Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Cameras topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Matthews police propose 25‑camera downtown system with AI features; chief, commissioners seek privacy and policy details before vote
Summary
Police Chief Evans proposed a 25‑camera downtown system (one‑time capital ~$132,600; ongoing yearly operating ~$10,035) to improve deterrence and investigations. Commissioners asked for retention, oversight, and scalability details; staff were asked to return with policy and funding options (possible July 13 follow-up).
Police Chief Evans presented a proposal to expand downtown surveillance coverage across East Matthews Street, McDowell and Stumptown Park with an initial deployment of 25 cameras (23 single‑lens and 2 dual‑lens). He said the system is intended to improve deterrence, support investigations, and provide situational awareness at large events.
Chief Evans addressed privacy concerns directly, saying the cameras would monitor public spaces where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy and that the system would be configured to purge unflagged footage automatically after a defined retention window (commonly 30–60 days). He described AI features for crowd counts and for tracking an identified person through overlapping camera fields if that person is specifically entered into an investigator’s search criteria—saying the system does not automatically upload faces into a watchlist without active input by investigators.
Estimated costs in the presentation included a one‑time package price of roughly $132,600 (10‑year coverage/warranty included) and an annual operating estimate of about $10,034.80, driven largely by cellular gateway/SIM costs and pole rental. Chief Evans said cameras can later be moved or expanded and noted an option to test the system at Matthews Alive.
Commissioners pressed on retention and public-record issues. Town Attorney Daniel Peterson said law-enforcement video taken by an agency is handled under existing law-enforcement video statutes (similar to body-worn camera rules) and is not an automatic public record; the statute provides a petition process for release. Commissioners requested a written retention and access policy, details on how long flagged footage is retained for civil or criminal matters, chain‑of‑custody safeguards, and oversight mechanisms to prevent misuse.
Other technical questions included per‑camera cost estimates ($1,200–$1,700 each), expected coverage and overlap, mounting height and range tradeoffs, hack vulnerability and cybersecurity integration with existing municipal systems, and scalability beyond the proposed 25 cameras.
Several commissioners said they were inclined to support the project if the town establishes robust policy and oversight, and staff indicated they could return on July 13 with a funding plan and a draft policy. Manager Malia James cautioned that the project is not in the current capital plan and would likely require an appropriation from fund balance if the board chooses to proceed.
Next steps: staff were directed to provide requested specifics on retention, technical coverage/range, scalability and funding options and to return to the board with policy and fiscal recommendations.
