Gig Harbor council hears debate over grant-funded license-plate cameras; contract to return to council March 24

Gig Harbor Police Chief Brian Busey told the City Council on March 13 that the department received a roughly $33,000 state grant to install 10 automated license-plate reader (ALPR) cameras at traffic choke points and is prepared to move forward with the purchase and first year of service.

The chief said the cameras would capture license plates and the rear image of vehicles and automatically check plates against state and national databases to flag stolen or wanted vehicles. “This technology just captures a record of the license plates and a photo of the make and model of the vehicle,” Chief Busey said.

The department presented the vendor Block (brand name Flock) and invited Kristen McLeod of Block Safety to answer questions. McLeod said the system uses machine learning to sort vehicle attributes and that the vendor stores data on an Amazon Web Services (AWS) government-cloud instance; she said the city controls access to its data. “If it does not align with the community’s values to share with a federal agency, you would not have to share with a federal agency,” McLeod said.

Council members voiced a range of concerns. Councilmember Hennessy questioned data residency and whether Flock could keep backups beyond the 30-day retention the vendor advertises; he asked whether “turning off the system” truly eliminates data. Councilmember Henderson, who identified himself as opposed, said his objection was not to local officers but to the system’s architecture: “The data are out of our control. You could say, yes, turn off the cameras. My question is, are the cameras turned off, or do you just no longer have access to the system?” Henderson said he would prefer “our own internal cameras” whose images remain only on city servers.

City Attorney Daniel Kenny explained contract language and public-records obligations: where a private vendor holds data on the city’s behalf, the contract can require production only when legally required. “On the Flock side, they are not a public agency subject to the Public Records Act, and so it would likely only be something like a subpoena issued by a judge that is valid and signed,” Kenny said. He added that the city “has ownership over all of the data for those 30 days before it is deleted.”

Cost and timing details were provided: the grant covers installation and one year of service; staff said recurring service would be about $30,000 per year (roughly $3,000 per camera per year) and that installation would take about two to two-and-a-half months after a contract is signed. Chief Busey said the grant must be used by June.

After extended comment and questions about public records, federal access, deterring crime and victim safety protections, council gave staff direction to return the vendor contract and proposed implementation plan to the full council for approval. The city clerk said the item will be placed on the March 24 council meeting agenda for a contract vote; staff said installations could follow within about two months after contract execution.

Why this matters: ALPR systems are increasingly common among Washington law enforcement agencies and can produce rapid investigative leads in cases such as stolen vehicles, hit-and-runs and serial thefts. Council members and commenters balanced those public-safety benefits against privacy, third-party data control and federal-subpoena risks.

What’s next: Staff will present a formal contract and implementation package to the March 24 City Council meeting for approval. The police department said it will publish an audit trail and public-facing portal describing queries and access controls if the system is adopted.