Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Technology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lancaster council authorizes Axon body‑ and vehicle‑camera system for police
Summary
The Lancaster City Council authorized a five‑year Axon body‑worn and in‑vehicle camera package, including AI transcription, ALPR and drone integration; council voted 4‑0 to approve the purchase the department had budgeted.
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Technology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Lancaster City Council voted to authorize the Lancaster Police Department to purchase an Axon body‑worn and in‑vehicle camera system, approving a five‑year package the department said will cost approximately $350,130.
Lancaster Police Officer Lillian Shaw, who presented the proposal, told the council that the city’s current camera vendor, LensLock, had shown “numerous dependability issues” and that Axon is widely used across the country. “This purchase will come from the added benefit with the added benefit of AI assisted report writing, which auto transcribes and reduces the time that officers spend writing reports,” Shaw said during the presentation.
Shaw described additional features included in the package: automatic recording triggers when an officer draws a firearm or a taser or activates lights and sirens; integration between body cameras and an automated drone response; in‑vehicle cameras with a forward road view and a back‑seat view; and license‑plate recognition (ALPR) capability. During council discussion staff and council members clarified cost details on the record: Shaw said the total five‑year cost was about $350,130; another speaker noted the package equates to roughly $65,000 per year, and the council recorded an ALPR licensing cost of about $5,000 per year.
Shaw said the department had budgeted for the purchase and was seeking authorization to proceed. After brief discussion the council made and seconded a motion to approve the purchase; the motion passed on a 4‑0 vote.
The council did not identify a mover and seconder by name on the transcript. The council recorded the approval with four yes votes and no recorded no or abstain votes. The city did not document additional contract details such as vendor contract number or an explicit implementation schedule in the public presentation.
Council members thanked deputies and staff for their work on the recommendation and moved on to the next item on the agenda.

