Trustees review public-safety budget, grant funding and new license-plate cameras

Township trustees spent the bulk of their meeting reviewing police-related budget lines, grant awards and equipment purchases, with presenters emphasizing grant reimbursements and rising vehicle-maintenance costs. Presenter said the Ross local school district reimburses about 75% of the school resource officer contract and that several grants — including a $20,000 SHP grant for traffic enforcement and a roughly $42,000-per-year COPS-style grant for three years — help offset staffing and overtime expenses.

The discussion underscored trade-offs between equipment, training and operations. "We are not going to park police vehicles," Presenter said, explaining a decision to keep cruisers active despite higher maintenance and gasoline costs to ensure patrol coverage. Presenter also outlined training expenditures partially offset by the Ohio Attorney General's continuing professional training (CPT) reimbursements, and noted that some revenue from court fines handled through the Hamilton Municipal Court is swept into the general fund and later reallocated to K9 projects and community events.

Speakers described contracted services that include Axon body‑worn cameras, Lexipol policy services and Flock license‑plate readers. The chief explained the Flock system to trustees: "It's basically like having four policemen stand guard as cars come in," the Police Chief said, adding that the system alerts on National Crime Information Center (NCIC) hits and generally captures plate images only, not drivers' faces. The presenters said the Flock cameras were purchased using Ohio opioid settlement funds so the township would not bear a direct taxpayer cost.

Equipment decisions prompted debate over less‑lethal options and liability. Trustees asked how often tasers were deployed; Presenter replied that tasers had not been fired but that there had been successful deployments where a subject stopped resisting. The presenters proposed a one‑time purchase of used tasers (described in the meeting as a roughly $9,000 option) rather than a costly Axon lease, and noted that the township is balancing the cost of replacement equipment against public‑safety and liability concerns.

On fleet costs, presenters reported significant spending on vehicle repairs and auto supplies during the current year but the transcript included at least one garbled figure and did not provide a clear, verified total for some line items. Trustees discussed modest increases to the vehicle maintenance and auto‑parts lines and emphasized the township's practice of approving a condensed budget with contingency authority for later appropriations.

The meeting also covered grant administration changes: presenters said state grant disbursement and reporting cycles have become more prescriptive — with quarterly financial reporting — increasing administrative work even where grant funds pay for equipment or overtime.

The board's next procedural step was a motion to move into executive session. Motion 25‑129 was made to retire into executive session under Ohio Revised Code section 121.22(G)(1) to discuss employment, promotion and compensation of public employees; the motion was seconded and passed by roll call. The trustees did not take further public action on the budget at the meeting's close.