York council declines to advance SafeNet camera authorization after amendment fails amid privacy, legal concerns

Council members debated and ultimately did not advance Resolution 68, a measure authorizing York SafeNet to use municipal infrastructure for a public security camera network.

The measure, introduced as Resolution 68 by Councilwoman Aquina Washington, was moved and seconded for consideration. Councilwoman Betsy Buckingham then moved to amend the resolution to integrate operational and civil‑liberty safeguards including a cap of 55 city‑owned poles for the initial network, explicit municipal ownership of any city poles and rights‑of‑way used by the system, a formal access agreement with an initial term of up to five years, a prohibition on facial recognition and collection of unique biometric data, a retention limit for footage of no more than 30 days, and a publicly available log of all law‑enforcement footage requests. Buckingham also proposed establishing a citizen advisory board, with members recommended by the mayor and confirmed by council.

"This number aligns with the initial draft map proposed in York SafeNet feasibility study in 2019," Councilwoman Betsy Buckingham said when describing the proposed 55‑pole limit, and she read the proposed amendment into the record.

The amendment was seconded and called for a vote; the council rejected the amendment on the floor. The meeting moved to the regular vote on Resolution 68; the clerk conducted a roll call and council announced that the matter did not move forward.

Public comment preceding the final vote was strongly critical of the process and the project’s documentation. Michael Walker, co‑chair of the mayor‑elect transition and accountability team, urged the council to seek a formal legal opinion from the city solicitor on whether York SafeNet would qualify as a state actor under constitutional law when operating on city property and in partnership with the York City Police Department. "Once that threshold is met, the entity's actions ... are legally attributable to the government itself," Walker said, asking the council to confirm whether the Pennsylvania Criminal History Record Information Act (Title 18 §9121), the Sunshine Act, and the Right‑to‑Know law had been reviewed for applicability.

Other speakers, including longtime consultants and residents, criticized the scope and quality of prior feasibility work and public outreach. Consultant Ryan Brickerhoff said the earlier feasibility study relied on a small sample and incomplete data, arguing the council should allow more time for public input. Several residents expressed concern that the proposals had shifted beyond the original public framing to include traffic and school safety uses.

Council members stressed that the current item authorized only a willingness to allow use of city infrastructure — a step Buckingham and others described as necessary to permit fundraising — and that further council review and future resolutions would be required for full implementation. "All we're committing to is a willingness. We're approving a willingness to use city infrastructure, and that allows for the fundraising to begin," a council member said during the discussion.

No formal legal opinions or enforceable contractual terms were adopted as part of the failed amendment. The specific safeguards Buckingham proposed — the 55‑pole cap, five‑year initial agreement term, prohibition on facial recognition, 30‑day footage retention, requirement for legal rationale and public logs for footage requests, and a mayorally recommended, council‑approved citizen advisory board — were read into the record but were not appended to the resolution.

Because council did not adopt the proposed amendments and resolution 68 did not advance, council members and members of the public said additional proposals and reviews are likely to return to the council in subsequent meetings.

Provenance: See transcript segments where Resolution 68 was introduced and where the final vote was recorded.