By Erica C. Barnett
City negotiators have approved a new 2024-2027 contract with the Seattle Police Officers Guild that will raise the starting salary for new police recruits to $118,000—a 13 percent boost over the current starting salary of $104,000. After six months, new officers will earn a base salary of more than $126,000, according to documents reviewed by PubliCola.
The new contract will increase officers’ pay retroactively for 2024 and 2025, plus additional increases in 2026 and 2027. Officers who were around in 2024 and 2025 will get retroactive (and cumulative) pay increases of 6 percent for 2024 and 4.1 percent for 2025, on top of a 2.7 percent increase next year. (The number for 2027 will be somewhere between 3 and 4 percent.)
Cumulatively, all those raises represent a huge increase that far outpaces the raises other city unions have negotiated for city employees over the past few years. In 2021, the starting pay for a brand-new police officer was $83,000 a year. As of 2026, that number will have gone up by $35,000—a remarkable 42 percent pay increase in just five years.
Sergeants’ pay, meanwhile, will increase from a base wage of $140,000 ($146,000 after six months) to $159,000 ($167,000 after six months). After 18 months on the job, new cops and sergeants will make $132,000 and $177,000, respectively.
Mayor Bruce Harrell is expected to announce the new contract tomorrow—an October surprise as voters decide between the mayor and his opponent, labor organizer Katie Wilson. SPOG was reportedly in a rush to get a new contract passed this year, in advance of a potential Wilson victory; Wilson has expressed her support for strong police accountability measures, including improvements to the police misconduct investigation process and the implementation of a 2017 police accountability law that has never gone into full effect.
In his announcement, Harrell will likely emphasize changes that will allow the CARE Team, a group of social workers that responds alongside SPD to certain 911 calls, to expand from 24 to 48 members and respond directly to more types of calls, a change the mayor telegraphed in September when he announced a new public safety sales tax to pay for the expansion and predicted the team would soon be allowed to go out on more calls without officers in tow.
PubliCola is supported entirely by readers like you.
CLICK BELOW to become a one-time or monthly contributor.
The mayor will also probably focus on the need for officers to earn enough to live in Seattle (which many of them do not). That was the argument for increasing police salaries by 24 percent just last year, when the city adopted a three-year retroactive contract that raised Seattle police salaries to the highest in Washington state. The new contract bumps salaries for new officers above the Seattle median, which includes people in every industry and at every stage of their careers.
Those new salary figures don’t include overtime, paid at time and a half, which accounted for about 500,000 police hours in 2025. In a budget paper, the city council’s central staff noted that SPD is proposing to include less than 500,000 hours in the budget for the second year in a row; last year’s initial budget funded 489,000 hours, but the council had to amend that during the year to add 11,000 hours at a cost of $1.2 million.
The salaries also don’t include recruiting bonuses that range from $7,500 for new recruits to $50,000 for fully trained officers transferring from other departments (including Police Chief Shon Barnes, who accepted this “lateral” bonus on top of his $360,000 salary earlier this year.)
The retroactive contract the city approved last year did not include any meaningful new accountability measures, such as progress toward implementing a 2017 accountability ordinance that called for major changes in the way officers are investigated and disciplined for misconduct. At the time, supporters of the retroactive contract generally agreed that it was important to make sure officers got paid as soon as possible for the years they worked under an expired contract, and that new accountability measures would be part of the 2024-2027 agreement.
We’ll know more about any new accountability measures once the full contract is released. However, sources familiar with the contract said the improvements are fairly minimal. For instance, the new agreement reportedly reduces the burden of proof in arbitration proceedings from “clear and convincing” (editor’s note: corrected from “beyond a reasonable doubt”) to “preponderance of the evidence,” making it easier for the city’s Office of Police Accountability to demonstrate misconduct when an officer appeals their case to an outside arbitrator.
Because the new spending on officer salaries is retroactive to 2024, meaning that police officers will get back pay for 2024 and 2025 to bring their pay for those years up to the amounts in the new contract. Although the city sets aside reserves to pay for negotiated increases to officer pay, these increased costs become an ongoing part of the city’s budget, adding to projected deficits in the hundreds of millions of dollars starting in 2027.
The contract agreement doesn’t represent a final contract, which still has to be lawyered and approved by the city council. A majority of the city council sits on the Labor Relations Policy Committee that signed off on the agreement with SPOG, so approval is a foregone conclusion. Historically, dissent on police contracts is rare, since rejecting a contract would force the city back into negotiations—a process that, with the exception of this year’s speedy approval, typically takes years.
If only now they can also afford to live in Seattle, all would be well in the universe.
Here is the actual contract:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1onAE89mT4Xi1Qn8ZJQdtSrqshkDsQ6xa/view?usp=drivesdk
You didn’t mention the continuation of the $250 bonus ( up from $225 in 2025 ) for volunteering for overtime events like the Mariners , Sounders ,and Seahawks games , parades ,fun runs, concerts, block parties etc . If an officer works 2 events back to back in a day ( not unusual ) that’s a $500 bonus right of the bat. They got this privilege for allowing the staffing increase of the Care Unit.
Erica, this is simple supply and demand, and incentives.
Our dramatic (yes, dramatic) undersupply of officers vs other major cities has led to a supply crunch, and now we have to over-incentivize new hires with outsize wage increases. Why do we have a supply shortage of officers, one might ask? Hmm….maybe Defund the Police wasn’t the best idea. Actions have consequences.
Ironically, we’re paying more now BECAUSE we drove so many officers away over the last 5 years, not in spite of it…
Let’s accept your premise: “Actions have consequences”. The consequences of policing in Seattle has resulted in numerous lawsuits alleging (with courts agreeing) that the police in Seattle overused forceful tactics and applied policing with bias. Hence, the 13-year federal consent decree to monitor police performance. The behaviors that led to that decree are the exact behaviors that led to the defund movement. Actions, meet consequences.
As to your sentiment about defund. I did not like “defund” as a brand because it was misinterpreted by people who lack capacity for nuance, but the underlying sentiment was wholly appropriate – ‘we want fewer racist cops, and less violence in policing especially at the intersection of homelessness, crime, and coincidental mental health issues.’ I’m not going to ask anyone to apologize for wanting effective policing.
Now, you could have raised an argument that the lift of the consent decree could be reflected in the new bargaining agreement. Though it’s the cops on the payroll now who have contributed to the lifting and future cops should likely not be overpaid for work that others did. Furthermore, the improved quality of police officers in Seattle is DEFINITELY STILL AN OPEN QUESTION: https://publicola.com/2025/10/09/reversing-decision-spd-removes-controversial-captain-tietjen-from-east-precinct/
And no matter what, this is clearly a desperate gasp of a candidacy on the ropes and hoping to curry favor with people who aren’t really paying attention.
Which is it, that officers left or that the mythical Defund the Police movement had some effect? If there was a lower level of expense, a lower headcount would be the reason. Fewer staff, lower payroll. So what “drove away” officers? Better pay elsewhere? Happens all the time…supply, demand and incentives. Why we have so many tech workers as well. But on the flip side, SPD officers taking jobs in the suburbs should lower traffic and cut carbon emissions…a lot of them live outside the city, meaning seattle tax dollars were being spent outside the city. Lots of SPS educators also live outside the city but no one cares about that.
When you consider the real factors involved in how officers make overtime you’ll see that “Fewer staff, lower payroll” is about as wrong as you can get when discussing SPD.
Contractually the department is required to have a certain number of officers on each watch. More officers leave the department for so many reasons, there are fewer officers to work each shift. When those numbers are not met – which is almost a daily occurrence – this opens up shifts for OT.
So fewer officers means fewer regular patrol spots filled which means more OT for any officer who is able to work. A position that would normally take 10 hours of pay for that ten hour shift is now paid 15 hours for that same ten hour shift.
SPD officers weren’t leaving because of better pay elsewhere. They all know they’re going to get their pay raises and backpay, it just takes some time. More often it is the treatment of the officers, the political climate, the command staff, the city council, the county, the high cost of living, the long commute times from where they live because Seattle is so expensive – just to name a few.
Also, for what its worth, I would love to see all educators have stronger unions to fight for better pay. When I examine societies issues and our ability to get along with each other, I’ve personally found that there are two critical failures: parenting and educational guardrails.
Even if you have the most amazing teacher, if the parents aren’t also involved to coordinate and work as a team, the child will suffer. Any behavior that is trying to be addressed by the educators – overworked, overwhelmed educators – will only succeed with parents stability and support. The fact that we haven’t been dumping money into after school programs, stronger social/emotional programs, support staff, etc. causes me literal heartache.
Meanwhile starting teacher salaries in Seattle are at $74,514. Do we want a teacher-centric Seattle or a police-centric Seattle is the question. Bruce, Sara, and Ann have put us on a path to a police-centric Seattle, which we need to take a stand against in THIS election!
I already answered your question below…
“But a libertarian society needs cops to protect property so here we are. Graffiti and visible poor people are crimes, in the eyes of the ownership class.”
Seattle is a libertarian/propertarian city, where property rights outweigh human rights.
I wonder if the phantom positions the current mayor/council are so fond of get a raise too. Seems only fair, and to include a nice promotion too. What kind of non-existent cop wouldn’t want that?
The statement that “Wilson has expressed her support for strong police accountability measures, including improvements to the police misconduct investigation process and the implementation of a 2017 police accountability law that has never gone into full effect” demonstrates that, even with a progressive candidate for mayor, Seattle remains very much stuck eight years in the past. It is like the summer of 2020 never happened. The 2017 Seattle law (the police accountability ordinance) still allows police to investigate police, whereas Washington state created the Office of Independent Investigations (for investigating serious use of force by police) in 2021 that specifically prohibits police from investigating police at the state level. Why would Seattle continue to opt for a much lower standard?
Additionally, the 2017 law provides no community controlled oversight and allows the mayor to select the head of the Office of Police Accountability, further undercutting any real civilian or community control. If SPOG had embraced all of the 2017 law in 2017 the extensive police abuse of 2020 would still have happened and there would have been the same complete lack of accountability in the following years for all the abuse and harm. Also, the same folks in mental health crisis murdered by SPD would be just as dead.
“A majority of the city council sits on the Labor Relations Policy Committee that signed off on the agreement with SPOG, so approval is a foregone conclusion.” Not true, at least legally and possibly even practically. Because a new SPOG contract involves paying out millions of dollars which were not already budgeted there is a requirement for a minimum of 3/4 of sitting council members to vote in favor, that is 7 councilmembers (see: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1p2zy1iX-Ioj2L15r5PVYkRd_ycqEHslo/view?usp=drive_link). If three of the four councilmembers that are not on the Labor Relations Policy Committee — Rinck, Hollingsworth, Saka, and Solomon (who would be replaced by Lin or Ducksworth on Nov. 25th) — vote against the new SPOG contract then it fails. With enough popular heat this is possible.
Most importantly all journalists and residents should demand that the preliminary union contract, or Temporary Agreement (TA), that has certainly been voted on affirmatively by the SPOG membership be made public immediately. The City law is very clear here: “All elected public officials and appointed City officers assigned the responsibility of proposing, reviewing, or determining labor relations policies shall maintain strict confidentiality during the period of negotiations” (SMC 4.04.120(E)). If SPOG has voted then this phase of negotiations are over. The TA must be made public immediately to allow sufficient time for the public to consider it and, if appropriate, organize against it.
If it is a temporary agreement then it has the potential to fail to be passed. It still needs to be passed by the council. If it does not pass then they return to active negotiation. Using the language from the law you cited: “proposing, reviewing” are the current states of this agreement. It would reason then that they “shall maintain strict confidentiality during negotiation.” To sum up, negotiation is over after it has been agreed upon by all parties, not just SPOG.
I appreciate wanting transparency. In a country with a checkered history of law enforcement debacles it is important. However, I’ve seen those who would say things with similar rhetoric as you, and those people have not suggested accountability of police activities with unbiased, informed recommendations.
I believe that having an unbiased, reasonable arbiter of accountability is appropriate. This problem is that the city has seen this kind of accountability applied, and yet it is deemed to be wrong or corrupt. If there were so much abuse on going, why have no officers been charged and few civil lawsuits been brought against the city and department?
Certainly if we were talking about 30 years ago, the dynamic between prosecutors, the public, and the police would be much different. But in the midst of today’s, and the last 5 years, sociopolitical impetus, a prosecutor would champion the opportunity to, rightfully, demonstrate public accountability. Yet there has been so few. Even when they go to trial the jury is then educated on what is and is not legal, especially from the position of a police officer. After reviewing the facts you can see most of the juries have acquitted.
Additionally, the civil suits that were files and won against the city and the department for freedom of speech issues, among others, were rightfully won in court. That has changed the operating procedures for the department.
There is more to the story than what meets the eye, and yet no one wants to take a critical examination of how police operate, unless it fits their “police brutality” agenda.
Don’t get me wrong, I’ve seen a lot of police action that I do not agree with. And I agree wholeheartedly that those officers who were charged and convicted for those crimes were duly punished. But the extremes to which you suggest, or those that would be so outrageously vocal against the police, and the accusations that there is ongoing abuse and willful brutality just seems hard to believe.
And can we not forget the two individuals who died while the more liberal, anti-police Seattleites and others decided to annex Cal Anderson Park? I watched body cam footage of officers trying to make their way in to save a life, but were met with hostility of those individuals, and ultimately denied entry. This was SPD, in conjunction with SFD, attempting to actually protect and serve, but it was those who were screaming “ACAB” that denied them which led to a death.
Also that summer did you forget the massive theft, property damage, arson, and assaults on police officers that occurred?
If I were to leave you with a single thought it would be that those like you would decry the city and police force for wrong doings while refusing to acknowledge wrongs that you have perpetuated. Both sides suck in my opinion, can we all move a bit more to the middle and start building bridges?
“Those new salary figures don’t include overtime, paid at time and a half, which accounted for about 500,000 police hours in 2025.”
If you’re budgeting overtime, doesn’t that mean you need more people working straight time? Do we want people with guns working extra hours? There was a piece some time back where someone claimed he worked more hours than there are in a day or something like that…he was taking off like two hours between shifts and billing for every minute he wasn’t asleep. I wonder how many hours of OT seattle schools budgets for teachers who work over their contract hours?
But a libertarian society needs cops to protect property so here we are. Graffiti and visible poor people are crimes, in the eyes of the ownership class.
“Far exceeds” is an exaggeration. Sounds like SPOG will get 6% for 2024, 4.1% for 2025, and 2.7% for 2026 retroactive to the years the increases should have happened. Everyone else got: 4% or 4.5% for 2024, 4% for 2025, and are likely to get 2.7% for 2026. This type of retroactivity is also always included in every contract, because the City tries to do right by its workers.
The actual issue is the abuse of overtime and those signing bonuses, plus the need for new accountability measures.
exactly
Is it abuse if it is contractually guaranteed and done so to maintain operational effectiveness? The signing bonuses are excessive, but they have worked in bringing in new people.
And I would love to know what new accountability measures you would suggest or that you think are needed? They have BWV, ICV, OPA, CPC, IG, along with dozens of very, very active journalists who love to dive into the nitty gritty. What else do you think would be beneficial, and more importantly what would you want to see as a result of said accountability measures?