Buena Vista trustees to explore county partnership on license-plate reader cameras after privacy debate

The Buena Vista Board of Trustees on Jan. 28 directed staff to explore a partnership with the Chaffee County Sheriff's Office on placement and cost-sharing for Flock license‑plate reader (LPR) cameras, after extended public comment and debate over privacy, data retention and cell‑service impacts.

Chief Morgan of the Buena Vista Police Department described LPR cameras as a public-safety "force multiplier," saying they allow officers to remain on patrol while the system alerts them to flagged plates. "These homicide suspects came into our town," Morgan said, arguing LPR alerts could help locate vehicles of interest.

Supporters at the public-comment period urged the board to approve cameras to aid law enforcement. Dennis Heath, a former law-enforcement family member, said LPRs "allow our police force more time and more information." Opponents, including resident Paula Dillon, urged trustees to decline municipal purchases and instead spend limited town funds on infrastructure and housing. Dillon said the town's budget priorities "do not justify" government-owned surveillance and warned about privacy risks.

Trustees and technology vendors discussed data-retention policy, sharing controls and bandwidth. Jonathan Paz, a Flock representative, said the vendor does not own the data: "The data is yours. We don't own the data," and added that retention and sharing parameters are set by the agency. Paz and the company said they would perform on-site testing of cellular service and stated that deployments typically rely on LTE and solar power.

Trustees asked several technical and policy questions, including whether retention could be shortened (some attendees cited New Hampshire law requiring very short non-hit retention) and how much cellular bandwidth the cameras would use during summer peak periods; the vendor offered to provide detailed technical specifications and post‑contract testing plans.

After discussion, trustee Swisher moved to begin with Option 1: evaluate partnership opportunities with Chaffee County and return with a memorandum-of-understanding or proposal; the motion was seconded and passed on roll call, 4–2. Votes recorded were: Trustee Hike — Aye; Trustee Rice — Aye; Trustee Rosenauer — Nay; Trustee Roe — Nay; Trustee Stroud — Aye; Trustee Swisher — Aye.

Trustees asked staff to explore whether cameras sited in the county adjacent to town could provide the same coverage and to return with proposed MOUs, budget impacts and recommended data‑sharing policies, including a proposed retention period. The board did not approve a purchase contract with Flock at the meeting.

The discussion also flagged additional follow-up items for staff: gather bandwidth and technical data for proposed camera counts, draft a sample MOU with the sheriff's office that clarifies access and sharing and prepare a draft policy for data retention and public transparency for future board review.