Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
New Castle County Council authorizes Axon agreement amid debate over costs and body‑camera policy
Summary
Council adopted Resolution R25-203 and related budget amendments authorizing a multi-year Axon contract covering body-worn cameras, tasers, drones and evidence storage; Councilman Street objected to the purchase’s cost and to the county's public‑release policy for camera footage, while Chief Jamie Leonard said the police division has an updated policy and will circulate it to council.
New Castle County Council voted to adopt Resolution R25-203 on Dec. 9, 2025, authorizing the county executive to execute an agreement with Axon Enterprise Inc. for the Department of Public Safety, Division of Police, and later approved Ordinance 25-158 to appropriate $750,000 for the first contract payment.
The action covers hardware and software for body‑worn cameras, in‑car cameras, tasers, drones, a real‑time information center and evidence storage. The contract was described in committee as a negotiated 10‑year arrangement; council presentations noted it also consolidates several existing contracts into a single agreement.
The vote followed heated exchanges. Councilman Charles Street called the package “the most fiscally irresponsible crap I’ve ever seen,” saying he believed the full multi‑year program could cost “$60,000,000 or $70,000,000.” In response, sponsors and committee members said the contract was vetted in public safety committee and would not cost the amounts Street cited. Councilman Toole, citing the presentation, said the program was offered as a 120‑month proposal with an aggregate cost figure of about $50,566,405.15 before an asserted $21 million discount.
Chief Jamie Leonard, who attended the meeting, directly addressed council concerns about police staffing and release of footage: “Unequivocally, we will not be terminating police officers,” he said, and he said the division maintains an updated forward‑facing body‑worn camera policy and would forward that policy to council members. Leonard also said he had responded to recommendations from the Police Accountability Board within the statutory 90‑day window and expected a further reply by early January.
Councilman Street repeatedly said a public policy on when and how footage is released remained unclear; Leonard said a policy exists on the police division website and that he would provide it to council. The disagreement over transparency and release rules was a central reason for Street’s continued opposition on the record.
After public comment and council discussion, the clerk recorded R25‑203 as adopted (roll call recorded 11 yes, 1 no, 1 absent). Ordinance 25‑158—appropriating $750,000 from the realty transfer tax reserve to the Division of Police equipment line for the first Axon payment—was also adopted (roll call recorded 11 yes, 1 no, 1 absent on related votes elsewhere; the transcript records an eventual adoption of 25‑158). The meeting record shows at least one council member voted against the Axon measures based on fiscal and policy concerns.
Next steps: council requested that the police division circulate its written body‑camera release policy and that staff provide more detailed cost breakdowns and the contract schedule to clarify long‑term fiscal impacts.
