The 90 Day Report is divided into 12 parts, each dealing with a major policy area. Each
part contains a discussion of the majority of bills that passed in that policy area, including
background information and comparisons to current law. Part A contains information relating to
the operating budget, capital budget, and aid to local governments.
We truly appreciate the opportunity that Congresswoman Sarah Elfreth, Senator Katie Hester, Delegates Natilie Zieger, Courtney Watson and our office worked together and had a special virtual D9 town hall meeting on Wednesday March 19, 2025.
Here are some resources we collected for workers who are impacted by the federal government actions.
The high utility price during this winter has shocked many people. I spent a lot of time to try to understand what’s happening and how we could fix. The Office of People’s Council did a great job. Here is their webiste: Maryland Office of People’s Counsel Home
A simple summary is that Exelon is using a strategy: the more they spend on infrastructure update, the more profit they can earn for their shareholders; then the more the ratepayer bear the cost for those infrastructure spending.
See the big difference among three major utility companies （BGE，Columbia Gas and Washington Gas)
Here are slides:
Here is the briefing video.
This non-partisan report recommended legislators what to cut/add, what tax/fee to increase/decrease.
MCEC (Maryland Clean Energy Center) had a legislative reception. In their presentation, there were many insightful discussion on Maryland Energy Transition, why energy cost goes up, etc and business related to energy. Hopefully it is usefully for you.
Here is the slide:
The following is from our village board chair.
I am not supporting CA to take over village centers too.
| Dear Residents and Friends of The Village of River Hill, I would like to share with you the comments I made at the Columbia Association (CA) Board of Directors Meeting on February 13, 2025, regarding the proposed funding cuts to Villages by CA. In my testimony, I strongly advocated against CA’s takeover of Village buildings and the significant revenue that they generate for our communities. Additionally, I voiced my support for restoring Village funding to its previous levels. |
| Comments from Kevin Bruening to CA Board of Directors – Feb. 13, 2025 Good evening, Chairman Santos and members of Columbia Council. I am traveling at this time but I thought this topic important enough to attend and make comments tonight. I am Kevin Bruening, Chairperson of the River Hill Community Association. I am here tonight representing my village. I am not presenting tonight on behalf of my employer. I want to thank everyone on the Columbia Council for your commitment to community service. I was deeply concerned to learn that the Columbia Association (CA) has proposed to take control of the community buildings in the Villages. I hope this is just an idea and remains an idea. These buildings are currently managed by the Villages and provide a significant source of income. CA’s proposal would effectively drain all revenue from the Village rental operations. For instance, in the Village of River Hill, the proposed change would reduce funding by over $300,000, drastically cutting the community services the Village could provide. This would jeopardize cherished programs such as the Annual Independence Day Parade, a longstanding tradition attended by residents throughout Howard County, other seasonal events, and the monthly community newsletter. These community services foster a sense of belonging and collaboration, empowering residents to actively contribute to the well-being and vibrancy of their neighborhood. Without the active participation of residents, the Villages of Columbia risk losing their unique character and sense of community, turning into nothing more than generic urban sprawl. Community engagement is essential for creating vibrant, connected, and thriving neighborhoods where people take pride in their surroundings and work together to improve their quality of life. The CA Charter reinforces this concept throughout the document from creation of the non-profit civic associations to detailing their purpose as “enhancing…the inhabitants thereof.” As many of you are aware, the Villages are in a one-year extension of a five-year contract with CA. The process of Village contract negotiations began in March 2024, with the decision to extend the current contract for an additional year so that the new incoming CEO could negotiate the contracts. In the summer of 2024, two proposed contracts, similar to the previous five-year contract divided between a charge share agreement and a facilities agreement, were disseminated to the Villages. The Village Managers revised the contracts and submitted their marked-up version to CA on October 10, 2024. I ask everyone here, how many of you have seen the Village contracts? The October 10th submission was well ahead of the November draft budget. In the draft budget, CA proposed Village funding at $3,725,000, a mere 1.6% increase from last year’s budget. The silence since October is concerning. Is it CA’s intent to fund the Villages at that level for FY26? In 2019, CA funded the Villages, with the Villages receiving 8.3% of the CA assessments. However, in 2025, that percentage dropped to 7.5%. It remains unclear what the charge share amount will be for the Villages moving forward. I reiterate the most important points of what ALL 10 VILLAGES have asked for and agreed upon: The CA Village contracts should allow for multi-year funding, and FY2026 should be based on 2019 funding levels on a percentage basis. Here’s my observation as a chair. Since 2019, this has been the death of a thousand cuts. In 2019 the Villages received $3,339,000 and the CA annual charge assessment totaled $40,456,000. 8.3% of the annual charge. In 2025 the budgeted amount to the Villages was $3,679,000, only 7.5% of CA annual charge assessments. Over that same time frame from FY2019-FY2025, the Villages only received an actual increase of 8.5% where the CA annual charge assessments received increased by 16.6%. This over time is over $900,000 system wide. Each village has features that are unique in many ways. Let’s ensure that our Villages have the necessary resources to continue providing valuable services and programs to our community. I ask that you bring the FY2026 funding levels back up to 2019 levels. That would mean a total budget line of $4,143,000 instead of the $3,725,000 (based on 8.3% of $49,917,000). I ask that, as a board, you instruct staff through a motion tonight during the CA Management Contract talks to update the budget. I also suggest that the CEO instruct the Village managers to work with CA to address the funding formula and provide a final funding formula by a date sufficient to be included in the FY 2026 budget. I will forward out my data discussed in this presentation here shortly. With that I thank you for taking the time to hear my comments and will answer any questions you may have. |
| If you share my concerns about CA’s takeover of Village funding sources and the reduction in money returned to the Villages—money that is paid in by residents—I urge you to advocate for our community. Sign up for Resident Speakout at the next CA Board Meeting on Thursday, February 27, 2025 at 7 p.m.Send a written message to the entire Board, including the President/CEO of CA. Sincerely, Kevin BrueningChairpersonVillage of River Hill Board of Directors |
Recent high utility cost has been a huge concern and burden for Marylanders. We should demand BGE add “affordability “ to their vision, mission and values. I also expect they reduce their customer burden by sharing larger share of the cost and lowering their profit margin . It is their social responsibility.
This year, we have several bills for school cellphone usage policy.
2025 Blueprint briefing
2025 Department of Commerce Presentation
I co-sponsored several bills with the Governor to support our business development.
