Prince George's County committee reviews Office of Community Relations budget, hears persistent complaints about PGC311 timelines

The Government Operations and Fiscal Policy Committee on March 12 reviewed the Office of Community Relations' (OCR) proposed fiscal year 2026 budget and heard sustained discussion about the county's PGC311 service timeline, staffing and accountability for agency responses.

OCR Director Becca Davis and analyst Roger Benagas presented the office's FY26 proposal, which totals $5,398,100, a 6.3% decrease from FY25 and is fully funded by the general fund. Benagas said the proposed budget authorizes 56 full‑time positions, funds 44 of them and showed an 18‑position vacancy as of March 12, 2025, a 32.14% vacancy rate. Davis described OCR services, including maintenance of the PGC311 CRM, a mobile “3‑1‑1 on the go” unit and an expanded SMS/text feature for service requests.

The committee focused on constituent complaints that PGC311 responses take longer than residents expect. Davis said agencies set service level agreements (SLAs) that determine response timelines and that OCR does not unilaterally change those SLAs. “When agencies are overdue, we can run a report,” Davis said, adding that OCR can provide detailed reports—by ZIP code, street or request type—through the Salesforce system. She said OCR’s call center averages six seconds to answer and that the mobile app is reducing some call volume but does not eliminate the need for operators.

Council members asked for a printout of each service request type and the response times agencies provided; Davis agreed to provide those timelines and said OCR staff can run tailored reports. Committee members also questioned OCR's staffing mix: Benagas and Davis said six of the 18 vacancies were call‑center positions and that OCR has been converting some call capacity into community liaison work. Davis said some vacancies result from turnover by employees who are not suited to the “boots on the ground” community work OCR performs.

On oversight, Davis and several council members discussed accountability for overdue requests. Davis recommended an independent oversight unit to monitor outstanding service requests and service timelines; she said CountyStat is a potential partner but cautioned that oversight should be objective and not housed only in OCR. She and council members also discussed adding a “tickler” or reminder system so residents receive status updates and expected completion dates for their service requests.

Committee members raised several program‑level questions: the status of the common ownership communities/hearing process (the law’s implementation depends on budget appropriation and work that is expected to begin in FY26 if funded), the relaunch of OCR’s alternative dispute resolution program and OCR’s outreach events and attendance at about 500 community meetings during the director’s tenure. Davis estimated that meaningful implementation of the HOA hearing process would require additional staffing and a fiscal commitment beyond OCR’s current three‑person common ownership unit.

The committee did not take formal action on the OCR budget at the meeting and members requested follow‑up reports on SLA timelines, the vacancy list, and a summary of how OCR proposes to use filled positions to support community liaisons and compliance work.

Davis: “We can give you any report you want.” Council members asked for the SLA printouts and vacancy documentation to be provided to the committee.

The committee moved on to other agency presentations at the conclusion of the OCR discussion.