At the March 4 Patagonia Town Council study session, I was surprised to learn that the Town of Patagonia included $300,000 for the construction of a Town Marshal’s Office to extend from existing town council chambers, as part of the Early Actions Community Investment Funding Agreement with South32. This would be a change of town policy and local government structure after the first contract with Santa Cruz County Sheriff (SCCS) was initiated from July 2021.
Another audience member inquired about the reinstatement of the Town Marshal’s Office (TMO) and a couple of responses were offered by the council and town manager. First, our old TMO was burdened by high travel costs for officers living out of town and by high liability costs. With new policies and financial controls in place, a TMO could stick to its budget. Second, Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s deputies have been more focused on patrolling (presumably, highway speed enforcement) than on policing. Without further explanation, I suppose policing could include community bike/foot patrols, investigations, community education, interagency operations, and more.
We need a thorough discussion of law enforcement needs before the town relaunches a TMO. In April 2025, the town hosted a public forum on the question of Patagonia’s annual fire contract budgeted for $70,008 in FY 2026. For a relatively small contract delivered over 12 months of service, there was not a spare seat in the council chambers. Many more community members attended the discussion via Zoom. Contrast that community forum with the lack of discussion about this significant capital investment of $300,000 followed by the expenses and council oversight required to hire law enforcement officers and acquire vehicles, firearms, and other equipment.
Our current FY 2026 town budget includes $456,095 for contracted law enforcement, or just over 10% of Patagonia’s total $4.376 million budget. This function is the second most expensive, after our water and sewer service. Town utilities are enterprise programs that are intended to be financially self-sufficient via user fees.
We should “put the horse before the cart” when thinking through this complex issue. The public and the town council must articulate a preference for one of three policies before a major capital expenditure. Buildings serve programs, departments, and services, not the other way around. Suppose that the town has three options going forward for law enforcement services: (1) maintain the current level of service contracted with SCCS, (2) expand or redirect the SCCS contract resources to include some of the “policing” activities referenced in the study session, (3) relaunch the TMO with a capital investment supported by South32 and a shift of about 10% of the town’s total budget, if TMO can operate effectively at the same budget. If the town builds a new office before public input, the first two options with SCCS are financially impaired unless SCCS agrees to use a space attached to the town hall. (I assume SCCS would prefer a new space, highway access, and a reliable landlord, but it’s not a sure bet until the agreement is made.)
I don’t take a position on the future of law enforcement in the Town of Patagonia. I am sympathetic to the need for a more central law enforcement office positioned next to the highway and next to the courtroom. The old TMO property does not inspire pride. However, there must be arguments for and against the above 3 policies. If the fire contract award process is any guide, many community members will be interested in learning more about Patagonia’s options. The construction of a new space attached to town hall should only be completed after a community discussion, the informed decision of the town council, and specifications from a law enforcement team planning to use the space.
Michael Collins
Patagonia
The writer is married to Samantha Morriss Collins, a member of the Patagonia Regional Times Board of Directors.