County Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Chair calls the order zoning board of appeals for case 6,002 Matthew Watson. We are here this evening for final argument in zoning case number 6,002, which was remanded by the Hartford County circuit court to the Hartford County council board of appeals for the scheduling of a hearing before the hearing examiner for the petitioners to have an opportunity to cross examine witnesses before a special exception could be recommended, recommended and granted or denied. Mr. Cahoe has issued his decision on June 4th, 2024 recommending approval of special exception with the conditions because the applicant met the elements of the zoning code. That recommendation was appealed to council sitting as the Board of Appeals for final argument. Final argument was held at the November 5th, 2024 council meeting. Council voted 7-0 to affirm and uphold the hearing examiner's recommended approval. The remand hearing was held on April 15, 2026, and a hearing examiner supplemental decision was rendered on May 1, 2026. That decision recommended the approval of the request for a special exception to allow for a group home for sheltered care in the R2 Urban Residential District subject to certain conditions. This final argument was scheduled pursuant to the amended court order dated June 3, 2025, issued by Judge Howe. This final argument shall be based solely on evidence in the record that was created at the remand hearing, which includes the application, any documentation submitted to the hearing examiner, the recorded testimony received at the hearing, the transcript of the hearing, and the supplemental decision of the hearing examiner. The applicant is here this evening, Matthew Watson and Mr. Snee. The petitioners are also here with us this evening. We can only have one speaker on behalf of the petitioners, so would you please identify yourself? Rachel Waters. You each have 15 minutes for your argument and can reserve time for rebuttal. The board will not render a decision this evening, and we will take this up at a later date. Ms. Dixon, are you ready? Mr. Snead, are you ready?

Yes, I am, Mr. President. My understanding is...

The petitioners are the moving party in the appeal, so they will... Ms. Watson, you want to come forward?

Waters.

Waters.

And while she's coming forward, Joseph F. Snead, Jr., 112 South Main Street, Bel Air, Maryland, 21014. On behalf of Matthew Watson to my right is Megan Chambers, my paralegal, who will be assisting me tonight. Thank you. Mr. President, thank you.

Ms. Waters. Whenever you're ready, ma'am.

Okay, thank you. Good evening, council, members of...

I think she can let us know that as she goes through. I'll cut the clock off when she's done speaking if she wants to reserve time. That's the way we typically do it.

Thank you. um good evening council members of the county council neighbors and members of the community my name is rachel waters and i live near the proposed facility at 1601 philadelphia road in joppa for nearly two years residents have participated in hearings reviewed testimony submitted comments asked questions and attempted to understand exactly what is being proposed for our neighborhoods Throughout this process, residents have consistently raised concerns regarding transparency, operational readiness, public safety, neighborhood compatibility, and the preservation of residential zoning protections. Let me begin by making one thing clear. This is not about being against recovery or lacking compassion. Some residents support recovery programs when they are properly planned, staffed, appropriately located and operated with accountability and demonstrated experience. But the issue before the council tonight is not whether recovery is important. The issue is whether this specific proposal at this specific location has demonstrated that it is appropriate, compatible, and adequately prepared to operate within an established R2 residential neighborhood. Based on the testimony presented throughout this process, many residents believe it is not. Some residents present tonight have lived in this community for 40 and 50 years. They raised their families here, invested their life savings here, built relationships here and reply relied upon the protections that residential zoning was intended to provide. Their concerns deserve serious consideration. One theme appeared repeatedly throughout the hearings. Residents were repeatedly asked to trust future staffing policies, future procedures and future oversight. But zoning decisions should be based upon demonstrated facts, not future promises. First, operational readiness. Throughout the hearings, residents repeatedly sought answers regarding who will supervise, enforce rules, respond to emergencies, monitor compliance, and provide day-to-day oversight. Yet many of those answers remain unknown today. The testimony revealed that staffing has not been fully identified. We still don't know who the staff will be, what are their qualifications, who will provide supervision and who will ultimately be accountable when operational problems arise. Not approval should be based upon what exists today, not upon assumptions regarding what may exist later. Another concern involves the nature of the operation itself and whether it is consistent with the purpose and intent of the zoning classification being relied upon. Throughout this process, residents have repeatedly heard references to PRN, Solutions, LLC, operational management, admissions procedures, staffing structures, business administration, and future program operations. At the same time, Harford County zoning code defines a boarding home for shelter care as a nonprofit home for the care of unrelated persons with special needs. That distinction matters because the council is not simply evaluating a building. The council is evaluating whether the proposed use actually fits within the proposed and intent of the zoning category being relied upon. the nonprofit language was included for a reason. Whether a private for profit operation fits within that definition is central to determining whether this application is consistent with the zoning code. Yet throughout this process, residents have repeatedly heard references to a private business entity operating a recovery residence while receiving very little explanation regarding how that structure aligns with a zoning classification that expressly references a nonprofit home. That raises a question, a legitimate question. How does a for profit business operation align with a zoning classification that specifically references a non-profit shelter care use? At a minimum, residents believe that this issue deserves significantly more scrutiny than it has received during this process. The council should clearly determine how a for-profit recovery residence fits within a zoning classification that references a non-profit home before granting a special exception. Second, transparency and credibility. During the testimony, residents were told that a team would be involved in critical decisions regarding admissions, staffing, and operations. That testimony suggested that multiple experienced professionals would be responsible for overseeing this facility. It was only through extensive questioning that residents learned the so called team ultimately appeared to center on Matthew Watson himself. Residents were told there was a team. We now know the team is Matthew Watson. That distinction matters because the council is being asked to approve a 16 person recovery residents while much of the decision making authority appears concentrated in a single individual with little demonstrated experience operating a facility of this size and complexity. Residents also became concerned when questions were raised during the hearing regarding communications occurring between Mr. Watson and Miss Wanda Lasky while testimony was underway. Concerns regarding that conduct were raised during the hearing and instructions were given that it stop immediately. Whether intentional or not, the incident contributed to the resident's concerns regarding the independence of the testimony being presented and reinforced a broader concern that critical information often emerged only after extensive questioning. Public confidence depends upon transparency. credibility, and the ability to trust that the testimony reflects a witness's own knowledge and recollection. Third, neighborhood compatibility. The testimony itself revealed major operational contradictions that go directly to the issue of neighborhood compatibility. Throughout this process, residents have repeatedly been told that this proposed use is compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. Yet the conditions imposed tell a very different story. Residents are not supposed to leave the property on foot. Residents may be discharged if they do. Residents are expected to avoid a nearby school property Ongoing supervision is required for these residents. These are not ordinary conditions imposed upon an ordinary residential use. These are extraordinary restrictions imposed because legitimate concerns exist regarding how this facility will function within the surrounding community. And that raises an important question. If this proposed use is truly compatible with an R2 residential neighborhood, why are such extraordinary restrictions necessary in the first place? The applicant's own witness acknowledged the existence of nearby churches, school-related activity, children, and bus stops. In fact, when the issue of Trinity Lutheran School was discussed, the witness agreed that the school's proximity should be recognized and considered. The witness further testified that residents should not go onto school property. That admission is significant. If restrictions are necessary because a school is nearby, then the school's proximity is clearly relevant to this application. Residents did not create that concern. The applicant's own witness acknowledged it under oath. Likewise, residents repeatedly expressed concerns regarding individuals leaving the property. The testimony established that residents are not physically confined to this facility. If a resident leaves without authorization, the solution was to discharge them from the program. But discharge protects the facility. It does not necessarily protect the neighborhood. A person who leaves the property is still a person who left the property. That reality cannot simply be ignored. That distinction matters because the council is being asked to approve a 16 person recovery residents while much of the decision making authority appears concentrated to a single individual with little demonstrated experience operating a facility of this size and complexity. The applicant has repeatedly suggested that concerns regarding staffing levels, resident management, operational oversight should be addressed through state regulations. While Maryland may indeed regulate and monitor licensed recovery residences, that does not relieve the council of its responsibility to evaluate whether this specific location is appropriate for this specific use before an approval is granted. Once a facility is approved and operating, the council will not be present to monitor staffing ratios, supervise residents, enforce house rules or ensure daily compliance with promises. Those responsibilities fall to the operator and the state agencies. The question before the council tonight is whether the state of Maryland has regulations on paper, is not whether the state of Maryland has regulations on paper, but whether placing a high density recovery residence of this size and intensity in this residential neighborhood is compatible with the surrounding community and consistent with the intent of the zoning code. Residents should not be asked to accept significant neighborhood impacts based solely on assurances that another level of government may address problems later. The appropriate time to evaluate the suitability of this proposal is now. Before approval is granted, not after issues arise. This is especially important because many of the assurances offered by the applicant regarding staffing and daily operations are not conditions that would be enforced by the council. If these representations are being relied upon to justify approval, residents have no guarantee that future operations will mirror the promises being made today. Land use decisions should be based on what is being legally approved, not on informal assurances that may change over time.

Ms. Waters, I just want to make you aware you have two and a half minutes.

Okay. Admissions decisions. Residents remain concerned, required regarding admissions. The testimony established that some residents may have criminal histories. and admission decisions would ultimately be discretionary and handled internally. Residents were asked again to trust future decisions that have not yet been fully defined. Residents continue to have serious concerns regarding the public notice and due process. Evidence was admitted into record, included signage that many residents found difficult or impossible to read. Public notice is not a technicality. It is a fundamental component component of due process. Residents cannot respond to information they cannot read. Ultimately, this matter comes down to one question. Has the applicant demonstrated that this proposed use is compatible with this neighborhood and that adequate safeguards exist to protect the surrounding communities? Residents are not asking for special treatment. We're asking for equal application of the zoning laws. We're asking for transparency and accountability and that residential zoning protections mean what they are supposed to mean. For all these reasons and because the applicant has failed to demonstrate that this proposal satisfies the standards necessary to justify special exception in this residential setting, I respectfully ask the council to deny this application and preserve the integrity of residential zoning, the expectations of surrounding homeowners and the character of the job of community. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you, ma'am. You'll have a minute left for rebuttal if you need it.

I'm sorry. I'm not sure what that means.

In other words, if you want to add something when Mr. Snee is done, you'll have a minute left to do that. Okay. Stand by.

Apologize. Let me start again. Joseph F. Snead Jr. On behalf of Matthew Watson is watching remotely to my right is Megan Chambers assisting me as well. I represent Matthew Watson with respect to this case. It is located at 1601 Philadelphia Road. That is in Joppa. Let me say at the outset that with respect to the concerns of my colleague to the left, I would suggest that the special exception decision has to be made first before operational details can be made in the field because no one will invest in a building or an ongoing business until they make sure that they have the requisite approvals in place. So most of the concerns raised by Ms. Waters will be addressed during the development advisory committee process. But we can't speculate on the future of what that's going to look like until we get our special exception approval. With that in mind, with respect to the Watson property itself, slide three, the property is zoned R2. It is 2.03 acres, and that's important because both are prerequisites for the special exception approval. It is currently improved, and it has outbuildings on it. With respect to the State Department of Assessments and Taxation Record, it is known as Tax Act 65, parcel 132, and it's lot 2. This was deeded by virtue of deed 13523, folio 212. Now, the procedural history is long. It started back on January 3, 2024, with the application for the special exception by Mr. Watson. And I'm not going to go through every bullet there, but I do want to highlight the next one in yellow, November 5. This case was obviously before the Board of Appeals previously, and the Board considered all of the evidence and the law at the time and approved the special exception unanimously, seven, four, and zero against. Then I jumped to the bottom, December 4, 2024, and you notice that the Board of Appeals decision was timely approved. appeal to the circuit court for Harford County. The result of that circuit court was, as the president indicated, Judge Howe remanding it to the hearing examiner for an opportunity for the protestants to cross-examine the witnesses. So that in fact occurred on 5-1-26 and on that date Mr. Cahill recommended approval. We're here with the final argument some 881 days after the inception of this case. Now I go to the IRAC method and harkening back 45 years ago to law school, this is how we were taught to analyze in the Socratic method a issue of law and come to the correct conclusion. You spot the issue, you identify the rule of law, you apply the issue to that rule, and then you reach a conclusion. With that methodology in place, I'm going to go forward. And the issue is very simple. Should the board affirm Mr. Cahill's recommendation to this Board of Appeals to allow a group home with respect to a special exception in the R2 urban residential district? and the answer should be an overwhelming yes and here's why we get into the rule of law the rule of law is bifurcated it's a function of common law and that's the state of maryland the seminal case in special exceptions is schultz v pritz and essentially says that if the impact here is any different from the impact in any similarly situated R2 zoning in Hartford County, then you have a problem. But the impact here is no different than it would be for any R2 zone in any district in Hartford County. And that's Schultz v. Pritz. But what's missed often in the case law analysis are what I highlighted in the two cases. And they're known as Cresswell. Cresswell stands for the proposition that legislatively this body has predetermined that that use is acceptable at that location subject to conditions, and those conditions are meant to protect the property owners in the vicinity, and that's what Mr. Cahoe did here. He imposed 10 conditions in response to the remand to address Ms. Waters and her neighbor's considerations the other one is at the bottom and that's the Cromwell case and I quote a special exception exception contemplates a permitted use once prescribed conditions are met and those conditions are very, very vigorous in terms of protecting the community. Then we switch to slide 10. Final argument, of course, everyone knows that this is on the record. There is no new evidence, and we're asking the board to accept Mr. Cahill's recommendation. So with respect to Ms. Waters' concerns, it's incumbent upon the applicant, Mr. Watson, to address 267-9I. That's usually a capital I. And that's the conditions that we have to address going through the special exception analysis with Mr. Keogh. Reduced to its simplest terms, the first three are persons living in the area, traffic concerns and orderly growth. The next three are fumes and noise, emergency services and consistency with engineering and sound land use and planning principles. And finally, to round that out, there's four more, institutional presence, development code issues, environmental issues, and preservation of landmarks. Now, each of those issues was addressed by our expert witnesses. There was no expert witnesses offered by the People's Council who appeared and cross-examined the witnesses I offered to support our case. And as a result, it stands unrebutted. then you go to 267 88 with respect to special exceptions specific standards for group homes for shelter care and it harkens back to what i just said we need a minimal parcel acre and we need eight residents per acre and then we go back to the application and this is the third leg of the four-legged stool Group homes for shelter care, that is the definition. Eight unrelated folks who have special needs, who are offered and demand and will receive services and we will provide transportation to the extent that they need it. I do believe Ms. Walters was referring to a boarding home for shelter care, which is often confused with a group home for shelter care, but I don't know. With respect to this council's use chart, which is legislatively enacted, we are in the R2 zoning district. You can drop down and see the special exception and that allows for group homes for shelter care and again the special exception is just above a principal permitted use it says it's presumptively approved as long as your impacts are no different here than they would be in an r2 district in harford county so back in april of 2024 we called four witnesses they're all there it was remanded And before it was, there was no expert witnesses offered by the People's Council. The People's Council was obviously in attendance. It cross-examined the witnesses and offered no experts of their own. So the remand hearing then. occurred April 15, 2026, and these are quotes from hearing examiner Cahill's testimony and evidence of record, and then the second part from his findings of fact. The neighbors elected to question only one witness of the four that were recalled. and that was Courtney Wendeloski. She is, in fact, a consultant for these types of uses at these types of facilities, and she's been working with Mr. Watson for well over, well, two years now. And hearing examiner Kehoe indicated that her testimony was quite clear, and no new facts were raised. No new issues were raised, and she simply augmented her testimony from a year or two years earlier. And she was in fact examined by three folks, Ms. Donna Forster, And I won't go into all the details, but I think I highlighted what Ms. Waters was touching on. This program facility, when operational, if operational, with the special exception approval, will be operated by a program director. and a behavioral health technician, and they're going to be on site 24-7. So this is not an unsupervised situation. Continuing her cross, she solicited, and in fact, the witness testified that there will be two to four staff members there, and there are the prospective patients, residents are vetted, they're screened, And then ultimately, the clinical director who's mandated by law to be there is responsible for the admissions decisions. Jean Wilson was next. She said that in response to her questions, admissions are voluntary and not court mandated. And I want the council and the board of appeals to know that this is the lowest level of treatment. These are folks that have been in treatment. This is their last leg. And then they're going to turn out and work and, and, and, and go back and do what we all do. The third person was, um, Ms. Waters. And, um, in response to her questioning, uh, again, a low intensity residential facility and, uh, their, want to make sure that people are in harmony in the community. So there was no further cross-examination at the remand. None of the experts were called except for that one. And a summary of the testimony of each of the April 10th testimonies attached at the end of this by way of review. So Mr. Cahill concluded by saying that the testimony of Courtney Wondolasky was clear. No new facts, no new issues. Mr. Cahill went on to suggest that the special exception for a group home in the R2 be approved subject to those conditions which the board has before it. And I think it goes out of its way to address the concerns of the community. So with respect to our ask, Mr. President, members of the board, we'd ask that the board reaffirm, if you will, the special exception for Mr. Watson to operate in his R2 zoning district a group home for sheltered care. And I would just note that the summary of the previous testimony is there for the board's perusal, but I don't think it's necessary to go back and revisit that, but it's there for the board's consumption. So with that, I'll conclude.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Snee. You have two minutes left for rebuttal if you need it. Thank you. Ms. Waters?

Yes. I would like to say that Ms. Wondolowski's testimony should not be fully considered. She was being coached from the back of the room by Matthew Watson. Um, that is clearly on the record and I would ask that you consider that. Um, if she is a professional consultant, she should not need to be coached from anyone. She should be answering questions again from her own knowledge. I would like to also bring up the point of the signage that was entered into evidence that was not legible. No one could read it. It was scribble scrabble and you guys should have a picture of that in your briefing or whatever you have. I'm sorry, I don't have the proper words. Um, we couldn't read it and that's not fair to the community members who would like to have input and protest. Finally, I'd like to talk about the People's Council. I don't even know, I think he came from outer space because he appeared one day and we never saw him again. We did not have a chance to communicate with him. It didn't appear he was working for us.

Ms. Waters, your time is up. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Snee? Nothing. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you both. As I said earlier, this will conclude this Zoning Court of Appeals case hearing, and we will pick this up at a later meeting. Thank you. Thank you. We're going to move on into public hearing for Bill 26. We can't?

Oh, my gosh.

All right, we're going to take a 10-minute recess. Chair calls the order of public hearings, Bill 26-007, revised prior year bond bills. Mr. Senate?

Would you like us to just discuss the revised prior bond bill? Yes, just the one. So the revised prior bond bill is something we bring each year to in front of the county council. If during the budget process we have reallocated any any bonds as part of that so like. Sorry about that something we bring to the county council just about every year we have. where we are authorizing the county to incur debt, long term debt in order to pay for certain capital assets. And sometimes we identify the certain projects that we'll be using those for and there are savings on those projects kind of for a whole host of reasons and we're able to reallocate those funds. to other new projects and this is all taking place within the budget that was proposed to you earlier this year. For the most part, most of these are just some small cleanups. The most substantial one is that the Homestead Wakefield New Elementary School had some substantial savings and After conversations with the school system, the decision was made to reallocate most of those funds, about $3.5 million of those remaining funds, to their general HVAC project, which they'll be using for the Edgewood Middle HVAC replacement. There's also some other small changes that we are undertaking as well, largely just dealing with other things that the school system has requested. And we have some other cleanup ones on the water and sewer side, mostly just fixing a kind of a clerical error that we had where we identified the same project twice, water and sewer infrastructure, and so we were just cleaning that up. And actually that just complies with what we've already had in the budgets. So I can let our bond counsel discuss what's happening legally.

Yeah, sure. Thanks, Robbie. So this bill repeals and reenacts with amendments certain sections of legislation that you previously enacted here at the County Council in 2023 and 2024. As Robbie said, this is just a reallocation of capital projects funds to reduce some capital projects budgets that he's already talked about. So the specific bills being modified here tonight. are bill number 23-20, bill number 24-27, and bill number 24-28. So you'll adopt the bill. We'll reallocate the bond proceeds to the projects, and that'll be that. CHRIS RODGERS. Thanks, Chris.

of council, Mr. Janitor Dan.

Good evening, gentlemen. So the money from the Homestead-Wakefield Elementary School, the $3.5 million that's going to go to the Edgewood for the HVAC program, was there money already allocated for that HVAC program?

There are some additional funds that they have. I believe that project is a $7 or $8 million project, so this doesn't cover all of it. So they had other funds already within that project. And actually there's some later amendments later on today that's also, I think, moving some additional funds to some of those projects. But that is one of those things where the school system has HVAC needs and sometimes they're able to accumulate funds and then when they have some more substantial savings in this regard they were able to working with the county we were able to kind of fully fund that project normally an HVAC project like that we would also have state participation on I think unfortunately what's happening now is because the Harford Academy project is so large, it's basically kind of sucking all the oxygen out of the room. And monies that might have in the past from the state could have been able to be used towards those types of HVAC projects. Now the county is having to fully fund both partially with new money, but then also with some of these existing savings off of the homestead project.

And when does that project start, any idea?

The school system would probably be, but generally those HVAC projects, that's why they're always oftentimes worried about how late the school year goes because they want to start that as soon as possible so that they can be finished up during the summer. But it's my understanding that that should be starting, I don't know if it's starting this summer or the following summer because they still have to bid it and all of that, but it will largely be a summer project.

Thank you. Anyone else? Ms. Dixon, is there anyone signed up?

There is no one signed up, Mr. President.

All right, this will conclude this public hearing for 26007, and we'll look at this at a later date. Let's do Bill 26008, Bond Authorization, CPI.

So the bond authorization, this deals with all of the new bonds. The previous bill dealt with any reappropriated bonds. These are new bonds, new debt that we bring in front of the county council in conjunction with the budget each year. Because we need that bond authorization if we are going to incur expenditures that are going to be paid back with future bonds. And the idea really behind this is that future taxpayers are going to be paying for these bills, so that's why it needs legislative approval. It's not part of that annual budget appropriation process. So we have about 26 projects that are funded with bonds. The most substantial, of course, is that new Harford Academy project. I believe we have... 55 million. So of the total of 156 million, a third of that is for the new Hartford Academy project. And we know that that project is going to be a very expensive project. You know, it's probably about $175 million with 50 million of it coming from the state and 125 coming from the counties. But other than that, we also have substantial investments in the Whiteford Volunteer Fire Department new station, that's just shy of 14 million. A lot of funding in here for storm water improvements. That's become a very expensive endeavor in complying with those EPA and Maryland Department of Environment requirements. Also, as well as various site acquisitions, roadway improvements, bridge improvements. turf fields replacement. So again, about 26 projects which are all detailed out. And all of these projects are all in the budget that was proposed to the county council and that has bond funding associated with it. And I'll let our bond council discuss some of that.

Thanks, Robbie. So Bill 26-008 authorized the county to issue its general obligation bonds. As Robbie said, the amount is $156,380,000 this year. And I'll just go section by section just briefly describing what they say. So section one of the bill describes all the capital projects that Robbie was talking about that have been included in your capital budget for 2027 and the respective amounts to be funded. Sections 2 and 3 of the bill provide that prior to the issuance of the bonds, the county council shall determine by administrative resolution the essential terms. So most of you have been through this process already later in the year when we're looking to sell the bonds. We'll bring a further resolution to you to adopt at that time. So Section 2 and 3 set forth the interest rate on the bonds. Sections 4 through 8, 14, and 15, and 20 of the bill further authorized the council, the county executive, the county treasurer, the county attorney, and the county administrator to execute any and all documents and agreements necessary to proceed with the issuance of the bonds to adopt any subsequent resolutions necessary to effectuate the sale and delivery in 2027. So Section 9 of the bill provides a maximum maturity of 20 years for the bonds and sets forth the anticipated amortization schedule subject to change by the County Council when we actually sell the bonds. The bill also provides the form of the bonds subject to your modification at your discretion. Section 11 of the bill contains the form of the bonds themselves. 12 and 13 describe the advertising process and the form of the notice of sale that we publish in the Harford County AGIS every year advertising the bond sale in 2027. These sections also include the form of the issue price certificate and the form certificate of the county's municipal advisor Davenport and Company and Jen Dirksen. Section 16 of the bill states that to the extent that recordation and transfer taxes are insufficient to pay debt service on the bonds, the county's full faith in credit and taxing power are pledged to secure the repayment of the bonds. Section 18 of the bill authorized the county to reimburse itself from the proceeds of the bonds for monies previously spent on the capital projects. That's the reimbursement process Robbie talked about. The county covenants that this reimbursement shall be in accordance with the taxes and bond regulations issued by the Treasury of the United States in coordination with the Internal Revenue Service. County also covenants that will not take any action to cause the interest on the bonds to become federally taxable under those regs I just talked about. Section 19 of the bill covers additional tax covenants of the county that will be put in the tax certificate that you sign when the bonds are actually closed. We close on the deal. And then finally, Section 21 is a standard severability provision that says if any of the provisions of the bill become illegal or inoperable, the rest of the bill stays active. So that's the legal aspects of the bill. Robbie's talked about the projects, and I think we're happy to entertain any questions.

Yeah, and again, this is just for the authorization of this debt. It doesn't really become real and become real debt service until we actually sell the bonds. And because of the county's kind of strong financial footing, we are generally able to reimburse ourselves so we don't run into arbitrage issues and the like by having to kind of forward fund bonds and then meet all the IRS requirements. So at this point, we're just committing ourselves that if we do opt to sell bonds in the future for these projects, that we will be able to do so.

And you've done a great job thus far. Council, any questions? All right, seeing none, do we have anyone signed up?

There is no one signed up, Mr. President.

All right, this will conclude the public hearing for Bill 26008. And again, thank you for your presentation. And we'll take this up at a future meeting. Appreciate it. So we're going to take a five-minute recess. Chair calls to order legislative session day 26018. Please stand for the pledge, followed by the opening prayer with Ms. Inhofe.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for ever.

Lord, we thank you for the privilege of serving our community and for the opportunity to gather here today. As we undertake the work before us, grant us the wisdom to make sound decisions, patience to listen with understanding, and unity of purpose as we seek what is best for the residents we represent. Help us lead with fairness, compassion, and respect for one another, even when opinions differ. May our discussions be productive, our actions be reasonable, and our service guided by the commitment to the common good. We ask you for your continued blessings upon our county, our families, businesses, first responders, public servants, and all who contribute to make this community strong. Amen.

Amen. For presentation of proclamations, Ms. Robert.

I'm not sure my person is here to receive the proclamation.

Do you want to hold off?

Yes, if you don't mind. I did text her to see if she was on her way. I'm just waiting to hear back.

Okay, we'll hold off for a little bit then. Let's move to number five. Consideration, petitions, applications, appointments, and nominations. Executive appointment, building code, Board of Appeals. May I have a motion?

Council President, I move to approve the appointments of Michael W. Jones and John A. Killian.

I have a second. Second.

Thank you, Mr. Riley.

I move and second to approve the appointments for building code. Any discussion? Ms. Dixon?

Mr. President? Aye. Mrs. Robert? Aye. Mrs. Emhoff? Aye. Mr. Giangerdano? Aye. Mr. Riley? Aye. Mrs. Bullsaddles?

Aye.

There being six votes in the affirmative, one absent, the appointments are hereby approved. And may I say before I move forward, Mr. Bennett is not here this evening. He had a health issue with his wife, and he's at home with the family. May I have a motion for Hartford County Public Library Board of Trustees?

Council President, I move to approve the appointment of Carol Wright.

You have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Riley. And move to second to approve the appointment to the Library Board of Trustees Chairperson. Is there any discussion? Ms. Dixon?

Mr. President? Aye. Mrs. Robert? Aye. Mrs. Emhoff? Aye. Mr. Giangerdano?

Aye.

Mr. Riley? Aye. Mrs. Bulsadles?

Aye.

There's six in the affirmative, one absent. The appointment is hereby approved. I don't see her either. Special presentations, we have none. Seven, approval of minutes. Board of Health updates spring 2026. Public hearing May 26, 2026. Legislative day 26-017, May 26, 2026. Are there any corrections to the minutes? There being no corrections, the minutes stand approved. Eight, introduction and consideration of resolutions. We have none. Nine, introduction of bills. We have none. Ten, introduction and consideration of amendments. Ms. Van Hoff, please read Amendment 5 to Bill 26006. Amendment 5 to Bill 26006 on page 12, line 5, strike $245 million.

eight thousand eight hundred and sixty three and substitute two hundred and forty seven million three hundred and thirty three thousand eight hundred and sixty three.

Thank you. Due to the nature of this amendment will be considered this evening so I may have a motion please.

Council President I move to approve amendment number five to bill 26S006.

Thank you. May I have a second?

Second.

Thank you Ms. Robert. I move and second it to approve Amendment 5 to Bill 26-006. Is there any discussion? Ms. Dixon?

Mr. President?

Aye.

Mrs. Robert? Aye. Mrs. Emhoff? Aye. Mr. Giangerdano? No. Mr. Riley? No. Mrs. Bolsado? Aye.

There being four votes in the affirmative, two no, one absent, Amendment 5 to Bill 26-006 is hereby approved. Mr. Jan Giordano, please read amendments 6 through 28 to bill 26006 into the record for introduction.

Amendments 1-13 to bill number 26008, bond authorization. No, no, no, no, no. Be number 6.

To the budget. Yeah.

Amendments 6 through 28 to the budget bill 26006.

Amendment 6 on page 6. That one. Amendment number six on page 37 between lines eight and nine insert the following homestead Wakefield elementary project three million five hundred seventy five thousand six hundred forty eight to add the Board of Education capital project homestead Wakefield elementary project Amendment number seven on page 35 in line 12, strike 3,500,000 and substitute 75,648 to reallocate 3,575,648 of prior bonds. Amendment number eight on page 37 between lines 10 and 11 insert the following, prospect mill, ES roof, 430,322 to add to the Board of Education Capital Project Cross-McMill Elementary School Roof. Amendment number nine on page 35 in line 12, strike 3,500,000 and substitute 3,069,678 to reallocate $430,322 of prior bonds. Amendment number 10 on page 37 between lines five and six insert the following. Aberdeen Middle School HVAC $1,600,000 to add the Board of Education Capital Project to Aberdeen Middle School HVAC. Amendment number 11. On page 35 in line 12, strike $3,500,000 and substitute $1,900,000 to reallocate $1,600,000 of prior bonds. Amendment number 12 on page 37 between lines 8 and 9, insert the following, Joplin High School Limited Renovation Project 1519 to add the Board of Education Capital Project, Joplin High School Limited Renovation Project. Amendment number 13 on page 35 in line 12, strike $3,500,000 and substitute $3,498,481 to reallocate $1,519 of prior bonds. Amendment number 14 on page 37 between lines 5 and 6, insert the following. Blueprint facility program, $250,000 to add the Board of Education capital project blueprint facility program. Amendment number 15 on page 35 in line 12, strike 3,500,000 and substitute 3,250,000 to reallocate 250,000 of prior bonds. Amendment number 16 on page 37 and line 8, strike $5 million and substitute $4,642,493 to decrease prior bonds in the amount of $3,057,507 to the Board of Education Capital Project HCPS site improvement. Amendment number 17, on page 35, in line 12, strike $3,500,000 to substitute $3,142,493 to reallocate $357,507 at prior bonds. Amendment number 18, on page 37, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following. Harford Tech High School Limited Renovation Project, $1,000,000 to add the Board of Education Capital Project, Harford Tech High School Limited Renovation Project. Amendment number 19, on page 35, in line 12, strike $3,500,000 and substitute $4,500,000 to reallocate $1 million of prior bonds. Amendment number 20, on page 37, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following. Educational Facility Program, $364,996 to add the Board of Education Capital Project Educational Facility Program. Amendment number 21 on page 35 in line 12, strike 3,500,000 and substitute 3,864,996 to reallocate 364,996 of prior bonds. Amendment number 22 on page 37 between lines five and six, insert the following athletic and recreation repair improvements, 150,000 to add the Board of Education Capital Project Athletic and Recreation Repair Improvements. Amendment number 23 on page 35 in line 12. Strike $3,500,000 and substitute $3,650,000 to reallocate $150,000 at prior bonds. Amendment number 24 on page 37 between lines 8 and 9. Insert the following. Hartford Glen Pier, $200,000. To add the Board of Education Capital Project, Hartford Glen Pier. Amendment number 25, on page 35, in line 12, strike $3,500,000 and substitute $3,700,000 to reallocate $200,000 in prior bonds. Amendment number 26, on page 37, in line 10, strike $7,500,000 and substitute $8,500,000 to increase prior bonds in the amount of $1 million to the Board of Education Capital Project, Major HVAC. Amendment number 27. On page 35 in line 12, strike 3,500,000 to substitute 4,500,000 to reallocate 1 million of prior bonds. Amendment number 28 on page 35 in line 12, strike 3,500,000 to substitute 0 to reallocate 3,500,000 of prior bonds.

Thank you, Mr. Giandradano. And I think before we move on, and I know that our folks from the Budget Officer here and Treasury, they'll help explain why these amendments are just coming to us at the last minute between them and the school system. Mr. Lloyd, Ms. Sullivan, Mr. Sanlis, Mr. Everbay too? We can find a fourth one if we need it. Thank you for being here tonight. And just for more transparency, council didn't receive these until I think Friday and then worked diligently yesterday with all of you in the school system. to get them to where we could introduce them tonight, so.

Yeah, so these amendments reflect the Board of Ed's approved plan to move prior bond funding out of projects that are either to be closed, that have excess funding, or that are being reprioritized, and it moves funds into projects that the school system has identified.

Yeah, and I guess just to discuss the process, the school system had identified these projects as having excess funds or able to be closed and needed to present them to their respective board. and kind of i think due to timing you know by the time they were able to um include them to their respective board it was uh pretty much after the point that that we have already completed the budget process so there was a bit of an overlap they weren't comfortable uh we had discussions with them and we were basically say you Would you be comfortable if we just included these in and they were like, no, we want to wait until our board approves, which we understand, giving deference to their board if they had any changes or if they wouldn't approve them. And so we kind of just, this is one of the difficulty things of the budget. The budget has a lot of moving parts and really takes several weeks to really kind of finalize. And so I think because of that, we found ourselves in that situation and then we weren't sure exactly if they were if they intended for these changes to be current fiscal year changes, because they would have had that option, which would have meant that they were fiscal year 26 changes, or if they were fiscal year 27. And then upon additional conversations with them, it was concluded that they wanted these to be fiscal year 27 changes, which is why they are amendments to the budget that is in front of you that will be voted on in a future week. And that's why they're coming forth as amendments. Had they been current year changes, it would have just been kind of a current year vote, if you will. You will notice that a lot of the projects were moving prior year bonds. That's kind of what we were talking about earlier with that prior year bond bill. which is that we had bonds associated with these projects, most notably Homestead-Wakefield, but also several other projects that we are now moving to other projects. And so not only are we moving appropriation through that other action, we're also moving bond authority.

So I just appreciate the communication that you've all had in a short amount of time to bring this together. Mr. Jandredana?

So why would they do it for next year, not this year? Is there a significance in that? Is that their decision, your decision, or is it just...

It's ultimately their decision. When it comes to school projects, once we largely appropriate the funds to them, we generally don't take any actions until they initiate it because of how the Board of Ed is a separate body. Whereas that would be different if it was, say, a Parks and Rec project or something like that. And so because of that, we largely defer to them. But Harford County, by virtue of being the funding authority and then also other parts of state law, means that we are a part of it and they're still subject to appropriation authority under the county council. And that's where it all comes through. But a simple answer to your question is it's largely their decision.

In either case, it requires council approval, obviously. If it's a current year transfer, they have to come before you, and you have to approve that transfer. If it's something that they want reflected in next year's budget, that's what we're doing here tonight through the amendment process. And we've seen both in the past.

Budget transfers come from before is before. I'm good. Okay. Anyone else? With that answer you gave me, I mean, I got it. Well, thanks again for explaining the process. Ms. Dixon, we are going to move on these. So we have a motion.

Council President, I move to approve Amendments 1 through 13.

Thank you. Second. Thank you, Mr. Riley. No.

No. Council President, I move to approve 6 through 28 on the budget bill of 26006. Didn't have it in front of me.

Sorry. That's OK. Thank you. Is there any discussion? Ms. Dixon?

No.

Where are you going to?

That was a lot of reading. I didn't have it in front of me initially. Thank you, Council President.

No, I know that. And that's why I took the time to explain why you did not have what you needed in front of you. Ms. Dixon?

Mr. President? Aye. Mrs. Robert? Aye. Mrs. Emhoff? Aye. Mr. Giandradano? Aye. Mr. Riley? Aye. Mrs. Bullsaddles? Aye.

There being six votes in the affirmative, one absent, amendments six through 28 to bill 26-006 is hereby approved. Now, Mr. Giandradano, if you would please read amendments one through 13 to bill 26-008.

Amendments 1 through 13 to Bill 26008, Bond Authorization, CPI, introduced by Council President Vincenti at the request of the County Executive. Amendment 1 on the title page, strike beginning with 1. And the third line of the title paragraph down through $156,380,000. And the fourth line of the title paragraph and substitute $1,000,000. $151,380,000. Amendment 2 on page 2, strike beginning with 1 in line 5 down through $156,380,000 in line 6 and substitute $151,380,000. Amendment number 3 on page 3, strike $1,156,380,000 in line six and substitute $151,380,000. Amendment number four on page four in the fifth line of the chart strike site acquisition $10 million and substitute site acquisition $5 million. Amendment number five on page six in the eighth line of the chart strike $156,380,000 and substitute total $151,380,000. Amendment number six on page six, strike beginning with one in line three down through 156,380,000 in line four and substitute 151,380,000. Amendment number seven on page 13, strike beginning with one in line 17 down through 156,380,000 in line 17 and substitute 151,380,000. Amendment number eight on page 14, strike beginning with seven in line one down through 7,819,000 in line two and substitute 7,569,000. Amendment number nine on page 14, strike beginning with one line line 6 down through 156,380,000 in line 6 and substitute 151,380,000. Amendment number 10 on page 41 in line 16 strike but not in excess of 156,380,000 and substitute but not in excess of 151,380,000. Amendment number 11 on page 43, strike beginning with 1 in line 22, down through 156,380,000 on page 44 in line 1, and substitute 151,380,000. Amendment number 12 on page 45, strike beginning with one in line 16 down through 156,380,000 in line 17 and substitute 151,380,000. Amendment number 13 on page 45 in line 21, strike 156,380,000 and substitute 151,380,000.

Thank you. Robby, you want to speak to those? So this is amendments to the new bond bill that we just recently just had a couple minutes ago. The public hearing for, as I stated before, within the budget we assign new bonds or new debt to various capital projects. The county council opted to reduce one of those projects, the site acquisition project, from $10 million to $5 million. And while that's certainly something that the county executive and administration are disappointed in because that's funding for School site acquisition and land acquisition for other for other other essential projects. It is important that the bond bill be linked and synonymous with the With the budget that is passed and so that's why we have these changes So largely just what this does is it takes the site acquisition project from ten million dollars reduces it to five and then takes the total amount of bonded debt from 156 380 to 151 and 380, which does just go to show that when you do make sometimes a small change in the budget, or at least what you would think would be a small change, it does have this ripple effect throughout all these bits of legislation which require a whole lot of different amendments for this one change. But then this will make the bond bill linked to the budget as it has currently been amended.

Thank you, Mr. Sands. Anyone have any questions?

Robbie, what if we don't approve this? Well, it is important that the bond bill be linked, because if you look at the language within the bond bill... I understand it's important. My question is, what if we don't? Well, when we're dealing with bonds, we're almost dealing with sometimes a higher authority, and the higher authority is the IRS, and that's because we are selling tax-exempt bonds, and in order to get that tax-exempt status, there are certain hoops you have to jump through, and one is that it kind of goes through this process... I understand all that.

Here's my question. Yeah. There are two of us that oppose that $5 million transfer. Yes.

If we vote no on this, does that negate that $5 million transfer? I think that, no, it does not negate that action. What you would have then is you would have a bond bill that is not linked to the past budget. And that could cause issues from a bond authority, a bond issuance standpoint, when the time comes to issue those bonds. And I think that's one of the reasons why, obviously, again, the county executive doesn't support these cuts, but it is important that the two bits of legislation are linked so that we don't jeopardize any of that IRS designation. Because if we had to sell taxable bonds instead of tax-exempt bonds, instead of selling for 3.5%, we would probably be selling for 5%, 6%, something like that. So this is one of those unfortunate things, which is, again, why we came forward with these amendments. It's not something that, in the micro sense, don't support that reduction. But it is important that the bond bill be linked to that the bond bill be linked to the budget that's going to be passed. Now, what would happen? I don't know. I can't necessarily say, but when we're dealing with the bond sale, we're oftentimes really trying to make sure that we take considerable effort to make sure that everything is done in accordance with how it should be done.

Mr. Jan Giordano. So is the IRS going to come after you or me?

Maybe all of us, and we can all share a cell.

I'm not sharing a cell. Second question, me and Pat were talking before the bond sale in February. What was our rate? Was it 3.1?

No, it was about, I believe, about 3.5%. Yeah, three and a half or three and a quarter. No, it was either three and a quarter or three and a half. I think it was three and a quarter or 3.3. So we continue to get really, really strong rates. Even in this inflationary kind of period that we're in, because we're a AAA rated county, we just saw this week that the state of Maryland Well, they fired one of their rating agencies, Moody's, because it downgraded them, and then they chose somebody else. But then S&P gave them a negative outlook. And normally the way it works is once you get a negative outlook first, and then they reassign you. We don't have any negative outlooks, and we have a strong AAA rating. And again, that's just something that we've always just been very proud of as a county.

Is the size of this bond, does that matter how much it is when we go forward to bond sale next year?

Yeah, so this past year I think we sold either $105 or $110 million. So as I stated before, what we budget in the budget isn't necessarily what the bond sale is going to be, because we only do when we actually have those expenditures. Several years ago, we were only budgeting $40 or $50 million, and then the price of buildings tripled. So now we're bonding $150 million. So while we may not sell $150 million next year, within a couple of years, eventually, you're going to sell that. So to answer your question, does it have an impact? I think when you get into really big sales, when you get into hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, you might have some investors who may not be able to bid on that. So maybe you only have some of the more larger institutional investors. Maybe you only have the Bank of Americas and the Chase and the like, and maybe you don't have some of the smaller ones. We're in a pretty good spot with kind of in this selling around 100 million where we're able to get 14, 15 bidders and get really strong rates, oftentimes better than other AAA rated counties. But at the end of the day, our bond sale is linked to the capital budget that's approved. And if these are the projects that are important to the county, the Hartford Academy, the Whiteford Fire Stations, and sometimes there are projects that we have to do, like the stormwater projects. then eventually we are going to have to pay for them.

And last question, do you forecast next year to what amount? Any idea yet?

No? Again, if you kind of look at how interest rates were kind of ticking up a little bit, but it feels like now everything changes week to week. You know, like, it used to be like, oh, you know, this is a trend, and it's like, this week it's this, this week it's that. I mean, some of this is going to depend upon the situations that's happened in the Middle East. Some of this is going to, you know, some of the other inflationary pressures. But I think that, you know, I fully anticipate that Harford County, unlike the state, is going to be able to maintain its AAA bond rating, that we're going to continue to have strong reserves, and we're going to be able to get the best rate possible. Whether or not it's 3.25 or it's 3.5, that's going to be largely market dependent, but I think we are going to continue to get very strong competitive rates.

Thank you. And we've continued our AAA bond rating since 2012, correct?

Uh, yeah, about a year or so before I, um, you know, I came on board. So the last year, like the last year or something of the of the Craig administration. So we have been able to maintain that that rating, um, you know, kind of through great, you know, some through some trying economic times, pandemics and the like.

Okay, so again, due to the nature of these amendments and timing, we're going to move them tonight. So may I have a motion, please?

Council President, I move to approve amendments one through 13. To bill 26008.

To bill 26008. Second. Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. It's been moved and seconded to approve these amendments one through 13. Is there any more discussion? Ms. Dixon.

Mr. President. Aye. Mrs. Robert. Aye. Mrs. Emhoff. Aye. Mr. Giandradano. No. Mr. O'Reilly. Aye. Mrs. Bullsaddles. Aye.

with five votes in the affirmative, one negative, one absent. Amendments one through 13 to Bill 26-08 are hereby approved. And counsel, if I may, I would like to move back to agenda item number four. Ms. Robert has let me know that her person is in. So if you'd step down. Thank you, Robbie.

Whereas June is recognized as National Aphasia Awareness Month which provides an opportunity to recognize the strength and resilience of individuals living with aphasia and to promote education, research, and access to effective treatment and support services. Aphasia is a communication disorder affecting approximately 2.5 million people. It impairs a person's ability to process language, including speaking, understanding, reading, and writing, and most commonly results from stroke, brain injury, or brain tumor. Whereas the National Aphasia Association, NAA, is dedicated to empowering individuals living with aphasia to fully engage in all aspects of life, providing support to those affected and their loved ones while advancing public awareness and understanding of this complex condition. And whereas the NAA Ambassador Program builds a network of advocates who promote public awareness and understanding of aphasia through education outreach, community engagement now therefore we the county council of harford county maryland on the second day of june 2026 to hereby recognize national aphasia awareness month national aphasia association and wish to encourage all residents to learn more about aphasia and to support efforts that improve the lives of those affected by this condition

I have no idea if I said it right or wrong.

You did. And Jessica is a, was an Edgewood resident, went to Edgewood High School. She reached out to me as she's part of this organization, National Aphasia Association Ambassador Program. And what she wanted to do was really educate and educate the community about what that means because a lot of people don't realize that communication issues can occur as it relates to stroke, as it relates to brain injury, or any other neurological issues that may occur. And so that needs a lot of work, and speech pathologists are who we call on who are dedicated to do that work. And there's not very many speech pathologists around anymore. I find they're hard to find even in the school system, not alone helping adults in these circumstances. So I wanted to present this proclamation to honor that month to their organization Thank you for coming, Jessica, and you can say a few words.

Thank you so much to the council for recognizing aphasia, and I thank you all for being here. I know you probably didn't know you were going to be learning about aphasia tonight, but while I have your ear, I want to let you know that people with aphasia and other communication difficulties just want to be part of their community. And to do that, it really helps for their community to be educated about their communication needs. And sometimes that means just having a little bit of patience and a little bit of knowledge. So that's what National Aphasia Awareness Month is all about, just spreading the word about aphasia. So I actually have some handouts here for those of you in attendance. I'll leave on the table there some tips for how you can better communicate with people with aphasia and other communication disorders. So thanks so much for your attention. I really appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Thank you. Thank you.

Move on to Agenda 11, call for final reading of bills. Bill 26-009, Charter Amendment, Charter Section 207. May I have a motion?

Council President, move to approve Bill 26-009.

May I have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Riley. We have a motion and a second to Bill 26-009. Is there any discussion? Mr. Jan Tritano. Thanks, Council President.

So the original bill that was to be introduced made clear that the Harford County employees of Harford County Schools and Harford County Sheriff's Office could not simultaneously serve on a county council while employed by those entities consistent with how many believed the charter was originally intended to function. Because the Maryland Supreme Court found the portions of the charter language to be ambiguous, the bill sought to clarify that language moving forward. An amendment was also being prepared to include Harford County government employees under the same standard. Unfortunately, in order to receive a public hearing after the original bill was not introduced public hearing, it had to be substantially different from the bill that was originally introduced. While I could have stripped this bill, replaced it with the other language I knew members of the council did not want to issue this issue to proceed so i chose to let this go publicly and see where everyone stood after last week's meeting where councilman bennett voted in favor of transferring county budget funds directly to the school system funds that will go towards instructional salaries it further highlighted the concerns many residents have raised regarding conflicts involving dual employment in elected office what's to stop this from happening every year and to even greater degrees in the future. What happens when council members employed by the school system vote to transfer additional county funds directly to the school system in order to support a school board request that is 20 million or more above the county executive proposed budget, especially after the county executive already increased school funding by approximately 20 million above maintenance of effort. These are legitimate concerns being raised by taxpayers and residents across Hartford County. Furthermore, the end of August last year, Councilwoman Boyle-Sottles met with myself and Councilman Riley and talked about a potential charter amendment that would have allowed the sheriff deputies and deputies of the public works to simultaneously serve on a county council. Both Councilman Riley and I told her we would oppose the concept. She stated it was similar to how the state operates, which is simply not accurate. There is also one of the reasons, this is one of the reasons I brought this charter amendment forward. The Maryland Supreme Court did not hold that dual service by a teacher and council member is good public policy. The court ruled that the language of Section 207 was ambiguous as to the Board of Education employees, and because the charter did not clearly prohibit it, applied a rule favoring candidate eligibility. This charter amendment simply clarifies the language so the voters of Hartford County can decide whether county employees, Board of Education employees, Sheriff's Office employees should be permitted to serve on a calendar council while receiving a paycheck from those county-funded entities. The people of Hartford County deserve the opportunity to decide this issue for themselves. I've been contacted by numerous individuals and community groups who are ready to begin the process of collecting signatures to place this charter amendment on the 2028 ballot. Approximately 10,000 ballot signatures from registered Hartford County voters will be required. It's no longer just a discussion inside government chambers. Residents across the county want their voices heard and whether elected officials should simultaneously serve on a county council while also receiving a paycheck from Hartford County government, the Board of Education, or the Sheriff's Office. So that's it. Let the people decide. Thank you, Council President.

Thank you. Anyone else? Ms. Roberts.

Yes. There were two bills actually presented on this issue and This bill actually was even more broader than the first one, but it still targeted pretty much two entities, the schools and the law enforcement, as far as serving on the county council. And so the question before us should not be whether a person is employed as a teacher, a police officer, a firefighter, a state employee, or other public servant. The question should be whether that individual has a direct and unique financial interest in a specific matter before the council. Those are two very different standards. I've been researching across the country. Um, I've been pulling legislation across the country, all that kind of relates to some of what our counties and our state are doing, um, as it relates to ethical considerations of conflict of interest. Hartford County's charter already contains conflict of interest provisions and ethical safeguards. We do not need to create new barriers to public service when mechanisms already exist to address actual conflicts. In fact, there have been rulings and opinions concerning law enforcement officers serving in elected office that clearly established what they may and may not vote on. Existing ethic laws recognize the participation in matters affecting an entire profession differs from participation in matters that directly affect an individual's employment. The Ethics Commission reviewed Councilman Bennett's service on the council on two separate occasions and found no ethical wrongdoing. That fact alone demonstrates our existing ethical framework can identify and address conflicts when they arise. If there are genuine ethical violation, the commission has very every opportunity to say so. Additionally, this issue is not unique to Hartford County. Throughout Maryland, teachers currently serve on county councils, boards, and other elected bodies. At the state level, some legislations, legislators maintain employment with state and local government entities. I am friends with them. I know who they are while serving multiple terms in office. Maryland law has historically addressed these situations through ethics oversight, disclosure requirements, and recusal when necessary, not by creating blanket prohibitions that prevent qualified individuals from serving. The phrase double dipping has also been used frequently throughout this discussion, but it is important that we define what that term actually means. Traditionally, double dipping occurs when an individual is paid twice by the same entity. for overlapping service. Public school teachers are compensated by the Board of Education, not by Harford County government. When the council votes on the county budget, we are not voting on an individual person's salary. We are voting on an overall funding allocation that includes many, many line items and serves thousands of employees and residents. The council does not negotiate teacher contracts. We do not determine individual teacher salaries, hire them, promote them or discipline them. Similarly, the council does not negotiate individual deputy salaries or determine promotions within the sheriff's office. I see no conflict in voting on the overall budget that funds schools, public safety or other essential services because those decisions affect the entire professionals and broad segments of the community. However, If the council was considering a matter that directly affected an individual member's own salary, employment contract, promotion, disciplinary action, or personal financial benefit, that would be different. For example, if a first year teacher serving on the council were advocating for a salary adjustment, that would directly affect his or her own compensation as a first year teacher. I would view that as a direct conflict of interest requiring disclosure and recusal. The same principle would apply to a law enforcement officer, firefighter, and any other professional. The distinction is simple. There is a difference between voting on matters that affect an entire profession and voting on matters that uniquely benefits oneself. Existing ethic laws are currently recognized, and I believe that distinction is appropriately in the standard for Harford County as well. Ultimately, this bill is so broad that it risks excluding so many qualified individuals from public service simply because of their profession or employer. If it's applied consistently, the same logic could be used to prohibit teachers, police officers, firefighters, state employees, retirees even receiving pensions from these agencies, business owners, nonprofit employees, and countless others from serving on the council. That would significantly reduce the pool of individuals willing and able to serve the community. And I don't see that many people are knocking on the door to serve in this capacity. Our goal should be to encourage participation by people with real world experience while ensuring transparency, disclosure, and recusal when a conflict of interest exists. So this bill to me moves us away from that balance and creates a necessary balance to public service. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Robert. Mr. Jandredale?

So first of all, the first bill was never introduced. It wasn't discussed, so you can't say anything on it because nobody heard what it was. But the original bill was substantially different from this bill, so in order for the bill to be heard. And this was a bill that was looked at and actually brought forward and was going to bring forward by Dion, who is no longer on the council. But 25 years ago, All the council people were voted in a general election There was no districts the council didn't want to change that structure at that time. So they did do they did go and get 10,000 votes and they changed the Charter so that each district has a hearing for that moving forward this bill and I There is a discrepancy if you're voting to move money from the budget, the only place it will go to is the school system. That is exactly the idea behind Jacob that shouldn't be voting to move money to the school. He didn't recuse himself. Okay. Furthermore, if a sheriff's deputy sits on here, he can control his own budget, just like if it was a Hartford County government employee, a DPW worker. All right. So we could sit here and argue all day long. Let's just take the vote. We know where it's going to go. And then we'll just move forward. And it is what it is. And that's it.

Ms. Imhoff?

Thank you. It's ironic that we bring up the in-district elections for question A because I was one of the people that was out getting the 10,000 signatures. The whole point of in-district elections is that people within the districts that they live in can appoint the person that they feel is the best representative of them. That is what the county decided upon and that is what we need to make sure that we are preserving because the reality is is District A might need something totally different than District E or F. And therefore, the county has already voted on in-district elections to ensure that the people that are being represented get to choose who their representative is. And moving forward, we need to make sure that that is protected.

Thank you, Ms. Inhofe.

Anyone else? Mr. Riley. Yeah, the problem is my colleague from District 8 has the question wrong. She said the question before us is whether this person can whether that person can serve. My personal opinion, I don't care who serves on this council. The question before us, I know it's a foreign concept to some of the folks up here, but let's put it before the voters. Let them decide. What a foreign concept. We're not saying who can and who can't. We're not going to be the arbiter of this. We're going to put it to the voters. That's all this does, is put it to the voters. Whether they're in A, whether they're in D, whether they're in E, all the voters can decide who they want to govern and how they want to legislate. Again, I'll say it, what a foreign concept to some of the folks up here. Put it to the voters.

Anyone else? So let's go ahead and put it to the voters.

I'm sorry. Well, we're not the voters.

We are the voters. Tonight, we are the voters. Someone else, did you raise a question?

I was just going to say, when we put certain language to the voters and we put it on a ballot, sometimes they look at it and they're like, what does that mean? And the language is everything. And the language in the first one and the language in this one really does not identify the concept of what you're trying to get. And I think that's part of what we've been saying, too, is that you can put this before the voters. They're going to look at it and say, are we oscillating or obsoleting everyone? Because that's what it looks like. So if they're the mailman, they're like, oh, can I run or can I not run? Because I work for this and get my pay here. Am I double dipping? And so there's sometimes confusion with that.

And that is why the other reason, Mr. Jan, there's really no confusion. The charter was set up a long time ago that allowed for, uh, that government employees shouldn't be on the council at the same time. The only discrepancy now. is that they've said the school board is not strictly government employees. The Supreme Court said our language was ambiguous and trying to strengthen that up. Same thing they said about the sheriff's office. So all's we're saying here, is that if you're a member of the Hartford County government, the sheriff's office, or the school, you shouldn't sit on the council at the same time and vote just like the charter was originally set up. And that is in our opinion here, that's what was the original charter and what we're having to go forward is to go to the people so that they can either say yes or no if they want to agree with that. It shouldn't be a hard concept for voters. I'm sure they would understand that. So thank you, Council President.

Mr. Riley? Wow, I would never call the voters stupid.

I don't think she said that.

I wouldn't call the voters stupid. I think they're intelligent enough to understand the language on any voting machine. And if what is unclear, every single one of us up here had the ability to make amendments to make it clear. There's no amendments brought forth. I personally want to depend on the voters, not the four, and I'll put it lightly, the seven politicians that are up here.

Anyone else? Ms. Dixon?

Mr. President? No. Mrs. Robert? No. Mrs. Emhoff? No. Mr. Giangerdano? Yes. Mr. Riley? Yes. Mrs. Bolsados?

No.

There being four votes in the negative, two in the affirmative, one absent, Bill 26009 is hereby denied. 12, enrollment of bills. 13, unfinished business. 14, new business. We have none. 15 comments and input from attending citizens. Do we have anyone signed up?

Yes, Mr. President, we have about 10 this evening. Okay. Nathan Regola, followed by Linda Ziskind.

Good evening, sir. Name and zip code, and just as a reminder, three minutes, please.

Nathan Rigola in 21014 District C. I'm one of the estimated 130,000 citizens of Hartford County whose home isn't connected to public water. Perryman Wellfield supplies approximately 35% of Hartford County's public water. So when people say public water, like it is some magic source of water that isn't vulnerable to groundwater pollution, this is misleading because Hartford County relies on wells to supply public water. Private citizens with their own wells are responsible for treatment equipment and testing their water. Dollars to test our well for flow and various contaminants. Before I bought our home, we have since invested over $10,000 in water treatment equipment. In 2021, the council introduced and passed Bill 21-003 to exempt gas stations from the water source protection districts and permit gas stations within a mile of the development envelope. All four citizen speakers opposed the changes. John Malmo asked what the public benefit of the bill was and made a number of other good points. Ruth Cassily noted the effects of the gas stations at Route 22 and 136 on a nearby preschools well and the residual carcinogens found in adjacent wells a decade later after the initial pollution. Beth Pajoli spoke about her personal experience of having wells tested for contaminants from fueling stations. Councilmember Johnson ultimately withdrew his name from the bill before final passage because he didn't think it was in the public interest. The bill passed 5-2. I urge the council to roll back the changes introduced in 21-003 and consider how you protect the groundwater as a result of any fuel stations that were added as a result of this bill. I'm sure you've all heard the old saying, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We need council members to proactively look ahead and look out for their fellow citizens. Even if you don't have a well or your district doesn't have a lot of wells, your responsibility as legislators is to think about the future of Hartford County and what is truly in the interest of the citizens as a whole. What if your grandchildren or your friend has a house with a well, which is likely since 50% of Hartford County's population is served by private or community wells. Legislators should be able to run their election campaigns based on their record of legislation. It appears that some of your records contain bills that were championed by real estate developers and their supporting cast of characters. I mentioned three of the patriots that spoke against this bill. The last speaker in 2021 was Mrs. Stephanie Flash, now a candidate for Hartford County Council. She opposed Bill 21-003. I have never met her, and I do not live in her district, but I encourage my fellow voters to look at the records and past actions of the candidates that are seeking election to county government. 3P has a list of recommended candidates. The council needs to start listening to the will of the citizens and implement common sense legislation before there is nothing left of the traditional Hartford County. Here's what I suggest, a permanent county council working group on non-public water to advise on legislation involving licensed experts in legislation that impacts public health and infrastructure. Although I think the common sense approach was well advocated by citizens. Increase the speaking time to a number greater than three minutes. The three minute rule is petty and just suggests that you don't take comments from citizens all that seriously. As a reminder, 100% of the citizen speakers were opposed to Bill 21-003. but some of the current council members voted to pass it anyway. If the council represents the will of the people, it is likely that very few speakers would attend the county council meetings.

Please bring your comments to a close. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, ma'am. Name and zip.

Linda Ziskin, 21047. I felt compelled to speak this evening to remind the council and citizens, including data center Mr. Bill, about standards and how said standards mean very little, especially when quality of life is concerned. I am certain the Exxon gas station and upper crossroads in Falston had strict standards when it was permanently closed in 2005 due to a major environmental crisis involving the gasoline additive MTBE. MTBE leaked from the underground tanks, tainting groundwater and causing over 200 wells to be contaminating, requiring carbon filtration and underground water treatment plants. Naturally, it caused extreme stress and effort on the community as they worked to establish that their own wells had been poisoned. My dear friend living not a quarter mile down Baldwin Mill Road from the Exxon station died shortly thereafter from cancer. Now let's talk about Ridgely Reserve in Joppa, where all the standards in Harford County and the state of Maryland could not stop the pollution, death, and destruction. According to former council member Mr. Guthrie, if I remember this correctly, there is a standard in Harford County that if you are taking down a forest for building, you need to take down 20 acres at a time, not clear cut an entire 100 plus acres. inspection after inspection developers apparently could care less about the standards as they destroyed wetlands harming aquatic vegetation and negatively altering water quality java town waterways were running red with runoff additionally mr guthrie mentioned boat motors being ruined by the immense quantity of silt runoff going into their In both cases, it took much community involvement, including Maryland Department of the Environment, to try to mitigate the damage. And with Ridgely's reserve, the Gunpowder Riverkeeper's important involvement to acquire noncompliance fines, and now the work will begin to try to improve water quality and restore aquatic habitats. In conclusion, data center Mr. Bill must have his head in a proverbial sand trap if he thinks we are buying the standards argument for his cause, as he has riches to gain and we have our land, our home, our Harford to lose. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

Michelle Chrisman, followed by John Malamo.

She is not coming this evening.

John Malamo, followed by Matthew Brown and Evelyn Bischoff.

Good evening, sir. Name is it. Sir, good evening to you and your colleagues. John P. Malamo, 2402 Eagle View Drive, 21015. Anything less is confusing to me. Owner of Mountain Branch Golf Course is attempting to locate a dead decenter on his property. The principal permitted use of the property is a golf course, a permitted use by special exception. Any change of use requires Zoning Board of Appeals approval. There is no current zoning case before the Zoning Board of Appeals. County Executive announced his administration had discussions with various parties on the subject of data centers, maybe Mountain Branch owners. County executive does not have authority to change the use or zoning for a data center at Mountain Branch. It would be a failure if the executive branch did not explain the land use and zoning policies to those parties and the Board of Appeals process to the landowner of Mountain Branch property. Council President Vincenti, there is evidence that you were involved in discussions with Mountain Branch property owner in July of 2025. Did you advise him that any action to permit a data center on the property would require Zoning Board of Appeals approval? When you were working closely with your colleagues for the citizens of Harvard County, did you tell them about your discussions on the data center? Did it occur to you that you should have advised affected residents? A no answer to any of these questions is a failure. Councilwoman Imhoff, the proposed data center is in your district, a $6 billion project, arguably the single biggest private project in the history of Harford County. When were you advised of it? If you knew before March 2026 and obviously did not advise those affected, that is a failure. If you did not know, then you do not know what is going on in your district. That, ma'am, is a failure itself. Perhaps at future meetings you could spend your time addressing the land use proposals in your district. Councilman Bennett declared on 19 May 2026 that he studied data centers for the better part of the past year and began working on a moratorium in December of 2025. Under the circumstances, a moratorium does nothing. It is half-stepping. If the research concluded that zoning and land use practices and procedures require attention to address the issues, Did he prepare legislation to evaluate alleviate those concerns? I wonder did he review the current zoning codes related special exceptions with the council attorney? If not, that is a failure. Hartford County will be approached with some very serious and complicated proposals. There does not appear to be any established process for evaluating those proposals. Obviously, You do not apprise residents of developments in the county, and apparently there is no citizen involvement until the project is announced as a done deal. Who do you represent? Ladies, gentlemen, the office you hold confers great authority upon you. That office does not convey honesty, integrity, respectability or credibility. I wonder how do you measure honesty, integrity, respectability and credibility with the residents to whom you are accountable and responsible? Good night.

Good evening, sir. Niemann's in.

Matthew Brown, 21015. Good evening, everyone. Over the last several months, ethics, integrity, accountability have been the central issues in Harford County politics. And I believe residents are frustrated because too often these controversies seem to be quietly brushed aside instead of fully addressed. One of the clearest examples of this is back with Joe Casserly in 2023, February, when he was about to be appointed to the Ethics Board of Harford County. The Maryland Supreme Court disbarred this man for procedural misconduct withholding evidence in a murder case, a serious violation of direct trust with the public and the integrity of our justice system. Now, regardless of a political party, many residents should look at the situation and ask a simple question. How can you trust a member of leadership who would appoint their own disbarred brother into a form of ethics to establish someone to trust within the county? Leadership is not just about what you do that is legally allowed. It is about judgment. It is about understanding the conflicts of interest appearance of favoritism and the responsibility leaders have to maintain public trust. What concerns me even more is how quickly the entire situation seemed to disappear from public discussion once backlash started building. Instead of serious county-wide reflection of ethics and accountability and decision-making, many people simply moved on as if nothing happened. But this issue is part of a larger pattern. More recently, the county executive publicly threatened the flat funding of the school system if the county council were to override parts of the proposed budget. At a time when parents, teachers, and students are already concerned with resources and long-term stability, many residents' views of the students and schools are leveraged in political disputes. We also saw months of conflict involving Councilman Bennett when he was elected onto this county council. Whether people agree with him personally or not, the people made their voices heard. The people voted them in. Leadership should respect the will of the voters, not create unnecessary obstacles that prevent elected officials from fully carrying out their jobs when they are elected to do so. This is exactly why many residents feel disconnected from local government. Too many people believe politics in Hartford County has become about insider relationship, political control, and protecting power instead of building trust with the community. That's why I'm running for county executive. I'm not part of the, quote, good old boys club. I'm not running to protect political circles or preserve status quo. I'm running because I believe Harvard County deserves leadership that is approachable, transparent, accountable, and focused on delivering tangible improvements for the people who actually feel it. Integrity is not a campaign slogan. It is a responsibility. And people of Harvard County deserve leadership that reflects that. And I'd like to speak on what I call political grandstanding. This is a representative democracy. People vote for people to represent them in their cases, for their legislation. Direct democracy has never worked. That's why the Rome's empire failed. We have been a representative democracy since our inception. The centennial of the American public, this country founded 250 years ago, was founded as a representative democracy. The people who sit on that council were chosen by you. And the biggest proof of why this form of democracy works is look at this very room. There's less than 40 or 50 people in here. This is a county of 260,000. Please try to get them in one place at one time to make a decision. Understand how democracy works. It has worked for 250 years for a reason. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Good evening, ma'am, name and zip.

Good evening, my name is Evelyn Bischoff and my zip code is 21047. Today I would like to talk about vibrational noise. In all of the research I have done in regards to data centers, I keep coming back to the lack of solutions regarding vibrational noise. Neighbors living within 400 feet report noise levels between 65 and 70 decibels, which is equal to a vacuum cleaner running 24-7. Backup generators run during testing and power failure can reach 105 decibels, which is as loud as a jet flying overhead. Even sound below 220 hertz, which is below the threshold of human hearing, can be felt as pressure or vibration. This is called infrasound or low frequency noise. Infrasound is not blocked by walls or trees. Because of its long wavelength, it penetrates structural barriers like homes, schools, churches, et cetera. Infrasound travels for miles. In humans, infrasound stimulates the vestibular system and can cause subtle fluid shifts, which cause dizziness, vertigo, and nausea, similar to seasickness. It can also interact with the brain's autonomic and emotional control centers and can trigger feelings of anxiety, panic, and general unease. Chronic exposure can cause persistent sleep disturbances, headaches, and difficulty concentrating. I will go back to the statement I made a few weeks ago. No one should have to have their neighborhood destroyed due to the insatiable greed of developers and corporations that would never live next to the very projects that they propose. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

Bill? Vassilakopoulos and Gary Johnson, followed by Jackie Johnson.

Good evening, sir. Name is it? Good evening. Bill Vassilakopoulos, 1823 Mountain Road, 21085. Data centers have become the new boogeyman. Some people hear the words data center and immediately act like the sky is falling. And instead of having a serious conversation about jobs, taxes, energy, infrastructure, and the future of Hartford County, they just result to reduce the fear and misinformation, political gamemanship, and childish memes. Here's the real truth. Every person in this room uses data centers every single day. The people who support them use them. The people who oppose them use them. The people making Facebook posts against them, calling for boycotts and death threats, are using Facebook and the data centers that house them. The simple fact is without data centers, you can't use a debit card, credit card, GPS system, make a cell phone call, or have this broadcast to the county government. You can't have court records. You can't run your insurance agency. You can't have your real estate operation and your listings without data centers. So the simple point is in modern life, this is the critical infrastructure THAT DRIVES OUR MODERN ECONOMY AND OUR LIFE TODAY. THIS IS THE BACKBONE OF THE WORLD WE LIVE IN. AS THE NEED FOR DATA CENTERS IS NOT GOING TO GO AWAY. THEY ARE GOING TO BE BUILT SOMEWHERE. THE REAL QUESTION IS WHETHER THE COUNTY IS GOING TO BENEFIT FROM THEM WITH THE JOBS, TAX REVENUE, infrastructure investment and opportunity, or whether it's going to push those benefits to another county. And here is what makes no sense to me. Hartford County could end up being covered with solar farms producing the energy for data centers built for somewhere else, while those other counties get the jobs and tax investment. That means we accept the land impact use but give away all the economic reward. That's not smart planning. That's not protecting Hartford County. That's letting somebody else profit from the infrastructure we all depend on. Now I want to comment about who knew what and when. Everyone knew and it started off at the same time with the emails that have been public ON FACEBOOK THAT THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE HAS PUT OUT, AND I ASSURE EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM AND THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE THAT HE KNEW AT THE SAME TIME. AND AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT ALL STARTED, I COULD BRING THE RECEIPTS, MUCH BEFORE THAT WITH THE PROPOSED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. with an email to the Chamber of Commerce, oddly enough, and then it followed all the way down. And for the county executive to have political gamesmanship, and he played everyone smoothly. But I'm just here to state the facts, like I'm stating the facts for the data center. You can take it for whatever you want. You can take the truth for what it is, or you can manipulate the truth however you want it. So thank you very much.

Gary Johnson, 21085. 21087. 85 or 87? 87. Thank you, sir. Someone invited some data complex promoters to speak to us. Wink, wink, Mr. Vincente. And they led us to believe that putting a data center complex on the Mountain Branch property would have all benefit with no risk. You have apparently been in discussion with them for about a year now.

Mr. Johnson, before you go any further, don't put any words in my mouth. I never said anything about a data center benefiting anyone.

Did I say you said anything? Yes, you did.

I said they did. No, you said I did. No, sir. Read your comment again.

Are we going to start the clock again? Yes, sir, we can. Okay, I appreciate that. I said, someone invited some data complex promoters to speak to us. Wink, wink, Mr. Vincente. There you go. That was simply a wink, sir. What do you read into that? I saw you wink when they were here. As I recall, it's on video. Okay. They led us to believe that putting a data center complex on the Mountain Branch property would have all benefit with no risk. You have apparently been in discussion with them for about a year now. Did you also consult public health officials, people with expertise in environmental risk as well as industrial health and safety compliance? Such people exist, and they have concerns about the way these data giants go about securing these sites. They seem to always choose counties like ours, with a struggling farm community and a master plan that doesn't match our zoning laws. The complex cheerleaders tell us not to worry about the noise coming from their complexes. After all, there will be a 500-foot setback. They say that what we'll hear at the fence line will only be about 55 decibels, the level of normal conversation. What they don't tell us is that the decibels they're talking about are weighted, using only the A curve of acoustic weighting analysis. This curve reduces low frequencies, thus matching the way we perceive sound through our ears. However, public health officials know that perceived sound is only a part of total sound. In a stereo system, you can turn the treble down but still hear it. But if you turn down the bass, you may no longer hear it, but you feel it. Sound that you feel is called tonal sound. Treble noise is like the noise you hear at the fence line, but bass or tonal noise is also there, beyond there, not heard, but felt. And because it's felt, it has a biological impact, affecting both physical and mental health. It causes restlessness and confusion, mostly in children, pregnant women, and the elderly. It also affects livestock, resulting in decreased reproduction, as well as the quality of meat, milk, and eggs produced. Our military has been so impressed with these impacts that they sometimes use tonal sound as a torture technique. AI complexes run 24-7, constantly putting out this low frequency hum, this tonal noise. Your complex promoters ignore this, but industrial hygienists don't. They consider tonal noise to be an industrial hazard that does not belong in a residential community. What's more important, the influx of tax dollars they promise or the health and well-being of our citizens? You've got a teacher's union and Sheriff Gaylor and his deputy's union at your back, also by your side. They're doing the best they can to take down Mr. Cassily, your opponent, and the man who wants to ban these data complexes. Will you side with them or with us? I pray that you choose wisely. There are more important things than elections.

Good evening, ma'am. Name and zip.

Jackie Johnson, 21087. Data centers are a major problem during construction. Operators continuously pump groundwater out of the way to pour deep foundations. Pumping the groundwater faster than it naturally replenishes causes water tables to drop, threatening drinking wells for surrounding residential and agricultural communities. It also introduces poor water quality and sediment into local wells. An aquifer is an underground layer of water bearing permeable rock, gravel, sand, or silt. Aquifer is the source of our well water. Boston, located in the Piedmont region of Harford County, has an unconfined aquifer, which means it lies near the earth's surface, can dry up quickly, and be subject to contamination. Data centers put a strain on local aquifers, both during the construction and when functioning. A closed-loop system isn't as good as we're being told. It involves using glycol and 50% water. It picks up water, and water is lost through evaporation and leakage. It might reduce the water needed, but it doesn't eliminate the need. Virginia is suffering aquifer damage to the point people must add water to toilets. The aquifers in Maryland are already strained due to drought, and they cannot sustain the high volume water demands caused by data centers. A medium sized data center consumes 100 million gallons per year, equal to 1,000 households annually. A large, hyperscale data center uses 1 to 5 million gallons of water daily. This is equivalent to what a town of 30 to 50,000 people would use. These data centers withdraw water, and what is not consumed is returned as wastewater into sewers or treatment plants. This wastewater is toxic due to forever chemicals, It penetrates the surrounding ground and eventually gets into our wells. These chemicals linger in the environment and accumulate in the body, causing serious health issues, including certain cancers. In Columbus, Ohio, a report linked Amazon data centers to miscarriages and rare cancers. This was also found to be true in Oregon. These cancers have been linked to toxins in the local water. After surveying 70 wells there, 68 were found to have violated the federal limit for nitrates in the drinking water. In the first 30 homes, 25 residents had recently had miscarriages, while six lost a kidney. One man had his voice box removed due to a cancer that only smokers get, but he never smoked a day in his life. Think about East Palestine, Ohio.

All right.

Thank you. Uh, we'll go to agenda number 16 business from council members. Um, Ms.

Thank you. Um, this weekend is the tower rocks music festival at festival park in Aberdeen. It's going to be held this Saturday and Sunday with family activities, food trucks, and more. And on Saturday, it's the 2026 annual fly in and car cruise. at Hartford County Airport from 9 to 4. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Seidels. Ms. Robert?

Yes, thank you. Just wanted to say I attended a couple of graduations. Joppatown High School had their graduation, which was wonderful to see and see some of the same children I've seen in some of the award ceremonies receive finally their accolades. Friday, I went to Habitat for Humanity, had one of their dedication ceremonies up in Darlington. They're always lovely to see how hard individuals work to obtain home ownership. It is definitely a want. It was next to a graveyard, so she was, you know, you can't be choosy, but it was a very lovely ceremony. And then earlier that day, went to see WeSpot, Beauty Lab, and Winks and Link. Um, in Bel Air, um, and that is in very spa relaxing business. They gave out, um, nice treats there. Uh, yesterday went to the Army Alliance Luncheon, uh, where Speaker Congresswoman Sarah Elfreth gave a great, um, understanding of what they're doing down there for the Army, as far as providing financial DOD, uh, finances to make sure that the Army has its capability to continue to run. Um, but also, uh, we had the cab meeting yesterday at Edgewood, Joppa, Joppa town community. Um, it, we were presented with historical society, America two 50 celebration information that is going to be occurring throughout Hartford county. Um, but if you're unaware and you own a boat, um, the biggest thing now is with Amtrak. Amtrak is in the process of building. new bridges, which is going to affect anybody who is a boater in the community, because as they are going to create the bridges, they are in the process of figuring out the height of those bridges. They came back to us all with a height that was not appropriate in even low tide. And so therefore the Coast Guard is asking everyone to complete and send a letter to them And I have been having that information sent out in various resources. But if you need that information, you can get it from my office. They extended the date. It was June 11th to June 25th. What that means is tell them what your size of your boat is and why we need higher level for the bridge so that we don't need many boaters needing to have the bridge raised. In the bush, it can be raised. In the gunpowder, It hasn't been raised at all. It is on lockdown at this point in time. So we need voices and I'm putting this out there because as a boater this weekend, I was next to the other two boaters and I was telling them about it and they had no idea. So we are talking about people who have their boats at their houses that may not have any idea about it. And so we decided last night to reach out to as many marinas as possible, because if you're on a boat, you're traveling. And you're traveling to all different parts of the county. And you're going to end up going under these bridges. There are people in our community that have boats that cannot go through without calling the bridge to be raised. And that takes time to do. So if you have any questions, you can reach out to our office. And today I met with DBW and Lindsay Crone with Gunpowder Conservatory. Conservancy, and we were talking about all the things that we can do across borders between Baltimore County and Harford County to continue environmentally looking out for our waterway and our forests. And so I did learn today about some good programs existing coming for forest land. Um, and we're going to be having some more protections on those, um, so that we don't tear down all the trees and we make sure that we are keeping some semblance of. Environment in our community. Um, and that was that for this weekend, we have June 6th, the Brookside drive recreational cleanup, eight 30 to 12 bulk trash disposal. Anyone can bring as much bulk trash. as they want disposed. We have a couple of big bins there. June 7th is the Farmers Market at the American Legion. We have moved the time. It's now 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. on Sunday. And then June 7th at American Legion as well, we are having a community flag event, poll dedication there. There will be free food, adult and child games, and that is from 12 to 3.30. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Robert. Ms. Simo?

Good evening, so on May 27th, I was able to attend both the Joplin High School graduation and the Harford County Sheriff's Office corrections graduation. On May 28th, I was able to attend the Atlantic Blue Water Ribbon Cutting in Forest Hill. And then I was able to attend the Folsom High School graduation and the Bel Air High School graduation. On May 29th, I was able to meet with the Office of the People's Council with J.B. Jennings, Senator J.B. Jennings' office to discuss data centers including utility rights and concerns of the public. then on june 1st uh yesterday i was able to attend the army alliance annual meeting and as well as the edgewood japa japa town community advisory board meeting upcoming events june 11th at 6 30 p.m is the abingdon emerton community advisory board meeting at the abington fire department that's all i have thank you ms imhoff mr ginger den thanks council president so uh did bel air's um

Graduation, it's the only one that has rose arches, so it's a tradition they started, I don't know how many years ago, but their 120th graduation ceremony, so it's my alma mater, so that was great to do. Also did the grand opening of Seaweed Spa, Beauty Lab, Winks and Links, so... I wish them all the best. First Friday, June 5th in downtown Bel Air. Bel Air Town Run on Sunday, June 7th. And Bel Air Summer Concert Series begins also on Sunday, June 7th. And that's it. Thank you, Council President.

Thank you. Mr. Riley?

Yes. Congrats to all the North Hartford High. I was there with the President. Also, congrats to Atlantic Blue Water Services, Forest Hill Industrial Park. I had the privilege of meeting those folks. Tomorrow night, there'll be a community input meeting at Bel Air Library in reference to our solar project at 2901 Rocks Road. So if you're interested, please come out 6 o'clock at Bel Air Library. We're trying to do all we can to put a kibosh on that. And since Jacob's not here, I'll mention it. Don't forget, Abdi Grace has first Fridays this Friday. Hopefully, I'll see you there.

Thank you, Mr. Riley. 17 business from the president. First of all, I have to do the final advertising for adequate public facilities advisory board meeting Monday evening, June 8th, 6 p.m., second floor, multipurpose room. This past Wednesday, I sat with the county executive. He and I both presented to the Harford Leadership Academy, and we were there for two and a half, three hours, I believe. It's always a great event. We've done it for the past four years, answering a lot of questions and talking about how government works. attended graduations, Joppatown, Fallston, Bel Air, Harvard, Grace, North Harford this past week. Just extremely proud of all of our seniors. This week we're attending the last two, which is FutureLink and Harford Academy on Friday. Went to the Board of Ed last night for the reception for Ms. Miller. Clearly, by waiting, we absolutely found the best candidate to serve on that board. We also were able to recognize Roy Williams Elementary School for being recognized as Harford County's first maryland purple star designation miss martino and miss harris and the rest of the team there do an outstanding job working with the students there they just recently renovated that school i say recently it's been a couple of years ongoing it's an outstanding facility they do an outstanding job there for the kids and then In closing, Jeannie and I wish to express our deepest condolences to Mark Hemler, his family and friends, due to the passing of his wife, Wanda. She lost her battle with ALS, and if any of you have experienced that, it's one of the worst things that you could ever see. My aunt passed away with that, and it just robs you of everything to the very end. So we ask you to keep Wanda's family and friends in your thoughts and prayers. Thank you. We'll adjourn this meeting.