The Municipal Technology Committee discussed options on Tuesday to use cameras and automated license-plate recognition at the town transfer station to detect unauthorized users and record prohibited dumping, but members and DPW staff said no purchase decisions have been made and connectivity, privacy and cost questions remain.

Committee member Matt Stivers opened the discussion and summarized two needs: monitoring the station hopper for prohibited disposals and identifying vehicles that enter without proper permits. DPW Superintendent Bill Cundiff said the town “we we regularly have some level of abuse of the facility,” citing nonresidents using the transfer station and people discarding prohibited material such as wet paint. “That’s 1 level of abuse,” he said, and added that some incidents raise regulatory concerns “under DEP regulations.”

Nut graf: The conversation centered on whether a lower-cost cloud-based camera service or a higher-cost on-premises package would best allow the town to identify vehicles without transfer-station stickers and to record what is deposited in hoppers. Committee members scheduled vendor demonstrations and emphasized the need to resolve internet connectivity and data-privacy questions before committing to a vendor.

Committee members said the short-term approach remains staff observation, while automated systems would provide documentation for administrative follow-up rather than immediate on-site intervention. Cundiff said the plan is to continue maintaining stickers and staff observation even if cameras are added.

A representative involved in vendor discussions said one vendor described an annual fee of “$250 a year” for the camera-plus-software offering; another participant said the vendor’s quoted figure was “$250 per camera” and noted that pricing can scale with additional cameras. Committee members cautioned that the $250 figure may be an underestimate for a full deployment and that more education about capabilities and total cost is needed.

Members raised privacy and data-access concerns. Committee member Yash asked whether license-plate data would be shared with the vendor or retained only by the town. DPW staff said they would raise the question with vendors during the demos.

Infrastructure limits were also discussed. An IT staff member said the transfer station currently lacks internet connectivity and that the town is collecting quotes to bring fiber or other connectivity to the site; without internet access, cloud-based camera systems cannot send data off-site. The committee noted a trade-off: cloud systems can be lower-cost up front, while on-premises systems keep video and recognition processing local but require higher initial capital investment.

No formal motion or procurement decision was made. Bill Cundiff and committee staff scheduled demonstrations with at least two vendors to assess capabilities and cybersecurity implications. Committee members asked for visibility into vendor offerings, a possible no-cost trial, and clarity on whether solutions can support digital permitting (day, week or month access) and real-time alerts.

Ending: Committee members said they will reconvene after vendor demos and further information on connectivity and privacy. In the meeting, a participant summarized the near-term plan: document the problem with staff observation, run demonstrations, and then decide if an automated system is an appropriate next step.