October 12 Council Meeting: LPR Cameras on Hold — But Not Canceled
October 14, 2026 | DeFlockBoonsboro.com
At the October 12 Mayor and Council meeting, Boonsboro Police Chief Dave Rizer presented a proposed arrangement with Axon that would postpone deployment of the Town's new license plate reader (LPR) cameras and defer remaining LPR-related payments until July 2028.
This represents a significant change from the Town's earlier plans to replace its Flock cameras with Axon equipment. However, the LPR program has not been canceled, the Town's remaining contractual obligations have not been eliminated, and no decision has been made to hold a public referendum.
1. Axon Offers to Postpone the LPR Program Until July 2028
Chief Rizer explained that Axon was willing to separate the body camera and Taser equipment from the LPR portion of the agreement.
Under the proposed arrangement:
- Approximately $57,434 would be allocated to body cameras and Tasers, to be purchased outright with the assistance of grant funding.
- Approximately $92,000 in remaining LPR-related obligations would be deferred until July 2028.
- The Town would have nearly two years to determine how to proceed with the LPR portion of the contract.
Chief Rizer suggested that the remaining amount might eventually be applied toward other police equipment instead of LPR cameras. However, he also acknowledged that Axon had not released the Town from its financial commitment.
The Chief explained:
"They're not absolving us of it unless Maryland legislation says no."
The possibility of a future state law prohibiting LPR cameras was discussed, but no contractual release or legal determination was established at the meeting.
The distinction matters: postponing payment is not the same as canceling the contract or eliminating the Town's financial obligations.
2. What Happened to the Proposed Referendum?
The October 12 agenda included a separate item titled "Discussion Regarding Proposed Referendum for LPR Cameras."
When the Mayor introduced the item, Councilmember Weaver suggested that further discussion was unnecessary because the Council had already addressed the LPR issue earlier in the meeting.
Councilmember Hanson cautioned against establishing a precedent of holding referendums on numerous Town decisions, citing sidewalks as an example. Nevertheless, he acknowledged the significance of the LPR controversy and expressed openness to allowing the community to make a decision, provided residents were sufficiently informed.
A recommendation was made to table the referendum discussion, with suggestions for a future workshop or committee. One participant emphasized that tabling the matter did not mean abandoning it.
However, no formal motion, second, or vote to table the referendum was made, and no timetable was established for reconsidering it.
Assistant Mayor Nally Responds to Residents' Opposition
During the earlier LPR discussion, Assistant Mayor Nally recommended allowing Chief Rizer to proceed with the existing Axon contract without the LPR cameras.
At approximately 1:37:26, Nally stated:
"It's not of my opinion that's the way to go, but I want to do what I feel that the citizens are asking us to do."
He added that he had spoken privately with Chief Rizer and that the issue was "not a sword I'm willing to die on here."
Nally emphasized that the Town had intended to improve public safety, not act improperly, but acknowledged residents' opposition, saying, "And if you all oppose that, I got it."
His remarks reflect a willingness to proceed without the LPR cameras in response to residents' concerns, despite his personal preference. However, the proposed contract arrangement would defer the LPR obligations until July 2028 rather than permanently eliminate them.
No formal Council vote to discontinue the LPR program was taken on October 12.
A Referendum, an Advisory Vote, or a Committee?
Later in the discussion, Councilmember Hanson suggested exploring either a referendum or ways to make the LPR system more secure. He proposed involving technically knowledgeable residents and opponents of the program in a possible public safety committee that could provide oversight.
He also expressed his own support for the LPR program, provided it could operate securely without violating residents' rights.
These suggestions raise an important question: Would a public safety committee supplement a referendum, or become a substitute for allowing residents to vote on whether the Town should operate LPR cameras at all?
One option that deserves consideration is an advisory referendum, which would allow residents to express their preference at the ballot box, subject to applicable legal requirements. Such a vote would provide a clearer measure of community opinion than a committee whose membership, leadership, and responsibilities have yet to be determined.
Given the controversy surrounding the LPR program, the characterization of residents' concerns at previous meetings, and the petition now containing 179 signatures requesting permanent discontinuation, how would the Town ensure that any committee has balanced representation, impartial leadership, and a genuine opportunity to consider ending the program—not merely making it more secure?
No committee was established, no membership or responsibilities were defined, and no decision was made about how public input would influence the ultimate decision.
Residents Respond to the Discussion
Several residents emphasized that their participation should not be dismissed or characterized simply as activism.
One resident suggested a voluntary registry of privately owned security cameras as an alternative way for residents to assist police investigations without establishing a broader government-operated LPR network.
A resident attending her first Town meeting expressed disappointment that community members raising concerns were being described as activists or as badgering officials.
A Councilmember subsequently apologized if the term activist had caused offense and explained that he intended it to describe people actively involved in the issue.
Another resident emphasized that community members have different experiences and perspectives, and that meaningful engagement requires officials to listen to those concerns rather than characterize or dismiss them.
The exchange illustrated a broader concern raised throughout the LPR controversy: residents want meaningful participation in decisions about surveillance technology, not simply an opportunity to comment after those decisions have been made.
Will the Referendum Be on the 2028 Ballot?
During the meeting, a resident asked whether the referendum would appear on the May election ballot.
The response was:
"We don't know when the vote's going to happen, but rest assured of one thing. It'll be on agenda."
That assurance indicated future Council consideration. It did not establish that a referendum would appear on the 2028 ballot or identify when a decision would be made.
The October 12 meeting ended without a formal decision to proceed with a referendum, a scheduled vote, an established committee, or a timetable for further consideration.
The central question remains: Will Boonsboro residents be given an opportunity to express their preference through a referendum or advisory vote on whether the Town should permanently discontinue its LPR program, or will the Council pursue other forms of public consultation while retaining the final decision?
3. Clarifying the Public Record
BPD's Coordination With Axon Concerning Public Opposition
During the October 12 meeting, the editor of DeFlockBoonsboro.com questioned Chief Rizer about communications obtained through the Maryland Public Information Act involving Axon, the Town's LPR technology vendor.
The editor cited communications in which the Chief informed Axon about public information requests, referenced journalist Ken Buckler's Facebook posts, and expressed interest in receiving Axon's "toolkit" while the LPR program was facing public opposition.
Chief Rizer explained:
"I wanted Axon to see what we were up against as far as the opposition to look for a path forward should this not pass."
He rejected the suggestion that he was coordinating against residents, stating that he was consulting with vendors to explore a possible way out of the contract.
However, a July 28, 2026 email from Axon representative Noah Nickerson, copied to Chief Rizer and other Axon and Police Department personnel, provides additional context:
"Chris - talked with Chief this afternoon about our conversation this morning, and we're on the same page: there's some early pushback, but we want to stay ahead of it. Like you said, we want to keep this a team effort with support from both sides."
The email was sent under the subject line "Re: Axon Outpost Deployment."
The email documents discussions between Axon and the Chief about responding to public opposition as a "team effort." While it does not establish precisely what actions were contemplated, it raises questions about whether the communications were limited to exploring contractual alternatives or also involved coordinating a response to residents' concerns.
DeFlockBoonsboro.com has previously published records relating to these communications so residents can review the evidence and evaluate the Chief's explanation for themselves. Read the original email trail below.
When Did Residents First Raise Concerns? The Town's Own Records Tell a Different Story.
During the October 12 meeting, Councilmember Kerns stated:
"And honestly, the cameras were up for like nine months and no one came to a meeting and complained or sent an email." (1:30:34)
However, the November 10, 2025 Mayor and Council meeting minutes document that public opposition was already known to the Police Department.
Under the Police Department Report, Chief Rizer:
"Stated that the Police Department has taken a beating on Facebook over the installation of the seven (7) new License Plate Reader (LPR) cameras around Town and concerns over what happens with the data that is collected by the Flock Camera System."
The Town's own official record establishes that residents were raising concerns about the cameras and data collection as early as November 2025—and that those concerns were reported directly to the Mayor and Council.
While the minutes do not establish whether residents complained at a meeting or by email during the period Kerns referenced, they contradict any broader suggestion that public opposition arose only recently.
The increase in meeting attendance and organized opposition in 2026 did not mark the beginning of residents' concerns. It made those concerns more visible.
4. Existing Flock Cameras and Other Surveillance Equipment
Chief Rizer stated that the existing Flock cameras had been deactivated in approximately mid-September and indicated that they would be physically removed following the October 12 meeting.
Their actual removal has been independently confirmed.
5. Residents Continue to Ask for an End to the LPR Program
A petition presented at the October 12 meeting included 172 signatures. Additional signatures received later that day and afterward have since brought the total to 179.
The petition requests that the Town discontinue its use of LPR cameras and not install or operate the LPR equipment included in the Axon agreement.
The petition acknowledges that LPR technology can assist law enforcement investigations but questions whether its benefits justify the financial costs and privacy implications for Boonsboro residents.
The petition is an expression of public opinion, not a formal referendum petition under the Town Charter.
The proposed Axon postponement addresses the immediate deployment of new cameras, but it does not resolve the underlying questions raised by residents.
6. What Remains Unresolved?
The October 12 meeting leaves several important questions:
- Permanent cancellation: Will the Mayor and Council ultimately vote to discontinue the LPR program, or will the Town revisit deployment in July 2028?
- Financial obligations: Is the approximately $92,000 a binding future payment obligation, and under what circumstances could it be eliminated or applied toward other equipment?
- Public referendum: Will the Council pursue a referendum, an advisory vote, or another formal opportunity for residents to express their views? When will that decision be made?
- Contract approval: What additional Council action, if any, is required to approve the proposed changes to the Axon agreement?
- Public participation: If a committee or workshop is established, how will its membership, leadership, and responsibilities be determined, and will permanent discontinuation of the program remain an option?
What Happens Next?
DeFlockBoonsboro.com will continue reviewing the Town's public records, Council discussions, and the proposed Axon agreement.
We will publish additional information as it becomes available.
The October 12 meeting provided a possible short-term solution to the immediate deployment of Axon LPR cameras. It did not provide a final decision about the future of the program, the Town's financial commitments, or whether residents will be allowed to vote on the issue.
Peter Anderson, 19709 Roxbury Road, supported law enforcement use of cameras and expressed confidence in Chief Rizer and the Police Department’s responsible use of technology. He described thefts experienced as a Boonsboro business owner and said cameras helped solve them.
Travis Riner, 141 Monument, opposed broad public surveillance and raised concerns about LPR systems collecting information on law-abiding residents without individualized suspicion. He acknowledged potential crime-solving and deterrence benefits but said he would rather see Town resources invested elsewhere, including deteriorating infrastructure.
Matthew Agresti, 105 Tiger Way, raised questions about Axon, data ownership, service lock-in, user agreements, model training, future uses and cybersecurity. He also asked about subscription costs after the five-year term and Axon’s ability to access and use Town data.
David Bell, 22 St. Paul Street, requested a public hearing on the broader use of surveillance technology and asked about existing cameras, retention, access, monitoring and the status of the Axon agreement. He supported providing police with tools to keep the community safe while arguing that residents should have an opportunity to discuss the role of surveillance technology and its safeguards before additional LPR action.
Andy Pugh, 310 Chieftan, opposed expanded surveillance on constitutional and privacy grounds and questioned the original Flock approval process, the need for advanced LPR systems in Boonsboro and whether Council fully understood the original purchase.
Hugh O’Neill, 327 N. Main St., raised concerns about Police Department spending, staffing visibility, vehicle purchases and switching camera vendors after approximately one year. He described himself as relatively neutral on LPR cameras and supported greater resident involvement in decisions about Town surveillance.
Alexandra Swann, 6134 Rohrersville Rd., raised concerns about daily travel past cameras, cybersecurity, the relevance of LPRs to particular crimes and whether the level of surveillance was proportional to Boonsboro’s crime level.
Daniel Porfirio, 202 Burton Way, opposed the use of Flock and Axon cameras, arguing that Boonsboro did not need privatized surveillance and raising concerns about corporate use of data, privacy and whether comparable nearby municipalities use similar systems.