HomeMy WebLinkAboutADMIN-28-99 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
REPORT
Meeting: General Purpose and Administration Committee File #—D/
Date: August 30 1999 Res. <_71 E .��
Report #: ADMIN 28-99 By-law #
Subject: VIDEO SURVEILLANCE OF DOWNTOWN AREAS
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
1. That Report ADMIN. 28-99 be received for information;
2. That the Bowmanville, Newcastle and Orono B.I.A. be advised of Council's
decision.
REPORT:
1. Background:
1.1 At the meeting held on December 14 1998, Council directed staff to investigate the
implications of installing video cameras for 24-hour surveillance purposes of the
three B.I.A. areas of Bowmanville, Newcastle and Orono.
1.2 The above resolution originates from an experience in Sudbury where video
cameras were installed to surveillance part of its downtown area. In order to assist
Council to understand the subject matter, Sergeant Bill Temple of the Durham
Regional Police made a presentation to Council in February 1999 explaining his
2
research of he Sudbury initiative. The key elements of the Sudbury initiative are as
follows:
a) closed circuit television system fed from three cameras mounted at roof top
and connected by underground fibre optic cable to police building;
b) monitoring room located in police building and staffed by persons on
workfare;
c) cost of cameras and related equipment all donated by businesses and service
clubs;
d) operating and maintenance costs borne by Regional Police.
2. Cost Implication:
2.1 In accordance with Council's direction, staff proceeded to investigate the cost
implication as well as the feasibility of implementing surveillance cameras for the
three B.I.A. areas and wish to advise as follows.
2.2 The cost estimates as obtained from a GTA company is $187,560 for Bowmanville,
additional $28,680 each for Newcastle and for Orono. The total cost for the three
B.I.A. areas would be $618,360.
This includes underground cable, aerial cable, fibre hardware, cameras and
accessories, central equipment, engineering design and administration. These cost
estimates are preliminary in nature and are not based on bidding or tendered
documents.
The capital cost of the Sudbury initiative was approximately $70,000, which is
substantially lower than the quotation we obtained for Clarington. The substantial
cost differential lies with the fact that the Sudbury Police Station is located in the
downtown in very close proximity to the camera. This results in very minimal costs
of running cables to the Police Station.
2.2 Operating cost:
Ongoing maintenance costs such as equipment repair, power supply etc. would be
between $15,000 to $20,000 annually. In terms of staffing, the Durham Police
have indicated that they have neither the space nor manpower to monitor the
cameras at this time.
In as much as the Durham Police would like to assist the Municipality, one can
� iu �'
3
appreciate their difficulties. In addition, if surveillance cameras were implemented
in Durham Region, the priority areas are unlikely to be in Clarington.
3. Comments:
3.1 The Sudbury experience has proven to be positive in that if people perceive the
downtown is safe because of the presence of surveillance cameras, then it will stay
safe. In Sudbury, it assists the police to move aggressive panhandlers off downtown
streets, deter vandalism to city parking meters and allow for quick arrests.
3.2 On the other hand, the Municipality has to realistically address the following
questions:
a) Do the downtown streets of Bowmanville, Newcastle and Orono have
similar problems as in Sudbury
b) Does the capital cost justify camera surveillance;
c) Can we provide monitoring space and afford the ongoing operating and
maintenance cost;
d) If there are crime problems, are there any other cost effective ways to police
these areas;
e) Would installing cameras be perceived that we have crime problems when
in fact we may not;
f) How would the public perceive being watched.
3.3 Law enforcement is the responsibility of Durham Police and the use of surveillance
cameras should be best left to the police to determine its feasibility and priority
areas.
4. Conclusion:
Based on the above observations and significant cost and operational constraints,
staff is not prepared to recommend surveillance cameras for any of the three B.I.A.
areas. Since law enforcement is primarily a function of the Durham Police, we feel
that the Municipality and the B.I.A.s should continue to work with Durham Police
to address any safety issues in the downtown areas.
Respectfully submitted,
Franklin Wu,
Chief Administrative Officer