Council trims consent-decree spending by half, citing goal to resolve legal matter by Dec. 31

The Ferguson City Council voted June 3 to cut consent-decree-related budget items across multiple lines by half, reducing the fiscal-year appropriation tied to the legal agreement from approximately $412,100 to $206,350.

The motion targeted specific consent-decree expenses: the court-appointed monitor budget (cut from $300,000 to $150,000), IT support for the monitor (cut from $55,000 to $27,500), a portion of litigation paid to outside counsel (Lewis Rice — reduced by $21,000 from a $170,000 allocation), and half of the consent-decree coordinator salary and office supplies (a combined reduction of $7,850). The cumulative reduction totals about $206,350 for the year.

Proponents — who argued the city should draw a firm December 31 deadline for resolving the legal matter — said the cut creates urgency and frees funds for other city needs if the legal work concludes early. Council supporters repeatedly referred to informal discussions that suggested legal resolution was plausible by year-end.

Opponents warned that making these cuts now creates a financial risk: if the consent decree remains active past Dec. 31 the city would have to find supplemental appropriations or make deeper cuts elsewhere midyear. Councilman Franklin and Councilwoman North were among members opposing the measure for that reason. Councilman Kasoff and others said training to implement reforms would continue and would not be affected by the budget reductions.

Vote and process: After lively debate the council approved the package on a roll call. The recorded roll call showed Councilman Kazoff, Councilman Palmer, Councilman Williams and Councilwoman Covington voting “Aye”; Mayor Jones, Councilman Franklin and Councilwoman Noah voted “Nay.” The measure therefore passed by a 4–3 margin.

What the cut covers and what it does not: Supporters emphasized the council was not withdrawing training for police or other compliance work, which participants repeatedly said must continue. The cuts specifically target outside-monitoring, IT support paid for the monitor, a portion of litigation expense, and half of the coordinator/office-supply line items tied to the consent-decree implementation budget. The council left open the option to restore funds with a supplemental appropriation if a year-end legal settlement does not occur.

Next steps: Staff said they will monitor settlement progress; if the legal matter remains unresolved in December, council members acknowledged they would need to revisit the budget by supplemental appropriation or reallocation.

Ending: The council’s action was framed by supporters as an effort to accelerate negotiations and to avoid prolonged outside-legal expense; critics said it risks disrupting legal progress and will require contingency planning if the decree remains active after the stated target date.