Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission raises concerns over $15 million state public-safety grant routed to Downtown Partnership
Summary
Commissioners expressed alarm at a mayoral memorandum of understanding that would channel a $15 million state public-safety grant to the Downtown Partnership, citing oversight gaps, surveillance uses and private security deployment; staff confirmed the state contract was awarded and that the MOU seeks to create administrative 'guardrails.'
Commissioners spent a lengthy portion of the meeting discussing a memorandum of understanding filed by the mayor’s office that would allow the Downtown Partnership to receive roughly $15 million in state public-safety grant funding. Staff and commissioners described the award as part of a governor-funded $100 million public-safety grant program; the contract’s proposed investments list items such as increased patrols, enhanced public restrooms, private security and a surveillance system and video-wall capability.
Commissioner comments reflected deep concern about oversight and civil-rights impacts. One commissioner said the MOU had been "buried" in holiday council materials and flagged the lack of a public hearing associated with the item; another raised alarms that an increased surveillance apparatus and private policing could disproportionately affect people experiencing homelessness and other vulnerable residents. "Surveillance does not stop or prevent crime," one commissioner said, adding that the commission has repeatedly opposed similar camera networks.
Staff clarified that the state has already awarded the contract to the Downtown Partnership and that the mayor’s MOU is intended to provide guidance and restraints on how the funds would be used. The commission said it had sent a letter to council describing concerns about oversight, the makeup of governing boards and the use of private security contractors. Commissioners encouraged colleagues and members of the public to request a council deferral and a public hearing on the item.
The commission did not vote on a formal position at the meeting but resolved to monitor council action closely and to circulate its letter of concern to council members.
