Pacific Grove has struggled to keep its police department fully staffed due to budget challenges.

In June, the Pacific Grove City Council heard an annual staff vacancy report, required by the state. According to the report, the city averaged vacancies of 12.5 percent in 2025. The P.G. Police Department averaged nearly 18 percent.

Members of the Pacific Grove Police Officers Association (POA) contended that the situation looks better on paper than in reality.

“The numbers do not reflect what officers face on the street every day,” POA President Sgt. Paul Nagamine said. “There is a significant difference between a position on paper and an officer available to answer calls for service.”

According to the POA, PGPD is supposed to have 20 sworn officers, including four sergeants, four corporals, eight officers, two detectives, one traffic officer and one school resource officer. Officers must be fully trained and not be on light duty or extended leave.

In 2025, there were 15 officers available for duty in January and February. The numbers continued to decrease each month until there were less than 15 officers, then fewer than 10 in September and October, a 60-percent vacancy rate.

“That is not safe for the community, because on a typical shift with 60 percent officers there’s only one supervisor and one officer for the entire city during a 12-hour shift,” said Officer Robert Rutledge, POA secretary. He called it unsafe for the community as well as for officers.

The POA asked for the council’s help in adding more staffing, but Mayor Nick Smith offered little hope the city will be able to fill vacancies anytime soon.

“We’re always trying to do what’s best for our employees and what’s best for retention, but as everybody knows there’s a lot of economic upheaval, a housing crisis. We have to balance the budget,” Smith said. “I feel it is an investment, but we also have to make difficult decisions.”

The POA filed a grievance on how pay raises are handled. That grievance was denied, and POA appealed. On July 15 the council voted 5-0 (with two councilmembers absent) to deny the appeal.