Belmont City Council agrees to include $7,000 police starting‑pay increase in next budget

Councilman Zuks proposed raising police starting pay by $7,000 and members agreed to have staff include that scenario in a balanced budget to be presented at the council’s regular meeting next Monday.

Zuks said he was not advocating a tax increase or cuts to the capital improvement plan and proposed the $7,000 increase to starting pay be funded partly by foregoing two newly requested positions (about $165,000) and, if necessary on a one‑time basis, drawing from the city’s unassigned fund balance while relying on projected revenue growth to replenish reserves.

Staff presented the estimated fiscal impact: a $7,000 increase in starting pay was estimated to require roughly $441,000 in the current budget, though the staff presentation noted the actual near‑term cost may be lower if the city raises only starting salaries and phases in compression adjustments. Staff also reported a full loaded cost for one new sworn officer at $99,677 and an estimated full cost for a code enforcement position at about $65,100; the $165,000 figure cited by Zuks reflected the combined full costs of the two positions.

Police Chief Porky Falls supported the proposal as the most practical near‑term step to improve recruitment and retention. “I’ve lost 14 employees since July of last year,” Chief Falls said, arguing that raising starting pay would help attract qualified applicants and that adding positions without addressing starting pay could leave new slots unfilled.

Staff and councilors discussed how the $7,000 should be applied. One option is a flat $7,000 increase across the police department to avoid pay compression (situations where new hires earn close to the pay of longer‑tenured officers); another is to raise only starting pay and address compression in a phased manner. Staff noted the city’s prior salary study factored in a 2% per year service adjustment as one method to reduce compression.

Council members also considered a part‑time code enforcement hire to relieve workload for a longtime staffer (identified in discussion as Lindsay) and discussed whether a temporary hire could be converted to full time next year depending on experience and funding.

On employee benefits, staff reported that the League Health Benefits Trust will stop providing municipal coverage effective June 30 and that a broker had secured United Healthcare coverage for city employees. Staff said premiums came in at an estimated 8.7% for employee‑only coverage (the budget had assumed 15%), with smaller increases or decreases for other tiers; councilors cautioned that this premium change alone would not fully offset recurring personnel costs.

Members expressed broad agreement that the salary increase was the preferred near‑term approach, with the understanding that the budget scenario is intended as a stop‑gap to be revisited in the next fiscal cycle if revenues do not materialize as projected. Council asked staff to prepare a balanced budget reflecting the $7,000 starting‑pay scenario, noting it would be available for public inspection when presented next Monday. The meeting adjourned after a formal motion to end the session.