Rates have been increasing above the inflation rate for a number of years without any obvious improvement in services

Don't need another excuse to increase them further

On a recent trip to the UK I visited the offices of Ealing Borough (Council), in London. They were proud to show statistics demonstrating significant improvement in street crime. They attributed this to two simple things- Community Policing and CCTV.

Take off $44.50 from existing property surveillance charge now on household rates and use it for cctv. Otherwise redirect surveillance officers to those areas proposed for cctv.
We are already paying for so called services which appear to be of dubious value.

Better option is for the money to support neighborhood watch which has been shown to be effective.

Does the City have any evidence concerning the cost effectiveness of the CSS patrol service, which costs rather a large amount each year? My guess is that spending on staff who will monitor a good number of CCTV cameras will be much more effective than security personnel driving around randomly in patrol cars, especially in view of recent trends in the cost of hiring security firms and the cost of petrol. If you have evidence, publish it, otherwise please change the policy, to give us ratepayers better value for our money.

I surport the installation of CCTV in Melville

$5 really isn't much, so the council can absorb it.

CCTV use needs to be controlled ie only certified hot spots, not end up on every street corner and park - just because we can

What decision criteria will exist to have cameras removed if they provide little benefit? Just because one is installed should not automatically infer it must be there forever more.

I would like to see CCTV's installed in high use areas, around schools, shops, parks etc where vandalism is common. This would reduce the need for security patrol cars in certain areas which would hopefully reduce this large cost to the community. Note I said reduce - I believe the security patrols are a good service but can be used more for attendance to home burglar alarms going off rather than randomly driving around streets. I very rarely see them in my surrounding streets over the years. CCTV with a speaker attached would be more effective so the operator could notify people of actions being taken. I have seen evidence of this being used in the UK to great effect. But in implementing a CCTV system the council must have the ability to shut down the monitoring stations at any time in the event it has a minimal effect on controlling crime.

The community should have a say in where CCTV is installed to ensure it benefits the majority of problem areas and doesn't encroach on privacy.

I have noticed that rates have been increasing at between 10 - 15% per annum which far exceeds inflation. Costs have to be reigned in to make a business succeed in tough times and the council is no exception to this. I'm sure with some lateral thinking and perhaps some hard decisions, some council costs can be reduced or cut where not needed so as to fund the installation of CCTV.

I agree with Mr Samers Comment. The Security Patrols are a Joke and a waste of money, instead you can use that money for the CCTV's and not increase the rates.

I can assure you the security patrols are no joke or waste of money, as one of those that use this resource i find the officers very helpful and alot quicker in responding to my concerns then the WA Police.

The most obvious “hot spot” is bus shelters, which for some reason attract nutters. Yes, I know bus shelters are not the responsibility of the council, they belong to the bus companies. But I wonder why they don’t seem to bother with surveillance cameras? Is it because they are ineffective? Second question, will the cameras be able to see in the dark, or will they only watch areas that are already well-lit? Or is extra lighting factored in to the cost?

I would appreciate a bit more information about the actual effectiveness of CCTV in other countries where it has been employed (no need to send all the councillors off on a junket - a simple enquiry over the internet will probably suffice - after all we don't need another increase in rates!). Your survey leaflet was rather short on information to say the least, and was incredibly biased. As far as I am aware there is little decrease in actually crime (other than a "moving it to somewhere where there isn't CCTV" effect) and response times are little improved. A more effective measure would be more police or security people on the streets. No-one needs an "improved perception" of safety - what most people would like is an "actual improvement" in safety. People tend to report crime less when they think it is being seen on CCTV - and how many times have we heard that a camera hadn't been working for months. If all we need is a "perception" of improved safety, then stick up card-board cameras on every lamp-post in the city. It will be a lot cheaper and everyone will feel a lot better.

Like other respondents earlier, I agree that we are paying for security already and extra is not warranted for these few places. I was also just overseas and Ireland was brimming with CCTV cameras. If we were to get serious and have them everywhere and have them monitored then I am in favour of an extra charge, as I feel we would really get some value from these cameras.

We feel that it is just adding more cost to our rates. The money would be better spent, having the officers patrolling more in areas most needed rather than adding more cost to our rates. And further I would not like to have to pay extra for CCTV monitoring in the city of Melville!.

Council’s briefing paper for residents is quite weak.

How would the cameras reduce crime on residents’ persons or property and how is this quantified? From the briefing paper it appears that Council is proposing mainly to protect its own assets. If this is the case, then how would this “Improve perceptions of safety”. Note that Fremantle’s use of cameras on the cappuccino strip directly benefits the bodily safety of residents and visitors, whereas Melville’s proposed used seems mainly targeted for the protection of Council property; this hardly needs consultation with ratepayers. Is Council being disingenuous by implying that the community might be safer with surveillance cameras at $5 per year when in practice mainly Council property would be safer?

The briefing paper describes some of the intangible benefits of monitored CCTV but does not attempt to quantify any of them. For example, if Council were to spend $200,000 extra annually ($5 x 40,000 ratepayers) on CCTV, then what malicious damage costs would be avoided annually? By how much would Council’s insurance premiums be reduced? By how much would the costs of the Community Safety and Security Service be reduced?

Assuming that most crime occurs at night-time, does the $200,000 include costs of lighting in the monitored areas so that the cameras can capture clear pictures of the perpetrators? If there are trees and bushes in the area, will Council cut them back and keep them cut back so that criminals cannot hide in their shadows?

Will there be fixed cameras to overlap the areas being monitored so that while a camera is being panned, tilted, or zoomed other cameras can still maintain full area surveillance? What will be the resolution of the cameras? How many frames per second will be recorded? Will the picture quality be sufficient to identify criminals? What limitations will the cameras have by day and by night? Will the $200,000 budget be sufficient to provide adequate and sufficient cameras and for the data storage necessary for, say, a week’s surveillance?
If these and similar questions cannot be answered objectively based on real experience elsewhere, then we must ask if it is worthwhile spending $200,000 just to have the warm feeling of “Improved perceptions of safety” without achieving any real improvement.

The briefing paper makes no mention of privacy or what might be done with the footage captured by the CCTV cameras. Who will have access to the images that are recorded? How long will they be kept and how will they be destroyed once they are no longer required? How will the Council respond when individuals and businesses demand to view CCTV images under the freedom of information act? Some members of the community might have significant concerns about this and Council should have developed at least an outline policy before putting the CCTV survey to residents.

I trust that other Council initiatives are not as ill-prepared as this one. With better information, residents (and Councillors) can make better decisions.

I support Ian Thurston's comments.
If Council has no more cost/benefit information than that included in the survey circular then it is not in a position to make a responsible decision on this matter.
Do your homework and come back to ratepayers with a properly costed proposal. Then we can tell you whether or not we want to expand the scope of CCTV monitoring in the City.
It is obvious from the responses so far that effectiveness of the current Security Patrols is being questioned by many. Any proposal to increase CCTV surveillance must address whether the two systems can be run conjointly or whether they are in fact mutually exclusive.

Council have not supplied sufficient information for a considered opinion on installation of cctv cameras to be made. A proper plan, (how many new cameras, how many upgraded cameras, where, when, connection to emargency services, 24 hr monitoring? etc etc) and a balanced budget (proposed income from rate payers, cost per new camera, cost per refurbished camera, cost of installation, cost of monitoring etc etc) should be supplied. Given that there will be a number of "one-off, set-up" costs, will the proposed extra charge be greater in the first year and then reduced in subsequent years? Will the extra rate charge be setup as a levy to be used exclusively for cctv cameras (and administered as such) or will it just go into "consolidated revenue" for council and therefore be available for other activities? How does it compare with the cost of current road patrolling? If one is more effective (better value for money) than the other (ie road patrols vs cctv), then why have both?
Maybe council should hold a public forum on this matter and be prepared to answer the above, and other relevant questions before making any decision on cctv cameras.

CCTV only incraeses distrust within the community, it creaes a 'survaillance society' allowing individuals too much power over the community, whatever the guidelines might be. There are significant priorities that need to be addressed first - like pedestrian crossings on the major roads through Melville, Car pooling schemes, better planning in commercial areas (the new shops on Leach Highway by Winthrop are THE worst style of shops possible, and are ill thought out for car access, let alone walking, cycling or public transport.

Melville has a very low crime rate. If you want to do something in this area, put more police on the street. That is where the reduction comes from (in Ealing)

My concern with the monitered CCTV is the potential for costs to quickly escalate such that this year its $10-15, next year $30, the year after $50, etc.
Our rates are already very high and I am reluctant to see them go higher
There is an argument CCTV just moves the crime on to unmonitered areas and we can't moniter everywhere.
Having said that all that I see the great potential to reduce graffiti in particular and the cost savings from graffiti cleanup would offset costs of monitering.

There has been some negative comments about the security patrols. Whenever we have had the need for security they have responded much more quickly than the police and been quite helpful. This service has been utilised on several occasions over the last few years concerning the shockingly bad behaviour coming from various residents of the Homeswest properties on Coomoora road from time to time.

"There is one additional “set up cost” which would be to upgrade the existing control room to meet Australian standards" Quote

Does this mean the council is NOT looking at taking away the SES operations centre based at the Melville council depot?

I think the council has provided far to little real information for ratepayers to be able to make an informed decision in relation to the proposed CCTV cameras.

In principle the concept of CCTV monitoring sounds like a good idea. However I think the Council should:

a) Provide some more quantative information regarding the expected benefits of investing in this system. For example, how many instances of fire, crime or anti-social behaviour this last year could have reasonably been expected to be prevented and/or successfully prosecuted had such a system been in place?

b) Be more specific about the implications of the plan "to upgrade the existing control room". I believe that there may be more to this than meets the eye when reading the background information on face value.

If b) means the displacement of the Melville Branch of the State Emergency Services from its current command and control venue, then I think Melville Ratepayers are going to be short-changed by this proposal.

It raises questions as to whether we are expected to do without the very valuable services provided by the SES, many of whom are volunteers, or that there may be yet another levy in the wings to fund a new command and control venue for the SES?

Please clarify exactly how the SES will be (or not) affected, if this CCTV proposal gets ratepayer support and goes ahead.

Reading the below posted articles, I find that a few recurring threads of questions and comments seem to be appearing. Looking at these comments and questions I find they echo my own concerns and in a nutshell I think we the rate payers are asking “Is this increase in services and cost giving us the rate payers, good value for money spent”

The council like any employee asking for a pay rise or increase in spending budget, should put to their employer (the rate payer) a proper proposal outlining the need for and the benefits derived from such increased expenditure. As an employer, I would not be happy with an employee saying that by buying new machinery at my cost, we will have a “perceived increase in his/her productivity”. I would want an “actual increase” in productivity that “returns a benefit to me” that is greater than my outlay cost increase.

So can the council show that by installing these extra CCTV’s (at a place far away from my house) and having them monitored at my expense, that the community (and therefore me) will benefit to an amount greater, or at least equal to the amount spent. Ie …will the community of Melville be getting good value for its money or are we just paying out to allow the council to look like it is doing something.

Further, as an employee being asked for a budget increase, I would be asking why do we need theses extra services and machinery? Is the old systems, machinery and expenditure not working or being cost effective? How can I revamp the current systems to be more effective within the current budget?

If these new CCTV services are going to save the community money on less graffiti cleaning, less repairs due to break in, less replacement of vandalised or stolen community property and less labour cost for the above, then this should be a quantifiable figure and should be put to the ratepayers to justify the extra cost. But there is also the argument that if the new CCTV systems will reduce the incidents previously stated, cannot these savings be used to fund the CCTV installations from the current budget. ie a smarter and better use of our current money.

A less quantifiable amount is the safety of our streets. Is the installation of these new CCTV systems going to make the general area of Melville a safer place? Can the elderly and general community feel safer in there own street as a result of these new systems? Will the troublemakers and the vandals be prosecuted as a result of theses new systems? Is there statistics that can be put forward to justify more cameras by showing where the current “passive monitoring systems “ have been used to prosecute these troublemakers?

As for the quick response to anti social behaviour at our parks and in our streets, why not promote that everyone puts the councils hotline number for the Community Safety and Security Service in there mobile phone and put up signs with this number in our parks. Nearly everyone these days carries a mobile phone and maybe we the public should be using this current service more to let troublemakers know that they are being watched. This is one way the current system can become more effective within the current budget and be directed to specific trouble spots and not just aimlessly wandering around the streets.

As a ratepayer I believe that the Melville Council does a reasonable job, but like everyone in this increasing economic time, I want value for money. So Melville Council…I believe you need to provide me with some good quantifiable reasons as to why I should give you a budget increase. The general promise that we will have “Improved perceptions of safety from the public within the camera zones” does not cut it with me.

Directed at the above comment from Stephen..

Hear hear!

Internet based CCTV technology gives the current patrol vehicles the ability to monitor cameras whilst on patrol (from a laptop in the vehicle) and respond to SMS alerts/alarms triggered by sensors that are connectd to or already encased in the housing of the camera (passive infrared, access control etc). Rather than cruising the streets hoping to stumble on trouble, the patrols could be directed to trouble areas by short videos or SMS warnings from a certain camera. The technology to acheive this is not especially new or more expensive than old fashioned Closed Circuit systems, and has greater ability to use current resources such as existing cameras and staff and won't be outdated in 2 years time.