Kootenai County commissioners offer options to City of Hayden on contract staffing, question vehicle costs

Kootenai County commissioners on July 22 presented the City of Hayden with options to address a shortfall in the county's contract law-enforcement costs and discussed whether the county should be purchasing patrol vehicles for the city.

The topic was introduced during the board's business session as item 27, a status update on Hayden law enforcement contract options. A county commissioner who presented the options told the board the county has been working with the auditing department and the sheriff's office to identify costs the county incurs when providing contracted deputies. The presenter said the county's analysis shows the city's most recent offer still leaves the county “a little bit in the red.”

The discussion matters because the county currently buys vehicles and provides maintenance, fuel and insurance for deputies assigned to city contracts, costs the presenter said are not fully captured in the city's “loaded rate.” The presenter proposed three options: 1) allow the city to use county-purchased vehicles as a credit and charge a reduced 40% overhead rate; 2) swap a lieutenant in the staffing mix for a lower-cost deputy, producing a small surplus for the city; or 3) retain the county’s current 60% overhead rate, bill monthly for vehicle maintenance and fuel, and not subsidize those costs.

Under the presenter’s figures, option one would produce a loaded annual cost of about $1,433,042; the city had offered $1,390,000, leaving a projected shortfall of roughly $43,042 to fund a lieutenant position. Option two, which replaces the lieutenant with a lower-cost deputy and treats vehicles as a credit, would leave the city about $20,007 “in the green,” according to the presenter. If the city declines to use vehicles as a credit, the presenter said the county would charge the higher overhead and invoice the city monthly for vehicle insurance, maintenance and fuel.

Commissioners debated whether contract deputies constitute “extra” officers available to the unincorporated county. Commissioner Duncan and other board members agreed regionally shared resources can help during large-scale events, but the presenter and others said the sheriff’s office has not maintained fully filled patrol ranks and some deputies allocated to contracts have not been backfilled into regular patrol.

Public comment on the item included testimony from resident Ron Hartman, who asked that the board consider the contract’s cost relative to the county budget and suggested the county should not subsidize shortfalls. Later in the meeting, resident and Hayden council member Ed De Priest spoke as a citizen to correct an earlier public statement: he said Hayden voters had approved a levy increase intended to fund the sheriff contract and that the ballot question passed by about 63 percent. Hartman acknowledged and apologized for his earlier misstatement.

The board did not adopt a formal motion to change the contract. Instead commissioners agreed to present the proposed options to the City of Hayden so the city can decide which it prefers; one commissioner indicated support for option one. The sheriff and county staff said they had been consulted in preparing the options and the county will return to the board if additional decisions, including any buyout provision for a promoted lieutenant, are required.

The county did not set a deadline in the public discussion for final action; presenters noted the city had expressed a time constraint. The board indicated staff should circulate the options to Hayden and bring back any recommended contract language or buyout terms if the city selects an option.

Ending: The Hayden contract discussion will continue as an intergovernmental negotiation. County staff and the sheriff’s office will relay the board’s options to the City of Hayden; further action or formal contract changes would return to the board for approval.