Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Police union warns council a 0% offer risks losing officers and reversing crime gains
Summary
Hemet Police Officers Association leaders told the council a city offer of a zero‑percent economic increase and a one‑year status‑quo contract would make Hemet pay noncompetitive and risk officers' lateral departures, undermining recent declines in property and violent crime, the union said.
Christian Coley, president of the Hemet Police Officers Association, told the city council during public comment that negotiations with the city had produced “a 0% economic increase” and asked council members to reconsider because Hemet risks losing experienced officers to neighboring agencies that pay substantially more. Coley said the department’s staffing had recovered from a 2014 low of about 60 officers to 86 today and that “property crime is down 43% and all violent crimes are down 38%” since 2016, arguing the city should protect those gains by keeping compensation competitive.
Peter Agila, the union’s secretary, presented figures from the city’s 2024 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report noting public‑safety expenditures were lower than budget largely because of savings from vacant positions. Agila urged council members to consider the cost of freezing vacancies and maintaining momentum in public‑safety staffing, saying officers will lateral to neighboring departments offering 5%–29% higher pay and better schedules.
Mayor and council members heard the testimony without taking immediate action; staff and council members later addressed overall budget constraints in the FY 2026–27 operating budget discussion. Council members and staff acknowledged the public‑safety funding pressures during budget deliberations but made no immediate formal change to the city’s bargaining position during the meeting. The union speakers requested that the council avoid a one‑year status‑quo contract that would, in their view, accelerate turnover and reduce patrol and investigative capacity.
The comments were made during the public‑comment period; no vote or motion tied directly to the union’s request was taken at the time. Council and staff said they valued the department’s work and noted the city faces a structural revenue gap that will require further fiscal choices in coming months.
The council adopted the FY 2026–27 budget later in the meeting and discussed but did not resolve the union’s contract concerns. The budget vote included hiring and expenditure freezes and an insurance placement decision intended to reduce the city’s near‑term premium costs; council cautioned that the structural deficit likely requires additional measures in subsequent years.
