Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consumer Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Montgomery County Office of Consumer Protection seeks funding for two positions tied to recently passed bill
Summary
Office of Consumer Protection Director Eric Friedman told the Montgomery County Public Safety Committee the FY26 recommended budget is essentially a same‑services proposal but that implementation of a recently passed measure (referred to in the briefing as Bill 6‑25) will require two full‑time enforcement positions.
Office of Consumer Protection Director Eric Friedman told the Montgomery County Council Public Safety Committee on April 23 that the office’s FY26 recommended operating budget is essentially a same‑services budget, with a net increase of $168,255 (about 5.9%) over FY25. “Our office was established 54 years ago, and we continue to enhance our ability to address our changing needs of the marketplace,” Friedman said, noting recent hires of an automotive expert and a home‑construction investigator and a new podcast to educate consumers.
Why it matters: Friedman and council staff said the county’s recently enacted measure (referred to in the briefing as Bill 6‑25) will require additional enforcement capacity. Office of Management and Budget staff told the committee the bill’s fiscal impact statement estimated two full‑time positions would be needed for enforcement and investigations, and that the FY26 recommended budget does not include those positions because of timing. “There is no question it’s needed as far as I’m concerned,” Councilmember [unnamed in transcript] said during the briefing.
The details: OMB staff and OCP described the FY26 recommended budget as driven by composition adjustments (about $195,000) offset by modest operating decreases (about $21,000) and other cost adjustments (motor pool and print/mail charges). The fiscal impact statement prepared for the bill assumed funding to support two hires for nine months (a prorated start), and OMB said the estimate in the fiscal impact statement remains “very close” to projected costs. OCP and council staff discussed whether to wait for the county executive’s amended budget to include the positions or to place the item on the reconciliation list so it is not overlooked at full council. Committee staff recommended adding it to the reconciliation list with an asterisk noting it is required to implement the bill; councilmembers agreed that would be a prudent procedural approach.
What was decided: Committee members asked that the need for the two positions be tracked and included on the reconciliation list so the council will not lose the item when the budget moves to full committee or to full council. Committee members also said they expect the county executive to include the positions in his upcoming budget amendments; OMB indicated it anticipated the amendments would arrive by the end of the week.
Context and next steps: No formal appropriation for the two positions was included in the FY26 recommended budget. The committee’s action was procedural: staff will add the two positions to the reconciliation list and, if the executive’s amendments include the funding first, reconcile the recon list entry at full council. The committee did not vote on a specific appropriation during the April 23 work session.
Ending: OCP staff thanked the committee for its time and for the council’s attention to consumer protection work. The committee moved on to the next agenda item after agreeing on the tracking approach.
