Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cincinnati committee reviews $5.4 million public‑safety spending; police cite cameras, curfew centers and drone coverage
Summary
At a Budget & Finance Committee meeting, the Cincinnati Police Department and city administration reported on how $5.4 million allocated for public safety was used — funding camera repairs, street lighting, temporary visible patrols, curfew centers and technology investments including a near‑term crime center and drones.
The Budget and Finance Committee heard a report on the $5.4 million the council allocated last summer for public‑safety measures, with Interim Chief Captain Henney and Assistant City Manager Brezina outlining how the funds were spent and what remains to complete.
"From an infrastructure perspective, the administration is very appreciative of any funds that city council allocates to us," ACM Brezina said, summarizing investments in cameras, lighting, equipment and staff. Captain Henney told the committee the money paid for increased visible patrols (foot and bike), camera repairs and a curfew response capacity he described as an "insurance policy." He said the city is close to operating a 24‑hour crime center and expects substantial drone coverage in the coming month.
Members pressed for specifics on the camera program. Henney said the police department was responsible for 398 cameras (10 were removed as no longer useful), leaving 388 in the inventory. A short audit identified 99 non‑working units; a focused four‑week repair plan reduced that list substantially, with neighborhood tallies reported by the chief: 25 of 32 cameras operational in the West End, 27 of 32 in the Central Business District, 21 of 22 in Over‑the‑Rhine and varying levels elsewhere. Weather delayed some installations, Henney said, but crews repaired or replaced dozens of cameras during the response effort.
Council members also questioned whether curfew centers were cost‑effective. ACM Brezina and Henney said the centers operated as a backstop: the city contracted with two community partners (7 Hills and Lighthouse) to provide space and staff, with some funds reserved for transportation and overnight accommodation when needed. "We've had four youth taken to the curfew center," Henney said, adding that the curfew's deterrent effect was part of the program's value. Council member Jeffries noted the arithmetic — "$400,000 on 4 kids" — and urged a review of whether the model is the most cost‑effective way to achieve the same public‑safety goals.
The committee also discussed a federal earmark reported by members; Brezina said a proposed $1 million from Rep. Landsman had been included in a federal budget proposal but had not been finalized and the city had no details on timing or allowable uses. Brezina said the administration will coordinate any incoming federal funds with the city's existing camera and FUSIS (core/pod) programs to minimize duplication and recurring costs.
Several council members praised the speed with which the administration moved on the allocations and asked for follow‑up reports with operational metrics (camera uptime by neighborhood, utilization data for curfew centers, and a summer safety plan). The committee approved and filed the report (item 10).
