Tempers Flare As Board Weighs Security Cameras vs. Street Striping

Public safety or new street striping? That's the question that had some members of the Riverhead town board at odds at Thursday's work session.

A discussion involving proposed surveillance cameras for the downtown parking district was originally introduced in 2011.

At the time, members of the Riverhead Business Improvement District said video surveillance cameras  could enhance security and prevent vandalism downtown.

According to Ray Pickersgill, president of the BID and owner of the Robert James Salon in downtown Riverhead, said representatives of Next Level Vision and Sound of Holbrook had demonstrated how a video surveillance camera could change the landscape in town.

The call for cameras came after a rash of graffiti incidents at the time, which included signs of MS-13, a global gang, and several other tags on buildings downtown.

Pickersgill said Next Level Vision and Sound was one of a number of companies that have made presentations; the BID wanted to send out requests for proposals.

Next Level’s price, approximately $30,000 to $40,000, was much lower than estimates of up to $70,000 put forth by other companies, he added.

Pickersgill said such a system would encompass the entire parking lot along the Peconic River waterfront, including the boardwalk and Grangebel Park. Panoramic wireless cameras would be installed, with a main unit in the storage room of a public restroom along the water.The equipment, Pickersgill said, would be locked up for safety, but available to the Riverhead Town police department as  needed in a crime scene investigation.“The beauty of this is with a code, you can actually view the tapes online,” Pickersgill said.

At the time, some civil rights advocates saying the public's privacy could be at risk.

On Thursday, Riverhead Town Supervisor Sean Walter said the BID had put forth the proposal to install security cameras by the Peconic Riverfront. 

As the initiative moved along, "the funds were utilized for other things, and the project is now on the shelf," Walter said.

Councilman Jim Wooten said he had met with members of the parking district recently, who were discussing garbage corrals and striping -- and also were wondering about security cameras.

"They might be a deterrent and they're also a good investigation tool toward an arrest for someone after an assault," Councilman John Dunleavy said. He added that he'd like to see cameras around Riverhead Town, to catch violators who drive over grass -- or engage in more serious crimes. "We almost had an assault in front of the police department," he said. "But there were no cameras."

Dunleavy advocated for security cameras around all of Riverhead Town.

Wooten countered that he'd put the item on the agenda because members of the parking district has asked for the discussion. The draft proposal two years ago, he said, was too broad in scope.

"Where's the money?" Walter asked.

Wooten said to start, two areas were suggested for cameras -- in the main parking lot behind downtown businesses such as Cody's, and in the Digger's parking lot.

"Can we focus on the money?" Walter asked.

Wooten said a request for proposals was necessary to determine what the cost would be to cover those specific areas; a request could be made to ask what prices would be, should additional units be added.

Councilwoman Jodi Giglio suggested cameras might be needed in the parking lot behind the Suffolk Theater. 

Walter said with parking lot improvement projects scheduled, such a one behind The Riverhead Project -- a contractual obligation -- as well as striping planned for the parking lot downtown and Main Street, "there's not a lot of money left."

"Cameras are more important than striping," Dunleavy said. "Public safety is first."
Besides, Dunleavy said, the striping exists; it's just faded.

Giglio said Highway Superintendent George "Gio" Woodson had purchased a striping machine that might make the cost of the project less.

Walter said the decision had already been made for the striping projects. "We're not going back." If no money was left after those projects were done, the cameras couldn't be purchased.

"Safety comes first," Dunleavy said again.

"Money comes first," Walter said. "If you don't have the money, you can't do it."

The board has to prioritize, Wooten said. 

"If someone gets killed down there it will be a public safety issue," Dunleavy said.

Walter said he feels "quite comfortable" with the enhanced police protection and level of security downtown. "If there's no money, there's no sense in going forward," he said. "If there's a little bit of money we can ask the parking district if they want line striping or cameras."

Duneleavy suggested the line striping be put off until next year.

Wooten said the parking district's concerns were garbage corrals and striping first, with security cameras next.

Dunleavy disagreed, saying that he attended all the park district commitee meetings, while Wooten had only attended one -- and the community members wanted cameras. "I spoke to them the other day," he said. "Cameras are important to them."

The board discussed the Main Street striping project; Giglio suggested putting the camera item back on the agenda for October so it could be considered in the next year's budget.

Walter said he needed a recommendation from the parking district as well as a determination of how much was left in the fund balance, to see if both projects might be considered.

The matter will be discussed again at the next work session, he said.