PSL CAMERA RECORDS Independent public records project

PORT ST. LUCIE, FLORIDA / PUBLIC RECORDS

The cameras.
The permits.
The paper trail.

A public look at license plate reader cameras in Port St. Lucie—and the permit documents we could link to them.

Explore the camera index
70records in selected scope
37 with a permit linked
18 without a matching permit in the index
LATEST RESPONSE RECEIVEDOct. 26, 2026City response + location list

A missing match is an open question. “No matching permit located” means no permit is linked in this index. It does not establish that a camera is unpermitted. An approved document also does not establish current permit validity or that a camera is operating. Read the methodology →

01 / CAMERA INDEX

Follow a location to its records.

Download all 91 records ↓
Additional records

Hidden by default. City-reported findings are identified in each record; earlier publisher classifications remain attributed separately. Unclassified cameras have no confirmed service status.

Permit linked No match located City reports permit Other City finding

Loading camera index…

LOCATION / DIRECTIONMANUFACTURERPERMIT RECORDDetails

The City response contains 43 annotated rows. The publisher has applied 26 saved decisions; three marked Unresolved and four marked Skip retain their previous camera entries, and ten rows await review. Park names, movable-camera descriptions and “Pending” are not permit numbers. City annotations and publisher decisions are distinguished in each record. Counts describe records, not a verified inventory of unique installed cameras.

02 / DOCUMENT LIBRARY

Read the source.

Complete permit PDFs and location maps, kept together for easy reference.

11 DOCUMENTS / 17 MAPS

03 / CITY COUNCIL

The records, together for Council.

Source documents and a dated snapshot prepared for the October 26, 2026 City Council meeting.

Meeting maps & location list ↗

The City’s right-of-way summary, the permit files received October 20, and FDOT’s pole-support documents are collected here for public reference. The meeting snapshot lists 44 camera locations with no matching permit linked in this index. That is an unresolved records match, not proof that a permit was never issued. These materials were prepared for submission; this page does not establish that the Clerk accepted them into the meeting record.

OCTOBER 26, 2026 / CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE

A response from the City.

On October 26, 2026, a response from the City Manager’s Office was received, consisting of a memo dated October 23 and an annotated location list. The memo identifies two in-service locations with no permits on record and says Police are awaiting after-the-fact applications from Flock. The attachment also identifies five removed/decommissioned locations with no permit on record.

Review progress: 26 publisher decisions have been applied. Seven saved rows marked Unresolved or Skip retain their prior entries, and ten rows remain unreviewed. The City’s annotations are retained for comparison; they do not automatically establish every proposed permit match.

The maps and location list prepared for the meeting are an earlier dated snapshot and do not include these updates. Transcribed City annotations ↓ · Applied publisher decisions ↓

02 / PERMITS RECEIVED OCTOBER 20

All 11 permit files.

Complete PDFs from the October 20, 2026 records response. These are the same source files available in the document library above.

FDOT / SUPPORT APPROVALS

Breakaway supports and the barrier restriction.

In an August 7, 2025 email, FDOT’s State Maintenance Engineer confirms approval of the attached support plans the previous day. Four DO/X2 configurations have breakaway bases and do not require an existing barrier. The two rigid configurations may only be installed behind an existing barrier or guardrail. Substitutions on earlier permits require the email and appropriate plans as an addendum.

Read FDOT’s approval and restrictions · PDF page 2 ↗

Permit drawings showing the non-breakaway 1020-01 design

The four packages below specify the same Proveli Style 7 part number shown in FDOT’s rigid-support drawing. Some dimensions and weights differ; this is a document comparison, not an engineering certification of identical assemblies. The FDOT rigid-support approval requires an existing barrier or guardrail. Whether each installed support matches the plans, has barrier protection, or is subject to the same agency requirements needs confirmation.

Source pages identifying Proveli part 1020-01
PermitDrawing evidenceAssembly shown
20243755 ↗SPEC.03 · PDF page 151020-01 · 168.42 lb · 74 / 94-inch sections
20253943 ↗SPEC.03 · PDF page 291020-01 · 168.42 lb · 74 / 94-inch sections
20254007 ↗SPEC.03 · PDF page 281020-01 · 168.42 lb · 74 / 94-inch sections
20254567, revision 2 ↗SPEC.03 · PDF page 151020-01 · 172.42 lb · 74 / 118-inch sections

A shared specification sheet does not mean every location in a multi-location permit uses a new pole; some use existing supports. Permit 20254566 instead shows SP-7/MASH with an S300R breakaway device on PDF page 25 and is not included in this list. The older 20233350 drawing cites a different aluminum-pole design and is also excluded.

These are historical support approvals, not a determination of current installation authorization. Read the approval email and full engineering plans together. FDOT’s email calls the X2 pole aluminum, while the one-camera X2 drawing specifies steel pipe; that discrepancy is not resolved here. Document sources and SHA-256 fingerprints ↓

04 / HOW TO READ THIS INDEX

The evidence,
and its limits.

This is an independent records project. It is not an official city, county, police, or manufacturer website.

What do the record statuses and visibility options mean?

Decommissioned: four restored records classified by the publisher as decommissioned, plus eight City-reported removals accepted during the publisher’s review. Private-party: nine records classified as private by the publisher, including seven restored entries and two classifications from the current review. Owner labels are attributed to the publisher where provided. Use the checkboxes to include these records. A missing operating-status label does not mean a camera is confirmed in service.

Operating status and ownership are separate from permit matching. The linked/unmatched labels below describe only the permit associations in this index.

Permit application pending: the City is awaiting an after-the-fact application; this is not an issued permit. City park camera / Movable camera: context labels supplied during the publisher’s review, not permit numbers or approvals.

City reports permit on record: the City’s response identifies a permit or reports the required permit on record, but a corresponding source PDF is not yet linked. Other City findings: duplicates, no City camera at the location, and uncertain ownership are shown separately.

Permit linked: the working index associates this camera location with one or more permit documents. Most associations come from the October 7 index; two were added from the October 20 response. Each camera’s detail panel identifies the basis for its match.

No matching permit located: the current index has no linked permit for that location. It is an unresolved record match, not a finding that installation was unlawful or that no permit exists.

What records and dates does this cover?

The baseline is the supplied camera and permit workbook dated October 7, 2026, containing 91 camera locations. Eleven previously excluded records were restored October 26: four classified by the publisher as decommissioned and seven as private-party. These are hidden by default. The publisher’s review adds eight decommissioned and two private classifications, leaving 70 records in the current default scope. The full dataset and CSV include all 91 records. The original workbook is retained as a historical source. The document library contains 11 PDFs received October 20, 2026. These records include Flock Safety and Axon installations.

The new Becker/Gilson document, permit 20254566, supports two additional links. The Scenic Park document, permit 20264940, was initially a candidate because of a manufacturer mismatch. The October 26 City response identifies the camera as Axon and associates that permit; the index now adopts that match. The remaining October 20 files were byte-for-byte duplicates of PDFs already held. Additional associations and manufacturer labels now reflect the City response received October 26. They are attributed as City-reported rather than independent field verification.

Download the baseline workbook ↓
Does a permit prove the camera is currently authorized or active?

No. The documents show the records held by this project. They may include earlier plans, revisions, approvals, and proposed locations. Current permit validity, final inspection, installed position, ownership, and operating status require separate confirmation.

The 17 location maps are cropped from the source PDFs. Sheet titles and surrounding panels were excluded; location labels were retained. Read the complete PDF for notes, legends, conditions, and revision history.

Why do permit maps show locations missing from the camera index?

A permit can describe proposed cameras that have not been matched to an observed camera record. The baseline workbook includes 17 such permit-location entries. Some entries repeat locations across revisions. They are not added to the camera count.

Where did the camera locations come from?

The baseline workbook includes OpenStreetMap node IDs, manufacturer labels, coordinates, and camera directions. Every camera detail links to its source node. The index is a dated snapshot; source map records may since have changed. Eighteen manufacturer labels carry asterisks in the original workbook; the filter groups them under Axon Enterprise while retaining the original labels in camera details and downloads. OpenStreetMap data is available under the Open Database License.

OpenStreetMap attribution and license ↗
How can I suggest a correction?

Corrections are welcome. When contacting the project publisher, include the camera ID or intersection, the permit number, a source link, and the PDF page supporting the change.

Contact PSL Signal on Substack ↗
Updates and document integrity

October 26, 2026 — reviewed City response: added the City Manager’s memo and annotated location list, and applied 26 publisher-reviewed decisions. Three Unresolved and four Skip entries retain their prior classifications and permit matches; ten rows await review. Current default scope: 70 records. All 91 remain in the downloads.

October 26, 2026 — restored records: eleven previously excluded cameras restored with publisher-supplied classifications: four decommissioned and seven private-party. Both groups are hidden by default and can be shown separately. All 91 records are included in the dataset and CSV. The default view remains 80 locations, with 36 permit-linked and 44 unmatched; the City’s other response-sheet corrections have not yet been applied.

October 20, 2026 — private-party exclusions: seven additional camera locations identified by the publisher as private-party cameras excluded from the current index and CSV download. The published index now contains 80 locations: 36 with a permit linked and 44 without a matching permit located.

October 20, 2026 — index correction: four camera locations removed from the current index and CSV download at the publisher’s request. After that correction, the index contained 87 locations: 36 with a permit linked and 51 without a matching permit located.

October 20, 2026: initial website dataset prepared; two camera-to-permit links added for Becker/Gilson; the Scenic Park/Sandhill Crane Park location flagged for manufacturer review. Eleven original PDFs and 17 cropped maps made available in the library.

Each original PDF has a SHA-256 fingerprint in the downloadable dataset so its contents can be independently checked. Crops are separate images and do not modify the PDFs.

Download the complete dataset ↓