Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Public Safety Funding topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Port Angeles continues public hearing on House Bill 2015 criminal justice sales tax after split council debate

Port Angeles City Council · June 16, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Council continued the public hearing on a proposed additional one-tenth of 1% criminal justice sales tax under House Bill 2015. Staff said the tax would raise about $510,000 annually and help sustain four new police officers funded partly by a CJTC grant; a proposed amendment to restrict the money to police personnel costs failed.

City staff reopened the public hearing on June 16 to discuss whether Port Angeles should adopt the one-tenth of 1% criminal justice sales tax authorized by House Bill 2015. Staff said the city's eligibility results from a CJTC grant award of $785,680 covering 75% of the cost for four new officers and that adopting the sales tax allows the city to make up the remaining personnel and outfitting costs.

Serena told council an estimated $510,000 per year would be collected by the tax. Staff's cost estimate showed a first-year shortfall of about $186,000 after accounting for grant funds and one-time outfitting costs, with recurring years expected to more closely balance revenues and personnel costs. Staff also said annual reporting and policy compliance under HB 2015 would be required.

During public comment, residents expressed mixed views: some supported the tax to sustain officers and leverage state grant funds, while others tied support to stronger enforcement or objected to how excess funds might be used to support harm-reduction services. Council debated whether to amend the ordinance to specify that revenues be used only for Port Angeles Police Department personnel costs. Council member Drew moved to amend Section 4 to that effect; the motion received a roll call but failed for lack of majority.

With the amendment defeated, council left the ordinance language as written under RCW 82.14.345 and continued the public hearing to the July 7 meeting for further public input and a future vote.