Bluff City approves first reading to fund new Axon body cameras and tasers

The Bluff City Board of Mayor and Aldermen on a first reading approved an amendment authorizing procurement of Axon body-worn cameras and tasers for the Bluff City Police Department, with the ordinance passing 3–2.

The ordinance as read said the authorization would be used to procure Axon body cameras and tasers for the 2024–25 fiscal year. Vice Mayor Adams moved to approve the ordinance; Alderwoman Keith seconded the motion, and the measure passed on first reading with Alderman Malone, Alderwoman Keith and Vice Mayor Adams voting yes and Alderwoman Payne and Alderman Johnson voting no.

The measure prompted a detailed operational discussion. The police chief said the department’s existing cameras are “outdated” and down to three working units, complicating evidence capture and storage; officers also lose the ability to certify and train on older Taser models as manufacturer life‑cycles end. Lieutenant Bates (instructor status discussed by the chief) was described as previously serving as the department’s instructor but no longer recertifying officers on older equipment. The chief said the newer system would let supervisors and staff view live scene footage during responses.

Supporters said body cameras are valuable for prosecutions, defense and liability protection. One speaker said, “They’re vital. They’re vital for evidence, for prosecution, for the defense, for the officers.” The chief and multiple board members said cameras can reduce disputable claims because video “takes all questions out of it.” A member of the public urged the board to proceed: “They need those. They really do.”

Budget questions framed the debate. Alderwoman Payne and another member said they were uncomfortable committing funds before seeing a draft budget; Payne voted no and requested updates, noting she wanted more detail on the town’s reserve and budget timing. Vice Mayor Adams and other supporters said the department brings in revenue (tickets, task force funds) and that officers could pay for equipment through those receipts rather than drawing on general taxpayers. Staff noted a prior attempt to obtain a state/grant award for cameras but said the grant window had closed and no current grant funding was available.

Board members and staff also cited line items and quote figures shown in procurement documents during discussion: a hardware line of $58,146.68 was referenced in the paperwork, a total-spend figure of $132,746.70 was mentioned in the meeting, and an annualized figure of $26,550 was discussed as the amount the town would “lock in” for recurring costs. The ordinance language read at the meeting included a larger figure as read aloud; staff said there was a typographical error and that the ordinance text would be corrected before later readings.

Public comment and the district attorney’s office were cited as reasons to modernize equipment. Staff said the department had been unable to deliver two requested videos to the district attorney’s office because of equipment problems. The chief described an incident where body camera footage disproved a complaint about an officer’s proximity to a vehicle.

The ordinance will return for a second reading before final passage; the board’s vote on first reading authorizes the amendment’s movement forward but does not complete procurement or payment. Staff said quotes may have limited validity and that staff would confirm expiration dates for the vendor quote before the next reading.

The board directed staff to provide more budget detail before the next reading and to follow up on grant opportunities, and several aldermen requested a presentation of procurement specifics before final passage.