Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Equipment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Aurora council pauses $170,000 drive‑test scanner purchase after vendor concerns
Summary
Council members questioned procurement, vendor history, and itemized costs for a proposed $170,000 drive‑test scanner for the Police Department; after debate the council voted 11–1 to return the purchase to the finance committee for further review.
Aurora City Council on Oct. 28 deferred a proposed purchase of a drive‑test scanner for the Aurora Police Department and sent the item back to the finance committee after several council members raised procurement and vendor‑history concerns.
Lieutenant Tom McNamara explained the device’s purpose: the drive‑test scanner maps cell‑tower coverage to create a historical “snapshot” of reception in a crime area so that cell‑carrier data obtained later by court order can be precisely compared and used in investigations. "The drive test scanner... does not surveil. It does not track. It does not gain any user data," McNamara said, describing the tool as a means to improve the department’s ability to compare carrier records with a mapped scene.
Staff said the recommended package — equipment, software and training — would be purchased using Department of Justice asset‑forfeiture/equitable‑sharing funds and that the full package price would not exceed $170,000. Jolene Coulter, director of purchasing, said the city ran an RFP and evaluated proposals; the next‑ranked vendor was approximately $25,000 higher.
During public discussion, several aldermen raised published allegations about the preferred vendor’s background and asked for a more detailed, itemized cost breakdown (equipment vs. software vs. training), and local usage data (how often nearby jurisdictions such as Joliet have used comparable equipment). Alderman Franco asked that the council delay action until those allegations and procurement questions could be verified. Alderman Larson and others asked for an itemized quote and clarification about the ongoing operational costs and expected frequency of use.
On a roll call motion to return the item to the finance committee for further review, the council voted 11–1 in favor. Staff said the item is scheduled for finance committee consideration on Nov. 2 so members can receive additional vendor history, an itemized cost breakdown and examples of local agency use.
