Nearly $450,000 armored police vehicle purchase quietly rolls onto Elk Grove City Council consent calendar

The Elk Grove City Council has repeatedly promoted the city as a safe community, but on Wednesday night it will be asked to spend nearly $450,000 on an armored police response and rescue vehicle.

For a purchase of that size — and for equipment that symbolizes the continuing militarization and technological expansion of local policing — there is one notable detail about where city officials put it.

The consent calendar.

The council will consider authorizing City Manager Jason Behrmann to execute a contract with Lenco Industries Inc. for one armored response and rescue vehicle at a cost not to exceed $448,642. The resolution would also dispense with the city's formal bidding procedure.

Consent calendars are ordinarily reserved for items considered routine and noncontroversial. In fact, the city's own agenda describes consent items as those "expected to be routine and non-controversial."

Whether spending almost $450,000 on an armored police vehicle fits that description is another matter.

Placing the purchase on the consent calendar also means it can be approved along with a batch of other items without the individual presentation and council discussion that accompanies a regular agenda item — unless a council member pulls it for separate consideration, or if there is public comment.

That distinction is particularly noteworthy at a time when police surveillance technology is receiving increasing scrutiny locally and nationally.

Elk Grove Police Department's use of automated license plate readers from Flock Safety has generated concerns among privacy advocates about how information collected by the cameras is stored, searched and potentially shared.

Similar debates are playing out nationally. Communities around the country have questioned Flock systems over privacy and data-sharing concerns, with some municipalities reconsidering or limiting their use.

Those controversies do not directly involve armored vehicles. But they raise the same larger public-policy question: How much law enforcement technology and equipment should a community acquire without extensive public discussion?

The proposed purchase also creates an interesting contrast with City Hall's longstanding public-safety messaging.

Elk Grove officials routinely tout the community as a safe place to live. If crime conditions justify spending nearly half a million dollars on an armored response vehicle, residents might reasonably expect city officials to explain the operational need, how frequently such equipment has been deployed and why the expenditure is necessary now.

There may be legitimate answers.

Armored rescue vehicles can protect officers and civilians during shootings, barricaded-suspect incidents and other dangerous emergencies. The question isn't whether such equipment can serve a public-safety purpose.

The question is whether a $448,642 purchase deserves more scrutiny than being grouped with tire contracts, landscaping maintenance, HVAC service and other consent-calendar business.

The council could provide that scrutiny Wednesday simply by pulling the item from consent and discussing it publicly, but that is unlikely unless prompted by public comment.

For a city that regularly reminds residents how safe Elk Grove is, explaining why taxpayers need to spend almost half a million dollars on an armored vehicle shouldn't be too much to ask.