Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Budget Fy26 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Montgomery County Council adds potential budget cuts to reconciliation list, raising prospect of $50 million MCPS reduction
Summary
Council voted 8-3 to add a staff package of potential reductions and other items to the FY26 reconciliation list; the list includes a $50 million MCPS reduction and leaves a budget gap that could require $37.9 million–$85.9 million more in resources or cuts depending on income tax action.
Montgomery County Council on Wednesday moved to add a staff-prepared package of possible reductions and other adjustments to the FY26 budget reconciliation list, a step that puts a proposed $50 million cut to Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) on the table.
The vote to add the items to the reconciliation list passed 8-3 after debate. Council staff presented a status update showing the council had already approved $4,400,000 in reductions and placed $50,400,000 in additions on the reconciliation list. The staff update said resource changes approved so far would reduce available FY26 resources by about $40,200,000, driven in part by the council’s earlier rejection of the executive’s proposed 3.5¢ property tax increase and a rejection of proposed changes to the income tax offset credit.
Council staff member Howard told the council: “In terms of reductions, the council has approved 4,400,000 in reductions with an additional $306,000 in reductions that remain for consideration on the reconciliation list. In terms of additions, the council has placed a total of $50,400,000 in additions on the reconciliation list.” He also laid out the council’s income-tax scenarios: no increase (no new revenue), a prospective rise to 3.3% beginning tax year 2026 (about $25,000,000 additional in FY26), or a retroactive increase to 3.3% beginning in tax year 2025 (about $75,000,000 additional in FY26).
Howard summarized the gap facing the council: if the council accepts the additional reductions currently proposed, it would still need about $37,900,000 in further reductions or resources to approve a balanced budget; accepting all of the proposed reductions and additions would raise that shortfall to about $85,900,000.
During the ensuing discussion several council members warned of the consequences if large cuts to MCPS move forward. Council member Glass said she would not support putting that scale of reductions on the table: “We should not be putting the opening of contracts on the table,” she said, and noted MCPS had identified legally required needs in special education that leave little room to cut without risking noncompliance and potential lawsuits.
Council Vice President Geelongo said extensive outreach to educators and families convinced her cuts at the level proposed would be “horrible” and stressed that prior decisions on tax increases affect the county’s current choices. She urged the council to consider modest local revenue options rather than deep cuts to schools.
Council member Sales said his commitment to fully funding MCPS remained “unwavering” and called a potential $50 million reduction “unacceptable.” Council member Albinaz moved to add the staff-recommended package to the reconciliation list; Council member Baltham seconded. The motion passed by voice vote, recorded as 8 in favor and 3 opposed.
Council discussion clarified that adding items to the reconciliation list does not immediately enact cuts; it makes those items available for later straw votes and final action. Council President (presiding) and staff reminded members that straw votes on adjustments were scheduled for the coming Thursday and that final action on the FY26 budget was scheduled for the following Thursday, May 20. Staff also said the council would hold a public hearing on a proposed change to the county income tax rate the next day.
Council members asked staff to produce more granular “tranches” of potential MCPS reductions (for example, multiple levels within a 20% tranche) so members would have clearer options during final reconciliation. Staff agreed to prepare that analysis.
The council’s discussion also identified other specific potential changes noted by staff and members, including an $18,600,000 pension shift that had moved from the state to the county’s cost and roughly $1,100,000 for technology modernization to maintain Chromebooks and related services. Council members and staff repeatedly emphasized the procedural distinction between placing items on the reconciliation list for consideration and actually approving reductions or revenue changes in a final vote.
