Cleveland City Council Public Safety Committee Meeting - April 22, 2026

This meeting of the Cleveland City Council Public Safety Committee, chaired by Councilman Polensic, focused on two major topics: the administration's one-year extension of the Sound Thinking (ShotSpotter) gunshot detection contract and the status of the city's nuisance abatement law (Chapter 630). The committee heard presentations from Director of Public Safety Drummond, Assistant Director Shachner, and their team. Key discussions centered on the justification for the contract extension, transparency concerns, and the effectiveness of nuisance enforcement efforts.

Discussion Items

ShotSpotter/Sound Thinking Contract Extension

• Director Drummond explained that the administration extended the Sound Thinking contract for one year at a cost of $853,340, effective April 2026, to avoid a gap in coverage. The original contract (2020) cost $2,758,500 and covered 13 square miles, primarily on the east side. The extension was executed through the Board of Control under Section 181.102 of the city's codified ordinances, which allows software contract extensions without council approval. Director Drummond took responsibility for not notifying council beforehand and apologized, stating it would not happen again.
• Council members expressed concerns about the lack of legislative oversight, particularly for contracts over $50,000. Councilman Starr noted that the ordinance could be used to bypass council for high-dollar contracts, and Councilwoman House Jones highlighted that the lack of trust in the administration motivated the $50,000 threshold. Chair Polensic announced he had asked the council president to review and potentially amend Section 181.102 to include a cap.
• Director Drummond and Assistant Director Shachner defended the technology's value, citing a February 14, 2026 incident on the west side where approximately 102 rounds were fired, and ShotSpotter alerts led to evidence collection, suspect identification, and arrests. They noted that officers respond to alerts in an average of 81 seconds (median 78 seconds), compared to 3-4 minutes for 911 calls, and that the technology aids in solving crimes, though they acknowledged that the CSU report found no measurable reduction in overall criminal activity. They also stated that the current system is not integrated with cameras, but an RFP for a more integrated system is in development. Councilman Jones and Councilwoman Hudson requested data on effectiveness, response times, and false alarm rates.
• Councilwoman House Jones questioned the original contract (Ordinance 909-2022) and noted that the city had not tracked promised benefits such as financial leveraging, gas savings, or reduced insurance costs for small businesses. She expressed frustration that the administration did not consult council before the extension, eroding trust.
• The committee discussed the process for a future RFP. Director Drummond indicated that the division had considered a Flock system last year, but that legislation was held by council pending an RFP. The one-year extension is intended as a stopgap until a competitive procurement can be completed.

Nuisance Law (Chapter 630) Update

• Assistant Director Shachner presented a detailed update on the enforcement of the criminal activity nuisance ordinance, which was revised in 2024 with input from the committee. The program is managed by a team including Ian Aston, Sergeant Lanton, and Detective Brown. They review properties monthly using a Power BI system, focusing on 173 qualifying violations (e.g., unnecessary noise, disorderly conduct, animal nuisances).
• Key statistics (as of the meeting):
  • Average 62 properties reviewed per month.
  • 71 warning letters sent to date.
  • 68 current nuisance properties.
  • 233 total violations.
  • 57 abatement plans received (84% response rate).
  • 17 properties later declared a nuisance after warning letters.
  • 3 properties changed ownership (4%).
  • Unnecessary noise accounted for 60% of violations.
  • 60% of property owners are city residents; 17% out-of-state; 9% out-of-country (including one from Canada/Israel).
• The process: properties with three or more qualifying violations in 30 days receive a warning letter. Owners must submit an abatement plan within 14 days or face a $100/day fine. Subsequent violations lead to a declared nuisance letter and escalating fines ($250, $500, $750, $1,000). Fines are certified to the property tax bill if unpaid. Eight properties had fines assessed to the county totaling $5,500; two appeals were granted. Total open fines are $132,450.
• Council members praised the team's work and requested marketing materials (pamphlets, newsletters) to educate residents on how to report nuisance issues. Chair Polensic offered to work with the team to create such materials. Councilwoman Hudson requested status updates on specific nuisance properties in her ward, particularly those with past abatement plans. Councilman Jones asked for a deeper dive into commercial properties (gas stations, bars) and a meeting within 30 days to develop informational materials.
• Assistant Director Shachner noted that nuisance data is shared with the law department for liquor license hearings, and Chair Polensic requested formalizing that protocol. The team also tracks properties with excessive calls for service and sends courtesy letters.

Key Outcomes

• ShotSpotter Extension: The committee accepted the director's apology for the lack of prior communication. Chair Polensic committed to reviewing and potentially amending Section 181.102 to require council approval for contracts over $50,000. The administration will proceed with an RFP for a more integrated gunshot detection system, and the current Sound Thinking contract will continue for one year as a stopgap. Council members will receive data on effectiveness, response times, and false alarm rates.
• Nuisance Law Enforcement: The committee agreed to collaborate on creating marketing materials to inform residents about the nuisance abatement process. The safety team will provide status updates on specific nuisance properties to council members. The protocol for sharing nuisance declarations with the law department for liquor license hearings will be formalized. The team will continue monthly reviews and enforcement, with a focus on commercial properties and out-of-state owners. Councilman Jones requested a meeting within 30 days to develop a pamphlet.
• Next Steps: The committee will schedule a follow-up session with Sound Thinking representatives to present their system directly. The ordinance for Section 181.102 will be reviewed for potential amendment. The safety team will continue to refine the nuisance program and report back to the committee.