Good morning. Today is Wednesday, May 14th. The council is meeting today to continue its work on the FY26 budget. Budget's Madam Clerk, will you please share today's announcements? Good morning. The council has added a proposed closed session to today's agenda at 9.30am to consult with council to obtain legal advice. The topic is legal advice on contractual rights and obligations of the county. Also added our item 0.1, a work session on the FY26 operating budget, and item 0.2 action on a resolution to approve the FY26 county 911 fees. Thank you, Madam President. Okay, good morning. Today is Wednesday, I did that. Sorry. I can't do it. Sorry. Okay. Good morning. Today is Wednesday. I did that. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. All right. No one here. No one here. No one here. No one here. No one here. No one here. No one here. No one here. No one here. No one here. No one here. No one here. No one here. No one here. to obtain legal advice under Maryland cold general provisions article Section 3-305 B7 the topic is legal advice on Contractual rights and obligations of the county is there a motion to meet in close session so moved council member Luki moved I have a second council Baltham second. All those in favor of going into closed session, please raise your hand. And as unanimous of those present, the council will now meet in the council conference room starting at 936 or 935 depending on which clock you're looking at. And we will when we are done with that, we will come back here and resume our meeting. Thank you. I've been five four three two one. All right it's still morning welcome back to the Montgomery County Council meeting. We're going to continue with today's meeting and agenda item 0.1A. It's a work session on the FY 26 operating budget. I want to thank Mr. Howard and Mr. Smith for all their work on pulling this together quickly this morning for us so we can consider three different items. We will be taking hand votes on these to move us forward in our budget process. So Mr. Howard, I'll turn it over to you. Sure, thank you and good morning to the council. So as the council president noted, she has requested that the council review and consider preliminary decisions on three FY26 operating budget follow-up items prior to your final reconciliation decisions that you will be making tomorrow. So I'll walk through each one and stop at each one for any questions or discussion. The first is on MCPS funding. The council president has proposed an FY26 MCPS funding package in collaboration with the Board of Education and the superintendent of schools that would provide MCPS with 99.8% of the total resources requested by the Board of Education. This funding package includes the following components. One, provide MCPS and with an FY26 County appropriation that is $210 million above the minimum maintenance of effort or MOE law level. This amount is $40 million below the amount in the county executive's March 14 budget and would be $58.6 million below the Board of Education's request. The second component is to allow MCPS to receive an additional $50 million in one time funds, $25 million in both FY25 and FY26, by increasing the school system's annual drawdown from the Retiree Health Benefits Trust. The use of one time funds in FY26 and FY25 and FY26 will assist MCPS in meeting its payments for retiree benefits, Address cashflow issues, make other funds available to MCPS to address needs as it hacks on its three-year plan to address escalating health care costs. And the third component would be to the third point is that overall the total additional resources provided to MCPS in FY25 and FY26 would cover all but $8.6 million of the board's funding requests. If the council supports this package, it will reduce $40 million from the county executive's March 14 budget and that's what we'll show in our tracking. And then council staff would prepare FY25 and FY26 budget resolution languages, language for final action on May 22nd for the OPEC drawdown pieces. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Howard. And thank you for all your assistance. And I do want to just say publicly again as we did just a thank you to the superintendent and the president of the board of education. As we have noted, this we are not living in normal times. This is not something normally we would look at, but in terms of getting us to fill that gap to make sure that we are able to fund 99.8% of the requests of the Board of Education. This allows us to do so. It allows us to work with our superintendent and Board of Education on looking at how they're creating a sustainable fund for their health benefits and their retiree benefits. It's been an issue that this council has taken up and talked about. I know the Education and Culture Committee has been talking to MCPS about this. We know and wanna thank MCA and SEIU during their deliberations this year for also recognizing and stepping up regarding the health benefits. So I just appreciate my colleagues. And what ask is, we will take a hand vote on this if I have a motion to move forward with this proposal. So move up. Council Member Albinaz moved. And Councilmember Sales second. Not seeing any discussion. All those in favor of the proposal. Please raise your hand. And that's unanimous. Thank you very much. We'll move on to the next item. Thank you. The next item number item B on page two is the staff recommended reductions. And on Monday, the council approved a staff prepared package of reductions to add to the reconciliation list for further consideration and assuming the support of the Pro's MCPS funding plan, which just happened, the council president proposes removing the staff package of reductions from the reconciliation list. If the council supports removing this package of reductions, these items will remain in the budget as originally recommended by the executive and will no longer be considered for reduction. Great, thank you. And again, I wanna thank everyone for their hard work on Monday as we did add these items to the reconciliation list just to remind her, these were not things that came out of our committee conversations, but before we knew we had a path forward looking at the MCPS budget. These were items that we added to see whether or not we needed them to the reconciliation list to make the budget work and it looks like they will no longer be needed. And so I'm asking if there is a motion. So moved. Councilmember Mink move. Do I have a second? Council member, sale second. This is to remove these and put them back into the base budget. All those in favor, please raise your hand. And that is unanimous. Okay, Mr. Howard, last item. All right, third item, item C is park and planning compensation and base budget items. The reconciliation list contains three additions, which are listed below, for parking planning related to compensation adjustments and base budget funding. The council president proposes to remove these items from the reconciliation list and add them into the budget as approved items. If the council supports this proposal, it will add a total of 3.56 million to the park and planning budget. And the three items are restoring funding to the park fund for FY26 compensation increases of just over a million dollars, restoring funding to support FY26 based budget items for parks, which is just over $2 million, and restoring funding to the administration fund for FY26 compensation increases in planning, which is just over $300,000. Okay. Terrific, we are moving these items, because I think throughout our budget process, I think almost every single one of us has talked about the need to make sure that we are doing at least the minimum that was requested by Park and Planning that was not in what was transmitted to us by the County Executive in March. And March, so I'm asking for us to consider this today, just move these into base budget. I Council member Freetz and move, council member, I think we're all excited to take this vote. All those in favor of moving this $3.56 million for the MNC PPC budget into the base budget, please raise your hand. And that is unanimous, and I will underscore, I think that's enthusiastically unanimous decision by the council, and so that takes care of all of the items on our worksheet. I have a couple of lights on, do people wanna speak to this? Council Member Freeton? Regent. Yep. I wanted to speak to the budget decisions that were being made, and if this isn't the appropriate time, I can make the motion at another time. But in light of the decisions that we have made, I wanted to make a motion to reject the county executives proposal on an income tax from 3.2 to 3.3. We made a decision on the property tax. We did have a proposal and have had extensive discussions before us had a public hearing yesterday on the income tax proposal. And we do have it on the agenda. Would you like to? I'll hold it. Yeah, I'll wait. It was unclear whether or not there was going to be motions. Okay. Yeah. Council vice president. No motions just just a couple of comments. So I'm on the chair of the Education Culture Committee. I thank our educators who have joined us in person but also online. The millions watching as home as I'd like to say. Also on the Planning Housing and Parks Committee and those have been my two committees for seven years and these three items are deeply related to both. When you ask people what do they love about Montgomery County? The list is long, but at the top of it are schools and parks. And I'm really pleased that we're able to move forward with a path to nearly fund fully the schools for next year and to restore funding to the parks. I've said this is not something that is nice to do, we have to do it. Our kids needed, our educators needed, our families needed, and in both cases, in schools and parks. And I'm glad that we're here. Obviously we're gonna have to figure out what we do going forward. But I've learned to be present. It's a good practice, especially in what's going on in Washington and in the world. And today, we've taken a step forward that allows us to move forward. And we're going to have to have difficult conversations going forward, but we'll deal with those as they come. So I want to thank Council President and thank my colleagues. I'm glad we've come to this place this year. Thank you. Sorry, okay, Councilmember Sales, did you want to do it? No, you're good. Okay. Can we talk to the vote? Thank you. Awesome. We will now move on to agenda item number two, which is action on a resolution to approve the FY 26 county 911 fees. I don't care if chair cats as the chair of public safety if you want to give us a few comments. Yeah, well thank you, Madam President. The public safety committee did review this back in April, April 23rd, and we recommended approval as a 3-0. The recommended increase went through a straw vote as well, but the fee would increase from 75 cents to $1.47 per telephone subscriber, and that includes any telephone, cell phones and landlines, et cetera. And it is expected to generate about $12.5 million to close the projected gap between expenditures and current collection levels. As we all know, 911 has changed over the years that it has so much more than it used to. They now do texting. They now do. And of course everybody with a cell phone calls 9-1-1 and they get many more calls on the same issue, which is a good thing. But of course it keeps them that much busier. So I the public safety committee was certainly in approval and it's certainly something that it is needed for the community. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ogden. Anything to add? I just wanted to add that during your straw vote last week you did approve some of the clarifying language in the draft resolution which indicates the effective date of this depends on certification which is a procedural requirement the county must certify the fee to the Comptroller Public Service committee. resolution which indicates the effective date of this depends on certification, which is a procedural requirement. The county must certify the fee to the Comptroller Public Service Commission and the 911 board, and also would bring this back each year to be approved by resolution so that the fee actually very closely matches actual expenditures. All right, not seeing any other questions or comments. Do I have a motion to approve the resolution resolution for the FY 26 county 911 faith? So moved. Councilmember Luki moved, Council Vice President Jawondo seconded it. All those in favor, please raise your hand. And that is unanimous. Thank you, Ms. Farag. We will now move on to a resolution to approve the FY26 transportation fees, charges, and fares. And I'll turn this over to Chair Glass of the T&E committee. Thank you, Madam President. The full council already signaled support for all the items in this resolution, but just want to call out probably the biggest and most significant item and that is making right on free for all residents all the time. And we know how successful the Kids Ride Free Program was when we expanded that and we are going to have transit equity truly here in Montgomery County. I'll be back. Thank you. Mr. Kenney, anything to add? Nothing to add. Okay. Do I have a motion to move the FY26 transportation fees, charges and fares? Second. Oh, sorry. Who's the... Councillor Memberglass. Thank you. Councillor Memberglass moved. Councillor Member Balcum seconded. All those in favor, please raise your hand. And that is unanimous, everyone. All right, moving on to action on the resolution to establish the FY26 water quality protection charge, I will turn back to Chair Glass. Thank you, Madam President. On May 8th, the full council signaled preliminary approval for the FY26 DEP Water Quality Protection Fund, and that's what's before us now. Mr. LeCenco, anything to add? Nothing to add. All right, do I have a motion? So I'm moving. Council Member Glass and motioned and Council Member Balcum. Seconded, all those in favor of the FY26 Water Quality Protection Charge, please raise your hand and that is unanimous. All right, next item. Resolution to approve WSSC Water System Development Charge. On May 8th of 2025, we held a joint meeting with our Prince George's colleagues on the County Council to act on several by-county budget items, one of which was the WSSC Water System Development Charge. the two councils voted in agreement to support the system development charge as noted in the staff report and I will turn it back to chair glass. You summed it up beautifully. I am back. All right. I'm Mr. LeChenko. Do we have anything else to add before I turn it to colleagues? Nothing to add. All right. Council Member Freetzon. Yeah. Thank you colleagues. Appreciate our colleagues in Prechordia County. Just wanted to note that I had previously voted against the fee increase at the level that the council approved, but in light of the agreement between Prechordia County and us to compromise and come to a lower number. I'm going to support this and appreciate the ability for us to move forward to bring the cost on our residents down a bit and hopefully to put some pressure on our colleagues at WSSC to ensure that we're keeping costs under control and the expenses to residents to maintain our water system to the most reasonable point possible. Thank you. Great. Thank you. And I just want to send a thanks to Chair Burrows in Prince George's for helping to move this process along with our two counties. It's always a bit tricky when you have two county councils moving something along and I really appreciate the collaboration and work we did. So we have to actually take action on this resolution to suspend our rules of procedure, rules 70 to allow for immediate action. Do I have a motion to do that? So moved. Council member Blastmoody, council member sales, seconded all those in favor of suspending rules of procedure, rule 70, and that is unanimous. We have a by county agreement. Now I will entertain a motion to formally adopt the fees on behalf of Montgomery County. Do I have a motion? Council member, council member, council member, batham, seconded, all those in favor, please raise your hand. And that is unanimous. Thank you everyone. Next we have a resolution to approve executive regulations 9-25 systems benefit charges, residential waste estimates and I will again turn it back to the chair to last. This one is rather simple because it updates the waste generation estimates for single family and multi-family residents is required by law and I yield back. Thank you, Ms. Lichengo, anything to add? Yeah, just to note, this is not the charges themselves, but as Chair Glass mentioned, just the assumptions that go into how the costs are allocated and to generate the charges. Great. Is there a motion to approve executive regulation 9-25? So moved. Council Member Glass, Council Member Balcum seconded. All those in favor, please raise your hand. And that is unanimous. All right. Now we have a work session action on the resolution to establish our FY26 Solid Waste Service Charges. And I will turn it over to Chair Glass to update us on where we are with this. Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate you scheduling this as a work session because there is going to be plenty to talk about. There's been a lot of consternation in the community about the increased fees that are associated with managing our waste. And the reason these fees are high is because our facilities have been neglected for the last number of years. They were no executive budget allocations over the last six years. and when the executive signed a contract to continue the operation of the incinerator through April of 2031, there were fees associated with that. And the reality is that if these fees are not paid to the operator, our trash will not be collected. It is not a situation that any of us want to be in, but it is an unfortunate situation nonetheless. And so this is a really important conversation. And I see director Munger with DEP is coming on down and Mr. Lovchenko can walk us through the finer details of the fees that we're talking about because there are a number of different fees, but I want everyone to understand the gravity and the reality of what we're discussing here and With that I yield back Madam President Great. Thank you. I'll turn over to Michelinco Sure just first as chair glass mentioned there are a number of different charges associated with this package page one of the Cover sheet of the staff report has a chart at the bottom that walks through where things stand with regard to the committee recommendations. And I'll just walk through real quickly. The disposal charge portion of this, the executive recommended a small increase from FY 25. The leaf vacuuming chart is recommended to not change. So, residences that are in the leaf vacuuming district would not see an increase. The refuse collection charge is also not recommended to change in FY 26. And also, in with regard to tipping fees at the transfer station, they're all recommended to stay the same except for the trash and open-top containers fee which relates to construction and demolition debris waste. That charges recommended increase from $84 to $93, and that's intended to discourage folks from dropping off that type of waste at the facility, because there are options elsewhere for recycling opportunities for that, and also we're trying to save room at the facility for the other ways that we do have to deal with. All of those fees the committee was supportive of as recommended by the county executive. So those are separate and distinct from the significant increase that Chair Glass mentioned, which we'll talk about in a second. But if there are any questions regarding those fees, we have folks here that can speak to those. Okay, any question regarding those fees before we get to the system benefit charges? Seeing any sign, I think we can proceed. Right, so the real issue this year before the committee were the system benefit charges. As Chair Glass mentioned, there's a significant increase recommended by the executive. There's really three components to that, which were discussed at committee and at full council. You have what we would call the typical year-to-year increases in the Solid Waste Disposal Fund, contractual increases, other increases in overhead costs in the disposal fund that are allocated to the system benefit charges. You also have the resource recovery facility, short-term capital work. This is what Chair Glass was referring to. A significant increase in current revenue going to that work recommended by the executive to keep the facility operating and maintain for the next five years based on the contract extension. So that's one piece. And then a third piece, which is not in the operating budget, but is also funded with current revenue, is an executive recommended capital amendment for a material recycling and biological treatment facility. This amendment would fund the pre-construction work for that facility. And because it would be current revenue funded, it draws from the same source as the operating budget funds. And it does have a significant impact on the system benefit charges. So those three components lead to a significant increase in the charge. The, as Chair Glass mentioned, the committee did not come to a conclusion on this and we did have a council discussion as well last week. But the reason we are at a work session today is because we don't have a recommendation or preliminary approval from the council yet on those pieces. The packet does lay out both in summarizing the impact on different sectors under these options, and then also there's an attachment with the detailed cost for the system benefit, both the base and the incremental charge across the different sectors. I did want to mention that subsequent to the March 14 budget transmittal, the executive transmitted a revised recommendation on April 24th that had the effect of reducing the budgetary need for the short-term capital work at the Resource Recovery Facility in FY26 by $7 million. So that has the effect of reducing the budget by $7 million and reducing that impact on the charges by $7 million. So I have a chart on page three of the cover sheet of the staff report that notes the March 14 recommendation and what the fees would be under that, and then the amended recommendation. That's the April 24 recommendation. So that's the difference between those. And then I have a third recommendation here that breaks out the MRBT, the Mensural Recycling Biological Treatment Facility Pre-Construction Costs. I have some discussion in the packet about the fact that the council to date has not had a briefing or full discussion of the consultant work that went into the development of the MRBT project and alternatives to it. And staff has suggested that the council take that up after budget. But short of that, staff suggests in the report that the council could consider removing or not including the MRBT related costs in the charges. And so that's also shown in the chart on page three of the cover sheet. But in any event, the charges are recommended to go up very significantly under both of those options, the amended and the no MRBT option going forward. I think with that I'll stop and maybe see if we have more specific questions that council numbers have and we have DEP staff here that can also help with responses. Great, thank you. I'll say your council member sales. Thank you. Thank you for the update, Mr. Lovechenko in the briefing, Mr. Glass. Just wanted to understand where we're at with RFPs. I know that we have to make this decision. I know that this is weighing heavily on our residents who are going to feel this impact and just want to better understand how we are exploring cleaner energy alternatives and I know that a re-world has done some improvements on that aspect of their processing. So did you have any information you'd like to share about an RFP when we can anticipate seeing an RFP if an RFP is out there? Good morning, council members. John Longer and I have the privilege of being the Director of the County's Department of Environmental Protection. Thank you for the question and I want to thank all of you for the attention you're paying to this important issue this morning and going forward. To answer your question, Council Member, the county is committed to the closure of the RF and transitioning to an improved MSW system as quickly as possible. We're continuing to look at alternative systems to ensure sustainable reliability MSW systems management. There is not an RFP that is currently out there on that, but we've done a significant amount of analysis work on those options as we've discussed previously and have an understanding of what those look like and are happy to provide more information to the council going forward on what those alternative systems are. I think it's important to note for purposes of this morning's conversation that the FY26 budget request before the council this morning is necessary for maintaining the MSW system regardless of the path the county goes down going forward. No, I understand that and I know that the longer we wait costs are going to rise, especially with looking for more sustainable ways to process our trash. And so I know that you're doing your due diligence, but it's also helpful if, you know, the wider world outside of Montgomery County's government's Department of Environmental Protection has an understanding that we're looking for new greener alternatives and we want any and all possibilities. We want it to be competitive, we want it to be widespread, we want it to be innovative, we want it to be next level. So that's not going to happen through our own private research. There's nothing requiring us to enter into a contract if we receive alternatives. But it gives us options. It gives us things to think about. Five years, six years, we'll be here before we know it. You know, we're already deciding FY 26 as budget. And so we want to ensure that we're not waiting until the last minute to, you know, evaluate any and all possibilities. And with all of the fallouts from the federal government, we have, you know, expert minds, not just here in Montgomery County, but that are leaving the federal government that have great ideas that are never going to come to light that we could be evaluating during this time. And so I just want to find out if there is a possibility that, you know, we will be able to review an RFP that could hit the streets soon, sooner rather than later. Thank you, Councilmember. So, appreciate your support for the progress the county is making continues to make going forward on continuous improvement to our solid waste and recycling system and you and your teams focus on this issue. You know, I'll note that as you're aware, a small portion of the recommended budget before you reflects costs for the design of an alternative MSW management system. The system would essentially extract recyclable materials that are currently ending up in our waste stream. So in the budget before you today, we have a small amount of funding that would allow us to extract recyclables, return those to the market at a profit from selling those and also stabilize the organic fraction in the waste stream. Thereby reducing the greenhouse gas emissions associated with our overall system. So I think I just want to note that we're certainly not waiting for the future, a key element of an opportunity for us to green our waste stream is included in the budget and we're excited for the planning and design opportunity to move forward on that. So thank you for your, thank you for the question. Yeah, so is anything preventing you from creating an RFP? I know that you're doing internal work. I appreciate it. I know that you came from the federal level. You came from, you know, the Biden administration. So I know that you have great ideas. And I just want to ensure that we are exploring every possible option. While you are executing the great ideas to help us in the meantime, long term, I'm eager to hear that we will see an RFP. Thank you, Councilmember. So obviously a key part in any procurement process is the funding needed to enter into the contracts that we would be bringing on for, which is why we're very pleased that the FY26 budget proposal from the county executive includes funding for advance waste processing before you. So to your point, the funding will obviously be a key piece to make sure we're able to proceed. Okay, all right. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Council Member Balkham. Thank you. Appreciate your being here today and hopefully we can figure this out. So I just wanted to, so there's two aspects of the fee that I just wanted to speak about. One is the remedial work for the RF and the total amount of remedial work is $61 million over the next four years. However, for the RF, it's $53 million the reduction of 7 million isn't a reduction in cost. That cost was just moved to FY 25. So I just wanted to clarify that there was no actual reduction in cost with the April 24 memo. Correct. The total cost assumed for the repair work is the same, but DEP was able to find some FY25 savings to help and also spread a portion of the costs into FY28. So the 26 number does go down by 7 million, but you're correct. The overall amount assumed would be the same. Okay. So I just wanted to clarify that. And so my opinion is that we don't have a choice but to fund this remedial work. And I've made statements in the past in our prior work sessions that this was a situation that the county executive put us in this position and we have no recourse in my opinion but to fund this. Five years ago it wouldn't have been an emergency and today it is and that was not our doing, our doing. We have to respond to that. So So I am going to vote in favor of the funding the remedial work. The. are doing, we have to respond to that. So I am going to vote in favor of the funding and remedial work. The capital work, the prospective capital work, the 12 million FY26, the total of 36 million, I do have a concerns about. We are being asked to fund planning and design of a program or a path forward that we've never been briefed on. And I think that if anything that we've learned from the remedial work that we have to fund is that the council needs to be involved in these discussions and in these decisions because we are the ones that authorize the funding and it's very difficult to approve funding in this scenario when we haven't been briefed. I've also mentioned that it's a very difficult to have a program or a project of this magnitude to be discussed in the very strict confines of the budget. So I don't support the capital amendment piece of that of the change. So that's where I'm at. Did you want me to go up to that point? Yeah, I would like to, Mr. Levchenko might need to help me to hear. Is that option three on page three of the packet of the memo. Right, yeah. The detailed assumption of charges is actually on circle A, which lays out the exact charges across all the sectors. But yeah, it's summarized for the major elements on page three of the cover sheet. And I've noted it as number three to distinguish it from the original CE recommendation and from the amended CE recommendation. Great, thank you. And it's not just, sorry, I'd like to make that motion and it's not that the we don't need to move forward. Of course we do, but I'm not willing to fund a design of a project that I don't know anything about. Thank you. All right, so I have a motion in a second, but Ms. Leichang, I just want to make sure we're clear on the language of what has been moved and seconded. So if we could just clarify what I'm hearing of that has been moved and seconded is for us to move a solid waste management fee that excludes the future planning and design work for FY 26. Yes, that's correct. The charges would take into account the $7 million reduction that we mentioned in the amended fees that the executive sent over. Because the MRBT project is on the capital side, the change in fees that is motioned here would not affect the operating budget. Numbers, but it would mean that that capital amendment project would not be funded. It would, based on today's action, what we would do is just assume that that amendment is not approved yet. It would just be out there. It would not be approved. And the council could take it up at a later date. But what the fees would cover would be the year-to-year costs that I mentioned earlier and the short-term capital work at the RRF only. All right. Is there anyone clear on the motion and the second that's on the table? All right. I've a council vice president, John, doing the chair glass. Thank you. We discussed this a little bit when you were with us last time of breaking this out. And I remember you, director Mager, saying obviously there, if you don't have funding for this study, you can't do it. And I asked in response, I'm paraphrasing, realizing you were very careful with your responses, that well, what if you had some of the money? How could you, we had a discussion about how could you break it out? Because I think, you know, I personally, and I think many of us do want an alternative the work to continue on the alternative, alternative to the motion councilman Valkham once that as well. But we do want to know, we want to be briefed as it's going along, and before there's any, we want to have some input. Now, I had also pressed you a lot around what type of contract this is and its industry standard to, you kind of, I talked about going on a date, but it was a bad analogy. But just to remind people of the conversation that you pick this person to figure out what you want to do, you plan your life together, then you live the life. So that they actually implement the work, right? So how does that impact this? That's the thing I'm struggling with with this motion is that is there a way to extricate that where you could do a two-step process and how much funding with that cost so that you can continue to try to get ideas and plan, but that you don't necessarily have to have them be the design and implement. Does that, does the question make sense? Yes, thank you, Council Member. And I, for one, will always remember that conversation. So based on our consultants' estimated costs for the design and planning of a system that would need to be scaled for a county of our size, we believe that the approximate cost of pre-construction services would be $12 million a year. But as you noted in your question, assuming funding is available, of course, we anticipate that a pre-construction services contract could issue by the third quarter of fiscal year 26. So looking at the calendar that would leave approximately approximately half of the fiscal year remaining. So if we received If we received a fraction of the funds requested, we would be able to at least start the project working FY26 noting that the costs, however, would simply be moved to outer years. So option three, you answered the second part of my question, would allow you to start the process, but is that, or is that what you, maybe I'm not going to put words in your mouth. Well, I I think took I think I would ask Mr. Lipshan could clarify Option three my understanding of it would be that it would it it would approve the system benefit charge But would not approve any funding for the capital project. So that's my understanding of what of what's in the packet Yeah, and if that's the case then you wouldn't be able to move forward. Correct. Okay. But if you did have some funding that maybe not the total amount, like what I'm looking for is a, it's not on the packet. Is there a way to, yeah, Mr. Leibchenko to provide some level of funding, but recognize the very valid point that Councilor Bailekin up, where we want to be involved in how this moves forward. Right, and I think it's important. It's not just the cost in 26. It's the commitment that's being made. The cost, maybe the cost could be reduced based on assuming a later start in 26, but if you're still presuming to move forward with a pre-construction contract for $36 million, staff will be uncomfortable with the Council considering that without having a briefing on all of this. Yes, you could put a few million dollars in 26, but that's very different from starting a full-blown multi-year pre-construction. So back to my question to you Mr. Manger Which I don't think you quite answered directly Can you separate the pre-construction and design? Part of the contract from the what we might want to do like the figuring out You know the the beginning the exploration of what we might want to move forward with. And maybe the answer is no. In that case, you're probably not going to get the money. You're just going to need to come brief us and ask for a supplemental or do it in next year's budget. But do you understand what I'm saying? Can those things be separated in your professional opinion? I do understand the question and I appreciate it. Thank you, Council Member. answer is without funding to do the work, there's not going to be a mechanism to advance the work in a substantial manner. So as we've talked about in the past. Question, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but the question is about the work. I understand that, but the work is, you're defining the work as a pre-construction contract. My question is, can you separate the commitment to the 36 million over three years, to is there a way to break it out and say, we wanna start looking at potential options and then bring that back to our funding partner and do you need funding to do that which I would understand but if the this if we have to take the whole thing together that's what I'm uncomfortable with and I think many people are uncomfortable with given where we are. And you can say no that's not how it's done but just I just needed to we need a direct answer on that. Yeah I just want to make I'm not I'm trying to make sure I'm actually understanding the question and if I'm understanding your question correctly the question is this is could we I'm sorry, I'm not totally understanding the question. Could you separate the commitment to move forward with the partner that you contract with? Two, because they're going to do two things. They're going to help you design it, figure out what to do, some options, you're going to go back and forth, and then they're going do the work. I'm saying can you separate the designing and figuring it out from the doing? And in the call, did you do so? Thank you. Yeah, thank you for the clarification I understand now. So the short answer is that's what we're envisioning and that's what's reflected in the budget request before us. So the structure for the procurement and vision would actually be a smaller contract of a limited amount of funding to advance the planning and design that would be that would be a precursor to a subsequent contract for actually moving forward. forward and I think this is an important point to bring up because, because while we have done analysis that has identified this, these technologies that are in the budget request before you as the preferred alternative based on the opportunity to divert significant amount of waste from the waste stream and reduce greenhouse gas emissions until we actually start doing planning work around it. We actually won't have sufficient information to advance the conversation with you on any meaningful way beyond what's been done and the analysis to date. That's helpful. And so just the beginning of what you said was it's two separate, this is the first time I've heard it's two separate contracts. Maybe you've We've said that before, but so there's a planning and design contract. And then there's the, you're going to do the work that we've decided in contract. And to clarify, yes, it is, but I will note that the, but does the first one put you on the hook for the second one? So the short answer is no, because obviously every year there's appropriations that would need to be made in support of the ongoing work of the project. This is just the initial funding. The pre-construction services contract would be envisioned as a three-year contract. So we would have three years of working with a contractor on the planning and design. So I really want to represent to you all what this is, which is very much the beginning of the conversation. So this contract for 36 million over three years is the first contract for pre-construction, for planning and design. Correct. And later there would be a much more expensive contract to do it. Which would probably be with this person? Correct. Wouldn't have to be legally. I think it wouldn't make a ton of sense after you've done all that work with the person. I think it's envisioned that the same entity that would be working with them. So you might as well get mad. Exactly. There you go. Now we're going. at that point. I'm not going to go there, but with that analogy, but yes, I think we're envisioning that it would be the same entity that would be subsequently doing the construction would also be the project in design. This is your puttin' us in a tough spot. I want this to move forward. I think we all want something to move forward, and I understand you need money to move it forward. The problem is, is that you're saying you have to go pick this person, and we need to guarantee $36 million for you to go on the date and get married, and then we're stuck with that, and we don't get to give you any feedback. And that's how I feel with what you're saying. Yeah. Councilmember, I just want to perhaps be helpful to explain a little bit more context of how the structure of the pre-construction services contract would exist. You would not? I don't want to take all, because I want my other colleagues to get in the queue that are here, but you're saying we have to navigate the process with them. And I understand the point that you have to figure it out. You don't know what you don't know. You might make a left and go right, you might take a step back, you're going to figure it out. I get that. That makes total sense in planning and design. And I understand the point that you have to figure it out. You don't know what you don't know. You might make a left and go right. You might take a step back. You're gonna figure it out. I get that. That makes total sense in planning and design. I guess the question to the, and where I'm really sympathetic to Councilor Valkham and given the experience is that you're going to pick that partner and you're, we're in it at that point and it will be expensive to extricate ourselves from it. And we don't have a mechanism that I'm hearing of giving you feedback before we give you the money. That's the problem. That's the issue. So I, but I understand your point too. You want it. You need the money to move forward and you have the expertise to move forward. So it's tough for me to know how to vote on this. That's why I'm asking so many questions because I do want you to be able to move forward. And I realize if you don't have the money, you can't move forward. So I guess the question would be if you don't get the money and you have someone in mind, what you would probably need to do is come back and brief us on who you have in mind. And then we would be able to have some sort of conversation about that before you move forward with the money. Could you do that? what you would probably need to do is come back and brief us on who you have in mind. And then we would be able to have some sort of conversation about that before you move forward with the money. Could you do that? I don't think it's a question as to whether or not we're willing to provide a briefing to the department, but I would note that we don't have a vendor in mind per se. We have We know that who the vendors are in this space that could potentially be interested in this project, but as was discussed, there is not yet a procurement out there for this work. So, and obviously without funding for one, we wouldn't be able to proceed with one. Could you put out a request for something short of a full procurement? That's already occurred. So you already have that. Correct. All right. I'll you for now. Thank you. Councilmember Glass. Appreciate this discussion shows how complex the situation is. I appreciate Councilmember Balcon making that motion because we really are again talking about two different buckets of fees. One is a set of fees to maintain our ability to collect and dispose of trash. And the other is to plan for a future without the incinerator to plan for a future where we're able to capture and collect more recyclable materials and be even greener stewards to our community and our planet. On the first set of fees, which are maintaining services, director Munger, as direct and succinct as you can, what happens if we do not fund those fees and approve them? Well, first of all, thank you for the question, Council Member, and for all your ongoing work on this topic, we very much appreciate it. So I want to underscore that the amended, recommended FY26 budget before you is focused on the projects that are limited to those necessary to maintain safe and reliable operation of the county's MSW system. So that includes projects that are focused on compliance with all permits and environmental compliance to answer your question, failure to complete the RF repair and I'll note that repairs at the transfer station and doorwood are also included in this budget request. Would risk the ability essentially to operate our current waste system and jeopardize the ability to fulfill a critical public service, race, severe human health and environmental risks, and ultimately force the county to pursue options, which would be more expensive. So if we don't approve the fees we won't be able to collect and dispose our trash. Is that what you just said? In essence, yes. Okay. Thank you. The second part of this conversation is about the future of the incinerator and waste management in general. I have great concern about committing ourselves to $36 million over the next three years without having any details. When we take up the CIP for everything from, let's just say, bridges and tunnels be it those tunnels under Georgia Avenue and Forest Glen, that's no longer in the CIP, whether it's a tunnel under Wisconsin Avenue for the Capitol Crescent Trail that's no longer in the CIP, we at least knew what they were. And we knew the concept and what the plan was. Where we're in the dark here. We know where we want to go. And we want to be able to sort through our trash smarter and more environmentally sustainable way. We all agree on that. But to commit $36 million without any details is a really hard stretch. And recognizing that it is a design-build contract that we're locked in for longer haul. Can you shed some light as to what the ballpark estimate right now would be on that facility? Since it is, they sent, since the contractor, as you noted, would be doing the designing and the building, what do they estimate? Estimate the actual construction cost would be. So I don't have the exact figure before me. I can provide some context, however. I mean, these facilities were envisioning Montgomery County would be among the largest of not the largest jurisdiction that would be implementing these technologies in a meaningful way, which is also why the opportunity is so significant for us, because we have such a large population and significant volumes of waste that if we're able to extract meaningful portions of the waste stream, we're talking about a huge volume of materials. I want to underscore that by virtue of entering into a pre-construction services contract by no mean is the county locked into a long-term commitment. I think you're well aware of that, but I'll underscore that the way the cost and the schedule of the pre-construction services agreement would be structured would essentially be to provide the county options for moving forward that we lack at the moment. So while I absolutely empathize with the desire for more information, I'll underscore that we're talking about technologies that are just now starting to be built around the world. And I'll note that as I said earlier, without any meaningful amount of resources put towards at least answering some of the key questions that I know this body is eager to answer, we won't be able to answer those questions. So said differently without being able to work with an expert on the planning and design, we won't be able to bring ourselves out of the dark and answer those questions. This is a really hard conversation. And what makes it really hard is that we all agree on the goals, but we don't know what the total cost of this project is, or some of the design concepts. And to commit ourselves to $36 million at this point without knowing what the final project cost would be. It's really hard to commit. And so I am going to support the council member, council member Balcom's motion. We will have subsequent TNE work sessions and every member of this council is invited to participate in those So that we can get a better sense of what these design concepts are around the world that are Being requested to be built here in Montgomery County. There should be no Question about our commitment here about committing to a greener future and limiting our waste. But the question should be what is the final cost of that and that's all we're debating today. So thank you Director Munger. Thank you, Chick-Las. Thank you. I have a number of colleagues in the queue and I'm just checking the time so I'm going to turn to them but if we could try and speed along, that would be wonderful. Thank you, Councilmember Fannie Gonzalez. Because I already mentioned in talk about this in the previous session, I'm going to stick with it. I don't think we should be accepting the fees for the material recycling biological treatment I'm going to support the motion made by colleague Balkan because I don't believe in this but because we're just not ready. We shouldn't be talking about this during the budget. So after the budget, I look forward to attending T&E conversations and discussions to look into this. Especially when you said that this will be the first time in the nation with this type of facility in a county with so many people. I love being the first four things, but I cannot come into $38 million in such a tough budget year with this. So I'm going to support them notion and hopefully we can move on soon. Okay. Council Member Freetzen. Thank you. Thanks to colleagues. This is just an incredibly frustrating conversation and the more we talk about it, the more frustrating it becomes. You inherited this mess. This is really a mess of the county executives making. I just want to be very clear about that, the frustration that you're hearing. From colleagues, from my perspective at least, not directed at you and the DEP team, who has done nothing but try to carry out your orders and what you've been told, it's coming from where those orders are coming from. And so I just want to be really clear about that. I know this has not been easy for you to have to sit through these conversations and answering these questions. But you are doodifully trying to carry out what you've been asked and told to do. You mentioned earlier the analysis to date that's the Arcaidus report. Correct. When is that going to be shared? So a draft of the report has already been shared with all TE members and we've provided briefings the initial conclusions of the report. We expect the full report will be shared with Council this month. Okay, this month. I'll just reiterate the idea that we're being told that's all we have and we need to then take the next step and that first step has not been completed yet. Not with the full body. The T&E members or the T&E members, the county council is the county council. The public is the public and they're the ones who are actually footing the bill for this and we're being asked to approve it. I just want to pick up on the thread that Council member sales mentioned with the RFP and you heard from other colleagues. So this is for planning and design the $36 million and And just to be clear, as you were noting, the $36 million is for the privilege to weigh the options for what is gonna be an $800 million to billion dollar project in the end probably. I mean, just order a magnitude. If just being transparent with the public, the next phase of this, of actually building something,'s a reference to design bill, the actual build part, we're not even close to that. And would an 800 to a billion price point be order of magnitude? I mean, we're not talking about tens of millions, we're talking about hundreds of millions at least. Is that correct? We're talking about the whole system that we would then be moving towards? Sure. We won't. I mean obviously we won't actually know the answer to that question until we have some planning and design work in process. But yes, you can expect that when we would actually move to construction that there would be significant costs associated with it. Yes. What is a magnitude? Hundreds of millions. Okay. I'm trying to understand the thought process to the matchmaker dating dynamic. Why we wouldn't hire somebody as part of this that has expertise to navigate through an actual RFP. I understand if the department is saying, we do not have the internal expertise to do something that almost nobody is doing. This is the bleeding edge versus cutting edge question of whether or not we want to be the first large jurisdiction with this volume of waste to be entering into this. But why are we paying $36 million to begin the design and build as opposed to going out to the public and having expertise that we hire for much cheaper than $36 million to advise and consults on a public competitive process for a system that could address our needs. Is there a reason why we would design and build it with or excuse me? Design it first and then move forward. I'm just trying to understand why we wouldn't bring somebody in to give the expertise that we lack, but then have a competitive process. So I think that's actually, as you've, if I'm understanding your question correctly, that's exactly what we've done. And we've provided additional information to council on the contract resources that we've brought into, in fact, do exactly what you're describing and support the county and its procurement process. So we have a contractor in place that's been supporting the work to date to develop the procurement of this project. So we've already done that and the next step would be to actually move forward with the next step, which is to actually go out there and solicit for the actual experts that would plan and design this. But we already have brought in the additional expertise to support the county in the procurement process. So you're going to move forward with an RFP to plan and design this. And then there's going to be a separate RFP after the planning and design for somebody to actually construct it Someone's going to construct somebody else's planning and design. I just want to make sure I'm understanding. No, that's that's not correct. So then how does this not commit? How does the $36 million? One of only one of the two things can be true either the $36 million is to plan and design something and then we're going to go out to the street and competitively bid for someone else to build it or them to build it. They could potentially compete on their own design and build or we're committing to marriage, not to cohabitating or whatever metaphor you want to use. Just trying to understand the next step. Sure. So let's see. I'm really hesitant to extend the dating metaphor, but it does seem apt in this moment. So, but to answer your question, Councilmember, during the pre-construction services contract, obviously with the project of this magnitude, we actively need more information on what the planning and design would look like. And so, it would be completely unreasonable to expect any jurisdiction to enter into a contract at the very beginning that's committing to every single step in the process, which is why what's envisioned in through a pre-construction services contract would be a smaller contract that is focused on planning a design that would proceed the larger construction contract. And I think what if I'm understanding your question correctly, critically, during that pre-construction services period, we wouldn't be obligated to go the rest of the way with the project simply by entering into, simply during that three-year period. So if you want to call it courting or dating, like that's what the three year period would be, but it wouldn't be a long term commitment. Is that responsive to your question? Yeah, I just want to understand why we would have one respondent plan and design something and then go out and have somebody else potentially built. So then there is a commitment, but we would be getting out. We could get out of it and just have the 36 million as a sunk cost. Sure. So and thanks for this. So the actual nonmanclature is a progressive design build, operate contract, which would only award the initial work of the contract first. So during the period of work that was the initial work we would not be committing to the long-term work. Okay, so we are committing the same entity if we decide to proceed. Okay, so this is different than what was shared before. I can't understand you, Jeff, because this is not, again, this is not DEP's fault. This is, the county executive has done this repeatedly on number of other issues that have come before this council with this budget. This is inappropriate for a budget discussion. I'm just going to put it out. It's all your hard work, and it has been a great deal of hard work. But to expect us to do this here now and commit to this, it's just, it's not appropriate. We are not, we are not going to be making a good decision. Regardless of the decision, I feel like we're about to make. And we've been put in this position by the county executive. And I feel like he has put you all in this position as well because I cannot tell you I think to a person on this dias how much we value and respect the work that our department of environment does. And it's just I'm going to ask my colleagues who are still in the queue to please, unless you have a different line of questioning to take yourself out of the queue so we can close this down because I do not feel like we are doing a service to our Department of Environmental Protection and their excellent work because this is really because the county executive did not keep us involved in the planning of this, keep us informed and has now put this before us in a way that is really inappropriate. I very much appreciate that I will yield and just say that I have real concerns about the underlying increase as well. I am going to support the motion with deep reservations. I will not support prospective being asked to essentially trust the county executive who's put us in this position in the first place. I do believe that even in the underlying fee that we're being asked to support is the direct result of years of deferred maintenance that is at the hands and the feet of the county executive. not the fault of the department. I have extreme reservations on that and it creates a significant level of concern and distrust that this process will be handled appropriately moving forward by the executive. I have every confidence that the department will do exactly what it needs to do, but I have real concerns about the ultimate person who's making this decision with that I'll yield back. Okay, we want, I really want to, so I have Council member Luki and number of other people in the queue. Just want to echo everything, Council President Assad and my colleagues have said I too will support the motion that's pending on the floor. I have one request of the department that you could give to all of us that'll help us better understand some of the things that have been thrust upon us. And that is, can you please make sure to provide the full council, the expenditures on maintenance for the RRF and the transfer station starting with fiscal year 2018 through the present broken out out by fiscal year. Thank you. Council member Albinaz. Thank you briefly. We'll support the motion as well, but question regarding timing, whether we supported this now or later, approximately how long do you anticipate the strategic planning and design will take before a product will be delivered? Schedules must indicate the pre-construction services period would be three years. Okay. I'll just note that there is going to be an executive change within those three years and new leadership who will be looking at this from a different lens and scope and perspective. So we have to take that into consideration with such a big investment in a plan that a future executive may not agree with. Or a council. Thank you. Thank you. Council member Katz. Thank you, Madam President. You can time me. It'll be less than one minute. I want to be on the record that says this is timing. This is a terrible way to do business. And I perhaps my colleagues know the expression, you're putting the cart in front of the horse. And I want to say that I would like to vote against every one of these fees, but I know that that would be impractical, so I will support the motion. Thank you. Council Member Sales. Thank you. So regarding the people that so we are in a contract with someone who's currently researching the design and build or no. No that's not correct. We have not yet entered into the pre-construction services contract because it is pending funding availability. Okay. Okay. And so, can we see what you have, what you are planning to put out? I know that we're going to pick this up post budget, but are we going to be able to see what's been prepared to be shared with the public for someone to research designing and building this state of the art facility? Yes, absolutely. So the technologies that we're talking about, the county has analysis that we're happy to share and sit down with you and your team to discuss council member absolutely. Well, I don't want to see the technology. I just want to ensure that we are going to be privy to the contract that the information that you're going to be sharing to procure someone to do the research to design this state of the art facility because it hasn't happened yet. We're not in a contract with anyone, but you're projecting that it could cost approximately 36 million for the next three years to find someone to design and build for them to do the process to find someone to design and build. That's what the 36 million is for. To find someone. So just the clarification I would offer council members that the appropriation requested for the advance waste processing technologies would actually be to the funding will be dedicated to enter into a contract with an entity to then do the planning and design as opposed to the other way around. But- Exactly. So you're going to be putting out an RFP once you get that money, once we appropriate the money, you'll be putting out an RFP. Correct. So there is time for us to evaluate what's going to go in that RFP and we'll get dozens of potential people who will want to do the service. So we will be able to engage in a competitive process. It's hard to speculate how many entities will respond to an RFP in advance. In Montgomery County, Director Munger, we're going to get lots of submissions. Once that RFP is finalized, discussed across the council, I think it's bigger than just TNE. I think we all have a vested interest in what this RFP, what the scope of services will look like. Sure. I think all of us will be interested and many people will inquire and be submitting proposals for us to evaluate. I appreciate your confidence in the process. I'll note that the county has already executed a request for expression of interest. I noted that I referred to that earlier. So we actually do have a sense of which entities are interested in this work already. Oh. And there is a short list of those whom whom we would expect would be in a position to execute this work. Well, I'm so glad that we're at this point because we should be looking at all of those prospective folks post-budget. And I look forward to those discussions. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member. All right, we have an amendment, an emotion, and a second on the floor. All those in favor of the amendment, please raise your hand. And and that is unanimous Now we have to move the amended FY26 solid-waste service charges is there a motion for that? Councilmember glass moved councilmember sales Seconded not seeing any other comments or questions all those in favor of the amended FY26 solid-waste service charges and that is unanimous. All right. I think that is Mr. Lachenko. Did we have anything else for this item? No, that's it. We'll prepare a updated resolution for you know to finalize with the revised charges as voted on today. Okay. Great. Thank you. I think our last item today is action on resolution to increase the county income tax rate and council member Freetson. Yeah, I'll be brief in light of decisions that we made earlier today and all the conversations we had through this budget process. I wanna move that we reject the proposed income tax increase retroactive to January 1st and just wanted to express my appreciation to you, Council President, for all of your work to work through and figure out a way that we could provide resources to our public school system, support many of the core priorities that we have and do so without a tax increase at a time when our community is struggling and at a time when the economy and the future fiscal challenges that we're gonna face are extraordinarily unknown. So with that, I'll move. All right, so I have a motion to disapprove just because it's a resolution. So I wanna make sure everyone understands what we're doing. Okay, so I have this motion and a second to disapprove. Council Member Joanda. Council Vice President Joanda. Thank you. I will be brief and I will support the resolution to disapprove the income tax increase. However, we're gonna have to come back to this. And since I've joined this council, I've talked about our flat income tax. Everyone pays 3.2%. That's regressive. We have been fighting really hard and want to thank Deligate, Julie Blackford's car and others in anapolis for giving us authority in multiple years. Now we finally have authority to make a tax bracket. I want to, we have to move forward with that. We also need to make sure we have stable funding for our schools and other important priorities. And so while I'm appreciative that we'll be able to move forward this year and I will support this motion, we are going to have to come back to this and I just wanted to make sure the public knows that. Thank you. Councillor Fannie Gisallis. Thank you quickly. I just want to say that I will support the motion. And what I have said before, and I stick with it now, to this year was not the year for knee and contacts increase. It should have never been on the table this year, especially the way it was placed. Next year, I look forward to talking about it. That's all. Thank you, Council Member Sales. Thank you. It's never a good time for a tax increase. But we all want good services. We all moved here for our excellent schools. And with the myriad of issues that are schools, our educators are facing. You know, this is where we're at. So I commend my colleagues, Council President, for coming up with this innovative way to ensure that we are all doing what we have committed to do. It's not the most ideal way, but I'm glad we're here. And yeah, we're gonna have these difficult conversations next year. And so I'm glad that there is a way to create brackets for these income tax assessments and look forward to ongoing discussions. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Luki.. Thank you, Madam President, and thank you for your leadership in helping us broker this deal to get us to where we are right now. And as I've said before, when discussing this issue, that I think that consistency and thoughtfulness and prudence are wise at this juncture, especially when we don't have enough numbers and data to go up on to really know the impacts of the change like this right at this particular moment. With that said, I also have noted that given the landscape in which we find ourselves, we need to be fully committed to coming back to this table, listening to those numbers, to seeing what data is coming in over time to make sure that we are doing the best job we possibly can by all of our residents with all the services that are important to everyone. We're just talking about trash. Certainly, one wants to not have the trash picked up. our schools, our fundamental part of our community and our children, four of mine, rely on it. Right? Like many of us here. And so we're going to have to be deeply committed to difficult conversations and wise sound financial judgment moving forward as we navigate our current landscape. Thank you. Thank you. And I just I want to just add my thanks to our staff, to our county finance department, especially Nancy Feldman and her team, and to our state comptroller. This ability to even ponder increasing the income tax came very late in the session in Annapolis and our state comptroller is doing a terrific job and even for our staff here, Mr. Smith and as I said Nancy Feldman in the finance department I just want to say thank you for the analysis that was done as we looked at this but I will be also favoring disapproving the resolution. So not seeing anyone else with a question or a comment, all those in favor of disapproving the resolution to increase the county income tax rate, please raise your hand. And that is unanimous. All right, our meeting is now adjourned. We are scheduled to come back tomorrow at 10.30 a.m. and get even closer to finishing up our budget process. Thank you and thank you all for coming today. We're adjourned.