Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Shelby County Commission approves DA grant after amendment limiting county obligation
Summary
Commissioners approved a state grant amendment to keep four victim-witness coordinators on the payroll, adding language that the county would not be obligated to continue paying the positions if state funding ends, after debate over fund-balance impact.
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Shelby County Board of Commissioners on Sept. 8 approved a resolution to accept state grant funding that will preserve four victim-witness coordinator positions in the District Attorney's office, after a contentious debate over whether the award would affect the county's fund balance.
District Attorney Steve Mulroy told commissioners the resolution did not ask the county for new money and that the grant is intended to prevent layoffs: "This is not an item in which we are asking for any new money from the county. ... We would really like to be able to continue to use the grant funds to keep them in office and not lay them off," he said.
Commissioner David Bradford, who moved to reconsider the item, offered an amendment explicitly stating that "should grant funding be discontinued or not replaced ... Shelby County government will not be obligated to continue paying employees in the 4 position numbers" created by the resolution. Deputy CFO Michael Thompson warned the commission that the county's fund balance is preliminary estimated at about 14% and cautioned against relying on general fund dollars to support grants going forward.
After further explanation from DA Mulroy that the positions are already in the DA's budget and that failing to approve the grant could force reallocation of those funds elsewhere, commissioners voted on the amended resolution. The motion to approve the item as amended passed with nine ayes and one abstention.
The commission recorded that the grant period runs July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2026, and that the amendment was intended to protect the county from future fiscal obligations should the state funding be discontinued. The item had originally failed in committee by one vote and was brought back for reconsideration on Sept. 8.
AI generated
The text on this page is AI generated. Summaries, highlights, analysis, and video transcripts are all produced from the original source material.
AI can make mistakes, so if you spot one, and we will fix it for everyone.
Note: the source content is unaltered by us. Any content source we link to, be it a video, an audio recording, or a document, is presented exactly as its publisher released it. That publisher is usually a government body, sometimes an individual official or another organisation.
