My job as an alderman is to provide checks and balances and to make sure the budget reflects the people we serve. I bring that lens to every budget I review.
This mayor ran on a more collaborative approach to governance. That made it more surprising when his introduced budget proposed appropriating a smaller share of available one-time use funds than the prior administration did last year, even though this year’s pool is roughly the same size. The administration has framed the pool as essentially exhausted, with just $24 left unappropriated. That measures against a narrow $1.86 million pre-transfer slice. The broader assigned one-time use pool, after the projected transfer of the Fiscal Year 2026 surplus, totals roughly $6.5 million, and this budget appropriates only about 29% of it. Last year, the prior administration proposed 42% of a similarly sized pool; the City Council ultimately adopted 62%. The methodology is a choice. In past cycles, more of that flexibility was preserved for the council to direct funds to ward-level needs. This year, every council priority is positioned to displace a mayoral one, which makes for a divisive budget process.
This budget is also too inward-looking. The mayor’s office has grown to its largest size ever when looking at the budget or numbers of staff, with new strategic consulting contracts proposed. Constituents do not experience those contracts. They experience whether someone picks up the phone, whether an issue gets addressed, whether a case worker is available when they need one. My amendments invest there instead.
The budget is uneven in how it responds to demonstrated need. Some departments present data showing clear capacity gaps; others show they are meeting or exceeding their benchmarks. The proposed enhancements do not reflect that distinction. The Fire Department’s own performance data shows it already exceeds national response standards. Yet the budget’s largest public safety enhancement is a six-person, $588,000 peak-time medic unit that the department’s own strategic plan does not call for. The county executive has proposed contributing roughly half of the year-one cost in his FY 2027 county budget, but that budget has not yet been adopted, no city-county intergovernmental agreement has been executed and there is no commitment beyond year one — meaning the full recurring cost would likely fall on city taxpayers. The $588,000 also reflects only base personnel; it does not include the overtime needed to cover sick leave, training and shift gaps, which the department’s own testimony identifies as its largest overtime driver. Both the mayor and the chief describe it as a 12-month pilot/grant with no formal county funding agreement; if the pilot continues beyond year one, that cost lands on city taxpayers alone. Prior budgets did not advance this unit because the data did not support the need. Meanwhile, departments with genuine, demonstrable gaps are held flat or cut. If performance data should drive resource decisions, it should drive them consistently.
Police staffing tells the same story. Our Adequate Public Facilities ordinance requires approximately 131 sworn officers based on current population; this budget authorizes only 125. A recent independent workload study pointed to the need for more sworn patrol capacity, yet every funded enhancement in this budget goes to administrative and support roles rather than patrol positions. My amendments put us on a credible path to reaching the staffing level our own code requires.
Departments with demonstrated need are being asked to do more with less. The Office of Community Services needs more case worker capacity as residents face rising costs. The harbormaster’s seasonal staff has been cut by roughly two-thirds, a reduction the harbormaster told the Finance Committee her office did not propose. Transit tells a similar story. Four of our five fixed bus routes fall below state benchmarks for efficiency and productivity, yet this budget does not fund the expanded service our adopted Transit Development Plan calls for. The free Downtown Shuttle serves those who drive into the city; the people who depend on the bus to get to work still pay the fare. Getting around is an essential public service.
Then there is debt. Our adopted financial policy sets a 10% target and a 12% absolute ceiling for debt service as a share of general fund spending. The previous two budgets exceeded the target only briefly in out-years. This mayor’s first budget exceeds it for five consecutive years, with zero remaining capacity at the target. We should be adhering to our own budget policies, and my amendment directs the administration to work with our debt analysis firm to do just that.
Here is what I am proposing: restore the harbormaster’s seasonal crew so we have eyes on the water; launch the bus route to Annapolis High School that our adopted Transit Development Plan, our Comprehensive Plan and our own Education Commission all call for; move toward fare-free transit so the system is equitable for those who depend on it; add a real estate position in Central Services so ward projects can actually be built rather than sitting idle; add case worker capacity to meet demand that is already at our door; and direct the administration to bring our debt trajectory back within our own policy. These are forward-facing priorities, constituent-centered priorities.
To make room for them, we have to rein in the mayor’s office growth and say no to an unjustified peak medic unit. Better customer service was a campaign promise of this administration. That is delivered by the people answering the phone, not by the strategic consultants whose contracts would be part of the largest mayor’s office this city has ever funded.
Rob Savidge is the Ward 7 alderman. He can be contacted at AldSavidge@Annapolis.gov.