Montgomery County Council rejects amendment to raise near-term bond limits; debate centers on schools and debt
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
A proposal to increase FY27–28 spending affordability limits to $330 million and to align the six-year CIP with the county executive failed 3–8 after extended debate about debt service, school logistics and uncertain revenues.
A proposal to raise Montgomery County's near-term borrowing limits and match the county executive's six‑year capital plan failed on Feb. 3 after a lengthy debate by the County Council.
Council member Will Jawando moved to increase the FY27 and FY28 spending affordability guideline limits to the February-allowable maximum of $330,000,000 per year and to align the council's six-year aggregate with the executive's recommended capital improvements program. The motion was seconded and then debated for more than an hour.
Supporters argued raising the limits now would preserve purchasing power and avoid cost escalation. "If we don't start bending the curve, they're gonna cost more and it's gonna be worse," Jawando said, urging the council to give the budget process more flexibility to address urgent capital needs, especially in school facilities.
Opponents cautioned that current revenue projections and operating-budget pressures counsel caution. Council Member Katz said he would not support raising the limits now and argued that the GO Committee's recommendation represented a fiscally responsible approach. Council members cited the risk that higher debt service could crowd out operating priorities and noted lingering uncertainty about state aid and other revenues.
County staff clarified the mechanics of the motion on the record: the amendment would increase the year‑1 and year‑2 GO bond limits from $300 million to $330 million and seek to match the executive's recommended six-year total during the CIP process. Staff and multiple members also emphasized that exceeding the SAG later in the CIP would require an eight‑vote supermajority.
After debate that focused on balancing urgent capital needs (notably deferred maintenance and school HVAC projects) against long-term fiscal constraints, the council conducted a hand count: three members voted in favor and eight opposed. The amendment failed.
The council then accepted the Government Operations Committee's recommendation to confirm the October SAG limits; the committee's recommendation was approved unanimously. The council's budget process will continue with public hearings and further review of the FY27 capital budget and the FY27–32 CIP.