Council tables proposed public‑security‑camera policy, asks staff to return with vendor and access details

Council reviewed a proposed resolution establishing a policy for city‑owned public security camera systems, including purpose, scope and governance, but ultimately tabled the measure pending additional information on vendor contracts and access controls.

Assistant City Manager Lindsey Baker summarized the draft policy and its goals: govern the use of city‑owned cameras to enhance public safety while protecting privacy; define authorized and prohibited uses; exclude law‑enforcement body‑worn cameras and license‑plate readers; and establish governance, auditing and periodic review. "The city will not use security cameras for general surveillance of lawful public activities or to monitor individuals based solely on race, ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, gender, sexual orientation, or participation in constitutionally protected activities," Baker said as she described the policy's statement of purpose.

Council members and the public raised several implementation questions: how footage and metadata are stored and who (vendors or city staff) can access it; whether vendor contracts permit the vendor to use footage for training or commercial AI products; whether facial‑recognition or other analytic features are enabled or could be enabled; and how interlocal partners would be governed if they used camera feeds within city limits. IT staff said recorded data is stored locally and that state retention rules apply (IT cited a 30‑day retention practice for the footage the city keeps).

Public commenter Joshua Edmond (technology background) urged the council to confirm that vendor agreements align with the policy goals and to require contractual assurances that vendors will not retain or repurpose footage in ways inconsistent with city policy. Council members asked to change the administrative review cadence from three years to an annual review and asked staff to codify more frequent audit checks (quarterly spot checks) and to explicitly protect backyards and other places with a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Given those outstanding procurement and vendor‑access questions, councilmember Warner Williams moved to table the resolution and asked staff to return with additional vendor contract information and specific access‑control and audit language; the motion passed.