[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-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",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_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",6583608,"mediaKeyId","3172781-747a7506864ece53eccd29e104a1a651","parentId",3172781,"title","Office of Finance outlines FY26 workplan, tax-sale changes and administration of public‑safety tax credit","audioSeconds",1166,"startMs",7287000,"endMs",8453000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3172781-747a7506864ece53eccd29e104a1a651&start=7287&end=8453","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3172781-747a7506864ece53eccd29e104a1a651/thumbnail_7287000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6583608/Prince-Georges-County/Maryland/Office-of-Finance-outlines-FY26-workplan-tax-sale-changes-and-administration-of-publicsafety-tax-credit","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6583608-4cf0f509875b7cbf76869889f67159bf/orig.mp4?Expires=1771182614&Signature=hy23ic7Fhn7v3RgizmYdCAaLY9yYiNoxMqCLoVRKYRVhS4xmG-Oo1s7PLa50mcrHInq0uvvGOBQ1AViBWRoNSakZ8xK93eKXVRaCX6OeKAZJtIJ551B2xrFofSp2ZydZd7RWlvbRAXbi615mHfBAXjfoYpJkmRJi6dpJNt54Wm5wFHDXcoKxDYFxnByWjbKe7ytmoMboRZitVydyzqmlRAk-vyQW7IVNeOc3-zZuZjqNSKdUKUI6Q6Cszq162AXLc91sNzSdb9TqpdakTxsGAM6I41AT8NLrKJi782XfH-W6zPuktSgpMtW9sJ0fTpRpLlvtON9Yjfv3v1~PZu9XEQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Prince George","date","2025-05-01T00:00:00Z","article","The Office of Finance presented its FY26 proposed budget to the Government Operations and Fiscal Policy Committee on May 1, outlining staffing, system modernization and program administration priorities and responding to council questions about tax‑sale thresholds, abandoned properties and the Public Safety Officer real‑property tax credit.

Finance staff said the FY26 proposed budget for the office is approximately $6.1 million (general fund portion) with compensation increases driven by annualized salary adjustments and two new positions: one ARPA-funded role being moved to the general fund and one accountant position to support a grant indirect-cost-rate pilot. The office noted revenue increases tied to mandated salary changes and reported vacancy and attrition levels similar to other administrative offices.

County staff described pending state changes to tax‑sale rules that will raise the threshold for residential owner‑occupied properties to $1,000 (from $500) and will cap tax‑sale interest for such properties at 10% (from a prior 20% level). Staff said the state is also centralizing the remittance process for short‑term rental and intermediary hotel taxes; intermediaries will remit collected taxes to the state, which will then distribute to counties.

On program administration, finance staff reported they processed roughly 497 applications for the new Public Safety Officer real‑property tax credit; 51 were denied and about 39 remained pending during the rollout. Communications issues initially caused confusion about eligibility — county staff said they clarified that the credit is for public‑safety officers employed by Prince George’s County, not for other categories of security or state employees who live in the county.

Committee members also raised concerns about abandoned properties and foreclosure trends. Finance staff said many parcels labeled “abandoned” may still have taxes paid by banks or others and that the office will provide more detailed foreclosure data to the council. The office reiterated that it is moving a multi‑year transition off legacy billing and collection systems into a modern treasury management system with a planned FY28 go‑live for property tax administration.

No committee vote on the finance budget was taken; staff said they will provide additional data on tax‑sale volumes, abandoned properties and reserve levels as follow‑up materials.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Prince George - Government Operations and Fiscal Policy Committee - Budget Work-session: Management (OHRM), Office of Management & Budget (OMB)/Non-Department - May 01, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Office of Finance presented its FY26 proposed budget, discussed a transition to a new treasury system, recent state tax-sale changes, and the initial rollout of the Public Safety Officer real property tax credit; staff said they have processed hundreds of applications.","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},6583613,"Human Resources Management presents FY26 budget; staff report hiring activity and summer youth plans",776,6064000,6840000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3172781-747a7506864ece53eccd29e104a1a651&start=6064&end=6840","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3172781-747a7506864ece53eccd29e104a1a651/thumbnail_6064000.jpg","/articles/6583613/Prince-Georges-County/Maryland/Human-Resources-Management-presents-FY26-budget-staff-report-hiring-activity-and-summer-youth-plans","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6583613-0d96f6cdf49d12ee5a452a2031a82ca4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771182614&Signature=nIpNgbHAMfLZbg7OJ9ffK2Ty69pErR-gMyE53tixpOkshXoRH9YXOCmCkFF20x0YosvA8dXiCSXZd7X77x92tqD1wLIbtdDBK~yHXwbeDWAqbovkTb4BeQSRS2FDV7~75esUUl7j2O5FkSYfT1eq~9LIqtL4NTx78flM2QcaLOApAbPSj~StmP7sYjBs5lu6jL-3r8W4OZ~YaCQuVWIS~hGT8uMXVUB6LkQ-tai2siqRSYMtdegWgbxZiBILbVFrwObhYlfoXihUa4R9c8TtE163ilMZCx~toMrA3AjLoS4WhSGnd2aEKrE1dpRdpxF1OTOnvIqEO~fNpdI9~7FY3A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Office of Human Resources Management (OHRM) presented its FY26 proposed budget and staffing priorities to the Government Operations and Fiscal Policy Committee on May 1.

Budget staff said the OHRM proposed FY26 budget is about $10.105 million (general‑fund portion about $10.5 million), a decrease from the FY25 approved budget driven by changes in recoverable and grant-funded positions. Compensation expenditures increased due to annualized salary adjustments and additional seasonal positions to support public‑safety background investigations; the compensation line funds 73 full‑time positions.

OHRM staff listed key workloads that will continue to drive demands on the office, including collective-bargaining negotiations, managing “time to fill” metrics for public-safety agencies, occupational-medical and benefits contract renewals, and multiple classification and compensation studies. The office also reported 8 vacant general‑fund positions as of March 11, 2025, and an FY25 year‑to‑date attrition rate of 6.8%.

On workforce initiatives, OHRM said the summer-youth-enrichment program (SYEP) plans to provide placements for 4,017 youth (about 1,017 county‑funded placements and 3,000 non‑county placements) in summer 2025, with a proposed program cost of roughly $1.4 million. The office noted a $3 million Department of Labor grant awarded to expand youth employment and training opportunities.

Committee members asked whether the county was coordinating recruitment outreach to federal workers affected by recent federal reductions. OHRM staff said they are receiving increased applications from former federal employees and that they maintain a database of job‑seekers to notify when postings open; staff also referenced a recent job‑fair event with more than 80 employers and over 1,000 job‑seekers.

No committee action was taken; OHRM staff said they will continue recruitment and onboarding activities and will monitor vacancies and attrition.","The Office of Human Resources Management presented a FY26 budget with modest overall decreases but staffing increases in compensation and continued emphasis on time-to-fill, recruitment of public-safety hires and an expanded youth employment program.",{"_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},6583619,"OMB, non-departmental budgets show increases for new functions and debt service; committee presses on reserves and long-range outlook",1372,2624000,3996000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3172781-747a7506864ece53eccd29e104a1a651&start=2624&end=3996","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3172781-747a7506864ece53eccd29e104a1a651/thumbnail_2624000.jpg","/articles/6583619/Prince-Georges-County/Maryland/OMB-non-departmental-budgets-show-increases-for-new-functions-and-debt-service-committee-presses-on-reserves-and-long-range-outlook","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6583619-e9fbff1b597b6fb74185bc022a828017/orig.mp4?Expires=1771182614&Signature=onsDvLq7-EpTo3JTZm6lb~rvaYiLHu-OuAgHiLO8lY0UkS~4smA-XRtrsHR~yXTS2hwtQNE8-N7VmyWGSDvXRfFnhsNXzfTuTxQa1J70mQq16Ry-Uq0cSSayzovTMXIhpvRBXjTqvtUnrNtMpz9J1zLDbUctmm66JhXHRCrcj-FY62a9vmsjsQlT8oh41Z3Xy~SPy1vG80ba9aeQfyYUrmD--~5vmKufiLJhNy3H6ToCpX71YEFqwS~S5WWkdY0L1xveXH7WvLl0uhmUi~3Dzc5ngTjlMWiCujZgCylo2KD7b6gGSBBYTRtjiz6mbYyd-JWFSkAP3L5ruZML5ajHoA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Office of Management and Budget and the Non‑Departmental budget presentations at the May 1 Government Operations and Fiscal Policy Committee hearing outlined proposed FY26 spending increases to support new functions and rising debt-service costs while using portions of the county’s unassigned fund balance for one‑time needs.

OMB reported a proposed FY26 budget of about $4.7 million, a 14.1% increase over FY25. The office said increases include a new budget-management analyst position to implement an indirect cost-rate pilot and funding for a previously unfunded budget-management position required by CB‑18‑2024 (which directs OMB to submit fiscal impact statements for council legislation). OMB also noted it expects to request a $300,000 supplemental to cover FY25 salary enhancements previously budgeted elsewhere.

The Non‑Departmental (Non‑D) general fund budget was presented at roughly $455.8 million for FY26, a $15.1 million increase over FY25. Non‑D includes debt service, grants and transfers, operational expenditures, alternative construction financing (notably $42.6 million for school construction on behalf of the Board of Education), economic development allocations, speed-camera program operating costs and the youth employment program (projected at about $101 million across programs). Presenters highlighted changes in debt-service forecasts tied to the 2025 bond sale and noted an ongoing review of the county’s debt-policy limit (8% of county-source revenues) because long‑term projections show the metric approaching the policy threshold in the late 2020s.

Committee members asked about potential bond-rating impacts tied to broader regional downgrades. County staff said rating-agency outreach is underway ahead of rating actions later in May and described steps to preserve reserves, manage debt issuance and work with the Office of Finance to reduce risk. Finance staff said the county’s projected general-fund operating reserve was being maintained in FY26 at a higher policy level (a 5% operating reserve was noted for FY26 compared with lower targets in prior years) and that current projections suggest the county remains within acceptable reserve targets, though FY27 and FY28 budgets will require careful attention because of potential revenue softness and state shifts in pension funding responsibilities.

Members also raised housing-market indicators and foreclosures. Staff said housing inventory has increased and that foreclosure-related information is being gathered for the council; officials cautioned FY27 may be more difficult than FY26 and emphasized the need to weigh long‑term choices about service levels and revenue options.

The committee did not take action on the budget during the session; staff said additional briefings and follow-ups will be scheduled as the council and administration prepare final budget adoption.","Office of Management and Budget and the Non-Departmental (Non‑D) budget presentations for FY26 highlighted staffing changes, ARPA reallocation, and rising debt-service commitments. Committee members asked about bond ratings, foreclosures, and out‑year risks.",{"_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},6583624,"Committee holds CR-44 resolution on multiyear contracts after members request more review and local-supplier detail",1303,1434000,2737000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3172781-747a7506864ece53eccd29e104a1a651&start=1434&end=2737","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3172781-747a7506864ece53eccd29e104a1a651/thumbnail_1434000.jpg","/articles/6583624/Prince-Georges-County/Maryland/Committee-holds-CR-44-resolution-on-multiyear-contracts-after-members-request-more-review-and-local-supplier-detail","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6583624-89dc17da7edfa79ac11d73a2f708cec3/orig.mp4?Expires=1771182614&Signature=L7uB01k8tthTRspZk5oCB9yAPiPATJB86W9CBJAg6kGuxbqsmgSCvi5JTrLtM0nMJ7X06x6wnE7sVbJcEmZKMlW~y3W1WBCyMoVwRXonAN8PCOZ-HWIb7raH1giPv~iEjb7iYEZnlL4UXvkM3XOxdSqp7PsfB6NgsrCZPrNu8o6Xck9O51qFsM9Tx2xgLK8rCERJoEmtZAsVqkn~LwQK4v7kQ46zg8UDNjjevf0yvm-SxWpqsjy~Jrj0FjpNgrIJZL9PyeDpeLUhvSh6k~61OVIFvwhX5fmQeIIkcuH0jFZYB~-Gi~G3jGE0l4ZhQC-J~57Uu~LCk-Ii3PuN2x-kLQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Government Operations and Fiscal Policy Committee on May 1 voted to hold CR-44 (Resolution approving multiyear contracts exceeding $500,000) after members said the administration provided a revised attachment to the contract list only shortly before the meeting and committee members had not had time to review it.

County staff said the number of contracts under review had been reduced substantially from earlier drafts (staff cited reductions from 52 to roughly the mid‑20s in successive drafts) and that the attachments explain why each contract is considered critical to continuity of county operations. Budget staff estimated a fiscal-year‑26 impact of roughly $36 million and an estimated full contract value of about $201.4 million across the listed multiyear agreements.

Council members pressed county directors on several specific items while still keeping the matter in committee. Vice Chair Oriotta and other members asked for a separate, more detailed follow-up session focused on the contracts that directly affect government operations. The chair and members requested a dedicated meeting with department directors to review contracts in depth before the council acts.

Questions about the Motorola contract drew extended discussion. Director earlier (Stanley Early) and communications from the public-safety technology team explained that key elements of the county’s radio and 9-1-1 computer-aided-dispatch infrastructure are proprietary and that only a small number of large vendors — Motorola and Harris were cited — can support counties of Prince George's size. The finance director said the five‑year contract for Motorola includes roughly $73 million in overall value, with $20 million of that being covered by the State of Maryland for NextGen 9‑1‑1 support; that leaves approximately $53 million in county general funds and an estimated $10 million (about 20% of the county-funded portion) earmarked to go to county-based subcontractors for non‑proprietary work such as HVAC, generators and tower climbing.

Council members also asked about minority business participation. County staff said at least two county-based firms are supplying work under the contract: Teltronic Towers (Capitol Heights) and another contractor handling HVAC and generator work; one of those is a certified minority business enterprise (MBE) and both are county‑based.

After discussion, a motion to hold CR-44 was moved, seconded and carried; the clerk recorded the motion as carrying 4–0. Committee members said they will convene a follow-up session with relevant department directors to review remaining contracts in detail.","CR-44, a resolution approving multiyear contracts exceeding $500,000, was held after council members said they had insufficient time to review the revised contract list and raised questions about a large Motorola agreement and local vendor participation.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6583629,"Committee holds bill to create emergency aid for laid-off federal workers after questions on scope and cost",1458,97000,1555000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3172781-747a7506864ece53eccd29e104a1a651&start=97&end=1555","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3172781-747a7506864ece53eccd29e104a1a651/thumbnail_97000.jpg","/articles/6583629/Prince-Georges-County/Maryland/Committee-holds-bill-to-create-emergency-aid-for-laid-off-federal-workers-after-questions-on-scope-and-cost","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6583629-591a2495b495a4d62f48b37893e9cada/orig.mp4?Expires=1771182614&Signature=e9R39zrImA-pBZH7btsGx~7axIpfg99xNF4wcFRFTz1rcnZt4YTLHdkrEVGYb-T1h7QWUcKR-WTqNdePWO~WKMHUVzRM4fEaLcGaaEEkyFzAmmW~qdZ0pULLqSjs7tCA6-z7NNOCmBeNiVqYEeFMMTt420LJrzYFnca9j76-xgVRU-9QnPVbtuM~ILmAz5zFJwQAixoWJNGdMF-LVL8FJrLnhFqQtNCtCVQWCwMiMRa-59MpN6UnCpC1N3p7nESjwDG19-KjDHPy2ZFrANqMl8sGaLIQKIQglb6nCdNHVELXyO-MbiOmpzJXriEuodBVD6cLFz62IY8I7YsLICjX7A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Government Operations and Fiscal Policy Committee on May 1 held CB-24, the Federal Worker Emergency Assistance Act of Prince George's County, saying council members and county administration officials need more time to clarify eligibility, the program’s administrative costs and the fiscal estimates. Chair Ingrid Watson and committee members voted to hold the measure for further work.

The ordinance would create emergency financial assistance, job-placement support and essential services for laid-off federal workers living in Prince George’s County. “The legislative intent is to ensure stability for those among the 30,000 federal workers whose livelihoods have been impacted here in Prince George's County,” presenter Chuck Tuck said in the committee overview.

Supporters at the hearing said the county needs a targeted response for federal workers caught by recent reductions. Crystal Faison, president and CEO of Shepherd Energy, told the committee she “unequivocally support[s] CB 24” while urging that long-term energy-cost inequities also be addressed. Demetria Lisenby, a 28-year federal employee notified April 1 that her division was eliminated, said the bill’s job-placement and workforce-training provisions are “critical and a compassionate step forward” for displaced workers.

County administration staff and budget analysts pressed for more specificity. Akinda Skinner of the county executive’s office asked the committee to clarify the expected number of eligible residents; she noted the fiscal analysis included different figures (a $16.25 million estimate tied to 16,250 participants and a higher projection tied to 30,000 affected workers). The administration also asked for information about the local implementation costs — for example, what Montgomery County paid to stand up comparable services — and for clearer language on the proposed property-tax deferment, including how it would interact with existing state deferral rules for seniors.

Policy analysts told the committee they provided ranges rather than a single eligibility count because the scope of possible federal separations is fluid and because certain programs described in CB-24 (for example, a food voucher program) currently lack programmatic detail and would require additional administrative resources. Council Member Begay, sponsor of the bill, said she intended the program to cover only workers who were unexpectedly laid off, not retirees or voluntary buyouts. “This bill was not made to just give out a check to anyone,” Begay said.

After discussion, a motion to hold CB-24 was moved and seconded so sponsors and the administration could negotiate details and funding. The clerk recorded the motion to hold as carrying 4–0.

What’s next: Council members said they want two to three weeks to meet with administration staff to clarify eligibility definitions, the structure of job-recovery supports, administrative costs and the mechanics of any property-tax deferments before returning the bill to committee.","Prince George's County Government Operations and Fiscal Policy Committee moved to hold CB-24, the Federal Worker Emergency Assistance Act, after members and administration staff sought clearer program details, eligibility limits and fiscal estimates. Public speakers including a nonprofit CEO and a recently RIF'd federal manager urged passage.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Office of Finance outlines FY26 workplan, tax-sale changes and administration of public‑safety tax credit

Human Resources Management presents FY26 budget; staff report hiring activity and summer youth plans

OMB, non-departmental budgets show increases for new functions and debt service; committee presses on reserves and long-range outlook

Committee holds CR-44 resolution on multiyear contracts after members request more review and local-supplier detail

Committee holds bill to create emergency aid for laid-off federal workers after questions on scope and cost