By Adam Pagnucco.
Here is today’s question.
The county’s more than $7 billion budget funds hundreds of programs. Name one program that you think should be reduced or eliminated and quantify the savings for taxpayers.
Fatmata Barrie (D)
Rather than eliminating a specific program, I would prioritize cost-saving reforms that improve efficiency across systems. One example is implementing an alternative response model for non-violent emergency calls.
A program I would look to establish in Montgomery County that has shown community benefits and cost saving efforts in other jurisdictions is something like Durham’s Holistic Empathetic Assistance Response Team (HEART) program. This offers significant fiscal benefits by diverting non-violent 911 calls away from police, reducing strain on high-cost emergency services. Since its establishment in 2022, it has saved more than 10,000 hours of emergency response services. By establishing a similar program in Montgomery County, we will create cost saving benefits across our law enforcement and emergency responders departments, connect residents with long term care options and reduce the need for 911 calls.
Josie Caballero (D)
There are a few things we need to address, such as, for example, the most recent $34.1 million approval for artificial turf for our schools. This type of purchase is troubling, and I would like to see what else we should be cutting in strange luxuries like artificial turf. When I was a kid a grass field was enough. When I was in the Navy, I saw many things that were just wasteful spending, like painting a dirty wall rather than cleaning it with soap and water. I know many residents have these same types of questions, and I will do my best to be vigilant in cutting needless spending.
Radwan Chowdhury (D)
I would prioritize a comprehensive audit of underperforming or duplicative programs rather than targeting a single service in isolation.
One area to evaluate is administrative overhead across departments, where efficiencies could generate savings. Even a modest 2–3% reduction in administrative costs could result in tens of millions in savings annually.
These funds should be redirected toward high-impact priorities like housing, education, and infrastructure.
Marc Elrich (D)
I would get rid of or modify the massive developer tax giveaways the Council created such as no taxes for 15 years if building on WMATA property, or paying no property taxes for 20 years if converting a building that’s 50% vacant to housing. These are completely unjustified, simply giveaways. The County does deals where we reduce the tax burden, but its use is based on a developer being able to demonstrate the need for that in order to make the development work to create more affordable housing. Giving this away with absolutely no demonstration that a 100% tax credit is necessary for a project to work is frankly a farce, and it will cost the county millions of dollars.
Dana Gassaway (D)
Did not answer the questionnaire.
Scott Goldberg (D)
There is one private organization that the county funds which has over $400,000 in cash assets compared to operating expenses of about $560,000. That means they have reserves of 73% of their annual operating budget. By comparison, if the Montgomery County government had that level of reserves as a percentage, we’d have $5.8 billion sitting in a bank account.
We’re not good at tying funding to effectiveness because we haven’t systematized measuring things. The first plank of the Office of the Inspector General’s mission is: review the effectiveness and efficiency of programs and operations of County government and independent County agencies. That office should be analyzing every corner of county government so decisionmakers can deliver better services for residents.
Hamza Khan (D)
Did not answer the questionnaire.
Matt Losak (D)
Did not answer the questionnaire.
Jim McNulty (D)
The County carries hundreds of funded-but-vacant positions in its budget each year — a structural practice that inflates spending projections without delivering services. A rigorous audit of positions unfilled for more than six months and elimination of those that are chronically vacant would conservatively yield $30–50 million in annual savings without cutting a single active employee or program.
Beyond that, MCPS receives $202.8 million above state Maintenance of Effort while enrollment is declining by approximately 5,000 students. Benchmarking central office administrative costs against peer districts like Howard County — which consistently outperforms MCPS on academic outcomes at lower per-pupil cost — and rightsizing those overhead structures could generate meaningful reinvestment into classrooms rather than bureaucracy. The Council’s job is to fund results, not reward processes. We have not been demanding enough accountability for either.
Jeremiah Pope (D)
Did not answer the questionnaire.
Laurie-Anne Sayles (D-Incumbent)
The County’s budget is large and complex, so it is important to be precise about what we are discussing. There is no single line item for “non-compete contracts” or a consolidated figure for vacant positions. These costs are embedded across personnel, contracted services, and departmental operating budgets, with vacancy and turnover savings already assumed in the base budget.
The County funds more than 10,000 positions and builds in vacancy lapse each year. We also spend significant resources on contracted and consulting services across agencies. Together, these areas present an opportunity for smarter fiscal management without reducing core services.
I support a targeted, temporary hiring pause for non-public-safety and non-essential positions, paired with a disciplined review of discretionary contracts. Consulting, planning, and advisory work should be reduced or delayed where internal capacity exists to perform the work. We should be more intentional about using existing staff before relying on contractors. These steps would not eliminate services, but they would stabilize spending and could generate tens of millions in short-term savings.
Before considering tax increases or new revenue tools, we should exhaust existing fiscal levers, including vacancy management, procurement discipline, and prioritization of core services to balance the budget responsibly.
Prabu Selvam (D)
Despite having a TEBS (Technology and Enterprise Business Solutions) office, individual offices across the county government have too much localized control over IT contracts. This leads to duplication, outdated systems, and lack of connectivity. The result is tens of millions (or more) lost to inefficiency and a less connected customer experience.
In addition to this, there are numerous capital projects in this budget to create new buildings and additions to existing structures. In our county we have large amounts of lower-cost unused office space that could be updated and repurposed at a fraction of the budgeted cost, potentially saving tens of millions more.
Karla Silvestre (D)
The Blueprint for Maryland’s Future is a major, mandated investment, so the focus should not be on eliminating programs but on evaluating what is working best for students and prioritizing those investments moving forward.
Costs grew from $66.3 million in FY23 to $130.8 million in FY27, with the local share reaching $68.9 million. As spending increases, the county and the State should regularly assess which components—such as pre-K, career pathways, and college readiness—are delivering the strongest outcomes and direct resources accordingly.
This approach ensures accountability, protects core investments, and keeps the focus on student success. We must work with our state leaders to accomplish this.
Steve Solomon (D)
There are many places to trim the spending in a budget this large. A big problem has been redundancies in our government between agencies and planning. That’s often why permitting takes too long and is too expensive. We also have numerous grants, incentives, and subsidies that can be cut. We need to continue to grow our public private partnerships with the thousands of nonprofits in Montgomery County to supplement the programs and services that the county government can’t do on their own.
Lelia True (D)
Did not answer the questionnaire.
Vicki Vergagni (D)
Rather than look at one program, I would suggest that the County give up its perception that it has all of the answers and get on with basics first — make choices between “musts” and “preferreds” like its taxpayers are forced to do to remain solvent. The County’s overhead is off the charts (e.g., physical plant, total employee compensation, ROI, top-heavy salaries). To be fair to all, the County should charge fees according to “cost to serve,” which is highly disparate between “commercial” and “residential” property categories. (The “commercial” services are consistently charged to individually-owned garden-apartment condominiums that are actually less expensive to provide services to than traditional homes. Those exorbitant fees are being charged to those least able to pay. Not possible to get affordable homeownership under that paradigm.)
Muhammad Arif Wali (D)
Did not answer the questionnaire.
Sherwin Wells (R)
I cannot select one program that should be reduced or eliminated. I would ask the Office of the Inspector General to investigate all the programs and find Fraud Waste & Abuse and provide a report of savings and then act on the factual report.