Montgomery County committees press for menstrual‑product access after amendments stall

A joint session of Montgomery County Council’s Health and Human Services and Government & Operations committees revisited Bill 4‑223, which would require free menstrual products in specified county public restrooms. Committee chairs and the bill sponsor framed the measure as a public‑health step to reduce period poverty and improve dignity for menstruating residents.

“This is an issue of gender equity for menstruating individuals,” Dr. Nina Ashford, chief of public health services for HHS, told the committees, citing the county’s social vulnerability index as a proxy to identify high‑need communities. Ashford said a local nonprofit, I Support the Girls, donated about 1,600,000 menstrual products to Montgomery County from 2015 to 2023, which she said underscores community need.

Council Vice President Chiwanda, the bill’s sponsor, summarized the legislation’s evolution and defended a narrowed amendment that would limit requirements to county‑owned, public‑facing restrooms such as libraries, recreation centers, regional service centers and select DHHS locations. “The original bill would have cost the government over $2,000,000 in the first year and then about half of that each year after,” Chiwanda said, adding that the proposed amendment would reduce that projected cost “by almost 90%.”

Operational details came from the Department of General Services. Gregory Boykin, deputy director and chief operating officer, said staff priced dispensers and supplies for roughly 150 restrooms and estimated ongoing annual product costs at about $214,305. He said dispensers in the packet were listed at approximately $289.95 each, which yields an initial dispenser cost near $43,493 for 150 units; refilling was estimated at about 26 times per year. Boykin described single‑use, time‑out vending mechanisms intended to discourage bulk removal.

An OMB representative, Ms. Peterson, said the ongoing cost is not included in the current baseline budget and that implementing the program in FY’26 would require a supplemental appropriation or an enhancement to the FY’27 budget. She deferred to the County Executive’s office on whether the Executive would pursue a policy implementation absent legislation and said OMB would follow up on timing and appropriation questions.

Committee members asked about product quality and safety, and HHS said it would work with DGS on specifications (for example, recommending cotton and fragrance‑free options where feasible). Members also noted that Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) operates under state law and is not covered by this county bill; staff said MCPS had provided supplemental material in the packet but was not present to answer questions.

Councilmembers debated whether the change should be enacted by Executive action or by law. Vice President Chiwanda said he had spoken with the County Executive and understood the Executive would sign the bill; other members said the Executive could implement the policy immediately via budget and administrative action and urged staff to seek that route for speed. Ms. Wellens, council staff, read the amendment language aloud: it would vest DGS with responsibility for providing products in DGS‑managed county restrooms used as libraries, recreation centers, regional service centers or locations where DHHS provides public services; DHHS could exempt particular buildings for security or privacy reasons, and restrooms intended primarily for county employees would be excluded. The amendment set an effective date of six months after enactment.

There was no motion to move the amendment forward during the session. Chair Gabe Arbornoz said, instead, that the committees would pursue a ‘‘plan B’’: staff will draft a joint letter to the County Executive requesting an appropriation to launch the pilot and the committees expect the funding to be included in the next operating budget if the Executive does not act.

The committees did not take a recorded vote on the amendment; members directed staff to follow up with the County Executive’s office, OMB and departmental leads on implementation timing, procurement specifications and budget options. The joint session was adjourned with the expectation the topic will return for further consideration or be advanced administratively.

Next steps: staff will draft the joint letter to the County Executive, OMB will coordinate potential budget paths, and DGS/HHS agreed to continue planning procurement and product‑quality specifications pending funding or a legislative directive.