The council approved both measures during its final session on Oct. 30, 2026, before a new council takes office following the elections. Ball issued the vetoes after reviewing the legislation and public testimony.

Council Bill 58 would have changed how the county awards and manages certain grants to nonprofit organizations. Introduced in September 2026, it was later narrowed to cover only grants used to buy, build or redevelop property. The measure added more than 20 requirements for nonprofits receiving those grants, with some rules applying only to awards exceeding $1.5 million.

The bill emerged from public concern over a $25 million grant to Columbia Community Concepts for a community center. Council member Deb Jung, the sponsor, said previously that such grants had lacked oversight. "Those particular types of grants in the past really lacked any guardrails," Jung said.

Ball said the bill went too far. In a letter to the council, he questioned the origin of the $1.5 million threshold and why it would apply to larger grants but not smaller ones. "It became clear that the true intention of the bill was to target a specific project that had received funding from the County – including approval by the County Council – in prior fiscal years," Ball wrote. He sided with nonprofit groups that testified against the bill and called for a fuller study of the county's grant process.

Council Bill 59 would have required additional review of solar projects sited on farmland. Sponsored by council member David Yungmann, it was intended to address confusion created by new state laws.

Ball said the bill conflicts with Maryland's 2025 Renewable Energy Certainty Act, which limits how much local governments can restrict certain solar projects. He warned that if the county enacted the bill and it was challenged, a court could strike it down, putting more than a dozen pending solar projects worth over $83 million at risk.

The executive also cited costly delays. Recent federal tax law changes set a Dec. 31, 2027, deadline for projects to qualify for a federal tax credit, and the county identified nearly $25 million in credits that could be jeopardized. Slowing projects across 270 acres of farmland could cost local farmers about $16 million in income over 25 years, according to Ball's office.

Ball said the extra rules were unnecessary because the county already has authority to manage solar development on preserved farmland. "By delaying and thus potentially thwarting commercial solar development, CB59 could significantly undermine our energy independence and affordability as skyrocketing energy costs negatively impact Howard County residents and businesses," he wrote.

Maryland requires 14.5% of the state's electricity to come from in-state solar by 2030, and Ball said the state is roughly halfway to that goal.

The vetoes set up a potential override fight or leave the measures to expire, depending on the incoming council's priorities. The council also remained divided on a separate bill that would have given the inspector general broader access to records; that measure did not pass in the final vote.