Council hears proposal for Flock license‑plate readers; staff to return with policy and community outreach plan
Loading...
Summary
Burnsville police and Flock Safety representatives briefed council on a proposed 20‑camera license‑plate reader system estimated at $65,000 a year and the governance and privacy safeguards that would govern its use.
Burnsville police and vendors presented a proposal to install 20 fixed, solar‑powered license‑plate reader (LPR) cameras from Flock Safety as part of a broader evaluation of community and park safety. The estimated annual subscription cost for the 20‑camera configuration was $65,000, the presenters said.
Deputy Police Chief Matt and representatives from Flock/Block Safety described how the system works, what it does not do, and the privacy and governance safeguards that would accompany any deployment. Flock captures still images of license plates, vehicle characteristics, date/time and location and compares plates to databases such as NCIC for warrants, stolen vehicles and AMBER alerts; the system can send near‑real‑time alerts to dispatch or officers’ mobile terminals.
Kristen McLeod, public affairs manager with Block Safety, told the council: “It is not facial recognition, and it is not traffic enforcement.” Flock representatives and police emphasized that searches and access to stored data are audited and logged with user ID, search reason and time stamp; public transparency portals list fixed reader locations and basic usage statistics.
Speakers described privacy constraints required under Minnesota law and department policy: non‑case data retention is limited by statute (chair discussion referenced a 60‑day statutory maximum), access is limited to legitimate law enforcement purposes, independent audits are required and the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) is notified when readers are installed. Flock staff said their default retention is 30 days; retaining data beyond that would require council approval and additional cost.
Councilmembers asked how alerts are delivered and how agencies can share data. Flock staff said an alert for a wanted vehicle typically arrives within about 20 seconds and that cities control data‑sharing agreements with neighboring agencies. Council members also asked about integration with existing camera systems; presenters said integration is possible in some locations.
Members voiced both support for additional investigative tools and concern about privacy, data sharing and retention. One councilmember urged a shorter retention period; another emphasized that once other agencies receive data under warrants or sharing agreements, Burnsville cannot unilaterally force deletion of that copy.
Staff and police did not request immediate contract approval. Instead, the council directed staff to coordinate with the police department and city attorney, draft a use and retention policy for council consideration, build a community outreach and transparency plan, and return with a recommended timeline for installation. Staff said the earliest deployments could begin after permits and community engagement, with vendor work taking roughly 2–4 weeks after approvals.
Council members referenced recent local incidents and public praise for police response at a high‑school event as part of the context for seeking tools that can help investigations. No formal purchase or subscription commitment was made at the meeting; staff will return with a policy and public engagement plan.
