[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-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",[32,75,87,99],{"_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",6612409,"mediaKeyId","2891494-4aeae8e12f07d680110369247bcfdf9b","parentId",2891494,"title","Board of License Commissioners to implement new licensing software; cites underage‑sale enforcement and outreach needs","audioSeconds",143,"startMs",3571000,"endMs",3714000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2891494-4aeae8e12f07d680110369247bcfdf9b&start=3571&end=3714","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2891494-4aeae8e12f07d680110369247bcfdf9b/thumbnail_3571000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6612409/Prince-Georges-County/Maryland/Board-of-License-Commissioners-to-implement-new-licensing-software-cites-underagesale-enforcement-and-outreach-needs","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6612409-01a82b854ebe5179000819334ab77b1c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771172837&Signature=bsef5WhNWp3JRcbMfZs~v1QkhKlyNHCtkFmmq2hXNHkfqYsvrB2AZbk8NXdRJBGQ6tva0iVe~u4~fsNVHdiUqjth-iNYJPLtml-2NjmTuKKBzmmVenAemslAlPIsZUrQUWLb61~EKdTB07T7ZGhQp4Jc-q8wFsveB4vZMg~NO3dwZ45bbhNDtJW8bEYvs3oUXOPTdI2~xOml97w5L1pCEno8b2xjauBFN6VbBJtDbCGE-Maz-5HigWJMpOzzVvWjiLCpL8YtfJL4FiV055~A5Sx0Nyi1b-OmLDNCduLHoiOs8hpknNlMBRseCNcB91MGHS-FDsZ5O2-0Ohc04hAvlQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Prince George","date","2025-04-07T00:00:00Z","article","The Board of License Commissioners briefed the Government Operations and Fiscal Policy Committee on April 7 about its FY26 proposed budget, a new licensing software implementation and ongoing enforcement priorities including underage alcohol sales.

David Williams, council budget analyst, presented the board’s FY26 proposed budget of approximately $2.19 million — a rise of about $139,300 or 6.8% above FY25 — and said the agency’s staffing complement remains nine full‑time positions and 19 part‑time positions. The presentation also noted a technology project: a new licensing software suite with a total project estimate cited as about $550,000 and a FY26 obligation presented as roughly $87,700.

Terence Shepherd, executive director for the Board of License Commissioners, said the board recently completed a state‑mandated audit with far fewer findings than prior audits and described the software upgrade as a consolidation of older systems for licensing and inspections. Shepherd said the board will implement the new software in the coming months and expects OIT cooperation to support the rollout.

Shepherd described underage alcohol sales and noncompliance with sourcing requirements as recurring challenges. He said the board uses underage decoys and inspectors and that staffing for inspection positions had part‑time vacancies; he also noted licensees sometimes purchase alcohol from non‑licensed sellers (for example, retail outlets outside the county or other non‑wholesaler sources), which the board’s rules prohibit. Shepherd said the agency has added a compliance checklist and more active front‑end review for new licensees and suggested recurring training or a concise “top‑10 violations” guidance for licensees to reduce common problems.

Committee members asked about legal support during hearings. Shepherd said the board engages outside counsel under a personal services contract (the presentation named the contract attorney) to advise commissioners at licensing and violation hearings; commissioners themselves are appointed by the county executive, serve staggered three‑year terms and are confirmed by the county council.

Why this matters: licensing decisions and enforcement practices shape public safety and business compliance in the county’s alcohol retail market. The board said a new software system and clearer licensee guidance are expected to reduce administrative friction, speed renewals and limit repeat violations.

The board will return with more details as the licensing software is implemented and said it would consider expanding training options and proactive outreach to reduce underage sales and other common violations.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Prince George - Government Operations and Fiscal Policy Committee - Budget Work-session: Central Services, Procurement, Board of Licensing Commission, Board of Elections - Apr 07, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Board of License Commissioners presented a FY26 budget and said it is implementing a new licensing software suite, reducing audit findings and focusing enforcement on underage sales; staff suggested more proactive licensee training to reduce violations.","taxTitle","Prince George's County, Maryland","taxId",3378,"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},6612414,"Board of Elections reports FY26 proposal, explains special‑election costs and vote‑center lines",1031,4484000,5515000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2891494-4aeae8e12f07d680110369247bcfdf9b&start=4484&end=5515","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2891494-4aeae8e12f07d680110369247bcfdf9b/thumbnail_4484000.jpg","/articles/6612414/Prince-Georges-County/Maryland/Board-of-Elections-reports-FY26-proposal-explains-specialelection-costs-and-votecenter-lines","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6612414-ce0f4daf13e1236fff1a2d184d3a623e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771172837&Signature=bjNyDE4Nz6CaBtk0WgGx7ebTkcrtx0l~gBWx3sVFhN-FE9esJWE-Q12xUSoo~yzDK6hznWCkNqoysY2H-43TpPLPEEmCRQxnAiB9vydG88gB-3oVaH9Zd3Y0-HldIhq5C~F-E75AQ9UqcnsBUN0qEF~UepbjPLrtP73GlkLKhgSo-ITuy1t2OkGiu-Kl9FWEi2rcnmWc7jL7b60I7GbsF2kwDOthfueXYCzQ~Cuf8tdV~q7hU8tsq1Kt5fwNspHtikSd3f2xmE~~kZwNUQ78-~8pdiXiAvrNj94KQ505gnKh8CH9QWRnD2P2CdXr3-WO4cFx2cJ2J30PsWRAb7kjmw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Prince George’s County Board of Elections presented its proposed fiscal year 2026 general fund request and a briefing on recent special elections to the Government Operations and Fiscal Policy Committee on April 7. Committee members questioned ballot‑counting timing and long lines at vote centers during a recent special election.

Malcolm Moody, the council’s legislative and budget analyst for the Board of Elections, summarized the agency budget materials and said the FY26 proposed general fund budget is about $10.8 million, a decrease from FY25 by approximately $2.3 million. He also noted a supplemental request figure presented in the briefing of about $190,200. The presentation included a slide that broke down compensation, operating and fringe categories and a note that the board had a supplemental FY25 request related to the special election.

Wendy Honesty Bay (presented in the meeting as the county elections administrator) discussed recent special‑election operations and costs. She said the county paid roughly $2.1 million for each of the recent special elections (the figure was used as a rounded per‑special cost during committee discussion). The administrator described how the county used nine vote centers and staffed each with election workers; she said long lines at some locations, including Lake Arbor and Bowie, were caused by concentrated last‑minute turnout at a smaller number of vote centers rather than a systemic failure to staff sites. The board said it staffed each vote center with roughly 35 election workers and that lines were heavier at closing times because many voters waited until late in the day to cast ballots.

Committee members asked about ballot counting and canvassing. In committee discussion, the administrator said the board began processing some canvass activity after 10:00 a.m. on election day and paused counting later in the afternoon (the briefing stated counting activity typically paused about 4:30 p.m. to allow for board coordination and post‑election processing). The administrator and board staff said volunteer canvassers and the pool of trained workers who perform on‑site duties are largely the same individuals who staff vote centers, which constrains how many canvassers are available on election day. Council members asked whether the board could shift canvassing hours to do more counting on election day; the administrator said the board would consider proposals and returned that some canvassing rules are driven by state timing and by availability of trained staff.

The board also described logistics for early vote‑by‑mail processing, training of judges (the board works with state trainers and local contractors for “train‑the‑trainer” models) and the use of the county’s website and social media for recruitment and voter information; the administrator said the board is working to be more active online.

Why this matters: the board’s budgeting for elections and decisions about vote‑center location, staffing and counting cadence affect voter wait times, ballot processing speed and public confidence in results. The board agreed to review whether counting hours and staffing deployment could be adjusted to reduce evening backlogs and to provide the committee with options.","Board of Elections presented a FY26 proposed budget of about $10.8 million, described special‑election costs (~$2.1M per special), and said long lines at vote centers during a recent special election reflected last‑minute voter surges at consolidated vote centers rather than understaffing at individual centers.",{"_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},6612419,"New Prince George's County Office of Procurement outlines priorities: supplier outreach, supply schedule and ERP integration",379,3087000,3466000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2891494-4aeae8e12f07d680110369247bcfdf9b&start=3087&end=3466","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2891494-4aeae8e12f07d680110369247bcfdf9b/thumbnail_3087000.jpg","/articles/6612419/Prince-Georges-County/Maryland/New-Prince-Georges-County-Office-of-Procurement-outlines-priorities-supplier-outreach-supply-schedule-and-ERP-integration","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6612419-e03c6f54acb0da8e0952bca68c4dd377/orig.mp4?Expires=1771172837&Signature=Wok8FTsgrc~ipK9bwLT1FqNoa49XGZGxvidFDDmgrrt3XAkACokYiazKpW5BfPYqkCqcKIezx2zjkgCkA-cbIC07k9f4IMjXpQD4I6itJXzo7Wvf7kZZJAlNLhTjRF-lG-MmHA82rSQ2zJ7jaMIzmQbv8gi8bLKY1EpRqWJ19WLzBuEmRJLhhwh2PqQXZCY~1Uv0-sMO6qlIi75KihsadDOtba3J0yGL6-HVWa6OuZ-sDZa-tW-tXE1oKMDaCMS~nJWqahlUgxJ9IpPxI2c8uV-E1HRusikoL4BbgOeZVKZIXzi1OvW3zfHTpnlheMPiOp3obTVh1rrXUmUZWPDiLg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Office of Procurement presented its first standalone FY26 budget and a nine‑month status update to the Government Operations and Fiscal Policy Committee on April 7, saying the office has focused on supplier outreach, revamping the county supply schedule and preparing an ERP integration to speed payments and solicitations.

Pamela Dickerson, director of the new Office of Procurement, told the committee the office’s FY26 proposed budget is about $6.3 million, a decline from FY25 figures driven by shifts in operating charges; she said compensation spending is projected to rise because of annualization of salaries and anticipated adjustments. Council staff analyst Sylvia Singleton presented staffing numbers: the office proposed 39 positions for FY26 with 37 fully funded and 34 filled as of March 25; five vacancies were noted and recruitment was underway prior to a hiring freeze.

Dickerson described operational changes and new services: a procurement ombudsman to assist county businesses and improve payment timeliness; an expanded and simplified county supply schedule with new categories (industrial services, food and catering, and a mission‑oriented business category); and a push to make the supply schedule easier to join through an application process rather than a full solicitation. She said the office has approved more than $481 million in purchase orders to date; Dickerson presented the breakdown the office tracks, including about $66 million awarded to county‑based MBEs, $54 million to county‑based small businesses (figures as presented), and roughly $300 million to non‑county‑based entities (the office said many of these are local nonprofits and grant providers). The office said it plans to refine that breakdown and return to the council with clearer categorization.

Committee members asked about outreach and training. Dickerson said the office uses GovDelivery and other county communications and held a procurement summit where more than 200 businesses attended. The office identified vendor outreach and internal and external training as priorities; Singleton’s budget summary noted potential obstacles in FY26, including loss of training and development funding and continuing issues with system integrations and data integrity. Dickerson said the procurement team is working with OIT to bring procurement and finance together in a single online platform by the start of the fiscal year, and that an upgraded ERP/Ariba implementation is in acquisition planning.

Council members asked for more granular data on vendors by district and sector. Dickerson said the office has certified‑vendor lists (about 9,000 certified vendors) and broader GovDelivery reach (more than 20,000 recipients) and that staff can break out vendor counts by category and location for council districts; she invited members to contact Olivia Warren for event coordination and outreach partnerships.

Why this matters: county procurement drives significant public spending and is central to efforts to increase contracting with county‑based and minority businesses, speed payments and reduce waiver use. The office told the committee it will return with more detailed vendor breakdowns and proposed outreach steps as it implements ERP integration and the supply‑schedule changes.","The county's newly split Office of Procurement presented a FY26 proposal and described work to expand the supply schedule, establish a procurement ombudsman, improve vendor outreach and move procurement and finance to a single ERP platform (Ariba).",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6612423,"Prince George's County Office of Central Services outlines FY26 budget, cites EV funding loss and shelter projects",743,75000,818000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2891494-4aeae8e12f07d680110369247bcfdf9b&start=75&end=818","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2891494-4aeae8e12f07d680110369247bcfdf9b/thumbnail_75000.jpg","/articles/6612423/Prince-Georges-County/Maryland/Prince-Georges-County-Office-of-Central-Services-outlines-FY26-budget-cites-EV-funding-loss-and-shelter-projects","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6612423-de63664958cf422a72e8d5f4a4e5ac62/orig.mp4?Expires=1771172837&Signature=M~ySJbsLCvSu37-8gzUP9WSXxYxOBfXJKNeuhpjSsVjxmfADCV0KldSCLHa21McIEavUB2-OS4YrE4S0Qb2jmrVYv9vLwNL6Qf6njlwaMy5aZJyT6wLhdOqGthtOr9b7qUjURy7r29q17n0Xq078bH6bck~iANxF~zhP-MPRF8Bvlo2FE8CEx~vMO8i220U-LUwOOrwUs8yBWLot3jLPo7mHzCwYEGdG0rJHKx7ekrox6OKHOM5K9YL3p7Z3gw~oCt0Z4IDRFZw8nh7Zxi22tWn2OcjRUTZW8xQhULcYy19RWFvh4hCFSYtiAs86l5apUDXCgbMsory3Sce6wjrMWw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Office of Central Services presented its proposed fiscal year 2026 operating and capital budgets to the Government Operations and Fiscal Policy Committee on April 7, reporting a proposed agency budget of approximately $46.1 million and a FY26 Capital Improvement Program portfolio that the agency described as roughly $1.3 billion for six years.

The briefing by Sylvia Singleton, a senior budget analyst with the council staff, and Jonathan R. Butler, director of the Office of Central Services, emphasized why the budget matters: the agency manages the county’s buildings, fleet and capital projects and is absorbing rising costs from new leases, inflation and federal actions that affect procurement and electric-vehicle planning.

Butler and Singleton told the committee the FY26 proposed budget represents an increase from FY25: the agency’s operating proposal was presented as about $46.1 million (an increase of roughly $4.8 million or 11% over FY25). The proposed general fund portion was presented as $27.9 million, an increase of about $2.8 million (10.6%). The fleet management internal service fund was presented at about $17.4 million, up $1.9 million, and showed a projected ending fund deficit of about $2.2 million. Singleton said a supplemental appropriation of about $1.3 million will be requested to cover FY25 expenditures.

The presentation highlighted capital plans and near-term projects. Singleton said the FY26–31 proposed CIP that includes Office of Central Services projects is approximately $1.3 billion and that the FY26 proposed CIP expenditure budget is about $54.6 million; the CIP list shown to the committee included 53 projects. Butler described a 10-year facilities master plan and said the county is planning groundbreakings and work in the coming 12 months including a new women’s shelter (estimated around 20,000 square feet, cost presented as roughly $26 million), a new District 6 police station (about $20 million), a youth drop‑in center and major interior work at the County Administration Building (presented as about $49 million).

Committee members asked about project timing and service continuity. Butler said the new women’s shelter is planned on land adjacent to the existing shelter so services can continue during construction; he said the existing shelter would remain in operation while the new facility is built and the old building would later be demolished. For the youth drop‑in center he said the county has acquired an 8,000-square-foot building in Brentwood and expected design in about 10 months and a roughly 12-month build-out (about 18–20 months total).

Butler and Singleton described staffing and facility pressures. The agency’s total complement was presented as about 215 positions; Singleton and Butler said some positions are unfunded or being moved between funds (the presentation noted transfers between the general fund and fleet/internal service fund and referenced vacancies and unfunded positions). Butler said fleet management oversees roughly 4,000 vehicles; Singleton said capital outlay for FY26 rose sharply (she cited a 59% increase) mainly for EV charging stations, vehicle lift replacements and a new fuel control terminal.

The agency told the committee it is monitoring two federal developments it said could affect county programs: (1) a federal executive order titled “Unleash American Energy” dated January 21, 2025, which the presentation said halted external federal funding that had been a primary funding source for some county EV charging station installations; and (2) tariffs on vehicles and equipment from Mexico and Canada that the presentation said increased replacement costs by about 25%. Singleton cautioned the situation is fluid and the agency is monitoring procurement and fleet costs.

Committee members pressed on affordable housing and homeless services funding timing. Butler and other staff said the county’s “warm night” shelter funding was pushed into a later year (committee discussion cited 2028/2029 and that ARPA was no longer the funding source for that item) and that some ARPA-funded obligations had been reallocated into the general fund through county budget actions (committee staff said council bill references and CB 22 were relevant to redistribution of ARPA funds). Butler said staff would follow up with a reconciliation of where specific ARPA‑designated funds were reallocated.

The presenters also described building condition and reuse constraints. Butler said many former school buildings contain asbestos and have significant deferred maintenance, making demolition and new construction often more cost‑effective than adaptive reuse. He also described a facilities portfolio of more than 100 buildings and roughly 5,000 acres of county‑owned land.

Why this matters: Office of Central Services manages county property, vehicles and capital projects that affect public safety facilities and community services. The agency’s budget, staffing and capital decisions shape whether planned shelters, police and fire stations and public health facilities proceed on schedule.

The presentation yielded several requests for follow-up from council members: (1) a reconciliation of ARPA reallocation and the status of the warm‑night shelter line item; (2) confirmation of the women’s shelter capacity increase and the planned services to be included (Butler said he would follow up with Department of Social Services on capacity figures); (3) inventory lists for council districts; and (4) clarification on which projects are delayed or rescheduled in the FY26–31 CIP. Council staff and Butler agreed to provide the requested follow-ups.","Office of Central Services presented its proposed FY26 budget and capital program, citing a roughly $46.1 million agency budget, fleet pressures from tariffs and federal EV policy changes, and plans for a new women's shelter, youth drop-in center and other capital work.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board of License Commissioners to implement new licensing software; cites underage‑sale enforcement and outreach needs

Board of Elections reports FY26 proposal, explains special‑election costs and vote‑center lines

New Prince George's County Office of Procurement outlines priorities: supplier outreach, supply schedule and ERP integration

Prince George's County Office of Central Services outlines FY26 budget, cites EV funding loss and shelter projects