October 25, 2026

To: Maryland Board of Public Works
Re: October 29 Meeting — DDA Consulting Contracts, Item 67-EX

Dear Members of the Board,

I am writing about DDA's request for expedited approval of two consulting contracts focused on financial oversight and stakeholder engagement.

I welcome the idea of stronger oversight and accountability within DDA. Participants and families have been asking for these improvements for years. But before additional public funds are committed, I think there are some important questions that need to be answered.

For more than a month, the LTSSMaryland system has experienced serious problems affecting person-centered plans, service authorizations, and budget modifications. These are not minor inconveniences. When plans cannot be processed or budgets cannot be adjusted, people can lose access to services they depend on every day.

That brings me to my biggest concern.

Has DDA actually spoken with the people experiencing these problems before deciding what these new contractors should be investigating?

Maryland's FY2027 budget requires DDA to review its contract plans with stakeholders. I would like to know whether that has happened and, if so, who was involved and how their concerns were incorporated.

I would also like to know whether the financial review will examine the ongoing LTSSMaryland failures, payment and authorization discrepancies, and the costs associated with these problems. Will the findings be shared publicly? And will participants and families have a meaningful role in deciding which problems need attention?

We already know there are serious issues within the system. Families, providers, and support professionals have been documenting them for weeks. It makes little sense to hire consultants to identify problems without first listening to the people who have been reporting them.

I’m not opposed to these contracts. I want them to succeed. But before the state moves forward, I think we deserve a clearer understanding of what the contractors will be responsible for and whether participants and families have had a say in shaping that work. We need to make sure public money is being spent to address the problems people are actually experiencing.

I ask the Board to obtain answers to these questions before approving expedited procurement. If DDA cannot provide that information, I hope the Board will consider holding the request until it can.

Accountability should begin with listening to the people who are living with the consequences of the problems being investigated.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Michele Steward
Parent and Self-Directed Services Advocate
Anne Arundel County, Maryland

State tidal wetlands license (License #25-1148):

Regarding the recent favorable Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) report recommending the issuance of a wetlands license, I am writing to express concern regarding the scope of MDE's review and to highlight that the application fails to demonstrate it is "good for Maryland" under several criteria specified in COMAR 23.02.04.09.

First, over the past 20 years, worldwide climate and public health research has highlighted significant and growing concern over the spread of vector-borne diseases, particularly in temperate and urban environments. In the last 10 years, published academic research on this topic has tripled. Beyond traditional international centers for public health research like Johns Hopkins University, Morgan State University has established a  research focus in this locally significant topic (Morgan’s Center for Climate Change and Health). Additionally, the CDC, WHO, and numerous other public health and scientific authorities have issued substantial guidance on the matter. This focus is both broad and critical.

During this same 20 years, the Chesapeake watershed has become home to the Asian Tiger Mosquito, an invasive tropical species capable of transmitting numerous viruses to humans and animals. Surveillance for vector-borne diseases and their vectors remains a longstanding priority for regional public health systems.

However, these risks concerning vector-borne diseases—fundamentally associated with wetlands—do not appear to have been assessed or contemplated in the application or in MDE's review. Promoting newly created wetlands as an absolute ecological benefit requires careful evaluation within the context of changing local vector-borne disease hazards. This is particularly vital in urban microenvironments where parallel goals aim to increase public exposure to the harbor, both recreationally and via new residential towers in the adjacent uplands.

On this basis, I urge the Board of Public Works (BOE) find that this application requires further analysis and expert review. There is a reasonable basis to conclude that new wetlands may create unaddressed public health hazards, particularly as this license seeks to increase public interaction at the harborfront.


Second, with regard to economic, developmental, recreational, and aesthetic values, each area faces direct negative impacts from:
The decrease in linear frontage along the harbor (as noted in the application);
The modification of a traditional harbor quayside into two tiered "promenades" (one of which functions as a basic dockfront), altering the historic harbor's operations with apparent
The exclusion of berthage for several tall ships and large military vessels.
The applicant's assertion that adjacent upland acreage significantly increases public access to the harborfront (despite the loss of linear frontage) is irrelevant to this application, just as comments regarding upland development plans have been excluded from consideration.
Preserving the historic function of this harbor to welcome and berth multiple large ships is central to whether this project is truly "good for Maryland," yet this aspect remains insufficiently addressed. Revised plans for the gangways and floating dockworks (termed promenades) were made public only within the past two weeks, and it is unclear whether these designs have been reviewed by engineers experienced in navigating and mooring large vessels.

In summary, caution and further analysis are necessary for a project that purports to serve the public interest when potential public health risks have not been evaluated and core harbor functions (vital to economic, aesthetic, and recreational values) are left incompletely in the current application .