Hayden council delays hiring law‑enforcement consultant, will send identical questions to both firms
Loading...
Summary
After public comment worried about taxpayer costs and councilors criticized the recommended proposal as short on specifics, the Hayden City Council voted unanimously to delay choosing between Matrix Consulting Group and the Center for Public Safety Management and instead send a consolidated list of questions to both vendors for written responses.
Hayden City Council members voted on Feb. 10 to delay choosing a consultant to study local law-enforcement options and instead agreed to compile and send a single list of questions to both finalist firms for written responses.
Resident Linda Cross, during public comment, urged caution about hiring outside consultants for law-enforcement strategic planning, saying she was "very concerned that we're gonna be using taxpayer money for something that may or may not really be necessary." Another member of the public suggested using reserve deputies or visible retail-based officer spaces to reduce costs.
Council discussion centered on the two proposals under consideration: Matrix Consulting Group (the Public Safety Commission’s recommendation) and an alternative the council referred to as the Center for Public Safety Management. Council member Tom said he found Matrix’s proposal "short on specifics" and criticized what he described as "a lot of word salad," raising concerns about subcontracting and whether consultants would be able to access county records the study would rely on. Council members also flagged the need for clearer cost breakdowns and a project schedule.
City staff said the county had presented the city with an updated cost for maintaining the current level of service (five patrol deputies, one detective and animal control), which council discussion identified as approximately $1,307,933 — roughly $258,000 more than last year’s budgeted figure — and named that change as a primary reason the city is evaluating alternatives.
Councilors agreed to gather council questions, have staff consolidate them, run them by the city attorney, and transmit the list to both vendors. The council set a deadline for members to submit questions (5:00 p.m. the following Tuesday) and recorded a formal motion to postpone selecting a vendor pending receipt of written answers. The motion passed on a roll-call vote with Council member Erickson, Council member Rotor, Council member Schaeffer and Council president DePriest voting yes.
Separately, the council set a project-priority planning workshop for Friday, March 6 at 11:00 a.m.
What comes next: staff will compile council questions and send them to both consultants; council will review written responses and may schedule follow-up vendor interviews or a workshop before making a final procurement decision.
