Two beige surveillance cameras mounted on a pole against a blue sky. — Sugar Hill council members could vote Monday on whether to shut off the city’s two license-plate readers.

Sugar Hill’s two city-operated license-plate readers could be switched off after a City Council vote Monday, ending a debate that has already been postponed twice.

Council members will consider a four-page ordinance that directs the city to discontinue every automated license-plate reader it operates, remove the equipment when practical and terminate related agreements at the earliest contractually permitted date.

The ordinance would take effect immediately if adopted, but contract requirements could delay the cameras’ physical removal.

Two city cameras are at the center

Automated license-plate readers photograph passing vehicles and convert plate and vehicle information into searchable data. The proposed ordinance covers systems supplied by Flock Safety or a similar company and defines city operation broadly enough to include equipment the city owns, leases, controls, maintains or accesses.

Council Member Gary Pirkle said during the council’s August meeting that Sugar Hill maintains two cameras. He argued that the city did not need them because it relies on Gwinnett County for primary police services.

Sugar Hill also operates a nine-officer Marshal’s Office. Its responsibilities include patrolling downtown, parks, the greenway and neighborhoods, managing emergency operations and serving as the city’s liaison with Gwinnett County Police. Traffic enforcement is handled primarily by county officers.

The ordinance would not eliminate the Marshal’s Office or restrict its other public-safety duties.

Future readers would require a separate vote

The proposal would prevent city staff from purchasing, installing, activating, renewing or expanding another license-plate-reader system without specific council approval through an ordinance or resolution.

A general city budget, procurement authorization or contract approval would not be sufficient. The council action would have to identify the proposed reader system and expressly authorize it.

That provision addresses a point Pirkle raised when the council revisited the issue in September.

An earlier September draft would have allowed the chief marshal to request new readers from the city manager. It also included a framework for a broader city-controlled security-camera platform, outside-agency access and data-retention policies.

Pirkle asked that the council retain authority over future purchases. The latest version makes that change while dropping the broader security-camera provisions.

The council has delayed the decision twice

The first attempt to approve a removal ordinance stalled in August.

Pirkle’s motion received no second. Council Member Samantha Piovesan then proposed delaying the decision for additional discussions with the police chief and city manager. The council voted unanimously to table it.

The revised ordinance returned Sept. 14. After discussing who should authorize future systems, the council postponed the measure until October by a 3-2 vote. Pirkle, Meg Avery and Alvin Hicks supported the delay; Joshua Page and Piovesan opposed it.

Public speakers have also divided over the proposal. Some have defended the cameras as investigative tools, while others have urged the council to remove them.

County and school cameras would remain

Monday’s decision would not create a citywide ban.

The ordinance expressly leaves cameras owned, installed or controlled by Gwinnett County and Gwinnett County Public Schools untouched. That includes county systems on county roads, certain state roads maintained by the county and school-system property inside Sugar Hill.

It also would not direct private businesses or homeowners associations to remove privately operated readers.

The distinction means motorists could continue passing county or school-system cameras within the city even if Sugar Hill removes its two devices. The council controls only the systems operated on the city’s behalf.

The council meeting begins at 7:30 p.m. Monday, Oct. 12, in the City Hall council chamber, 5039 West Broad Street. Public comments appear before the ordinance on the agenda.

Council members could approve, reject, amend or postpone the proposal again. If it passes, city staff would begin shutting down the two readers while determining how quickly the equipment and its underlying contract can be removed.