The Norton City Council on Dec. 2 voted to adopt an amended ordinance authorizing the Police Department to acquire Flock Falcon cameras, approving the purchase at a cost not to exceed $63,250 after public comment and debate over privacy, data retention and local control.

A resident, Susan Prbonic, used her allotted public-comment time to press the council for details about camera ownership, placement, data access, third-party use and long-term custody of images. She asked how many cameras would be used, where they would be located, whether the cameras were owned or leased, how long footage would be retained, who could view footage and what would happen if the vendor was acquired by a third party.

In response, the Police Chief said the city would own the cameras and the city would own the data. He said the system would retain images for 30 days and purge them unless the department placed a hold for investigative purposes. The chief said Flock installs and maintains the cameras under a two-year contract at a set price for the contract term. He told council that the deployment plan under discussion included 10 cameras: four on Barber Road, two on Worcester Road West, one in the center of town, one farther down Norton Avenue, and cameras near Interstate 76 and other key ingress/egress points. He said nine of the sites are in the city's right-of-way and one would be on private property only with the owner's permission. The chief said officers have access to the system, that searches are logged and audited, and that a transparency portal would be available on the city's website to show searches tied to report numbers or BOLOs (police advisories).

Council members debated the measure and residents' privacy concerns. Councilmember Michael Townsley moved to remove the ordinance's emergency clause so the change would not take immediate effect; the motion to amend passed on a roll call. Proponents said the cameras are a tool that can help solve thefts, stolen-vehicle cases and amber alerts and noted neighboring jurisdictions already participate in similar systems. Opponents and several members of the public had argued the systems create privacy risks and could be misused by third parties or rogue employees.

After the amendment passed, council voted to adopt the amended ordinance. The roll call for adoption recorded votes in favor from Mr. Ader, Mr. DeHart, Mr. Townsley, Ms. Lee and Mr. Harbert; the amended ordinance passed and the two-year contract period described by staff will be the implementation window for the pilot deployment.

Council and staff emphasized several limitations and safeguards stated on the record: the city owns the cameras and data; images are purged after 30 days unless retained for an investigation; off-site vendor staff do not receive municipal decision-making authority over data; searches are audited and cataloged; officers must record a search reason tied to a report or BOLO; and the city will return to council should the contract or the pricing change after the initial term. Chief testimony also said the system alerts officers logged into the system when a hot-listed (stolen) vehicle is detected and that those alerts helped recover a stolen vehicle recently.

The ordinance is the result of a multi-meeting process: council removed the emergency language in a prior vote and later approved the amended ordinance, making this a two-step approval process. Council members who supported the ordinance described it as a limited, two-year pilot and stressed auditability and a transparency portal as conditions for public oversight.