Asheville council approves consent items after public debate over real-time intelligence funding

Asheville City Council on March 25 approved its consent agenda, including two items tied to the city's real-time intelligence center (RTIC) and several federal public-safety grants, after an extended public comment period and council discussion about surveillance, data ownership and community oversight.

The votes capped a night of public testimony and council debate that centered on item G, described in meeting materials as partial funding for the RTIC and related federal grants. Council members and members of the public pressed for clearer answers about who can access camera and sensor feeds, what the city would actually buy with the grants and whether the council had had adequate committee review.

Why it matters: Several speakers said the RTIC raised civil-liberties concerns for residents who are already vulnerable to law enforcement and federal data-sharing. City leaders and public-safety officials said the equipment requests are federally funded, limited in scope and intended to improve officer safety and regional coordination.

Council member Beau, who spoke in favor of the consent items, said the city is not using local discretionary money for the programs under discussion and that the RTIC already exists in a basic form. "We're not buying surveillance, we're buying chairs and workstations for the officers to do their job," Beau said, adding that the funding request seeks infrastructure to allow officers and allied legal partners to access footage already gathered in field deployments.

Multiple members of the public objected. A resident who signed up to speak during the consent-agenda public comment period said she feared the equipment would be used "in unconstitutional ways" and could be accessed by federal agencies, citing broader concerns about civil rights and immigration enforcement. Another commenter asked the council to prioritize funding for peer supports and behavioral-health response teams rather than surveillance equipment.

Police and technology staff responded to council questions about data access and the city's existing systems. A police official said the department shares footage and data with the Buncombe County Sheriff's Office and with local legal partners, and that parts of the RTIC hardware and software remain to be finalized. "We currently partner with the Sheriff's Office with their real time intelligence center," the official said, adding that the city already operates some cameras and license-plate readers and that those hardware elements provide a starting point for the more integrated system the grants would fund.

Jimmy Wingo, identified in the meeting as the Asheville Police Department's technology specialist, described how ownership and access typically work when private cameras are involved: "The data actually belongs to the private person, the private sector, business owner, or citizen, unless it is like a city owned camera. ... If that actually belongs to that person and they have the ability to give us the rights to see it or to use it, then they can change that right at any time." Wingo said private cameras can be registered with a public system or can be given viewing access by their owners.

Other specifics raised during debate and public comment:

- Council discussion clarified that the federal grants in question were sought to outfit and support the existing RTIC infrastructure; council members were told some awards would pay for modest items such as chairs and workstations while other grants would fund gear or personnel training. Meeting remarks named a Department of Justice-related vest partnership that covers roughly 50% of the cost of replacing expiring officer vests.

- The police chief and staff said the city has license-plate readers in patrol cars and some field cameras already deployed; they also said the city had not yet received all requested federal funding and that specific software/agreements (referred to in the meeting as FUSIS and an Axon-managed data system) still required final contracts or legal review.

- Supporters of the grants emphasized public-safety benefits: quicker apprehension of suspects in dangerous areas such as abandoned lots along the Greenway and improved communication during disasters. Opponents and some council members urged delay for more committee-level discussion and community engagement, and raised concerns about vendor access to data and potential future changes in law that could broaden usage.

Votes at a glance:

- Items H, I, J and K (consent subparts) ' Motion to approve H, I, J, K was moved and seconded and the council voted to approve by raised hands. Outcome: approved. Motion mover/second: not specified in the public transcript. Tally: not specified.

- Item G (real-time intelligence center funding; two subparts G1 and G2) ' Motion to approve G1 and G2 was moved and seconded and approved by raised hands. Outcome: approved. Motion mover/second: not specified in the public transcript. Tally: not specified.

What was not resolved: Council members repeatedly asked for more legal analysis and committee review on questions of data-sharing, vendor access and privacy controls. Several council members said they had compiled questions (one council member said she had forwarded 29 questions) that still required legal or vendor responses. Staff and the police chief said some of those questions were answered in part but that others needed formal legal review.

Context and next steps: City staff said the RTIC already functions in a limited way through partnerships with the sheriff's office and through cameras and license-plate readers placed in the field; the grants under consideration would expand integration and pay for infrastructure and equipment. Several council members said they would press for more transparency, additional community committee discussion and firmer contractual limits on vendor access to data.

Ending: The council's approvals move the requested federal grant applications and modest equipment purchases forward; the meeting record shows ongoing council concern about privacy, vendor access and the appropriate balance between modern data tools and investment in non-police behavioral-health responses.