Loading...
Police Advisory Commission 01-18-2012Police Advisory Conimissinn Agenda: 111$112 6. Consideration of portable surveillance equipment for use in West Bridge Park. (BW) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Recently the City Council considered authorizing the purchase and installation of portable surveillance cameras for use at various parks and other locations around the City as needed. This included the installation of temporary camera mounts in West Bridge Park. The item was tabled pending collection of Wright County Sheriffs Department calls for service information. Tabling also would allow Councilmember Posusta to provide input on the matter since he was unable to attend the meeting. The hurry to install the cameras stemmed from previous direction for staff to look at options for development of portable cameras, plus continued vandalism occurring at West Bridge as noted below. The additional time created by Council tabling action now affords the Police Commission with the __opportunity to make a recommendation on this topic to the City Council. On the weekend of December 2nd, extension cords serving the Christmas decorations at West Bridge Park were stolen. This only served to demonstrate the need for developing temporary camera options. On December 6th, City staff and representatives from the Sheriff s Department met to discuss strategies for developing a temporary surveillance system at West Bridge Park. Following is the proposal and the associated benefits. Fiber Optic Connection The current fiber feed terminates in the wanning house. An ONT (Fiber receiver on the wall of the wanning house) and wireless router would be installed in the warming house which would provide a wireless connection to the cameras. The setup is very convenient as adequate power and internet service are readily available. The installation of the ONT and wireless router would be done by FiberNet staff and IT Consultant Doug Lyseng. Camera Locations It is proposed that two cameras be installed and connected via wireless signal to the wireless router in the warming house. There are several options for installing the cameras in West Bridge Park. The picnic shelter could serve as a site and there are several power poles within the park that could be used to mount a camera. For example, a camera mounted on a pole along the south side of the park would provide a good view of the park from the south and facing the river. A camera mounted on a pole on the west side of the park or on top of the picnic shelter would pick up a large area of the park including blind spots behind the warming house and possibly provide a view of the pathway as it extends under the bridge. The cameras could be installed by city crews and Doug Lyseng. Doug Lyseng submitted a proposal for the cameras and wireless equipment. Each camera, including labor and installation, is quoted at $1399 plus tax. These cameras would run off the system software that the City already owns and operates. However, the City needs to pay a license fee of $140 for each camera device. Three wireless radios would Police Advisory Commission Agenda: 1118.12 cost $600 plus tax and includes labor and installation. Doug took several photos showing possible views from a mounted camera, which are included in the attached proposal. Electrical Power Electrical power will be needed to serve each camera. This will require installation of a meter and will result in a small monthly fee. The picnic shelter already has power to it so the costs to extend power to a camera should be less than power to a pole. The cost to install power and integrate with the camera mount system is estimated at $750. The side benefit of this option is installation of a power outlet which could come in handy from time to time and may reduce the need for extension cords. As an alternative to installing permanent power, there is a battery option that is available that could be recharged via a solar panel. The solar panel would be fixed relatively high on the power pole to limit damage that could be caused by vandals. Additionally, this type of power supply could move with the camera to other sites as the need arises. There are several downsides to this option: (a) the battery requirements to operate the cameras in winter are quite intensive which would make it difficult to mount the camera in a feasible manner, and (b) the system will likely require maintenance over time, especially to keep the batteries powered in winter. In cases like this where power is available and the camera mount is likely to be fixed at one spot, staff would prefer establishing a "permanent mount" using hard line power. So in this case, the camera could be moved to another location but the mount would remain for future use as necessary. The battery option might be useful for developing a truly portable system for use when electric power is not available. The cost to purchase and install a battery system and solar panel would have to be priced out. Internet Connection/Computer Server As with the Swan Park camera system currently being installed, FNM will provide the transport of the signal to the head -end building. Images gathered by the camera will be stored on a server at the Head -end Building. City staff is checking whether this is able to be provided by Kaltec Technology on the same virtual server that would be set up for Swan Park. There would probably be a monthly cost for this service which would be incorporated into the city's IT budget. Operational Features In talking to Doug Lyseng, he informed us that the camera software can be set to send an email or text message to staff responsible for monitoring the park when the camera senses movement. This feature would be used to monitor late night activity when the park is formally closed. When motion is detected, an alert can be programmed through the software to go to the Wright County Dispatch office. Through intcmet connectivity, the on -duty Deputy could have viewing access via the lap -top in the squad car so they can see what is happening in the park at all hours. This feature really serves to stretch the capacity of law enforcement to keep tabs on problem areas. In addition, access to the image could be provided to the Parks Superintendent or others as needed. Also, a record of activity at the park would be stored on the server for review as needed. Police Advisory Commission Agenda: 1/18/12 Tom Pawelk, the City's Parks Superintendent, said he cancels most calls to West Bridge Park for vandalism when alerted by the alarm company. Tom only calls the Sheriff's Office dispatch when the glass breakage alarm sounds. When Tom receives an alarm call for an open door he inspects it himself and kicks anyone out who is not supposed to be there. Typical incidents involve tagging, carving, burning, public urination/defecation and indecent exposure, as well as property destruction to partitions and bathroom sinks. Attached as supporting data are copies of damage reports completed by Parks Department staff for acts of vandalism in West Bridge Park between 2/7/11 and 12/17/11. The Police Advisory Commission is therefore being asked to provide a recommendation to the City Council on whether a temporary camera {s} should be installed in West Bridge Park, with possible secondary applications in East Bridge Park in the future. Al. Budget Impact: The funds for the cameras and installation are not in the current budget and would be proposed to come from the Capital Improvement Fund. Total costs are estimated to run slightly under $5,000. A2. Staff Workload Impact: City and FiberNet staff would be involved in installing the cameras and getting the system running. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion recommending to the City Council that surveillance equipment be purchased and installed on a temporary basis at West Bridge Park at an estimated cost of $5,000. 2. Motion recommending to the City Council that surveillance equipment not be purchased and installed on a temporary basis at West Bridge Park at this tithe. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommends Alternative 41. The Wright County Sheriffs Office also supports this alternative and favors implementation of a surveillance system at West Bridge Park. There have been a significant number of issues and concerns at that park and this would give another too] to provide law enforcement for the City. There have also been a number of break -ins and thefts at area businesses including a downtown business on the same night as the power cord thefts. Having a surveillance system like this may serve as an overall deterrent and provide more opportunities to apprehend someone. Staff supports this option for the following reasons: • Although there is a cost with setting up permanent camera mounts because the moorings need power and need to be secure, the cameras can be used at other locations as the need arises. • The recent theft at the park provides some motivation to get this done as soon as possible. Police Advisory Commission Agenda: 1;18/12 • The cost is relatively low and makes great use out of our fiber optic system without large ongoing expenses. The warming house already has a fiber drop and providing a wireless connection to the cameras will be easy. • The detection feature of the camera could be very useful in alerting Wright County dispatch and deputies of activities in the park after hours. The cameras allow real - time surveillance of what is going on once movement has been detected. • Although people do not like "big brother" watching, they also like to feel secure in public settings. It is Council's decision to determine which is more important. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Proposal from Doug Lyseng Parks Department Property Damage Reports (217/11 to 12117111) Sheriffs Office crime statistics for E. and W. Bridge Parks (2010 & 2011) West Bridge Park I surveyed the West Bridge Park site today and I don't think that the poles discussed yesterday will work as camera sites. The light pole on River Street already has some sort of radio device on it, I don't know if this is an Xcel Energy unit or if it has something to do with the traffic lights but I am sure whoever owns that radio would not like us hanging our equipment next to theirs. Go ;gl rnoniiceilo,mr: L The light pole in by the parking lot on Walnut Street could be used as planned but there are two trees that would partly block the view unless branches were cut back. What I was thinking of is placing one camera on the cabana on the North West corner of the park and to place the other camera on the light post on the corner of Pine and River. There is an alternate light pole on the South West corner of the park down by the ice rink but it looks like that pole is having enough trouble holding itself up, that is why I chose the pole up the hill on the road. I think the cabana should be easy to install on because it already has power. �fy i monlcetlo. mn 0 Maps Web Maps R— rx "a" f, ; P'� st' a �[ Ideally we would probably want two cameras on the cabana and two cameras on the light pole or a PTZ camera in order to get full coverage of the park but I think we can get most of the park with one camera at each site. The horizontal viewing angle of the cameras I am recommending is 87° to 40° depending on the zoom setting. I know the sheriff office was concerned about the underpass; we might want to consider a second camera on the cabana dedicated to the underpass. If you are interested in covering the park on the other side of Pine Street, there is a light pole in the parking lot off Cedar that would allow us to mount a camera to cover the sledding area. This video could then be sent wirelessly to the other system. I ran the numbers on the solar thing and it does not look plausible for the winter months. These winterized cameras are rated at 25.5 watts which means they can use up to 612 watts a day (25.5w x 24 hours = 612 Watts). Figuring an average of four hours of sunlight a day we would need a 153 watt solar panel to replenish 612 watts everyday (153 watts x 4 hours = 612 watts). A 612 Watt solar system would also need 612 watts worth of battery storage. I would design this system with at least a 1500 watts worth of battery, this would give us two days of battery to cover cloudy days with about a 20% markup for error. The solar panel required for a system like this would be 62" x 32" and weigh 34 pounds, when you look at the wind resistance against a panel of this size hanging on a pole then it is not feasible. There is also the weight of the batteries required for a 1500 watt system. In the summer using the cameras without their heaters only requires 15 watts maximum, this I may be able to hang from a pole. What I would recommend here is using the Axis P3344 -VE which is a domed Vandal resistant camera which has a varifocal lens and digital PTZ. It is a day /night camera and it is outdoor ready down to -40° f. Cost: • One P3344 -VE camera on the cabana $1399 mounted • One P3344 -VE camera on the light pole corner of Pine and River $1399 mounted • Three wireless radios $600 Installed. This would be the cost of a basic setup; it includes mounting hardware and my labor but does not include the electrician costs. You can add a vandal resistant Infrared illuminator to these cameras for a cost of $350 each. http: / /www.youtube. com/ watch ?v= 6e9Cx9LbeKc &feature= pIaver embedded this IR will give you a 67 to 98 feet viewing area in the dark. If you wanted to add other P3344 -VE cameras like on the other side of Pine Street at the sledding park or another one on the cabana watching the underpass then those also will cost $1399 mounted plus another $200 for a wireless radio. If you wanted to add a camera inside the building to watch the bathroom area then we could use a less expensive camera there. As long as the building is always heated we could use a P3343 -V camera which is vandal resistant but not outdoor ready, it also has less resolution then the P3344 but for that small space it will work fine. This P3344 would cost $1139 installed. This camera also has two way audio support with a built -in microphone. Once we upgrade the Video Management Software (VMS) at Hi -Way liquor to the new version we will be licensed for this server, but we will still need to pay $140.00 per camera for a device license. This system is designed to detect activity; I am using cameras that may not always allow full facial recognition. Here are the angles I am proposing: City of Monticello Damage Report epa Date of Incident Location Person Type of Incident I Responsible for damage Explain Incident ----I I City of Monticello Damage Report Date of Incident # Type Explain Incident How could it have been prevented Location Person i I Responsible for damage Cost estimate of damage ---------- ----- - ---------- --- - --------------- ------------------------------ City of Monticello Authorized Signature City of Monticello Damage Report ------ ----'-Fark§ -N ttff—ff t ....... Date of Incident Location JAJ 1,6 � k4AJ%A6 Person Type of Incident Responsible for damage Explain 1`7 City of Monticello Damage Report Parks Departmeft ------ Date of Incident Location Person Type of Incident j c_A—. Responsible for damage /S)'O Explain Incident I ,//Z,v1 � 1- 1'4' /' W-17 3 How could it have been prevented Cost estimate of damage ........... . .. City of Monticello Authorized Signature City of Monticello Damage Report . .. .............. .. �arksDepa men Date of Incident Location &e- Person Type of Incident Responsible for damage Explain Incident to V � How could it have been prevented Cost estimate of damage City of Monticello Authorized -71(, Signature I City of Monticello Damage Report Date of Incident Location Person Type of Incident Responsible for damage Explain Incident City of Monticello Authorized Signature City of Monticello Damage Report -U--- - ff --- ------ -- _- - -- --�wks epa�tff�n Date of Incident Location T------------ Type of Incident i Person Responsible for damage Explain Incident City of Monticello Damage Report eVa rt nt Date of Incident s Location Person Responsible Type of Incident Y'A'Z/AL, O'd— for damage Explain Incident iii How could it have been prevented LO 6,4, 5 , ;;(., -/- Cost estimate of I C,--,- damage Z40 f - - -------- - ----------- I--,,-, -------- - ---------- ---- - -------- ----------------------------- ------- City of Monticello Authorized Signature City of Monticello Damage Report . . ....... .......... Data of Incident Location Person Type of Incident 1 Responsible for damage Oil Explain Incident How could it have been prevented Cost estimate of damage City of Monticello Authorized Signature City of Monticello Damage Report Date of Incident Location /ta — Ava Person Type of Incident Responsible for damage Explain Incident LIN, City of Monticello Authorized Signature City of Monticello Damage Report Date of Incident Location tv, Person Type of Incident Responsible for damage Explain Incident How could it have been prevented Cost estimate of damage City of Monticello Authorized Signature � 7- 5 -e � City of Monticello Damage Report Date of Incident Location Person Type of Incident Responsible r CD for damage Explain Incident ( ct, l a-0 0--C4 How could it have been prevented Cost estimate of damage ... .......... — - - - ----------------------------------------- 1-1 ----- -------- ­­.- City of Monticello Authorized Signature City of Monticello Damage Report darks epffff Date of Incident 7 Location S Person Type of Incident Responsible for damage Explain Incident +fS�+� ,<t^mL.� ok� How could it have been prevented Cost estimate of damage City of Monticello Authorized Signature City of Monticello Damage Report Date of Incident Location I:t ;J4 Person Type of Incident Responsible for damage Explain Incident How could It have been prevented Cost estimate of damage ------------- I ----------- City of Monticello Authorized signature City of Monticello Damage Report Date of Incident 7- Location — -------- - ----- ---- 16,ry Person Type.of Incident -Responsible for damage Explain Incident How could it have been prevented City of Monticello Authorized Signature City of Monticello Damage Report --C)7 -h't ------ Date of Incident Location 7 -57 Person Type of Incident &")i— Responsible for damage Explain Incident How could it have been prevented Cost estimate of damage City of Monticello Authorized Signature City of Monticello Damage Report Date of Incident Type of Incident Location Person Responsibia t4lot"t's- for damage Explain Incident I +fv-- 1.. �- City of Monticello Damage Report Date of Incident Location j) A Person Type of Incident Responsible for damage Explain Incident How could it have been prevented Cost estimate of damage City of Monticello Authorized Signature -7/-" "/ � - City of Monticello damage Report ParTcs �ep��m�t Date of Incident 7 4- j Location 4 Person Type of IncidentL SD Responsible for damage k-- Explain Incident How could it have been prevented Cost estimate of damage City of Monticello Authorized Signature AA )(11" City of Monticello Damage Report Date of Incident Location N-6 'I-- Person Type of Incident Responsible for damage Explain Incident Now could it have been prevented Cost estimate of damage i I City of Monticello I --71 I Authorized Signature City of Monticello Damage Report — -- --- Parks -Department Date of Incident Z"L( Location Dc Person Type of Incident Responsible for damage /All 0-7 0'4 Explain Incident City of Monticello Damage Report Parks-Ue-pa rtmeht Date of Incident fl Location Person Type of Incident A ki 1,7 V A-1 Responsible for damage Explain Incident How could it have been prevented V A City of Monticello Damage Report Date of Incident Location Person Type of Incident Responsible for damage C- Explain incident How could it have been prevented Cost estimate of damage City of Monticello Authorized Signature City of Monticello Damage Report Date of Incident Location Person Type of Incident vf�A Responsible for damage V Explain Incident How could it have been prevented Cost estimate of damage City of Monticello Authorized Signature City of Monticello Damage Report Date of Incident Location p), 6 Person Type of Incident Responsible for damage Explain Incident A&G-7 City of Monticello Authorized Signature City of Monticello Damage Report Date of Incident Location Person Type of Incident Responsible for damage Explain Incident How could it havi been prevented City of Monticello Damage Report epatmen Date of Incident Location Person Type of Incident Responsible for damage Explain Incident a/, City of Monticello Authorized Signature Wright County Sheriff's Office 3800 Braddock Ave. NE Buffalo, MN 55313 (763) 682 -1162 Scene Business Name = Bridge park west And Incident Date Committed Start BETWEEN 01/01/2010 And 01/12/2012 Offense Summary Report Total 1 3 1 1 1 4 1 3 2 1 1 1 i 1 GRAND TOTAL: 27 Offense Code 91800 9241 9303 9526 9611 9730 9800 9802 9845 9919 9921 9922 9943 9945 M3001 M5313 N3030 P312L TV059 Printed On: Thu, Jan 12, 2012 Literal Property Damage/Trespass Unfounded Assault Lost Property Harassment Medical Public Peace Citizen Aid House /Bus Check Juvenile Comp Suspicious Person Suspicious Vehicle Suspicious Circumstances Miscellaneous Information JUVENILE- ALCOHOL OFFENDER -UNDER IS YRS JUVENILE- CURFEW DISTURB PEACE -MS- DISORDERLY CONDUCT PROP DAM- MS- PRPDMG- PUBLIC - REDUCE VAL 500 LESS THEFT -501 -1000 DLRS GM- YARDS -OTH PROPERTY Licensed to Wright County Sheriffs Office Page 1 of 1 Wright County Sheriffs Office 3800 Braddock Ave. NE -� Buffalo, MN 55313 (763) 682 -1162 Offense Summary Report GRAND TOTAL: Scene Business Name= Bridge park east Total Offense Code Literal 1 9303 Lost Property Printed On: Thu, Jan 12, 2012 Licensed to Wright County Sheriffs Office Page 1 of 1