Santa Fe finance committee approves one‑year ShotSpotter pilot, 3–2, amid privacy and funding concerns
Loading...
Summary
The Finance Committee voted 3–2 on Feb. 23 to approve a one‑year, $354,000 service agreement with Sound Thinking (ShotSpotter) for gunshot detection and forensic analysis funded through an existing violence‑prevention grant after debates on accuracy, privacy, data ownership and long‑term costs.
The City of Santa Fe Finance Committee on Feb. 23 approved a one‑year, $354,000 service agreement with Sound Thinking (the company behind ShotSpotter) to deploy acoustic gunshot‑detection sensors and associated forensic services. The contract is funded through an existing Department of Health violence‑prevention grant the city previously accepted; staff said moving those grant funds to other purposes would require state approval and likely delay implementation.
The item opened with Youth & Family Services staff explaining the grant background and the intended public‑health use of the system to find unreported gunfire and direct services to affected children, youth and families. “When this initial grant was requested... youth throughout our community were doing... discharging [firearms] in public places,” a staff member said, explaining the grant allocates resources for both data collection and outreach.
Police staff described a planned 5‑mile coverage area and said sensor data can reveal events that go unreported; they estimated many gunfire events are not called into 911. Alfred Lewis Jr., vice president of trauma response and community engagement at Sound Thinking, told the committee that Santa Fe is adopting a public‑health approach and that the company’s “data for good” program can direct services to schools and neighborhoods affected by shootings. “Santa Fe is the only agency that’s made a decision that they’re going to use a public‑health approach to address gun violence,” Lewis said.
Sound Thinking representatives provided technical and accuracy metrics: Jamie Alcott, the company’s vice president of solutions, said the system filters large numbers of ambient 'bangs' through machine learning and an incident review center, publishing a small, high‑confidence set of incidents; the company cited published accuracy figures and a stated service‑level goal to publish alerts in under 60 seconds.
Councilors raised multiple concerns before voting: Councilor Castro said she worried about false alarms in a semi‑rural area, the distinction between police and civilian gunfire, and the source of one‑time funding for what could become a recurring expense. The vendor and police said acoustic signatures do not intrinsically distinguish officer‑from civilian‑gunfire but that operational protocols, body‑worn cameras and detailed forensics can identify sequences and rounds; the police department said it would own the data and include contract language to control vendor access and retention.
Councilor Castro moved to deny the agreement (seconded by Councilor Bustamante); that motion failed on roll call (Cassette: No; Castro: Yes; Garcia: No; Bustamante: Yes; Faulkner: No). Councilor Garcia then moved to approve, seconded by Chair Faulkner; the motion passed 3–2 (Cassette: Yes; Castro: No; Garcia: Yes; Bustamante: No; Faulkner: Yes). Staff said the pilot is grant‑funded for the first year and that future funding sources would be considered if the city chooses to continue the service after the pilot period.
The committee’s approval authorizes the purchase order and execution of the one‑year agreement; staff and the vendor said the term will be used to evaluate whether the sensor network and the linked outreach programs reduce harm and improve response and intervention.
