Good afternoon everyone and welcome to the session of the Montgomery County Council. We are continuing going through our FY26 operating budget and amendments to the FY25 to 30 capital improvement program. This afternoon we will receive a status update from Mr. Howard and Mr. Smith to go over our overview of revenues and expenditures and where we stand right now after the last few weeks of committee sessions and full council session last week. And then we will have a work session on budget items and then adjourned for the day. So Mr. Howard and Mr. Smith, I'll turn it over to you. Thank you. So the staff report for item number one is a status report on where you are on revenues and expenditures at the FY26 operating budget after your last full week of council work sessions. Similar to the update we gave last Monday when the council had finished their committee work sessions. And so we track things in three different categories, reductions, additions, and resource changes. In terms of reductions, the council has approved $4.4 million in reductions with an additional $306,000 in reductions that remained for consideration on the reconciliation list. In terms of additions, the council has placed a total of $50.4 million in additions on the reconciliation list. In terms of resource changes, the council has approved resource changes that would result in a net decrease of $40.2 million available to fund the FY26 operating budget. This is primarily due to the decision to reject the executive's proposed 3.5 cent property tax increase and to reject the executive's proposed changes to the income tax offset credit amount. The council has not acted on the executive's proposed changes to the county income tax rate and the council's schedule will hold a public hearing on that proposed change tomorrow. As discussed at the May 5th work session, the council's income tax options include first no tax increase which would yield no additional revenue in FY 26. Second, a prospective tax increase to 3.3% to begin tax year 2026, which would net $25 million in additional resources in FY26, or three, a retroactive tax increase to 3.3% to begin in tax year 2025, which would net $75 million in additional FY26 resources. So in terms of where the council is, in terms of a gap, if the council were to accept the additional reductions currently on this reconciliation list, it will need to find an additional $37.9 million in reductions or additional resources to approve a balanced budget. So that is the low end of the current gap. If the council accepts all the reductions and additions currently on the reconciliation list, it will need to find an additional $85.9 million in reductions or additional resources to approve the balance budget. So that is the high end, the maximum of where you are in terms of the gap. And just a reminder that the straw votes on the adjustments to the FY26 budget will take place on Thursday with final action scheduled for the following Thursday on May 22nd. I don't turn it back over to the council. All right. Thank you very much. You see if anyone has any questions on the update? I'm not seeing any. So then we'll, oh, sorry, councilmember Glass. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Howard, for this. I know the information was just uploaded with regard to current potential reductions on the reconciliation list and the staff recommended list of additional reductions to place on the reconciliation list and all the other information that that's already being included. I think it's important for everyone to know that when I've come into this budget process, one of my guiding principles was to maintain same services budget at least. At a very bare minimum, make ensure the services that we currently have. As we've been working through this, there have been reductions in additions and conversations continue about resource changes as well. But on some of these lists are reductions to the base budget. It's a conversation that we will have throughout the course of this week. But is there a list of new additions, things that have been added to this budget as well? In terms of additions by the council or additions by the agencies or the county executive? Well, as presented, there are various lists for public consumption. And so I was curious if there is a set list of things that have been added to the FY25 budget for the FY26 budget. So for our, for the tracking that we heard that I was just going through, those are just additions that have been added to the executives proposed, March 14th budget. The list of all the items that were added, for example, by the executive in his recommended budget over and above the FY25 amount would be included and embedded in the FY25 or FY26 budget request of the executive. Is that listed anywhere? Would one have to go back through all the packets to discern that information? There would be in all the packets, yes. All the staff reports included a summary of all the changes to the executive's recommended budget, both pluses and minuses to the budget. But there is not one concise list with all the new additions. We would we would need to you know prepare a list from From the office of management budget Management and Budget based on their initial presentation of the executive's budget to put that together. I ask because there's just lots of information and I think that is a missing piece of information as we try to sort through all of this and make sure that everybody's priorities, whatever those priorities might be, that everybody is very clear-eyed about what decisions are being made and who made them. So thank you very much. Thank you. I'm Mr. Howard, since Council Member Gloss jumped ahead to the work session. Do you want to talk now about the document that is included under item two on the agenda on the work session. Of course, happy to give that. So, Council staff has prepared a package of, given the gaps that we just talked about as part of the last item. Council staff did prepare a package of additional reductions to consider adding to the reconciliation list for the council today. These reductions had previously been reviewed during committee work sessions, but were not recommended for approval at that time. And the purposes of this list is provide the council with additional options as it makes its final decisions on FY26 revenue and expenditures. Given the gaps I just discussed, so depending on what decisions are made on the income tax rates, the council is able to approve a balanced budget no matter what the scenario is. So on circle one of item number two we have a list of different items. There's two two groupings here. The first is the $300,000 that were already put on the reconciliation list by the council but had not yet been approved. So those are still under consideration. And then there's an additional list of 23 different items that Council staff is proposing adding to the reconciliation list. These are all reductions that the Council could then consider over the course of this week as it's making its final budget decisions. Thank you, Mr. Howard. And thank you, Mr. Smith, for putting this this together. I'll just add a little bit more context as we've been going through the last Number of months as we all know the committees Reviewed each of the department and agencies budgets and then made decisions and then the council last week Spent the week to go through all of those recommendations. And as we wound down last week, we noted that regardless of where a council member may be on their views on the revenues, the income tax, we did not have enough items on the reconciliation list in order to make decisions. And so we asked staff to look at those things that they had recommended so that we could review them again. And that is the list that we have before you. I'm going to ask that in order to facilitate our process through the rest of the week for reconciliation. That if we would move this list and add it to our reconciliation list that does not mean that any of these items individually would be reduced at this time but would be added to the list for our consideration as we move through this week. Councilmember Albinos. Thank you Madam President. I'd like to move the staff recommendation but after we vote and discuss the discussion and vote on this, I will have a comment to make afterwards. Thank you. Do I have a second? Second. Councillor Arbatham. motion. The biggest item by far and away on the list is MCPS with $50 million on the line here. There is already $19 million for us to consider to MCPS that's already on the reconciliation list. So that would bring the total for us to consider to $70 million cut to MCPS. That is a level of cuts that in my opinion we should not even be considering. We should not be putting the scale of the damage that that would do to MCPS as up for consideration. We should not be putting risk, large scale risks on the table. We should not be putting the opening of contracts on the table. I acknowledge that this comes with discussions of difficult discussions about a potential tax increase. That's an important discussion to have and you know if funding our schools and funding our county services to the extent that we avoid things like large scale rifts requires a tenth of a percent increase to our taxes. In the conversations that I have gotten to have with constituents since we've gotten the most recent revenue updates, folks who have reached out to have to understand kind of the depth of what we get and don't get at each of these levels, they have expressed to me in those a willingness to chip in. Of course, we're getting lots of, we're getting lots of emails asking us to fund things. We're getting lots of emails asking us not to raise taxes. These conversations, there's not a lot of time to have them, but the conversations are really important to really ensure that constituents understand what each of these potential options means. And again, in the conversations that I've gotten to have, folks have offered to chip in to ensure that we are able to sustain essential services, that we are able to bolster ourselves against the cuts that are coming from the federal level, which are gonna get worse and worse to make sure that we're our essential health care infrastructure. These are all really critical pieces. MCPS, we have been asking for transparency. Now, since I've been on the council, this full council has asked for transparency. Demanded it. This year we got it. I don't know how, I don't know how it could, they could have been more transparent to be very honest. We have spent in committee and in full council sessions a significant amount of time going through their budget including their base budget. We asked them to open their books and to make cuts to their base and to explain them. They did that. The request that they submitted included significant cuts to their base. There's a reason why a very small amount of what is left in their request is labeled as discretionary. There are legally required components that they're not going to be able to fund with the level of cuts that are here, especially without the rifts, without the option to open contracts. Again, options that I don't believe should be on the table. They have now, as part of that transparency, they have said publicly that they need to increase their special education workforce in order to be compliant with the law legally. They have made themselves vulnerable to lawsuits in that respect and they need funding to be able to address the need. So for all those reasons and more, I will not be able to support this motion. Thank you. Thank you, Council Vice President Joando. Thank you. Thank you. Over the past several months I've had many conversations with our students, with our educators, support staff and administrators across the county. From budget forums to school visits, one message has consistently emerged. Our schools and those that dedicate themselves to our children's future are already stretched then. The painful irony is that just last week, we issued a proclamation recognizing education appreciation week. Pack in the room full of the very people whose work and livelihoods would be made more difficult by the reductions we are considering today. We're saying one thing and not in doing another. In the math doesn't work. I want to clarify that in addition to the proposed 50 million reduction that's on this list to the executive's recommendation, there's also the possibility that the council would not fund the pension shift that was shifted from the state of 18.6 million, or the tech modernization to keep Chromebooks and other technology working of about 1.1 million. As was mentioned by Councilor Mink, that would bring us to nearly $70 million in potential reductions to the MCPS budget. And we've got to be really honest about what that number means. It. It will carry severe and wide ranging consequences that would ultimately need to be decided by the board. But including potentially impacts on essential services, reductions and staffing of current people who are currently working, significant cuts to discretionary spending and maintenance that we talked about in the budget. And even the risk of having to renegotiate and open up contracts. That would not, not only not be good, it would be horrible. I understand the concerns that my colleagues have raised about raising taxes during uncertain times. But when you consider the broader picture, Feminine federal tax cuts wealthy, cuts in federal services to food and head start and Medicaid, dwarfing any modest increase at the local level. That's when we have to step up. That's when we have to give the school system what they need. We sat here three years ago and there was a 10% property tax increase on the table. If we would have done that, we wouldn't be here. But we're here because we only did 4%. And then last year, there were reductions again to the request and class size went up and the special education problems got worse. And I'm not telling you what I think. I'm telling you what I know in the life of my child and the life of children that are in our school system. Talking to educators. No one wants to raise taxes. But one penny, $2 a week for someone who makes $100,000, $100,000 of AGI, that is doable. I had a conversation with someone today who's on the board of one of our great nonprofits who's a wealthy individual and said, why wouldn't you guys just do that? I said, that don't know.tenth of one percent. We're talking about real needs. Dr. Taylor, Board President Yang, I want to appreciate them. The entire MCPS team, Essie McGuire, who used to be on our team, have provided the data. That's what's most frustrating to me. The last couple years we had issues with what the money was going to go to. There's issues with the administration. This year, those issues don't exist. We know we're saying we know you need it, but we might not be able to do it. I'm deeply concerned that the vast majority of the cuts on this list are in MCPS. You've also got linkages to learning. There's other items on here that are related to MCPS that aren't even the MCPS line items. So it's actually a little more than 70 million. Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, you taxes are the price we pay to live in a more civilized society. FDR said, the test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much. it's whether we provide enough for those who have too little. And right now our school system cannot take another year of a reduction from their request. We've given them more but everything costs more. We're in the most expensive county in the most expensive region. And when you say we've given over MLE, MLE is a bare bones number. That doesn't mean it doesn't reflect the need. 47% in English language learners, ELD students, special ed kids, through the roof, poverty, through the roof, you can't do the same, you can't do more with less. So I just cannot support this. We can't have it both ways. And these cuts should not be considered in light of a, action we can take to make sure that our kids, our teachers have what they need. The numbers simply do not add up. Thank you. Council Member Sales. Thank you, Madam President. As I stated last week my commitment to fully funding MCPS's budget remains unwavering With proposed cuts up to fifty million dollars on the reckless the stakes couldn't be higher Let me be absolutely clear asking our students, educators, and school staff to bear the weight of cuts. This severe is unacceptable and should not be considered. I will continue to advocate for full funding of our public schools as we move through the final stages of this budget process. Our policy choices clearly pronounce our values and priorities. Education is the most powerful driver of economic mobility, community stability, and public safety. When we invest in our schools, we invest in the foundation of a healthier, more prosperous, and more equitable Montgomery County. We have heard from families, educators, students, and businesses across the county, and their message is consistent. They want strong, well-resourced schools, where every child has an opportunity to succeed. That means access to safe and modern school facilities and resources, meaningful enrichment opportunities, a culturally responsive curriculum, and a staff who makes this success possible. We cannot afford to be short-sighted. As I stated last week, our children should be the last to feel any pain of any cuts we make to balance our budget this year. The choices we make will echo into the years ahead. I don't have children in MCPS. However, my commitment to fully funding MCPS is grounded in the belief that excellence in education is not a luxury but a public good that demands our full support. I will continue working with my colleagues to find a path forward that honors our values, protects the services our residents depend on, and keeps our school system strong for every child and every zip code from cradle to career and beyond. I will not be voting in support of this reconciliation either. Council Member Glass. Thank you, Madam President. I have a question for Mr. Howard and Mr. Smith. It's been noted that two years ago when the council passed a 4.7% tax increase instead of the 10% tax increase recommended by the county executive that no additional funding would be needed right now as our budget experts. Is that a correct assessment? I'm thinking. That would be a little bit difficult to try to determine just off top of the head. But in terms of the amount two years ago that was considered for each cent of the tax increase. And the amount of the increase MCPS is requesting are not equivalent. It was about 22 million for every cent of a tax increase. So if you had another five cents of the tax increase, you're around a hundred and 10ish million if my math is kind of correct and the MCPS request is for over 280 million in additional county funds. So if a 10% tax increase had been adopted two years ago So in order to meet the demand right now, it is very likely that another tax increase would be requested. That's what you're saying. If you're just looking at, and obviously, with any budget decision, money moves around, right, when you have tax rate changes. So if just looking at the total dollars, would those total dollars be equivalent to MCPS's budget request this year? I don't believe so, but I obviously want to do a little bit further math and calculations on that. And it also speaks to the way that the Revenue request has been made over the last two years ago and even this year in that it has expanded the amount of revenue brought in, which has also been dispersed throughout other aspects of county government. So even if a tax increase had been adopted at the 10% rate, there's no guarantee that it would all have gone to MCPS as was originally stated and being alleged. Is that right? The amount of dollars brought in by the tax increase would have gone to MCPS. Because that's the tax rate, it's the school's differential. So that part would have gone to MCPS, but it had to look back on what exactly the request was two years ago. How much the council funded it compared to what they had asked for and what that difference was and that's not data I have the quit math is that it doesn't add up the dollars don't are equipped. Okay, just Wanted to ask that publicly. Thank you Council vice president John do Thank you. Does that account for the Increase in property values and the and obviously the if the money was there you might the insuable system might have request less than for in additional years correct? There's a lot of what ifs and that's why I said it's really great. It's kind of a muddy answer. Just looking at purely just looking at dollar to dollar the numbers don't add up but you're 100% correct. There are a lot of different variables that would need to be factored into that analysis. Appreciate it. Thank you. Great. Thank you very much. I just want to note, again, because I think we're going to have a lot of conversation this week on people's priorities, that what we are the action that is before us today is to add these items to the reconciliation list for consideration as we go through this. And so this is looking at a number in a number of areas including health and human services as well as MCPS given where we are in our budget process. And so I just wanted to clarify that. And we do have before us a motion and a second to add this bucket of items to our reconciliation list. All those in favor of that, please raise your hand. And that is eight to three. So that moves and I know councilmember Alvin Oz you had another question or comment. Thank you. So just, I appreciate the comments of colleagues. None of us wanna be here and obviously this is actually gonna be a more straightforward budget compared to what is coming in the near future. When we realize the full impact of the reductions to our federal force and the cascading impact, the income projections that have been set forth, which lag behind because we have to do it based on the state tax receipts and what those projections are, which run behind, mean that we're going to be be in even more difficult place moving forward, looking at items from which to reduce from. Not how much lower we add the additions, but actual reductions to the base. So all decisions are painful and difficult. The staff have recommended tranches of 5, 10, and 20% for MCPS, acknowledging how large of a budget item that represents overall, and considering the difficult decisions that we have to make, I'd like to request humbly that staff look at within the 20% different levels of tranches. Just to provide this body with more options moving forward, hopefully none of them will be taken. But it will at least give us some various options to choose from. I'm not moving anything specifically, Madam President, but I just wanted to make that comment. Thank you. Mr. Howard, would that be possible for staff to undertake? Certainly we could do that. Great. Any objections from council members if we look at the tranches for MCPS to give us more more tranches to consider as we go through the week. Alright that's without objection. Thank you. Any other items to bring before the body today? Alright I am not seeing any so we are adjourned and we will meet tomorrow and I hope folks come and join us for AAPI Heritage Month that we are going to be acknowledging tomorrow and around the 1130, 1145. So I hope people can join us for that. Thank you very much with that. We are adjourned. La escuela de verano es gratis para su estudiante. Realmente en las escuelas públicas del contado de Montgomery, lo que queremos es que nuestros alumnos se siguen graduando y sigan expandiendo su educación. Así que obviamente para nosotros, lo más importantes, poder ayudarlos.. So maybe you go, ask, I don't know, feel bad. Always tell them, go and ask, hey, hey, people that want to help us. We want to help them, so please, feel comfortable in writing. I know that Maisela will tell me at the end, but I'm going to take it. The number of Spanish that we have to call is the two.