A St. Louis judge has ruled against the state-appointed Board of Police Commissioners in its effort to require the city to provide roughly $67.6 million in additional funding for the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department.
The ruling ends, at least for now, a months-long dispute between city officials and the police board over how much money the city must allocate to law enforcement under Missouri’s state-control system.
The board argued that the city failed to meet its legal funding obligations for the police department in the current fiscal year and sought a court order requiring additional spending. City officials maintained they had complied with state law and said meeting the board’s demand would have severe consequences for other municipal services.
Judge Joseph P. Whyte sided with the city, finding that St. Louis did not improperly withhold the funds sought by the board. The decision rejects the board’s claim that city leaders unlawfully underfunded the department by nearly $68 million.
The lawsuit emerged after Missouri lawmakers returned control of the police department to a state-appointed board last year. Since then, city leaders and police commissioners have clashed over budgeting authority and the level of funding required for policing.
The board’s request centered on its interpretation of state funding requirements and whether certain city resources should be considered available for police operations. City officials argued the board’s position would force deep reductions elsewhere in government and could jeopardize the city’s financial stability.
The budget dispute also drew scrutiny from members of the St. Louis Board of Aldermen. In May, aldermen issued subpoenas seeking records from police commissioners as questions mounted over the board’s budgeting process and financial requests.
According to St. Louis Public Radio, the court’s decision leaves intact the city’s current police funding plan and rejects the board’s effort to secure the additional spending.
It was unclear whether the police board will appeal the ruling.