Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board says five named cities must sign for county policing contract option to remain
Summary
After discussion of budget impacts and alternatives, the board adopted a motion that the five specifically named cities (Blake, Ashby, Barrett, Herman, Hoffman) must all agree to sign law‑enforcement contracts for the existing county contracting model to continue; staff will pursue city meetings and committee work before June.
Commissioner S3 and other commissioners discussed the county’s law‑enforcement contracting program and options if some municipalities refuse to sign contracts. The board heard that city contracts currently bring about $342,000 into the county budget and that losing some signers would create a budget hole requiring changes to staffing or the levy.
S3 said the board must decide whether the historical contract model requires all five specific cities (Blake, Ashby, Barrett, Herman and Hoffman) to sign for the county’s contracting arrangement to remain available “as is.” After debate about alternatives (hour‑based vs. population‑proportionate billing, phased approaches, and contingency planning ahead of the September preliminary levy), Troy moved that the five listed cities must all agree to the contract for the county option to stand; the motion passed by voice vote.
The board directed staff to convene city meetings and a public‑safety committee process in May–June to develop alternatives if some cities decline, with an hour scheduled on the full board’s June agenda to review options and a timeline to return with firm recommendations before the September preliminary levy decisions.
Why it matters: the motion preserves the current county contracting model only if all five named municipalities participate, leaving staff and commissioners to build contingency plans and outreach to cities to avoid a mid‑year budget shortfall.
