Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Grant topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Shelton staff say state public‑safety grant and sales‑tax tools carry eligibility hurdles; council opts to monitor
Summary
City staff told the Shelton City Council that a $100 million state grant (HB 2015) and an associated 0.1% public‑safety sales tax could add officers and co‑responder services but carry strict policy and training requirements, uncertain approvals and a June 2028 sunset; council asked staff to monitor CJTC administration and return with findings rather than apply immediately.
Shelton police and city staff briefed the city council on Nov. 25 about two state funding options created under recent legislation commonly referred to in the session as HB 2015: a $100 million, multi‑year grant program to hire entry‑level police officers and a 0.1 percentage‑point public‑safety local sales tax.
City staff explained how those two tools could be paired: local adoption of a public‑safety sales tax (0.1%) is a prerequisite for eligibility for the grant, and the grant would cover 75% of an approved hire’s salary while requiring a 25% local match (the staff presentation said the local match is capped at a $125,000 maximum per position). City staff also told the council the grant program currently has an expiration date of June 2028.
Why it matters: Shelton’s public‑safety functions — municipal court, police, detention/corrections, prosecution and code enforcement — are a substantial portion of the city’s general‑fund spending. Staff said the 2026 budget for these services (excluding grant‑funded programs) is about $9.7 million and that hiring and legal costs are rising, which has prompted interest in outside funding but also caution about short‑term grants.
Police Chief Chris Koshad and city staff described early applicant experience with the grant. “There’s been 20 applications submitted to CJTC. Thirteen of them have been denied,” Chief Koshad said, describing the application review so far and the reasons denials are occurring. Both he and staff identified two consistent obstacles: model‑policy requirements and new training mandates that agencies must document to qualify.
Staff flagged model policy adoption as a key difficulty. The presentation said CJTC and related reviewers are looking for near‑word‑for‑word adoption of the attorney‑general’s model policies and specific training programs. City staff said some of those model policies must be vetted through their policy manager, Lexi Poe, and in some cases would require changes to current agency practices. The presentation also listed added training mandates (for example, gender‑based‑violence training and other HB 2015‑linked courses) that are not yet part of the department’s standard training set and which could delay or lengthen the timeline to apply and demonstrate compliance.
“We’re only six months into the grant phase,” Chief Koshad said. He and staff warned that preparing a successful application could take substantial personnel time — one councilor summarized staff reports that it may take one to two people working roughly a month to assemble an application package — and that approval processes can take months.
Council members expressed two overlapping concerns: (1) whether Shelton can meet CJTC’s documentation and training requirements in time, and (2) whether hires placed on a grant that expires in 2028 are sustainable after the grant ends. Several councilors said they did not want the city to change core local policies or “let outside bodies set our policy” merely to qualify for a short‑term grant.
Directives and next steps: Rather than immediately applying for the $100 million grant, the council asked staff to continue monitoring how CJTC administers awards, to consult with jurisdictions that have been successful, and to return with more detailed options and costs. Staff also noted that the city already has a voter‑approved 0.1% public‑safety sales tax from earlier state code (cited in the presentation as the existing statute under 82.14.450), which affects the mechanics and eligibility of any new adoption.
What was not decided: The council did not vote to apply for the grant or to change local policies. Instead, council members requested additional research and outreach and left open the option of revisiting the grant or sales‑tax adoption after more information is gathered.
The council moved on to a transportation and streets briefing; staff said they would return with monitoring findings about CJTC, policy implications and any cost estimates needed to make a future application or sales‑tax decision.
