Almost a year has passed since State College Borough Council last contemplated installing surveillance cameras on Beaver Avenue, but discussion on the issue will resurface in coming weeks.

The suggestion to use surveillance equipment was generated by a riot prevention committee formed in the aftermath of three disturbances on Beaver Avenue during a 12-month period in 2000 and 2001.

Last April, council member Cathy Dauler recommended council explore the possibility.

"The riots were really devastating to the community," she said. "I think we must do whatever is necessary to protect students and prevent riots from happening in the future."

Despite objections from some of the student body, a divided council authorized State College Police Chief Tom King to conduct an investigation into the possibility of installing cameras in the 200 and 300 blocks of East Beaver Avenue.

"I had never even thought of such a thing and was initially against it," Dauler said. "After a lot of talking, thinking and reading, I changed my mind and decided that we shouldn't reject the idea without researching it first."

Discussion subsided in the summer months because council did not want to take action when students were not in town to voice their opinions. Then in the fall, no action was taken because King was busy with other projects.

King said he is refocused on the issue and is preparing to send the project out to contractors for bids. He plans to approach council with a report and recommendation sometime in March. He said no action will be taken during spring break. In the report, King will explain how cameras will and will not be used.

King said if the cost is reasonable, he will advise council to approve the project. He said he would not encourage cameras just because of the riots. Camera footage would be used for other investigative purposes as well, King said. A significant number of assaults occur in that area, he added.

Many student groups have protested the idea, but authorities insist protecting students is the main reason for considering this measure.

"Students are often more vulnerable than they know," Dauler said. "If council goes ahead with this, I hope most people would understand we're not trying to monitor every move. The idea here is that the police are working to protect all citizens."

Dauler said her belief in exploring all options does not mean she will ultimately vote for cameras. The protocol of the project, the expense and feedback from the community will all be considered, she said.

There is a possibility the borough and police department could sponsor informational meetings for students before holding a final vote, Dauler said.

"If individuals have the opportunity to sit down, listen and ask questions, some minds might be changed," she said.

Dauler said she is surprised with the amount of support she has heard from permanent residents.

"I know the students don't feel that way and I understand that," Dauler said. "I don't like the idea of being monitored myself, but the thing that has really altered my thinking is the safety issue. Assaults are a big problem in this town."

Dauler admits she is unsure if cameras would serve as a crime deterrent but said she believes footage would be a valuable asset in criminal investigations.

Council members Tom Daubert and Elizabeth Goreham are adamantly opposed to even considering such action. Cameras would not stop criminal activity and would damage relations between student and the community, Goreham said.

"The only way I would change my mind is if the people living in that area request the cameras," Goreham said.