Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Spending Affordability Ordinance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee reconsiders and postpones spending‑affordability ordinance to allow amendments, requests fiscal estimates

5419771 · July 17, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Council members debated O 12/25, an ordinance to create a spending‑affordability (revenue‑forecasting) function for the city via the Financial Advisory Commission (FACT). The committee voted to reconsider its prior recommendation and postponed further action to Sept. 3 to give staff time to provide fiscal parameter estimates and draft amendments.

The Finance Standing Committee reconsidered and postponed action on ordinance O 12/25, which would add a spending‑affordability (revenue forecast) function to the Financial Advisory Commission (FACT) and authorize procurement of outside forecasting services.

A proponent with professional experience in economic forecasting described the proposal as a revenue‑forecasting function similar to practices used by the State of Maryland and several counties. He said the ordinance would authorize FACT to receive vendor forecasts (for example, reports such as those produced by the RESI consortium at Towson University) and issue a synopsis to inform five‑year revenue outlooks and spending discussions. He said projected procurement costs could range widely and gave a working estimate of $25,000–$50,000 per year but acknowledged larger firms could charge substantially more.

Finance staff (Miss Moran) told the committee the department already can and does bring in outside consultants when budget authority and funds are available, and cautioned that the ordinance as written may be too prescriptive about required report elements and timing. Committee members raised concerns that codifying the function by ordinance could hamstring professional staff and volunteers, that FACT does not currently include economists, and that the fiscal‑impact note attached to the draft lacked a usable cost estimate.

After discussion, the committee voted to reconsider its prior recommendation and to postpone action on O 12/25 to the committee’s September 3 meeting. Members asked the ordinance sponsor to work with the finance director, the Office of Law and FACT to prepare revised language and to provide ballpark cost estimates and a revised fiscal‑impact note ahead of the next meeting.

Votes at a glance: Motion to reconsider — carried by voice vote; motion to postpone to Sept. 3 — carried by voice vote.