Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Public Safety Surveillance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Police pitch license‑plate reader cameras; council asks for Burlington data and tables decision

West Burlington City Council · November 20, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

West Burlington police presented a Flock Safety license‑plate reader proposal, describing real‑time vehicle alerts and 30–60 day retention; council asked for Burlington’s usage statistics and cost history and agreed to table the proposal for further review.

Police briefed the council on a proposal to test a license‑plate reader (LPR) system from Flock Safety that would use four cameras to integrate with neighboring Burlington’s network, provide real‑time vehicle alerts and assist investigations.

Chief/Officer Jesse outlined the system’s capabilities and limits: it reads license plates and vehicle attributes (make/model and distinguishing features) — “it’s vehicle fingerprint...it’s a license plate recognation,” he said — and does not perform facial recognition or collect biometric data. Council discussion referenced retention policies (staff cited both 30‑day and 60‑day retention figures during the presentation), initial installation and annual costs. Staff described a first‑year install maximum near $16,100 (installation and pole work) and recurring camera licensing in the range of roughly $3,000 per camera per year, with potential reductions if city poles can be used.

Council members asked for performance and usage statistics from Burlington, a breakdown of multi‑year costs and information about prior price points; Sergeant Dunham was asked to compile Burlington’s outcomes and return at the next meeting. The council agreed to table the item to collect those data before committing to a deployment or budget appropriation.

Council members also raised privacy and operational questions; staff emphasized that stored data would be encrypted and that the system is limited to vehicle identification, not driver identification. The council’s next step is to review Burlington’s statistics and a more detailed cost history before deciding whether to trial the system.