Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Staff Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Glenarden council debates staff retirement match and future council stipends; no vote taken
Summary
Council members discussed raising the city’s employee retirement match (from 2.5% to a 3% base with a matching option up to 7%) and a proposed stipend increase for future councilmembers; no final council vote on retirement or stipend changes was recorded at the hearing.
Glenarden City Council held an extended discussion Feb. 24 about proposed changes to employee retirement contributions and a separate proposal to increase future council stipends, but did not adopt either proposal during the public hearing.
Council President Curtis and several members argued the city’s staff — including police and other municipal employees — have been underpaid and that a modest increase in the city retirement contribution would help preserve a livable retirement for longtime employees. The measure discussed would set a 3% automatic city contribution and allow an additional city match up to a total 7% if an employee contributes additional percentages of their own salary.
“Two and a half percent — you cannot retire on 2.5%,” Curtis said during the discussion, describing the proposal as a “3% fixed, plus up to a 4% match if the employee contributes” arrangement. Council members and former officials urged that any retirement enhancement be coupled with employee financial literacy outreach so staff can take advantage of any matching program.
A separate ordinance (listed on the agenda as O 6 20 25) proposing a stipend increase for the next council cycle also drew comment from residents. Resident Kevin asked why the council felt increasing the stipend for incoming councilmembers to $12,000 (an increase from current amounts discussed at the hearing) was an appropriate use of taxpayer funds; Council President Curtis said the stipends are intended to offset costs members incur while serving and that the change would apply only to those elected in the next council term, not to current members.
No formal votes to adopt the retirement or stipend proposals were recorded in the public hearing; councilmembers said staff would provide clearer budget figures and that the council would consider how to fund any changes from existing appropriations before taking action. Councilman Herring suggested using leftover funds from a previously budgeted tax-rebate program to partially fund short-term relief programs discussed elsewhere in the meeting; council members debated amounts but did not reach a final funding decision.
Councilmembers asked staff to provide detailed budget and reserve figures, including remaining amounts from a $1.5 million tax‑rebate appropriation, and to return with clear cost estimates before any final ordinance votes.
