Medical Lake council discusses license‑plate readers with county partners; staff told to pursue Insight option

Medical Lake — City staff and Spokane County partners briefed the City Council on Sept. 2 about automatic license‑plate readers (ALPRs), the roadside cameras that read plates and check them against law‑enforcement "hot lists." Council members asked about what offenses generate a hot‑list alert, data retention, oversight and costs; staff and the county said the system is limited to serious investigations and that searches and uses are audited. "Automatic license plate readers are fixed roadside cameras that capture still images of vehicles and their license plates as they pass by those cameras," City staff member Mr. Weathers told the council. He said the city had obtained vendor quotes and that the county’s existing real‑time crime center would be the primary user of ALPR data. Lieutenant Elliott of the Spokane County Sheriff's Office explained how hot lists are populated and used. "Typically, it's gonna be felony warrants,", he said, describing that federal and national databases such as NCIC are uploaded daily and that agencies may add vehicles of interest for active investigations. He added that county policy and audits govern searches and that improper use can lead to discipline and is trackable in audit logs. County representatives emphasized data protections: ALPR reads would be retained for 30 days by policy unless footage is part of an active investigation; the county, not the city, would manage records and respond to public‑records requests where the county hosts the feed. The county also described a vendor tradeoff: Flock Safety is already widely deployed but is more proprietary, while Insight provides an open application programming interface that allows other county analytic systems to ingest data directly. On costs, staff said installation uses solar‑powered, infrastructure‑free units and provided budget context: an existing $75,000 capital project in the city’s plan includes roughly $10,000 allocated for ALPR equipment if combined with the park camera purchases. Staff presented vendor quotes (Insight and Flock) and said Insight was the lower‑cost option and more flexible for county integration. Council members pressed on oversight and misuse: one councilor asked whether audits are performed and who sets the hot‑list policy; Lieutenant Elliott said audits are routine, searches require justification and supervisors review entries. The county described grant funding that helped deploy cameras regionally and noted a documented reduction in some crimes in areas using the technology. There was no formal motion to adopt ALPRs at the meeting. Council discussion ended with staff direction to return with additional materials and the packet language indicating Insight as the preferred vendor. "Shall, bring counsel, comfortable with that coming back as regards to what we learned for next meeting for the insight cameras," the mayor said; council members agreed that was the direction, not a formal contract approval. Next steps identified by staff include drafting resolutions and service agreements for council consideration, refining preferred locations, and negotiating terms that include cancellation clauses and integration details with county systems. Staff also said they could pursue T‑Mobile rebates for Peplink routers used to back up connectivity.