Council debates police interior drones and additional Flock cameras; drones kept in budget, camera removal motion fails

Muskego’s Committee of the Whole on Oct. 14 heard a contested discussion over police equipment funding that divided councilors over interior drones and additional Flock license‑plate cameras.

The council left a $6,100 request for two interior drones in the draft 2026 budget after debate over whether the equipment is a “want” or a possible life‑safety tool. Separately, an attempt to remove authorization for two additional Flock cameras failed on a roll‑call vote, leaving the city with the vendor‑contract recurring cost in place.

Why it matters: The decisions affect recurring surveillance capabilities and a modest equipment purchase for the police department. The drone item raised questions about duplication with regional tactical teams and whether training and batteries should be prioritized instead of new interior drones. The camera debate focused on public‑safety benefits versus surveillance concerns and recurring vendor fees.

Interior drones: want versus operational need

Alderman Bryce told the committee she opposed buying two interior drones and preferred purchasing replacement batteries instead, calling the drones a “want” rather than a need. Chief (name not specified) responded that he had described the interior drones as a want but argued the city should build in-house capability rather than rely on the regional SKIT team. The chief explained the city already has exterior drones used by police and IT and said interior drones would provide rapid on‑scene capability for certain tactical or barricade situations: “I did say it's a want versus a need with this, and we do have and it would be a redundant capability with the skid team … adding interior drones so that we have the capability here for our officers, not necessarily relying on, the SCIP team.”

Council members pressed on costs and training. The chief said the quoted $6,100 covered the two interior drones themselves but not the training or licensing, which the department would fund from operating budgets. When asked whether the city pays fees to the regional team, the chief noted the city pays dues to participate in the SKIT team and that no additional per‑call fee is charged when mutual aid is provided.

Flock cameras: privacy concerns and operational results

Alderman Decker and members who favor the cameras argued the Flock cameras have produced investigative leads and function as a force multiplier in a community with limited egress routes. Opponents raised mass‑surveillance and privacy concerns, citing neighboring communities that have rolled back similar programs.

The committee recorded a motion to remove funding for two additional cameras. In the roll‑call vote the motion failed: Alderman Decker voted to remove, but a majority opposed removal and the item remained. Council discussion included the vendor’s recurring cost of about $3,000 per camera per year and a $21,000 baseline annual vendor payment the city already pays; adding two cameras would increase that recurring cost by about $6,000 to $27,000 per year.

Actions and votes

- Motion to remove funding for two additional Flock cameras (motioned by Alderman [name given in transcript]), seconded; roll‑call vote defeated (majority voted to keep the $21,000 baseline and the two additional cameras not removed). The transcript records Alderman Decker voting to remove; Alderman Wolf and several others voted to retain the cameras. - No formal vote was recorded to purchase the interior drones; the item remained in the draft budget and staff said they would find training funds in operating if the two drones were funded.

Ending

Staff and councilors left the drone appropriation in the budget and kept the incremental Flock camera funding in place. The chief said the department would continue to track outcomes and policy compliance and that the department and vendor policy would be enforced if misuse was discovered.