[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6668842,"mediaKeyId","2217988-51f30ce2ece7efea75fdae24fe8b05d6","parentId",2217988,"title","Howard County Council approves transfers, bonds, appointments and urban renewal measures in February session","audioSeconds",2231,"startMs",1035000,"endMs",3266000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2217988-51f30ce2ece7efea75fdae24fe8b05d6&start=1035&end=3266","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2217988-51f30ce2ece7efea75fdae24fe8b05d6/thumbnail_1035000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6668842/Howard-County/Maryland/Howard-County-Council-approves-transfers-bonds-appointments-and-urban-renewal-measures-in-February-session","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6668842-5747ad7db1e21de537b261d647dc712f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771155026&Signature=FaK4gPAQjM29nMa-Myh8tHJ7JB48K0m-1YVFKe9OX0sDd9TjVhC0mmmS7jdcT~c1hBKLqWcmuIjmrl~42a5nFd65-T~foDo8lzOSf3aEGCjpNu2z44lzq6XScfmgmQpHQ7i8yKTb76md8owVuo005YuqCdy7KJGwIxv0iYF-Y7AGMrADhtV-2xJWtrBbns93P0f1hxXxwD9a42nqtzJzIpkk0idGgrG3oLSmE9INwygVSBZNY~d4aNAIPSCa5y7w5msz433dkkOGDzR3QcTpya3s0FDDtYRBSXrwHPBdXfZGaiNCRW0lhILGrEZFagcAYw~iZni8n1V7Xg2aWcfqWg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Howard","date","2025-02-03T00:00:00Z","article","In its February legislative session, the Howard County Council approved a package of administrative, financial and appointment measures that the transcript shows passed largely by roll-call votes.

Key approvals included:

- TA01 FY2025: Transfer of $3,345,000 to project C0360 (Real Estate Planning and Design) — motion moved and seconded; TA01 passed by roll call.

- TA02 FY2025: Transfer of $2,500,000 to project E1038 (planning and design). Council members debated the size of the request and whether expenditures for a public–private partnership (P3) study were justified; multiple members said they voted yes while expressing reservations. The motion passed.

- Council Bill 1-2025: Authorization to issue bonds totaling $2,445,000. The bill passed by roll call.

- Council Bill 2-2025: Bond enabling $2,500,000 to project E1058 (systemic renovations). Passed by roll call.

- Council Bill 5-2025: Property tax credit amendment for disabled law enforcement officers, rescue workers or surviving spouse of a fallen officer; passed (one abstention recorded in the transcript).

- Council Bills 6, 7 and 8-2025: Measures establishing the inspector general position placement in the classification plan, pay scale, and financial disclosure requirements for the Inspector General Advisory Board; all passed.

- CR 161-2024: Approval of the Long Reach Village Center urban renewal plan; council voted to remove from the table and then approved the plan.

- CR 162-2024: Conveyance of 7.71 acres located at 8775 Cloud Leap Court to Columbia Concepts, LLC; council removed the conveyance from the table and approved it after brief historical context was discussed.

- CR 47-2025 (late filed): Confirmation of Christopher Ashman as county auditor; the council introduced and voted to confirm the appointment in the same evening. Mr. Ashman spoke briefly and thanked the council.

Appointments introduced for initial consideration included a long list of commission and board nominees (appointments and confirmations were read into the record and many appointment resolutions were approved together during final consideration). The transcript lists dozens of names for appointment or confirmation to boards and commissions; several were voted together during final consideration and the council approved them by roll call.

Votes at a glance (as recorded in the transcript excerpt): many measures were approved by roll call with the recorded “yes” votes read during the session. Where the transcript excerpt omitted a consolidated roll-call tally for a final action, the action is recorded here as \"passed\" and marked in the actions array as \"approved\" with notes that the transcript did not include a full roll-call in the provided excerpt.

Why it matters: These approvals move forward capital planning, project design and administrative changes (notably the inspector general implementation), and advance an urban renewal project and a conveyance that had been pending. Several council members expressed caution about the size of certain expenditures and requested that project sponsors and county staff provide additional detail going forward.

What happens next: The county will implement transfers and bond authorizations per departmental processes; the confirmed county auditor will assume duties per appointment procedures.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Howard - Legislative Session - Feb 03, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The council approved a series of financial transfers and bond authorizations, multiple appointment resolutions, the Long Reach Village Center urban renewal plan, property conveyance, and measures establishing the inspector general position and related rules.","taxTitle","Howard County, Maryland","taxId",13634,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6668846,"Howard County Council authorizes agreement for Bus Rapid Transit planning amid debate over costs and effectiveness",678,1981000,2659000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2217988-51f30ce2ece7efea75fdae24fe8b05d6&start=1981&end=2659","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2217988-51f30ce2ece7efea75fdae24fe8b05d6/thumbnail_1981000.jpg","/articles/6668846/Howard-County/Maryland/Howard-County-Council-authorizes-agreement-for-Bus-Rapid-Transit-planning-amid-debate-over-costs-and-effectiveness","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6668846-1efd85fe13ec41ccd68a7f70069171de/orig.mp4?Expires=1771155026&Signature=PCkZ4DiG5KgLR4Br5GnmdqZ9IUo-rkOdiC6t-KyWCYr--QXuelJVY5nRx5PZcOrye7a6GgKvwMnWwaLG3IIf6KSGfTPrPZ4qLNgWPbGspRoxmFGpcJohC6JuY5WzYqio8NkbUoWe-9sRDfxNmN1JGrkdR-E8hoem~YdnrgId4o3kya70bM4l~SIkWlhaPOrlNFNGLtl~3TJudZQVl48Cf4qqFmkH91ivrrgg6Xjh-uGyTR6gbUUfUWS-X-EvrMP1THgmfiuKErRrVKZ1D1yUS4E0z5kisb3jOsngUzDBYWjVbywZFb97yEvp2NDlxTmaA4A80nRy-MMHNvtt94xMMg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Howard County Council voted to approve Council Bill 4-2025, a multiyear agreement with the State of Maryland and Montgomery County to participate in a Bus Rapid Transit planning and implementation effort, after an extended debate about funding, ridership data and whether the agreement would commit local dollars without sufficient design detail.

Supporters said the agreement is needed to qualify for outside funding and to advance regional transit planning. One council member said, \"I don't know what the funding reality is, but I know we're gonna need this agreement to get the funding,\" and urged approval so the county could be eligible for state or federal dollars.

Critics questioned whether the project as currently scoped would deliver true bus rapid transit, noting studies were six years old and predated COVID-related commuting changes. Councilmember Youngman called the measure \"not bus rapid transit\" and said, \"These are buses that are gonna sit in traffic,\" arguing the agreement might effectively subsidize Montgomery County’s prior investments without clear local benefits.

Other members pushed back, noting testimony at the work session that ridership had returned to pre-COVID levels and arguing that incremental measures such as transit-priority traffic signals could speed buses and were worth pursuing. One supporter said the agreement did not immediately obligate county spending but authorized the county executive to sign an MOU that could commit the county to a local match later. Councilmembers also discussed the project’s broader regional benefits, including connections to employment centers and hospitals.

The council approved CB 4-2025. The recorded debate emphasized differing views on the quality of the project’s data, the age of supporting studies, and whether the agreement obligates county funds. The transcript records members urging updated analyses and clearer cost and ridership projections as follow-up to the agreement.

Why it matters: The agreement positions Howard County to participate in a regional BRT effort that could alter commuting patterns and require local matching funds; members debated whether that step should follow updated studies and clearer funding commitments.

Next steps: The MOU authorized by the bill could allow the county executive to accept state or federal funds and to commit a local match; council members asked for updated studies to determine whether the project will produce reliable transit-time improvements.","Council approved Council Bill 4-2025 to authorize a multiyear agreement related to Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) with Montgomery County and the state. Members debated whether the measure commits local funds prematurely and whether the project would deliver true BRT benefits.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6668851,"Howard County Council approves HUD Section 108 loan assistance for housing project after divided debate",622,1355000,1977000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2217988-51f30ce2ece7efea75fdae24fe8b05d6&start=1355&end=1977","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2217988-51f30ce2ece7efea75fdae24fe8b05d6/thumbnail_1355000.jpg","/articles/6668851/Howard-County/Maryland/Howard-County-Council-approves-HUD-Section-108-loan-assistance-for-housing-project-after-divided-debate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6668851-4b81cb38b5d8bdea8cbf1c79a2a83064/orig.mp4?Expires=1771155026&Signature=f0~Y58pCCNqa8pvQ9goPgxPIcr~5Zp8~TDZZP8dpI6RWBToodYW8PiCpvNCA~fln1Gl85056JdwTvMR9viAhGcWRUyDOs6mNpt-u6HfkPMvxTzIjd9-E4CwLbn8eQGjTdlyme--L284kcnAcJ6SClURLQtVs4vEqoeV5paVaTWcNMoezYimIIT7jcst6Xjae68CG6c9~UFkewkTgeGe~92QnWUP49NXP7QYj~Ttecx5~bRNaD5GUolXYuUbbo~INWl0uVRWgvVAMWwTItU2SW0o0dKAFi9hoyjPJ2FROg5hOeXeh2~-j18uvTL1u2ywYAkaOOGpvYFNqZtPsQ0mKvg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Howard County Council voted to approve Council Bill 3-2025, a multiyear agreement using U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Section 108 loan guarantee assistance funding, after members rejected a motion to table the measure and engaged in extended debate over project details and fiscal implications.

Council Chair Liz Walsh moved to table the bill, saying a late response from the Department of Housing and Community Development left outstanding questions about whether extending Section 108 benefits to the proposed entity would limit the county's ability to use the program for future projects. \"Until we pay down the loan in a specified amount ... we are not able to make use of that lending ability extended us by virtue of that program,\" Walsh said, describing the 4:45 p.m. email she had received that evening from DHCD Director Kelly Simoneau as insufficient to resolve the council's questions.

Dr. Jones, who said she was \"ready to vote on this this evening,\" opposed tabling and framed the decision in terms of housing need. \"While we can always have more answers, housing is definitely a need,\" Dr. Jones said, urging the council to act.

Other council members were split. Several raised procedural and substantive concerns: requests for clearer accounting of prior county investments in the project, the mix of market-rate and affordable units in the proposal, and whether the loan terms (including interest) represent a prudent use of limited county resources. Council members repeatedly asked for documentation from the proponent and from DHCD that the council said it had not received in advance of the vote.

After debate, a motion to table the bill failed. The council then voted to approve CB 3-2025. The transcript records extensive back-and-forth seeking more documentation and urging the proponent (identified in discussion as Enterprise) to respond more promptly to future council inquiries.

Why it matters: Approval uses a federal loan guarantee mechanism that can affect the county's ability to extend similar credit to other projects until loan obligations are reduced. Council members said they expect more complete information from the proponent and from DHCD on future requests.

What the council directed: The record shows repeated requests for clearer documentation and for the proponent to meet with council members ahead of future requests, but the final approval did not include a condition in the transcript requiring additional reporting back to the council.

Votes and procedural actions recorded in the meeting transcript: a motion to table CB 3-2025 was moved and seconded and failed after roll-call discussion; the final motion to approve CB 3-2025 passed. The transcript does not include a consolidated roll-call vote tally for the final approval in the excerpt provided.","After a divided debate and a failed motion to table, the Howard County Council approved Council Bill 3-2025 to use HUD Section 108 loan guarantee assistance for a housing project. Several council members raised concerns about missing information and the county's future lending capacity.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Howard County Council approves transfers, bonds, appointments and urban renewal measures in February session

Howard County Council authorizes agreement for Bus Rapid Transit planning amid debate over costs and effectiveness

Howard County Council approves HUD Section 108 loan assistance for housing project after divided debate