Anne Arundel County proposes pension changes after union negotiations; council seeks clearer fiscal note

Anne Arundel County officials on July 15 introduced an ordinance to change pension plan terms after this year’s union negotiations, including extending DROP participation and increasing certain employee contributions. The ordinance, presented by Deputy County Attorney Ethan Hunt on behalf of the administration, would add a seventh year to the deferred retirement option program (DROP) for classifications in CPS 1 and 2 and criminal justice program specialists, change firefighter eligibility from 4 per month to 20 per quarter (capped at 72 annually), raise the DROP interest credit for police and IAFF fire participants from 4.25% to 5%, and increase employee contribution rates for IAFF fire participants from 7.25% to 8% and for police plan participants from 7.25% to 8.25%. Why it matters: The changes alter retirement timing and employee payroll contributions for public safety and other covered employees and could affect the county’s retirement outlays and payroll withholding. County budget and personnel staff explained the mechanics and fiscal implications. “This ordinance is submitted on behalf of the office of personnel. It implements changes to the pension plans based on the results of union negotiations this past year with various collective bargaining units representing county employees,” Ethan Hunt said. Budget officer Chris Trumbauer responded to a question about the fiscal note by saying, “So unfortunately, you're looking at apples and oranges there,” and explained the distinction between increased employer expense from higher DROP interest and increased employee revenue from higher contributions. Personnel Officer Ambadowski (at the table as Anne Bedowski) said the jump in firefighter DROP eligibility from a maximum of 48 to 72 annually reflects larger academy classes over recent years, causing more members to become eligible in a given period and to frequently hit prior monthly caps. Councilmember Fiedler asked the administration to work with the auditor’s office to clarify the fiscal note so the record shows how the various expenditure and revenue changes relate; Trumbauer agreed to follow up. No formal council vote on the ordinance was recorded during the work session. The administration asked the council to consider the ordinance at upcoming sessions; staff said follow-up materials (including a clarified fiscal note) would be provided to address audit questions and council inquiries. Looking ahead: Councilmembers indicated they may seek additional detail before final action, and staff committed to follow up with the auditor’s office to reconcile the fiscal presentation.