Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Weddington Town Council authorizes staff to contract for five license-plate–reading cameras to curb burglaries
Summary
The council authorized staff to execute contract documents for five Flock Safety license-plate–reading cameras after hearing vendor and sheriff’s office presentations about their crime-solving utility, while members requested legal review of privacy concerns; the measure passed unanimously.
The Weddington Town Council voted unanimously to authorize staff to execute contract documents for five license-plate–reading cameras intended to help the sheriff’s office investigate a recent spike in burglaries.
Council members discussed a vendor presentation describing Flock Safety LPR cameras as pole-mounted devices that read license plates and use AI to compare vehicle characteristics; presenters said the system can return matches from national databases within seconds and credited deployments elsewhere with substantial reductions in residential burglaries. Council discussion cited an estimated cost of $3,000 per camera per year and a typical $650 installation fee; under the vendor’s February promotion the installation fee would be waived, leaving an annual cost of about $15,000 for five cameras.
The council emphasized that the town would own the cameras and grant the Union County Sheriff’s Office access for investigatory purposes. Vendors and staff said Flock conducts diagnostics and routine maintenance, replaces equipment damaged by ordinary failures or acts of God, and may handle insurance claims; the council requested that any future moves of cameras inside town limits require the sheriff’s office to cover moving costs and notify the council and staff in advance.
Council members framed the cameras as a “force multiplier” for deputies, noting they can help investigators identify stolen tags or vehicles they suspect are linked to crime. Some members also raised privacy and legal concerns, referencing litigation in another jurisdiction alleging invasion of privacy; council members asked staff and the town attorney to review legal implications before long-term commitments. One council member said the contract would not lock the town in beyond the first year and that the town could discontinue service if it proved ineffective.
The motion to instruct staff to coordinate with the finance director on budget numbers, prepare the contract and return a finalized document for council files was made during the meeting and approved unanimously; the meeting record did not list a roll-call vote by name. The council directed staff to proceed with contract execution under the terms described and to keep the council informed of any legal or operational changes.
Next steps: staff will finalize budget calculations, obtain any required legal sign-offs, and proceed with vendor paperwork to install the five cameras. The council said it will monitor effectiveness and may revisit placement, budget or policy limits at a future meeting.
