on the fiscal impact analysis. So those were the major changes on the CIP improvements which is the list of capital improvements that are to be paid out of the set-asides. We did delay the library this year from 2027 to 2028 and we delayed the schools from 2035 to 2037 following guidance from staff and then we updated assessed values reflecting all the changes and assumptions that I mentioned whether it be credits appeals or conversations with HRD and S.D. And what we saw this year and assessed values is that multifamily saw some minor increases So that's good. They're starting to increase in value. And we did see some pickup in value from prior year, primarily because Juniper and Marlow are now construction is complete and they're starting to stabilize and be occupied. So there were some modest increase in the values for that. And office values, we continue to see a downward or basically level, because we've always assumed a decreasing value in the offices. Last year and the year before, we pushed back when office starts to increase until the 2028 triennial reassessment. We did not change that. We We still based on feedback from the assessor. Our advice to continue seeing downward trends in office values and appeals in that area. So we our office values are still showing the same as prior years and we're not picking up any increases in office values until the 2020-28 Tri reassessment. A restaurant retail did see a modest increase, a restaurant more so than retail, but they kind of offset each other. So it ended up being like a net neutral, but just slightly increase in value. And that's evident by the just fact that they have occupancies in the site, and they're starting to sign more leases. And then hotels, Estat told us that the values across the county are actually still trending downwards. However, we've historically used Maryweather Lake House as a comparable to value property and new hotels in that area. And that property actually showed an increase in assessed value. So there was some slight increase in the most local hotel market there. So that were the ultimately just holistically for the assess values. We did see a very minor increase up, but nothing substantial from prior year. So the next slide just shows the capital improvements. I don't know if you can zoom in. We just wanted to show them all here. I know it's a lot of numbers. I know you've all seen these particular listed items multiple times. I don't know how much detail you want. But we continue to carry the library, the art center traffic improvements, transit center in school. As I mentioned, we did push back two of these from, we delayed them this year. As I mentioned, so these capital improvements, but none of the cost of these items changed from prior years. So we're carrying the same cost that we always have. And then we're assuming 20-year geo bonds with an interest rate from the county. And these capital improvement items flow through to the net fiscal. And then we have a summary of our net fiscal results on the last page. You'll see on the very last page that we do continue to have some years of negatives in the far right column, but years of positive in the out years. Primarily due to that reduction in the expenses in the budget, there are very, very lean years in the fiscal up front. In prior years those have been red years. But when we looked back to see what was causing that, it was the change in that non-departmental year over year drop in expenses. It was a pretty big change in that line item. So this is the results for this year. I wouldn't say there's anything, a huge difference from prior year, other than that we're starting to see some of the properties that were under construction last year come online, which is helping in the values. No huge change in the assessed values, and we're continuing to monitor other development that's going to be coming forward. And just as a summary, thank you, Emily. The TIFF revenue model, which we provide every year, was submitted through the portal. And that contains the summary data that wraps up all of Emily's slides into one final table, which shows the expenditures on the left, the revenue on the right, the net at the far right. So you should all have that table, which accompanies Emily's presentation. Thank you. Do you wanna get started, Miss Yam? Thank you, Emily. Always for coming in and giving us such a comprehensive view. I am, so I have bottom line question. What's your projection for this year in terms of our tax increment, what the spend will be on bonds, on servicing the bonds, and what will be left over. So there'll be sufficient funds to pay the debt service on the bonds, and there will be some surplus available after paying the bonds. And what will that surplus be? If you give me a second, I can pull that out for you. That would be great. I just want to make sure you say it and not me. Because I know that if I say it, I'll probably make one arithmetic mistake. So I don't want to do that. So we prepare a waterfall calculation every year and that waterfall calculation takes into account the development or the actual tax increment revenues and the debt service and then the set-asides. We carve out all the set-asides. It takes into account the tax appeals. I'm just pulling that up here. So thank you for your patience. I want to make sure I give you the number that was provided to the county in February. That waterfall is part of the special tax report because we also have to have the county approve whether or not a levy of the special taxes required. This year one was not. And when a special tax is required that means that there was not enough money to pay the debt service. Right, correct. Correct. Okay, so looking here the total I'm going to read a couple numbers off to you. That's fine. Okay. So the total tax increment revenues this year were $5.7 million, approximately. Now we have to break that apart between the phase one area and the remaining area. We have to deduct the credits as I mentioned. Then we have to take out the second set aside that goes to the county, which this year was $1.1 million. And then we determine what's available for debt service. And anything after that goes to the county. So with the set aside, second set aside, second set aside and excess funds, it's only about $50,000 as your surplus after debt service and then you have another $1.1 million that goes into the set aside bucket. So the total going to the county is 1.2 million dollars rounded. Correct. Okay, and going back to this Yes, it goes into the net fiscal impacts after death service. Slide that you gave us. So we see, okay, I don't know where I'm going to be able to see this. In 29, it looks like 27, 28, 29 are red. I may have the wrong columns here. But then we're in the black for two years. And then it gets in the red again in 34, 33. So what happened that it went from the red into the black and then back into the red again? So in about 2030, 2031, you have additional development coming online in the lake front area and in other neighborhoods. And so you're starting to see around 2028-2029 some of that other development coming online. So you see a pickup and revenues. So it starts to trim black again. But then you also have capital improvements start coming back online which is why you start trending back to the red. There we go. What are the projected capital improvements that? The capital improvements were the improvements. So if you can maybe pull back up on the screen and go to the CIP schedule number six. I'm sorry slide six. So these are the improvements here that are coming online. All right and you have the schools in the first set aside correct? So in the county set aside? Yes yes yes. So then my just my last, actually, this isn't about you Emily, but we have what we call the the Holly sheet where she shows us, yes, the Holly schedule. Do we call it the Carl's schedule? This is the Carl the Holly's Hedges, the more comprehensive. Yes, I think I'm looking at that. And the reason why I bring this up is because the school, which is, well, it says schools, but the school that has been identified as the first school that would get money is Bryant Woods. And it is, it here, it is listed in the second set aside. And we, actually the county council approved our, the BOE request on March 12th. And that contained Bryant Woods in their request. And it was the only school in that request under the funding column that said TBD. And I'm like, huh, well that's interesting. So I am hoping that at least whether there's money going into it or not, that at least it will be corrected to take it out of the second set aside column and put it properly in the first set aside column. And what you just said is partially part of the reason why it's out that far. what I mean mean by that is, we assume here that this school is actually a new elementary school. That's what this school's column refers to at the time when the TIFF passed. The hypothesis was we would need a new, a brand new elementary school to service downtown as opposed to like a renovation or an expansion. And so what we do every year is we monitor to what you just said. We monitor the school system's annual CIP and if we don't, which is a 10 year CIP and so if we don't see any request from the school system for either a new school, if we don't see a request from the school system for a new school, we basically push the school out 10 years plus one so that the model stays conservative. But it also matches that the school system is not requesting anything over the next 10 years. So I think I'm not familiar with the Bryant Woods renovation or expansion plan, but presumably, I think the school system maybe may still be in the process of debating whether it needs a brand new school or whether it's the fish and it's a renovator. It was a... They put it in their request to us. And and we approved that and they are now one of the most overcrowded schools and it's anticipated they if things don't change that it will be the most overcrowded school elementary school in the county. So I don't think they were thinking about a brand new school. I think they were thinking about a renovation and an addition because there is some space at some of the nearby schools. I think that will still be crowded, but I think given the nature of the student body there that as Mr. Brown states from our school district over and over again, it's not just about the kids in the classrooms, but it's also their programmatic needs, and there are a lot of programmatic needs at that school. So it is on their CIP, and I want to make sure it is on our first set of site. and I think to that point, we really should, we've been pushing this out every year because we don't see it in the CIP this year. There is something regarding a downtown school, and so I do think it's probably worth, you know, going back to the school system, the county and the school system, just revisiting this conversation about what is the timing for school expansion or school? Either a new school or an expanded school that services the downtown area. I mean, I think this is a good We should probably have that since they did put since they did put a Bryant Woods addition request in the CIP to make sure that it's secured in the model. I hadn't thought of it in this context and this is really my question. I just want to finish this one of brand new school versus a school that's outside of the TIFF district that made it a renovation, made it an addition, it gets kids from the TIF district but it's not located in. Like I'd love to be able to use TIF set aside for what we're doing at Bryant Woods. But can we? Oh yeah, of course. Oh Sorry. And as a matter of fact, even when the school system was talking about new school, it wasn't in the downtown boundaries. It would have been, like, for example, I believe Howard Hughes had to as part of the Downtown Columbia Plan had to reserve a site. I believe the Clare's Forest site was one site that Howard Hughes had set aside. So whether you're talking newer expansion, it does not have to be in the downtown borders. It can be just a school that services that area. Okay. And I don't even think there is current conversation whether a new school or not to physically put that school in downtown. Okay. Emily. buildings three, whatever? What buildings are generating the most TIF revenue? Incremental tax revenue. If you give me one second, I'll answer your question. That would be awesome. So it's definitely going to be completed development, which means it's going to be in the TIFF area. There's some existing development in the remaining plan area, but since we're focused on the TIFF area, it's going to be newer development. I got to assume it's one of the apartment buildings or Which one's like 450 units? So metropolitan is currently valued at 93 10 mm flats is 114 so that one's very high That's probably one of the highest and that doesn't include It's retail ground floor retail, which is another two million ish So Juniper and Marlo aren't far behind You know, even though they're just coming online so I suspect they keep trending trending in the direction, they will probably be valued more than 10 mm flats. They're at $85 and $89 million respectively. The office buildings are the lowest, you know, one Maryweather is 34 million, 10able 308 is currently 58 million, two Maryweather's 12 million, all of000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, TEMM flats. The parking garage is, we don't charge for any of those, do we? We do not. So that's just the value, that's just like a replacement cost. Right. There's no income gerry. And I know the apartment buildings are bleasing up, and you're right, I mean, at some point, Juniper's the big one, right? It's like, right, so. So, correct. I'm sorry, no. Marlo has 442 units and Juniper is 358 units. So, I mean, that's clearly on its way to passing. So, let's talk about one-nary weather in Tenable. Like, within Tenable is, they have the largest lease, right? Yeah, so their gross square footage is 333,000 versus one Mary Weathers, 197,000 square footage. However, Tenable is not fully occupied right now. Yeah. I'm probably getting into Kathy questions, or Christie questions, sorry. But one of the things we hear about these office buildings is occupancies X because I still have leases in the student you paid but nobody's sitting in those spaces. So there's the anticipation that at the end of a lot of these big lease terms, there's not going to be a renewal. Do you have a sense in one merry weather and tenable of how much space is at risk? I don't have that on me. I'd be happy to look into it for you, but I don't have those numbers available. Okay. I don't even know that it's really a U-question as much as it might even be a hard-use question of like stress tests, the valuation of those buildings, like if Tenable doesn't renew or something like that. And what's that due to this tax increment? Right. So. Understood. That's all I have for this round. I went back and watched your presentation from last year to prepare for tonight. And I think last year it was at least to me shocking to hear that categories of building had been moved back by something like 11 years and 14 years. I think I heard you say that has calmed down this year, right? We didn't make any changes from last year. So we didn't push anything further back and we didn't accelerate anything. So what we had last year remained the same this year. OK, and so I think it was like residential I had moved back for maybe office, moved back 11 and retail and everything else moved back 14. Correct. But it still meant that residential was going to advance first. And my question to you or HRD is, at what point in time does Hardhuse run into its residential cap as step fourth in the DRA, right? That it's supposed to be a matter of phasing, right? That's right. There's a phasing chart in the downtown Columbia Plan that purposefully paces the proportion of development, right? That retail office residential and hotel are kind of moving along at similar proportions. I would have to go back and check, but I don't know how close they are. I believe we're still in phase one, right? And I believe we're coming up to the residential cap on phase one, but we can go back and I can get you a more definitive answer on where we are in phase one and what's next, what's the next trigger, right? What is the first threshold that's going to be hit? Okay, but we don't like, shouldn't, wouldn't we know, you know, this is gonna be the X number, condo or apartment dwelling? Absolutely, Department of Planning and Zoning tracks that information and they should absolutely know that because they would, they're the ones who process the site development plans and would know if it's allowed to move forward based on the status of the phasing chart. So that is definitely something that's monitored in the county through two days. That's what I'm asking. If you're including that kind of. Oh yeah, that's part of the reason we have DPC review all of the absorption. In fact, when we get the absorption from HRD, DPC usually tells us to push it back and make suggestions to what they've given to us based on questions like you're asking or what they're actually seeing for permitting. So we end up taking a more conservative approach than what HRD provides to us based on that. Okay. Okay. And so I, you know, it's on the list of things that I'll probably never get to do. But my concern is that HRD will go back or come to us or I don't, by whatever vehicle, I think they've done it before the playing board where HRD goes back and unilaterally adjusts those quotas within the phasing without actually coming back to the council. Am I imagining that? I don't know. I can't speak to what HRD does, but I do know that when we review this every year, we are mindful of looking at the densities between Lakefront and Crescent and all of the Caps and all of the DRA and downtown Plenary of Caps for the concern I think you're raising. Okay. I can't speak to, you know, how they come into the county whether or not, but I can tell you we do our best to try to monitor that on our side. To your point though, I do believe there was a planning board action. I can't remember if it was 2024 or 2023 where there was a petition before the planning board to adjust how residential units were counted, which did make some changes. And so I think what we should do, what I should probably do is go and dust off that planning board decision and forward it to you so you have it. But I can't remember if it was 2023 or 2024, but we'll dust it off. This this might be an Amanda question, but I thought at a minimum, the commercial versus residential square footage allocated into the three main 10-year phases, I thought that that was built into the code, the county council, like you can't jump to more residential until you hit a commercial milestone at the end of phase one. That's all in bright. That's all in the downtown Columbia plan. Yeah, versus maybe how it's counted or what goes on a particular neighborhood. I think that happens to the planning board level. But the plan does have that one table in it that we reference that does show the commercial residential density by phase. Because that was heavily negotiated if I recall by the last council to push some residential out to phase two and move some commercial up to phase one understanding that if you only got to the end of Phase 1, you couldn't burden it with all that residential. That's right. And I think when the plan passed in 2010, there were three phases. The 2016 amendment added a fourth phase. So there's now four phases in development. Okay, so as you've been doing your updates year after year the cap or the number of residential units that you're watching has not gone up. Okay. Now we do a residential tab. We don't provide it to you all but we have a tab that we prepare and gift a car all every year and we're checking the caps the totals we compare the totals in the tiff area versus the downtown plan area and we're checking the caps, the totals. We compare the totals in the TIFF area versus the downtown plan area. And we're checking the affordable units because the affordable units are on different sites. So it's a very detailed, but it's all just residential to make sure that we're checking all those tests. That would be good to see. Yeah. Yeah. And the other reason why that's important is the affordable units are tax exempt, presumably tax exempt units, because they're built by the housing commission. So- Oh, I would have said- We're good to see. Yeah. Yeah. And the other is why that's important is because the affordable units are tax exempt, presumably tax exempt units because they're built by the housing commission. So. Oh, I would have said illusory, but okay. Right. Theoretically, right there. They're built by the housing. They're built by tax credit. Okay. There's two types of affordable units. There's the inclusionary units that Howard Hughes puts in their buildings, and then there's the Housing Commission units that Howard Hughes puts in their buildings And then there's the housing commission units that are the tax credit units and the housing commission units are generally tax exempt So they get a tax exemption for something that HRD builds it's still in the HRD buildings Yes, but they're owned by the HEC so they're exempt for text purposes. So we still have, we have 80% your deep buildings. Yes, but they're owned by the HTC, so they're exempt for tax purposes. Okay, so we still have, we have 80% AMI and 30% AMI affordable units and then at one point we were carrying 60% MIHU units, but then we also have the housing commission units. We can provide you with that breakdown that goes into the model. Okay. All right. Thank you. I think Dr. Jones is left and we'll be rejoining us after much Ms. Rigby. I'm sorry, just trying to get the three that were focused on. It's the TIFF model, but then also the transit center and then any HRD that we can get to. Okay, I'm just going to go with the transit center to begin with if you want to come up and join. The the question's really about which sites have been, or currently being evaluated and sort of what barriers exist towards getting that project moving. And what milestones need to be achieved before that gets moving? Part of that. Sure, sorry. So really which sites are we looking at if it's been determined what are the barriers before we get to the transit center and then what milestones need to be hit before the transit center. So right now we're in a plan, a process of putting this into a two phase project basically. The first part is trying to make sure that we have a continuation of operation and looking in those short-term alternatives. I noted from the previous study, there was some alternatives that was kind of placed in the study where we, part two of that is to update that study and things have changed since then you know gone through COVID so we want to kind of make sure that we are if those alternatives or locations are still in play or if there's new locations that we should be looking at. Sure well you just take your millions writer right so we're about to're about to. Yes. Yes. Yes. So yeah, so that right there brings is a really good point of making sure that we are able to one continue the operation from a short term perspective, when asked to move from where it is currently now. So we want to make sure that the operation operates better than currently. And make sure there's no pickups or anything. So are there certain milestones that need to be re, like that study is one of them? Is there a milestone within the TIFF or an order? Or is that up to sort of executive prioritization? So the most important part of masks and I want to make sure that we, you know, hit first is making sure that from a short term in terms of perspective that the continuation of operation, making sure that we look at another location to cover that move basically. I mean, could it, I guess what I'm missing maybe is as the transit centers being built, are you looking at continuing operations where they are existing or are you looking at changing that as well and looking at an interim plan for where you could shift those operations and then build the transit center. As of right now we're looking at another location. Again, just to make sure that we're operating better than before. Okay. So that needs to be done. Part two that is looking from a long-term perspective, trying to go out there the study, and also look at if the other locations make sense one to look up pool and play, see if there's any additional partnerships or any other with that cost would also look like as well. What is the timeline for determining when you get to like when you want to have your new site for your existing operations? I would love to have been tomorrow but we're actually- Within reality unfortunately. Well we have a we have we're discussing now with a consultant right now to look at one of the short-term operation now. So we're looking to give a notice, notice a proceed to the contract, to the consultant next month in May. And that's going to basically plan it out from now. And when do you expect that scope of work to be completed? Well, we're going through the, through the, through the discussion now, that scope and everything now. So we have a better time for him once we finish that, grab onto those talks. Okay, don't wait and see. It's okay if that's the answer. I don't say like that, but once we finish wrapping up our scopeuffle work with them, we can have a better schedule on plan and how we want to start. Okay, well just tell me when to harass you again, and I will do that. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Young. Can you continue on the transit center? Yeah. All right. Ms. Smith, could you join us at the table? I had a couple questions for you regarding the transit center. Don't go too far, Emily. We might need you again. Sorry. So this is pertinent actually sort of a follow-up to the question, well first of all good afternoon. Good afternoon. We're just so into the questioning mode here now and you are, would you like to introduce yourself? Sure. I'm Kristi Smith. I'm the regional president for Howard Hughes, based here in Columbia. I read. Thank you. And welcome. Welcome to our table. So Ms. Riggby just asked about when this was all planned and where it was going to be planned. I'm wondering if it says in our budget book that, let's see, the downtown Columbia Plans Community Enhancements Programs and Public amenities, SEAPA number 14 requires the master developer to provide a location at no or nominal costs for a transit center prior to the issuance of a building permit for 3.2 million square feet of development. So I'm wondering, are you guys at 3.2 million? That's one. And the second question is, have you had any discussions with the Transportation Office? I don't believe we are at the 3.2. I don't have, I was looking at this on Fridays, I don't have the actual official tracker of the square footage. So we are not, not yet there. And then in 2018, right, there was, I think a, there was 2018, yeah. A comprehensive, you know, study done. And so we did meet with Department of Transportation recently to talk about, you know, this effort to kind of, you know, I kicked that off again and re-engage with that study. So I imagine we would stay in contact through that process. So long before you got here, the plan was to put the Transit Center in a place where there's a building right now. Is that correct? I believe the 2018 plan showed a few different options than adjacent to existing buildings and existing parking garage that are still today standing. Okay, so that didn't look like it was going to. That's why, that's why, for Mr. Dickerson is still searching for that place, wondering where, I feel like where's Wal Waldo only here? It's where's the Transit Center. And how are you going to get it there? And have you all been able to identify an area that you think would be? I think this way, the kind of unfold as part of this study update process You know, as it goes on, I mean we certainly will be cooperative and you know, want to engage, you know, in that process. So I know there's been a lot of factors that have potentially evolved since that 2018 study. So there's also the issue of putting housing on top of this transit center, which actually I can't imagine wanting to sit on top of emissions spewing buses, but that's a whole nother issue. I think, are you all, I'm assuming that you're also thinking about that as you're thinking about placement. And I'm also then thinking about the five now six years. It's taken Mr. Engel to secure funding for housing above the Toby's rebuilt. And I don't think he's even there yet. So that did at least in part delay that project. So I'm wondering whether you've taken that into consideration as well. Well, as part of the study, we're looking at all of that, making sure that it makes sense. Just pull the count out and understand where we are currently now. So we can make a better sound decision. I'm trying to picture this transit center. Other than like being an extra, there's a huge transit center, of course, in Montgomery County, which is pretty significant. And buses pull in there and lots of people park there and also had huge cost over runs and concrete that fell apart and not a pretty picture took years to complete. I assume that that's not, I don't have even a vision of what this transit center is going to look like other than like an extra large bus stop. I'm thinking what else is going to stop there other than buses and we don't have that many buses in Howard County and the only buses I guess that we'll be adding that we know for sure are the ones that we'll be going, the bus rapid transit routes. That will be MTA, the community routes along with the flash BRT. So we're gonna be looking at all that to kind of provide a vision. All right, all right. Some schematics and seeing what that could look like. So we haven't even gotten to that point. Right. We don't even know what is a transit station look like in Howard County versus what it looks like in Montgomery County where they have lots and lots of buses. Alright. So alright. It doesn't sound like there's a lot of progress from last year. All right, thanks. I'll talk about the Transit Center. So, I was around 15 years ago when this all got done. And the transit center was sort of a last minute addition. Thank you. A combination to one particular council member who thought that we needed this. I can't figure out how on the world something the size of downtown Columbia needs a transit center. So maybe I'm missing the point. Like what goes there? What does it look like? What is you sort of ask what it looked like? I can't even imagine. Other than a bus stop, what else goes there? Well, part of this transit center, it's kind of, it could be multiple things, but I know definitely as far as this center, it's going to be kind of stations where drivers, the operators can come out and actually go to facilities, bathrooms. There's other things where you can pull into this as far as our... Looking from a grand standpoint, from a mobility standpoint, multi-modal. You can also put in actual bus, excuse me, bike racks. That can be service there from from Alzheimer's standpoint. You're putting in more better pedestrian needs as well, as part of the center. And as you say, trying to understand what it can also look like, it's kind of tough because we're going into this with a fresh idea, fresh open-minded to this. As you can see from, you know, other parts of Montgomery County, they have also parking as an addition to part of the transit center as well. But as a, as, there could be a whole host of things that could be put into this. What I'm trying to do is just make sure that one, we understand where we want to go as far as looking and updating the existing study that we have now, but make sure that an updatingness that it makes sense to continue on that pathway where we are now as far as what needs to be added into the actual transit center. I started to nod my head when you said whether the path should still be the same, but then the next thing you said was opposite what I was thinking. Because I can't imagine this study coming back. It seems like we've got a SEPA and understand you guys feel like you have to comply with the SEPA and we've put this in the plan and then we're trying to figure out what to put in it because we have to build it instead of everybody getting together and saying we're not building this. It sounds like a parking lot that's not even a parking lot where maybe I can park a car and get on my bike. Well, we see how well the scooters worked. people aren't going to, it just seems like a colossal waste of money. And as far as location, I mean, is anybody been around the bus stop at the mall lately? I mean, what office building or residential building is going to want this transit center, and he were close to it. I mean, it's just a concentration of crime and weed. And I'm not to sound harsh, but it's like we're dealing with such huge needs and issues and complicated things that I don't even understand how a transit center can even be on our radar map. So, that's all I have to say, but transit center and I don't really have any questions. I'll just pass it down a lot. I know, but go ahead. As probably the most frequent rider of our service sitting on the council, I would disagree with some of the adaptations that have been made about the current drop off location. However, I do see the benefits that could be created from a transit center where it is now is not particularly efficient. It is not particularly like for the buses to come in and out of it is not necessary. We have it's okay. First of all if you make it if you're saying how you know what it is and what it's like there. I know you made the that loop that's where that that that's the hub of the hub and spoke. I would say a hug. Not actual center. That actual center. It's a. Yes. No, I mean, it is it is a current hub. I mean, my I would but it's my assumption that a new transit center would actually take into consideration sort of the experience of the riders and that a lot of the concerns, I'll phrase them that way, that have been raised by others, would actually be mitigated by having a fresh, clean, functional, staffed, visible place where children are, centers. So that way you don't necessarily have all of, you don't have any of the elements that may be undesirable to infrequent riders of the system. So are those some of the things that the consultants will be evaluating is sort of the opportunities for advancement within this transit center? Yes. Because I think many people in this region would want to, I mean, younger people these days, we hate commuting. And if I could commute right down to a bus, that sounds pretty great. And so I really do hope that you continue to explore this, because we do need a better option than every single bus getting there lining up. There are ways that we can really expand this efficiency. Add needed housing to our very low inventory of housing that we currently have. And really achieve pushing this project in this function.. Because it is a function, it's a necessary function. We have a hub and spoke model, the buses go out, the buses come in, and they all come into the mall. And that's where you want opportunity to get on a different bus until we get these 15 minute headways that I speak of into existence and dream, dream of one day. But I'm glad to hear that the consultant will be considering those things and looking at how we can have a transit center where people choose to be. So thank you. Miss Young, do you have more on transit? No, I do not. I mean, it kind of goes to the same point as the library that we'll hopefully be getting too soon and transit and the Bannock or Fire Station is. I think that among other things that the new cultural center taught us is that binding, the housing to a public structure is not a reasonable endeavor. Which was something that I think all four of us agreed to last October when we had that conversation with Mr. D. LeBrenzo. And then two months later a contract was signed. So that unfortunately I guess fell on deaf ears. And it's just holding up the housing. I mean that's the, I mean I'm not the big you know housing advocate on the council but if affordable housing is part of the downtown plan and part of the vision for Columbia and part of all the things that we say it is it's just this inner connection and dependency is all what's doing is slowing down the affordable housing and it's going to continue to. But if we don't have a place for the transit center, then we don't have a place for the illusory housing above it, do we? That's my point is. Yeah, that's my point. I mean, it's one thing for a trade to be like, I don't know. And you guys have your concerns or not about whether we have a transit center. but if trade doesn't have a location for the transit center, then we don't have a location for the X number of units above it, which is the main point. I just, the whole DRA, I thought was structured to attain affordable housing as market rate was built in. And now we have almost all market rate built in. I think we're getting very close to that phase one number. Retail and office is stalled and we have, I don't know, I'll say 50, 50 affordable housing units and then whatever's going above the dinner theater it just seems like there's a much bigger problem here other than I mean not that that's a very big problem tree but like a much bigger problem than what the the transit center looks like the question is, really prevents us from activating these housing units. To withhold the site for the library, we can't even get the mayor's weather site. I mean What I think you're also- I mean, is this an option where we could put the housing units that would be going to the transit center, can we double them on that Maryweather site? Can we make progress in these goals, but without the land, we can't make progress. Well, that gets back to opening up the whole DRA, which I've spoken to, the Smith Bout in the past, and that it might be time to, I mean, this was 2010, right? That this was contemplated for the first time and signed in 2016. It was a fee and to refund. It was a pot of money. It wasn't this DRA and all these interconnections to county projects. And in 2016 it got changed. Things change. And I just... It's been nine years and that hasn't worked either. I think that we've got to look at this whole thing to decide what's the best, what is the best way forward for Howard County, for our community and for Howard Hughes as well. Well, I'd give you a big player in this. I agree with you, these guys, that if we can't find space for the transit center, then you can't find space for housing. But the space specifications for housing are different than a transit center. Like what we need for a fire station, what we need for a transit center, where it needs to go, where we want it to go, what it's close to. Like that's a little more complicated than where I can put some housing units. So granted, there's not landfall in out of our pockets anywhere, but I just feel like continuing to keep those connected is limiting our options for the housing. I agree. And also continuing to think that they can only be placed in downtown Columbia. I mean, we have money right now going in from Howard Hughes millions of dollars that are sitting with the Columbia Housing Partnership and that money could be put to use to start to build housing anywhere in this county if we were to open up this DRA and to make it to think about this from a different perspective. Go ahead Mr. D. The way I'm going to say something. No I mean I just just to tie it back because I hear the direction of the conversation. And I think just as I'm listening, just to tie it back to Emily and Rafu's presentation, right? The TIFF revenue model includes these projects that you're discussing as expenditures. We treat these expenditures as given, but they're not, I mean, you have to decide, I mean, it is definitely worth the discussion. The merit of the project itself, right, is one discussion like what you're having with the Transit Center. And then how do you then address the DRA's housing obligations in accordance with the merits of the individual capital projects? Everything is, they're tied together. The downtown Columbia Plan, the DRA, the TIFF Revenue Model, the discussion about the merits of one capital project versus another, they're intertwined issues. And I think, you know, I think that's what you're touching on here, right? It's hard in downtown, and I've been a part of these hearings for a number of years. It's hard with downtown to make isolated decisions because the decisions are all connected. And so I think that's what I think you're touching on and what I hear you kind of debating and how to figure out how to move forward. I mean, nobody in 2016, I hope, thought that it was going to cost $68 million to build a 40,000 square foot dinner theater. they had, I hope thought that it was going to cost $68 million to build a $40,000 square foot dinner theater. If they had, I hope they would have said, we can't do that. That's not going to make sense in 2020, 2025. Not going to make sense. And who knows? Again, we don't even have a vision of this transit center. So we don't know what that would look like, and what houses would look like on top of that. I think we have a better feel for the library, because there was a rendering of a library, at one point, in the Maryweather district. So at least we can envision it, as opposed to not being able to envision these other projects. Anyway, I hope that at some point we do have the bigger, longer conversation about this. Right, and so what is HRD's position on that? Like, again, I feel like you have to be running up against these ceilings. In terms of, I can't have answered the next phase, unless these other things are achieved. I can't do something at this site unless the decision is made about whether it's going to be used for this or that or something else. What are you looking for? What are your benchmarks where you're like this has to go or be different or? Yeah, I mean, I think as we take a step back and look the overall plan. You know, we will try to advance specific sites, but then also try to take kind of a macro, you know, perspective. And I can't remember the exact residential count, but yes, there are these phasing limits. You know, the phase one is, I presume, I don't have a crystal ball in terms of the office market, but as it relates to residential versus commercial, that that will become a discussion topic as we think about that path forward. But I think more broadly, we are trying to make sure that there is a comprehensive discussion on various sites. And when we put forth the plan for the Lakefront for a library, for example, it is intertwined like Carl Satton and I think that is what has made kind of that that dialogue into challenging as it relates to the Maryweather site as well. But yeah, we are looking kind of at, you know, all of it holistically wanted to make sure that we're fulfilling our obligations, you know, as laid out and that the vision of the downtown plan continues to be realized as it wasn't a vision and of course things evolve and change but I do think that is important to make sure that it is a holistic community piece of it. That's kind of how we approach it. So we're trying to manage the near term and the longer term at the same time, which can be a challenge. Okay, do you have a follow-up, Ms. U.M., and you're just thinking, go ahead. I think it's kind of relevant to what you're just saying, is we have often, and I'm guilty of it, and no car can say that I have been, like we look at sort of like the set aside model, right? And we're like, well, we've got this mentality of can we afford it, can we afford it? Let's just make sure it doesn't go into the red. But really the end game for this is supposed to be when the dust settles and all the dead servers is paid off, there's this number of economic impact to Howard County. And I know things have gotten pushed out, but when you go to the end of the model now, versus I found the 2019 version of the Karl Spreadsheet. And even before operating expenses, because you weren't always doing that on yours, I mean it's now a third of what it was six years ago. Like we're supposed to be doing this, so at the end of the day, it's this $100 million a year contribution to the general fund. And it's not just about what's just buy and build everything we can to have a dollar left. And my ears perked up when you started to talk about the library. This is a county of 330,000 people that is going to start struggling to maintain our aging schools and do those things. And so much we talk about Montgomery County and these other places. And like I want to have the big, sparkly, wonderful things. that is not affordable here. It's just not. And just because the TIFF schedule says we can squeeze out another $20 million for a project, like that's supposed to end up in contribution to the county finances at the end of the day. Not just let's make this thing break even because we go through all this brain damage for over 40 years if it was just to be break even, right? And I know we're going to talk about the library in a little bit, but I just, I think we, some of us at least need a kind of a change in mentality of how we look at these projects and like why we even approved the downtown Columbia Plan 15 years ago. Why did anybody care? It was going to be this driver. Economic growth. And what that does to the bottom line of the county. But if to get to that growth, we have to spend all the money and what was the point? That makes sense. Okay, let's talk about library. Can we do library? I see, I see, I see the president and CEO of the library system has joined us with some members of herself. If we let Trey Dickerson go, then we will not revisit transit. And Emily, I don't know what to say. I think you're probably in it for that. But if we can make a little bit of room for at least one or two people from library to join us. And I'm also. What? Are you trying to get that? I just we're going to have to leave it back for now. I just wanted to introduce one other person who's here virtually. If I could, Katie Parks from Maryland Economic Development Corporation is online. Okay. With the library, who's our consultant on the library and she's virtual today. Thank you. Yeah, I just... My aim is that we finish this before we break for lunch because otherwise we're like eating sandwiches in the back and you guys are sitting there like I'm waiting for the last 15 minutes we're not doing that. If anybody wants a kid cat let me know. I'll talk to them. I'll talk to them. Yes. Okay. I'm not saying like you know what I'm not I'm just I am I'm assuming that is most convenient for our guests and so that is what we're going to do. And if you're hungry yeah go get some snackies. I don't know. It's a There's snackies on the side Okay, I have no idea where we are in order, but Dev your number one on our on our list today, so I think I'll just restart ordering I know I'll I'll tell you I looked back. We've had library conversations as recently as I'm up the meeting in November of 2024 because it didn't seem like we were making a whole lot of a headway in what was in its initial pronouncement a pretty exciting and well regarded project. So I saw that at the administration, the executive put out a timeline. I'm not sure why, Carl, because it kind of highlighted the fact that we've been stalled since its announcement, mere days before the release of the 24 capital budget. But I'm hoping that with all of the stakeholders in the room, I don't know how much we can accomplish, but I'm really interested in what the impediments here are to at least advancing that project one way or the other. But I'll let Deb kick us off. Well, what the impediments are, I have to assume that since the only, well, actually that's not true. We have gotten two bids or one bid and one demand, I guess, for building this library. One was a bid that was made five, six, seven years ago. I'm looking at you miss it in seven years ago. Yes, seven. Yeah It was it was before we got I think it was about the same time that we got on the county council. Yeah Yeah, so seven years ago for the Maryweather District library at which time I said Over and over and over again, and I'll just say it again because I love saying it I don't understand why we didn't do the library first because that is free to the public and made a lot of sense to have a free public building be the first one of our downtown Columbia projects. But that was not the choice that was made for reasons that I hope someday to find out. And instead, here you sit. So we have that rendering of a beautiful library in downtown Maryweather district. And then we have the architectural drawing from Howard Hughes that said here's our project for $144 million that we would like the county to build along with a parking garage. So those were the two things that were put on the table in 23. The one put on the table years before that. The other one put on the table in 23. And that's, it's kind of stuck us, but I don't know that that's what's really stuck us because maybe money has stuck us, but then I see money being put in other projects that could be put into the library project. And so I'm not sure that that is what has stuck us. But once again, if we were to build the library in the Maryweather district, going back to the original rendering from 2017-18, where you properly bid out a contract in accordance with Howard County procurement regulations. Thank you very much. And chose your, well, chose your developer from that process who then bid out that contract for construction. I don't see once again where we build this library and now wait another six years for the apartments to figure out to see how the housing commission can put the apartments on top. I mean, once again, we're dealing with not just the public financing of the library, but the more complicated financing of public housing. And that's much more complicated than just getting a geo bond out there or even using a little bit of tiff money. And this is where I think should we even be looking again at having housing on top of these public projects. If we are going to do these public projects, where should they go? I mean there's just so many questions and I know that we put you on on the spot last year. When we ask you what I know, I'm so sorry and I don't want to do it again because I know a lot of of it is out of of your hands and that you can't make the kinds of observations that you might want to at this point because it looks as if we might be rebuilding the library right where it is for allegedly $75 million, which I can't even imagine that we would be able to do that at this site. I see that the automatic escalator going up. So I don't know. I'm looking at you, Mr. Dealerin, so because I don't think that we really have a good feel for where this project is right now. And I don't, I guess lastly, so we take $5 million out of the project for what? I mean, oh, now we've got another $5 million in the project so that we're going to pursue a design. Is that the point of taking $5 million out of at the where the library is right now based on 1,200 responses from people who responded to the survey in all of Howard County? No, you're right. And I think, you know, so we have 5 million that was approved two years ago. I think we've spent about 100,000. Right, 150,000 to 200,000. Yeah. On our, what we refer to as our owner's representative, Arcades, who helped us with the Community Engagement Study, provided some preliminary cost estimates and part of that community engagement study was looking at multiple sites and so preliminary cost estimates at the different sites and I think you're right, what is the next step? I mean I think clearly there is still a strong desire to look at the lakefront option. I mean, I think one of the things that we have done with the funding was we, as I introduced them, we hired MedCo to help us kind of sort out now that we've gathered a lot of this technical information from the surveys, from some design estimates, high level design estimates. How do we navigate this project forward given that one of the sites that this administration is very interested in pursuing is owned by another entity, right? Howard Hughes owns the lake from property. So it was incumbent upon them to be at the table as we continue to have this conversation about this property. And that's precisely why we hired MedCo to help us really try to navigate the potential for a deal. And I think part of what we're studying is we talked about, I go back to like two big barriers. And I think one of them has already been, they were both kind of alluded to, right? The first is cost. I mean, we see in the TIFF revenue model what we are setting aside as available for the library. That's one number, right? I think this current year's model shows a projection of $80 million, right? But then we know that the library project at the leg front is nearly double that, right? So you automatically are confronted with a gap, right? So it's partly... And that includes no housing. Right. That includes the lakefront project is not contemplated to have any housing at the top of it. Under the lakefront scenario, you would isolate the merry-weather site as being a site that's purely for housing and put the Lake, put just a library at the Lakefront site. And that's how you achieve both of those objectives. Again, we're always about trying to resolve multiple issues with one capital project, right? We have to do our work to create a library, but we also have to do our work to create the affordable housing that was supposed to accompany the library in the DRA, which just automatically adds dependent variables that make conceiving a project all the more difficult. Part of the studies, part of what we have asked Medco to do and what their deliverables are, are to conduct some revenue studies, to see if there's a possibility of financing some of this project, not just with tax increment, but with downtown tax increment, but with revenue that the project can generate. Which project through the one at the late front? Really, it could apply for any product. Really though, I think these revenue models could apply to any project in right, in the downtown area. I mean, presumably you could charge for parking at any facility. Any library that's built in downtown is likely to have a vent space that could yield some revenue. And so I think before there is a decision as to, you know, before there is a clear determination that there's a path forward with the lakefront, I mean, we have to see where these revenue studies land so that we know what the Delta is that we're looking at. And I will say that at the cost estimates we have, the 80 million in the TIFF model is not enough for any of the options, right? I mean, I think even rebuilding the existing library, here was, well, regardless of its popularity, right? even to rebuild that, you're looking six figures, right? 110, 120 million. So even to do a rebuild of that. So you're dealing with a gap, regardless of the site that is selected. I mean, I think that has to be a fundamental understanding that I've had to appreciate and respect and work within as we're trying to advance one of these concepts. And then you get to the specificity of the Lakefront property. I mean there are some, and this was discussed at the work sessions we had about this project a couple years ago. There is going to be parking implications for the tenants of the Lakefront. Should you choose to move forward with the Lakefront Library? How do those parking obligations get rectified? So I think right there we've just kind of issue-spotted to critical barriers, right? Overall cost, parking. And that is even, and then we get into, right, what is the best way for the county and how it used to transact this site, to convey this site, right? And I think that's why you see funding being requested in this year's budget is because if we are in a position, so let's say our Medco studies come back over the summer, right? We're in the middle of, we're in now the first part of fiscal year 26. Let's say there is a solution that can be addressed on the budget side. Let's say there is a solution that can be reached on the parking side. Let's say there is a solution that can be reached between Howard Hughes and the county with respect to conveying the site. You may be in a position, the county may be in a position and fiscal year 26 to do much more sophisticated design and engineering and potential acquisition, right? And so I think that I'll put it this way. I mean, I think the 5 million that's in contingency, that's really what's before the council this session is really a conversation point. Like let's check in here. Like where are we on this project? Are we any further than we are two years ago, even though we've been doing these studies, or we're in the midst of doing these studies, we've done public engagement. I mean, let's take a, well, let's do a self-assessment here and say where are we with this project? Do we have enough information? Do we know enough to feel comfortable to move forward with one particular site over another, if any, right? And so I think that is my assessment of where we are right now. And I think those are the, to me, the critical deal points that still have to be ironed out. And frankly, a lot of those deal points apply to every site, at least with respect to the cost. I know the leg front is unique in that it's owned by somebody else and not obligated to the county under any document. But I hope this is, I didn't mean it to be a roundabout way of answering your question. Like, those are the deal points that I see are being granted to the people that'm going to resolve. Because there's also a law that prohibits a sole source contract for any entity that owns the land. After we have been dealing with the $68 million excuse of an entity that owned the land, which has it turned out they didn't. And that was why we had to enter into two, three sole source contracts to rebuild Tobis Dinner Theater. We are not going, we pass legislation to ensure that that wouldn't happen again. So that is another part of this whole piece. And unless Howard Hughes wants to do something different than what they indicated they wanted to do in 2023. And I don't know if you were even here yet, Christy, you were not. But that was very much Mr. Fitchett's pitch to the county that Howard Hughes would convey the land, but that Howard Hughes would control the development and they would give us the contract and we would select them and we would use Heatherwick. So that was a lot of you will do this, you will do this, and shortly thereafter we passed legislation that said we will not ever be able to give a sole source contract to an entity that owns the land. And it wasn't just Howard Hughes, it was also probably if anything more springing from what has happened with the rebuilding of Toby's dinner theater. And I think on that point we have shown flexibility, you know, as it relates to how the project proceeds, you know, at the lake front. We certainly wanted it to be iconic. That is very important. But like Carl said, there's a lot of factors that can go into that. And we have demonstrated flexibility with respect to that with the county. OK, well, now you have to know what that word flexibility means. Oh, my God. I mean, the devil in the details, of course, but we have said that we don't need to build it. We want it again to be iconic of quality design to be this civic anchor for the community. We believe that the lakefront is the best spot for that. But we want to make sure that it lives up to that iconic vision. So whether it has to need% of that, right? I mean that's where I think we need to work with the county closely on these next steps as the revenue model comes in. Think through the parking, you know there's just a lot of variables that go into it but with respect to that concern. We have demonstrated that we're willing to not be the developer of this site. And do you have another $50 million? So then you can also pass along to this project. I'm about to hear it. And then we've got a deal. We've got a deal. Okay. Yeah, we're trying to, yeah, we're trying to certainly work creatively and put the best minds. I think Medco is a good ad to really help us from a third party perspective come in with the fresh set of eyes as well. Thanks. I like to use the word iconic a couple times. I can't figure out how we got here. Because last year we put this money into contingency and released money out for us in two years to do a survey, the public process. The survey, which was primarily library users that represented I think four tens of a percent of county population, but whatever, overwhelmingly voted to keep the library where it is. Then we met with the county exec and he said, well, here's the results. We're gonna keep the library where it is. I think he even did an announcement that that was like, what the survey said. And then when in a week we're back to talking about Lakefront and this iconic building. Like I need people that want this iconic building to sit through all of our budget work sessions. Capital operating, spending affordability. Like I know this is the TIFF revenue and it's not taking money from schools and I want to get into all that but ultimately this downtown Columbia project is supposed to throw money off to the county. We're not just supposed to spend every penny that we can and just taking that site at the lakefront out of the tax base is going to cost us millions of dollars in foregone property and income taxes. Meanwhile, the library system is like, we just want to deal with the fact that our central library has elevators that don't work and we're stuck in this push and pull. I just, I don't understand how we got here and why is green unfair because I know you're down here by yourself. But why are we still talking about the lakefront site? Can I try, Carl? Okay. Well, I'll tell you what, when Calvin said, exactly what you said, which was, here's the survey, which I mean, I thought was deeply flawed and sent emails to Carl saying so. The proposition of renovating or rebuilding at the Central Branch Library ultimately in costs was not that far off from this iconic presentation. And so my question Tim was, are you insane for 10 or 20 or whatever the Delta was? You can either jam something into this existing site that probably can't actually fit and bring in all kinds of new operating costs associated with some, you know, sky-rise library, or you can actually continue on. Like to me, it was, it wasn't, you know, a huge comparison point. It was, if we're that close, what is wrong with you? Why can't you bridge that gap? And I probably said that with more cuss words in it, but that seriously was a conversation that I've had here years ago here's a go but here's why it's so close because this has been bugging me so this year We finally asked the auditor's office to to audit like all the library projects around us going back I don't know 10 years going forward whatever How big they were with their market areas where we looked at the the different county systems because like Baltimore County has a lot more smaller libraries. We have, because we're shaped different. We have a fewer and larger libraries, but like square footage per population. We are all like even with that central branch at 50,000 square feet, we're the best. But we need 100 now. Like, nobody has ever proven that you need 100,000 square for a lot. There's not 100,000 square foot library anywhere around us. The closest thing is Wheaton, which is like 70, I think. I'll find it in the thing. Half of it's a library and half of it's community center. So the library for Wheaton, which has probably a population, 50,000, 60,000 people, which is about one fifth, one sixth of our population, and we have five branches, six branches, is a 40,000 square foot library. That's why the numbers are so close. That's why even building it at the lake, even building it at Maryweather, that these costs have gone through the roof. I'm gonna go ahead and let Miss Akins respond to that if you wish. Yeah, thank you. And I appreciate the conversation and the questions and the digging deeper. It's important. Wheaton is 92,000 square feet. And I would say that one of the things that when you take, again, and I kind of padded and misprayed on the back the last time we were here. And I say that because it's important. These are complex builds that require a lot of thought. And when you're looking at pieces of this without the entire puzzle, it is ineffective, although I appreciate the look. When we talk about the size of a facility, when we talk about population size of other jurisdictions, that does not speak to engagement. It does not speak to curriculum. Howard County is a different animal than any other county in this state. It just is. Thank you to those of you who were at Battle of Books last night, Friday night. That was amazing, right? When we see people engaging with our library system, we are turning people away by the droves for lots of different curriculum offerings, right? That is happening most at Central Branch because it is so tight. We do not have the space needed to serve there. That's just the short and long of it, right? So I appreciate again, we can talk about the size of facilities and the population of other areas. They are not seeing the type of engagement that we are seeing in our Letmus break, speak to this in just a bit. The library ran as we shared with you all, I think back in 23, our own surveys and public sessions as we were preparing for our strategic plan and even talking about what this library could look like and hearing from community. There were over 3,000 folks that attended those listening sessions and we'll over 2,700 that responded to the survey and we provided that to you in that monster binder some time ago, right? We have done our own very high level, but we have done our analysis on the current sites, right? It is not going to yield what is needed in a very cost-effective way, and I appreciate that Ms. Walsh because we, looking at this, if we had to go up, you are adding to your operating costs, right? Because of sight lines, because of staffing per floor and all of those types of things, it's not as efficient, right? You've got to go down, obviously, for parking. It's just a different shaped site. If we were to add on to the facility, right? You're looking at, because of the way the facility is oriented now, you're looking at quite a bit there. So again, we do get to close to the cost, right? For much less of the build. And that just is not going to long-term satisfy the needs the library has to serve this community. I'm gonna let Ms. Bray to speak to him in about other facilities if she may. Other facilities, we mentioned Wheaton for instance and its size and it was built in 2015 as when it occurred. The current day cost for actually last year's current day cost. So 2023, 24 cost for the Wheaton would have been 125 million. They built it from much less. Oh, yeah, because they priced it in 2015. Yeah, right. So with escalation and inflation, similarly, we have the Springfield and Silver Spring. And Silver Spring, that's $83,000. And current day expenses for that would come up to about $89 or $90 million. So we're looking at sites where we have comparable sites in terms of square feet, what it would cost. The cost is whether we tear down the space at the old space, or whether we tear down the space and we redo the site, and still to construct a hundred thousand square foot building, doesn't matter if you do it in this close proximity. If we were building Silver Spring or Wheaton, comparative to here or Baltimore, comparative to here, then it would make a dip, something may make somewhat of a difference, but it doesn't because we're less than a mile from each other. So the cost is, the cost of what the building is, the biggest thing to cross point is to work out the site and the parking. And so the library, even when we look at the 144 million dollar sticker, of that sticker, only 94 million is the actual library building. The other part is actually stuff that is not attributable to the library, but whenever we talk about it and I understand why we talk about the whole cost. So I think that when we look at the library and what we're looking to spend, we have to get the site clarified and we have to get the parking and the more we talk, the more time goes by. And so even the building that was at Maryweather and for I think at that time, 92 million dollars, that cost would be escalated now now as well But I understand we have to flesh it out and we have to be clear and we want to invest our taxpayers Of which I'm one of those people the money the best and so we are the free entity down there We are the equalizer that allows everyone to come and we do have Our attendance in our classes most of our classes are are on waiting list and in Central it is pretty bad even with our language early learners class, our children's classes, they are a wait list, there are people waiting outside. And so I know for the past few years we keep saying the same thing but as we grow that area as we get more housing down there we get whether we get the affordable housing in that space or a market rate, whatever we put down there, we're putting additional people in a space and what we're trying to do is provide them with the full curriculum to ensure that they get at the same benefits that everybody else gets. So I don't know if that's helpful, but we can run through the numbers, but I do understand. No, it is helpful. And I've even said to people hold on. It's not $142 million library. I mean, some of the parking I think is attributed to the library. So let's say it's $100 million, whatever it is. But what I think I'm hearing from you guys is programming. Now one thing I do want to point out is we're not building this library. And like the population growth isn't single family to attach to homes with kids. I mean, most of these new homes in downtown Columbia are not generating kids. They're generating young professionals that frankly don't go to the library for the most part. Totally. I don't know why you think these two professionals from the library would know who goes to the library. So without you respect, we have besides children's classes, my understanding, what you're saying. And older adult classes too. And older adults. And there's a lot there too. Like me and their mid 20s, who do come. There's people who do come and attend other classes and take everything. But I understand that there is a large constituent. But it's not just for the young and for the senior people. There are agent classes all throughout and there's needs all throughout. And I think that that's what maybe it's a little lost in this data is the programming. If we're providing more stuff for people to come to the library and do, then you need more space for them to do it. And I get that. And yeah, sure. If the cost is a push, why not? But I'm still not convinced the cost needs to be a push, or that we can afford it. But I'll pass myself on. I think, I mean, I know you talk about, you said flexibility. And the flexibility. And the flexibility I heard was the, HRD was willing to comply with the law that has changed since the proposal was made. So you can maybe perhaps appreciate, let me not see flexibility there. It is just what Miss Brade said. It is, it is the site itself and the parking. And I think notwithstanding our colleague from Western Howard County, I think there is at least within the administration and other council members of willingness to pursue that kind of project that you're imagining still the iconic Marquis civic anchor, right? That's what governments build. But it seems to me this government can't advance until something other than compliance with law is extended from that property owner, which happens to be HRD. I mean, I don't... Yeah, that's why we're working on right now. I mean, with the county, as it relates to the parking in particular, we have a work digesting now, updated parking studies trying to make sure we understand what's happening today. We've shared information with MedCo to assist with that as well. So that's where we are. And not trying to, of course, it's the it's, you know, the law, but I think, you know, HRD is willing to, you know, like you said, we don't have the obligation to give this site for a library. And that's something they know that we think is, is, you know, would be so beneficial to the entire, you know, community. So understand that kind of that has changed since the last, you know, original announcement but that is the kind of the background you know behind that but that is where we effectively are right now with the county and like really digging into the details. Okay. I to me it's not even really this site and parking like Miss Brad. I feel like you're settling the library with a parking obligation that has nothing to do with providing the services that they're in the business of providing. We just made trade diggersons stay here forever and ever and talk about a transit center because of ever there was a place where we actually have working transit. It's in that area. And we're talking about putting a library where people are. So the parking I think is really a Howard Hughes or HRD issue. And the notion that somehow the government has to fix that parking problem for Howard Hughes. If it's even a problem, I don't know. Because I feel like maybe last year or two years ago, we like a chart and parking lots or something. I mean the fact is I don't care, personally, I do not care. I need a site to build a library on and then I need a budget that we do or don't approve a majority of us. But until we get that site, we're not doing anything. And if we don't get the site we want, at some point in time, even someone like me who thinks it's a good idea and does want government to do good government things, is going to move on to an indoor track or something else. That's also iconic and good government. But this to me, I feel like we're having the same conversation over and over again. I mean, just like COZ, you know, my safe and sound, but in a different angle, if this is a stall, then you may lose the game. If this isn't a stall, then what information is necessary to go forward? Like how many more studies do we have to do? Every time we come here, you guys are doing a different study. I want you to stop studying and figure out how much that land costs and why if the county wrote you to check for that amount the next day we couldn't advance. To me this is all way too complicated for me and again I don't care about all of the other stuff. If we're going to build a library at the lakefront then we need to own the lakefront property. And I think, right, I mean I'm maybe I'm oversimplifying but water also flows downhill for those of you for the flood discussion. But, yep, Ms. Higgins, you have something to help me? Potentially. One, I thank you. I wanted to specifically for community and others. The library doesn't obviously negotiate on behalf of the county or Howard Hughes or any other entity, but we do know libraries. So we do want to ask this council if there are things that we can specifically provide to you to move this process and or of course to the administration or Howard Hughes or anyone else that's part of this conversation. If the council has a specific deadline passed today with very specific items that it would like to see where we're interested in doing what we can to help make that happen. If we can be party at the table if there's any information that you all that we can provide to you to help that move further, we are available to do that as well. So again, our interest is just as much as yours and seeing this advance and getting the answers that you need to make a decision. So if we can be helpful in that all, we're happy to do so. Thank you. I mean I know it was two years ago we give you this amendment with all these tasks and I think in large part you've done these tasks I don't I definitely don't want us to do that but I do think it's time for us to say you know now or never like yeah I'm terrible at those to, I mean, we were talking about appraisals two years ago. There's a disconnect between what seems to be a unified consensus, apart from my colleague from the West, or perhaps even for. But what has actually happened, now you're like a hooligan from a soccer match. What's going on? I'm happy even to say we just told C0337 and DPW to come back with actual numbers. The council, I think at least some members of us are willing to do the same thing you offer for Miss Akins. Whatever it is that we can do to help advance this in a meaningful way now is on the table, at least for me. And I see D3 is shaking that. Well, I do have you said, do you have some significant questions that would help this and this gets back to the housing piece. I know that I've talked to both of you actually about my thinking that this would be a perfect place to look the Maryweather district site would be a perfect place to locate low-income senior housing so that we don't continue to overcrowd schools and utilize or over utilize our school resources. And I don't know where how that would fit into this whole piece that we're thinking about right now. And of course, I think we also all said last October, if you put Toby's in that civic space, we could save a lot of money, and we could just move forward. And obviously did not happen. So although there was general agreement, I think at that time even D5 was saying, yep, make sense. It was just a little bit too far down the road. Oh, that's what it was said, but nothing, no shovel head was in the ground. But this, but I think this is kind of a big conversation because it goes back to what the chair just said that, you know, I have chuckled that I don't see this council approving this like front library and moving it forward. But I'm hearing something to and figured figured, you know, everybody would just wait us out because, you know, the group is going to be different in two years. But what I'm hearing is that this council might actually do it. So what the hell are we waiting for? Like why? But there's no one. There's not, I mean, I think what you also heard was, what's the proposal? And if Mr. DeLorenzo comes back with a proposal that says this is going to cost $130 million I don't I'm certainly not on board for something like that given the needs that we have in this county for our schools Well, that depends right we asked to see what the results were from revenue backed bonds regarding the parking right so That's a large part of it. If the tenants are paying for parking because as a public entity, we cannot approve public dollars for private parking. Like that cannot happen. So I'm definitely interested in hearing from Medco about what they've heard. But to get me to a yes, you just have to figure out the parking in a way that does not mean we're using public taxpayer dollars on private temporary car storage. I mean, I would rather throw myself in front of a bus. Second of all, to see a good faith effort, I mean, good faith to me would be releasing that Maryweather site to allow with a housing to start moving. That would show me that these are serious discussions That have positive results that this isn't just some sort of long delay tactic where you know, we're all hanging on forever and we never happens Lastly, I think you know, absolutely at this point The cleanest most straightforward thing seems to to be to just sell the land. I'm hearing that it would be beneficial to the county, but I'm also hearing we have no obligation to sign over the land. We are not asking for it for free. We would like to pay fair market value for this land, and then we could just, everybody could move forward. We could get the iconic building, which, I'm reading directly from Sage Policy's economic impact of downtown Columbia, detailing contributions of the Lakefront Library, Mary Weather District and more, from Sage Policy Group from 2023, we can see that research indicates that libraries typically generate a return on investment between 400 and 500 percent on each dollar of taxpayer money invested into the facility. So I wanna get those returns. I wanna have these benefits for our residents. I wanna have people down in the lake front activating that space, eating at restaurants, shopping at retailers, coming down out of their offices, generating taxpayer dollars for Mr. Youngman and our General Fund, also for your organization as well. And I think that we can get there, but these things have to start moving forward. I just is been painful the last few years. And I think and I just want to say like kudos because Miss Walsh and I, I don't think we've ever been more aligned. And yeah, I see. I know what you know that. It scares me a little bit, you know. Right. Imagine the two of us marching forward on this project together. We should be scary. But I think that's the point. Is instead of having the sense that if this council can't get it done, the next council will, let's just slow walk this down. You know, what I'm hearing is show us a plan that works and it'll get done. This council's got one more budget left and this county executive's got one more budget left next year. Well, and two things I just want to get clarified while we have this time together today is one that that state money is not just for how we're counting to have a library anywhere. Like that money, that state money cannot go to the Southwest branch or anything like that. It is for the Lakefront Library. We actually looked it up and I think we can use it for any new library. Just for what it's worth. Hey, we looked. that state money cannot go to the Southwest branch or anything like that. It is for the lakefront library. We actually looked it up and I think we can use it for any new library just for what it's for. Hey, we looked it up too. In terms of written down or in terms of like what the state actually says there will be a reason now or not. Okay. Yes. And then two, so what are those findings from Medco in terms of revenue back bonds? because that's one of the most important pieces from that amendment that I was really looking forward to seeing. So since we have them on the line, I'd love to hear from them. Good afternoon. And thank you for letting me join virtually. I'm out of town on the work conference. But I think it's been very insightful to hear the conversation. There's a total of the backdrop you have going. I apologize, which is why I shared a bit of work conference because of the backdrop. But we are still in the information gathering we do anticipate during May that we will have substantial information and projections related to the parking revenue and then a financial model to follow shortly after. So we look forward to being able to share that information with the council, but we have not gotten to that point in the process yet. Ms. Parks, is that how close to the 21st of May would that be projected to be complete? We'll have preliminary information by mid-month, but we will need a little more time to refine the assumptions and provide some information back to the parking revenue team. So we anticipate by June we would have information that we would be ready to share, but by the end of May we should have close to final projections. Okay. Thank you. Any closing thoughts, comments? On the library. Yeah. Any closing thoughts, comments? On the library. Yeah. Well, on the whole downtown issue. I do have one more. I do have a cultural center. Yeah, on the new cultural center. On which? On the library or something else, David? On the library. Okay. And for like when we talked about how the DRRA has sort of trapped a lot of these projects, like it's stopping the housing commission from moving forward some projects. And I understand that this sort of paved the way for them to get sites, but sites aren't any good if we don't have those projects to go with it. So knowing that moving the library from Maryweather to the Lakefront is going to require a revisiting of that document, I think that the revisiting of that document should be a variety of topics, not just moving the library site. Does it require? Does it require as a site? I thought it was just a site, so whichever site. I don't know that it was a library. I thought the Maryweather site was identified in the DRA, wasn't it? Yes, the DRA shows the Maryweather site as the identified site for the library. And I think that downtown Columbia Housing Group also is a party to the DRA and might need to. So there's some hurdles to get over on that. But I just want to fix the housing thing at the same time if we can. Okay. All right. We're going to let Library go. Deb has a couple more questions on the Cultural Center. Which is technically not funded this year. Is that right? Well, that actually, no, but one of my questions actually was. Okay, but we can let Miss A. Consumers break. Yeah. Okay. Yes. Thank you so much. So there was $4 million that said was going to the NCC that looked like it was coming from the state. But I believe it was, I didn't see anything that indicated that it was actually going to the NCC. It appeared maybe that it was going toward the housing portion of it. I think that's what you're referring to, right? I believe the state provided the housing commission funding and fiscal year 26 towards the housing portion of the project. Okay because that was on the board that advertised how the NCC was going to be paid for on the day of the shovel in the ground. That was that $4 million was up there so I was just double checking whether or not that was accurate. You know we didn't we didn't perceive a 4 million grant this year. Okay so that's- But I know that the Housing Commission. Okay so that is not going to the NCC. And then I just wanted my colleagues to know this actually. I requested many documents in January regarding this project from the administration, some of which I was provided and some of which I feel that I still have not received. And one of the first things that I did receive, which really surprised me, was, I don't know, about 250 pages worth of contracts. And the contract itself was signed on January, oh, I'm sorry, December, let's see. Make sure I've got this right. This Oh, I'm sorry. December, let's see. Make sure I've got this right. This, actually this email went out to Ms. Cabellan on Friday, January 31st in response to what I received. Thank you for sending me the sole source contract that was apparently signed on December 10th. Howard County Law specifies that the council must be sent such contracts to review eight weeks before the planned signing of the contract. Accordingly, we were entitled to receive the contract on October 10th, 2024. And then I put forth the law that we passed about Solsurs. We have passed many laws laws about socials contracts over the last few years because they have been very problematic. And this was another one that we passed regarding socials contracts. And we were not given a copy of that contract. And the excuse that Ms. Cabellan gave for not giving us that contract was something that when I looked at it, I said, I don't know she got this from the Office of Law. I truly hope that she didn't, because the excuse was one that I, as a lawyer, would never have given for not adhering to a law that was passed by this county council. And I was, I just want my colleagues to know that that was what occurred. I'm kind of curious. I don't know if you can respond to this. Ms. Myheld, but when the administration doesn't comply with legislation like that, are there any consequences? I'm not quite sure what you're referring to, so we can follow up with some questions that I'll have for you so we can figure out. Okay, it is a contract that was signed by the administration with Orchard Development and Whiting Turner construction and the law itself says that the county council is, that the county administration is obligated to send any such sole source contracts to the county council eight weeks prior to signing those contracts and we were never sent the contract. I don't know that I would have ever received it had I not made that request for documents after the construction fence went up at the NCC site and then I I said, that's it. I have to know why this building has gone from 163,000 square feet to 40,000 square feet and is still costing $68 million. So I attempted to find every single document that I could. And it was made almost impossible, given the documents that I did get. I did get some documents directly from DPC, because it was clear that I was never going to get the documents that I needed from the administration. I also made a request for all communications, including all emails from the time that this project was first presented to us regarding the change in price and why that change in price was made. That request was made when I made my last request. It had already been 87 days since I made my initial request. So now I think it's been another three weeks since I made that request. So we're going into four months since I made that request for emails regarding why this change in price. But I want my colleagues to know that that's what is out there right now and what I have seen so far. And it's very disappointing that we are in this position and unable to really make the best, get the best understanding of what we're doing with taxpayer money in this project. But I hope that we will I will get the information that I requested and ultimately I'll be able to put it together so that the entire county council will be able to see what it is that I've received. Aren't you glad you aren't you glad you worked on that bill and we passed that law. I am glad We're not sure that anybody oh you're right. Why should I be glad? Because if somebody just turns around and ignores it you're right. I wonder if it's even a binding contract Well, that was what I thought this morning does that on my way here? I was thinking does that make this contract void? If the administration does not adhere to a law like this, does that make the contract void? I don't know. I'll be asking you and follow up, Miss My Hill. That's the case. What did Cabellan say when you said why didn't we receive this? Let's see. Is that what you said you wouldn't have written that as a lawyer, but then you didn't say what was written? Yeah, right. Well, I can read find it, that's why. Oh okay. I didn't want to take up everybody else's time, but I might have it. I mean, I can't tell you what it is. I got it, I don't even know how to do it. I mean, I don't even know how to do it. I mean, I don't even know how to do it. I mean, I don't even know how to do it. I mean, I don't even know how to do it. I mean, I don't even know how to do it. I mean, I don't even know how to do it. authorized in November 2021. It was authorized. So sourced. No contract with so sourced. The section of the purchasing code referenced in your email became effective October 2nd, 2023. So you see where she's going with this. Yeah, right. No, it's a contract. The contract itself was signed on December 8th, 2024. That has nothing to do with when this law was passed. Accordingly, the new requirements for so-source purchases were not applicable. Oh, they just don't apply to the NCC project. That's what they're going to say about the P-... They're going to say that about the T1 pond and the P3. Because the code amendment does not apply retroactively. This doesn't have to apply retroactively. The contract itself was, now, the contract itself was signed in December 2024. I mean, this is. It's not in anomaly. Now, you're going to have a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little and sent that back to a council. Somebody did made sense. Somebody did, but it doesn't. And it's more lawlessness. Yes, the fact that we would only know about it because you're harassing them for emails and documents. Mr. Cook knows this. Miss my hell. And because I saw the constan and I said, that's it. I'm done. If you're moving forward, I am going to find out what these costs, why we are paying four times the amount for this building that we were paying when we initially said that this is what it's going to cost. For 40,000 square feet, it's just remarkable to me. So, my friend believe in this council is the only body that complies with any law because we have Ms. Myhill sitting there on our shoulder or Mr. Cook all the time. But because the administration does not ask law for legal advice and proceed with their own decisions without a lawyer at present or a lawyer who aids in a bet by saying it depends like when they wouldn't shut down the new cultural center two years ago when it bore no resemblance to what had presented to us in prior years. I mean, it's no solace for me to be like, well, this is going to be on the top five for the IG. But I mean, I think it's a broader problem. I think it's what compelled a lot of us to get really worried. And it seven years in continues to shock me how badly this administration can proceed for no reason that seems good or well intentioned or for the public good that's upsetting. All right I think we are adjourned no we're not we have to move into closed session after we this whole long thing at the end all right we are donened. No, we're not. We have to move into closed session after we've this whole long thing at the end. All right, we are done with our budget talks today. Miss Smith, anything you want to talk to about anything that we talked about today? Give me a call. Mr. Youngman, please don't leave. Mr. Youngman, Mr. Youngman. Thank you. I beg your pardon. David, I have to say, but we have a quorum, right? All right, so. The question. I'm sorry. David. David, I have to say, but we have a quorum, right? All right. So. The question. Are we waiting to two or two thirty over going straight into it? I think we're going to take like a 15 minute break, right? Are we going to? Kristian is about to die. Are we going to reopen it in like the large conference room? Okay. Okay. So two o'clock in the dark. to the two. Yeah, let's do two. Yes, oh, let's do two. Okay. Thank you so much. Thanks. Thanks. But do we need him? Because he needs to vote. Oh, yeah. We have a quorum. Oh, wait, always. But why do we need David just to do the procedural thing? Stop it. Stop it. Council members, based on the General Provisions article of the annotated Code of Maryland, there is a need to meet in closed session. And, according to a section 3, 3, 0, 5, B1 to discuss a personnel matter, the topic is compensation of one or more specific employees. Is there any discussion regarding the need for a closed session? I move that this meeting be closed. accordance with Section 305B1 of the General Provisions article of the annotated Code of Maryland to discuss a personnel matter. The topic is compensation of one or more specific employees. Second, are there any objections to proceeding with a closed session in accordance with Section 305B1. Will the administrator please call the vote to close the meeting in accordance with Section 3305B1. Chair Walsh? Yes, please. Dr. Jones? Yes. Miss Jones? Yes. Mr. Rigby? Yes. Mr. Young, Mr. Schur? The motion to close the meeting in accordance with section 305 B1 Passes we will now adjourn our special meeting to go into closed session, which will begin at 2 p.m After the closed session no further business will take place this special meeting will conclude at the end of the closed session This concludes our second fiscal year 2026 capital budget work session for those of you you watching us online, we will be ending our live stream now. Thank you.