The Education and Workforce Development Committee voted 4‑0 on Sept. 30 to move CB 89 favorably with amendments. CB 89 would create a year‑round employment program for underserved youth in Prince George's County and, per committee staff, the sponsor intends to request $1,000,000 from the Maryland General Assembly to support the program.

Why it matters: The proposal aims to extend employment opportunities beyond a traditional summer program for young people from low‑income households. Committee members sought details on the age range, overlap with the county's existing summer youth employment program and how wages, hours and hiring levels would affect county funding needs.

Caleb Callender, policy analyst with the Budget and Policy Analysis Division, presented the fiscal scenarios included in draft 1. "The fiscal impact will vary based off three factors: the wage, the number of youth hired, and the hours worked," he said. As an example, Callender said 50 youth working 20 hours per week at Maryland's $15 minimum wage would require about $780,000 annually; the same 50 youth at $20 per hour would require about $1,040,000 and could require county funding beyond the $1,000,000 the sponsor plans to request from the General Assembly.

Committee members asked how "underserved youth" is defined. A representative from the Office of Human Resources Management (OHRM) told the committee that section 2503.01 defines underserved youth for related county programs as youth and young adults from households making 30% or less of the median family income for the Washington, D.C., metropolitan statistical area, as published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Staff explained that the summer youth program defines an age range of 15 through 19, but CB 89 as drafted leaves age and other parameters to be set by the director of OHRM or that director's designee.

Members raised concerns about the proposed age range for a year‑round program, suggesting that older young adults (for example, ages 19–24) might be a better primary target for year‑round placements because of school schedules and availability for part‑time government jobs. Members also noted that Councilmembers in Districts 7 and 8 already have year‑round pilot programs funded from council member impact resources and asked how the countywide program would relate to those pilots. Staff said the bill is intended to establish an ongoing countywide program that can be funded as resources permit and that sponsors intend non‑lapsing funding to support continuation.

The county executive's office indicated support for CB 89 as amended. The Office of Law advised that drafts reviewed were in proper legislative form. After discussion, the committee voted to move the bill favorable with amendments, 4‑0. Staff and members noted follow‑up requests: clarify overlap with the summer youth program, confirm the definition and age parameters OHRM will adopt, and model fiscal outcomes under multiple wage and hour scenarios.

Next steps: CB 89 advances with committee amendments; staff will coordinate with OHRM and the bill sponsor on program design details and fiscal modeling. The sponsor intends to request $1,000,000 from the Maryland General Assembly to fund initial operations.

Votes at a glance: CB 89 — Motion to move favorable with amendments; outcome: favorable (4‑0).