[{"_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",6272024,"mediaKeyId","3028252-fb92f730335d09601e4baa709113adc7","parentId",3028252,"title","Council votes to hold closed session to consult counsel","audioSeconds",35,"startMs",3364000,"endMs",3399000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3028252-fb92f730335d09601e4baa709113adc7&start=3364&end=3399","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3028252-fb92f730335d09601e4baa709113adc7/thumbnail_3364000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6272024/Anne-Arundel-County/Maryland/Council-votes-to-hold-closed-session-to-consult-counsel","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6272024-3d15e196151688f50fe32a321ad32d2d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771186403&Signature=GgLAp0Cers7LUdWgOIW0z07w5akCl2j9TxZ~tPwIcaoDC~uUCGVVStizMmr8O2AfbYOsfZoxbHdmQNq1os684HCx06VJGItdVNNpcx0RDqUp0quVP-kfeL1Ww5jWhaCuP0guJ9gn6AZI-wgGIuImttQsdoA2~pqKBhsmUQ2yx6AAufrs9ITIjV9fr-VzaB5Qj3Za2~Us65PFfncT5tw1ZYFWzW3YaK67rxHvBDNHj~HZbg1xtfvr0ulQJMWqgrRfAZ3KcTqUltlIaQdxRPKs3~~CpVVHKJP1999VqPjLh5nzbJpRBtXF1grdnJDqyJjhDISKo3mMn-kajVADAcZJ8Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Anne Arundel County, MD","date","2025-04-17T00:29:55.84Z","article","At the April 15 work session the council moved and passed a motion to meet in closed session “pursuant to section 3.3 five(seven) of the general provisions article of the Annotated Code of Maryland” to consult with counsel and obtain legal advice. Councilmember Ledbetter made the motion; the record does not show a formal second.

The county secretary called the roll. The recorded votes were: Councilmember Robban — Aye; Councilmember Ledbetter — Aye; Councilmember Smith — Aye; Councilmember Pickard — Aye; Councilmember Hummer — Aye. Two members were recorded absent and the clerk announced “5 in the affirmative, 2 absent,” and the motion passed.

Why it matters: the council invoked a Maryland statutory provision permitting closed sessions for legal advice. The transcript records the motion, the mover, the roll call and the outcome; it does not include the subject matter discussed in the closed session.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","County Council Work Session | April 15th, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Anne Arundel County Council voted 5–0 with two absences to enter a closed session on April 15 to consult with counsel under the General Provisions article of the Annotated Code of Maryland.","taxTitle","Anne Arundel County, Maryland","taxId",3779,"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},6272029,"County administration proposes stand‑alone Animal Care and Control department; bill would shift staff and change cat licensing",404,1472000,1876000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3028252-fb92f730335d09601e4baa709113adc7&start=1472&end=1876","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3028252-fb92f730335d09601e4baa709113adc7/thumbnail_1472000.jpg","/articles/6272029/Anne-Arundel-County/Maryland/County-administration-proposes-standalone-Animal-Care-and-Control-department-bill-would-shift-staff-and-change-cat-licensing","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6272029-66b3caa53065974b42f3d5f3970f4422/orig.mp4?Expires=1771186403&Signature=BnZCSlt436VawbxhmjGmMopqjy6EMuYpnPBdwBZp6uie~iSSe-6L7oo~wI9~DJ6je4X7SSrQ2Dhaj7KZKYhstUx0wwRik2PPLxXbKslezxzIVAgA79WYo3FC1v59huBG4dZIN8Hv9bUiK-nUH0obWUB3~woJjZzE1yKKuNulmzDc-PspqiJA13BO0U-qIGA9iFuAyJaYgv0T42GMbUQ7WHWAH~YEIyP~8XrxEYjp~tUXXnC286uL5IyyA3~WsBS3NGMuAnU4RrVx5Pe-uJVBPgnA3PuC-Ntl2uCCZEY0b7o1mvP2qdjpISxyXfr2HTN385luZ84zJhW-wRbmEsu0Cw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","County administration presented Bill 2,525 on April 15, proposing to elevate Animal Care and Control from a unit within the Police Department to a stand‑alone department and to simplify some licensing rules.

Ethan Hunt, speaking for the administration, said the measure “merely makes this a stand alone department” and does not change existing dangerous‑animal policies. He said the staff complement would move intact: “Currently [Animal Care and Control] has 34 merit positions…all of those positions…will be transferred out of the police department and into the new department.” The bill would leave merit status classifications, bargaining units and county employment status unchanged and would create an exempt director post similar to other county departments.

Why it matters: the reorganization is administrative in scope but could affect how animal welfare, shelter and enforcement services are managed, how licensing and inspections are handled, and how the department partners with animal welfare organizations.

The bill includes streamlined licensing changes. Claudia Rolle, Animal Care and Control administrator, explained the administration’s proposal to stop requiring a county license for cats. Rolle said the county will continue to require rabies vaccination for dogs, cats and ferrets under current code and that ownership can be established by veterinary records such as a rabies certificate. She said microchips and collars remain better tools than license tags to reunite lost cats with owners: “The cats that are licensed in the county…are really not walking around their house with a collar and their license tag.”

Council members asked about implementation details. In response to a question from Councilmember Fiedler about template use in grant agreements (asked in the earlier audit presentation), auditors had said most tested departments used the template; that exchange carried over into the session for clarifying county processes. Councilmember Pickert asked about the original scope of the grants audit and whether this reorganization adds staff; Hunt said the bill does not add staff and that any staffing changes beyond the transfer will appear in the fiscal 2026 budget presented May 1.

The administration said the new department will absorb certain administrative functions currently handled by the Police Department and that officials are evaluating how those functions will be funded and staffed in the FY‑26 budget. Hunt and Claudia Rolle said animal control officers will still work closely with police for dangerous‑animal responses and search warrants, and the county is drafting a memorandum of understanding to clarify the overlap: “There will still be a very open line between us.”

Council members raised operational questions during the presentation: shelter capacity varies seasonally (staff reported roughly eight open dog kennels the day of the session and larger spikes in cat intake in spring and summer), the county uses foster placements and rescue transfers when capacity is tight, and the administration said it is conducting or planning facility feasibility work to address longstanding facility concerns. Rolle said the shelter does not euthanize for space and that the county offers low‑cost microchip clinics.

The administration and council agreed to continue technical work on the draft ordinance. Hunt said additional policy changes (for example, to dangerous‑animal rules or licensing details beyond cats) are expected to be handled in subsequent bills after the new department is established.","Bill 2,525 would create an independent Animal Care and Control department by transferring 34 merit positions from the Police Department, absorb certain administrative functions, and streamline licensing — including removing a county cat license requirement.",{"_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},6272034,"County auditor’s contractor issues clean opinions, flags subrecipient monitoring and P‑card documentation gaps",1401,43000,1444000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3028252-fb92f730335d09601e4baa709113adc7&start=43&end=1444","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3028252-fb92f730335d09601e4baa709113adc7/thumbnail_43000.jpg","/articles/6272034/Anne-Arundel-County/Maryland/County-auditors-contractor-issues-clean-opinions-flags-subrecipient-monitoring-and-Pcard-documentation-gaps","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6272034-7da74f95bcfef7ac17058d5d01155484/orig.mp4?Expires=1771186403&Signature=Y6pWrbBgDcwCp-RPG~Y2dyeF-8aTX1J1yKIAya9kl~8K0z~erLQhBwJSn386UokeL5XmYGfPlNVHQOH2zctjhfnweXJ-hsjQzPHKgUifq5rUuvSLlRvp8RvfvTP0CHXeUgQ2j73rT6ld8aAiVpniYSvbS0daDb7SshjfdurE5dbyGcx6f6t8tcgGJIlZlYROqYKD4KDFNQGlbfD9Nyb0jui6LpdonDasRZTJjYBU6PsVM7O6~fcQ2nMN27u945bBnI9WSfd5lCbnVzL-HO~gH1~Q2w~fdqgmvX~~-weNNsw4i8Hoi2F80SaHKEpUdX3Aq61HIrMsgtZBAXkbmNWt4g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Bill Seymour, the engagement partner for SB and Company, told the Anne Arundel County Council on April 15 that the firm issued “an unmodified or clean opinion on the financial statements” and unmodified opinions on related reports including the OPEB trust and the 9‑1‑1 revenues and expenditures schedule.

The report covers the June 30, 2024, financial statements and the Uniform Guidance Single Audit required for entities that receive more than $750,000 in federal awards. Seymour said total federal awards were about $43,000,000 and the auditors tested roughly 60 percent — approximately $26,000,000 — of that amount during the single audit. He told the council the county did not qualify as a low‑risk auditee for 2024 because of a prior year do‑not‑comply finding related to subrecipient monitoring, but that “those items were largely corrected in the current year.”

Why it matters: an unmodified opinion indicates auditors believe the county’s financial statements are presented fairly in accordance with accounting standards. At the same time, shortcomings in grant administration or documentation can expose the county to federal compliance risk and possible disallowed costs.

Seymour said the audit produced no instances of detected fraud under the procedures performed and no material weaknesses in internal control, but it did identify four significant deficiencies and other findings and recommendations. The single‑audit findings focused on subrecipient monitoring: four agreements sampled were missing required federal assistance identification information used to determine whether a subrecipient must themselves obtain a single audit. In grants testing SB and Company also found a small number (3 of 40) of missing invoices tied to P‑card transactions that auditors could not substantiate in the sampling.

Seymour described P‑card documentation as a recurring practical issue: “P cards are a blessing and a curse…if we were seeing 25 out of 25 or 40 out of 40, that would be a sign that there is a problem…A lower percentage is kind of what happens unfortunately.” The auditors noted one instance in the 9‑1‑1 schedule (1 of 25 selections) where an invoice/receipt could not be produced and professional standards require reporting of unsupported transactions.

SB and Company also reviewed the county’s local community grant processes. Auditors observed that while the county has a template grant agreement, not all departments used it and monitoring procedures varied by department. Seymour said those inconsistencies are observations (best‑practice recommendations) but also listed findings where a grant agreement was missing, an invoice lacked approval, or funding amounts differed from the signed agreement. He noted one grant that was advanced 100 percent even though the agreement called for reimbursement — a practice that can increase risk when recipients are required to spend before documentation is reviewed.

The auditors thanked county staff for cooperation and named Billy Penley and Kevin McMahon specifically; Seymour said two prior year findings were cleared, one was near implementation and seven remained under active work. He said the grants agreed‑upon procedures report is in draft and one procedure is still being finalized.

Council members asked about how widespread the template non‑use was; Seymour replied the two‑department sample they found using a different template reflected testing scope: “Of the ones that we tested.” Council members pressed about whether missing P‑card receipts clustered in particular departments; auditors said the missing receipts were “spread across” departments.

The county auditor and SB and Company told the council they will continue follow up on remaining items and provide separate reporting on implementation of recommendations.","SB and Company issued unmodified opinions on Anne Arundel County’s June 30, 2024, financial statements and related reports but identified four significant deficiencies, including weaknesses in subrecipient monitoring for federal grants and missing P‑card receipts in sampled transactions.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council votes to hold closed session to consult counsel

County administration proposes stand‑alone Animal Care and Control department; bill would shift staff and change cat licensing

County auditor’s contractor issues clean opinions, flags subrecipient monitoring and P‑card documentation gaps