Council debates $125,000 public‑safety technology package including cameras, plate‑readers and subscription; public speakers oppose expansion

City staff presented a proposal June 9 asking the Mankato City Council to authorize use of public‑safety aid for multiple technology items: replacement of 20 Milestone cameras downtown and in parking ramps, activation of license‑plate readers (ALPR) on existing Axon squad cameras, leasing a mobile trailer camera, and a subscription to Flock Safety for cameras at community entrances. Staff estimated a total proposed expenditure of about $125,000.

City Manager Arndt summarized the package and said staff had revised draft policy language after prior council discussion. The revisions include notifying neighborhoods before a trailer camera is deployed and posting deployments on the city website in a manner similar to drone notifications. Arndt said staff planned more frequent briefings to the council during implementation, proposing quarterly updates and more frequent reporting in the first 90 days.

Staff provided estimated costs: $55,000 for 20 Milestone cameras, activation of Axon ALPR at no additional equipment cost (the capability exists on current squad cameras), an estimated $40,000 for a Flock Safety subscription and about $30,000 for the mobile trailer camera lease. Staff also reported an estimated annual audit cost of $3,500; the memo proposes conducting the audit annually rather than the biannual schedule required by statute.

Interim Director Carl Kiel and other staff said the initial Flock deployment recommendation counted 36 entrances to cover the community; staff proposed starting with 12 cameras and evaluating after a year. As Arndt described it, “We’re recommending 12, to start and we can evaluate that after a year.”

Council discussion included a proposed amendment to limit initial purchases to technology already held by the city — the Milestone cameras and Axon ALPR activation — and to defer purchase of the Flock subscription and trailer lease until a trial period of at least six months to one year could show results. A council member who proposed the amendment said the approach would allow the city to activate capabilities it already owns and then report back publicly on performance and any concerns before expanding into new systems. The transcript records the amendment being offered but does not record a final council vote on the resolution or the proposed amendment.

Public comment included extended opposition to expanded surveillance technology. A resident speaker argued the proposed technologies are “not statistically effective at keeping people safe,” cited studies they said show no significant reduction in violent crime from surveillance cameras, and raised concerns about Flock Safety’s representation of its own effectiveness. The resident urged the council to spend funds on domestic‑violence prevention and victim services instead of surveillance technology.

What the council asked staff to do: Staff was asked to clarify deployment processes, provide frequent implementation reporting, and ensure neighborhood notification for trailer deployments. The council discussion included both support for using technology to shorten investigative time and concerns about expanding to new vendor systems without first observing results from systems the city already owns.

Outcome: The transcript records the staff presentation, council discussion, a proposed amendment to limit initial purchases, and extended public comment opposing the proposal. The meeting record available in the transcript does not include a final vote on the resolution authorizing the public‑safety technology acquisitions; no procurement contracts were recorded as approved in this meeting’s excerpt.