DATE: August 25, 2008

TO: D. Mike Good, City Manager

FROM: Thomas A. Magill, Police Chief

SUBJECT:     Consideration of City Providing Surveillance Cameras at Businesses Including Transmission of Data and Storage of Data at the Police Department CAD# 006/08

PURPOSE:

To adopt an Ordinance that requires businesses, if a robbery, burglary, or other violent crime that is a felony, as defined by Florida Statues, occurs upon or at a business that is open between the hours of 11 p.m. to 2 a.m. or later, to install surveillance security cameras on the exterior of the business facing parking lots, entrances, exits and by each cash register.

DISCUSSION

At the June 4, 2008 Commission meeting, the Commission approved on first reading an Ordinance establishing security cameras at late night businesses.  The commission also directed that staff create an administrative policy to govern the program.  Since the passage on first reading, the Broward County Commission has held a public hearing on a county-wide ordinance on the same topic.  Said ordinance is scheduled for a public hearing in November, 2008.

Since the first reading, the Police Department has been working to develop an Administrative Policy which is to address concerns and requirements as expressed by the Commission.  In preparation of the Policy it was determined that many of the technologic features as envisioned could be cost prohibitive to businesses and or expose the City to liability.

While it is possible to use City computers to host/store the digital images of late night business cameras, it would cause the City to add additional computer storage capability that is separate and apart from the current system.  This is necessary to insure the security and integrity of City computers.  This would be expensive and how the cost would be born would have to be determined.  To protect our computers a separate server would have to be purchased at an approximate cost $2,500.  To receive the signal from the business cameras would cost approximately $54,000 per year or $4,500 a month. The server would be vulnerable to “hacking” which would put the businesses involved at risk (not the City as it would be separate from our servers).  This is the cost for infrastructure for the City to host the images. 

Cost to the business would be $3,500 to $4,500 for the cameras and transmission system as a more expensive camera would be needed.  It will cost $1,800 per year ($150 per month) for them to transmit the data to us.  This is contrasted to a self contained system in the business at a cost of approximately $2,000.  The infrastructure cost could be paid by the City or shared by the businesses.  However, there are a limited number of businesses, so the shared cost would be great. 

For the City to store the data would imply responsibility and liability for data from a private concern.  As the data would be transmitted through the internet to the city it has the potential to be breached and networks of the businesses be put at risk.  By transmitting the data to the City it might also create a false sense of security for the business and the public.  In addition, the cost to the business could be four to five times greater than simply having the business record and store the information from its own cameras.

One other feature envisioned would be to have officers view the camera images on their laptops.  While this is possible, it would add cost to the City as sufficient bandwidth would be needed at an additional cost to send this data to the police laptops.  This transmission would also have very limited value as most often there would be no need for officers to view the images in their vehicles. 

Staff recommends amending the ordinance that the businesses subject to this ordinance be required to maintain the cameras and recorders so that they will serve the purpose intended. The cameras and recorders should be secured in a tamper proof environment as it has been our experience that often the cameras, once installed, are not maintained or deliberately deactivated.  Strict penalties should be added to help ensure compliance.

As the Broward County Commission has also taken up this issue we feel it is in the best interest of the City to look at the direction the County may go.  Although the County will not pre-empt our ordinance, it is in our best interest and the interest of the safety of the community to take advantage of any additional information that may come to light. 

RECOMMENDATION:

The City Commission defer the second reading and adoption of the ordinance until the Broward County Commission has taken action regarding this matter.

Reviewed:

_______________________________                                                          __________

D. Mike Good, City Manager                                                                             Date

_____Approved                _____Disapproved                _____Hold for Discussion