Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Drones topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Columbus council hears pitch for yearlong, no‑cost drone first‑responder trial
Summary
Police leaders urged the Columbus City Council to approve a free one‑year pilot of a Flock Air ‘drone first responder’ program that would place six drones around the city and integrate live call data with the real‑time crime center; council asked for attorney review and deferred formal approval pending contract review.
Assistant Chief Lance Deaton of the Columbus Police Department told the City Council that vendors have been vetted and recommended a Flock Air drone first‑responder program for a yearlong trial at no cost to the city. He described tests in which drones reached scenes faster than patrol cars and provided actionable information — for example, assisting officers and EMS at a reported stabbing and enabling safer responses to vehicle pursuits by tracking vehicles from the air. “This is the first true no cost opportunity to establish and evaluate a live DFR program for this city,” Deaton said.
Deaton and Chief Mathis said the package would include six drones placed on three buildings, an integrated Live 9‑1‑1 feed that lets officers hear the tone of calls, radar capability and waivers to fly higher than standard rules and without a spotter. He emphasized the agency’s control over footage and logs: “That data that comes from those drones doesn't go back to Flock. It's our data. We store it in house,” Deaton said, and explained a transparency portal that would let citizens and staff review recorded flights.
Council members asked detailed follow‑up questions about costs, contract terms, system integration and known litigation against the vendor. Deaton said the first year would be risk free, with a 365‑day opt‑out clause if the city chooses not to continue. He told council IT and the real‑time crime center staff would work with the vendor on setup and that the vendor has offered to cover integration for the trial.
Several councilors expressed support for testing the technology while also pressing for safeguards. Councilor Anker raised concerns about litigation and data practices reported elsewhere and asked whether integration costs or training would fall to the city; Deaton said IT and the vendor would share integration responsibilities and that the city would review costs if it continued beyond the trial. Councilor Hickey moved to engage in the one‑year test; after discussion the mayor and city attorney directed staff to bring the contract back as a formal purchasing item and Hickey withdrew the motion until council receives a city‑attorney‑vetted contract.
Next steps: staff will return a formal purchasing item to the city manager’s agenda (anticipated in December) with a contract the city attorney has reviewed so council can vote with full contract detail.
