Aldermen advance eight police surveillance use plans after committee debate over public notice

The St. Louis Board of Aldermen Public Safety Committee voted to send eight police surveillance use-plan resolutions (nos. 186–193) to the full Board with due-pass recommendations after roughly two hours of discussion and questions about how and when updated exhibits were posted online.

Committee members pressed City administration and police staff on vendor disclosure, data-retention periods for different technologies and who covered the initial costs for ShotSpotter. Committee debate centered less on whether the technology could be used and more on process: several aldermen said the updated exhibits were not posted on the Board’s website with what they expected to be a reasonable public-review window.

The committee’s sponsor moved each resolution out of committee with a “due pass” recommendation. The sponsor’s motion was routinely seconded by the alderman from the second ward. The clerk read roll calls after each motion; for resolutions 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 and 191 the clerk recorded four ayes and two noes. For resolution 192 the clerk recorded five ayes and one no; for resolution 193 the clerk recorded four ayes and two noes. After the votes, the chair returned the gavel to the meeting chair and the committee moved on to other business.

Monet Centron, Chief of Staff (administration), testified under oath about the use-plan approach and why product manufacturers were not listed by model name in the exhibits. “We described what the capabilities of the technology are and then how we use it,” Centron said, adding that listing a specific vendor could tie the City to a brand and complicate future procurement changes.

Centron also answered questions about data-retention periods. She said license-plate-reader (LPR) data retention is set at 90 days — a retention period the City negotiated with community input and outside groups — while citywide camera footage retention is 30 days. That 90-day period for LPRs, Centron said, was chosen to preserve data for potential criminal investigations.

Committee members repeatedly objected to the timing of the online posting of updated exhibits. Several aldermen told the chair and sponsors they had learned that some exhibits were posted to the Board of Aldermen website as late as 9 a.m. the same day or after 5 p.m. the prior evening, which they said gave residents too little time to review. One member said the documents had been available on the police department’s site but not on the Board’s site in a single, predictable location; that, she said, created confusion and hampered constituent outreach.

Committee debate included fact-checking about ShotSpotter funding and costs. A staff presentation to the committee said ShotSpotter cost “approximately $70,000 per square mile.” Committee members and staff also recited, from the resolution text, a funding breakdown listed in the exhibits: roughly $64,000 from grant funding, $130,000 from the Police Foundation and $242,000 from civil asset forfeiture (figures as presented to the committee). Committee members asked staff to verify whether the listed amounts were annual, recurring or one-time; staff responded that the ShotSpotter amounts represented annual costs.

Several aldermen noted the department had revised use plans after community testimony at prior hearings. Those changes, the sponsor said, led to the current set of resolutions. Still, some aldermen recorded “no” votes and explained their opposition as being procedural — they said the Board’s website posting practices had not given the public sufficient time to review the updated exhibits.

Votes at a glance (committee action): - Resolution 186 — Motion: pass with due pass recommendation. Mover: Alderman from the 4th (sponsor); Second: Alderman from the 2nd. Clerk roll call: 4 ayes, 2 noes. Outcome: sustained (due pass). - Resolution 187 — Motion: pass with due pass recommendation. Mover: Alderman from the 4th; Second: Alderman from the 2nd. Clerk roll call: 4 ayes, 2 noes. Outcome: sustained (due pass). - Resolution 188 — Motion: pass with due pass recommendation. Mover: Alderman from the 4th; Second: Alderman from the 2nd. Clerk roll call: 4 ayes, 2 noes. Outcome: sustained (due pass). - Resolution 189 — Motion: pass with due pass recommendation. Mover: Alderman from the 4th; Second: Alderman from the 2nd. Clerk roll call: 4 ayes, 2 noes. Outcome: sustained (due pass). - Resolution 190 — Motion: pass with due pass recommendation. Mover: Alderman from the 4th; Second: Alderman from the 2nd. Clerk roll call: 4 ayes, 2 noes. Outcome: sustained (due pass). - Resolution 191 — Motion: pass with due pass recommendation. Mover: Alderman from the 4th; Second: Alderman from the 2nd. Clerk roll call: 4 ayes, 2 noes. Outcome: sustained (due pass). - Resolution 192 — Motion: pass with due pass recommendation. Mover: Alderman from the 4th; Second: Alderman from the 2nd. Clerk roll call: 5 ayes, 1 no (clerk announcement). Outcome: sustained (due pass). - Resolution 193 — Motion: pass with due pass recommendation. Mover: Alderman from the 4th; Second: Alderman from the 2nd. Clerk roll call: 4 ayes, 2 noes. Outcome: sustained (due pass).

What the committee asked staff to follow up on: aldermen requested (1) confirmation of the posting dates and links for each updated exhibit on the Board website, (2) verification of the annual vs. one-time nature of technology costs, and (3) a clear public-facing explanation of how vendor selection will be handled in the future when use plans describe capabilities rather than brand names.

Why it matters: the use plans govern how the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department may deploy surveillance tools and set data-retention and access rules. The committee’s votes send the resolutions to the Board floor; debate on posting and transparency signals continued public scrutiny and likely further questions when the measures reach a full Board session.

The committee chair said public comment on the resolutions had already been taken twice earlier in the process and that public comment on the jail discussion would occur in a separate hearing next week. The committee moved on following the roll calls, returning the virtual gavel to the chair.