Authority discusses budget, Security Square Mall work and hiring priorities; $750,000 capital and $500,000 operating on hand

Board members at the Baltimore County Redevelopment Authority meeting discussed near-term budget priorities, the status of ongoing redevelopment work at Security Square Mall, and plans for hiring an executive director and initial staff.

Tucker (county staff) told the board that current authority balances include $750,000 in capital and $500,000 in operating funds. He also briefed members on the county's Security Square Mall effort: Redgate (the county's implementation consultant) remains under contract, the total Security Square funding pot is $30,000,000 (split $15,000,000 state, $15,000,000 county), and the county has expended about $23,350,000 on three separate acquisitions tied to that effort.

Members said those facts affect how the authority should prioritize expenditures. Several members urged formation of a budget or finance subcommittee to develop a spending plan and to meet in advance of April 11, the date one member said the county executive will introduce the FY26 budget. "If there's a request before ... April 11, I need to have it sooner than that so that she can kinda include it in her budget," one member told the board.

Members debated whether to use capital funds for consultant-led market studies, staff hiring, or acquisitions. A recurring point: consultant/planning work tied to Security Square is distinct from any market study the authority might commission for the authority's broader catchment area. Tucker advised that Redgate's scope focuses on the mall site and that separate studies for the authority's larger catchment area would be a different contract and budget item.

Board members discussed hiring priorities for an executive director. Several said the ED candidate will need clarity on whether staff will be in place and on multi-year funding to attract candidates. One member urged pushing back on the county's expectation of having an ED in place by May, calling that timeline unrealistic without clearer scope and funding for ongoing staff support.

Members discussed public-meeting constraints for committee work versus administrative matters. Legal counsel said executive-director hiring discussions can be administrative (and thus may fall under an Open Meetings Act exception), but budget discussions should generally occur in public session; counsel said he would confirm and advised the board to consider optics and public transparency while planning.

Several members suggested scheduling a full-board meeting before April 11 to develop a budget request, followed by an April 30 meeting that could include a planning-department briefing and Redgate update. Staff said it would circulate a Doodle poll to schedule meetings. The board closed the meeting after a brief public-comment period in which a resident asked whether potential federal property changes (for example federal office relocations) would factor into the authority's planning; staff said county teams are monitoring federal actions and that such developments would inform the authority's work as appropriate.

No formal budget appropriation or contract award was made at this meeting; members directed staff to convene committees, develop job descriptions and candidate templates with administrative support, and return with budget options and timing for further action.