Council authorizes York SafeNet access to city infrastructure after amendment for civil-liberty safeguards fails

York City Council voted on Nov. 5, 2025, to authorize the York SafeNet public security camera system to use city infrastructure, advancing the nonprofit-led effort to deploy cameras on municipal poles and rights of way. Council rejected a proposed amendment that would have written operational and civil-liberty safeguards into the resolution.

The amendment, offered by Councilwoman Bough, would have limited initial use of city-owned poles to 55, affirmed that the City of York retain ownership of municipal infrastructure, authorized access through a formal agreement of up to five years, prohibited facial recognition and the collection of unique biometric data, capped footage retention at 30 days, required police to present a legal rationale for each footage request and mandated a publicly available log of footage access. Bough said the changes were based on recommendations from the York NAACP and aimed to make approval "conditional" on explicit privacy and governance protections.

Council voted against that amendment. The council president and other members said voting to allow use of city infrastructure was a preliminary, procedural step that starts fundraising and partnership work rather than final operational approval. "At this point, all we're committing to is a willingness to use city infrastructure," one member said during debate.

Public comment at the meeting included legal and procedural concerns. Michael Walker, co-chair of the mayor-elect transition and accountability team, told council that Mayor-elect Sandy Walker supports the goal of improving public safety through technology but asked whether the city solicitor had formally reviewed whether York SafeNet’s partnership with the police and use of city property would render the nonprofit a "state actor" under constitutional law — a status that would subject the network to Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment constraints. Walker also asked whether Pennsylvania’s Criminal History Record Information Act (Title 18 §9121), the Sunshine Act and Right-to-Know obligations had been considered in the materials presented to council.

Consultants and residents criticized the underlying feasibility work. Ryan Brickerhoff, who has done feasibility studies professionally, called the 2021 Parker Security Associates study and an updated Logos Works report "embarrassing," questioned the cited 68% approval figure and the roughly 220-person sample, and urged the council to seek more robust public input before locking in infrastructure access. Todd Clay, another resident, said he had not seen a clear operations plan outlining who would monitor footage and how day-to-day oversight would work.

Proponents said the authorization is a first step that allows fundraising and partnership development to proceed. Some council members urged that operational details, governance structures and specific policies be returned to the council for review before cameras are installed or activated.

What happens next: With the infrastructure-authorization vote passed, council members indicated they expect further documents and agreements to return to council — including formal operating policies, a governance plan and maps identifying proposed camera locations. Several members and commenters said they want statutory and constitutional questions answered and stronger, codified privacy safeguards before camera deployment proceeds.