St. Charles County Council holds work session on jail staffing, pay and renovations as budget constraints bite

St. Charles County Council members met in a Sept. 8 work session to review persistent staffing and operating problems at the county jail and to hear proposals from administration and corrections leaders for pay changes, incentives and facility renovations ahead of the 2026 budget.

The session did not include votes; council members and staff framed the discussion as a review of possible, budget-dependent responses to a sustained staffing shortfall and rising costs.

Council members pressed administration and corrections staff on recruitment and retention, while corrections officers described the operational impact of mandatory and volunteer overtime and a month-by-month overtime pay cadence. County staff outlined a menu of potential measures that would require funding decisions in the November budget process.

Joanne (staff member, county administration) told the council each 1% increase in a general‑fund pay raise would cost about $727,500 across county general‑fund positions; a 2% COLA was estimated to cost roughly $1.5 million. For corrections specifically, administration said it is considering moving correctional officers from pay class C4 to C5, which would change the starting salary from $48,582 to $52,226 before any cost‑of‑living adjustment.

Corrections Director Dan (staff member) described operational steps already under way: booking-area upgrades, completion of a renovated Fifth Floor, and Phase 1 work on the Third Floor. He told the council the Fifth Floor is finished and that substantial completion on the next phase of the Third Floor—designed to add beds and create a larger staff break area—was expected in mid‑to‑late next year, with a major staff break area due by October. Dan said many needed changes are “budget dependent” and noted some one‑time federal funds used after the pandemic are expiring.

Dan also gave specific recruiting outcomes from a recent contract with job site Indeed: from May 31 to Aug. 14, 957 career seekers were referred, 165 applied, 119 tested, 92 passed tests, 40 were interviewed, and 13 were hired. A more recent testing cycle invited 56 candidates; 10 tested and eight passed, Dan said.

Several corrections officers said mandatory staffing practices and the county’s pay and scheduling policies reduce staff morale and retention. Officer Brown (corrections officer) said officers sometimes volunteer for overtime to avoid being next on the mandate list and asked why overtime pay could not be paid more frequently. “We volunteer to not get mandated,” Brown said. Officer Armstead (corrections officer) told the council officers used to be paid overtime every two weeks and asked whether the county could restore that cadence because monthly overtime payments increase tax withholding burdens on staff.

Union representative Mr. Reagan, who addressed the council near the end of the session, urged more immediate and substantive changes. “You’re gonna have to do something to attract people in,” he said, urging a mix of pay and nonpay measures to improve retention.

Administration presented several budget options for corrections to consider for 2026: a $2‑per‑hour overtime premium (estimated roughly $85,000 based on last year’s overtime), a $1‑per‑hour night shift differential (estimated roughly $219,000), milestone longevity payments for long‑tenured officers, and educational incentives (a proposed $2,000 supplement for an associate degree, $2,000 for a bachelor’s and $1,000 for a master’s, which administration said would affect roughly 30 staff). Milestone and education steps would be permanent base pay adjustments in most proposals.

Retirement options that officers raised — often termed “55 and out” — were discussed but administration described them as financially out of reach. Administration cited a prior market study estimating about $14.4 million to extend 55‑and‑out just for corrections and about $40 million to adopt a higher multiplier plan (L6) countywide.

Council members repeatedly noted there is no single “magic bullet.” Councilman Hollander said a patchwork of smaller measures plus capital investment and targeted recruitment might together narrow the staffing gap. Councilman Bridal emphasized schedule predictability for employees: “When you're working 8 hours and your kid's got a soccer game and they're told you can't go … that's a major problem,” he said.

Administration said it is discussing a proposal with the sheriff’s office that would transfer some prisoner transport and medical‑appointment duties to the sheriff to reduce jail staff workload. Staff also noted growing inmate medical costs, rising healthcare premiums (administration estimated a roughly 10.55% increase in employee healthcare costs and an approximately $1.92 million general‑fund impact), and the end of ARPA funds that had temporarily supported some positions.

Several council members and staff discussed recruitment support options, including outside agencies. Dan said the county has tried job fairs, social media and the Indeed contract; he also said corrections will not lower hiring standards.

Where the council goes next: administration said specific proposals will be packaged into the 2026 budget request and presented in November. Several council members asked that administration and the corrections director continue negotiating with employee representatives and prepare cost estimates so the council can weigh tradeoffs when the budget arrives.

Discussion vs. decision: the meeting produced no formal actions on pay or retirement changes; the session was explicitly framed as informational. Staff committed to present budget‑dependent proposals and costs for formal consideration during the regular 2026 budget cycle.

Ending: Council members and corrections leadership agreed to continue the dialogue as administration completes precise cost estimates. The council emphasized the November budget process as the time to decide which of the proposed measures, if any, will be funded.