Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Public Safety Police Retention topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Bluff City police report $20,000 recovery, officers warn retention risk amid pay competition

5093248 · June 27, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A Bluff City police lieutenant described the department's recovery of $20,000 sent by a scam victim and urged councilors to address officer pay and retention after citing competing offers from nearby agencies.

A Bluff City police lieutenant told the council the department helped recover $20,000 sent by a scam victim and used the case to urge the board to address pay and retention problems that the department says are driving turnover.

The issue matters because council decisions about pay and staffing affect public safety and could determine whether the city can keep experienced officers.

During public comments, Lieutenant Bays (spelled in the transcript as Bays/Baze) described an investigation initiated on June 16 that recovered a mailed cash package before it was delivered to a suspect in Spartanburg, South Carolina. "Lieutenant Bays, with his swift action, promptly established contact to US post office, initiated tracking of the package…" the transcript states, and staff worked with postal inspectors and Spartanburg police to intercept the parcel and return funds to the victim.

The lieutenant used the recovery to underline retention costs for training and equipment. He said hiring and training a new officer can cost the city about $24,000 before the recruit completes field training. "If he walks out tomorrow… we are out $25,000," he said, referencing academy, equipment and field training expenditures. He also quoted hiring packages from nearby departments: the lieutenant cited Elizabethton Police Department’s lateral transfer posting that offers single‑coverage health, vision and life insurance at no cost and a salary example of $50,007.88 for officers with two years' experience and noted that comparable officers elsewhere earn materially more (he gave a Sullivan County example at $64,272 and a Johnson City example for a corporal at $55,046).

The lieutenant argued the pay gap and how the budget conversation is framed were harming morale and risking future departures. "When you come to vote for this, you get what you pay for," he said. He urged the council to consider the budget’s effects on employee respect and retention, noting many officers have two to six years of experience and could be recruited away by nearby agencies offering higher pay and better benefits.

Councilors responded that they want to support public safety but also repeated that budget decisions are constrained by available revenue and asked staff to pursue grants and other funding avenues. A member acknowledged the department had secured the funds for the scam victim and said that the recovery showcased "exemplary investigation and cooperative endeavor."

No formal action or vote on compensation occurred at the meeting; council members discussed a proposed 5% starting increase in the context of retention and instructed staff to continue budget analysis and to seek grant opportunities. The lieutenant requested that the board weigh the tradeoffs between fiscal limits and the cost of losing trained officers.