Saco council hears plan to add multi‑directional cameras downtown; privacy, cost and access raised

Saco city officials on Monday reviewed a proposal to add multisensor, cloud‑hosted surveillance cameras at several downtown intersections and other high‑crash locations, saying the systems would be used for post‑incident review rather than continuous human monitoring.

The discussion matters because the cameras would record public spaces and create data the city may be asked to share for investigations, insurance claims or legal cases; councilors and residents urged the administration to return with firm costs, locations and a data‑use policy before proceeding.

Chief Clements told the City Council the city is replacing legacy cameras at municipal facilities with the vendor Verkada, which the department already uses at the police station, and wants to add multisensor units at Main Street, Elm Street, North Street and other intersections. “We would not be looking to activate facial recognition because the state does not allow that in the state of Maine,” Clements said. He added the cameras have built‑in analytics but that those features have been administratively disabled for their current cameras.

Director Panaro explained the operational advantages driving the request: the cloud system reduces the time to configure and export video and can be searched for vehicle types or broad attributes, saving staff hours compared with the city’s older on‑premise system. He said the city currently has about 80 cameras across municipal buildings, with roughly six at the police department, and that installing one multisensor unit takes about 25 minutes. Panaro said a test device used about 50 gigabytes in a month and that the city would likely rely on an unlimited mobile data plan through FirstNet for cellular backhaul.

Councilors asked multiple questions about privacy, access and costs. Councilor Berman raised whether existing devices on light poles were traffic sensors or cameras; Panaro said those devices only control signal timing and would not be used for video retention. Berman also asked whether a court order or another agency could obtain footage; Clements said access is logged and that the department regularly provides links to prosecutors and defense attorneys in criminal cases but will confirm vendor policies and return with details.

Resident Chelsea Hill urged a strong governance framework around access and retention and suggested the council require a lifecycle cost analysis and regular audits. “It would be like a hyperlocal mini‑GDPR,” Hill said, adding that Saco should compare a proprietary system to open systems before committing.

City Administrator Berhanco told the council staff will return with a list of proposed camera locations, estimated costs and funding options and will check whether any ordinance changes are needed before installations proceed. No formal vote or commitment to purchase was made during the workshop.

The council and staff flagged several operational and policy issues to resolve before any deployment: vendor access and audit logs; retention period (Clements used a seven‑day roll‑off example); whether license‑plate‑reader (LPR) cameras would be used (the city currently has no LPR‑specific cameras); monthly data usage and cellular backhaul costs; and an explicit sharing policy for outside committees or consultants (for example, the Ocean Park study was discussed as a potential recipient of footage if agreed by council). Clements said multisensor cameras cost approximately $4,500 each, and site deployments that require a cellular gateway could add roughly $7,000 for a modem and enclosure, plus monthly data charges.

The workshop closed with direction for staff to prepare a formal proposal that enumerates locations, equipment and total lifecycle costs, documents vendor access and audit controls, and proposes a municipal policy for access, retention and sharing. The council did not adopt any ordinance changes at the meeting and will review the staff proposal in a future public session.