Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dd Rate Increase topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County executive seeks one‑time 1% rate bump for Montgomery County developmental‑disability providers
Summary
The Montgomery County HHS committee reviewed an executive amendment to provide a one‑time 1% payment for developmental‑disability (DD) providers — about $2.8 million countywide — and discussed tranching and FY27 sustainability before agreeing to confer with the executive's recommendation amid looming budget uncertainty.
The Montgomery County Council Health and Human Services Committee reviewed a county executive amendment proposing a one‑time 1% rate increase for developmental‑disability (DD) providers that would cost roughly $2,829,840 for Montgomery County and raise the county’s FY26 contribution for DD services to about $3,480,666 when combined with previously approved supplements.
Clemens Johnson, council staff, told the committee the 1% increase was removed from the final state budget and that the executive is proposing to use county dollars to make providers whole this year. "If state funding is not approved in FY27, it may create significant challenges for providers who will have adapted to the 1 time funding increase," Johnson said, urging caution about sustainability.
Kim Mayo, an administrator with Community Support Network appearing on behalf of the executive, said the 1% figure is an estimate based on prior fiscal years: staff projected DDA revenues at roughly $282 million, which produces the 1% figure when applied to current assumptions. Mayo said the county intends to track the payment separately on purchase orders so it will be clear the funding is a one‑time supplement and not part of the ongoing DD supplement.
Committee staff recommended distributing the payment in tranches and monitoring whether the state will include an equivalent rate increase in FY27. Chair Albanoff said he personally favored the executive’s full 1% recommendation but cautioned that the outcome may depend on an upcoming income‑tax deliberation and final reconciliation: "If that does not go through, all bets are off," he said.
Several council members highlighted the operational importance of the county supplement to providers’ ability to cover wage and benefit increases and warned of cascading effects if federal or state funding shifts. The committee signaled agreement with the executive recommendation to advance the amendment for further budget reconciliation discussions.
Next steps: the amendment will be carried forward in the council’s budget reconciliation process; the committee noted the final FY26 outcome could change pending broader revenue decisions and the full‑council vote.
