The Economic Development (ECON) Committee met on April 10, 2026 from 9:30 a.m. to 12:43 p.m. in the 3rd floor Council Hearing Room. Chair Natali Fani-González presided. The committee considered Expedited Bill 13-26 (ICE Out Act) and reviewed the FY27 Operating Budget and FY27-32 Capital Improvements Program for six agencies. Key actions included a tied vote on an amendment to the ICE Out Act (sent to full Council), approval of the bill as introduced with unanimous support, and several budget reductions and motions on international travel.
Good morning, everyone. This is the economic development committee work session before we start dealing with important things related to the budget. That exciting budget that the Ghana executives sent to us. We are going to first talk about expertise bill 13-26, building permits, immigration detention facilities, ICE out act, as everyone knows. The council never really deals with legislation during the budget, but I made the exception of taking only immigration related bills just because of the urgency that we have in our nation. So we're gonna kick off this session today with that bill, which is led by Councilmember Glass, Council President Natalie Fanny Gonzalez, Councilmember Stuart, Fritz and Kat, Evans Yerwandle, Ming Sales, Council Vice President Balcon, and Councilmember Luki. So that means every single person join on this bill. With that, I'm gonna turn it to Councilmember Glass to kick us off, and then I'll turn it to staff so we can go through this bill. I don't want to say quickly, but efficiently, because we have a lot going on today. Appreciate you. Do you want to say something? And I appreciate you, uh, Madam President, Madam Chair. Uh as you noted, this expedited piece of legislation, the ICE Out Act is being supported by every single member of this council because we are sending a signal to our community that we want to protect every resident. And we see what is happening up uh in Western Montgomery uh in Western Maryland, where uh ICE and federal agencies are attempting to build uh immigration detention center. Um, and we want to make sure that we get ahead of that and say that ICE is not welcome to do so here in Montgomery County. We want to make sure that every resident feels welcome, safe, and protected, uh, and we are being proactive unanimously, collectively, wholly as a community, and I very much appreciate the council present for making uh for making the time during our very busy budget season to accommodate this and other pressing matters that are before us. So with that, I'll yield back to be efficient. Thank you very much. Uh, I'm gonna ask DPS to please also come forward uh with that. Um legislative attorney kick us off. Uh good morning, committee. So expedited bill 1326 uh was introduced on March 3rd, and it does two things. First, it defines an immigration detention facility, which was not previously defined in county cold in county code. Um, and it prohibits DPS from issuing both a building permit or use an occupancy permit for a privately owned immigration detention facility. Um for the definition, it would be any building, facility or structure used in whole or in part um to house or detain individuals for civil immigration violations. This is very similar to a definition that is in state law currently. Um and then for the building permit and use and occupancy permit. I will flag here that the fiscal impact statement actually did note that because part of the definition says in whole or in part, they'll of course have to be a case-by-case determination when um permits come in. Um, because for a lot of these we've seen it's partial reuse of a building instead of an entire building. Um a public hearing was held on March 24th. Uh testimony noted um poor conditions of iCE and that it disrupts communities and threatens families and supported the bill, noting county facilities shouldn't be used for ongoing legal and humanitarian violations. Um there's also an RESJ impact statement. Um the impact statement was positive, uh noting positive impacts on racial equity and social justice in the county. Um it also talked a bit about trust policies. I know you've seen that in some of the other RESJ statements, um, and noting that this would be an equitable policy proposal. Uh the climate assessment actually noted little to no impact on addressing climate change goals, um, which doesn't often happen in our building permit ones. Um, but the idea here was that more often ICE is purchasing an existing building and that repurposing has fewer greenhouse gas gas emissions than building a whole new building. Um and a quick note here um DPS has confirmed they do there's some questions about how building permits work for government versus private entities. Um if a federal agency is leasing privately owned buildings and spaces, they do typically go through that building permit process. Um, so moving on to page three, uh two more impact statements here. Um not expected to impact revenues or increase county expenditures for the fiscal impact statement. Um a lot of interesting things in the economic impact statement. Um on the one hand, it would reduce opportunities for construction firms and people who operate detention facilities, um, but it would all also have potential benefits to businesses that are experiencing workforce and revenue disruptions because of immigration enforcement. So overall, the bill is likely to protect broader groups of both resident and U.S. born workers. So the economic impact likely leans positive. Um as some background here, there have been, as you've noted, uh many, many immigration bills floating around the state and the county and neighboring jurisdictions. Um I have a list of them for you at the bottom of page three into the top of page four. The theme you'll probably notice is everyone is taking a slightly different approach. Um, and so uh Howard County, um, as noted, had revoked a building permit and then issued emergency legislation saying only a government agency can apply.