Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mayfield Council Hears Proposal to Buy 30 Hours a Month of Gunnison Police Coverage for $35,000 Trial Year
Summary
Council members and residents discussed a Gunnison-area police contract that would provide roughly 30 hours of patrol per month to Mayfield for $35,000 in the first year; council did not vote and asked for more information, including data and a public hearing.
Mayfield Town Council members and residents spent the meeting’s largest block of time discussing a proposal from the Gunnison-area police organization to provide additional patrol coverage for Mayfield on a trial, year‑to‑year basis for $35,000.
Supporters framed the proposal as a low-cost opportunity to get regular patrol presence aimed at weekend traffic, speeding on Canyon Road, ATV complaints and heavy trucks. A Gunnison-area representative, Travis Leatherwood, described the contract as a one‑year trial intended to let the town “gather the data” on call volume and required patrol hours and then reassess. Leatherwood said the $35,000 figure would be applied to a cumulative set of patrol hours (about 30 hours a month under the current proposal), not as continuous daily coverage.
The council and members of the public pressed Leatherwood and other presenters on operational details: whether traffic citations and court processing would default to county justice courts, which jurisdiction would receive fine revenue, whether officers would be DOT‑certified to inspect heavy trucks, how overtime beyond the purchased hours would be billed, and how response times would compare with the county sheriff. Leatherwood said serious incidents would still generate a multi‑agency response and that Gunnison would provide monthly activity reports showing stops, citations and incident data.
Several residents and council members said they preferred lower-cost alternatives first: temporary speed‑display trailers, rental camera units, rumble strips or signage targeted at the Canyon Road approaches. Concerns were raised about long‑term cost escalation if the town became dependent on outside policing rather than seeking county or interlocal options. One council member warned that a low initial buy‑in could later be used to justify higher fees.
The council did not vote on a contract. Members requested more information, asked staff to pursue additional cost comparisons (including an interlocal contract with the county sheriff’s office), and discussed an eventual public hearing before any binding decision. No binding or long‑term commitment was made at the July 9 meeting.
