Montgomery County committee weighs extra MOVE funding as Jobs Initiative money remains largely unspent

At a December work session of the Montgomery County Council's Economic Development Committee, members grappled with whether to increase funding for the MOVE program or preserve the Jobs Initiative's one-time reserve.

Council President Natalie Fani Gonzales said the county should be cautious about open-ended increases and suggested keeping expectations modest: "if you ask me right now in this very 2nd how much money should the account executive be proposing, I think it will be crazy to say anything beyond $2,000,000," she said. Gonzales said MOVE is a useful marketing tool but cautioned the county cannot "say yes to every single application" without fiscal limits.

County executive staff and finance officials described a sharp imbalance between programs. "There have been 31 applications received... proposing to create 339 jobs associated with $3,500,000 of encumbered awards," council staff said, describing the job creation fund's verification timeline. Department of Finance's Dennis Hetman warned the three appropriations created in FY24 are not as fungible as the county's regular EDF GLP and that perfect alignment of supply and demand is unlikely.

Representing the executive branch, a staffer asked the committee to consider a supplemental $1.5 million to finish awarding existing MOVE applications this fiscal year: "We anticipate a need for an additional $1,500,000 based on the number of applications that we already have," the official said, noting community and broker demand for the program.

Council members pushed back on swapping Jobs Initiative money into MOVE. Several members urged keeping MOVE and Jobs Initiative separate because they serve distinct objectives: MOVE subsidizes new or expanded local office leasing, while Jobs Initiative awards aim to attract strategic, higher-paying positions. Councilmember Balcom said the Jobs Initiative is longer-term and targeted, and that changing its funding could reduce available support for strategic-industry deals.

Questions about outcomes and transparency animated the discussion. Council members asked how many jobs MOVE actually produces compared with applications and sought better performance metrics. Councilmember Glass urged a data-driven approach and said the committee should determine whether the Jobs Initiative's original allocations were overly optimistic: "that money is literally sitting in a bank account when we have data-proven, data-driven programs that need assistance," Glass said.

Staff cautioned about the timing of disbursements for Jobs Initiative awards: many job-creation payments require months to verify hires and in some cases a multi-year verification window. On reporting, Councilmember Lorien Sales pressed the county for demographic and geographic breakdowns tied to Job Initiative awards and outreach: staff said awardee names will be released after agreements are signed and that demographic snapshots can be included in future quarterly reports.

The committee did not take a formal vote at the meeting. Members asked staff to return with more refined metrics showing the relationship between MOVE awards and actual job creation, demographic summaries for the Jobs Initiative, and options for FY27 budgeting. The committee also discussed whether to recommend a one-time FY26 supplemental versus a longer-term change in appropriations.