Board weighs contracting private security for county recreation venues; tables decision for more study
Loading...
Summary
Leisure Services staff presented RFP results for year-round and seasonal security at county recreation venues; commissioners raised concerns about scope, armed vs. unarmed staffing, deputy overtime and accountability and decided to table a contract decision pending more detailed options and input from law enforcement advisors.
Leisure Services Director Kelly Carmichael presented the results of a security request for proposals at a board workshop and recommended contracting a private agency for seasonal coverage of recreation venues while keeping deputies for year-round community-center security. Carmichael said the RFP produced five responses and that Valor Protective Safety Agency emerged as the top candidate with unarmed officers quoted at $39 per hour and armed officers at $45 per hour.
Why it matters: the county has had gaps in continuous, on-site security at certain venues during athletic events and tournaments; staff and commissioners described limits on deputies (overtime costs, call response duties) and a desire for reliable, scheduled coverage a contract could provide. Commissioners and staff discussed matching unarmed and armed coverage to venue risk, ensuring coordination with the sheriff's office, and identifying where armed coverage is essential (for example at events that serve alcohol or stadium-sized spectator events).
Details and concerns: staff briefed commissioners on the services a contracted agency would provide (uniformed presence, vehicle identification, reporting, body cameras, first-response initiation and zone coverage). Commissioners raised operational and legal concerns: private guards have limited arrest authority and must observe-and-report; security firms and deputies must coordinate on use-of-force and detention; deputy overtime billing was described as creating budget pressure; and the board questioned whether deputies should use county equipment while working outside assignments. Commissioners also objected to some line-item calculations in staff cost estimates and asked for clearer math and location-specific risk analysis.
Board direction and next steps: commissioners asked staff to return with refined, venue-level recommendations on whether armed or unarmed coverage is needed by location, clearer cost breakdowns and legal review of contracts and coordination protocols with the sheriff's office. The board tabled any procurement decision to allow more review. No security contract was approved in the workshop.
