Negotiators for the city and the San Antonio Police Officers’ Association reached tentative agreements on several union contract provisions Thursday, while also agreeing to extend negotiations through at least the end of April as key issues like officer pay, health care costs and work schedules remain unresolved.
The extension comes as the two sides near the end of their initial 60-day bargaining window, signaling that while progress is being made, a final agreement is still weeks — and potentially months — away.
Police union contracts in San Antonio are typically negotiated every five years and govern officer pay, benefits and working conditions — making them one of the most financially significant agreements the city enters into. The current contract was finalized in 2022 after a year of negotiations and is set to expire at the end of September.
With the initial 60-day bargaining window ending March 31, both sides have agreed to two extensions, giving negotiators more time to reach a deal. City officials say they are aiming to complete negotiations ahead of the upcoming fall budget cycle.
Though several key provisions remain, negotiators locked in tentative agreements on four other sections of the contract, covering officer equipment, educational incentive pay, bereavement leave and off-duty employment policies.
Like the three agreements reached in February, the latest deals largely focus on operational and administrative issues — leaving the most consequential and politically sensitive parts of the contract still on the table.
Work schedules take center stage
With several smaller provisions settled, Thursday’s session marked the first major shift into more complex negotiations, as the city formally introduced its proposal to overhaul officer work schedules.
The Police Department’s Labor Relations Committee, through a request from SAPOA, had already begun exploring alternative staffing models, including hybrid schedules where some officers work four 10-hour days per week — a structure union officials say members expressed interest in.
Union negotiators brought that interest into contract talks, but had not proposed a specific schedule model.
The city’s proposal now provides the first detailed framework for how those changes could be implemented. At the center of that discussion is the department’s current shift system — including the “T” shift, a staggered patrol schedule designed to place additional officers on the street during peak call times.
The “T shift” currently runs from 5 p.m. to 3 a.m. for patrol officers and 4:30 p.m. to 2:30 a.m. for supervisors, and is the only patrol shift that spans 10 hours.
City officials are proposing to eliminate that shift entirely, while restructuring daylight, evening and night shifts into a mix of eight-hour and 10-hour schedules to cover those same hours.
The topic of working hours had been discussed in a smaller working group following the February meeting. Christopher Lutton, the union’s lead negotiator, said SAPOA is not opposed to the proposal, but plans to return with counter language focused on refining its details.
“The proposal that the city offered up addressed some of our concerns for our membership. We want to tighten up some of the other language in there, so that’ll be our counter,” Lutton said. “We are both working toward the goal of meeting where each party is acceptable of the offer.”
In an interview following the negotiations, Deputy City Manager MarĂa VillagĂłmez said the changes are intended to better align staffing with when calls for service are highest, while also giving officers more flexibility in how their workweeks are structured.
“It makes us more efficient, and we anticipate that the officers will have more proactive time to provide more connections with the community,” Villagómez said. “We’re just realigning our existing personnel with those hours of the day when we have more calls.”
Under the proposal, the city would have up to six months after a new contract takes effect to fully implement the new schedule, citing the need to update internal systems and allow officers time to adjust.
Bigger issues still ahead
While negotiators have made progress on operational provisions and begun working through schedule changes, the most consequential parts of the contract — officer pay and health care — have yet to be fully negotiated at the table.
Those issues are expected to drive both the final shape and cost of the agreement.
SAPOA’s initial proposal calls for a 9% across-the-board raise for all officers, paired with additional hourly wage increases and changes to benefits. When taken as a whole — including incentive pay and expanded health care contributions — city staff estimated the total cost at roughly $155 million over three years, according to figures presented during negotiations.
City officials countered in February with an 8.5% increase in base pay, a $63 million proposal that does not address the union’s requested changes to the hourly pay structure, which the city said requires further analysis.
The city has also pointed to a newly commissioned study comparing total compensation — including benefits — rather than base pay alone, in response to SAPOA’s focus on salary comparisons across similar markets.
Asked about a potential counteroffer, Lutton said the union is not planning on moving from its initial proposal.
“We did our initial proposal on the first day to kind of set the groundwork, and now we’re working through the other items of the contract,” he said. “We stand by our initial one, just due to economic factors that have come up in the state of Texas.”
City officials, meanwhile, have emphasized the need to balance those requests with longterm budget realities, noting that any agreement must ultimately fit within the city’s broader financial plan.
Health care — including a proposal to significantly increase the city’s contribution to officers’ Health Savings Accounts — is still being discussed in a separate working group and is expected to return to the bargaining table at the next session on April 10.
“On April 10, we’re going to look at health care, because that’s one of the big benefits of our members, and we want to make sure it’s structured right,” Lutton said. “Then just keep working toward our hours of work, because that’s one of the big things.”
As the original March 31 deadline approached, the two sides approved two 15-day extensions, pushing talks through at least the end of April.
Beyond that, additional extensions remain possible, and union negotiators indicated talks will continue as long as needed.
VillagĂłmez said the city is aiming to finalize an agreement before the annual budget process begins in August.
“If we have something before the budget is proposed, that is really good for us because we know exactly what we need to budget for,” she said. “We’re working hard to try to have something that we can incorporate in the proposed budget.”
She added that both sides have an incentive to reach an agreement before the current contract expires at the end of September. If negotiations extend past that point, an “evergreen” clause would keep most provisions from the last contract in place.
“Hypothetically, if we don’t have a contract by October 1, then hours of work, conditions of work — all that continues,” Villagómez said. “Premiums for employee health care would increase by 10% under the current contract. They just don’t get an across-the-board increase, but everything else continues as it is today.”
