The Highlands Town Board on Thursday, Oct. 16, 2025, heard presentations from Macon County and Highlands law enforcement about automated license-plate readers (ALPRs) operated by vendor Flock and directed town staff to return with a detailed plan for cameras on Main Street.

The board convened the workshop to focus on a proposed security-camera program after the town manager removed a closed session item on pending litigation. Macon County investigator Lee Trit and Captain Liam McCall of the Highlands Police Department described how ALPRs have been used in the region to locate missing people, track suspects across jurisdictions and assist investigations. Matt Schuler, the town GIS/IT director, outlined practical considerations for placing cameras along Main Street and in the business district.

“Those cameras have totally changed how law enforcement can do business,” Lee Trit said, citing uses from locating missing seniors to tracking suspects across state lines. Trit said North Carolina’s State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) is running a one-year pilot that allows some agencies to place ALPRs on Department of Transportation right of way; that pilot is expected to be reviewed next summer. He also said the Flock system’s data retention is limited under statute to 90 days unless extended for an ongoing criminal investigation.

Town attorney Nick Tosco told the board the ALPR database and related footage are not public records under the statute covering automated license-plate readers, and access is restricted to law-enforcement uses. “It is not a public record,” Tosco said, explaining the town would adopt a written policy aligned with state law that defines authorized users and permitted purposes.

Schuler framed the operational trade-offs for Main Street, saying the town would need multiple cameras to see both sides of the street because canopies and trees block lines of sight. “If you wanted to cover essentially from third to fifth, we’d really be looking at somewhere around 10 to 15 cameras, maybe more, to get across and back,” Schuler said, noting lower camera mounts risk vandalism while higher mounts reduce useful identification details.

Board discussion addressed costs and contracting. Presenters gave several vendor figures during the meeting: individual Flock ALPR units were described in the discussion as roughly $3,000 per camera in one estimate, with vendor discounts and bundled pricing discussed (a reduced per-camera figure of about $2,400 was mentioned for a bundle). The group also discussed that Flock typically maintains and hosts the system and charges an ongoing annual service fee; the board asked staff to obtain a full written cost breakdown from the vendor. Multiple speakers emphasized that deployment on state right of way requires SBI or DOT approvals while placement on private property or town right of way is a possible interim option.

Speakers stressed limits on use and sharing: Trit and others said access to the ALPR cloud requires a documented law-enforcement purpose; improper use can be a criminal offense. Trit said local agencies typically authorize a small number of officers for access. Sharing data across states or agencies requires authorization from the agency that controls the data; state statute and each agency’s policy govern sharing.

Several local business owners and board members described recent thefts and burglaries and urged effective camera coverage for investigative value. One business speaker said a recent break-in had taken “about $200,000 worth of merchandise” and argued better cameras would have aided the investigation. Law enforcement confirmed video and tag reads can provide investigatory leads and that video evidence can be used in prosecutions if the footage is sufficiently clear and properly collected.

The board asked staff to return with a map and proposal showing proposed camera locations, fields of view, technology options (fixed vs. pan–tilt–zoom, ALPR-capable vs. general surveillance), estimated equipment and annual service costs, and implementation logistics such as power, data links and battery-backup options. Matt Schuler said he would prepare a plan showing pole locations and field-of-view diagrams for the board to review.

No formal decision to buy or deploy was made at the workshop; the board approved routine meeting business and adjourned. The next step recorded in the meeting was a staff assignment to prepare vendor cost details and a site-specific camera plan for review at a future meeting.