Committee approves amendments to Montgomery County ‘Values Act,’ adds signage and online reporting portal

The joint committee of Government Operations, Fiscal Policy and Public Safety voted unanimously to recommend Bill 3-26, the county’s administration immigration enforcement guidance commonly called the Montgomery County Values Act, to the full council after approving a package of substantive and technical amendments.

Sponsor Councilmember Mink said the bill builds on the recently enacted Maryland Values Act and is intended to codify protections and clear processes at the county level for residents and frontline staff. “We want Montgomery County, our residents, to know and to see,” Mink said as she opened discussion and thanked staff and community advocates.

Ms. McCartney Green, the attorney who has led drafting, told the committee the bill would require the county executive to publish enforcement guidance for county-owned or county-controlled facilities, require signage on county property, and direct departments on operational guidance. She said the Office of Management and Budget’s fiscal impact statement expects no effect on county revenues but lists signage expenditures in the staff report.

The committee accepted a staff recommendation to remove duplicative language already contained in the Promoting Community Trust Act (Bill 3‑525) that restricts granting access to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) except under exigent circumstances or with a valid warrant. “It would be duplicative to keep it here,” Ms. McCartney Green said; the committee struck lines 35–43 accordingly.

Councilmember Katz successfully proposed an amendment to require the executive to implement an online reporting portal, modeled on a tool used in New Jersey, to allow residents to report immigration enforcement activity on county-owned property without calling 911. Katz said the portal’s purpose is “to provide a mechanism outside of calling 911 to report immigration enforcement activity on county-owned property and involving our police.” Supporters argued the portal will document incidents while keeping emergency lines available for true emergencies; critics were not recorded in the committee discussion.

Sponsor and staff described three signage templates the bill would authorize: (1) exterior entry signs that use language aligned with Attorney General guidance (for example, signage reading “Montgomery County does not consent to the conduct of civil immigration enforcement operations on these premises”), (2) interior transition-area signs that mark movement from public to non-public spaces, and (3) parking/lot signs and templates for private property owners and businesses to adopt. Councilmember Mink said signage and pocket guides will help frontline employees refuse noncompliant requests and bolster public understanding.

Luisa Cardenas, the county’s chief administrative officer, described current implementation: virtual training in the county learning portal, SharePoint-hosted one‑pagers and pocket guides for frontline staff, live trainings already conducted, and templates for signage. Cardenas noted the training currently applies only to county employees and not to contractors or other county agents; extending training to contractors would require additional executive action.

Police leaders cautioned the committee about operational limits. Chief Yamada said local police “cannot interfere” with federal immigration enforcement actions protected by federal authority and that officers can document and serve as witnesses but should not place themselves or the public at added risk. He and other leaders warned that dispatching officers to investigate reported enforcement sightings could divert resources from higher-priority emergency calls.

The committee accepted a block of clarifying technical amendments—defining “county agents,” clarifying “county-owned or county-controlled facility,” requiring appropriate training for county agents performing work at those facilities, and directing the executive to provide signage templates for private owners—without objection. The chair then called the vote; the committee recommended the bill to the full council unanimously as amended.

The matter will proceed to the full County Council for final consideration.