By Adam Pagnucco.
Council Member Will Jawando has followed up on his budget proposal to avoid County Executive Marc Elrich’s recommended property tax increase with a detailed list of itemized reductions. This post contains both his memo to his colleagues and the line items he is proposing to change.
The largest elements of Jawando’s plan are:
A $39 million one-time draw on reserves. This appears to be on top of the county executive’s use of $182 million in reserves for ongoing expenditures. Both of these reserve uses may lead to structural deficits in future budgets.
A $30 million reduction below the school board’s request for MCPS, which would still give it a $160 million increase. Note that this is not a cut but a reduced increase.
A $19.4 million reduction to the Montgomery County Green Bank, which according to the county budget “seeks to leverage public and private investments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and is funded with both County and private money.” Jawando describes this as a “one-year operational pause,” but since this is the entire amount in the executive’s recommended budget, it’s tantamount to a zeroing out of funding for FY27.
A $13.5 million reduction to the Group Insurance Retirees non-departmental account, which finances retiree healthcare. In FY26, the county made a one-time draw of $13.5 million from this account to help pay for its budget. The executive would restore that money. Jawando would not. As with the reserve use above, failure to restore this money creates implications for future budgets.
The above four elements comprise a majority of the funding reallocations in Jawando’s proposal to restructure the executive’s budget.
I will give Jawando this: my criticism of him for not supplying details of his budget approach was premature. He is now proving me wrong. Of the three council members running for executive, he has engaged in the process of rewriting the executive’s budget to avoid the property tax increase in the most substantive and transparent way. Whether one agrees with every detail of Jawando’s approach – and there is definitely some cod liver oil in there – he deserves credit for how he has dealt with this issue.
Jawando’s memo to the council and his list of specific itemized reductions appear below.
*****
MEMORANDUM
April 28, 2026
TO: Council President Natali Fani-González & Councilmembers
CC: Craig Howard, Council Executive Director
FROM: Will Jawando, Councilmember At-Large
SUBJECT: My approach to the FY27 Operating Budget
Council President Fani-González is right that this moment calls for a departure from the County Executive’s budget, and I thank her for the transparency she brought to her April 17 proposal. I write today to share a different alternative for your consideration as we continue working together through one of the most difficult budget cycles this Council has faced.
My approach would close the $189 million gap that is created by rejecting the Executive’s tax increases. It does so without raising the property tax, without raising the income tax on working families, and without breaking our contracts with our bargaining units or our municipalities.
Inflation has been compounding for years. Federal layoffs have cost Montgomery County roughly 9,900 jobs. Families are already carrying more than they should have to. Asking them to absorb a 6.3-cent property tax increase and a broad income tax hike on top of all of that is the wrong ask, at the wrong time, of the wrong people.
My approach is based on five commitments that I believe we must honor.
1.) No property tax rate increase.
2.) Full funding of our collective bargaining agreements
3.) Preservation of the Income Tax Offset Credit and the Working Families Income Supplement.
4.) A 7.5 percent inflation adjustment for nonprofit service providers, three times the County Executive’s 2.5 percent.
5.) Substantial funding of the Board of Education’s request, at 99.15 percent of the tax-supported ask.
How this approach closes the gap.
The $189 million breaks down as follows:
- approximately $70 million in itemized program reductions concentrated on deferrals, vendor escalations held to FY26 levels, and phasing of initiatives that have not yet launched, with direct services to vulnerable residents explicitly protected;
- a $25 million reduction in CIP General Fund Current Revenue targeting discretionary expansions rather than existing commitments;
- $30 million from MCPS, representing less than one percent of the Board’s tax-supported request, with the Board retaining full allocation discretion;
- $12 million in department-level operating reductions across MCG and M-NCPPC applied to non-essential operating costs, not personnel or mandated programs;
- a $39 million one-time draw on reserves, leaving reserves above the County’s 10 percent policy floor;
- $8 million from a targeted income tax adjustment of 0.1 percentage points on income above $500,000 only;
- $8.6 million in uncommitted JOBS Act economic development funds that have not been deployed;
- and a $4.6 million bilateral reduction with Montgomery College.
I have begun advancing individual components through the committee process. Yesterday, the EC Committee supported a $4.6 million bilateral reduction with Montgomery College, which was adopted by the Education and Culture Committee. On Friday, I will request that the Education & Culture committee consider a $30 million MCPS reduction consistent with this framework. I will continue bringing additional components forward as the budget process continues.
Lastly, the County Executive’s budget creates a $257 million structural deficit in FY28, putting the county on track for a 9-cent property tax increase next year. With the federal government actively destabilizing our regional economy, that is not a risk Montgomery County can afford to take.
I believe the Council President raises a legitimate question about whether the ITOC is the right long-term tool for delivering tax relief. I have been thinking along similar lines. But the ITOC sits alongside the Supplemental Homeowners Property Tax Credit and the property tax rate, and all three interact to determine how the property tax burden falls across income levels. Eliminating the ITOC without addressing the other two removes a $692 credit from over 192,000 homeowners without ensuring that a structure is in place to protect our working families and seniors. I believe we should reform all three together, building the progressive structure first and phasing out the workarounds second.
I welcome your questions on any of the specifics outlined above.
*****
Jawando’s list of proposed itemized reductions can be downloaded below.