Council presses staff for cost and oversight details on drones, real‑time crime center and other public‑safety tech

Fayetteville councilmembers pressed staff on proposed public‑safety technology spending, saying the city needs an itemized plan for the proposed real‑time crime center, drone programs and other surveillance tools before committing recurring tax dollars.

Chiefs and staff outlined a phased approach for drones and real‑time capabilities, noting a full 24/7 drone‑first‑responder posture would require equipment and additional staffing. "We would be able to phase in a full time, but they won't be only doing that specifically," the Police Chief said in response to council questions about whether drone operators would have secondary duties.

Several councilmembers asked for the precise dollar impact of the technology proposals. Councilmember Miller urged caution and asked for a transparent breakdown of all surveillance systems under consideration, including license‑plate systems, any facial‑matching tools and vendor contracts. He cited privacy and civil‑liberty concerns and requested a single memo that lists technology, recurring costs, one‑time capital costs and the proposed governance or oversight mechanisms.

ShotSpotter and evidence. Councilmember McMillan asked staff to re‑examine the ShotSpotter contract after multiple studies, saying earlier local and national evaluations had failed to demonstrate promised benefits. Staff agreed to place a ShotSpotter review on the parking lot for a future budget discussion and to provide the cost and study history that informed the prior contract decision.

Drones and staffing tradeoffs. Staff said a leased drone service plus staff and supporting infrastructure could cost in the low hundreds of thousands annually for leases and personnel, and that an initial staffing model used six FTEs to support continuous drone operations; the chief said non‑sworn analysts could reduce costs by performing some monitoring tasks. Council asked whether the drone/tech proposal would be an alternative to hiring officers or an addition; staff said it would be additive but could be cost‑effective at clearing certain kinds of calls if deployed carefully.

Oversight and transparency. Multiple councilmembers asked for a public policy that governs the use of analytics, facial or plate matching and camera networks, including clear privacy safeguards, retention limits, public notice and reporting requirements. Staff agreed to return with a cost estimate and a proposed governance framework ahead of further appropriations.

Ending: Council asked staff to provide a concise package with vendor/contract costs, recurring operating costs, a proposed oversight policy and an assessment of which operational activities drones or analytics would actually replace or supplement; council asked that transparency and civil‑liberty safeguards be explicit in any future procurement.