Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Technology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission votes 6–1 to send proposed Axon drone, camera and Taser 10 upgrade to Board of Finance
Summary
Chief Morello proposed an Axon package—drones, expanded camera integration, real‑time translation, and Taser 10 replacements—and the commission voted 6–1 to refer a budget modification request to the Board of Finance for further review; the chief said the first year would be cost‑neutral with higher recurring costs thereafter.
Chief Morello told the commission he had negotiated an Axon package that bundles drones (drones for first responders and vehicle‑deployable units), expanded camera integration with the department’s existing Axon ecosystem, real‑time translation via body cameras and Taser 10 replacements. He said the first fiscal year would be cost‑neutral but that ongoing costs could increase in later years.
“It's cost neutral for the first year,” Chief Morello said, noting the package would let the department integrate evidence and video storage into a single Axon cloud and provide officer safety benefits such as locating officers quickly via body‑cam telemetry. He cited uses ranging from response to active incidents to support for other city departments, including fire and public works.
Commissioners pressed for details about individual components, possible facial recognition features in retail‑theft modules, and the total additional annual cost. Chief Morello said replacing the department’s existing Flock contract would free $42,000 and estimated an approximate annual increase of about $270,000 beginning in a later fiscal year, though he told commissioners the packet included a break‑out of existing contract costs and the proposed bundled pricing.
Several commissioners expressed caution about buying a large bundle without clearer line items. Commissioner Shu Tyler said she would vote no over concerns about cost, facial recognition and buying an extensive package without additional safeguards. The commission voted 6–1 to refer the proposal and a draft budget modification to the Board of Finance so the chief could present technical answers to questions about training, FAA waivers, facial‑recognition functionality, and specific recurring costs.
The referral to the Board of Finance does not appropriate funds; it directs the chief to return with answers and a budget modification request for the board’s consideration. Commissioners also noted a non‑appropriation clause in the proposed contract that would allow the city to divest if funding later proved unavailable.
