Prince George’s County Council adopts revised MGM local impact spending plan after hours of testimony

The Prince George’s County Council on Feb. 18 adopted a revised spending plan for the county’s MGM local impact grant after a lengthy public hearing in which dozens of residents, nonprofit leaders, students and elected officials urged funding for youth programs, senior services, workforce training and legal and housing assistance.

The council voted to substitute Draft 2 for Draft 1 of CR-005-2025 and then adopted the revised plan. The plan before the council was presented to replace an original multi‑year spending proposal totaling $11,536,600 with a revised Draft 2 totaling $9,736,600 — a $1,800,000 reduction the administration says will be re‑submitted through the legislative process.

Why it matters: the money comes from local impact grant proceeds tied to MGM National Harbor and is intended to improve conditions in the communities within the six‑mile impact area around the casino. Speakers at the hearing urged the council to invest in youth employment, leadership programs, senior services, legal housing assistance and community health interventions — citing long gaps in locally available services.

Council action and immediate effects

The council first approved a motion substituting Draft 2 for Draft 1 by voice and roll call (approved 7–0). The council then moved to adopt the resolution implementing the revised plan; that adoption passed in subsequent votes recorded by the clerk (vote recorded in public minutes as carrying with the council’s affirmative votes). The substituted Draft 2 reduces the original proposal from $11,536,600 to $9,736,600; the administration told the council the $1,800,000 removed from Draft 1 will be resubmitted in a later legislative package so it can “go through the complete process,” according to the committee briefing presented to the council.

Public testimony: youth, seniors, legal aid and workforce training

Dozens of individuals and organizational representatives spoke in support of the plan or programs that rely on its funds. Testimony included: - Jonathan C. Harris, director of the District 8 Student Leadership Academy, who described job and skills training for high school students and said the academy’s students have earned CPR certification and job offers connected to the program. - Students and parents from the District 8 Leadership Academy testified about public‑speaking, mock interviews, networking and the program’s role in college and career readiness. - Senator Anthony Muse urged support for a senior citizen support fund he described as a $4,250,000 allocation and highlighted a Jones House youth jobs program he said would receive $2,000,000 (figures cited in oral testimony). - Thea Wilson, executive director of the Excellence in Education Foundation, and Dr. Felicia Williams, president of Prince George’s Community College, described scholarship and college access work funded through prior impact grants; Dr. Williams told the council the college has been spending down awards rapidly and that the dollars made an immediate difference for hundreds of students. - Community organizations including Victory Church International, the Second District Community Development Corporation, PeerForward, Jacob’s Ladder and other nonprofits described programs addressing domestic violence recovery, reentry and employment, mentoring, aviation and career training, food security and housing stability.

Local Development Council dispute and council response

Delegate Veronica Turner, vice chair of the Local Development Council (LDC), testified that the LDC had been excluded from key decisions and said, “Councilman Burrows has actively excluded the LDC … from decision making process regarding these funds.” She said she believed some allocations had been made without required LDC review and asked that responsible parties be held accountable. That testimony was among the most contested moments of the hearing.

Dr. Lattimore (chair of the LDC) addressed the council later in the hearing and described the same concerns about communication and process but said he supported the youth programs and seniors the proposal funds. “I support it 100%,” he said, while urging better coordination with the LDC going forward.

Vice Chair Edward Burrows, the plan’s sponsor, defended the outreach and said the council had incorporated many priorities the LDC requested. In his remarks he said the council would “restore the integrity of this fund” and that the adopted plan reserved funding for youth employment and senior programming.

Program details and clarifying figures

- Original spending plan (Draft 1): $11,536,600 (committee report) - Revised Draft 2 total: $9,736,600 (committee report) - Amount removed and to be resubmitted through a separate process: $1,800,000 (committee report) - Allocations cited in testimony (as stated by speakers): Senator Anthony Muse referenced a proposed senior citizen support fund of $4,250,000 and a youth jobs investment of $2,000,000. These figures were part of oral testimony and identified as the senator’s description of portions of the plan. - Prince George’s Community College reported rapid spend‑down of prior awards and significant scholarship disbursements to District 8 students across recent terms; the college requested continued multi‑year support to maintain that scholarship pipeline.

Discussion vs. decision

The record shows a clear separation between public comment (testimony, questions and advocacy from residents and nonprofit leaders), council questions and the council’s formal actions. Several council members pressed the administration and LDC for clarifications about statutory duties and transparency during the hearing; council staff and the county attorney’s office reiterated that the LDC’s statutory role is advisory and that the council and executive must still follow state law timetables for review and comment.

What comes next

By law the LDC has a set period to review and comment on a spending plan; the council’s adopted action and the administration’s transmittal begin the next step of that process for a multi‑year plan. Several councilmembers said they will continue follow‑up with the LDC and with community partners to monitor implementation and reporting requirements. The administration told the council it will resubmit displaced proposals through the full legislative process so those items may receive additional review.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to substitute Draft 2 for Draft 1 (CR‑005‑2025): approved (roll call recorded as 7–0 in public minutes). - Adoption of the substituted plan (CR‑005‑2025, Draft 2): adopted by the council (affirmative votes recorded in the public minutes).

Ending

Council members said they would continue oversight of the plan’s implementation and follow up on calls for greater transparency from the LDC. Several speakers asked the council for continued investment in the programs they described; the council’s vote completed the formal adoption step for the revised plan and moved the county to the next stage of administration and reporting.