A FAQ About the State Takeover & SLMPD Budget
By ACD Staff
April 6, 2026
If you live in St. Louis, you may know that last year the state of Missouri took control of the city’s police department. This spring, the people representing the state-run St. Louis police department (SLMPD) have proposed a budget increase that would effectively bankrupt the city.
Put simply, the group of people representing SLMPD are the Board of Police Commissioners.
Believing this takeover was fraught in the first place, we sued the state of Missouri.
In response to the questions and confusion sparked by the Board of Police Commissioner’s budget proposal, we developed a list of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ).
To read about the background of the law and our lawsuit, read our earlier piece here: Local Democracy is Under Attack – ACD Is Fighting Back.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What financial obligations does the new state takeover law put on the City of St. Louis?
A: Truly, so many. But the main obligations are:
- The City of St. Louis must spend a “minimum percentage of its general revenue” on SLMPD. The law increases that percentage every calendar year until it hits 25%.
- Not included in that minimum percentage is the police retirement, health care, other benefits that the City also must pay for.
- The City must pay the salaries of the Board of Police Commissioner (Board) members, lawyers, and new staff that the Board has hired.
- The Board of Police Commissioners certifies a budget to the City each year. This budget includes the things the Board has made unilateral decisions about, like another raise for police, or lifetime health insurance for police. The Board doesn’t check with anyone at the City, or even run cost calculations about how it will fiscally impact the City.
Right now, what you are reading about in the newspaper is whether the Board can tell the City that it can make SLMPD’s budget as high as it wants, or if the City can object.
Q: Okay, so, “minimum percentage of general revenue” – What does that mean? The Board of Police Commissioners says they are asking for less than the minimum percentage?
Well, nobody agrees. The state law doesn’t define what it means, but case law, other statutes, and common sense would lead one to believe that it is:
- General = money that is not specially dedicated to a specific source.
- Revenue = money that is coming in.
The City has all sorts of different ways that money comes in. Some is general, like the earnings tax, for example, and is a pot of money for the City to give to departments. But some are specific forms of revenue like grants, special taxes for a specific purpose, or a fee that is statutorily mandated for something. The airport brings money in, but the money is for the airport.
The City of St. Louis’s Budget Office took all the different kinds of revenue coming in this year and said that if you take out all the special revenue, the general revenue is around $800,000,000. They calculated the minimum percentage the City has to give to SLMPD at $203,953,650.00.
But the Board is now demanding $250 million and has put out some public statements saying that they believe they are entitled to even more than that – $333 million.
But the Board’s math doesn’t check out.
For example, on page 15 of this document, they say that they want to get part of the Rams Settlement Principal and the City’s reserves. That’s not revenue this year. That’s the existing money in the bank account. If someone asked you how much you brought in last year from your job, you don’t include money you brought in several years earlier.
The Board is also eyeing money derived from special revenue sources like, the Sewer Lateral Program. According to the City’s website,“All owners of residential property with 6 or fewer units pay a $28 fee on their real estate property taxes.” This is a special revenue source: the “funds are then used to repair broken sewer lateral lines running under the public right of way.” Now the Board says they get 24% of that money. But that money is for a specific and critical purpose.
What the Board is really saying is that they will ask for as much as they decide they want, and the City must figure out how to cut from other departments to give it to them.
Q: Well, the Board of Police Commissioners said on television that they are only trying to fix a lack of investment. Is that true?
St. Louis is an old City with a lot of historic disinvestments, and a lot of departments need a lot of things.
The Police Budget is also filled with things that are costing you as a taxpayer a lot of money and are not essential. Some examples include:
- Requesting dozens of new Chevrolet Tahoes, bought for $68,000 each – and most likely purchased from the car dealer that’s on the Board.
- Buying drones to respond to people who are in crisis
- Expanding surveillance
Here’s the main difference: every other department’s budget gets reviewed by City leadership*, has public hearings, and we as City taxpayers have the opportunity to vote out City officials that don’t prioritize what the citizens want in the budget.
The Board is saying that they get to demand whatever they want, and taxpayers can’t ask questions about it, and the City’s taxpayers can’t do anything else about it. Perhaps they don’t care if there is sewer waste in our streets so long as the police have brand-new Chevy Tahoes driving on top of them.
Q: What happens if we increase SLMPD’s share of the City Budget?
For starters, SLMPD already receives the biggest share of the City Budget, and has, for years. A widely known outcome of this historic investment is SLMPD’s lethality. Between 2013 to 2025, SLMPD has killed more people per capita than any other police department in the country.
The more money that goes to SLMPD, the less money that goes to the other departments.
If the City Budget gives an extra $50 million — $100 million to SLMPD, that money gets cut from other things, like: trash pickup, park maintenance, youth programs, violence prevention initiatives, and resources to keep homeowners and renters in their homes.
Q: If the State oversees the police department, doesn’t this save the City money because the State must pay any lawsuit damages if people sue SLMPD and win?
Sadly, no.
The Board can (and has) asked the Attorney General’s (AG) office to represent SLMPD. That means the AG’s office is playing a major role in deciding whether to settle or fight lawsuits. Here’s the kicker: the AG’s office bills the City for representing the cops.
If the AG’s office loses a lawsuit, then the City taxpayers end up paying the judgment. This is true for cases about things that happened prior to state control and after state control: the City must pay. That means the $37 million dollar judgment from last week against SLMPD cops? The City pays that. The City even signed an agreement with the State not to include that amount in the “minimum appropriation” to the Board. This agreement wasn’t given any public comment or review.
And, if it’s a case in the future against the SLMPD, the law says that the City can only request reimbursement for one (1) million dollars per fiscal year. Any amount over that, the City still must pay that amount through paying the Board’s annual request.
The City is also paying extra money for the Board of Police Commissioners to have their own lawyers. The Graville Law Firm currently represents the Board, and between July and October of 2025, Graville invoiced the City over $300,000 for legal services, all of which City taxpayers are footing. The Board’s budget is requesting $1.9 million for legal services for the 2027 fiscal year. So, to recap, the City…
- Pays for its own lawyers
- Pays for the state-run police department
- Pays for the state-run police department’s benefits
- Pays for the state-run police department’s Board
- Pays for the Board’s lawyers
- Pays for the Attorney General’s lawyers that represent SLMPD
- Pays for the state run police department’s judgments
And yet, the City taxpayers are cut out of the decision-making process that impacts all of us everyday.
Q: Who is on the Board that is coming up with this Budget? How were the Board members chosen?
There are six people on the Board:
- Mayor Cara Spencer, because Missouri statute states the mayor is automatically a member
- Chris Saracino, who owns Chris’ at the Docket and Chris’ Pancake & Dining, and other restaurants under Bartolino’s Hospitality Group, and VP of Concierge Services for Campbell Security Group
- Edward McVey, who owns Maggie O’Brien’s Restaurant and Irish Pub
- Brad Arteaga, who owns Arteaga Photos, Ltd.,
- Sonya Jenkins-Gray, who previously worked in human resources for the City
- Don Brown, owner of Don Brown Chevrolet, is a non-voting board member
Aside from Mayor Spencer (who is automatically on the Board due to her role as Mayor), the other board members were appointed by Governor Kehoe and approved by the Missouri State Senate. This means that the citizens of St. Louis have no way to vote in or vote out the Board members, and the Board members are more accountable to politicians in Jefferson City than they are the people of St. Louis.
Q: If I’m a city resident and I really care about being safe in St. Louis, why is more money for the police bad?
If you are worried about public safety, you should be worried about a City government that has almost no resources to deliver basic services to its residents or help ameliorate poverty and disinvestment.
Here are some of the items that are struggling to be funded:
- Office of Violence Prevention
- Right to Counsel: attorneys to help people stay housed
- Tornado relief
- Public health
- Services for people who are unhoused
Instead of funding police to respond once a crime has happened, we could fund things to help prevent crime. More police will not make us safer.
Q: Is any of this legal? Why doesn’t the City sue?
Well, we don’t think it is. We think the law is an unconstitutional unfunded mandate and special law that irrationally treats St. Louis differently.
The City’s Law Department did initially file a lawsuit with Megan Green, current President of the Board of Alderman, as the plaintiff (as a taxpayer). However, they filed it incorrectly in federal court. After they dismissed it, when Mayor Spencer transitioned into power, the City’s Law Department said they would no longer represent Megan Green.
Megan Green then re-filed the lawsuit in state court, represented by a lawyer from St. Louis University’s School of Law.
Two local organizers also filed as concerned taxpayers (represented by ArchCity Defenders): Jamala Rogers, who has been leading police accountability work for decades, and Mike Milton, who has spent over a decade spearheading grassroots violence interruption efforts and organizing for Black political power.
As proud as we are to represent Jamala and Mike, the burden is falling on non-profits to front the money, time, and resources to challenge this law in court because the City Law Department isn’t stepping up.
Q: What can I do?
1. Share this post.
2. Call the Board of E&A and demand they reject the proposed police budget: (314) 622-4245
3. Call your Alderperson & demand they reject the proposed police budget: (314) 622-3287
4. You can join Hands Off STL and help this movement build power.
5. Register at bit.ly/hands-off-stl for the April 15th Hands Off STL meeting and plan to make your voice heard at the April 24th Public Budget hearing.
——
*City leadership in this sense pertains to St. Louis City’s Board of Estimate and Apportionment (“E&A”) which is comprised of the Mayor of St. Louis, the Comptroller, and the President of the Board of Alderman.