[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6607786,"mediaKeyId","2947994-c9c2854e2f575d69a93c6bed89490898","parentId",2947994,"title","Committee votes 3–0 to hold CB 23‑2025, an animal control bill","audioSeconds",65,"startMs",31869,"endMs",97480,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2947994-c9c2854e2f575d69a93c6bed89490898&start=31&end=97","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2947994-c9c2854e2f575d69a93c6bed89490898/thumbnail_31869.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6607786/Prince-Georges-County/Maryland/Committee-votes-30-to-hold-CB-232025-an-animal-control-bill","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6607786-598dbbcdc91612120fa9ae484952866b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771150744&Signature=Ld6TFWs-~vygWvB4QKqD-Efh~H4FifbzNi6soX-DC3tFqjla7vm-PDWEwtgVQWgMsE-JiVY4yloxRldDamqkZihhCoD0hHh-s4B7fl64MzIgYyjvdCzAX6Pfo0VkAIm3NOiHsDLZR2coMSaMjYcKtKW~Fu5uI-P33aWbcAfaVsV0wdlMoFD2E9CRJSNHf-O0AX2OVdMa9OqZp9eH23Fd-ZfWaOposC0giaSCX~dJXlg3VToZhOCNPJj1Smnbxr7YaF5KPY1f-uXmXur2GitX1~Lh~Q6X-zNutc97xIYYtSD6gaKRMscQGne~m99p65g63id8v6WPz1NFWTR4eegAYw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Prince George","date","2025-04-10T00:00:00Z","article","During roll call at the April 10 committee meeting, members considered a request from the bill sponsor to hold CB 23‑2025, described in the meeting as “an act concerning wildlife and animal control.” County staff advised that a formal motion was appropriate. The committee made and seconded a motion to hold CB 23‑2025; the clerk called the roll and the motion passed 3–0.

Votes and procedure

- Motion: Hold CB 23‑2025, an act concerning wildlife and animal control (sponsor: council member Oriada; sponsor requested the item be held).

- Vote: Chair Oso — Aye; Council member DeNogue — Aye; Vice Chair Harrison — Aye. Outcome: Motion to hold CB 23‑2025 passed 3–0. No mover/second were named in the transcript.

Ending: The bill will be held and may be returned to a future committee agenda at the sponsor’s request.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Prince George - Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy and Environment Committee - Budget Work-session: Soil Conservation, WSSC, Operating/Capital Improvement Program (CIP) - Apr 10, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","At the April 10 Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy and Environment Committee meeting the panel voted 3–0 to hold CB 23‑2025, an act concerning wildlife and animal control, at the sponsor's request.","taxTitle","Prince George's County, Maryland","taxId",3378,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6607791,"Prince George's Soil Conservation District seeks $22.34 million FY26 budget; highlights farm preservation and urban ag",1957,2786875,4744655,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2947994-c9c2854e2f575d69a93c6bed89490898&start=2786&end=4744","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2947994-c9c2854e2f575d69a93c6bed89490898/thumbnail_2786875.jpg","/articles/6607791/Prince-Georges-County/Maryland/Prince-Georges-Soil-Conservation-District-seeks-2234-million-FY26-budget-highlights-farm-preservation-and-urban-ag","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6607791-d87ff03fdfc32f044dcc7079ba821e0f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771150744&Signature=GJs3g9KMGBNXfh7gB9Kg9O7MKMyeInztrGXDQJQKZccrEtlbKwd7ap7foOBV67TZEboVW3mcxKcHL~oDusap0qbrUAl9dGDRqBR3Iw-RBk8L5DUbMTlBXaMRkXnFAcAWij2p~sTdHIK2VWBQhWaJTjhrykljuOje4gcSSxf~Dr1uir7XsNm-pCn23M4LyZ42HBMdbftmdycaf2A2FCvo-IP6w4XxMYN9ssk4Ak6w~fUQ2zmWvvZcqw8fd044YTN-3xThmYaSxD-ggGUtowKPa4vzZ-0Pd6iKqm9HPUtJC2cI2H-Ny26-mv6--MMab6kWNYUWK00swsb~TIm4a7-saQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Alex Hertel, legislative budget policy analyst, briefed the Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy and Environment Committee on April 10 on the Soil Conservation District’s proposed FY2026 budget and programs. The district’s proposed budget before recoveries is $22,337,500, an increase of roughly 8% from the FY2025 approved level, Hertel said.

The district said the proposed budget is largely recovered from non‑general‑fund sources and county support. Hertel told the committee the district expects $2,337,500 in recoveries and that the county provides the majority of the district’s operating funds. The FY26 general‑fund compensation amount is listed at $1,646,400; operating increases reflect an OIT allocation and a higher fringe rate.

Why it matters: The district protects agricultural land, reviews erosion and sediment control plans, and supports urban agriculture programs that affect local farms, school curricula and small food producers. District Executive Director Steve Darcy told the committee the district has preserved roughly 7,400 acres across more than 80 farms and awarded about $1.5 million in federal contracts to local producers this year through farm‑bill and IRA‑sourced programs.

Program highlights and staffing

- Core services: Hertel and Darcy described five core programs—rural agricultural conservation, agricultural land preservation, urban agriculture conservation, urban development conservation (grading/erosion control) and outreach/education. The district said it prepared 91 soil‑conservation plans covering nearly 7,800 acres in the prior year and helped producers install more than 200 best‑management practices on over 4,200 acres.

- Staffing and budget detail: The FY26 proposal funds 16 full‑time positions (unchanged from FY25). Hertel cited a $73,000 grants line (an increase of $3,100) and said the district expects fewer grant opportunities amid federal uncertainty.

- Preservation and programs: Darcy said the district remains state‑certified for agricultural preservation programming, which matters because certification returns 75% of ag transfer tax receipts to the county. Darcy told the committee the district has about 238 parcels larger than 35 acres that remain eligible for preservation and that local HEART (county land‑preservation) funds will play a larger role if state preservation funding declines.

Federal and state funding risks

Darcy and staff briefed the committee on several external funding risks. Darcy described recent USDA staffing reductions and the broader federal reorganization as an “unprecedented” source of uncertainty for program delivery; he said contracts already obligated will be paid but warned that reductions in technical staff could slow delivery of new contracts. Committee members and staff also discussed state budget changes: cuts to the statewide cover‑crop program and the Maryland Agricultural Cost‑Share Program introduce further uncertainty for next year’s funding.

Committee questions and next steps

Committee members thanked the district for outreach and noted the program’s broad county impact. The committee flagged two items for follow up: continued monitoring of state and federal funding changes and a near‑term review of the county stormwater fund, which provides a large share of local support for conservation work and is under fiscal pressure.

Ending: District leaders said they will monitor federal/state developments and continue local outreach and technical assistance; the committee acknowledged the district’s continued role in meeting water quality goals and preserving farmland.","The Prince George’s County Soil Conservation District presented a FY2026 budget request of about $22.34 million (before recoveries) on April 10, outlining staffing, grant activity, farmland preservation totals and concerns about state and federal funding disruptions that could affect program delivery.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6607794,"WSSC proposes 9.8% revenue increase for FY26; boosts PAYGO, customer aid",2601,100215,2701980,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2947994-c9c2854e2f575d69a93c6bed89490898&start=100&end=2701","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2947994-c9c2854e2f575d69a93c6bed89490898/thumbnail_100215.jpg","/articles/6607794/Prince-Georges-County/Maryland/WSSC-proposes-98-revenue-increase-for-FY26-boosts-PAYGO-customer-aid","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6607794-9be384d55d97c2c3b5b8659b6f59ba83/orig.mp4?Expires=1771150744&Signature=ceVx8~1CPXjt8wfA~KtdNpt9eMbTBEAwTnrVOCU2BBly~cLikLPn-XslmcZAIpTtCjt-gzTq2tC2qox3GNC0xaJ3M-GqxOvNfV3~WS~MvmbqsuHsgWt4NXq-4qoD44i7A5o8fOjjui3CscENtJp8ObmbRqe9iVY7dhi8dS8RYWjtMCOefopuH7vVYNwschr3mNlgtfCTP8FfcNeW9Y1-b2rx0ijagM51-42EB3CU3wDqoztntisoruR1g9APVOIpKVzoC8FwAvjLwB-5kTeixZRUJUKo6JM7lFycOKgTTrt~VUxfqs~PBVwbqT5wY6aGiBLgGrLlMYm1thjDeS2dBw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","WSSC Water presented its proposed fiscal year 2026 operating and capital budget to the Prince George’s County Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy and Environment Committee on April 10, 2025, outlining a proposed revenue enhancement of 9.8 percent and a combined operating and capital program of about $1.8 billion.

The proposal would increase volumetric water and sewer rates and fixed charges, raise the system development charge by 2.5 percent, and fund expanded affordability programs. “The commission has proposed a budget with a 9.8% revenue enhancement,” WSSC Chief Financial Officer Masar said during the briefing.

The nut of the budget is a larger operating program while the capital budget declines after project re-baselining. WSSC staff told the committee the combined operating-and-capital total is about $1.8 billion, roughly $21.7 million (1.2%) above FY25 when operating and capital are combined. On the capital side, staff described an 11.9% decrease driven by re‑baselining projects and removing historic completion-factor padding.

Why it matters: WSSC said the 9.8% proposal is intended to protect its bond rating and lower long‑term debt costs by sharply increasing PAYGO (pay‑as‑you‑go) funding for capital projects. The utility would raise PAYGO to about $93 million for FY26—an increase of roughly $42.4 million, or about 84% over the FY25 approved level—so more capital work is paid from operations rather than new borrowing.

Details and committee discussion

- Rates and customer impact: WSSC staff presented an example household impact. Using a three‑person household consuming an average of 48.3 gallons per person per day, staff estimated an increase of $26.41 per quarter (about $8.80 per month, or $105.64 per year). WSSC said affordability programs would be funded at $8.9 million in the proposed budget, an increase of $1.1 million from the prior year.

- Capital and project highlights: Staff said the FY26 capital program totals roughly $696.8 million, with bi‑county projects accounting for the largest share. New or newly carried projects include lead reduction, PFAS strategy work, master planning and smart meter infrastructure; some costs shifted between operating and capital accounts after the re‑estimate.

- PAYGO and debt strategy: WSSC told the committee the PAYGO increase is intended to improve debt metrics the rating agencies evaluate and reduce future debt service costs. Staff said the commission chose to use more operating funds instead of issuing new debt in order to maintain rating strength.

- Workforce and operations: The FY26 proposal adds 77 full‑time equivalent positions, including conversions of contract positions and regulatory‑related hires. Staff said roughly 29 of the new slots are budget‑neutral conversions of contract labor to employees and that regulatory‑related positions will be filled immediately.

- Project delays and contract performance: Nadia Oslom, Pipeline Construction Division Manager, said many construction schedules have been extended by non‑compensable delays (for example weather or other schedule impacts), and that compensation is limited to instances involving scope changes or additional work. WSSC interim General Counsel and Chief of Staff Nina Hixson added the utility has evaluated contracting, scope development and contractor enforcement and has made leadership and process changes to improve project delivery. “We have taken a step back to evaluate to determine how to make those improvements,” Hixson said.

- Blue Plains and interagency charges: WSSC staff told the committee that charges from DC Water/Blue Plains are a continuing source of uncertainty. Staff said WSSC set an $85 million FY26 budget for Blue Plains operations and maintenance but that DC Water’s approved budget came in higher — creating an additional $1.5 million pressure for WSSC. Staff also said a $6.5 million settlement invoice from FY24 must be absorbed in FY26.

- Ratings and funding context: Committee members asked about credit‑rating discussions and the mix of bonds, PAYGO and loans. WSSC said rating agencies flagged a risk if the utility under‑invests in capital; the utility presented a long‑term plan it said balances PAYGO, MDE loan proceeds and debt.

Committee instructions and next steps

County staff recommended that the committee adopt a 9% revenue enhancement consistent with the county’s spending‑affordability guidance; staff estimated cutting the rate from 9.8% to 9% would require about $7.6 million in operating reductions, which would reduce PAYGO and affect the CIP. WSSC staff said public hearings on the WSSC budget are scheduled, with the committee set to continue review as the regional affordability process proceeds.

Ending: The committee accepted the briefing and held follow‑up scheduling: WSSC will appear at upcoming public hearings and the council will schedule further work sessions on technical questions and the high‑bill issue.

","WSSC Water told Prince George’s County councilmembers on April 10 that its FY2026 operating and capital plan centers on a proposed 9.8% revenue enhancement, a sharp rise in pay-as-you-go capital funding and expanded customer assistance, while warning of pressures from Blue Plains costs and a recent $6.5 million settlement invoice.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee votes 3–0 to hold CB 23‑2025, an animal control bill

Prince George's Soil Conservation District seeks $22.34 million FY26 budget; highlights farm preservation and urban ag

WSSC proposes 9.8% revenue increase for FY26; boosts PAYGO, customer aid