The Rise of Contract Cities: Why more SoCal cities are outsourcing public services

A Quiet Transformation

If you’ve ever driven through cities like La Habra Heights, Rolling Hills, or Eastvale, you might not realize they don’t actually have their own police department. Or their own fire trucks. Or, in many cases, even their own employees. These are what’s known as contract cities, places that outsource core public services to counties or private contractors rather than providing them directly.

This model is spreading throughout Southern California, reshaping how cities function, spend money, and respond to crises. But behind the streamlined budgets and lean city halls lies a deeper question: what happens to democratic accountability when your local government outsources itself?

What Is a Contract City?

Contract cities are municipalities that, rather than building full city departments, sign service agreements with outside entities, typically the county sheriff, fire authority, or private firms for essential operations like:

• Law enforcement
• Fire and emergency response
• Street maintenance
• Animal control
• Trash and sanitation
• Parks and recreation

The model dates back to the Lakewood Plan of the 1950s, when the City of Lakewood in Los Angeles County became the first modern city to fully contract with LA County for all its services. The idea was simple: avoid the costs and political headaches of building a city bureaucracy, while still maintaining some level of local control.

Today, dozens of cities follow this model in part or in whole, from Eastvale in Riverside County to Ladera Ranch, an unincorporated area that has considered incorporation under this structure.

The Appeal: Low Costs, Lean Government

Supporters of contract cities say the model is a fiscally responsible solution, especially for newer or smaller municipalities.

• Budget Savings: Avoiding pensions, vehicles, and full-time staff reduces long-term obligations.
• Flexibility: Contracts can be renegotiated or replaced. Cities aren’t locked into a permanent department.
• Efficiency: Counties already have the infrastructure and workforce in place.

For instance, the City of Eastvale, incorporated in 2010, contracts nearly all of its services and runs with fewer than 25 full-time staff for a population of over 70,000.

“We’re nimble,” one city manager said at a recent public meeting. “We’re not burdened by a bloated government; we’re a city that behaves like a startup.”

The Accountability Tradeoff

But critics say that what contract cities gain in efficiency, they lose in direct oversight. When services are provided by someone else’s agency or a third-party contractor, it becomes harder for the public to influence outcomes.

• Police oversight is a prime concern. In cities that contract with sheriff’s departments, residents can’t hold a local police chief accountable, since deputies report to a county sheriff, not the city council.
• Emergency responsiveness may vary depending on whether a city is prioritized over others by a county-wide agency.
• Transparency and public input often decline. Many contract decisions are made administratively, not in public forums.

In 2022, residents in San Juan Capistrano, a contract city, raised concerns after Orange County Sheriff’s deputies were slow to respond to a neighborhood incident. “Who do I call? The mayor? The county supervisor?” one resident asked. “There’s no direct chain of command.”

The Case of Law Enforcement: A Double-Edged Sword

Sheriff contracts dominate the contract city landscape. More than 40 cities in LA County alone contract with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD). Yet the LASD has been embroiled in controversies for years deputy gangs, excessive force lawsuits, and corruption allegations.

When Compton or West Hollywood residents complain, it’s unclear who’s truly in charge. The city? The sheriff? The Board of Supervisors?

“If something goes wrong,” says one public policy expert, “you have a three-layered system of plausible deniability.”

Who Really Runs the City?

Many contract cities, by design, rely on city managers and consultants rather than elected officials or large staffs. That means much of the decision-making power lies with administrators rather than the public.

In cities like Jurupa Valley or Wildomar, major service contracts are often negotiated behind closed doors. And while these cities technically have mayors and councils, the actual daily operations are handled by outside agencies.

This leads to a civic paradox: citizens vote for a local government that doesn’t fully govern.

Is This the Future?

As city budgets tighten, especially in post-pandemic recovery years, more communities are exploring the contract model. In wealthy suburbs, it’s a way to keep taxes low. In newly incorporated areas, it’s a way to avoid bureaucracy altogether.

But if local government continues to shrink into a management role rather than a service provider, what becomes of public participation? What happens when the mayor is just an intermediary between the community and a contract?

Conclusion: Cheaper, But Not Always Better

Contract cities raise hard questions about the function of democracy at the local level. They are cheaper, more efficient, and often more politically palatable. But the distance between voters and services grows wider and in some places, dangerously so.

In a time when trust in institutions is already fragile, the rise of contract cities may be both a symptom and a cause of our growing civic disconnect.

The question for Southern California isn’t whether contract cities work.

It’s who they work for.