As automated license plate readers, like Flock cameras, proliferate in cities across Utah, at least two Utah municipalities are saying the costs — both financially and to residents’ privacy — aren’t worth it.

Washington Terrace, in Weber County, formally stopped its pilot program with Flock on Tuesday. Tremonton-Garland Police Department, farther north in Box Elder County, announced it had opted out of a pilot program with Motorola for its Vigilant Solutions cameras late last month.

In Washington Terrace, officials decided to cancel the agreement with Flock before spending any money or installing cameras, city manager Tom Hanson said during a Tuesday meeting. The council unanimously approved terminating the agreement with Flock.

Mayor Mark Allen said the city looked into adding cameras to help the Weber County Sheriff’s Office, which has jurisdiction over the city, and other agencies to solve crimes.

But the move drew pushback from residents concerned about their privacy. Even Utah Gov. Spencer Cox admitted he was skeptical, saying at his monthly news conference in August that he was “deeply troubled” by reports law enforcement had misused the cameras and violated individuals’ privacy.

“I don’t think we should say, ‘Hey, just trust us,’” Cox continued. “I don’t think that that should be the response at all.”

Allen said that feedback guided his decision.

He told residents at the Tuesday council meeting: “While we recognize that stepping back from the system may temporarily impact certain criminal apprehension tools, currently community tension indicates that proceeding with the trial at the time is not in the city’s best interest.”

Still, three automated license plate readers remain in Washington Terrace, Allen confirmed. The Weber County Sheriff’s Office funds and operates those cameras, and the city doesn’t have plans to try to remove those.

Allen said that he thinks these types of cameras ultimately do more good than harm, but he understands residents’ concerns.

“It’d be nice if every community had one on every road going in and out of their city. That’s an ideal world,” he said, “but an ideal world also is that nobody can break into those and misuse them.”

Until the company puts more safeguards in place, or higher-level state officials give more guidance, “we’ll put a kibosh on those (cameras) and we’ll wait,” he said.

Allen added it’s likely the city wouldn’t revisit the issue until next year. He anticipated the Legislature might give some guidance in the upcoming session. Rep. Jill Koford, a Republican who represents parts of Washington Terrace, attended the council meeting this week and alluded to work done this year in an interim committee to address data privacy concerns.

“It’s an important topic and clearly the public is very concerned about it,” she said, urging those in the room to contact their legislators and relay “what you would like to see happen.”

Three residents who spoke during the public comment said they applauded the council for ending the agreement but hoped for a permanent ban, not a temporary pause.

In Tremonton, after the monthslong pilot ended earlier this summer, the department found the cameras weren’t “giving us results or crime reduction,” said Brent Jex, a Tremonton councilperson who also works with the police department.

The department announced Aug. 25 that it wouldn’t move forward with the cameras

“[W]e did not find sufficient benefit to justify the potential cost, or the privacy concerns associated with continued use of the technology,” Police Chief Dustin Cordova said in a statement.

The statement added that the department will “continue to be transparent” about the decisions it makes.

“Public trust,” the statement read, “is not something we take for granted.”