Committee backs FY26 compensation package, recommends collective bargaining agreements to full council

The Government Operations and Fiscal Policy Committee on [date not specified] reviewed the county executive’s FY26 compensation and benefits recommendations — covering general wage adjustments (GWAs), service increments, retirement contributions and group insurance funding — and voted unanimously to recommend the county government collective bargaining agreements to the full County Council.

Committee staff summarized the executive’s recommended FY26 tax‑supported operating budget for compensation at approximately $6,647,000,000 across county‑funded agencies and said employee compensation (salaries plus benefits) comprises roughly 72% of tax‑supported agency expenditures. OMB staff said the executive recommends higher GWAs for certain public safety units (a 4.85% GWA for FOP members) and smaller GWAs for other represented and non‑represented groups (3.25% for IFF; 3% for McGeo non‑represented employees). The executive also recommends 3.5% service increments for eligible employees not at top of grade.

Staff described other FY26 cost drivers: an estimated $51 million in pay increases in FY26 (with an annualized figure of about $55 million) and substantially larger increases in retirement costs — the Employee Retirement System (ERS) contribution was cited at about $71 million for the coming year and retirement costs overall were described as increasing by about 18% from FY25 to FY26. On group insurance, staff told the committee the FY26 tax‑supported request for active‑employee group insurance benefits rises materially from FY25 (staff cited a 13.3% increase in the packet).

Staff also highlighted localized pay adjustments in the FOP agreement: expanding the allowable personal patrol vehicle (PPV) radius from 10 miles to 20 miles outside the county border is estimated to cost about $593,000 annually; increases to the K‑9 shift differential were estimated at about $400,000 and an increase in the field training officer differential was estimated at roughly $85,000.

Council staff presented illustrative options if the council sought to lower compensation growth: reducing GWAs by 1 percentage point across employee groups would save about $32.9 million in FY26; funding a uniform 2% GWA would reduce the recommended budget by about $41.5 million; eliminating service and longevity increments for FY26 was estimated to save about $55.5 million; and shifting group‑insurance premium cost shares for county government employees to match a 2% phased shift used by MCPS would save an estimated $4.1 million by FY28.

Council members questioned sustainability assumptions. Councilmember Fritza said the county must balance recruitment and retention with long‑term fiscal sustainability and pressed for organizational review rather than adding positions without repurposing existing capacity. Councilmember Katz and Councilmember Friedson expressed support for the compensation package while emphasizing the need to keep government services functioning and to maintain competitive pay for public safety and critical staff.

The committee then considered the collective bargaining agreements that require fiscal appropriations under county code. Labor relations staff and the county attorney’s office provided summaries of the agreements and the packet’s attachments (salary schedules, fiscal impacts and appendix changes). The committee moved to recommend the agreements — a motion made by Councilmember Katz and seconded by Councilmember Friedson — and the committee recorded a unanimous vote in favor, sending the agreements to the full council for final action.

Committee staff recommended approval of the executive’s proposed non‑merit salary schedules, funding for active and retiree group insurance and OPEB prefunding, and the recommended pension contributions, while noting the committee will continue to monitor pension and group‑insurance funded ratios.

Several council members requested additional detail in follow‑up, including a breakdown of the assumptions behind the executive’s compensation growth projections and the drivers of the retirement‑cost increases. Staff said some agency reports (personnel management reviews) would be available in late April or early May and that staff would return with updated analyses as the FY26 budget process proceeds.