Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Staffing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
St. Helens council debates whether fee revenue should fund detectives or patrol positions
Summary
Councilors and police leaders debated whether revenue from a potential general services fee should be prioritized for two dedicated detectives for child‑protection cases or used to fill patrol positions and reduce overtime; staff described hiring timelines and current training pipeline.
ST. HELENS, Ore. — A central dispute during the Feb. 11 special session was how revenue from a possible general services fee should be allocated between detective investigators and patrol staffing.
Mayor (unnamed) and several council members said they want the fee to create capacity for dedicated detectives to handle heavy workloads in child exploitation and abuse investigations. "If we're going to be asking citizens to put money forward... we have to take care of our children in this community," the mayor said, urging dedicated investigative positions and estimating two full‑time detectives could cost roughly $400,000.
Police leadership described the current staffing situation and training timeline. The police lieutenant told council the department needs three full‑time detectives — two to handle domestic violence and child‑abuse caseloads and one dedicated to ICAC — and said minimum patrol staffing for 24‑hour coverage would require about 15 officers. The lieutenant cautioned that academy and field training timelines mean new hires can take 8–12 months before reaching full operational capacity.
City staff relayed the chief’s staffing plan: if funding were available to fill two open positions, one could be promoted to detective to begin investigative work. Chief Smith (speaking during the meeting) said his intent, should the fee pass, "would be to hire [and] train sufficient staff so we don't have any gaps in road coverage, patrol coverage, and then immediately punch 2 officers into investigations to alleviate" investigative backlogs.
Some councilors argued money should instead prioritize patrol hires to reduce chronic overtime costs. One councilor noted overtime costs to date have almost covered the cost of two full FTEs, suggesting filling vacancies could be cost‑neutral versus continued overtime. Council consensus did not settle the allocation; members agreed the topic would inform final budget scenarios prepared for the budget committee and for public presentation if the fee is referred to voters.
The council advanced both fee options to second reading with a requirement that the budget committee review the fee after five years; councilors directed staff to include staffing‑priority scenarios in the materials prepared for the next meeting.
