Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Supplemental Appropriations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council committee advances 11 supplemental appropriation bills to second reading; most pass by 4‑yes, 1 excused
Summary
The Budget & Appropriations Committee heard agency reports and moved a slate of supplemental appropriations (including equity and civil rights, homeless services, DPW grants, State's Attorney and multiple Sheriff's Office items) to the June 8 second reading, typically by a 4‑yes vote with one excused absence.
The Budget & Appropriations Committee advanced a package of supplemental appropriation bills to second reading at the next City Council meeting on June 8 after agency reports and roll‑call votes.
Committee members heard reports from affected agencies and the Department of Finance and Law Department provided favorable reports or legal sufficiency where required. Among the supplemental items that moved forward with favorable motions were: the Office of Equity and Civil Rights supplemental (Council Bill 260167, $204,750), Office of Homeless Services supplements (Council Bills 260168 and 260169, $500,000 and $2,000,000 respectively), Department of Public Works grant funding (Council Bill 260170, $2,177,758), the State's Attorney’s supplemental (Council Bill 260171, $2,000,000), several Baltimore City Sheriff's Office items (Council Bills 260183, 260184, 260185, 260186, with amounts ranging from $74,667 to $612,096), and a Department of Housing and Community Development supplemental (Council Bill 260187, $459,169).
Most motions passed on roll call with the same pattern recorded repeatedly: Councilmember McCray — yes; Councilmember Schleifer — yes; Vice President Middleton — excused absence; Councilman Paris Gray — yes; Councilman Glover — yes, producing four yeses and one excused absence on each recorded vote. One supplemental (the circuit court supplemental tied to hardening grants) was recessed to Thursday so a representative from the circuit court could attend. The committee also recorded technical legal amendments on a special revenue appropriation bill and requested follow‑up documentation where agencies had indicated data gaps (for example, DOT agreed to provide camera location lists and speed‑study documentation on request).
