Glenwood Springs council votes to withdraw from county SPEAR task force after debate over MOU language and optics

After a lengthy discussion about public safety trade-offs and community concerns, the Glenwood Springs City Council voted 6-1 on April 16 to authorize city staff to sign a formal withdrawal from the county's SPEAR (Special Problem Enforcement and Response) memorandum of understanding.

Chief of Public Safety Joseph Darris, who briefed the council, said Glenwood Springs has not actively participated with SPEAR in recent years and described the task force as a regional, grant-funded team that provides “a force multiplier” for major-crime investigations. “Since that time, we have not been present at any meetings, participated in any investigations, or any activity with that team since we withdrew,” Darris said, describing the city’s limited operational involvement and noting examples where SPEAR previously assisted on complex cases such as violent incidents and interstate tracking of suspects.

City staff — including City Manager Steve Boyd and the city attorney — recommended withdrawal primarily because of the way the SPEAR MOU references homeland-security entities and the concern that the language creates an appearance or possibility of cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. Councilor Smith argued the step was meant to protect the local department’s reputation: “This is an appropriate action… to affirm our police department’s good behavior and to affirm the public’s confidence,” Smith said. Councilor Weimer cast the lone dissenting vote, warning that the city should not abandon tools that enhance response capacity.

Council members pressed staff and the chief on practical consequences. Darris and the city attorney said the department would continue to request and provide aid through regional partners as situations require, but warned that formally withdrawing as an MOU signatory could prompt the task force’s leadership to reduce routine support. The chief noted he had discussed the issue with the sheriff, who indicated withdrawal might change formal support arrangements.

The council’s action authorizes staff to complete the formal withdrawal. Staff also said they would report back to council on any follow-up from the sheriff’s office or changes in mutual-aid arrangements. The vote was procedural (motion by Councilor Smith, seconded by Councilor Schachter) and the tally recorded in the meeting minutes was 6 yes, 1 no.