Board debates renewal of Placer AI subscription amid privacy concerns; staff to seek vendor briefing and one‑month extension

The Gloucester County Board of Supervisors debated renewal of a Placer AI subscription after staff described how the county has used the product for economic development, tourism metrics and event analysis over the past year.

County administrator (presenter) Miss Steele explained what Placer does and how the county used it during the last year for reports to prospective businesses, tourism return‑on‑investment measures and event attendance estimates. Steele said the service “measures the number of people who visit a particular venue or location during a specified period of time” and “observes the latitude and longitude of mobile devices. They do not collect any personal identifiable information.” She added that Placer excludes locations deemed sensitive—schools, hospitals, military installations—and that the company suppresses small samples to avoid identifiability.

Steele described uses the county has developed: market‑gap reports showing where Gloucester residents travel for dining (examples comparing visits to nearby chain restaurants), event analytics for the Daffodil Festival (county‑draw and dwell time estimates) and hotel‑visitor flows showing where guests travel while staying in local hotels. For the Daffodil Festival, Steele reported Placer counted about 23,100 visits and roughly 21,000 unique visitors over the weekend and that 42% of attendees were from Gloucester, with surrounding localities and some Richmond‑area census blocks represented in the visitor map she showed.

Board members and members of the public raised data‑privacy and cost questions. Several supervisors said the data described is collected by third‑party apps and companies regardless of whether the county purchases a subscription; one supervisor said that reality means the county can either use the data itself or leave it available to others without direct access. Other supervisors pressed Placer’s ability to exclude people under 18 and asked how the system distinguishes multiple phones in a household. Steele noted that Placer’s partnerships with app providers are intended to exclude minors and that summary reports do not present identifiable children, and she said she had asked Placer about those matters.

Public commenters earlier in the meeting had urged caution about county spending and the use of AI technology. A written comment submitted by Patrick Walsh of Gloucester Point said the county “should not spend another dime” on parks, AI or other projects until water‑system problems are fixed; the comment also alleged county staff had used editing and AI when posting meeting footage.

Several supervisors said they wanted more information before deciding. One recommended inviting Placer to present directly to the board or to the Economic Development Authority (EDA). The board agreed to invite a Placer representative to a future meeting and the county administrator said she would seek a one‑month, prorated renewal to preserve staff access while the vendor briefing and additional questions are scheduled. The administrator told the board she would prefer the EDA meeting in June or another nearby meeting to host the vendor presentation.

No final multi‑year renewal vote was taken at the meeting; the board asked staff to schedule vendor briefings and allowed the administrator limited authority to preserve access on a short‑term basis.