City should put forward a property or sales tax increase to both cover this and extend the benefit to all employees.
- 17
To be fair, I believe each of the buildings used by the Police Department were owned by the Board of Police Commissioners, prior to City Control. Ownership transferred to the City and now is transferring back to the Board of Police Commissioners.StlAlex wrote: ↑12:32 AM - Jan 09The moderate position should be the city not sending money to the police department it doesn't have authority over. They should also be paying rent for operating in city owned buildings or paying property tax.quincunx wrote:Surely the state will pay for such generous benefits for its police officers, right?
StlToday - St. Louis police regain lifetime health insurance. City officials are alarmed.
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... 2911d.html
This sh*t is insane but no one treats it like it's insane.
Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk
It's not the "State's Police". It's a state appointed board, comprised of City Residents (and Don Brown). The police department doesn't provide drivers for the governor (like they used to under prior state control). They don't patrol outside of the City of St. Louis. The department is so short, they couldn't even send officers to assist the Highway Patrol and KCPD with a mutual aid contract for the upcoming world cup.StlAlex wrote: ↑12:34 AM - Jan 09The point is that the city is paying for stuff it can't control. I feel like everyone here would say police need to be paid more and given better benefits to attract better officers, but that's not the point. The point is the city is paying for the state's police and that's not right.Note Speak wrote:It was a benefit given to all city officers since the 1960's who completed the minimum 20 years of service and retired. It's still in effect for all city officers who have retired, as those who were hired under City Control, do not have the required time to retire. Even under city control, city officers who completed the minimum amount of service and retired with benefits, was given the benefit of healthcare.quincunx wrote: ↑5:04 PM - Jan 08I presume they don't see the hypocrisy of single-payer healthcare for SLMPD retirees while other retired officers and the rest of Missourians can pound sand.
When you pay a salary 20,0000-40,000 dollars below competing departments, you have to have a benefit package to set you apart. The police pension and healthcare is why so many officers choose to not only work in the city, but stay in the city for the minimum of 20 years of service. If we constantly complain about how we want the highest qualified candidates, but give these men and women no benefits to working here, why would they come?
Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk
"It's not the state's police, it's just under the state's control."Note Speak wrote:It's not the "State's Police". It's a state appointed board, comprised of City Residents (and Don Brown). The police department doesn't provide drivers for the governor (like they used to under prior state control). They don't patrol outside of the City of St. Louis. The department is so short, they couldn't even send officers to assist the Highway Patrol and KCPD with a mutual aid contract for the upcoming world cup.StlAlex wrote: ↑12:34 AM - Jan 09The point is that the city is paying for stuff it can't control. I feel like everyone here would say police need to be paid more and given better benefits to attract better officers, but that's not the point. The point is the city is paying for the state's police and that's not right.Note Speak wrote: It was a benefit given to all city officers since the 1960's who completed the minimum 20 years of service and retired. It's still in effect for all city officers who have retired, as those who were hired under City Control, do not have the required time to retire. Even under city control, city officers who completed the minimum amount of service and retired with benefits, was given the benefit of healthcare.
When you pay a salary 20,0000-40,000 dollars below competing departments, you have to have a benefit package to set you apart. The police pension and healthcare is why so many officers choose to not only work in the city, but stay in the city for the minimum of 20 years of service. If we constantly complain about how we want the highest qualified candidates, but give these men and women no benefits to working here, why would they come?
Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk
Thanks for your contribution.
Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk
It's reprehensible that this state board can spend the city's money circumventing the BoA and BoE&A.
The state can pay for a raise for their police officers.
Can we pass an ordinance that raises the earnings tax to cover costs incurred by this board and not approved by the BoA and BoE&A? That might slow their roll.
Also, would this trigger an equal raise for firefighters?
Stl Mag - Police board gears up to give St. Louis police another 7 percent raise
https://www.stlmag.com/news/stlouis-pol ... ent-raise/
The state can pay for a raise for their police officers.
Can we pass an ordinance that raises the earnings tax to cover costs incurred by this board and not approved by the BoA and BoE&A? That might slow their roll.
Also, would this trigger an equal raise for firefighters?
Stl Mag - Police board gears up to give St. Louis police another 7 percent raise
https://www.stlmag.com/news/stlouis-pol ... ent-raise/
I like how "surprised" the mayor says she is as if the board of clowns hasn't always been a board of clowns.
Red places would be in armed rebellion if blue states did anything remotely resembling this.
Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk
Red places would be in armed rebellion if blue states did anything remotely resembling this.
Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk
- 17
The police board is spending money that was in the Police Department budget, as set by the City. The City set a budget amount and the Board of Police Commissioners is following that budget. If the City is so against pay parity with the Fire Department, then they can set forth to change the charter.quincunx wrote: ↑3:29 PM - Jan 28It's reprehensible that this state board can spend the city's money circumventing the BoA and BoE&A.
The state can pay for a raise for their police officers.
Can we pass an ordinance that raises the earnings tax to cover costs incurred by this board and not approved by the BoA and BoE&A? That might slow their roll.
Also, would this trigger an equal raise for firefighters?
Stl Mag - Police board gears up to give St. Louis police another 7 percent raise
https://www.stlmag.com/news/stlouis-pol ... ent-raise/
"Maybe the city should just pay other, non state-run police, employees less"Note Speak wrote:The police board is spending money that was in the Police Department budget, as set by the City. The City set a budget amount and the Board of Police Commissioners is following that budget. If the City is so against pay parity with the Fire Department, then they can set forth to change the charter.quincunx wrote: ↑3:29 PM - Jan 28It's reprehensible that this state board can spend the city's money circumventing the BoA and BoE&A.
The state can pay for a raise for their police officers.
Can we pass an ordinance that raises the earnings tax to cover costs incurred by this board and not approved by the BoA and BoE&A? That might slow their roll.
Also, would this trigger an equal raise for firefighters?
Stl Mag - Police board gears up to give St. Louis police another 7 percent raise
https://www.stlmag.com/news/stlouis-pol ... ent-raise/
Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk
City officials say they have deep concerns about the size of the raises, which must still be ratified by both officers and the police board. Budget director Paul Payne says the increase would likely cost $13.3 million annually, when the city only budgets $10 million a year for pay increases for all city workers
- 17
Maybe the City shouldn't have let city employees fall down to 75% below market minimum. I'm all for paying all city employees more. There's a reason there are so many vacancies within City jobs.StlAlex wrote: ↑12:07 AM - Jan 29"Maybe the city should just pay other, non state-run police, employees less"Note Speak wrote:The police board is spending money that was in the Police Department budget, as set by the City. The City set a budget amount and the Board of Police Commissioners is following that budget. If the City is so against pay parity with the Fire Department, then they can set forth to change the charter.quincunx wrote: ↑3:29 PM - Jan 28It's reprehensible that this state board can spend the city's money circumventing the BoA and BoE&A.
The state can pay for a raise for their police officers.
Can we pass an ordinance that raises the earnings tax to cover costs incurred by this board and not approved by the BoA and BoE&A? That might slow their roll.
Also, would this trigger an equal raise for firefighters?
Stl Mag - Police board gears up to give St. Louis police another 7 percent raise
https://www.stlmag.com/news/stlouis-pol ... ent-raise/
Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk
"We are making you raise police pay, we don't care if it will make PD and FD far better paid than any other city employee and we also don't care that you will have to cut other services and probably jobs to pay for it."Note Speak wrote:Maybe the City shouldn't have let city employees fall down to 75% below market minimum. I'm all for paying all city employees more. There's a reason there are so many vacancies within City jobs.StlAlex wrote: ↑12:07 AM - Jan 29"Maybe the city should just pay other, non state-run police, employees less"Note Speak wrote: The police board is spending money that was in the Police Department budget, as set by the City. The City set a budget amount and the Board of Police Commissioners is following that budget. If the City is so against pay parity with the Fire Department, then they can set forth to change the charter.
Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk
[Ok then let us raise our earnings tax a little so we can actually make the city better by hiring more and better people to run it better.]
"No, actually we're looking into taking that away from you. Oh and you will have to spend $40M more per year on the police department that you don't control and also doesn't actually stop crime."
[......can you at least provide some basic economic development incentives to boost our economy growth and development for new residents and businesses?]
"We'll tax your downtown for $2.5M so you can have horses."
Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk
- 1,793
Just get police control back on the ballot in 2028 after we neuter MOLeg’s ability to repeal voter approved laws later this year.
- 9,526
The mayor finds herself in a bit of a pickle. She clearly recognizes, as most people do, that St. Louis police officers deserve a raise and should be the highest-paid department in the region. The problem is the city charter. A decision made long ago requires that any raise given to the police department must also be given to the fire department. The reverse is not true. The fire department can receive a raise without one going to police. This is known as the pay parity law.
As a result, whenever police receive a raise that might otherwise cost the city $6 to $10 million, the real cost doubles to $12 to $20 million because the same increase must be extended to the fire department. That’s the dilemma. The mayor is heavily backed by the fire department union, and the city is very unlikely to put a charter amendment on the ballot to eliminate pay parity. However, that does not mean the state couldn’t act on its own. The state already removed the city’s residency requirement and could choose to do the same with pay parity.
None of this is meant to take anything away from the fire department. These are, by far, the most qualified and best firefighters in the entire region. They deserve strong pay based on their own merit and hard work. The issue is not whether firefighters deserve raises, but whether those raises should automatically be tied to decisions made for a different department, rather than earned on their own terms.
As a result, whenever police receive a raise that might otherwise cost the city $6 to $10 million, the real cost doubles to $12 to $20 million because the same increase must be extended to the fire department. That’s the dilemma. The mayor is heavily backed by the fire department union, and the city is very unlikely to put a charter amendment on the ballot to eliminate pay parity. However, that does not mean the state couldn’t act on its own. The state already removed the city’s residency requirement and could choose to do the same with pay parity.
None of this is meant to take anything away from the fire department. These are, by far, the most qualified and best firefighters in the entire region. They deserve strong pay based on their own merit and hard work. The issue is not whether firefighters deserve raises, but whether those raises should automatically be tied to decisions made for a different department, rather than earned on their own terms.
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... aises.html
Sorry majority of city workers who get paid less than the police, you'll just have to wait another year so our overlords in Jefferson City can do political favors for the unions that fund their campaigns.
Meanwhile, the people who ultimately suffer the most will remain the residents of the city of St. Louis who will go even longer without a city service solution, in addition to paying taxes for a police department that does not get its authority from the consent of the governed.
Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk
Sorry majority of city workers who get paid less than the police, you'll just have to wait another year so our overlords in Jefferson City can do political favors for the unions that fund their campaigns.
Meanwhile, the people who ultimately suffer the most will remain the residents of the city of St. Louis who will go even longer without a city service solution, in addition to paying taxes for a police department that does not get its authority from the consent of the governed.
Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk
- 9,526
Spencer admin made no progress in hiring in 2025. In fact the City has 16 less employees on Jan 1 2026 vs Jan 1 2025
Raise. Salaries.
The city has run a budget surplus for years. The emergency fund is overfunded by millions of dollars. There's money to be spent - so spend it on paying existing employees an appropriate wage and attracting new employees by offering competitive salaries.
-RBB
The city has run a budget surplus for years. The emergency fund is overfunded by millions of dollars. There's money to be spent - so spend it on paying existing employees an appropriate wage and attracting new employees by offering competitive salaries.
-RBB
- 488
Id love the city to offer to raise wages in exchange for less union protections for all jobs.rbb wrote: ↑1:41 PM - Feb 10Raise. Salaries.
The city has run a budget surplus for years. The emergency fund is overfunded by millions of dollars. There's money to be spent - so spend it on paying existing employees an appropriate wage and attracting new employees by offering competitive salaries.
-RBB
Why couldn't it be both?mjbais1489 wrote: ↑2:48 PM - Feb 10Id love the city to offer to raise wages in exchange for less union protections for all jobs.rbb wrote: ↑1:41 PM - Feb 10Raise. Salaries.
The city has run a budget surplus for years. The emergency fund is overfunded by millions of dollars. There's money to be spent - so spend it on paying existing employees an appropriate wage and attracting new employees by offering competitive salaries.
-RBB
The new HR director just started. I am excited to see what kind of changes he is able to bring.
- 488
More wages and more union protections? It could be both - I'm just saying I'm against that.Otthouse wrote: ↑5:01 PM - Feb 10Why couldn't it be both?mjbais1489 wrote: ↑2:48 PM - Feb 10Id love the city to offer to raise wages in exchange for less union protections for all jobs.rbb wrote: ↑1:41 PM - Feb 10Raise. Salaries.
The city has run a budget surplus for years. The emergency fund is overfunded by millions of dollars. There's money to be spent - so spend it on paying existing employees an appropriate wage and attracting new employees by offering competitive salaries.
-RBB
I think the city should try to make it easy to fire bad cops, bad firefighters, bad streets dept employees, etc. I think the city's goal should be to provide awesome public services, not be a jobs center.
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... warns.html
Spencer says city services will be "decimated" and other city employees will have to be cut under the police board's proposed budget, which gives the police department more than a $57 million increase.
Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk
Spencer says city services will be "decimated" and other city employees will have to be cut under the police board's proposed budget, which gives the police department more than a $57 million increase.
Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk
If the state wants to spend $58M more on its police department, they can cut a check.
KMOV - Cripple city government’: Due to the new state law, city police board proposes massive increases to police, 96% increase to officer salaries
https://www.firstalert4.com/2026/02/25/ ... -salaries/
KMOV - Cripple city government’: Due to the new state law, city police board proposes massive increases to police, 96% increase to officer salaries
https://www.firstalert4.com/2026/02/25/ ... -salaries/
- 1,290
Does the city itself own the vehicles, equipment, and buildings they use? If so, just charge them $58 million in rent.