Chico PD gets military equipment proposal through Council

The City Council, at its March 3 meeting, approved on a split vote the possible purchase of additional military equipment by the Chico Police Department that would cost more than $1.3 million.

The proposed acquisitions, enumerated in the Military Equipment Use Annual Report prepared by Chico PD, include three drones, seven patrol rifles, three incident command vehicles, six PepperBall launchers and 750 PepperBall projectiles. Chico PD’s ability to make the Council-approved purchases is still dependent on how much funding is made available in the budget and whether outside grants are secured.

Councilmembers Addison Winslow, Katie Hawley, and Bryce Goldstein opposed the proposed purchases after two other motions that would have placed some limitations on military equipment purchases failed.

Thirteen members of the public spoke during the public comment session. Most of them were opposed to the expansion of the police department’s military equipment inventory.

Before the final motion passed, Hawley moved to approve the proposed acquisitions excluding the seven rifles. The motion failed, with only Goldstein voting in favor.

California’s Assembly Bill 481, passed in 2021, calls for “meaningful public input” prior to the purchase of what it defines as military equipment, and requires law enforcement agencies to obtain approval from their governing body for the funding, acquisition, or use of that equipment.

Where should public money be spent?

There was disagreement on the Council — and even among the trio of progressives — over whether to approve such a large amount of spending on military equipment.

Winslow said that such requests have taken money away from Measure H that should be used to fix roads and streets.

“Last year, when we had some requests that were pushed, we took that money straight out of the road budget,” Winslow said. “And when I got on the Council in 2023, we were a city flush with money like we hadn’t been in a long time, because the city just passed a sales tax, and we approved a budget with 70% of that money going to streets and roads, and we put out a pie chart showing that, and people seem to be generally pretty happy about that.

“And every year we keep getting more of these sorts of asks that we just kind of throw off to the budget, and then we end up approving it and taking it out of the road budget,” Winslow added.

Councilmember Michael O’Brien responded that Measure H was not just a roads measure.

“Roads certainly were an important part of that,” O’Brien said. “It also was about public safety, and that’s what our professionals are telling us tonight, what they need to keep our community safe. It’s not just giving money to the police department, it is giving money to the community to keep them safe.”

Mike Schultz, a public speaker, argued that the money should be used for more frequently used items.

“We have to really compare the frequency of need for law enforcement for these very expensive vehicles to the frequency of need for road repairs and social services,” Schultz said. “How you spend money reflects your values.”

During the public comment session, Charles Withuhn first acknowledged the importance of safety and then asked why the City is investing so much in military equipment without first exploring other possible uses — such as for a well-managed campground that could reduce the number of calls for emergency services.

Concerns about the weaponry

Some audience members talked about their concerns about the use of so-called ‘less lethal weapons.’

Diane Suzuki, a member of Concerned Community for Justice, said that in the Military Equipment Use Policy, Chico PD says that pepperball launchers and projectiles are authorized for both civil unrest and crowd control. Suzuki worries that those weapons will be used during peaceful protests.

California’s AB 48, effective Jan. 1, 2022, restricts law enforcement’s use of kinetic energy projectiles and chemical agents for dispersing protests, demonstrations, or assemblies.

“In addition, there’s no reference to AB 48’s restrictions on preventing hitting the head or neck with these less lethal munitions,” Suzuki said. “Deployment of these weapons impacts not only protesters, but also nearby communities, which can include children, the elderly, and the vulnerable. Tear gas, also considered less lethal, can cause temporary blindness and respiratory issues.”

Police seek funding for drone program

Chico PD Capt. Omar Peña said that the purchase of three additional drones is part of the process of establishing the Drone as First Responder program.

“There’s a lot more costs that goes into that besides the three drones,” Peña said. “We are looking for the permission to seek the funding for that.

“I won’t get into too many specifics of that, other than it’s a way to be able to respond to calls for service without actually sending a police officer in person,” Peña said, adding that the program can decrease the likelihood of confrontation and help with staffing issues.

Disagreement among progressive councilmembers

Hawley supported the police department’s proposal to purchase three incident command vehicles.

“That doesn’t necessarily mean that even one of those incident vehicles will be funded in the 2026–27 budget cycle,” Hawley said. “But this is a piece of equipment that PG&E uses on a day-to-day basis, that hospitals use on a day-to-day basis. And if that’s what PD leadership elects to use their allocated funding on, then I don’t see that there’s any need to really fight that.”

She then made a motion to approve the proposed acquisitions excluding the seven rifles.

Goldstein then made a substitute motion to approve the proposed acquisitions excluding the seven rifles, but reducing the number of incident command vehicles to one.

Winslow seconded Goldstein’s motion.

Aldridge reminded the Council that if it doesn’t approve certain items, then the police department cannot seek external funding for those items.

Goldstein then revised her motion, proposing that the Council approve the proposed acquisitions excluding the seven rifles, and only approve the purchase of three incident command vehicles if Chico PD secures grant funding for them.

Winslow withdrew his second for Goldstein’s new motion.

“The only way that [this motion] would make sense for me is if we are just adding on direction to staff to not include it in a budget proposal, because [otherwise] we can always overrule our own decision later and just say ‘let’s buy five instead.’”

Hawley’s motion ultimately failed with only Goldstein’s support.

Councilmember Tom van Overbeek countered the efforts to place limitations on Chico PD’s proposed acquisition list.

“A lot of people are up here trying to second-guess what the police department needs to do its job, and I’m not one of those people,” van Overbeek said. Van Overbeek also referred to the argument that drones protect officers from confrontation.

“What I know is that the priority of the leadership of the police department is to keep their people safe and to keep the bad guys safe.

“I question whether we need all three of these command vehicles, but we’ll sort that out in the budget process. I support this request enthusiastically,” he added.

Vice Mayor Dale Bennett made the motion to accept the proposal for purchases as it was presented.

After the meeting, Winslow explained to ChicoSol why he opposed the proposed purchase of three expensive vehicles.

“Military equipment is supposed to be for officer and civilian safety, and those vehicles were described to us as improving officer comfort,” Winslow said. “The biggest problem they seek to solve is officers cramped in SUVs in ‘inclement weather.’

“We all have to live within our means,” Winslow added. “Chico cannot say yes every year to new requests like these command vehicles with luxury interiors and maintain our basic infrastructure.”

Winslow was referring to what Peña said during his presentation.

Yucheng Tang covers city government for ChicoSol.