Bluff City lieutenant says $20,000 recovery underscores threats to officer retention as pay lags neighboring counties

A Bluff City police lieutenant told the Board of Aldermen that a collaborative postal investigation recovered $20,000 sent by a 70‑year‑old fraud victim, and used the episode to warn the board that current pay scales and benefit differences are pushing officers to leave for neighboring departments.

The statement matters because the lieutenant tied the fraud recovery and recurring recruitment costs to the city’s ability to retain officers, saying the department spends significant resources — about $24,000 per recruit in equipment and training before an officer begins full duty — and that substantial pay gaps increase turnover and hiring costs.

Lieutenant Bays of the Bluff City Police Department described an investigation in which a resident mailed $20,000 by USPS Express to a suspect address in Spartanburg, South Carolina. Bluff City police worked with post office managers and Spartanburg police to intercept and seize the package; the lieutenant said the funds were being returned to the victim. “Her money’s on the way back,” the lieutenant told the board.

Bays told aldermen that new recruits incur about $24,000 in city costs before they begin regular patrol duties, and cited an officer who has accumulated roughly 160 hours of compensatory time owed by the city. He also described a lateral‑hire package available in other departments that he read from a public posting: health, vision and life insurance offered at no employee cost, participation in the Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System (TCRS) with a 9% employer contribution, and starting pay cited at about $50,007.88 for officers with two years of experience and higher pay for corporal ranks. Bays said he personally makes $45,320 and that comparable neighboring pay can reach $64,272 in one cited county.

The lieutenant framed retention as a moral and operational issue: low local pay, he said, leaves officers feeling underappreciated and will push them to accept higher pay elsewhere. Several board members responded by noting budget constraints and the board’s interest in making employees competitive; the transcript records a back‑and‑forth between the lieutenant and aldermen about whether the board can increase pay in the near term and how to prioritize limited resources.

No formal compensation change or vote occurred during the meeting. The board discussed exploring funding options and grants but did not commit to a specific salary increase or ordinance. Aldermen urged staff to continue budget work and to consider how the city might support public‑safety retention while balancing other infrastructure needs.

The lieutenant also described operational implications: replacing an officer who leaves can cost the city in both cash (training, equipment and comp‑time payouts) and continuity of service, increasing exposure to overtime and reduced on‑duty coverage until replacements are trained.

Next steps recorded in the discussion: staff and aldermen will continue to review the budget with public‑safety retention in mind and investigate potential funding or policy changes to make Bluff City more competitive with neighboring departments.