Proposal to Fund 10 Police Officers Fails in Council Vote

Councilmembers debated an amendment that would have redirected selected fee increases and program reductions to fund 10 additional police patrol officers.

Councilmember White proposed the amendment, which sought approximately $1.6 million in identified savings to pay for the positions. The amendment was seconded and discussed in detail: staff and other members sought clarification about how many positions would be cut, which programs would be affected and whether the changes would comply with statutory planning requirements.

Members raised operational questions about deployment, noting that patrol staffing and station assignments are controlled by the police chief and that funding a position does not guarantee permanent assignment to a particular substation. The council also examined which positions were vacant and how many filled posts would be affected.

After debate the motion to adopt the amendment failed. Council proceeded to consider the main budget motion and ultimately approved the FY2027 budget and tax-rate ordinances without the proposed 10-officer amendment.

The discussion highlighted tensions between calls for more patrol presence in certain districts and concern about sacrificing services or city positions elsewhere to fund recurring public-safety roles.