Willows City Council declines immediate approval of short-term private security plan amid legal and safety concerns

Vice Mayor Richard Thomas and the Willows City Council on June 23 heard more than two hours of public comment and council debate over a proposed short‑term private security contract but did not authorize the contract.

City Manager Marty Brown presented a proposal for two vendors — identified in the agenda as NASTEC Armed Private Security Patrol and Kodai (Kodai/Kodai) Consulting Group — to provide armed patrols, supervisors and a drone program under an initial 90‑day contract while the city continues negotiations over law‑enforcement services. Brown said the city is in mediation with the sheriff’s office and has filed a writ that is scheduled for consideration July 8 in the county superior court. Brown described the contract as a temporary “plan D” option while staff pursues longer-term coverage.

Why it matters: The council’s existing contract with the sheriff is set to expire June 30; residents and many retired law‑enforcement officials warned that a private security model cannot replace sworn peace officers and raised concerns about liability, investigative authority and public‑safety gaps.

Residents’ concerns and vendor vetting

Speakers from across the community criticized the proposal’s cost, scope and vendor transparency. Multiple speakers used the $260,000 monthly figure circulated by staff in the presentation as an example of the proposal’s expense; public commenters and council members noted that a $260,000/month contract would total more than $3.1 million per year. Several residents said the agenda packet initially referenced a lower monthly figure and urged the council to clarify the contract math before acting.

‘‘This is cosmetic,’’ said Carl Walter, a retired law enforcement supervisor with more than 35 years’ experience, adding that security guards are not peace officers under California law and ‘‘cannot replace a 24‑7 police presence that can investigate crimes, forward complaints to the district attorney, make arrests on probable cause or handle active emergencies.’’

Other commenters raised privacy concerns about the proposal’s drone program and said they could not locate meaningful corporate history for one consultant, which the transcript records as incorporated in May 2024 with a Santa Monica/Glendale area listing. Gina Taylor, a resident, said she found the vendor’s public filings sparse and asked, ‘‘Who are we doing business with?’’

Council response and alternatives

Council members repeatedly said they oppose relying on private security as a long‑term public‑safety strategy. Council Member Gary Hanson, a longtime law‑enforcement veteran, told the audience private security ‘‘has its place’’ as a supplement but is not a substitute for sworn officers. Council members discussed alternatives: reopening negotiations with the sheriff, pursuing phased re‑establishment of a municipal police department, seeking grant funding (including COPS grants), regional mutual aid options or targeted transitional staffing.

Outcome and next steps

The council made no motion to approve the private security contract at the meeting; by consensus the body left the item without action and urged staff to continue mediation with the sheriff, to provide the public with detailed contract documents and receipts if a contract moves forward, and to pursue other transitional options and grant funding. Vice Mayor Thomas asked residents to contact the sheriff’s office to express their views as the parties continue negotiations.

What’s next: Staff said the city will continue mediation with the sheriff and follow up on community questions; Brown said the city’s writ is set for July 8 but gave no further details. The council asked staff to post a consolidated response to public questions on the city website and to return with more fully documented options before taking formal action.