Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety 28e topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Stanhope officials say EJS board voted to proceed without the city; council seeks options for July 1 coverage
Summary
At a May 12 council meeting Mayor Jeff Schroeder said an April 2 EJS board vote left Stanhope out of the regional 28E agreement; residents urged the council to press EJS to include Stanhope and the city directed the clerk to seek alternatives with the Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office ahead of the agreement’s June 30 expiration.
Mayor Jeff Schroeder told the Stanhope City Council on May 12 that the Emergency Joint Services (EJS) board voted on April 2, 2026 to proceed without Stanhope in the intergovernmental 28E agreement, and that “as of April 2, 2026 there was no 28E Agreement that included Stanhope.” The current 28E expires at midnight on June 30, 2026, raising questions about law-enforcement coverage after July 1.
Resident Kelly Wirtz raised concerns during petitions, telling the council she was troubled the change appeared to have occurred without a Stanhope council vote. Mayor Schroeder said her concerns would be addressed during the meeting’s Public Safety Update.
At the Public Safety Update, EJS Chief Kaleb Morton said, “That wasn’t the intent of EJS,” and recommended the Stanhope council approach the EJS board to request that the city be included in the agreement. Council member Grant Young challenged Morton’s remarks, saying Morton — who spoke in uniform — appeared to be lobbying and that the comments could be construed as prohibited political activity under the federal Hatch Act. Morton replied he was unaware that speaking about the EJS board’s intent while in uniform would raise that issue.
Schroeder told the council that city staff had been communicating with outside parties since January about post–July 1 coverage options. The council directed the city clerk to contact the Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office to inquire about the process for updating the long-standing 28E arrangements or otherwise securing coverage after the Stanhope–EJS relationship changes on July 1.
Schroeder also said EJS’s April 2 action had been carried by a board motion (made by Walker, seconded by Olson) and that, because that EJS vote effectively removed Stanhope from a new 28E agreement, there was no agreement before the Stanhope council to approve. Schroeder noted that council members Hetland and Jensen had previously reached out to the Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office and EJS to research options.
The council did not make a formal policy decision at the May 12 meeting but recorded direction for follow-up; the clerk’s inquiry to the county will be the next documented step.
