Cameras create questions for some residents

Video equipment placed outside town buildings causes some people to ask why

Holt wanted to know how the money for the cameras was budgeted, how they were being monitored, the cost to maintain the equipment, and what the process was that led to the decision to add them.

Johnson said the cameras were part of the security system budget for Town Hall during the renovations. He said the system cost about $20,000, estimating about 15 percent to 20 percent of that total for the outside system.

He declined going into too much detail regarding how the cameras were monitored and reviewed, adding it could potentially affect security. Johnson said the camera images are reviewed using a computer, which is done only if an incident occurs.

No additional staff is needed to monitor the system, Johnson said.

The monthly cost to monitor the Town Hall’s security alarm is less than $100, he said, adding he was not aware of any additional costs for the cameras; however, costs could result if they were damaged or stopped working.

“They’re a fairly basic system, and don’t need checking once they’re installed,“ he wrote in an e-mail to The Gazette. “They also use very minimal electricity, if that’s a concern.“

Town Engineer Barney Quinn said 10 cameras were installed at Town Hall prior to staff moving back in, three of which are on the outside of the building.

The cameras can see cars as they approach and leave the area around Town Hall. If a problem occurs, the video could be used to identify the license plate of a vehicle, Quinn said.

There are also 10 cameras at the Flat Iron building, which houses the town museum and a town maintenance building, Quinn said, adding he wasn’t sure of the number of cameras at each location.

Johnson said some acts of vandalism during the summer and fall of 2006 at the maintenance building and at town parks prompted the decision for the cameras.

Johnson said the cameras were installed at Town Hall to protect the taxpayers’ investment in the building.

Holt said the cameras came as a surprise to him because members of the Mount Airy Main Street Association reacted unfavorably to cameras downtown when Councilman Gary Nelson mentioned them to the group in November. Holt is a member of group.

“Everybody said we don’t want cameras,“ Holt said during a phone interview Friday, recalling what was said at the November meeting.

However, Nelson said he discussed the subject camera surveillance downtown in general — not specific to Town Hall.

“As liaison to MAMSA,“ Nelson wrote in an e-mail, “it would have been my responsibility for keeping them informed about issues that concerned them. It never occurred to me to provide what limited details I was aware of with the security systems that would be put in place, because I didn't and still don't see this as a matter under the purview of any of the downtown businesses. The cameras that were installed were small, unobtrusive and not very noticeable to cause any type of concern by public visiting the downtown area.“

The members also said they were under the impression that the cameras had been dropped because the town never approached the organization on the subject again.

“My suggestion is to sort of make Mount Airy Main Street Association involved in things that affect Main Street,“ Holt said. “I think as a Main Street [organization], we deserve to be involved.“

Association President Dalia Schulman echoed those thoughts, saying that the town could have kept the group informed that they were planning to install cameras on the Town Hall building as a “neighborly courtesy.“

Nelson had also shared the idea of a downtown security system with the Downtown Business Association, which had a different view on a general surveillance system in downtown. “We don’t see it as a detriment or a deterrent,“ said Carol Cahall, the association’s president.

Cahall said security cameras are “everywhere,“ including Frederick City Hall, shopping malls and banks, and could be a method toward curbing vandalism.

“It’s probably a good thing,“ she said. “Most of the merchants [in the Downtown Business Association] see it as a good thing.“

She said the issue came up with her group “a long time ago,“ and wasn’t sure why cameras were being brought up now.

After several back and forth email messages, Holt said he was satisfied with the responses he received to his inquiry. “I don’t have an issue with it anymore,“ Holt said Tuesday.