[{"_1":2,"_135":-5,"_136":-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",[32,75,87,99,111,123],{"_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",6559542,"mediaKeyId","3200575-be29fd6613540ff00a9193322ea999b9","parentId",3200575,"title","Votes at a glance: Howard County Council May legislative session","audioSeconds",7917,"startMs",331000,"endMs",8248000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3200575-be29fd6613540ff00a9193322ea999b9&start=331&end=8248","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3200575-be29fd6613540ff00a9193322ea999b9/thumbnail_331000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6559542/Howard-County/Maryland/Votes-at-a-glance-Howard-County-Council-May-legislative-session","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6559542-feb6a880678c52e277d96cbbcb6c1360/orig.mp4?Expires=1771007331&Signature=PVHVqbv1T7RmVQpUYR08x7e0L31SFcS1rF6chR~7-g5soPzCYi17XTcGKpyjLF9KshfVIr8mg1bIHWr3JdPeeJ0omKIjR0AXYze6diIYbMNrhy7NfT8TVsIsaZtIFhQMb12l6-1Ebl1ttxN4Z6bLotiLIzlyEy7uBvZe7K1BmMM3GssUu-PcEH1utfjjtBU8Yvyk8sFGwdVBnZpYclB5KjurxrVvK2w329OWERMVoar6rihMC3BikxO85L4jQxhcc3XIlMKdj7JqA9Tcfiybf0Gy69fKTGD5ShS5hcVQVMAJuP6Q9cpzdHnJLIesEbE-a5qYxgdl9SvSbbbGvn3sqw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Howard","date","2025-05-05T00:00:00Z","article","The Howard County Council took multiple formal actions during its May legislative session. Below is a concise listing of final votes, outcomes and short notes about implementation where applicable.

- Approval of journals and minutes: Council approved the legislative journal for 04/07/2025 and a set of budget/public hearing minutes for April dates (motion passed; clerk called roll).

- Appointment resolutions: The council read a series of appointment resolutions and voted to confirm multiple appointments in a single vote (Council Resolutions 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 701, 702, 703, 704, 705, 706, 707, 708 and 79 were moved and passed together). One appointment (CR 70-20-25, appointment of Ashlyn M. Hood to advisory board on consumer protection) was later moved to table and the motion to table passed.

- CR 80-20-25 (endorsing and authorizing application to Maryland Transit Administration): Passed by roll call.

- CB 22-20-25 (adopt county flag): Passed (see separate article).

- CB 23-20-25 (Howard County Fire Prevention Code): Passed by roll call.

- CB 24-20-25 (Howard County building code): Council voted to extend the life of the bill once to 07/21/2025 and then to table the bill; extension passed and tabling motion passed.

- CB 25-20-25 (property maintenance code for rental housing): Council voted to extend the life of the bill once to 07/21/2025 and then tabled the bill; extension and tabling motions passed.

- CB 26-20-25 (plumbing and gas fitting code): Council voted to extend the life of the bill once to 07/21/2025 and then tabled the bill; extension and tabling motions passed.

- CB 27-20-25 (open meetings for waiver petitions): Failed after debate (see separate article).

- CB 28-20-25 (fiscal analysis responsibilities): Passed (see separate article).

- CB 29-20-25 (subdivision and land development regulations — waivers and repeal): Failed on final vote.

- CB 30-20-25 (Human Rights Commission membership) as amended: Passed (see separate article).

- CB 31-20-25 (Inspector General advisory board technical correction): Passed; recorded as a technical correction to earlier language.

- Removal from table and approval: Council removed previously tabled items (e.g., CR 20-20-25 appointment of Margaret Old Gold to Housing & Community Development Board) and approved them upon vote.

- Administrative timing changes: Council voted to suspend rules to move the June legislative amendment pre-file deadline from Wednesday, July 2 to Friday, June 27 (motion passed). A proposed change to November pre-file was withdrawn for later consideration.

Notes on votes that were tabled or extended: council frequently used motions to extend the life of bills (generally to 07/21/2025) and then tabled several code-revision bills to allow additional work between the council and administration.

This session covered dozens of introduced items; the record and council clerk’s roll call provide the official tally for each recorded motion.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Howard - Legislative Session - May 05, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Summary of final actions taken during the Howard County Council May legislative session, including appointments, code adoptions, tabling/extension votes and other council business.","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},6559545,"Council votes to move fiscal analysis responsibilities to legislative staff",247,4050000,4297000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3200575-be29fd6613540ff00a9193322ea999b9&start=4050&end=4297","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3200575-be29fd6613540ff00a9193322ea999b9/thumbnail_4050000.jpg","/articles/6559545/Howard-County/Maryland/Council-votes-to-move-fiscal-analysis-responsibilities-to-legislative-staff","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6559545-056f1de438c22256e264fbac1e7cdf75/orig.mp4?Expires=1771007331&Signature=kfxNH79xT3Vhx9pi7bQuFbD5nCOEg7qywfXTumn6w7Pk63Htz0OIBGC38YBxKti8coSBVpJQaeEbr65qiWSkcvAYsc2Etiij4yr-Sogc59HKj9ba5frVIDNEbn8Ph4fFpYvbR14sWbTWJlTzuCaHawYusmR3jRMg1hP06h8L3n51X1-nxtjLowPSO9KE7BhY7UQCwE0XIH7sWdqXL9HsxBsIExdSmdD2j1VNI-cYMnn4upgV3qXJ7kNR9RRaGxyBQVTE5AwAow4y6xkY-M77mKBV6wqjxm~CK~9GcxgpHBYzKZLE8oly6o0XBPdHnSHdKF8DPQKVujDyOWCUdQl-zg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Howard County Council approved Council Bill 28-20-25 to move fiscal-analysis responsibilities from the county auditor’s office to the council’s legislative staff. Supporters said the change will align responsibilities with peer jurisdictions and allow the auditor’s office to focus on audits and irregularities.

Opponents, including Councilmember Deb Young, argued the auditor’s office is the most qualified and that moving fiscal notes risks politicizing analyses. Supporters noted the council is actively recruiting deputy positions for the legislative staff and expected staff to be in place within the 61-day implementation window included in the bill’s language.

Council roll-call votes recorded the measure passing. Proponents said the change will create a clearer separation between auditing functions and legislative fiscal analysis, while opponents urged safeguards to preserve technical independence.

Outcome: CB 28-20-25 passed; legislative staff will begin preparing fiscal analyses after staff hiring concludes and implementation steps are completed.","Council Bill 28-20-25 passed to transfer responsibility for fiscal analyses of legislation to the council’s legislative staff, a change sponsors say aligns with other jurisdictions and frees the county auditor to focus on audits.",{"_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},6559550,"Council tightens training and membership language for Human Rights Commission, approves amendments",851,4653000,5504000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3200575-be29fd6613540ff00a9193322ea999b9&start=4653&end=5504","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3200575-be29fd6613540ff00a9193322ea999b9/thumbnail_4653000.jpg","/articles/6559550/Howard-County/Maryland/Council-tightens-training-and-membership-language-for-Human-Rights-Commission-approves-amendments","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6559550-898cf4dfda49d3474ec722107c6aeda5/orig.mp4?Expires=1771007331&Signature=OlAIv~ayvtdlPGVjCz3HWyanw5r1JmUrKCKgi5RcQ3HaFhCUN3RUS7R7VVAXoHzFbf3IA8Ssq~6wy~DX~ueji~jZgnM4g8Gbsa~HrU4f740qh7QgVm5xHozcvOI~jbYDvG80~H5kqjpHwFPSvuVYvWdkeyOqw1w6m0J9IPaZ4kkJbQTFAZKpchhdv6K~rgQnoTGAb8RrEFW5AewycmGy8mHgT~92xmU6wY~inC1EcPIhJs3j-jHe45JSrTX0khKpkPVyufEo2ROzazwOnJL3ZHygqQtPRpdgSLQA7F3GJiA6OzTOx5IyzqS~Wvf5uEXuetPpTKspUmKEhDpYiTke7w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Howard County Council approved amendments to Council Bill 30-20-25 that modify membership qualifications and add required training for members of the Human Rights Commission.

The final package retained a requirement that members “receive training necessary to carry out the functions and duties of the commission” and modified qualification language to broaden access while preserving training standards. Councilmembers debated whether to require professional expertise for some commission seats or to permit a broader pool of applicants with demonstrated interest. In their discussion, several members recounted serving on the commission earlier in their careers and argued that overly strict qualifications could exclude willing volunteers who later proved effective.

Sponsor statements and debate noted tension between ensuring investigative and conciliation expertise and encouraging broad volunteer participation. The council ultimately approved Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 (technical changes) and Amendment 1 as amended; the amended bill passed in final roll call.

Councilmembers emphasized the commission’s education and outreach role alongside complaint intake. The meeting record shows votes supporting the amended language and a clerk call of the final roll call where the chair and all other members registered yes.

Outcome: CB 30-20-25 as amended passed. The Office of Human Rights and Equity will work with the commission on training and onboarding to ensure new members meet the updated expectations.","The council approved amendments to the Human Rights Commission membership and training requirements (Council Bill 30-20-25), adding training requirements and revising qualification language after several amendments and debate over eligibility rules.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6559555,"Council approves transit‑oriented development incentives, including eight‑year APFO exemption for qualifying projects",2276,5710000,7986000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3200575-be29fd6613540ff00a9193322ea999b9&start=5710&end=7986","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3200575-be29fd6613540ff00a9193322ea999b9/thumbnail_5710000.jpg","/articles/6559555/Howard-County/Maryland/Council-approves-transitoriented-development-incentives-including-eightyear-APFO-exemption-for-qualifying-projects","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6559555-76cb28d15d051dc1b4a8b42a337490dc/orig.mp4?Expires=1771007331&Signature=nCcy51swVTtqQ71NfCwvHC~W2zkT9NL8fF8FZWPZPCYKg5IaOwc8o3i0PGbO25ZRWM-N4kmgISr0Ar7MHBeaIZswE~FH6Ksk~qLhdOa04lGbgEFb8~-wIja10UImwvTWTHj7Yrl9jJntHJhsR1DdVnnh89kxKngTVUfh1K0U4vegVow0Bt3LRtqzGehQmHQqFZ0sAnTtjKlAFvcEoxhMiDydxGzgPsi2bhOz2Ru3xUX4MaQ8Fc1A-erpv7Y7EmV729ewfwF7sHbPYk-DitxMv-udZy-HOIpqn6kdoHMAXQU63a0A913F1zeWOP~NRXxSPLyra8V5Dp0K5uaGTMUosA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Howard County Council approved Council Bill 18-20-25 as amended, a package of incentives for development in designated transit‑oriented development (TOD) areas that includes a pilot offering an eight-year APFO (Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance) exemption and payment-in-lieu options for qualifying projects.

Sponsor Councilmember Christiana Rigby framed the measure as a response to the county’s housing needs and a targeted way to encourage mixed-income housing near transit nodes. The final, amended bill requires set-asides for accessible units and modifies design and accessibility references to Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS) or International Code Council guidelines, adds reporting requirements and includes a sunset provision.

Council debate focused on three topics: the geographic scope of the bill, student-yield and school capacity concerns, and the percentage mix of disability-income housing units (DIHUs), low-income and moderate-income housing units required to qualify for the pilot. Several amendments were proposed and considered during the session. Amendment 7 (as amended) won majority support; that amendment set accessibility design standards (UFAS/ICC), required a share of units be accessible, kept a requirement for DIHUs, and included reporting and a sunset provision.

Opponents warned the APFO exemption could exacerbate school overcrowding in some TOD locations and questioned including several maps of TOD areas in the codified text. Supporters said student-generation modeling for high‑rise apartments in TODs showed lower school yield and argued the incentive package would increase tax base and deliver needed affordable and accessible units where the county has been underserved.

The council also debated municipal mechanics, including whether the ordinance should apply to all TODs or be geographically limited; at one point a motion to withdraw or alter an amendment map was raised and the sponsor withdrew Amendment 8 to keep deliberations moving.

The bill passed in its amended form. Supporters described the result as a compromise that sets accessibility and affordable-unit targets while allowing pilot flexibility; opponents cited the risk to school capacity and property-tax revenue in affected locations.

Next steps: county staff will implement the pilot program and report back as required by the bill’s reporting schedule and sunset provisions.","Council Bill 18-20-25, creating a pilot to incentivize disability-income and moderate-income units in transit‑oriented development (TOD) areas and offering an eight-year APFO exemption and other incentives, passed after multiple amendments and lengthy debate about schools, maps and community impacts.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6559559,"Council rejects bill to require public meetings for environmental waiver decisions",1255,2774000,4029000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3200575-be29fd6613540ff00a9193322ea999b9&start=2774&end=4029","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3200575-be29fd6613540ff00a9193322ea999b9/thumbnail_2774000.jpg","/articles/6559559/Howard-County/Maryland/Council-rejects-bill-to-require-public-meetings-for-environmental-waiver-decisions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6559559-674a2637f4681a19e794cbee36fd9ab9/orig.mp4?Expires=1771007331&Signature=j0TvQcGZSYRXO-heK06ruV~Z5sIV7CJVLib0mpTkdwinozHlV3Vo9zrAmE2JBt0LuGlT6~KdB1F6NdmsHVb6I5KeIGR7HQ8pvewbBoSFsEWT0AWYvcUSVd1aBtX2iaX5t4GzDEvDN-5rzkelrMw73XmWLP9RyK6wAfBmOGhiEiXl-3~2yJRs~GYQ-OENE6jATTEIp6xLQKuykqq41hM9fVqrW3GrnNbbxw0H4ULPm9d9oF~ZOIw4W7hB91PqaI9wTQuO4NR1~BE~ykoHZPLm6iHikqlbvpHqL4jWM8OEacQfF7UOXQXGlWEYIgsJ6eiYwD2bqZmq40JlBY8UkRTW-A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Howard County Council voted down Council Bill 27-20-25, a proposal that would have required directors and administrators to hold public meetings that comply with the Open Meetings Act when considering certain environmental waiver petitions.

Sponsor Councilmember Liz Walsh argued the current waiver process lacks transparency and that the change would give residents advance notice of waiver meetings and make agendas and minutes publicly available at least 10 days before meetings. Walsh cited examples in the Tiber Branch/Old Ellicott City watershed and said several waivers had been approved without timely public notice. “All this bill does is say you continue to do exactly what you're doing but you need to do it in a way that people can be aware that it's happening,” she said.

Opponents said the change risked turning every inter-departmental decision into a public meeting and could invite undue pressure on technical staff. One councilmember warned the requirement could create a “slippery slope” forcing many internal meetings into the public sphere and said it could make waiver deliberations subject to lobbying that would slow routine, low-consequence decisions.

After more than an hour of debate about transparency, notice and the capacity of departments to work without public pressure, the council voted to reject CB 27-20-25. The vote results recorded during roll call showed a majority opposed and the clerk announced the bill failed.

Councilmembers repeatedly debated alternatives including better pre-submission notice, stronger internal restrictions on ex parte lobbying, and administrative improvements to post waiver materials earlier on departmental websites. Walsh and others said improved notice would help neighbors learn about proposals before land clearing and tree removal begins; opponents said existing avenues — pre-submission meetings and community meetings — are the appropriate place for public engagement.

Outcome: CB 27-20-25 failed; sponsors and opponents said they will continue to explore transparency improvements for the waiver process.","Council Bill 27-20-25, which would have required directors to meet in public to consider environmental waiver petitions, failed after a lengthy debate over transparency versus administrative flexibility.",{"_33":124,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":125,"_41":126,"_43":127,"_45":128,"_47":129,"_49":130,"_51":131,"_53":132,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":133,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":134,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6559564,"Howard County Council adopts new county flag over objections about process",754,1776000,2530000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3200575-be29fd6613540ff00a9193322ea999b9&start=1776&end=2530","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3200575-be29fd6613540ff00a9193322ea999b9/thumbnail_1776000.jpg","/articles/6559564/Howard-County/Maryland/Howard-County-Council-adopts-new-county-flag-over-objections-about-process","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6559564-cb75b3c3633ea71c2f7f68fe8b49b510/orig.mp4?Expires=1771007331&Signature=R7BOB~60F78QVB16WG3uc6zsU-DOoAJC1DppaGONudpw9kZJY2IohZVMP1HQrFp8Fr8Whc7sIkDPTiyuVYwCdBvIu4YZbZguWZtpQoxDwzKZG6ilCC4p~R~JjlAZe9D~WQFCjR2syLkSFP-v0s9YtwC16ZB48Ew5slnxvvDl7da60XbLQq~5jshfASZEuypytKSZ9yuKANW3eklOOb5ySP-QNUWfVK7pz7sHefMjwFG491~syIUG945uD88SLJhpTcSGY4HsLbiybVDb1ljwqVr559b~XU4lbtDOMk1d1VPQ-0e-2n53yYj1oRtYNEW-UOj2jqEpnsv3P4n8ubBZlg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Howard County Council voted to adopt a new county flag, approving Council Bill 22-20-25 after members debated whether the council or the county executive should control the selection process.

The council approved the bill on a 4-1 vote. Chair Liz Walsh cast the lone no, arguing the charter gives the council explicit authority over the county seal and flag and that the council had ceded that authority in practice. “By charter, this is one of our very few actual rights... section 9-09,” Walsh said during debate.

Supporters described the flag-selection process as having broad community participation. Councilmember Christiana Rigby said the process let “more people from our community hav[e] input, going through this process, building consensus, on a flag design than the 5 of us.” Rigby and other supporters said volunteers and commission members had invested months of work and deserved a final resolution.

Walsh told colleagues she had received emails raising questions about the process and the commission’s adherence to expert advice on color and fabrication. She said the council’s charter provision gave the council the authority to adopt or alter the county flag and that she wanted the body to exercise that authority directly in the future. Rigby and others replied that the commission process had expanded public participation and that revisiting the decision at a later date would disrespect months of volunteer work.

The vote: Chair Liz Walsh voted no; Dr. Jones, Deb Young, Christiana Rigby and Mr. Youngman voted yes.

The council also noted there had been public hearings and written comments on the design; council staff said a hybrid public hearing would be held May 19 for additional testimony on legislation introduced that night.

Council action on the flag means the new design will be available for county use; implementation details such as production and issuance were discussed as administrative matters that staff will coordinate.

The council moved on to other business after the vote, including several bills and resolution votes scheduled for final consideration.","The Howard County Council approved Council Bill 22-20-25 to adopt a new county flag after a debate over who should control the selection process under the county charter.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: Howard County Council May legislative session

Council votes to move fiscal analysis responsibilities to legislative staff

Council tightens training and membership language for Human Rights Commission, approves amendments

Council approves transit‑oriented development incentives, including eight‑year APFO exemption for qualifying projects

Council rejects bill to require public meetings for environmental waiver decisions

Howard County Council adopts new county flag over objections about process