Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Surveillance Funding topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Resident asks council to disclose who is paying for city’s license‑plate reader network after federal grant ends

Wichita City Council · April 7, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A resident told the council a DOJ grant underwriting Wichita's ALPR (Flock) system expired April 1 and demanded the city reveal which general-fund line or other source now pays recurring fees for roughly 191 cameras; the council asked staff to respond and provide a written accounting.

At the start of public comment on April 7, Wichita resident Andrew Cranmer asked city leaders to explain which budget pays ongoing subscription costs for the city’s automatic license‑plate reader (ALPR) network now that a $1.6 million federal grant expired March 31, 2026.

Cranmer said the city’s transparency portal still shows 191 cameras in operation and that the grant that previously underwrote the program ended at midnight on March 31. "As of April 1st, nobody has publicly explained who is paying for them," he told the council, citing a per‑camera recurring cost in previously released contract documents and asking the council to direct the city manager to provide a written accounting within 30 days that identifies the current funding source, annual obligation and timing for bringing ongoing authorization before the council.

Cranmer noted that voters had recently rejected a public-safety sales tax (Proposition One), which had been presented as a revenue path for sustained surveillance and other equipment, intensifying the need for public explanation about how recurring costs will be covered.

Several council members agreed a written response was appropriate. The mayor and city manager indicated staff would follow up; at least one council member explicitly requested that the city manager provide the requested accounting and a response to the public within the 30‑day window.