Union County sheriff's office reports faster responses and heavy local patrol activity; village raises camera‑access and privacy questions

Chief Deputy Tony Underwood and Lieutenant James May of the Union County Sheriff's Office presented a year‑end "report card" to the Village of Wesley Chapel on Feb. 9, outlining countywide and town‑level policing metrics and promising ongoing monthly reporting to the village.

Underwood told the council the agency responded to 36,790 dispatched calls for service in 2025 and recorded roughly 162,000 self‑initiated events such as traffic stops and high‑visibility patrols. "What's more important above that is that orange column that goes all the way up near 200,000 — those self‑initiated calls," he said, describing them as a key crime‑deterrent. He reported countywide average response time for 2025 at "9 minutes and 7 seconds," down from more than 10 minutes two years earlier.

Nut graf: The presentation framed Wesley Chapel as part of a broader county strategy that emphasizes visible patrols and data‑driven deployment. For Wesley Chapel specifically, Underwood said the village's dedicated contract deputy produced faster responses: the Wesley Chapel car averaged about 6 minutes, 12 seconds when first to arrive versus 8.19 minutes when other units covered the zone. The sheriff's office also promised a 30‑day snapshot report starting next month and said a deputy will attend regular council meetings to answer questions.

Underwood highlighted crime‑control and investigative results. He said Union County's violent‑crime rate and clearance percentages compared favorably with state averages, and he credited digital tools and proactive policing for those results. On drug deaths, Underwood said the county reduced fentanyl‑related fatalities from a 2023 peak (32) to 15 in the most recent year: "Last year in 2025, we cut that in half. We're down to 15." He described aggressive targeting of distributors and noted a regional medical examiner facility is in development to support investigations.

Council members and residents focused several questions on the village's Flock license‑plate camera network and how camera data is used and shared. Underwood and Lieutenant May said there are separate civilian and law‑enforcement user accounts: the sheriff's office maintains law‑enforcement logs and investigative access tied to national systems, while a village or private civilian account can be set up with its own event logs and hot lists. On whether the sheriff's office has a privacy policy for village cameras, May said the office uses the footage "for investigative purposes only." He encouraged the village to create and control its civilian account if it wants to track access: the village's data is accessible to whoever holds an account and the village can register to see its event logs directly.

The council asked whether camera notifications could be configured (for example, to flag cars in a park after dark). May said he had discussed that capability with the vendor and would pursue a technical follow‑up and training for village staff: "They said they would talk with the program developers and get back to us."

The sheriff's team also explained contract costs and service coverage. Underwood outlined that towns pay roughly 90% of a contract deputy's advertised annual cost while the county absorbs 10%, and he said a fully loaded deputy (including equipment and capital costs) can exceed $240,000. On coverage, the sheriff's office said it will continue traffic enforcement and crash investigation efforts in Wesley Chapel and asked the council to call the office with real‑time concerns so patrol strategies can be adjusted.

Next steps: the sheriff's office committed to provide a monthly 30‑day snapshot of calls and to have a deputy present at future council meetings; staff and council agreed to follow up about Flock user accounts and any needed privacy documentation.