Sometimes you can tell how desperate people are to get themselves out of a bind by the sheer ludicrousness of what they are willing to say to defend their actions.

The May 16, 2026 memorandum sent to two Baltimore County councilmen by Administrative Officer D’Andrea Walker claiming that the funding of the renovation of the Rocky Point Golf Course clubhouse in Essex was not a grant is a perfect example.

A year before, the council had released its budget message for FY 2026, which ran from July 1, 2025 to June 30, 2026. It reported that it cut $6.6 million from the budget proposed by County Executive Kathy Klausmeier to eliminate county funding for the renovation of the clubhouse that was announced in October 2024 with considerable fanfare by then-County Executive Johnny Olszewski.

The council complained that it had no “oversight role” in the approval of the project. They said they said had received no notice of it when it was first funded in FY 2025 as part of a line item historically used to fund grants to the Baltimore County Revenue Authority to build and run parking facilities that included no reference to golf course improvements.

In this case, the line item was a “bulk” capital project, in which smaller, separate projects of a similar nature are grouped together in a single capital project for budgetary purposes. Bulk projects typically are used for things like countywide curb and gutter projects and ADA-required improvements to county buildings.

The rebuild of a golf course clubhouse – for $6.6 million – clearly should have appeared in the budget as a separate capital project.

The budget message for FY 2026 stated that the unanimous vote to cut county funding reflected the council’s position that county tax dollars shouldn’t be used for “an amenity we believe should be paid for by the Revenue Authority itself.” The revenue authority operates and maintains the golf course under a 99-year ground lease from the county.

The elimination of county funding for the clubhouse, a pet project of Olszewski, was dutifully reported by the media.

The only problem was that county funding was not eliminated.

Budgetary Sleight of Hand

County spokesperson Erica Palmisano informed me by email last month that the money used to complete the renovation did not come from the FY 2026 budget that was cut by the council – it came “from prior authorized funds dating back prior to FY 2026.”

She also informed me that the authority for the funds used for the renovation was a “funding agreement” signed by Walker in August 2024 that approved a grant of $6.6 million to the revenue authority to help pay for the clubhouse.

And therein lies (another) rub.

The grant did not go through the grant approval process mandated by county law, which includes notice to the county council and the opportunity for the council to disapprove a proposed grant.

Consequently, the opportunity was taken away from the council to block the use of county funds for the clubhouse renovation in FY 2025 by simply disapproving the grant.

Tucking funding of the clubhouse into a line item customarily used for garages and parking lots was, at best, sneaky.

Depriving the council of its prerogative to disapprove the use of county funds for the grant was worse.

Tucking funding of the clubhouse into a line item customarily used for garages and parking lots was, at best, sneaky.

So, how did Walker justify avoidance of the grant approval process in her May 16 memorandum?

Her justification boils down to her assertion that the August 2024 agreement was “a funding agreement, not a grant agreement” and was “not structured as a typical County Grant Agreement.”

She acknowledges, however, that the underlying legal authority for the funding agreement was Section 9-1-114 of the county code, which authorizes the county to “make grants of money” to the revenue authority for its projects.

Then there’s the fact that the agreement itself describes the nature of the funding as a grant, and the word “grant” appears in the agreement 11 times.

And, of course, the operative provisions of the agreement begin with the words, “The County hereby agrees to grant to the Revenue Authority an amount not to exceed Six Million Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($6,600,000) . . .”

Yes, the document was titled “funding agreement.” But the nature of the funding agreed to was a grant (as opposed to a loan or a gift) and the grant should have been processed in the manner required by Title 10 of Article 3 of the county code.

There are some complicated issues implicated by the manner in which “prior authorized” county funds were used to help foot the bill for the clubhouse renovation. This isn’t one of them.

I don’t envy any lawyer trying to defend Walker’s laughable explanation in court, if it comes to that.

Will the council do anything about the Klausmeier administration’s sleight-of-hand? Based on past performance, don’t count on it.

• David A. Plymyer retired as Anne Arundel County Attorney after 31 years in the county law office. He can be reached at dplymyer@comcast.net and Twitter @dplymyer.•