[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6541700,"mediaKeyId","5899054-30cae7e6b99cdf5bf9545a4d0a155d0e","parentId",5899054,"title","Votes at a glance: council approves bargaining agreements, bonds, leases and appointments","audioSeconds",141,"startMs",3645000,"endMs",3786000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5899054-30cae7e6b99cdf5bf9545a4d0a155d0e&start=3645&end=3786","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5899054-30cae7e6b99cdf5bf9545a4d0a155d0e/thumbnail_3645000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6541700/Howard-County/Maryland/Votes-at-a-glance-council-approves-bargaining-agreements-bonds-leases-and-appointments","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6541700-e527d70f8cc289b8385666f04d5f12a7/orig.mp4?Expires=1770506680&Signature=UiNJahugt4USWEAP3Ve577xqLIiXjfzrmyn4Hsqq1BwWisMRjja2aWjvwAV07VrOArSLNR79Ybk13I2rK7OBH3mWxjGmvAs2nm0hbrq7o3jfxjpn8sRrcAw78-~yJAdNrznTfUS7YliUXYwrXyYmH27~cTAi54tMImtj8QPBL3N~Q672irlcHSceegyR1WRNyv90Klmg-~jrmIT5B52J~WiqhvfFCWa2CmAWeqkO8tumb3Tzqo55QSp5A6if6ne7i1z1eA6PvFGvSinYWSO7hcWx6RjvMx7QMfvKnuxJ5A1~SEuuT99JjKWA5VP4ge59QuU2zRDpDJ~HTY2KZi7MFA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Howard","date","2025-10-06T00:00:00Z","article","The Howard County Council completed a number of relatively non-controversial actions during the October legislative session alongside longer debates on the Gateway master plan and senior tax credits.

Key votes and outcomes (selected):
- CB 61 20 25 (collective bargaining agreement): Approved. The county adopted the labor agreement with American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Howard County Local 3080 (AFL-CIO).
- CB 62 20 25 (pay plan amendment for Local 3080 and corrections management): Approved.
- CB 63 20 25 (Board of Education Capital Improvement Program amendment, FY 2026): Approved pursuant to Title 5, Subtitle 3 of the Education Article (as read into the record) for submission to the Interagency Commission on School Construction.
- CB 64 20 25 (lease agreement, Howard County Arts Council, ~22,940 rentable sq ft at 8360 Court Avenue): Approved.
- CB 65 20 25 (issuance/sale of up to $150 million in consolidated public improvement bonds and up to $50 million in Metropolitan District bonds): Approved.
- CR 166 20 25 (investment policy): Approved.
- CR 168 20 25 (conveyance of reclaimed water easement parcels): Approved.

Appointments and confirmations: The council introduced and approved multiple appointment resolutions for boards and commissions (examples read into the record and approved together): confirmations and reappointments to the Board of Appeals, Commission for Veterans and Military Families, Commission on Disabilities, Board of Library Trustees, Police Accountability Board, and others were moved and approved in grouped votes.

Tabled or withdrawn items:
- CR 167 20 25 (payment in lieu of taxes for 55-acre solar facility, 3855 Manor Lane): The council voted to table the resolution.
- CR 169 20 25 (easement for BGE at Elkridge Library): tabled to allow additional community input on proposed EV parking locations.
- CR 126 20 25 (appointment): withdrawn by motion.

How the votes were recorded: Most of these bills were moved, seconded and called by the council administrator with roll-call votes; the transcript records the item introductions and the calls for votes (Chair Walsh and other members recorded as Yes/No; in nearly all the listed items the motion carried).","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Legislative Session - Day 14","oneSentenceSummary","Councilmembers approved a package of labor agreements, capital and bond measures, an arts-council lease, and numerous appointments in the October legislative session.","taxTitle","Howard County, Maryland","taxId",13634,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6541705,"Council adopts Gateway master plan with housing goals, environmental caveats and development safeguards",6049,3803000,9852000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5899054-30cae7e6b99cdf5bf9545a4d0a155d0e&start=3803&end=9852","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5899054-30cae7e6b99cdf5bf9545a4d0a155d0e/thumbnail_3803000.jpg","/articles/6541705/Howard-County/Maryland/Council-adopts-Gateway-master-plan-with-housing-goals-environmental-caveats-and-development-safeguards","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6541705-7afb0deb8341a6cd33c5bee0ff1319d8/orig.mp4?Expires=1770506680&Signature=PqAhAHQv9nmWEzM-iSjp7HO1SnDtaCM~SOWFeg35GbXMCLeC1q5mVma6WvcYOD-OP1MDSKnpgTkxzZjb2Wfg99SCSweAV7OrgG98sjZ3qXamBXa7JnX~Uy9Bck9tc5WGYUgSiaxZn4ccuRwkPwyct~D0EJS4KTlvXZT5~ZnUwQgB3bzI9C9mDi7EKLx3SvHbCkLmST2eTqT-egzQH8ALtOO6fJaJf2xwompaFXXVnhjnImPUuglvhgp88s0pHL7oSN1-ut~9idUXMY1yXN9ih-4ArscYwUp7Z-Plbbv8BGsJjxhitK0Jsv2GN1JirdBFGbYaaK3qTlvl~eGYPCYc~A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Howard County Council passed Council Bill 66, the Gateway master plan general-plan amendment, after lengthy debate and multiple amendments addressing housing, environmental constraints and infrastructure.

The plan: CB 66 is a 30-year vision for the area known as Gateway that the Department of Planning and Zoning (DPZ) developed with property owners and public input. It envisions mixed-use redevelopment, new employment and housing opportunities, and major transportation and infrastructure investments.

Why it mattered in this session: The Gateway plan generated the meeting's most sustained debate. Councilmembers and public speakers focused on three recurring issues: (1) how to protect public health and safety where federal EPA covenants and brownfield restrictions exist; (2) how to ensure affordable housing is delivered (the council adopted a 20% moderate-income target for new units); and (3) how to preserve opportunities for research-and-development and industrial employment while making future residential development compatible with legacy uses.

Notable amendments and outcomes:
- Housing targets: The council adopted language to target 20% moderate-income housing units for new dwelling units in Gateway (amendment 6 as amended). The text also encourages public/private/nonprofit partnerships, and includes a provision that at least 10% of new affordable units should be accessible to persons with disabilities.
- Brownfields and EPA restrictions: Multiple amendments, many proposed and backed by Councilmember Young, inserted explicit references to brownfield sites and EPA covenants. The council added text noting parcels where remediation is required and that some contaminated parcels cannot support residential uses until remediation occurs. Several amendments strengthening that language passed; others failed, leaving some councilmembers critical that the plan did not go further.
- Compatibility and industrial uses: The council debated whether to limit or require shielding for industrial and data-center generators. Several amendments inserted language that certain industrial uses should be \"shielded by a structure\" when near residences; some amendment language passed while others (that would more stringently limit research-and-development or certain uses) failed.
- Infrastructure and funding: The council added language calling for planning for water, sewer and other infrastructure needs, and rejected an amendment that would have removed Tax Increment Financing (TIF) as a potential tool. Members explicitly discussed the need for coordination with State Highway and CSX for multimodal access.

Quotes from the floor capture the tension: \"Some parcels are brownfields with EPA restrictions,\" Councilmember Natalie Young said, pressing for clearer protections; \"houses should not be located next to brownfields,\" Young added. Council Chair Liz Walsh said the plan \"is a great start\" but acknowledged imperfections. Several council members urged DPZ and future councils to continue refining regulatory and remediation pathways.

Votes and outcome: After considering more than a dozen numbered amendments (many of them amendments to amendments), the council approved CB 66 as amended.

Community implications and next steps: The plan sets goals and a framework rather than immediate zoning changes. DPZ will develop implementing zoning regulations and will coordinate remediation, infrastructure planning and financing strategies. The council directed that responsible agencies be identified for strategic actions in the plan; the Office of Procurement and Contract Administration was named in one amendment as responsible for pursuing prevailing-wage or project-labor approaches where public financing is used.

Ending: Supporters described the plan as a long-term framework to bring jobs and housing to Gateway; critics said more concrete remediation commitments are needed before residential development is promoted adjacent to contaminated parcels.","After extended debate and dozens of amendments, the Howard County Council approved CB 66, a 30-year Gateway master plan that sets a 20% moderate-income housing target, adds compatibility and infrastructure language, and includes repeated references to existing brownfield/EPA restrictions.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6541710,"Council rejects one version and approves amended senior property tax credit after heated debate",1343,909000,2252000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5899054-30cae7e6b99cdf5bf9545a4d0a155d0e&start=909&end=2252","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5899054-30cae7e6b99cdf5bf9545a4d0a155d0e/thumbnail_909000.jpg","/articles/6541710/Howard-County/Maryland/Council-rejects-one-version-and-approves-amended-senior-property-tax-credit-after-heated-debate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6541710-4ed000e86ebe117ba35a0fc68d4f95c6/orig.mp4?Expires=1770506680&Signature=hGfxM74k6EA1hsFmjXafGCPI5NNsgvKzv8hyqPPuKdPVw6o2NHKBvv7dhCji1A8QClG23BaHJhaA1CBobOq-xXcg2z1Qzt5oSw~ei-mpB3uHJslvBfJhHJIMuyZ9~nrJKKjCZ5NIUJeH4E8RoKIaCv7UTiYithY98Qv2bIY0aVhnY8qKdWRTOGq6N7kS0bjLYsX1Syk8kHUrpMm7i~PzquIDSItBRz4YArAXDt5tHJXaU0gs7wzh79NVZiJV0s6cAqLRT6fpWqZ~VvQ75F9vvoMgte5jRGiIia3QZTOJtGjyYHkDIYZlbBW-dBCT-MQVTI8-YSlih1Dohu0nR8ih4g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Howard County Council voted down Council Bill 59 but later approved Council Bill 60, a revised measure that expands the county's aging-in-place property tax credit for seniors and certain retired military personnel.

Councilmember Deb Young introduced CB 59, saying the bill would lift the cap on the aging-in-place credit so seniors could better plan to remain in their homes. \"My bill will provide seniors with some relief on their property tax bill, allowing them to stay in their homes as assessments and tax burdens rise,\" Young said during debate, noting more than 500 petition signatures in support.

Why it matters: The council's debate focused on balancing the goal of helping long-time residents remain in place against the cost to county services and the distributional effects of a property-based credit. Supporters framed the change as stability for fixed-income seniors; critics said the credit benefits a relatively small, often asset-rich group and shifts costs elsewhere in the budget.

What the council did: After extensive debate and several amendment votes, the council rejected CB 59 (the version Young initially offered) and then passed CB 60 as amended. The final CB 60 clarifies definitions to match state enabling law, extends the credit period beyond the county executive's proposal, and adds administrative provisions requiring annual re-affirmation (attestation) of eligibility rather than a full reapplication.

Key fiscal and program details mentioned in debate:
- Current foregone revenue for the aging-in-place credit was cited by a council member as about $6.2 million; Young said lifting the cap would increase foregone revenue by roughly $1.3 million to $2.0 million depending on take-up.
- Supporters reported that fewer than 50% of eligible homeowners currently apply for the credit, though the council did not adopt an enforcement or outreach model as part of CB 60.

Notable points of contention:
- Eligibility and fairness: Amendment proposals sought to exclude owners of multiple residential properties and to require annual resubmission (to prevent trust or ownership changes from continuing a property-tied credit indefinitely). An amendment to bar owners of multiple residences failed; an amendment requiring annual resubmission (later clarified to an annual attestation) passed.
- Scope of the benefit: Several council members and speakers urged shifting focus from a property-tied credit toward an individual-based senior tax credit or tax-deferral programs that would target need rather than property tenure.
- Administrative burden and access: Council members expressed concern that annual attestation could be burdensome for older residents with mobility or technology barriers; they directed that Department of Finance offer paper and in-person assistance.

Votes and outcome (summary):
- CB 59 (original version): failed on final vote after amendments.
- CB 60 (as amended): passed (CB 60 as amended recorded as passed in the session).

Where the record leaves off: The final ordinance aligns some definitions with state law and requires an annual attestation process administered by Finance; the bill as amended was approved for enactment. Implementation details (forms, outreach, and specific workflow at Department of Finance) were discussed but left to administrative development.

Ending: Councilmembers said they expect follow-up work to refine outreach and the attestation process so eligible seniors can access benefits without undue burden. The council also signaled interest in studying complementary tools such as a senior tax credit or tax-deferral options in future work sessions.","Howard County Council rejected Council Bill 59, then passed a revised measure (CB 60) expanding the county's property tax credit for seniors and certain retired military, while adding administrative changes such as annual attestations and alignment with state law.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: council approves bargaining agreements, bonds, leases and appointments

Council adopts Gateway master plan with housing goals, environmental caveats and development safeguards

Council rejects one version and approves amended senior property tax credit after heated debate