Flagstaff Council Hears 24+ Speakers on Flock ALPR Renewal; No Vote, but Direction Expected on Contract's Future
FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA — October 29, 2025

Flagstaff Council Hears 24+ Speakers on Flock ALPR Renewal; No Vote, but Direction Expected on Contract's Future

Flagstaff City Council held a contentious work session on a citizens petition opposing the Flock Safety ALPR camera contract, with 24+ public comments divided between privacy advocates and law enforcement/prosecution supporters, resulting in no vote but direction to be determined.

Flagstaff Council Hears 24+ Speakers on Flock ALPR Renewal; No Vote, but Direction Expected on Contract's Future

On the evening of October 28, 2025, the Flagstaff City Council work session transformed into a prolonged and emotionally charged public hearing on whether to renew the city's contract with Flock Safety, a private company providing automatic license plate reader (ALPR) cameras across the community. With standing-room-only attendance, 24 public speakers, and prepared remarks from police leadership, county prosecutors, and civil-liberties advocates, the session laid bare a fundamental tension in modern municipal governance: public safety versus privacy, technology enablement versus surveillance risk.

The work session was called specifically to address a citizens petition, submitted in September, opposing the Flock contract renewal. Mayor Becky Daggett opened by clarifying that "there's no vote tonight, but council will give direction regarding the contract" after hearing all sides. The possible directions included bringing the renewal back for a vote, directing staff not to renew, or ordering continued public outreach before a later decision.

The Police Department's Case: Data, Safeguards, and Trust

Police Chief Sean Collie led the department's presentation with an appeal grounded in both effectiveness and accountability. "If we want to truly support victims of crime in this community, we need tools that work. But we also need your faith," he stated. "Your faith that we will use this in the right and correct manner and in the Flagstaff way."

The Chief then pivoted to a harder line: "I'm asking you not to just trust us blindly as we have this conversation, but to hold us accountable, hold me accountable as your police chief. Walk with us, talk with us, challenge us, be a partner in ensuring this is right on behalf of those that need this service in our community."

Deputy Chief of Patrol Colin C provided operational detail. Over 12 months of Flock use in Flagstaff, the department logged approximately 450 searches per month, against a backdrop of 77,000 calls for service per year and roughly 10,000 victims of crime annually. The system, he said, had yielded zero documented misuses. He outlined the procedural safeguards: every "hot list" entry (flagging a vehicle as involved in a crime) requires supervisor approval and monthly audit; every search is logged with an officer ID and justification; data retention is capped at 30 days; prohibited uses include immigration enforcement, civil traffic enforcement, and discrimination.

"This technology takes the concept or allegation of profiling out of policing," Deputy Chief C explained, describing a scenario in which an officer uses Flock to locate a hit-and-run vehicle without ever seeing the driver—and thus without opportunity for racial profiling. He also acknowledged community input. "We've been listening to community non-stop," he said, noting the department had held a town hall at the Market of Dreams on October 16, offered council members demonstrations, and worked on a transparency portal showing what cameras detect and what they do not: "Facial recognition, people, gender, or race" are explicitly excluded.

Chief Information Officer CJ Perry joined via video (from vacation) to address technical and policy concerns. He acknowledged that Flock had faced negative publicity and had made changes in response: the company had cancelled contracts with federal agencies (ICE, Border Patrol, Secret Service) after community pressure, and it had built "incredibly robust controls" including an audit trail, granular sharing permissions, and encryption. Perry also confirmed a new comprehensive privacy policy was in development to govern not just Flock but other emerging city technologies.

On data retention, Perry noted that while Flock's default is 30 days (the lowest among ALPR vendors), the company offers options to reduce it further. He cautioned, however, that a shorter retention window might hamper detectives investigating complex cases that emerge weeks or months after the initial crime.

The police presentation was followed by a question from Council Member Anthony Garcia on data sharing. Deputy Chief C acknowledged that of 50 Arizona partner agencies with access, any officer can search Flock data with their name, case number, and justification—and that search leaves an audit trail. Anthony Garcia pressed: if partner agencies can access the data, can they then disseminate it at will? Deputy Chief C replied that a legitimate Flock scan, certified by the system, would hold up in court, but a screenshot passed to another agency would not. "If that happened, I mean, I think that would be crimes," he said. "I trust every member of the Flagstaff Police Department to use the system appropriately, but I also hear people's right to privacy."

Council Member Khara House asked whether partner agencies' use is governed by the same prohibitions (no immigration enforcement, etc.). Deputy Chief C acknowledged the gap: "I'm not aware of any agencies that are using ALPR scans to share with immigration enforcement," but if discovered, "we would terminate the trust with them and we would turn them off."

The Community Response: Privacy, Bias, False Positives, and Federal Overreach

The first public speaker, Taylor Cery, living in Sunnyside, struck a moderate note: he acknowledged Flock's crime-solving potential but called for legally binding penalties for misuse—a fine of "no less than a million dollars per vehicle or personally identifying information" if the company or police violated the contract. "We can't just have promises," Cery argued. "It doesn't have to be all or nothing."

Isaac Muski presented a more philosophical opposition, warning that acceptance of ubiquitous ALPR monitoring established a "precedent" for future technologies and that Flock's data could be breached or sold to private companies (though CIO Perry later clarified Flock does not sell data). Muski also raised liability: when an ALPR produces a false hit and police arrest an innocent person, the city—not Flock—pays for lawsuits, citing the 2020 Colorado case in which a Black man was pulled from his car at gunpoint due to a misidentified license plate and his family later sued for $1.9 million.

Sage Panetta, a self-described progressive organizer, argued that Flock cameras are "liable to misuse and over patrolling" of communities of color and that the narrative of "public safety" obscures deeper causes of crime: unmet need, poverty, disability, lack of housing. "At the root of most crime is a need that isn't being met," she said. "Not more cameras."

Marcales Childs, a Black Flagstaff resident, shared a personal account from April 2024 when his stolen car was located using Flock. Police, he recounted, misread the situation and threatened him with driving under the influence despite his cooperation—and he attributed the suspicion to the officer's perception of his race. "Although it wasn't carried out, it was the assumption that officer made in the moment due to the evidence that Flock gave him," Childs said. "As a black man in an overwhelmingly white community, my fear that day was real."

Brendan Trashel, the petition's originator, presented his fourth public testimony opposing Flock. He catalogued facts: Flock cameras are unregulated AI; they track daily movements through "checkpoint systems"; data is stored without suspicion and used to train Flock's AI indefinitely; Flock's patent indicates the AI could be trained to detect anything, not just vehicle characteristics; nationally, the top database search reason is "investigation"; and Flock previously allowed Border Patrol, ICE, Secret Service, and the U.S. Navy access to cameras without explicit community consent. "Flock cameras are a violation, a liability, an intrusion, and a mistake," Trashel concluded. "The time for talking is over. The time for action is now."

Caitlyn Hughes, a five-year Flagstaff resident, linked surveillance to authoritarianism, noting that "totalitarian systems of governance" historically use data collection to "suppress dissent to an approved narrative and maintain power through fear." She did not oppose all surveillance but requested the council "consider these concerns as well as larger cultural issues when deciding how to proceed."

Alyssa Hastings, a policy analyst with Arizona Action, outlined specific risks: Flock can reveal when parents drop children at school, when immigrants attend religious services, and when women seek reproductive care in a state where abortion is legal. "This would give someone the ability to know an innocent person's whereabouts without them knowing," she said.

Taylor Lundström raised the $140,000-per-year subscription cost and questioned whether Flock's claimed 10% crime-solve rate was credible or "marketing." She also noted that Oak Park, Illinois—which is 61% white by census data—had 84% of its Flock hits in the first ten months on people of color, suggesting algorithmic bias.

Sydney R described an incident in Prescott in which her boyfriend was stopped under false pretenses, searched without probable cause, and handcuffed after Flock flagged him. "Though ultimately freed, I was shaken… He later got a letter in the mail that told him police officers had used a Flock camera to track him down even though he was completely innocent."

Isaiah Emanuel spoke in poetic metaphor of "a man" behind everyone's back, watching, tracking, and restricting freedom: "I am seeing a man looking to see where I might go, looking to see where I might meet… This man represents the flock cameras."

Katherine Bennett, a NAU senior, expressed fear about AI surveillance and a contract signed "without public comment, discussion, or notice" and called for the city to align with its self-proclaimed progressive values by canceling Flock.

Kaden Dwire, also a NAU senior, raised the prospect of Flock Nova, a future database aggregating vehicle information with home addresses, phone numbers, and faces, as well as planned drones and pedestrian surveillance. "My concern is who could have access to this information in the future and how could they misuse this data?"

Caitlyn Contreras, a policy strategist with the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, recited ACLU findings: ALPRs capture every vehicle regardless of suspicion; Flock's data-sharing model has made local ALPR data available to "virtually any law enforcement entity"; Flock has contracts with private entities (HOAs, FedEx, Simon Property Group); and abuse is already documented (e.g., a retired veteran in Virginia recorded 500+ times in five months, a healthcare worker 849 times).

Michael Oliver, president of the Flagstaff Law Enforcement Association, provided the union's perspective. He acknowledged privacy concerns but emphasized officers' daily reliance on tools to "work smarter, not harder." He cited examples: Flock helped recover a missing teenager by tracking his license plate, and in recent SWAT operations, officers determined a suspect had left town overnight via Flock, avoiding hours of fruitless neighborhood patrols. "Technology like this helps us work smarter, not harder. It protects our residents, it protects our officers, and it helps build a safer, stronger city for everyone," Oliver said.

Other speakers, including Lydia Nelson and Deborah Block (president of United Flagstaff Firefighters), acknowledged the privacy/safety trade-off but expressed skepticism of Flock's accountability. Nelson stated: "While I do trust that Flagstaff PD has the best intentions… I do not believe we can trust that Flock is doing what Flock is doing with this information." Block noted that surveillance is already ubiquitous (phones, apps, credit cards) but raised the question: "What can we do to keep people in the community safe, keep them efficiently safe, and support an understaffed police department?"

Kevin White, a lifelong resident, drew a parallel to 23andMe: the company promised never to share genetic data, then changed its policy under new management and began selling that data. "Flock is accountable to their business owners" and shareholder pressure, not to citizens or police, he argued.

Bonnie Buché, manager of Flagstaff Mall, testified in favor of Flock, describing how police rapidly responded to crimes on mall property and how Flock helped locate a missing teenager. "If you're following the law and you're not violating the law, you should not be concerned about the flock system," she said.

The Prosecution and County Perspective

County Prosecutor Ammon Barker testified that he is "not here to argue against technology" but "here to ask for balance." He acknowledged the validity of privacy concerns but noted that this is "not an all or nothing proposition." He cited real cases: a murder suspect arrested using Flock, a threat to the hospital averted, a hit-and-run solved, a kidnapping solved. He also raised the issue of missing, murdered, and indigenous persons (MMIP), noting he had received 15 notices of missing persons from the Navajo Nation in a single month. "This technology can aid in those investigations, and that's an important issue for MMIP and it's an important issue for this community."

Jennifer Rangi, executive director of victim witness services for Northern Arizona, struck a similar balance: "I'm not here to argue against technology. I'm here to ask for balance, for thoughtful policies." She acknowledged fear about surveillance but noted that victims often share deeply personal information—where they live, work, and hide. "If technology like this were ever misused, intentionally or accidentally, it could retraumatize them or place them at risk." She called for "clear, transparent safeguards… independent oversight, regular audits, and clear limits on access and retention." She also volunteered to serve on a citizen advisory committee.

Father Peter Drosski, a retired Catholic priest and longtime resident, asked directly: "Will I be less safe than I've been? Will the Flagstaff Police Department be effective…in preventing and fighting crime?" He argued that fears about hypothetical federal overreach should not outweigh documented benefits—helping find missing children, solving hit-and-run cases, preventing suicides. "How can the back of a car and its license plate be private when it's on a public street?" he asked.

Sheriff Richard Clark testified on behalf of Coconino County, noting the county's extreme understaffing (four patrol deputies covering a vast district including Tuba City, Winslow, Blue Ridge, and Mormon Lake) and the Navajo Nation's reliance on license plate readers for MMIP investigations. "We must leverage technology as best we can within the law," Clark said. "I choose not to create a sanctuary safe zone for violent criminals."

City Manager's Procedural Explanation

Early in the meeting, City Manager Greg Clifton provided a nuanced procedural defense of how the Flock contract had been handled. He explained that the city operates under a charter-mandated council-manager form of government with overlapping policy, administrative, and legal functions. The Flock contract initially came to council as a consent item because it exceeded the $100,000 procurement threshold but was not initially flagged as a high-controversy matter. Clifton noted that a year ago, ALPR technology was not widely controversial nationally; the issue has only recently become a flashpoint in "four or 5,000 communities" nationwide. Had the city foreseen the current level of community interest, he said, "it would have not been in a consent agenda item but something for discussion and probably a work session preceding the action item."

He emphasized that the city's procurement policy does permit the city manager to bring any contract—regardless of threshold or statutory requirement—to council "in matters of high community interest or potential controversy." Flock now clearly qualifies; the contract is "properly before you at this time" because of the citizens petition.

Controversies, Data Integrity, and Federal Access

A recurring theme throughout testimony was the history of Flock's data sharing with federal agencies. CIO Perry addressed this: the company did have contracts with ICE, Border Patrol, Secret Service, and other federal agencies, but cancelled them after community outcry. "What we've seen is that when these um community concerns around ICE and other federal agencies became prominent, Flock did change its policies and cancelled those contracts with those federal agencies."

However, Perry also noted that responsibility for preventing inappropriate data sharing falls on local police, not Flock. "Some of those articles highlight that it was actually the local agency's policy or automatic sharing without proper controls that allowed that sharing with some of those federal agencies. That's not necessarily Flock's fault. It was a local decision or in many cases just a simple lack of internal controls." He added: "This brings the responsibility right back to where it belongs with us."

Khara House pressed on this point: if Flagstaff discovers that partner agencies are using Flock data for immigration enforcement, would the city terminate sharing with them? Deputy Chief C responded unequivocally: "Um you have you remember how the officer has to enter the system identifying themselves and enter an incident number and their and their crime. If I through our audits find out that any of these 50 partners have deceived us in this concept of using this for immigration only, we're done with them. Um and I will turn them off."

Project Details

Case Number: Not applicable (citizens petition rather than land-use case; meeting reference: October 28, 2025 work session agenda item 1.8)

Applicant/Entity: City of Flagstaff Police Department; vendor: Flock Safety

Location/Service Area: City of Flagstaff; 32 active LPR cameras and 4 flex cameras

Current Status: Contract renewal in question; no vote taken

Data Retention: Currently 30 days; Deputy Chief C indicated willingness to negotiate shorter retention period after consulting detectives

Sharing Partners: 50 Arizona law enforcement agencies; Flagstaff recently removed itself from the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) lookup (as of late October 2025) to limit national sharing

Vote and Council Direction

Final Outcome: No vote taken. Council will provide direction to staff after considering all public comment and internal discussion. Possible directions include:

  1. Bring contract renewal back to council for approval
  2. Direct staff not to renew
  3. Continue public outreach and schedule a later discussion

Anthony Garcia and Khara House asked substantive questions during the meeting but did not vote. Becky Daggett indicated the council would synthesize direction following the work session.

Outcome & Next Steps

City Council has not yet voted. The next formal action will depend on written direction from council to city staff, which City Manager Clifton indicated would follow this work session. Possible paths include:

Controversies & Context

The Flock debate encapsulates several national tensions in municipal governance:

1. Privacy vs. Public Safety: Opponents argue that mass surveillance of license plates violates Fourth Amendment privacy expectations and establishes a precedent for broader invasive technologies. Supporters argue that vehicular data is inherently public and that the tool is essential for efficient policing and victim services.

2. Algorithmic Bias and False Positives: Multiple speakers cited documented cases (Colorado, Virginia, Washington state) in which Flock hits led to wrongful stops and arrests, with disproportionate impact on people of color. Oak Park, Illinois data showed 84% of Flock hits on people of color despite the city being 61% white. CIO Perry and Chief Collie countered that Flock reads only license plates and vehicle characteristics, not race or ethnicity, and thus eliminates officer bias in initial identification.

3. Federal Data Sharing: Flock has been shown in multiple states to have allowed ICE, Border Patrol, and Secret Service access to local ALPR data, either through explicit company policies or through weak local controls. Community members fear similar federal overreach in Flagstaff, especially under the current administration. Police acknowledged the risk and took steps (removing the city from the national lookup) but stopped short of guaranteeing future federal agencies will never seek access.

4. Corporate Accountability: Critics argue that Flock, as a for-profit company, prioritizes shareholder value over community privacy and has made unsubstantiated claims about crime-reduction rates. They note Flock's history of negative press and past inadequate controls. Police and IT leadership countered that Flock has improved its controls in response to scrutiny and that responsibility for policy ultimately rests with the city, not the vendor.

5. Procedural Legitimacy: Some speakers criticized the fact that Flock was implemented (in 2024, according to one speaker) without initial public comment or debate. City Manager Clifton explained that the contract met statutory procurement thresholds and was placed on consent agenda because it was not anticipated to be controversial; he acknowledged that had the city foreseen current-level community interest, it would have sought earlier council discussion.

6. Scope Creep and Future Technology: Speakers noted Flock Nova (aggregating vehicle data with home addresses and faces), planned drones, and Ring doorbell integration, warning that acceptance of Flock now normalizes surveillance infrastructure that future administrations or companies could weaponize.

Duration

Other Notable Items

The meeting also included brief remarks on city work anniversaries, recognition of employee service milestones (including Martha, a library specialist with 35 years of service), and an update on the city's carbon neutrality plan and community engagement survey (closing November 14, 2025 on the Connect Flagstaff platform). These items did not generate controversy or substantive council discussion.

View source transcript ▼

Source: Flagstaff City City Council Work Session - October 28, 2025 — October 29, 2025. Auto-generated YouTube transcript; may contain transcription errors.

Okay, we're ready to get started. Today is Tuesday, October 28th. This is the city council's work session. I'm calling this meeting to order. catching my breath and saying that um notice is hereby given to members of the city council and to the public that at this work session the city council may vote to go into executive session which will not be open to the public. Can I have a roll call? Mayor Daget here. Vice Mayor here. Council member Alen present. Council member Garcia present.

Council member House here. Council member Matthews here. Council member Spence here. Council member Spence, would you lead us in the pledge of allegiance? God, justice for all. The mission of the city of Flagstaff is to protect and enhance the quality of life for all. The Flagstaff City Council humbly acknowledges the ancestral homelands of this area's indigenous nations and original stewards. These lands still inhabited by native descendants border mountains sacred to indigenous peoples.

We honor them, their legacies, their traditions, and their continued contributions. We celebrate their past, present, and future generations who will forever know this place as home. Thank you. Next up is open call to the public, which enables the public to address us about any item that is not on the prepared agenda. And because whatever you may be sharing with us is not on the agenda that we can't have back and forth. We can't ask questions. Um but we can direct staff to follow up with you.

Jenny Neman. Good afternoon, Mayor, council, members of the public. My name is Jenny Neman. I'm the climate action section director in the city's sustainability office. I'm here today to let you all know that we are currently taking community feedback on the carbon neutrality plan update. This follows our three open houses that we had uh in September and October and now we have a virtual survey on our virtual engagement platform which is connect Flagstaff.

As council heard earlier this month, this update is to improve the plan, elevate adaptation and equity priorities, and reflect our progress, among other things. As we're updating this plan, we're seeking input from the community. We want to know from every resident, what concerns do you have about climate change? What are your priorities for action in your community? And what do you want climate action to look like when we take it in your neighborhood? And how do you want to help?

I'd like to invite residents to complete our survey. It's available on the Connect Flagstaff platform and it closes on Friday, November 14th. To fill out the survey, you can visit www.connect.flagstaffaz.gov. Alternatively, you can just Google connect Flagstaff and it'll be the first thing to show up. Thank you so much. Thank you, Jenny. Next up, we have review of the draft agenda for the November 4th, 2025 city council meeting. Council, have you all had a chance to look over the agenda?

Do you have any questions or comments? All right, moving on to October work anniversaries. Uh thank you, mayor. Uh good afternoon, mayor and council. Shannon Anderson, your senior deputy city manager. Uh today we'll start our October work anniversaries with our uh first year anniversaries. Um you'll see we have individuals from pros as well as water services, our police department, uh our management services team, um as well as our library and economic vitality.

Um so congratulations to those who have finished their first year with the city. Oops. For our fiveyear anniversary, uh the first one that you see here is Sha Armor. She is our IT manager as part of our information technology uh division. We also have Joseph Nagel. Um at the time we created this report, he was one of our street operations tech 3. I'm happy to announce um that Joseph has been promoted to one of our uh public works supervisors.

Um so congratulations to him on that accomplishment as well. Uh the same is going to be true with our next uh five-year anniversary um employee. His name is Keegan Sllayton. He was also uh recently promoted to a supervisor. Um so congratulations to them both. Moving on to tenurs. Uh this is Corey Mueller. He works at our Rio de Flag uh reclamation plant. He's one of our supervisors there. Celebrating 10 years. We also have Robin.

Uh she is one of our recreation instructors as part of our pros team. Moving on to 15 years. This is an Hop. She works as a lead worker out at our landfill. Um so you may have seen her if you are there uh delivering some of your drop off goods. So, this is a 35 year anniversary. Her name is Martha. Uh, she's one of our library specialists. Um, she's a valued member of that library team and provided exceptional service um to the Cookanino County Jail inmates.

Um there is admiration for her longstanding commitment to restorative justice for the jail inmates. She's dedicated um as a public servant and continues to provide the best possible service. She knows what books and magazines everyone enjoys and works hard to make sure that the jail library collection reflects the ongoing needs of these inmates. Martha is friendly to all and has gained the respect of all of her colleagues. Um, we've all enjoyed working with Martha.

So, congratulations to Martha on her 35th year anniversary. And that's the end of our work anniversaries for today. So, round of applause for all of our celebratories [applause] [applause] and we'll be back in November. See you soon. Thank you, Shannon. Next up, we have the city manager report. Thank you, Geanna. Um, very short report. Um, focus this time a little bit on law enforcement. We many of you accompanied us sta at the staff level to the exchange uh club um ceremony at the Elks Lodge.

I think that was about a week ago. And um members of both Flagstaff Fire Department um specifically uh oh, see if I can read this from here. Well, Flagstaff Fire Department had the their um their firefighter of the year, first responder of the year, excuse me. And then we had the same recognition to our uh police department. With respect to the police department, if you can scroll down. Oh. Oh. Um I should have this report in front of me. Okay.

Engineer paramedic Justin Staski uh received the award of responder of the year for Flagstaff Fire. And then officer um Simmons with um our police department also received recognition. Did I get that right? And we are just very happy for for both of those individuals. It was a great ceremony. There were of course awards given to all the other districts and jurisdictions. I'm just focusing on the city of Flagstaff.

It's a very nice uh event and uh big props to those who received that very prestigious award. We also hosted a community dinner uh at the U Market of Dreams last week. Thank you to those who attended there. Um and it was good. We had many students uh there partaking in a meal and some light conversation. Um, skipping around here, we also enjoyed a bit of a ribbon cutting out at the airport on the new graband-go and visitor center.

It's a combined venue out there and uh that occurred uh this last last week. Um big milestone for the airport. Uh we're thankful to all of those who were involved in that endeavor. Uh it's good to see that up and running. There are two items in the report that may garner a little bit of discussion here. I'm not sure. We'll just see how it flows.

Uh but the first uh and you're looking at it now is the communication and civic engagement division um social outreach, social media outreach and some updates uh on that. And I don't know if either Stacy or George Georganna want to speak to this, but we thought it would be of interest uh for council to take a peek as to what's going on, how there's been uh tremendous growth and a very positive impact in our with our internal efforts for social outreach, social media outreach.

Any comments or questions on that? Otherwise, we'll just keep going. Yeah. Um you can continue to scroll down. Thank you. I want let's park it here for just a second. The fair item update council take particular u focus on this if you would. Uh this comes up every now and then usually in the context of uh what's on the calendar and when. Um so thank you to uh Stacy and her team for putting this together for you.

This is actually a working calendar that they always have, but we thought we would include it in the report for your uh reading enjoyment. Here um you can see who on the council has requested a fair item, what the topic is, um where it is being assigned internally and uh what is projected to be the the date where it's coming back to the deis.

And as you'll see there, there is a a good list and it's forever evolving as these fair items come forward, but we thought this would also be of interest to you. And I'll stop there and see if there's any questions or comments on that. Thank you. Um, yes, we have a comment from vice mayor. Thank you, mayor. Um, I spoke with our city clerk on my fair item this morning to just do a check-in and I would like to pull my fair item off the list.

Staff has already um put this matter on their radar and they're looking on ways to beef up the language in the bonding commission handbook. So, with that, I would like to officially remove mine. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. like I like you said, um we've got it on our radar and we'll have it as part of some of the updates that'll be coming forward. Thank you, Stacy. Mayor, council, any other questions or comments?

I know we have a very busy agenda today, so I'm kind of wheeling through this and I think that will conclude my report and we'll go on to other topics here. Thank you. So, um, for those of you um, to the side here, we don't allow signs in the, um, chambers. So, I'd ask you to put them away. Um, put them outside. Um, they would be that is incorrect. And um if you put them out there, we will hold on to them for you, but just please lower your signs. I've asked you to lower your signs.

Okay, we are down to item number 1.8. I'm sorry. As long as she doesn't hold it up, I'm okay with that. Okay. So, we're here tonight to consider the citizens petition that was presented at our September 2nd meeting. At that meeting, the general consensus from the council was that we wanted to discuss the petition and the flock contract. We're going to hear from all who want to speak tonight.

Um, after a short presentation from staff, council may ask clarifying questions when it comes to our discussion. There's no vote tonight, but council will give direction regarding the contract. Um, some of the direction that we may give is to bring the contract renewal back to council for approval to uh to give direction to staff to not renew the contract or provide direction to staff to continue public outreach and come back for a later discussion.

So, I appreciate that there are strong perspectives on this topic and to hear from everyone and make sure that each of you feels comfortable sharing your opinion with us. We're going to refrain from outward demonstrations of support or disagreement with public comments. That is something that I um always require in these meetings regardless of the topic.

if I know it's going to be um if there are going to be different perspectives, it's really important to this council that everyone feel comfortable sharing their um perspective with council and that we all um respect those perspectives. So So um we Oh, city manager. Thank you, mayor, council. Um, sounds like we're ready to kick this thing off. I thought I would preface the conversation with um a couple of comments about procedure.

I think the what is about to unfold in the council chambers uh we would largely see as a conversation on the merits of this topic, a conversation on the substance of this topic and it and we're looking forward to that conversation. But there's been some uh suggestions raised along the way and we've received a lot of feedback on this particular topic.

Suggestions to uh suggest that the procedure hasn't been followed um as it should and I wanted to address that uh and put those concerns hopefully to rest. Um and forgive me for backing up and speaking a little bit at a high level here but I think it's appropriate especially with the large audience.

We operate under a council manager form of government here pursuant to our city charter and that's pretty well laid out and under that form of government which is typical in municipalities especially of this size uh council uh performs many functions so does uh city manager and the city manager is even though it's referenced uh in the singular is representative really of the entire organization.

We have a thousand employees here spanning 14 soon to be 15 divisions, administrative divisions in addition to our legal department and our court, municipal courts. Um, under that form of government, uh, council, and I'm overgeneralizing here, uh, basically sits as the policy maker. Uh, and many many very important policy discussions come to this day and council weighs in on them. uh don't need to give you examples. It's something that happens continuously.

Also happening continuously is the administration of all the city business and that's that's what we do. Uh and we implement the council policies. Yes. But we also oversee the ongoing services and operations within the city and all of that is embodied in our city charter. Um, if you think about the division between council as policy maker and staff or administration as overseeing city services, administering the city business.

Um, it's convenient to think of it as two separate spheres uh that do not overlap, but that is not the case. Um, the overlap is real and it occurs in just about everything we talk about. And not only that uh but there's also overlap with our legal analyses which find their way now into just about any topic that comes before the day.

Uh so in the coaching uh and refresher courses that we've done through the years now uh you may recall you know the ven diagram that we pull out where we show the overlapping functions of our city government between policy administration and legal. Uh and those lines are blurry and there is tremendous overlap and uh today's topic is a good example of that. Uh the suggestions that have been raised procedurally is that well this is a policy matter that should have been before council.

Countering that uh thought is this is an administrative matter governing the operations or delivery of services involving our public safety. Uh and it's an administrative matter. I would suggest that the question is has a wrong premise. It's it's predicated upon a wrong assumption. The reality is it we we can have a debate all day as as to what it is policy administration and and I think it it it doesn't serve the purpose. The reality is um it's an important topic.

It's obviously an important topic to the community and it's rightfully in front of council for discussion on the merits on the substance. Uh now it started um here in the city of Flagstaff I I think over a year ago thereabouts when we initiated a contract with uh Flock for the use of these cameras. Uh and then came the renewal of that.

Um and that the procurement of that because the threshold of this of the service that's being provided exceeds $100,000 and in accordance with our charter if items exceed $100,000, they come to the council Davis and this one did. It was as a consent item. Uh consent items typically don't garner a lot of discussion. They can they can be pulled off the consent agenda. We saw that happen just last week. Um and there can be discussion or they can just be approved but they are on the agenda.

Uh they are noticed as such. Now internally um we at the staff level as we prepare these council agendas always endeavor to try to advance items of important of high community interest or items that we think may ultimately be of high community interest. We advance those to the council regardless of the procurement threshold. In fact, in front of me is an excerpt out of our procure procurement uh manual.

in this language was actually something that came out of our office upstairs years ago, several years ago when we made the decision, the leadership team of the organization that look, even if we have thresholds and we have things that might be uh clearly of a policy nature, yet that that's a given, they go to council. But what about the topics that don't meet those thresholds or a little bit more murky or fuzzy in terms of whether they are policy derived or administrative in nature?

We think in those cases they should go to council and we issued a directive to that effect.

in the language in the procurement policy now reads um specifically procurements less than the formal threshold as I just mentioned $100,000 as described in the city charter are not required to be approved and awarded by the city council but the next sentence reads the city manager reserves the authority to bring any contract resulting from an informal procurement to the city council to obtain input in matters of high community interest or potential controversy.

uh or in instances that the city manager deems necessary. And that language mimics what we follow administratively, which is and sorry for the long-winded explanation, but if we think it's of high community interest is coming your way, no matter what the amount is or or or you know what the qualifications are is coming to the council day. Now, this topic when it first came about over a year ago was not of the high community interest that we are now seeing. That that is an obvious statement.

Had we known at that time that the topic of flock cameras and their usage by public safety would reach a level of interest that we are now seeing not just in the city of Flagstaff but in many communities nationwide. Um we would have called it out and and it would have not been in a consent agenda item but something for discussion and probably a work session preceding the action item. it would have been um it would have garnered that level of attention.

Uh we didn't see it as a controversial issue a year ago. We certainly do now. But I just wanted to explain to council how it is that that this contract which is now up for renewal um has evolved and but more importantly how the topic and the the amount of high community interest the elevated interest in this topic has has also evolved.

If you were to Google search all the communities [clears throat] that are wrestling with this issue right now, you you'll find quite a few, uh you'll also find that there may be like four or 5,000 communities that are now using this service. But with the communities that are having discussions like the one we're about to have tonight, um it's all been very recent like within the last two, three or four months.

If you go back a year ago, I don't I don't think you're going to find that level of interest. It is not to suggest it was not a topic of any interest a year ago. It it was, but not to this level. I think I'll end it with that and and simply note uh it is properly before you at this time. Of course, we have a citizens initiative driving this. Um and and I'm we're all looking forward to the discussion that will follow.

Um, but it was, you know, it started out as not as as not such a controversial matter that would fill the council chambers a a year ago. This is all fairly recent. I think you can attribute that to a number of reasons. Maybe it's the number of flock services that are happening. maybe is what we're seeing in the national landscape in other areas and and the underlying concern by many many people of um data sharing. I don't know. I'm not an expert on it.

I just know that things do evolve sometimes and issues become bigger issues and I think we're at that point tonight. So, I welcome the discussion. And I just wanted to start by making those comments and uh I'll let it go at that. Thank you. Thank you, Greg. And um for people who may have never attended a city council meeting, we're going to take public comment um after the presentation. And you have three minutes. And there's a clock here.

And we'll need looks like we already have a um a stack of cards, but we'll need one of these cards filled out by you. And they're located in the back of the room. And you can give them to Stacy um right back here. ready. Uh, good afternoon. Uh, I'm Sean Collie. I'm your police chief, mayor, council, city managers, and community. Thank you very much for being here today. um and continuing to be engaged, collaborative partners in safety with a focus of the well-being of our community.

We [cough and clears throat] are a caring compassionate innovative, and progressive community that is forward thinking. This as it relates to water, climate, housing, environment, and public safety. We are constantly in a position of embracing technology on all these fronts, challenging ourselves to be more thoughtful and be in a state of continual improvement. If we want to tr truly support victims of crime in this community, we need tools that work. But we also need your faith.

Your faith that we will use this in the right and correct manner and in the Flagstaff way. So, I'm asking you not to just trust us blindly as we have this conversation, but to hold us accountable, hold me accountable as your police chief. Walk with us, talk with us, challenge us, be a partner in ensuring this is right on behalf of those that need this service in our community. Our commitment is this. We will use this technology with transparency, accountability, respect of your rights.

This is not a surveillance tool for tracking innocent people. They are targeted instruments to help us solve crimes, locate missing persons, and ensure that victims of crime are not forgotten and left behind. Technology enhancements have always and will always be part of our life. We have a responsibility to use these tools with humility, with care, and with full transparency. That's why we have strong safeguards in place here in Flagstaff. We do not use this technology to surveil people.

We do not share data without cause. Every use is logged, audited, and accountable. It requires multifactor authentication to access our data and our data alone. We only retain information for a limited time on behalf of victims. At the end of the day, this is your police department. This is your uniform. This is your authority. We receive all our moral authority from you. The trust that you give us is not given to us. It is earned every second of every day.

It is being earned right now at this very second in this community. When we use technology with integrity and when we center it on people and their dignity, it becomes more than just a tool. It becomes a lifeline for our most vulnerable. And let me be absolutely clear, we do have strict policies limiting how we use this tool. Every search is documented. Every search is audit is is able to be audited. We do not keep do data longer than we think is necessary for victims of crime.

There is zero zero tolerance for misuse. In the 12 months we've had the system, there has been zero misuses while over 270 victims have been serviced. But policies alone written on paper is not enough. It's earned through action, accountability, demonstration of purpose. And we have done this for the past 12 months on behalf of our most vulnerable. That's why we're embracing this community conversation, this dialogue, this oversight.

We are aggressive listeners to our community because this isn't just about what's legal. It's about what's right. I know the weight of history. I know that I have served communities who have suffered under unjust systems and I've been an advocate for undoing those wrongs. I know the damage it does when people feel unsafe, when people are victimized and not protected. That's not the kind of policing that is in the DNA of the Flagstaff Police Department.

I believe technology should never be a weapon used against community. I did not, nor did the members of this police department commit to this life of public service to violate Fourth Amendment rights or to infringe on personal privacy. Technology blended with humanness is what we commit to in service of victims while promoting and protecting civil and human rights. That is our goal.

Technology should not be a tool or should be a tool that we use to serve the people at the highest levels possible, especially our most disenfranchised and our most vulnerable. So yes, hold us accountable, demand transparency, but I'm asking you to hear our side. live through our daily experiences of supporting victims which is unique. See how the technology used ethically and narrowly and with precision policing can be responsible, can be the lifeline for victims in need.

It's not about watching you. It's about finding those victimizing our community and our most vulnerable. We owe that to them at a bare minimum and we owe you our integrity. So with that, I'd like to have Deputy Chief of Patrol Colin C come up. We've already done one presentation before you. This is a more narrowed presentation, bridging the gap from the last time we all convened. And he's going to walk you through this update.

Um the old presentation is attached um to this agenda as is the policy, but I want to remind community it's this is the people's policy. We've created conduits for community conversation on all of our policy and it's available forward- facing public facing on our website. You do not need a public records request to access our policy. So with that, I'd like to have Deputy Chief C come up and talk to you a little bit. Thank you. Thanks, Chief.

And good evening, uh, Mayor and Council have already been introduced. Uh, so I'll give our presentation on followup since we last met on September 2nd. Um, first, our mission hasn't changed. It's to protect and preserve life, property, public order through elite service. A lot of us became police officers to serve and protect.

You hear that in people's why statements uh in in the very beginning of their careers, and it is true for me to this day and many of the police officers that are in this room. But we are committed to leveraging the usage of modern technology to serve our community and victims of crime. Uh that would include ALPR technology or automated license plate reader technology and our product flock safety. But we are also very cognizant and respect the community's right to privacy.

And since our September 2nd uh presentation, we've been listening to community non-stop. And this this presentation will hopefully discuss some of the changes we've made uh since then. So, when asked uh by any media outlet in in the city, you know, we've done as many uh on camera interviews, radio interviews, uh in-person meetings, uh responses to media, responses to community members. Uh we've lectured at Northern Arizona University to criminal justice classes and government studies classes.

Uh we we proactively held a community town hall that was very productive at the market of dreams on October 16th. Um we've even offered to all uh elected members, you know, a flock demonstration to actually see uh the program, see how the police officers use it, see how we apply our policy to the system. So since the meeting on the second, we heard community, we want to flock transparency portal.

So, we've been working, we're still working on perfecting our portal for what best uh suits the needs of City of Flagstaff. So, on our portal, on our transparency portal, which we're working to get uh linked onto our city web page, it'll say, you know, what are what we do with the technology. So, what the cameras detect, it's it searches plates and vehicles. It does not tell you how many people are inside of the vehicle. Can't show anything about the person inside.

No identifying information about who owns the vehicle or who who's in it. It just shows a license plate and a vehicle to specific date and time in our community. So what's not detected is facial recognition, people, gender, or race. So this technology takes the concept or allegation of profiling out of policing. like if the the uh flock if the officer gets a hit that it's a stolen vehicle, it's just showing that the vehicle is stolen and the plate is stolen.

There's there's no opportunity for the officer to see who's driving it or make you know a type of judgment against the vehicle based on who's driving it. Uh so some prohibited uses would be immigration enforcement, uh you know, civil traffic enforcement, uh for any per personal use or for discrimination. And let me tell you, if it was used for personal use, because there's been stories in America, very few, but there have been stories.

If some of our employees misused our flock safety system for personal gain, uh to track a a girlfriend or boyfriend, I could promise you there would be severe discipline to include termination and potential criminal uh charging against the officer. And we do audit our data on a very regular basis. We can see trends on how people are searching the system.

we could see if somebody's searching a specific plate a certain amount of times and we look at that on a monthly basis or even more frequent basis to see to make sure our searches are legitimate and have legitimate law enforcement purpose every time we use it. So hot list entries. So what that is and I'll explain in another slide is that if we believe a vehicle is involved in a crime, we can enter that vehicle into a hot list.

So if a vehicle is known to be involved in burglaries for whatever facts that we gathered, we can enter that in the hot list and then our officers will be alerted if that vehicle enters our community. Um those hot lists have to be approved by the supervisor. So the officer has to gather the facts and then put the facts into a police report and then go get supervisor approval to make sure that the hot list is legitimate.

And then we on a monthly basis audit all hot list entries to ensure that they were legitimate and no for no misuse. And we've had this product for a year and we haven't had any documented misuses of the product. And I think that's very important because I trust every uh police officer that serves this community with my whole heart. I trust them every single day.

Uh currently we have a 30-day retention period and we'll go over this also in another slide, but we've heard community and we're we're open to having discussions on what the appropriate retention period is for the police department and also to meet the community needs. Um on our transparency portal, it's it's interesting information that there's over 400,000 unique vehicle scans in our community every month. That's very good. Flagstaff is a great place to be.

Uh we we only have 70ome,000 residents, 78,000 residents, but there's 411,000 people coming and going through our community. Um in a 30-day period, uh nearly a 100,000 uh unique scans per day. Our officers in a 30-day period will do 450 searches for vehicles on a monthly period. uh to talk about some of the data in Flagstaff. Our dispatch center will take 77,000 calls for service a year and send that out to our police officers.

Uh we know every year we're going to have 300 to 325 part one violent crime victims in our community. So that includes homicide, sexual assault, aggravated assault, uh and other crimes. uh we know we're going to have uh 2,000 part one felony uh property victims of crime. So every year we know we're going to have 2,000 felony victims of crime. Our analysts were able to show we're going to have 8,000 misdemeanor victims of crime.

So of those 77,000 calls for service, our officers are going to be requested to serve 8,000 victims uh of crime or sorry 10,000 victims of crime. Uh the IAP, I said in my last presentation, but seven out of 10 crimes occur in a vehicle. So of those 10,000 victims of crime, seven out of 10 of those are going to be involving a vehicle. Why?

Which is why this technology is so important to our police officers to best serve our victims because everything we do is for the victim and this is our transparency portal. We're currently working to get our policy hyperl on the top of the portal. I've got Mike here with Flock Safety who is actually helping me earlier today. but it's kind of it discusses some of the things that I just said. We have 32 active LPR cameras and four flex cameras in the community.

Um here are the agencies that we share with. It's all Arizona agencies. And this is kind of a regurgitation of some of the data I just talked about. So, we have 2,000 uh hot list alerts that come into our community with our LPR system every month.

So, what that means, that could be a stolen vehicle, a missing person, a stolen license plate, a registered sexual offender, someone wanted in terrorist activity, and other things that law enforcement na nationwide has the ability to enter the plate in if they have probable cause. They believe that vehicle is involved in that crime.

So, typically if somebody has a very uh serious warrant for their arrest, potentially, you know, one of those part one crimes I talked about, uh their license plate could get entered into the National Crime Information Center database and then we would get a flock alert if that vehicle came into our community. So, potentially these are very dangerous people that could be coming through our community just in that sheer data of 400,000 vehicles in 30-day period.

So, to kind of give you uh an example of how an officer would use this system on patrol, uh say we had a hit-and- run accident at Fourth Street and Route 66 at 3:4 or let's give it say like 5:00 p.m. when the sun's going down going westbound. It's pretty common for rear end accidents to happen when the sun is setting going westbound on 66 and on Butler.

So, say we have a rear-end accident and the victim calls police and the vehicle flees the scene in a green Toyota and leaves the scene and say you're the registered owner of the of the vehicle. You're the victim and you only have liability insurance on the car. Uh, you call police, you know, I I show up as the police officer. I take your information. I complete your state collision form. I give you your police report that you're going to need for insurance.

But if you only have liability only insurance, that's not really going to do you much good on recovering the damages to your car. Now, you provide to me uh that the vehicle was a green Toyota that left westbound on Route 66. So, what I could do is I could enter the plate or enter a vehicle description in the flock and I could see if I can find a green Toyota vehicle that left westbound on Route 66, Fourth Street.

If I'm able to locate that vehicle or find a vehicle, then I can search the plate in a separate system that's available to all law enforcement in Arizona or in in America. And that's that NCIC database that I talked about. I could then access the person's identity. I could access the vehicle's information and registration and the owner of that car. And then I go attempt to make follow-up. Now, can I prove that that person was the driver and make an arrest? I can't necessarily.

I have to do a lot more followup. I can prove that that was the vehicle and I could potentially get the insurance of that vehicle so I can give our victim the insurance so you can recover the damages to your car, but I doing some follow-up investigation, I could potentially make an arrest. Now, say I can't locate uh the person who owns that vehicle, I could call my supervisor. So, in my case, I'd call Chief Connelly and I'd say, "Hey, Chief, I'd like to put this vehicle as a hot list.

It was involved in this collision and it was also involved in another collision on the west side of town. If it comes back into the community, can I put it in as a hot list for 30 days so I can get be alerted so I can try to find this for the victim? If chief says yes, then I can put it into the system. Then that hot list that I created is going to be audited on a monthly basis by our professional standards office.

And professional standards that is internal affairs and they're going to look and make sure that that entry and that reason for it is all legitimate. And if it's not, I could be held accountable. Uh hopefully, you know, I'm able to bring justice for that victim at the end of the contact. And we've had countless examples. We were out on a ride along last week and there was two hit and run accidents I think at about 5:00 p.m. 4:30 or 5:00 p.m.

And you know that's that's where you know the vehicle is flood and left our victim uh without insurance information. So that's kind of a case and this can be used on a variety of cases, but that's kind of what we deal with at the patrol level. So the blue uniforms, the men and women that serve the Flagstaff Police Department in patrol, a majority of their stuff, their reports have to be tight by the end of the shift. They have to do their investigations by the end of their shift.

So they are accessing a majority of the flock data within their shift. Um, so I'd like to kick it over uh to CJ Perry, our CIO of IT. Oh, there he is. Hey CJ for this slide. Good afternoon, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council, CJ Perry, your chief information officer. My apologies for not being there in person. I am currently on vacation. Um, I just stepped away right before I was supposed to got to dinner in order to be available to provide any context from a more technical perspective.

Um, so rather than strictly just following the points you see on the screen, I really wanted to focus primarily on the concerns that we've heard from the community and how they tie to technical controls and and hopefully address some of those concerns. Um, so one of the uh primary concerns we heard with that there was no initial public discussion prior to implementing f uh flock.

Um, Zeander Clifton kind of addressed a lot of that at the beginning, but one of the things that we're working on to address this concern is a comprehensive privacy policy. Um, this will really help us define our core values into policy in relation to this type of technology, not just flock, but we have other similar technology on the horizon. Uh, for example, there's things like um smart cameras that help with multimodal transportation.

If we got those cameras, uh, we could use them to give like buses or even bike or pedestrians priority at traffic signals. to help help with data analysis for bike and ped um to help staff know where the greatest need is for future bike or ped paths. Um they even help during events like NA graduation to clear out traffic dynamically and quickly. Uh the functional technology is very similar to flock just used differently.

Um another example is we also use uh drones for like fire and flood mitigation analysis to help protect our communities homes. Again similar technology but different uses. So all of these types of technologies would follow under this this broad overarching policy. You know, it create an opportunity for public comment regardless of whether it reaches the purchasing threshold to come to council uh for each technology.

It would clearly show the public that uh what we store, what the purpose of the data is, who has access to the technology, but just as importantly, it would be clear on what data we don't store. So hopefully that would help address that initial concern. Um, a second concern uh is we've heard just as in relation to Flock as a company. They have been in the news, you know, quite a bit and have some negative articles written about them.

Now, I won't be able to address every single article without additional context and research, but I have followed up with Flock on quite a few. What I do find is that these articles generally fall into one of two categories. First, there's articles related to data sharing with federal agencies like ICE. Um this is a critical point. Like the community, we were concerned to learn about this.

But what we've seen is that when these um community concerns around ICE and other federal agencies became prominent, Flock did change its policies and cancelled those contracts with those federal agencies. All of us, uh the city of Flagstaff, Flock, we're all trying to navigate these new and valid concerns that exist today versus where we were a year ago.

Um, but more importantly, some of those articles highlight that it was actually the local agency's policy or automatic sharing without proper controls that allowed that sharing with some of those federal agencies. That's not necessarily FL's uh fault. It was a local decision or in many cases just a simple lack of internal controls and checking their own logs. So, this brings the responsibility right back to where it belongs with us. Um, it's our policy and our in internal controls that matter.

uh since Flock has canceled those contracts, it's our understanding that direct sharing with those federal agencies isn't even possible today. The second category is Flock did appear to have some lack data controls in the past. Um this is actually extremely common with newer technologies. As a company builds the technology, they also have to build the controls. Some controls are built preemptively, but many are built as a response to the scrutiny of their technology.

What I can say is due to that scrutiny, Flock has built some of the most comprehensive and transparent controls I've seen in a company. I'm sure there's articles that show a time where the controls weren't strong. However, it's my observance that uh Flock has become a better company because of this. Um, in both categories, Flock has made improvements. They there's been concerns regarded uh sharing Flock data with federal agencies. In response, Flock canceled those contracts with those agencies.

There have been concerns with transparency and data controls. In response, Flock has implemented incredibly robust controls in a transparency portal, uh, which you you saw just just a second ago. So, Flock has done their part to respond to community feedback. Now, it's really up to us to do ours and ensuring that our policies and practices really match our community's core values. Um, I do want to thank the community for continually bringing up these articles to our attention.

it it really has allowed us to provide additional scrutiny and that in turn makes both us and I hope flock to uh to be better. Next concern I mean this this leads to a a sophisticated and vital question um even if we don't share with federal agencies what stops an agency we do share with from passing along and this is where our local policy and the systems technical controls are paramount. Uh first the system allows for granular control. We don't just share all of our data with anyone.

Any request for data must be approved by our staff, must include a reason for the request, and can be limited to a specific time, date, or case. Uh second, the system has a built, you know, that built-in transparency portal that shows exactly which agencies we have sharing agreements with. Finally, every search and every share is logged in an extensive and unchangeable audit trail. This is how those other agencies you read about in the articles got caught.

uh the log show that they were sharing with ICE. We see this auditing as a critical accountability feature. Um our commitment to you is this. We will perform extra due diligence on any sharing requests to ensure it's legitimate and aligns with our core values. We're not those other communities we see in the news. Our values will guide our policy.

If we see anything in practice that uh violates these core values, the chief has already assured the community he would turn the thing off and cancel the contract. Um, and if you haven't already, we would invite council to come and get a hands-on with the technology to understand and validate those controls. We also heard from the community on the issue of data retention. Uh, the idea of storing data on innocent people for a long period is a valid privacy concern.

Flock has the lowest retention period of any provider we looked at. Um, but they provide options for us to reduce it even lower. Um, in a direct response to this feedback, we have an option to reduce uh the data storage time. Um, uh, WGC just briefly mentioned that, and I believe we're going to talk about that more shortly. Uh, we want to be transparent about the trade-offs, though.

A shorter retention period will be perfectly fine for day-to-day patrol functions, but it may create challenges for detectives working on long-term complex investigations. So, should the community desire this, we could implement it, monitor the impact to our detectives, and adjust only if absolutely necessary and with public input. Another concern there was concern around data ownership or uh data integrity or even data deletion after retention periods have expired. We own the data.

Flock does not own the data. The language I see in the contract matches most cloud providers. It's our data. We do have to grant them some level of access and management of the data just to have the data stored on their servers. This is pretty common and typical. Uh from a privacy perspective, from everything I can see, they follow industry best practices. They build uh us a cloud tenant and give us sole administrative access to the tenant. That tenant is encrypted even from themselves.

In order from for a flock employee to access the tenant, they have to ask us to grant them permission on that tenant. Again, this is standard best practices we see across multiple cloud providers. Block has multiple cyber security credentials. They follow government uh best practices. I'm going to go I'm going to throw out a couple acronyms, so just bear with me here. Um, they adhere to NIST 800-53, SEIUS, and FedRAMP.

These are all government-based security best practice frameworks for cyber security. They adhere to SOCK 2 type 2, which is a private sector standard and requires a comprehensive third-party audit to be compliant. Going through these audits and compliance processes requires a significant amount of work. They are validated that they have the internal controls and that they actually do everything that they say they do in their policies.

These thirdparty audits effectively do what we can't validate behind the scenes their processes. The fact that they're compliant with so many different frameworks gives me a lot more confidence. Uh the final concern I heard is uh the fundamental concern about abuse. Um and and uh Deputy Chief C mentioned this. you know what stops an officer from using this to track someone for uh personal reasons. It's the core question of trust and our answer is built on those checks and balances.

We have strong policies but more than that there's powerful auditing. Um as we have already mentioned every single search in the system is logged. It's tied to an officer, a time and a required justification. There's no such thing as an anonymous or just casual search. Um if an officer were to abuse a system, they would leave a clear and permanent digital trail. that officer would be found and they would be disciplined. Again, we want to go a step further than just asking you to trust us.

We want council to come see the technology firsthand. You know, don't just trust us, verify. We're also actively discussing the creation of an a citizen advisory group for this technology and in relation to our privacy policy that's upcoming. We'd be happy to invite community members to see the technology firsthand, to partner with us in reviewing the audit controls, and to provide direct recommendations on our policies.

We believe this partnership is the best way to ensure that the community feels comfortable and confident that this system is being used responsibly and ethically. Um, council, those were the main concerns I heard. I hope I captured them all. I don't know um that I've alleviated everyone's concerns, but at least I hope that I've demonstrated the work we've done to address them. I'm sure you'll hear many concerns during public comment and possibly more that I have missed.

We're so appreciative of community scrutiny that we've received so far. Uh these concerns are legitimate and this uh this scrutiny has pushed us to be better and I hoped that we've demonstrated that we're better because of it. Thanks. One moment. We have a question for CJ. Thank you, Madam Mayor. CJ, um, I don't I want you to get back to your vacation with your family as quickly as possible.

So, I thought I'd catch you while you're here, but I am I have a question about the AI element in the flock system. So, when I think of AI, I think of whenever I put in things into a Google search and it comes back with all kinds of weird information, which makes me a little bit hesitant to think about AI in a flock camera. could you please um you know walk me down the road how to explain that to somebody who doesn't know a whole heck of a lot about AI and flot cameras. Uh yeah absolutely.

So um the term AI currently is a broad term that is used in a lot of different um contexts. A probably more appropriate uh technical term um in relation to this is machine learning. Um so when you think of AI and you think of it from the perspective of like say chat GPT um that uses what's called a large language model which is mostly focused on text. You're trying to get text back but AI is used in a in a variety of instances.

So for instance, for many people who have tried apps um uh my wife got into gardening recently and she uh downloaded an app that um can identify different types of flowers, different types of plants and and then provide data back on um you know what what those you know or how to care for those uh plants and things like that.

What that effectively does is someone took a picture of a thousand different flowers and tagged that as a particular uh type of flower and then you you put that into an algorithm that says anytime you see something like this and the more you put in the better it gets. um please uh uh you know tag that as this type of flower and then you you know consistently add more and more data to that to make it better and better at recognizing a particular type of flower in a lot of different instances.

Um but it just it's just the same type of input over and over and over again. Effectively what Flock is doing is that concept but with license plates and turning the license plate into text. So it it has, you know, thousands and thousands and thousands of pictures of license plates and there's a you know string of text and then they validate did the AI get it right on the string of text.

Um and every time it gets it wrong, it corrects it and that consistently leads into the algorithm getting slightly better and better and better. So, it's unlike chat GPT and kind of the way that you've interacted with AI from that perspective and it's really um honed in on we are trying to see a picture of a of a license plate from all different states, different colored backgrounds, different colored text, you know, could have scratches on it, could be muddy, you know, all of those things.

And how can we get the most accurate response from the AI system to say, I get that that is a a license plate and that this is the text that's on that license plate. And it's only done by constantly feeding in license plate information um to validate that it's a license plate and and what the text is. It's not using like the broad internet like you would see with in relation to chat GBT. Um did that answer your question, Council Member Garcia?

Yeah, thank you very much CJ for bringing that down to a very very uh weeds level for me. Um because it does help to know that the AI is is only focusing on the license plates themselves and how to make a clearer picture.

the best way that the system, the AI, and the computer can give us that clear image as opposed to um or I've had actually quite a few questions from community and other folks that were that were thinking that possibly the AI was telling the police department what to do or how to do it or things of that nature. So, I really appreciate uh the context. Thank you for the question. Thank you, CJ. I don't see any additional questions. Yeah, thanks CJ.

And at the police department, we welcome input and oversight uh from our IT department just the same as we welcome input and oversight from the community through our uh citizens advisory team.

I want to emphasize if if this contract does move forward and we're allowed to continue this program, uh we are going to hopefully have some of these programs in place at a six-month check-in so you can hold us accountable to what we're saying that we're going to do, the stuff that's that are in these slides. is we're going to have a citizens advisory team that is met uh to discuss these issues to give community input on how we use this technology.

Um, one thing on CJ's slide here, I want to say, and I'll speak for Chief, if we hear of misuse of our data uh for for things that are out of our policy, we're going to shut it off. We will turn it off. I have the ability to go into the administrative portal and deactivate it today.

So if we misuse it and we violate our community's trust, but I can tell you uh in the one year or over one year of use of this of this system, we haven't had incidents of misuse, but we've had several documentations of successes and services of victims that I provided last meeting on the 2nd. So currently uh before the September 2nd meeting we changed our we we heard community we we heard national narrative uh we changed our sharing to only Arizona agencies.

So our partner agencies in Arizona as we know crime has no borders. Uh but we also heard community and we wanted to limit the amount that we're sharing to just just be uh within Arizona. And there's some states where that's actually legislation. That's that's the rules in those states. Um, one thing we did since the last council meeting, it actually happened last week after the town hall, is removed Flagstaff Police Department from the National Lookup.

So, what that did is if an officer searched a plate and maybe the victim or the suspect or the suspect's vehicle had left to another state, our our staff would be able to see in the national lookup that that vehicle is now in Colorado or that vehicle is now in Massachusetts or it's out of the community. Uh, reciprocal the other community could also search and see potentially a plate that was in Flagstaff. So, they are no longer able to do that because we did. We heard community.

We took ourselves out of the national lookup. I trust every member of the Flagstaff Police Department to use the system appropriately, but I also hear people's right to privacy and the data sharing is very uh important to people. Uh so, we went ahead and we took ourselves out to see where we're at in six months. We'll see how it worked. did did we potentially not service some victims or is the system working just fine without being in the national lookup? So, we went ahead and did that.

Um, just to re-emphasize, we don't share our scans with federal police agencies, but requests can requests can be made on a supervisor to superupvisor basis for like serious crime.

So routinely we'll get asked you know by surrounding agencies uh you know potentially the FBI who's investigating a very dangerous crime north of us and then potentially you know if there was a valid reason say the crime was you know some type of assault or something violent then we would okay yes we'll go ahead and search it. We enter it into our audit log. So that's that puts a fingerprint on that search on a casebyase basis.

So, I've had some long conversations with community, several, as we saw in the previous slide about our retention times. I think it's only fair that I had conversations with our staff. So, we're like I told you before, most patrol cases, we're searching those within a day or two. Uh we're we're finding, you know, vehicle information using flock safety. When I talk to detectives, they have a more complex uh case load that they get. Uh oftent times, you know, very private cases.

uh involving, you know, sexual assault, you know, child abuse, uh uh violent crimes against women act uh incidents. Sometimes those don't get reported right away. Sometimes those get reported to a friend and the friend convinces the victim to go to a counselor and then the counselor can connects the victim eventually to police. So sometimes, you know, a month has gone by, two months has gone by, and now the crime is coming forward, and maybe there was a vehicle.

So we've had detectives where they weren't able to service a victim because, you know, sometimes a missing person case doesn't come in for two weeks and so now they're two weeks behind the case and then they don't get the case assigned maybe for another three or four days. So that gives them a limited time. So I think there is a compromise period. you know, 30 days is the maximum retention period that Flock Safety offers.

I know in doing research in ALPR products, there's some systems that have no retention that that it's in there as long as the system has been active. I think there is u a day range that that would be middle ground and chief and I are willing to to reach that middle ground after doing more research of our own data, talking with more of our detectives about crime. It's really that 30 days is really for our detective division because of the complexities of some of those crimes that come to them.

So that's all I have for an updated presentation, but I will be here for the entire presentation with the chief and we look forward to dialogue and and questions as it as it comes up. Thank you, council. Any immediate questions? If not, I'm going to open it up for public comment and then we can ask additional questions afterwards. Council member Garcia. Um, I guess I'll just get started with this first question.

Thank you for the presentation, Chief, and and and Colin, but we were you were talking about the data sharing with the 50 communities here in Arizona. And you were also mentioning that we were getting taken off the national data list. Could you help paint a better picture of my understanding of of how this works? So, um, what what I've heard a lot of concerns from the community about is with these 50 partners that we have that they can just zoom into our system anytime they want.

They can pick up a license plate whenever they want and they could kind of access it just like you could access it but from another department away from our city. So, so that's kind of the first question is is that possible and then I can follow up from there.

Yeah, another agency, another police officer could enter the case number that they're looking up, so the legitimate law enforcement purpose, and their name, and they can access the camera and look at potentially scans that occurred in Flagstaff.

Now, it is etiquette amongst law enforcement that if we're going to do investigations in another community that we're going to notify either the agency head, head-to-head, or from a supervisor to supervisor level before we start doing any type of investigation in another community. So when the officer does enter that data into the portal that leaves a fingerprint on that which is now auditable.

So if we find that people have been in our system and and and running you know something illegitimately you know then we can have another issue with that agency which is you know if it's misuse like I said before could potentially be a criminal issue against potentially the officer if it was misused. And I have one more to follow up with that one.

So the other concern that that we all have been hearing up here throughout countless emails that um I'm really proud of the community for stepping up and and giving to us so that way we have these type of questions and we can have this kind of conversation and dialogue is uh once that information goes to those 50 communities now is it theirs to disseminate um at their will? Is there other opportunities for other agencies to grab it from their um from their system?

Forgive the convoluted way of asking this question, but I don't understand it. Yeah. And if we were going to use, so say another agency, Phoenix or Scottsdale, was going to use a scan, you know, from a Flagstaff camera, that would have to be a certified scan from Flock Safety.

I mean, if we were just taking rogue photos and then using those off, like say you use a snippet tool, uh, as Officer Conan showed me, and you take that that image and then you're disseminating that, I mean, that's not going to be held up in court as a valid law enforcement, you know, ALPR scan from Flock Safety. So, the potential that someone could do that is there, but I mean, I think that would be crimes. I I do trust the men and women of the Flagstaff Police Department.

I also trust trust all Arizona Postcertified Police officers in this state. I've had the opportunity to work alongside many agencies and I trust them just as much as the the officers that work right along here in our community. Thank you for that, Colin. I I want to assure you that from the limited time that I've been on council and the amount of that we have interacted together with the department, I also do trust um you guys and I trust the police officers as well.

But uh making sure that taking ourselves out of the national search isn't going to sort of circumvent some sort of backdoor use is the community's concern obviously. Thank you for the qu answering the question, Council Member House. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, uh, Deputy Chief. Um, appreciate the the information and the time that we were able to to spend together recently, uh, doing some more of this Q&A.

Um, just kind of following up on Council Member Garcia's question, um, I'm hoping that you can maybe just restate for me what it looks like if a a partner organization, so one of the agencies that we share information with um, wants information from our system because where I'm getting a little lost in that is the understanding that we own our data um, and so any access to the data from our system has to be accessed by our team or our department.

Um, if there's a partner agency that we're willing to share information with who enters information, is that entering a request for us to access that information for them or are they entering that request and immediately getting access to that? they're able to immediately get access to the data.

Now, the etiquette and the procedure, and I think police chiefs would butt heads, if if other communities were taking enforcement or had a reason to believe something was going on in Flagstaff and involved their case, then what typically happens, almost always happens, is that law enforcement agency gets in touch with our investigators from our law enforcement agency and we collaborate. That's how it's how it's worked.

I I haven't seen, you know, an agency from outside of the city uh, you know, just start taking enforcement or initiating contact with somebody in Flagstaff without notifying us first and getting us involved. But the sharing is that trust. Yes, it's our data, but I trust the other Arizona agencies uh to to share our data with.

Now, if there was ever an agency that violated that trust and was misusing it and we found that either through audit or through uh some an incident, we can immediately terminate that and no longer share that data with them. Thank you for that. Um, so the prohibitions that we have on our system in terms of what can and cannot be searched, does that also apply then to those other agencies as they're searching?

uh is prohibitions as far as so like our system says that or our our guidance says and our policy says that it would not be used for immigration or uh those sorts of searches. Does that prohibit then a partner agency from searching our system for an immigration case? I'm not aware. I mean, Chief Con and I, we uh pose that question to the Arizona Associate Asian of Chiefs of Police, and I'm not aware of any agencies that are using ALPR scans to share with immigration enforcement.

So, is it possible? Yes. If that happened, we would we would terminate the trust with them and we would turn them off as far as sharing with them. Okay. Yeah.

And that was going to be my next question was if there were cities, counties, or other state agencies that have indicated cooperation with ICE or federal immigration enforcement or federal policing agencies that are outside of our um our guidelines for our system, would we be willing to either uh reduce sharing with them or or turn off their access to our system or um I I guess that that's it. Not a word. Let me council member house, I really appreciate your mindset on this.

Let me be very clear. Um you have you remember how the officer has to enter the system identifying themselves and enter an incident number and and their and their crime. If if I through our audits find out that any of these 50 partners have deceived us in this concept of using this for immigration only, we're done with them. Um and I will I will turn them off. Thank you. Last question uh for now um because I'm eager as I'm sure everyone else is to get to the public comment on this.

Um we I think you both talked about the um NCJ as well um looking into the creation of a citizen advisory council um for technology or for um for this system. Is that something that you are able or willing to commit to as like that that will be a thing that we have rather than just looking into it? Yeah. Yes. And I asked the council and mayor city leadership to hold me and chief accountable.

If we do a six-month check-in and we're not having meetings or have at least formed a committee uh by the six-month check-in, you know, please cancel the contract at that point too if it moves forward to that point. Thank you very much. Thank you both very much. Thank you, Deputy Chief. All right, so we're going to take public comment and for those who came in after I've made the announcements um to provide comment, we're going to need a comment card from you.

They're located in the back and you can hand them to uh Stacy who has her hand up here. You have three minutes. There's a clock here um so that you can time yourself and um just a reminder that we know there are strong perspectives on this topic and we want to hear from everyone. Um we also want to make sure that everyone feels comfortable sharing their perspective with us. So we ask that you refrain from any outward sign of support or opposition.

Um, let's just get through these comments and and hear what you all have to say. I know that we're eager to hear it. Mayor, if I may, Ju just really quickly for everyone's knowledge here, council isn't here tonight to vote on it. They are here to give us, you are here to give us direction. Um, after hearing from everyone, council can discuss and direct staff to either let the contract go expire or put this on a future agenda for potential action on that contract. Thanks. All right.

So, I'm going to call the first name and then I'm going to call the one that comes after that so you can you can get prepared. Taylor Cery and then Isaac Musa Muski. Members of the council, hello. My name is Taylor Cery and I live in Sunnyside. Concerning the issue of the Flock cameras, I am in favor of cancelling the current contract with Flock, but I am open to the city signing a new contract with Flock or another provider of automatic license plate readers.

I am open to the idea because they have actually accomplished their state mission, catching criminals and helping victims, like the one-year-old kidnapping victim that was saved last month. But we do need to make sure that these cameras are only doing their state admission within the legal bounds that we set. I've heard a lot of promises about these cameras. We promise we won't share data without cause. We promise the data is only stored for 30 days.

We promise it's only checking the license plate in vehicles. But are these just promises or are they legally binding promises with severe repercussions if broken? And even if these promises are being kept now, do we have a legal guarantee that they will be kept in the future? Now, I don't know what's specifically in the city's contract with Flock.

As far as I can tell, the details aren't publicly available, but we do need to include a part that says something along the lines of if lock deviates from the very narrow scope of data usage outlined in this contract, they will be fined no less than a million dollars per vehicle or personally identifying information, fees to be split between city of Flagstaff and the person whose information was mishandled. That might get people on board.

Now, I don't know if Flock would agree to sign that contract, but they should, right? They should be willing to sign a contract that includes harsh punishments for actions that the company has stated they will not do. In a similar vein, we need to pass laws that restrict the usage by law enforcement and not just have internal policies. Though I am glad that they're there. I've heard the argument that it's dangerous to limit police resources. But honestly, that argument should fall on deaf ears.

For example, it would make police work a lot easier if they could just enter any private residence whenever they felt like it. But thankfully it is codified into law that they need a warrant. That's the thing. We can design legally defined avenues for fruitful police work to be done while also protecting our civil liberties. That's honestly my main point with all this that it doesn't have to be all or nothing. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

It doesn't have to be either new technology used by companies and law enforcement that effectively answer to no one because there's no legally defined repercussions in the event of misuse or no new technology at all. We can and should deign a system of checks and balances for this new technology. So that is helpful and not harmful. Therefore, we should cancel the existing contract and if we pass new laws that act as checks and balances and if all parties agree, then we move forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Taylor. And we have a question from council member house. Thank you very much for your comments, Taylor. I just wanted to clarify because one of the the action that we were considering previously was an amendment to the contract. So, it was going to be updated and and changed. I'm looking now for chief uh to verify that I'm correct on that.

Um but with your stance on this, um are you looking for complete cancellation versus amendment or would you be open to that amendment um if that was putting in place the things that we're we're talking about today? Uh I'm just worried that until any laws are passed as protections, then it kind of is free game. You know, we are taking everyone's word for it that they won't abuse their power. And honestly, we should not take the government or a company's word that they won't abuse their power.

It should be codified into law. So unless the amendment was passed today with laws in place that you know act as protections I think we should cancel pass the laws then reinstate. Thank you very much. Thank you Taylor Isaac Muski and then Sage Panetta. Mayor, council members, I've heard a lot of chatter online about how there's no expectation of privacy in public, but I find this notion to be absurd. Uh, if you'd walk for me with me uh for a moment into a strange hypo hypothetical.

Uh, from a neurological perspective, the thoughts in your brain produce an EMF signature. And this signature can be read with a bunch of electrodes strapped, you know, around your skull. And clearly, you can't read someone's thoughts without the permissions, right? Uh but the very same argument of not having an an expectation of privacy in public uh comes to mind. After all, these frequencies are just in the air.

Uh and because I have this chip already installed in my head, I can hear a lot of you thinking that's ridiculous. this technology would never come to exist or flock is a far cry from uh brain reading uh machines. While it's true that this technology is not avail u available yet, agreeing to have this sort of everpresent monitoring system around makes it easier for such systems to be put in place in the future.

After all, uh there's a lot of uh public safety concerns that would certainly be alleviated if we knew the next time someone was going to be uh a school shooter or a terrorist. Uh this is all to say that uh certainly there is a lot of personal privacy uh sacrificed in the name of safety.

Uh currently while it's not reading our minds uh these flock devices track motions of individuals through license plate readings as well as building a profile of the type of person that would be on the road at a certain time that would have a slight scratch that would be driving a Subaru instead of a Ford. And this data base uh can be used with uh other in conjunction with other databases.

Uh it sounds like I learned a lot tonight about uh the contract that Flagstaff has with Flock, but certainly in other cities, uh Flock sells that data to other private uh database companies. Um time and time again, uh companies have insisted that they have proper cyber security protocols in place only to be hacked.

Even if you believe, which I personally don't, that Flock is not going to do anything nefarious with the thousands of data points that they are collecting about each individual person here in Flagstaff, the fact that the data exists means that it's possible for the data to be breached either in a hack or a data leak or by a disgruntled employee. Further, uh the contract that I'm sure that Flock has um protects Flock from any wrongdoing. This is almost universal with Flock contracts.

Uh this means that if there's a false report, which happens occasionally with OCR, which is the technology the Flock uses, uh and the Flagstaff Police Department shows up with Gunstrong on a perfectly innocent family, it's the Flagstaff taxpayers that have to cover the lawsuit, not Flock. This has already happened several times, and I pray that it doesn't happen in Flagstaff.

If the council is dead set on having a system such as Flock in place, I think that we should demand that Flock pay for any potential lawsuits and that data is exclusive to the Flagstaff Police Department and that there are guaranteed price locks in place so that in three years Flock can't raise the price of subscription services. Thank you. Thank you, Sage Panetta. And then Marcales Childs [clears throat] All right. Hello, Flagstaff community members and city council members.

Uh my name is Si Sage Petta. I live here in Flagstaff. Um I just want to say first, it's so great to see a room packed with people who care. I'm so glad you all are here and that we had to move the wall back. Um we're all here today because we care about our community and want it to be a safe place where we can all thrive together. I know we all feel that supporting the safety of our community is crucial. However, increased surveillance is not the answer.

Flock AI is frequently misused and continues to be misused despite the supposed corrections on behalf of Flock. Uh there are many recent instances of people across the country being wrongfully held at gunpoint, detained, arrested using these cameras. Um just imagine that one of your families or one of your families is being wrongfully uh dragged out of a vehicle because of an incorrect flock hit. Um, yes, this has happened and I do believe that will continue to happen.

Uh, furthermore, these cameras are liable to misuse and over patrolling of our community members due to the nationwide policing practices that criminalize and over patrol people of color, poor people, disabled people, immigrants, queer and trans people to name just a few. Uh, one of the police people said that flocks takes profiling out of patrolling and surveillance. Um, if that is the case, I wonder why there are five flock cameras around the Home Depot. How is that not a racialized decision?

I hear these police people concern voicing concern about decreasing and solving crime, and I imagine that that is a concern that we all share. Uh, we all want a safe and healthy community. But at the root of most crime is a need that isn't being met. uh whether it's an inability to access affordable housing or secure a job to disabilities, crime in our community requires a deeper collaborative investigation into the root causes of crime in our beautiful city. Uh not more cameras.

Uh to you wonderful community members, I wish this microphone was facing the other way. Uh this is really about your privacy and the well-being of our neighbors and our community. Uh in a time of intense repression, harm, and surveillance, these cameras will continue to uh support the authoritarian surveillance regime we're already experiencing. Uh keep showing up, keep trusting your gut. Y'all got this. And so to the city council members, I ask you to wax a bit nostalgic for a moment.

What was it that made you want to become involved in local government? I remember the sense of excitement, hope, and determination you had to make Flagstaff an even better place to live. I imagine many, if not all of you, want to make a difference and do good for your community, your families, your friends. So, I encourage you, act from your sense of integrity. See all the caring community members here today. Uh, say no to flock. Thank you, Sage. Thank you, Chief.

Uh, Vice Mayor has a question for you. Thank you, Sage, for your comments. And I wanted to give Chief an opportunity to talk about um there's been a couple of concerns already about false false information or false positives, Paul, false identity um with using Flock. Can you go into that please? Mayor, members of council, Vice Mayor, or Vice Mayor Suite. Yeah, a couple things. Um Flock does not sell their data. I just want to be very clear. I've heard that a lot in our conversations with Flock.

Um so that that's one inaccurate comment as it relates to that. Um we don't have five cameras around the Home Depot. I don't know where that comes from. Um we we made a very intentional um effort to make sure we put it in public thorough affairs of ingress and ingress. So if a journey of crime occurred um we would be able to capture that person coming and going.

Um and then as it relates to the conversation about precision policing, um [clears throat] you know, law enforcement agencies around the country when they respond to a scene absent this technology rely on the humanness of witness information, which at times under stress and trauma is inaccurate.

and having been around a lot of that and seeing um the wrong vehicle description given under that umbrella um and officers stopping the wrong vehicle based on witness acting with good intent um there is that potential for liability. I believe in watching this system play out um not only here but in thousands of communities across the country that it actually reduces that. Um you heard us talk about um this this system does not discriminate. This system is not biased.

Um, this system does not take into account that. It simply provides that photo of a license plate in the back of a car. And so I think we get a lot more accurate actually um as it relates to um the ability to stop the right vehicle based on what is going on at that time. The other thing too is it's a really a bigger conversation about overpolicing.

A lot of us worked nationally uh on the issue post the horrific murder of George Floyd to make sure that we're not overpolicing and casting broad nets in communities. Um this technology helps us really narrow that focus and that's been my experience with it. Vice Mayor, thank you and thank you for letting me ask that question, Mayor. Sure. Thanks, Sage. Um does anyone have any questions for the Okay. Um, we have Council Member Garcia has a question for Chief.

Chief, since we were on the topic, I I thought it would be important to speak to this because in my um extensive research and mulling around town looking up at the sky quite a bit the last couple of months to see where um cameras are and what they are. I've noticed that we have bunch of cameras. When I say we, I don't mean city of Flagstaff. I mean Flagstaff in general.

And What I'm what what I'm thinking is, and you might not know this answer, is most of them are owned by private property owners who have cameras on their lots for various reasons. And that may have been some of what the commenter was speaking to when it was talking about Home Depot. I don't know. I I avoided going to Home Depot. I had no reason to go there. But if I did and I saw some flock cameras there, you've assured us that they're not the city of Flagstaffs.

Um, are are you aware that other private property owners are using ALRP or similar systems here in the city? Mayor, members of council, council member Garcia, thank you for the insightful question. Um we have seen just an incredible explosion of personal use, business use of video technology. Um you know, you'll hear a lot of chiefs around the country try to take credit for the double-digit year-to-year reduction in burglaries.

Um I'm not going to do that to the extent that the Ring camera system and so many home systems that are always capturing the journey of crime are are are out there. There are many communities going to digital block watches. It's less intrusive. Um and in agreements with uh individual property owners, creating conduits of communication into real-time operation centers to watch crime happen as it's happening.

So, businesses, residential neighborhoods, um those that are ambassadors of tourism that want to provide live video um to uh places of recreation and and tourism are are participating in this. Um there are there are cameras being used by utility companies to monitor smoke that could possibly happen in our forest.

And I would hope I would hope that if on a wind day in a bad situation, somebody with a dark heart goes southwest of here and tries to start a wildfire in this community that we would want access to that license plate as they eressed or ingress back into our community. So yes, there's a tremendous amount of technology uh on a whole host of levels being used by private sector and community. I appreciate that. Mayor, I just had a quick comment that pertains to this point.

Can you make it after word so we can get through the public comment so people can um if they need to leave they can leave. Thank you. Thank you for Okay, Marcales Childs and then Brendan Trashel. Hello council. Um so what can you say about the successes of Flock? At least how they've been listed out to the public. Through my research, I found that they utilize ALPR cameras to create driver profiles for the cars or license plates um and then rec record record this on their flock database first.

Outside of a concerning amount of data to solve the crime ratio, this technology has not only been misused, but has led to accidents and sol false positives across the country and in this community. Earlier this year in April, I reported my car stolen after a friend's birthday. The morning after I alerted police and was in contact with a few officers following the air tag that I hid in my car.

However, while on the search, um the police report led to the use of flot cameras, explicitly the ones on San Francisco Street. While I appreciated the cops helped to locate my air tag I hid in my car. Um it became skeptical about the honesty of my story. As flock showed my car heading across San Francisco Street around 11 o'clock at night, they began chalking it down to an irresponsible driving and threatening me with even driving under the influence.

I could only assume that with the picture that they took of my car, they specifically didn't make it a race thing, but they saw the color of the person driving the car was not white. Although it wasn't carried out, it was the assumption that that officer made in the moment due to the evidence that Flock gave him.

Do you really believe that AOPRs compared to regular LPRs and the extensive use of red light cameras throughout Flagstaff that arguably do a better and less invasive job of identifying and protecting our streets? Um, in situations like this, I want to give the benefit of the doubt. I understand this is a college town. Mistakes happen. Assumptions must be made sometimes. But as a black man in an overwhelmingly white community, my fear that day was real.

What happens when the mistakes aren't a simple misunderstanding? Taken Colorado with the Gillum family. Are you prepared to award misidentified individuals $1.9 million for a mistake that ALPR systems that you're only paying $100,000 for? When a black family of four was pulled out of their car at gunpoint due to a mistake that these ALPRs have committed. Um, although the barrel wasn't lingering on me, these systems are not foolproof.

Accidents that result in real traumas for these families, leaving only the companies and their technologies an absurd amount of power. As individuals who have the privilege to seek higher education, I value the ability of being able to influence or change your world. This generation has been terribly depressing. Born into a literal melting world of hate and prejudice, it's easy to be hopeless. But I don't want to be hopeless anymore.

I want to believe that I am important enough here as a resident and a voter in comm in Flagstaff to sway my community. And the education we were raised in preaches the importance of speaking out when we see injustice. You could downplay our opinions as much as you want, but I matter. We matter. Thank you. Thank [snorts] you. We're not doing that. Remember, thank you very much. Thank you, Brendan Trashel. And then Caitlyn Hughes. [clears throat] Good evening, Mayor and Council.

It is again my privilege to present this petition and stand before you for the fourth time opposing Flagstaff's contract with Flock Safety. Over these last seven months, I've had the opportunity to speak with fellow community members and some of you about the risk this system brings to our community. Talking about the same thing for the fourth time can get repetitive. So, I thought my short time is better spent recapping what we know about Flock.

We know that Flock is an unregulated AI surveillance system with contracts with over 5,000 communities. We know that Flock cameras track our daily movements through a checkpoint system. We know that our data is stored without suspicion for extended periods of time. We know that our data is used to train flocks AI, which means that remnants of our data are stored in perpetuity.

We know that flocks patent on their AI states that it could be trained to look for anything, not just vehicle characteristics. We know that nationally the top flock database search reason is the word investigation followed closely by the byv which is short for investigation. We know that Flock let Border Patrol access our cameras without our consent. We know that Flock let ICE access our cameras without our consent.

We know that Flock let the Secret Service access our cameras without our consent. And we know that Flock let the United States Navy access our cameras without our consent. We know that Flock CEO completely omitted the fact that federal agency had direct access to the Flock database twice. We know that when flock gives wrong information that police act on the city is liable. We know that there is no independent research that proves ALPRs reduce crime.

And we know that this conversation has been framed as how can we modify the ALPR policy when it really is should we have ALPRs in Flagstaff in the first place. Flock cameras are a violation, a liability, an intrusion, and a mistake. Flagstaff's ideal relationship with Flock is none at all. The taxpayers of this community have no desire to continue funding our own surveillance. This system does not belong in our community and council, you must act as clearly and swiftly as possible to remove it.

The time for talking is over. The time for action is now. We must end this contract. Thank you. Thank you, Caitlyn Hughes. and then Ammon Barker. Hi, good afternoon, uh, mayor, members of council. Thank you for for providing this time, uh, to listen to the community about this very important issue. Uh, my name is Caitlyn Hughes, and I have been a resident of Flagstaff for 5 years.

I'm in favor of the termination of this contract because I am not in favor of any increased surveillance that I view as infringement upon my f personal freedoms and the freedoms of others in our community. As was alluded to earlier in this meeting, I think there are many potential reasons why this particular issue has become of high public interest lately.

My opinions on this issue are deeply rooted in the concerns about larger cultural issues in this country related to surveillance and personal privacy. Increased surveillance has historically played a key role in developing and implementing total totalitarian systems of governance by enabling the state to consistently monitor and control the population, suppress descent to an approve to an approved narrative and maintain power through fear.

Surveillance in totalitarian governments often involves systematic data collection and monitoring of citizens activities and movements which aid age aids res regimes in enforcing strict social controls and limiting individual freedoms. One of these measures um often these meas measures are implemented under the guise of added safety and security to the public.

While I do see the benefits of this technology for our community if used appropriately, as illustrated earlier in this meeting, um I do firmly believe that increased surveillance is an infringement upon our personal freedoms and has many severe risks. I'm here today to oppose the surveillance and invasion of personal privacy. I respectfully request that the council consider these concerns as well as larger cultural issues when deciding how to proceed on this matter. Thank you.

Thank you, Ammon Barker, and then Jennifer Rangi. Thank you, Mayor, members of the city council. My name is Ammon Barker. I am a Cooko County Attorney and a resident of Flagstaff. I want to acknowledge, first of all, that I don't believe that this is an all or nothing proposition. Um, this is not black and white. Very few things are. And I believe this community is sophisticated enough to grapple with the tension between privacy and security without giving up either one compi completely.

I also acknowledge that there are various perspectives on this issue and and I respect that. We all have different burdens of knowledge and I can only speak from my own my own experience. I'm a criminal law practitioner. I spent my career speaking to victims of crime, attending crime scenes, reading police reports. There's probably not a neighborhood in Flagstaff that I haven't visited where a crime has occurred that I haven't personally prosecuted.

And so, this is personal to me in terms of how we protect the victims of our community. Um, I can't help but think about the murder suspect who was arrested by the use of this technology or the threat to the hospital that was averted or the hit and run that was solved, the kidnapping that was solved. These are real events that happened in this community.

I also um as a county prosecutor, I'm concerned about our community members just outside of Flagstaff, our partners um including our tribal partners. Last month, I received 15 notices of missing persons from the Navajo Nation. 15 in a single month. This technology can aid in those investigations, and that's an important issue for MMIP and it's an important issue for this community.

Um, I'm also deeply concerned about our marginalized community members who are most often the victims and witnesses of crime. Missing this technology or not using this technology would hurt them the most. Now, I I can acknowledge and I understand the perspective on the other side that privacy is is deeply important and I respect that. Um, in the last year, as far as I can understand and far as I know, there has been no misuse by our police department. There's been no federal interference.

there's been no hacking. Those are concerns, but they are hypothetical concerns for this community. And more importantly, they are solvable problems and we should endeavor to solve those problems instead of abandoning a technology that could keep us all safer. Again, I want to acknowledge again that this is not an all or nothing proposition. There are opportunities here for oversight, um, for auditing that can protect our privacy, but also keep our community members safe.

Thank you for your time. Thank you, Jennifer Rangi. And then Father Peter Drosski. Good afternoon, mayor and council members. My name is Jen Rungi and I serve as the executive director of victim witness services for Northern Arizona. Our organization provides free and confidential victim services throughout Cookanino County and the Navajo Nation within Arizona. Victims can come to us from any direction and we do not require a police report to receive assistance.

Our top referral source, however, is law enforcement. We work closely with law enforcement to support victims of violent crime, domestic violence, and sexual assault throughout our community. Every day we see how safety, justice, and trust are all connected. I want to start by acknowledging something very real in this conversation. People's fear. Fear that our privacy is eroding. Fear that technology can be misused.

And that in today's polarized political climate, tools meant to protect us could one day be turned against us. Those fears are valid. They come from a deep desire for safety and autonomy, both of which our community values. I also want to acknowledge the commitment of our law enforcement officers and leadership. We appreciate they are open and willing to create safeguards.

Technology like flock cameras can be an asset in that mission, helping identify suspects, recover vehicles, and support investigations that bring justice to victims. But any system that collects and stores personal data, especially data tied to movement and location must come with clear, transparent safeguards. Not because we assume misuse, but because strong systems prevent it. Oversight protect protects everyone, the public, victims, and officers alike.

When victims come forward, they share deeply personal information. Where they live, where they work, and where they hide. If technology like this were ever misused, intentionally or accidentally, it could retraumatize them or place them at risk. Even the perception of misuse can erode the trust we've worked so hard to build. And once that trust is gone, victims will stop reporting crimes and community safety suffers. I'm not here to argue against technology.

I'm here to ask for balance for thoughtful policies that ensure the use of flock cameras includes independent oversight, regular audits, and clear limits on access and retention. Those measures don't undermine law enforcement, they strengthen it. In a time when people are anxious about privacy and power, transparency isn't optional, it's essential.

I believe Flagstaff can lead with balance, embracing innovation while upholding accountability and the values this community cares deeply about, safety, transparency, and respect for privacy. And since I have 10 seconds left, I'll say if we have a citizens oversight committee, I would love to be part of that. Thank you, Father Peter Drosski. And then Tyler Stein. Mayor and council members, [clears throat] my I'm Father Peter Drosski.

I'm a retired Catholic priest, but I'm speaking now as an individual citizen. I was pastor at Our Lady of Guadalupe here in Flagstaff from 1986 to before the parishes were consolidated into San Francisco deceased parish. I lived here in retirement by my choice since 2016. This evening I'm asking the council that when they vote on flock will I be less safe than I've been? Will the Flagstaff Police Department be effective be as effective in preventing and fighting crime as they've been?

Or will hypothetical issues about the rights of privacy and speculation about the federal government, what the federal government might possibly do, leave me less safe? Because bringing criminals to justice will be more difficult in this city that I love. At the public hearing on September the 2nd and today, I've heard conjecture about what abuses might happen, about an abuse that did happen in Texas and Flock corrected it so it can't happen again, and fears over the Trump administration.

But the facts I've heard have come from the police department and how this tool has enabled them to prevent tragedies like suicides, help them to find ma missing children and senior adults, and enabled them to bring criminals like hit-and-run drivers to justice. Brag plates, commercial frames around license plates, and bumper stickers are there because people want the backs of their cars to be seen. So, how can the back of a car and its license plate be private when it's on a public street?

I'm asking you, please have the courage to support our police department and keep your citizens and our visitors safe. Thank you, Tyler Stein. And then Alyssa Hastings, mayor and members of the council, my name is Tyler Stein. I am a policy analyst with Royal Arizona Action and we are here to support the removal of the flock cameras in the city of Flagstaff. These cameras are in collect license plate numbers and take pictures of drivers and their passengers including children.

Collecting this data is a invasive violation of privacy and lays the groundwork for a dangerous mass surveillance state by tracking and monitoring a person's everyday move. Flock cam flock can find out when and where parents drop off their kids at school or daycare. It can find out when and where immigrants attend their places of worship. It can find out when and where a woman with an ectopic pregnancy goes to receive medical attention.

Then whoever has whoever has access to this information, whether that be flock itself, individual police officers, or a hacker, they can turn around and share that data however they want. This would give someone the ability to know an innocent person's whereabouts without them knowing. Another concern we have is that this data could make it easier for federal agencies such as ICE to track the locations of members of our immigrant communities.

Even though Flock currently does not have a contract with the federal government, there have been reports in other jurisdictions that are using this program that local police have shared data they collect from the cameras with federal agencies such as ICE and the Border Patrol.

An example of this happening was in Washington state where it was uncovered that the Border Patrol accessed data in several jurisdictions that were using the cameras even though there were systems in place that were supposed to prevent other agencies from accessing the data. This would just be another way for the federal government to put more unnecessary fears into our communities.

There is also the risk that these cameras can be used as a tool to track individuals from states that have bans on gender affirming or reproductive care that are trying to seek care in a state where it is legal. These cameras are a waste of resources and tax dollars and there are other ways that we could solve crime in our communities. We respectively ask that you consider removing the cameras. Thank you. Thank you, Alyssa Hastings and then Taylor Lundststrom.

Hi and good evening, mayor and city council members. I want to start this out by saying I respect the Flagstaff Police, but I do not agree with Flock cameras. Flock safety is worth around $7.5 billion. This company is for profit and exists to bring in revenue. At the most recent talk about these cameras from the Flagstaff Police Department on October 16th, they mentioned that FL cameras are like a tool like their guns and tasers.

We entrust our officers to carry and use these tools for people's protection and fair their own. These tools do not violate our rights to privacy and they do not contribute to mass surveillance unlike flock cameras which is a concern for people's freedom. In other jurisdictions, slot cameras have been misused to stock e stalk exes. Officers have taken bribes to give out information and shared information with unorganized authorizations.

In our small small town, I would hope our officers would not do this, but there is no guarantee. Assuming Flag PD would not misuse the information. There is an estimate of around $140,000 per year for a subscription to use these cameras. That money is directly supporting Flock. Also in that meeting on October 16th, they said that collaboration does not happen without trust. But how can we trust these AI cameras when they are put up without the consent of the people?

How can we trust that our information is safe? And how can we trust that these cameras don't have algorithmic bias? In Oak Park, Illinois, 84% of people in the first 10 months of FL cameras being used were people of color. According to data USA, Oak Park is 61% white. In 2025, it was revealed that ICE used flock data for immigration enforcement. The company made a statement that data collection inherently creates privacy risks.

But our data should not be a privacy risk for this company to profit off of us. It is said on the website that about only 10% of crime is solved from these cameras. But this has been criticized as a marketing claim to help sells sell cameras. It was criticized for its methodology because there of its varied and incomplete data for meaningful statistics. The data goes to successful cases and not unsolved cases or falsely from these cameras. When flock makes a mistake, the taxpayers pay.

At the core of all of this, mass surveillance is abuse of power. It is invasive and perfect for misuse. These cameras, for those who don't mind being tracked, offer a false sense of security. Not to mention, there's a new update for these cameras that not only take photos, but they will also take videos of cars that go by. The AI cameras do not just record and track criminals. These systems collect large amounts of information on vehicles and their movements.

Flock will not make our communities safer, but it will take away our right to privacy and have our information collected. Thank you. Thank you, Taylor Lundstöm. And then Sydney R. Uh, mayor and council members, it is my belief that we need to end the flock contract. To be tracked without your consent is unconstitutional, and it has caused a lot of harm and distress for many people. One of these people is my boyfriend.

One night a couple weeks ago, he got pulled over by a police officer for allegedly doing a rolling stop. This was in Prescuit, which is not far from Flagstaff. He didn't know flot cameras were in his area at the time. The officer let him go with a warning. That same night, he got pulled over again.

The officers, two of them, had approached him and had outright said that they had lied about pulling him over for the rolling stop and that they tried to get information on him because there was suspicious activity in the area. Mind you, my boyfriend was just trying to do his job and he was simply passing through the area. He proceeded to be treated unfairly by the officers. They searched his car without probable cause.

They grilled him with questions and they handcuffed him and put him in the back of the police car. This was all because there was suspicious activity and he happened to be near it without knowing it. He said the experience was utterly humiliating, dehumanizing, hopeless, and embarrassing. Though ultimately freed, I was shaken and believed life would be drastically altered for something my mind was scrambling to determine.

He later got a letter in the mail that told him police officers had used had used a flock flot camera to track him down even though he was completely innocent. We both are still unsure what it is the police were looking for and why they deemed him to be a suspect for something that was going on at the time. This experience is just one of many that people have experienced with regards to this issue.

It is incredibly distressing for the person going through it um and as well as the people close to them. It is terrifying and it's just unconstitutional. We as a community need to do better to protect our privacy, something that all of us deserve. Thank you. Thank you, Sydney R. and then Brett Axelund. Good afternoon, Mayor Daget and council members. I'm Sydney. I live right down the street and I'm here to voice my opposition to our city's partnership with flock safety.

There is nothing safe about flock safety. There are zero substantial checks or balances on flock. There is no independent research suggesting that ALPR's automatic license plate readers reduce crime and there is absolutely no guarantee that our data is safe or will continue to be. Flock is already notorious for violating privacy. So why are we allowing them in our city? Why didn't we residents of the city get a say in this decision?

Trust has been broken and today you have an opportunity for repair. In Auburn, Washington, federal immigration agents accessed flock cameras illegally and without approval. In Witchah, Kansas, an officer used flock data to stalk his aranged wife. I wonder how she feels about flock safety. In San Francisco, a woman was pulled out of her car at gunpoint because of an error the AL the AL PR made.

Furthermore, flock cameras are more likely to surveil communities with a higher density of black and brown people, reinforcing systemic racism in policing. No, these cities are not Flagstaff. Yet, it's only a matter of time before these things, or god forbid worse, happen here, too. Despite best intentions for the protection of victims, this company cannot be trusted for safety here in Flagstaff or anywhere. If this issue is really about caring for victims, let them tell you what they need.

Let them have an opportunity to meaningfully participate and voice what would bring them justice. As a survivor myself, I can tell you that justice is not achieved through mass surveillance technology. Trust has been broken by the fact that the flock cameras are already up in our city without any public input. And today you have the opportunity for repair. We don't need a citizens advisory group. We need flock out of Flagstaff and to repair trust with the people. Thank you.

Thank you, Brett Axlin. and then Richard Clark. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. Um, my name is Brad Axel and I serve as the Cookanino County Sheriff. There's technology today all around us. We know that there is a reason why intersections with red light cameras have less red light runners and related injury collisions. There's a reason speed ticketing radar slows traffic down. There's a reason ring cameras are so so important and so popular.

There's a reason TSA is present at airports and uses body body scanners and hand searches personal bags. There's a reason you slow down on the interstate when your ways app shows law enforcement ahead. There's a reason so many people follow their kids with a find find my iPhone app. You've heard many concerns on both sides of the license plate reader technology. Tonight, there's been a lot of good information that's come out.

As the sheriff of Cookano County and one of several law enforcement leaders in Northern Arizona, I made a promise to protect our communities from violent criminals. In a region that has extremely limited law enforcement representation in the second largest county in the nation, we must leverage technology as best we can within the law.

Just as a reference, if you live in the unincorporated communities of the Flagstaff area, those that call Flagstaff home as well, like Don Park, Timberline Fernwood Baderville Muns Park, Kachina Village, Mountain Air, all these communities are being right now protected by four patrol deputies. Taco Bell down the street has more staff on than we have deputies assigned to a massive patrol district.

out of Flagstaff, stretching from Tuba City to south of Muns Park to Winslow, Blue Ridge, Mormon Lake, and Kendrick Park. I say this to ask for your help. The Navajo Nation has recently pursued a large contract involving participation in a license plate reader program as they have similar challenges with a lack of officers on the road and an extended response time, even for emergencies.

We partner and share information with our Navajo Nation who is dealing with the well-known epidemic of missing, murdered, and indigenous persons. Paige, Williams, our county, and Flagstaff have all been actively participating in sharing information from license plate readers, resulting in numerous successful violent crime investigations that you will continue to hear about.

Finally, I choose not to create a sanctuary safe zone for violent criminals where there is no deterrence or accountability for unspeakable acts against our citizens. Please listen to the ask of what I know is one of the best police agencies in this state of Arizona, the Flagstaff Police Department. Thank you once again for your partnership and support for the safety of those living in and visiting Northern Arizona. Thank you. Thank you. Richard Clark and then Moren Judith, Richard Clark.

All right, moving on to Moren Judith. And after Moren, Aiden Ashcar. Is Moren Judith here? Aiden Ashcar. Um, hello council. Hello mayor. Um, I would like to start off by saying that Flock has deliberately lied to you. It has lied to our police and it has lied to our community. There is no evidence that flock reduces crime and that they have um uh they have made unethical attempts to prove otherwise.

They have spread false claims and false evidence uh as to how successful their license plate readers are. Um and they do this all to make a quick buck off of law enforcement. Um, they are a for-profit company that is focused on on making money and not safety. And they have have lied just for money. And um they um without a warrant, probable cause or reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, detailed information about your movements are being shared with many organizations and agencies.

Um any individual police officer and many other law enforcement agents are given the uncheck unchecked power to track whomever they wish. This is not at all safe for the people of Flag Staff. There is so much potential for misuse with Flock. Uh data from Flock has led to wrongful arrests. It has been used to stalk the ex partners of police officers. Um and all that data is kept um for depending on what it is for months. Um that can be used to train like Flux AI.

Um it it there is ultimately there is like no reason to keep Flock around. It does. There's no proof that it that it significantly reduces crime and it costs so much money to keep it going. Um, thank you. Thank you, Isaiah Emmanuel. And then Katherine Bennett. Hello. And it's Isaiah. Sorry. Hi, I'm Isaiah Emanuel and I'm speaking against the flock cameras. My eyes can't believe what they're seeing. I am seeing a man who didn't ask for permission, always looking over my shoulder.

I am seeing a man looking to see where I might go, looking to see where I who I might meet, looking to see what I'm looking at. And then he's whispering into my ear, "Do not be concerned. It is for your safety." When should I be concerned? Should I be concerned when I learn that he's starting to track my habits and starting to track my movements? Or should I be concerned when there's not just one man, but hundreds of men behind me looking over the same shoulder?

Or should I be concerned when I see his arms beginning to reach across my shoulder and restrain me? This man represents the flock cameras that are used all around the city. These cameras, however, are not just plate readers. They do much more than that. They can identify vehicles without plates from the color of the car, the make, the model, even those dents on the side of the car. And these this system records routes of these vehicles, collect data, and tracks individuals.

The police department uses this information, but anyone can really access this information whe whether it be data links, leaks, or someone that pay pays a pretty penny for it. You know, to be able to have access to the flock database or even any of these data, you have to be at least leasing your you have to be leasing these flock cameras. So that means the private businesses that they have, they have these flock cameras and they're able to access this data as well.

These flock cameras are used to invade the liberties of individuals under the guise of security and restrict their freedoms. This includes women seeking abortions and healthcare, immigrants who lack a piece of paper and already disadvantaged, or simply a woman who rejected a man now having to suffer a stalker behind a screen and a lens. Thought cameras do not provide safety for those who are vulnerable or did nothing wrong. But they do aid those who wish to control us.

Those who wish to take advantage of us, there is a man behind my back, behind all of our backs. I know who he is. And I know you can see him. He is only there to threaten us, threaten me, and even you. I urge you, a representative of the community, to vote to relieve us from this man behind our back, from all of our backs. Vote to remove lock cameras out of Flagstaff. choose our liberty instead of those who seek to control. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Katherine Bennett.

And then Kaden Dwire. Hello, and thank you for the opportunity to speak with you all today. My name is Katherine Bennett and I'm a senior at NAU and I have lived in Flagstaff for four years and I hope to live here for the years to come. I found community and belonging in this special community and through my work as a teacher, a community organizer, an environmentalist, and a concerned citizen. I'm here to ask you to get rid of flaw cameras out of Flag Staff.

With the rise of authoritarianism and the use of AI across the globe, um, I am scared that these AI surveillance cameras are in my community. I'm scared about my future. I'm scared about my rights. I'm scared about my friends and family. And yet, I stand here shaking and scared, urging you to serve and protect the people of Flagstaff against unconsensual surveillance.

In the summer of 2004, the city of Flagstaff signed a contract with Flock, a private tech company, and set up 36 AI powered cameras across the city. The contract was signed without public comment, discussion, or notice. And since then, citizens have been fighting an uphill battle to have their voices heard and to get any information on what Flock is and how it works at all.

Why after one and a half years are we just now holding a community discussion to talk about these flock cameras, something that affects us all in our daily lives? Maybe Flagstaff's [snorts] data sharing with different organizations doesn't concern you. However, according to the American Civil Liberty Union, multiple federal agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as ICE, and Border Patrol, Secret Service, and many more have already had access to flock data across the country.

Even if they don't have access now, a warrant is not needed to access flock data. So, how can we be sure that ICE won't come here and get our data after all? All it takes is an executive order and the federal government will have access to all of our data and our daily movements across Flagstaff.

This constant surveillance makes people scared and it builds distrust within our community between our family and friends and they will harm and divide the Flagstaff community as these continue to be put up and we start to fear each other more and more. As an environmentalist, I'm also worried about the effects that AI has on our environment. There's little known about the effects of flot cameras on our environment.

And as a city that's dedicated to being sustainable, how can we say that we're sustainable if we're continuing to use these AI cameras that use so much energy to be used all the time? Whether you care about community safety or climate, Flock will not protect what you love. constant surveillance of your daily movements, mass storage of data, energy demands. I don't think it's worth it to have it here. Thank you. Thank you, Kayen Dwire. And then Caitlyn Contraras. Hi everyone.

My name is Kayen Dwire. Um I'm also a senior here at NAU and I've lived here for nearly four years and for one and a half of those I've been surveiled without my consent and without my knowledge for or until about two months ago. Um, driving is a necessity for many of us and to be subject to uh non-consensual surveillance while commuting is not something I'm comfortable with and clearly not something our community is comfortable with either.

Um, the main concern I have with flock um is what will come of it in the future. Right now it doesn't seem like that big of a deal. Um, but there are programs that are being talked of and are currently like being worked on to be put into place. Flock Nova is a program being launched by the company to create a meta database of information on vehicles and their drivers. And this includes your home address, phone number, and your face.

Um there they are also launching drones uh a partnership with Ring doorbell and there's talk of pedestrian surveillance. Uh it seems to me that the current surveillance that we are currently all being subject to is the beginning of what could very easily become something much bigger and much scarier. Um it has been said today that our that there is a zero mis there there are zero misuses from our police department.

Um and there are currently constraints in place to prevent misuse in our community. But um my concern is who could have access to that to this information in the future and how could they misuse this data? Uh the federal government ultimately has been able to get away with much more than many of us thought possible and they have much more power than our city police department. Um the administration isn't even a year old and that gives them plenty of time uh to gain access to this information.

Not to mention they have had access to this information in the past uh including ICE and other organizations. Removing the cameras uh before that could become a reality would make our community safer from misuse. Um also Flock has disproport disproportionately affected minority communities. There are many more camera networks in areas dominated by people of color or other groups that are often unjustly deemed more prone to crime. Um, Flock has been known to misuse data.

They have been known to share this information with ICE in the past. Even if Flagstaff does not represent a minority community and our police department promises to never misuse this technology in this way, a contract with this company that has such a track record is enough of a reason to disallow them. um in our self-proclaimed progressive community. Um lastly, I want to point out that I am part of a younger generation um who has been surrounded by technology.

So, I think it speaks volumes that I am here today and all of us. So, thank you. Thank you, Caitlyn Contrarus. And then Billy Gilmore. Mayor, members of the council, my name is Caitlyn Contreras, a policy strategist with the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, and we are here in support of the removal of flock cameras in the city of Flagstaff.

ALPRs under ordinary circumstances present a significant threat to privacy as long-term vehicular location data can reveal very private details about a person's life, including what meetings a person attends, what doctor's offices and religious institutions they visit, and even where they sleep at night.

Unlike red light cameras or speed cameras, they are triggered that unlike red light cameras or speed cameras that are triggered by specific violations, these cameras photograph every vehicle that drives by, including people who have done nothing wrong, and can use artificial intelligence to create a profile with identifying information that then gets stored on a massive database.

Flock's nationwide ALPR data sharing model has made local ALPR data available to virtually any law enforcement entity that wishes to access it. Because Flock does not have adequate safeguards in place to prevent inappropriate use or sharing of ALPR data, law enforcement from virtually any locality, state, federal agency, and even foreign government can access Flock APR data.

Flock even shares location data with private entities including HOAs, FedEx, Simon Property Group, and in some cases individual homeowners. This raises alarming privacy concerns as well as serious questions about who has access to the location data of private innocent citizens. Even when departments opt to restrict sharing in flock system settings, they may not actually be protecting people's privacy.

According to a public records request reviewed by the ACLU of Massachusetts, the template user agreement many law enforcement agencies sign hereby grants Flock a worldwide perpetual royalty-free right and license to disclose any agency data for investigative purposes. The wide availability of Flock's ALPR data has predictably led to abuse and significant privacy violations. Flock's ALPR system is now being used to target members of vulnerable groups.

For example, in North in North Folk, Virginia, a retired veteran sued and discovered that flock cameras had recorded his location over 500 times in um in a fivemonth period, which breaks down to about four times a day. His co-plaintiff, a healthcare worker, had been recorded 849 times in five months, or six times per day.

An ALPR in Arkansas captured photos of a family's driveway and part of their front time front yard every time a vehicle drove by and was photographed and photographed the family every time they left home or returned home until the flock camera was removed. Flock cameras create extensive privacy concerns for our communities. The Flagstaff City Council must take action to stop this dangerous and this dangerous mass surveillance effort from harming our communities.

We urge the city council to remove flock safety cameras from the city streets. Thank you. Thank you, Billy Gilmore. And then Ren Carr. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council, and good afternoon, fellow citizens of Flagstaff. First, I'd just like to say the appreciation that I have for all of you for the amount of investigation and research that you've done on this program on behalf of the citizens.

I think the quality of our flag police department is quite obvious and I appreciate the fact that they have removed us from the national lookout list in hopes of uh maintaining our privacy um at more of a local level. I appreciate the council's questions on specifics that you've received from citizens in regards to their concerns especially to the access of data.

Um, I will reiterate the from the very first comment that I've heard here that I think that the flock contract should be placed in a hold position so that more research and input can be done in areas of concern. I think the idea that we cancel the current contract would make a clean cut from flock and make a statement for our city.

Passing laws will establish what our community expects from Flock and renegotiation of a new contract with them will ensure that those requests are included in our new contract. For example, Flock's payment of any expenses incurred for incorrect accusations and violations. I appreciate the community members who have spoken uh both from our legal standpoint and advocates for um those underserved in our community. I appreciate their accurate reference to specific cases where flock has assisted.

However, I do think that there needs to be clear policy and legal consequences and I appreciate the invitation for independent audit audits and documentation with transparency. Thank you again for all the services that you provide our community. And to the community members here, I would like to encourage your continued participation and please register between three and five new voters before um the next election so that more people's opinions can be heard. Thank you. Thank you, Ren Carr.

And then Scott McDonald. Good evening, council and community members. My name is Ren Carr, and I'm here to speak against the vault cameras. A personal story, if you will. Um, in high school for my sophomore English class, uh, I was required to read a rather popular book called 1984 by George Orwell. And because it was an honors English class, um, we participated in an experiment that lasted for about a month that was based on the conditions of a book.

We had to use specific blue pens for all of our assignments and notes in every class, wear our backpacks a certain way, greet our teachers a certain way, and lived among secret police, our fellow classmates, who would tell the English teacher if anyone broke those rules, which resulted in lost points for any infractions. During this experiment, I found myself automatically resisting the surveillance, breaking the rules where no one can see me.

I was graded on a paper on my experience at the end and noted that I would never allow myself to live in a place where the authoritarian uh surveillance state was a reality. What I didn't realize is at the time that my teacher was preparing me for a future they inevitably saw, one that I never thought would become a reality because this was just fiction, right? The book 1984 was supposed to act as a warning, not a guide book.

These ALTR flock cameras open the doorways in more ways than one for a life in Aurelian hellscape. The use of these cameras against our citizens threatens our privacy. And with their new software update that will allow for video recording, it just validates our concerns and what we already knew about them. They make a profile, a fingerprint if you will, of our vehicles and track our everyday movements. Congrats.

You can now identify a vehicle based on license plate color and dents like they already could with police LPRs and the red light cameras that are already installed at every intersection. We've already seen plenty of cases of misuse from police enforcement around the country. It's faulty because it's AI and automated and there are new stories all around the country of people being pulled out of their cars at gunpoint by their trusted police officers.

There's still no federal legislation in this country that puts restrictions on this technology and no one needs a warrant to access that data that data either. It is harmful. Our data is being put in a black box where we have no clue what happens to it. We the citizens are being watched thanks to your negligence to initially take public comment on this contract and properly inform your citizens. So I urge you all please to think of your citizens and get this harmful technology out of our city.

cancel the contract and get flock out of flag. Thank you. Thank you, Scott McDonald. And then Bonnie Bucher. Good evening, council. I am the current uh security director at the Flagstaff Mall, and I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak today on this vital initiative. As a security director of the mall, I'm here to express our strong support for the city's continued use of the flock cameras.

In close partnership with our dedicated local police department, this technology isn't just about surveillance. It's about creating a safer and more vibrant space for everyone. And we're eager to align our mall's security efforts with the city's broader network to amplify these benefits. First, to affirm our commitment, the mall has fully endorsed the city's use of the flock cameras, including the potential integration near our property.

We see how these advanced license plate readers recogni recognition systems have been deployed effectively in flags since 2024. Capturing objective vehicle data in real time and deterring criminal activity. By supporting and potentially partnering with an expansion, we can create seamless safety net that expands from the city streets to our parking lots entry points.

This collaboration [snorts] could build on the 36 cameras already within the city, enhancing the ability to respond swiftly to incidents that might affect our community hub. Now consider profound positive impacts on our mall's tenants, hard-working retailers restaurants service providers who form the backbone of our local community economy and community with fault cameras in place throughout the city.

We've observed in similar implementations nationwide a significant reduction in retail theft and organized retail crime rings with cost which cost businesses millions annually. For instances, malls equipped with this technology report a 30% drop in inventory loss during peak seasons like the holidays. This means our tenants can focus less on security concerns and more on growth, innovation, customer service. Lower theft rates translate to preserved jobs within the community.

Reduced insurance premiums and the ability to invest in store improvements and expanded inventory. In essence, safer tenants lead to a thriving mall ecosystem with businesses feeling empowered to succeed and contribute more taxes to the support to city services. Of course, this support comes with a commitment to thoughtful implementation, including transparent data data policies that protect privacy.

No facial recognition, no personal identifiers, just targeted vehicle data shared securely with law enforcement. By aligning with the city's flock network, this could provide incidents faster response from law enforcement in our mall. Thank you. Thank you, Bonnie Busher. And then Sean Parson. Good evening, mayor and council. Um, I'm Bonnie Buché and um, I am a Flagstaff resident as well as I support local business in our community. As most of you know, I manage the Flagstaff Mall.

I work very closely with our law enforcement agencies and in some situations I have to say unfortunately I work very closely with our law enforcement agencies and partners because we're dealing with people that are doing things that they shouldn't be doing. They are create they're um creating crime in our community. I have firsthand knowledge of how the flock system works in our community and I have seen it work to actually prevent crime.

The one thing that I can say is that when we have had situations where we've had people create and um commit crimes on our property and we report them to the police department, the police department reacts very quickly and they act with all um responsibility. They have never I've never given a reason to discredit or to question how the police department responds.

I have seen people arrested because of the flock system that have created or um committed not created committed crimes within the mall. Um with that um those people are doing something that they shouldn't be doing. If you're following the law and you're not violating the law, you should not be concerned about the flock system. The flock system is tracking those that are doing things against the law.

They are not tracking the people that are five minutes late for work, which I've heard that they are tracking people's movements. Um, I challenge those people to actually get involved with our police department. Find out what our police department does for us on a daily basis. The calls that they get and the reaction time that they have is very minimal. and when they get a chance to react a little bit quicker to prevent something like a child that's missing.

I had a friend whose child was missing, missing for three days. As a parent, that's concerning. With the Flock system, they were actually able to track the child's license plate. He was a teen, just began driving. They tracked the license plate. They were able to find him. It took three days, but that child is home safe with his parents. That would not have happened without something like Flock. So, please do not do away with Flock.

Keep it protecting our community and our citizens of the community. Thank you, Mayor and Council. Thank you, Sean Parson, and then Michael Oliver. Ah, thank you, Mayor Daget and city council. Um, I'm here to talk and call for you to cancel the contract with Flock. Um, I want to start by highlighting that local police and a lot of the focus has been on um our trust or relationship with the local PD.

And while there is a space for discussion and debate over our trust with uh local PD, I don't think that's a real issue. The issue is not about our local trust but the trust we have with both the federal government and with Silicon Valley as a concept as a whole. Um Flock has against agreements that local PD have had in place already broken rules that have given information to ICE. This has happened in at least four states Washington, Oregon, Virginia and Massachusetts.

All these local police departments felt that they had also protected their local communities and lot flock lied to them and in uh and and sent that data against those local wishes to ICE agencies. I have no idea why our local PD thinks that they are going to be able to hold back when other local police departments with equal amounts of capacity, money, power, interest, etc. have failed to do so in other localities. This is not about do we trust them.

It is do we trust that flock will respect anything that they will even relate to us. And I do not believe they will. Flock has as people have mentioned um been used and have given information to help um people find out who is seeking abortion services. They have partnered with companies like Ring who also have detailed contracts with ICE. And this is all happening at a time in which we are seeing an increasing expansion of federal power and takeover of local police.

In the last year, the US federal government has nationalized multiple states national guards and sent national guard troops into occupy local cities against the wishes of both governors and local officials. Why are we working to build a system of surveillance that will allow them to have further access to control, monitor, and see us? If they can take control over cities like Chicago, Washington DC, Portland, etc., Flag Staff will not have the capacity to push back nearly to the same level.

So, I'm asking you, not do you trust the local PD, again, that could be a conversation we have at another time, but do you trust the federal government and do you trust Silicon Valley tech entrepreneurs to protect you and your community's privacy and freedoms? If you support this, I think you are stating you are supportive of those federal institutions and Silicon Valley's current kind of me mentality and approach to privacy and to kind of surveillance security.

And I strongly oppose that and I I'm calling on you to also oppose it to protect Flagstaff from federal overreach and from Silicon Valley. All right. Thank you. [snorts] Thank you, Michael Oliver and then Lydia Nelson. I apologize for having to stand down for my official duties.

Uh, I promise you, I assure you that my platform here today is not that of an employee or a supervisor for the Flagstaff Police Department, Mayor, Flagstaff City Council, City Leadership, and community members of Flagstaff. Thank you for allowing me to address you at this very important juncture. My name is Michael Oliver. I'm the president of the Flagstaff Law Enforcement Association.

I I represent the 108 sworn members of this police union to include officers, detectives, corporals, and sergeants. In general, my duties include advocating for livable compensation, officer wellness, and better working conditions for the members. [clears throat] Every day, our officers put their lives on the line to protect this community. We want to use every tool available to do the job smarter, safer, and more efficiently. And flock cameras have proven to be one of those tools.

We've already seen real results in cities across the country. Departments using flock cameras have reduced car thefts, caught violent offenders, and recovered missing children in record time. And here in Flagstaff, we've seen how they can give officers a critical lead within minutes instead of days. When time matters most, during an Amber Alert, a hit and run, or an armed robbery, that speed can mean the difference between catching a suspect and another victim getting hurt.

Our detectives, who are the best in the business, work tirelessly following leads, interviewing witnesses, and piecing together evidence to bring justice to victims. But the truth is, time is our greatest enemy. The longer it takes to find the crucial clue, the harder it becomes to close a case. Flock cameras help bridge that gap for officers. Flock cameras also improve safety.

When we know what vehicle we're approaching and why, we can prepare, call for backup um if needed, and deescalate more effectively. This isn't just about solving crimes, it's about preventing tragedy. Now, as a union, we also care deeply about public trust. We support clear, transparent policies for how this data is used and stored. The cameras should not should serve one purpose only, public safety with with those safeguards.

When those safeguards are in place, these systems earn community confidence and they deliver undeniable results. So, Flagstaff City Council, technology like this helps us work smarter, not harder. It protects our residents, it protects our officers, and it helps build a safer, stronger city for everyone. I urge you to continue investing in Flock cameras because they are not just cameras. They are one more way to keep the city of Flagstaff safe. Thank you for your time and your continued support.

Thank you, Lydia Nelson. and then Joseph Smith. Hello member or hello mayor and council members. My name is Lydia Nelson and this is my seventh year living in Flagstaff. And while this isn't my first time attending a city council meeting, this is my first time speaking at one and I hope that speaks to the importance of this topic for many.

While many of the opinions that I have have been stated by others tonight, the point that I want to stress is that the distrust in this system lies with thin flock surveillance and the privately stored data. While I do trust that Flagstaff PD has the best intentions in using this information to protect the community and appreciate the transparency they have demonstrated in reaction to community concern. I do not believe we can trust that Flock is doing what Flock is doing with this information.

I understand that once Flagstaff PD hears of the misuse of this data, it will be turned off, but I don't think it should have to come to that. It could be days, weeks, or months before an audit is run and then the misuse of data by Flock is discovered for Flagstaff PD to turn them off. The misuse of this data and sharing the information, sorry, um, with wrong individuals can have serious repercussions for our community.

I do not believe that we can trust Flock and I do not believe that Flo has a place in the Flagstaff community. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Joseph Smith and then Kevin White. Hi. Um, I'd like to thank the council for hearing uh me and I'd like to thank the police department for doing all they do. Um, I just I feel like there's a lot of uh mis misunderstanding of the information that has gone through. Um, I didn't really prepare anything. I'm kind of winging it.

Uh, but I I wrote down some things that I I kind of have questions about. Um, the police, uh, when they were up here, they spent like 30 minutes speaking about how nobody, uh, has access to this information without, um, requesting it. And then immediately after was like, "Oh, yeah, and there's 50 organizations that have full access to it." Um, I'm I would I'm I would love to hear a response uh to that. And like uh it feels a little um what's the word?

Like not deceptive, but like it feels like like how like how could you spend 30 minutes talking about how you're not sharing the information then say oh yeah 50 organizations full access they can give it to anyone they want. No problems. Um another thing uh on the PowerPoint it said that they only view license plate readers. I believe that was stated by the chief. Um the or they only read the license plates. Um, Flock, it's very public uh information.

Flock takes a fingerprint of the um of the car that you're searching for of or whatever car passes by and it scans um similar to how he was describing the uh the plant app. It it scans the the whole car, creates a fingerprint on that car, and then using that you can search like, oh, red car, red Honda, but like and and when when you asked uh to clarify that, they didn't they didn't explain that that they specifically said that it only reads license plates, which is I could be wrong.

I don't know if there's any local restrictions to that, but nationally that's how the flot cameras work. They don't just take pictures of license plates. They take a a a scan of the whole car basically. Um, every time you pass it adds that information.

Um I I know a lot of people have uh said that it's mostly hypothetical situations, but we've heard at least three people, I think maybe two, um from our community who have experienced uh false allegations or or being pulled over uh or or detained for being the AI system just thought they were someone else, you know, and it's not a hypothetical situation. We've had literally two people come up and share their personal experiences with that.

Um, and then I wanted to say, uh, I support the I support private companies putting them in their parking lots. There's no problem with that. I mean, uh, I think the the redoing the contract is a great idea and having those fines for misuse. And, uh, I just wanted to say there's a website called dflock.me, a full map of where the cameras are for anyone interested. And thank you for the time. Thank you. Next we have Kevin White and then Aubrey Harris. Um good evening city council.

Thank you for um hosting this conversation. My name is Kevin White. I was born and raised in Flagstaff. Lived here most of my life and glad to be here. Um, a couple years ago, some of you might remember, there was a um, one of those um, companies that you send your DNA to to um, to learn about to learn about your genetic heritage called 23 and me.

Um, they had a privacy policy that stated that there that people who sent in um, genetic genetic information to them that they're that that information would never be shared with basically anybody else. A couple years ago, the um 23 and me came under new management. They've just decided um that was never that was no longer going to apply and they're and all the data that they gathered from people for that entire time is available for um they're selling it now.

Um the asurances from um regarding the privacy commitments of the company Flock. Um, I respect the good faith of our of our police department. Um, they cannot make promises about the what Flock does with w with with that data because Flock isn't accountable to them. Um, Flock is accountable to um to their business owners.

And even if even if they're doing the right even if they're respecting that privacy now, um there's no guarantees that they will in the future because they're not accountable to us. Um, I I think that we're also underestimating the importance of the number of false positives that flock is reported that flock cameras are reported to be receiving.

Um if flock if data from flock cameras is used as um is used as evidence in court it's virtually it will be virtually a guarantee that people who are um that people who are innocent will be convicted on the back of that data which I I think is something that we should be very careful about.

Um, in general, I don't think it's good civic I I've heard it said many times it's not good civic hygiene to put um infrastructure into place that could be used in the that could be used in the future to um to repress the to repress the population to surveil the population. Um, we have a chance to um we have a chance to not do that right now.

And we have a chance to um to do the right thing by um to do the right thing by our population, to do the right thing for the safety of our city, to get rid of these cameras that have already been demonstrated um to be abused in many, many ways. Uh thank you all. Thank you, Aubrey Harris. And then Casey Gonzalez. [clears throat] Uh, good afternoon, uh, mayor and council members. So, um, I think that Flock is capitalizing on our fear of what could happen.

If Flock was actually trying to prevent crimes in our community, it'd have a big sign saying, "Hey, this is a Flock camera. We're collecting data on you and this can be used for police investigation, but instead it's capitalizing on the um it's capital crimes that were already happening to collect information on citizens who are just doing their daily tasks. They don't need a picture of everybody's vehicle. They just need um like important cameras in private businesses.

Um and also since Flock is using AI one, AI is built with the internal biases of its creators. So the biases of the uh coders of that AI will um what eventually be brought out in the program and then also um AI it has such an exponential opportunity for growth and change. There's no telling um how this information could be used by those AI systems in the future.

um they will use the uh fingerprint of the vehicles to put together a searchable database of um of everything that they take images of, but also it's not just going to be a little cropped in image of a license plate. It's going to be a full image of the area. Um all that data in that image can be utilized by AI. Whether there's a person walking on the side of the street, their biometric data of their face could be used in the AI system for something.

Um, so I'm just saying uh in the future this data right now might not seem that dangerous but it become so much more dangerous um as we give it more uh influence or society and more access to our personal lives. Uh thank you. Thank you Casey Gonzalez and then Deborah Block. Mayor and Council, uh, Casey Gonzalez, most of you know me, um, president of the United Flagstaff Firefighters, the local union of the fire agencies that serve around Flagstaff. Couple other things I'll hit on.

uh speaking with the perspective of running the day-to-day up in the dispatch center. Uh full-time firefighter um long lifelong resident of flight staff and a couple other quick things with it.

um going back and forth up there in my mind of what to hit on and um finding it interesting that as I walk to the podium and have one, two, three, four, five cameras in the back all watching what's going on and putting down both phones that I have to carry that have cameras on them and the uh can't even tell you how many cameras that exist in here as well as all the ones when you walk out of the building.

And we're speaking of one that is surveilling license plates um for a purpose of tracking movement. Um every device we carry gives up our privacy today. Every app that I sign into. Um everything we do on a day-to-day basis shares that information. Um you can go to places and find what I buy, when I buy it, how I buy it, get reminders on it, all of it, and have cameras to access all of it.

And I think what's really being talked about here is we support the police department in everything we're doing um for the name of safety in the community. And that's really what this offers is the ability for police to do very specific policing in very certain instances and to not speak on a political stance with this.

um some very specific instances within working uh when SWAT is serving warrants, also a paramedic in assisting the SWAT um in serving warrants against violent criminals and reducing that policing footprint in communities of being able to be very specific about what's being targeted. Going to a house to serve a warrant on a recent operation where the individual should have been there based on CI information, criminal or uh informant information on that individual being there. They weren't there.

We knew the vehicle. We knew the license plate. We could have driven around looking for hours having multiple vehicles run around. We didn't need to because they went back and looked at Flock and realized he had left town the night before. We didn't go take that around the community. So, we sit at a point where we're looking at how much are we willing to be surveiled because everything we do in our daily lives gives that our privacy up. Period. It's just a fact.

We can speak to the 27 amendments that exist in the Constitution. We give up our rights to privacy every day with every app, every phone, everywhere I go, every store I buy at. Um, what can we do to keep people in the community safe, keep them efficiently safe, and support an understaffed police department trying to do it within a growing city and a very diverse and increasingly diverse population. So that's my only neither support or against, but do your research.

Thank you, Deborah Block, Braden MSUS. Good evening, council and mayor. Um, I rarely come here unscripted because I'm a bit of a hotthead and so I like to contain myself when possible, but I am I am profoundly undone by the direction of our country. And I think it is impossible to look at most things that affect communities isolated from the greater community. And I do not disparage the or question the integrity or intention of Flag PD.

Um but as a previous commenter noted I do not think that is the question. I am a retired federal employee. I have been through a number of furlows. I have been through a riff. I have never seen the degree of unlawfulness that is occurring in our country within our government as is happening now. We cannot look at anything without taking that into account. It is not hyperbolic to say that we are in a crisis of democracy. I am 67 years old.

What I see happening for anyone who is paying attention, we should be terrified. And yes, we are surveiled. I turn location services off on my phone. Does it do a lot? I don't know but the direction we are headed in is is horrific and I don't think you can look at this independent of that. You truly have to look at you know our first people being jailed for exercising first amendment rights.

people being, you know, detained because they have a critical, you know, Snapchat chat or Twitter or whatever they are. I don't even use social media on their phones. We can't look at anything aside from that. It is a treacherous time. And I really really just ask you to consider that when you're looking at this because it is so much bigger than Flag PD. Thank you. Thank you, Braen MSAS and Phoenix Schaefer. Hi you guys. I come. My name is Brayden MSAS. I've lived here all my life.

Um I just had a couple of questions about um the flock cameras. I wanted to know how many in town do we have? 32. That was covered in the presentation. I just wanted to reclarify. I just wasn't here. I would like one of you guys to answer. You're here to give testimony to us. So, we would like to hear your um your uh perspective on the cameras and on the contract and on the petition. Okay. So, can I not ask how many there are? Thank you. Perfect.

I wanted to know I wanted to say that we should I want to know who is according to the Dlock website there are 36 cameras in Flagstaff four of them are pointed at Home Depot parking lot on the west side I believe um there's none on the east side I would like to bring awareness as who maybe we should start looking into why if they're not owned as um officer I believe Oliver said they're not owned by Flagstaff which I get Home Depot is private property but at the end of the day if it's in the same system same city could it not could Home Depot have less restrictions also I just talked to the manager of Home Depot apparently they were not installed by Home Depot I'd have to talk to corporate I'm getting more information but I do think that it brings awareness to we are allowing a separate entity to have uh the same surveillance system that we are so against in this same system.

Does that not allow does Home Depot allow to give ICE that same access? And if so, what's stopping them from giving it you know what's what's stopping ICE from coming into into this from Home Depot? Even though I don't think I don't think that flock should be allowed in Flagstaff as a whole, let alone a private property where a majority of their customers are Mexican or a minority. I think it I think it deserves to bring awareness to the people, not necessarily just to you guys. That is all.

Okay. Thank you, Phoenix Schaefer and Gail Jackson. Is it this one? Okay. Good evening, council. My name is Phoenix. I moved to the city of Flagstaff recently to attend NAU. I was so excited. Everything here is so beautiful and walkable. It's super awesome. What I didn't know about and what I could not have anticipated are the flock cameras. They're non-consensual. It hasn't been made clear around town or on the city's website. Trust me, I checked.

This evening, I asked the council why we as a city are trusting machine learning. AI of any kind is not in a place developmentally to be trusted by the government. How accurate is this machine learning? Has it made mistakes about the license plates? Is it any more accurate than human eyes? Because if it isn't any more accurate, why are we using AI? Are these programs being monitored by humans? Because if not, and the program starts to mess up, what does that mean for us as citizens?

If you do know the answers to these questions, I urge you to share them with us. Um, because I've seen no statement from the city or from flock itself this far. Machine learning for those who might be unfamiliar are AI models like video suggestions on Netflix and YouTube as well as fraud or spam detection in an email inbox. Though I hear you and I understand this AI may be more advanced than my YouTube search page, it's still just a pattern trained AI nonetheless.

Machine learning is simply patterns based. Sure, the pattern is license plates and cars, but it's possible for highly trained AI to make mistakes. I do not think it's ethical for Flagstaff as a city to use AI to keep its people safe. I did not have an opportunity to consent when I first moved here, but I have an opportunity now, and I'm telling you that I don't think this is a safe, ethical, or viable choice for the city of Flagstaff. Thank you. Thank you, Gail Jackson.

and then Everett Bronerant. Good evening, Mayor and Council. I'm Gail Jackson. I'm the president and CEO of Eona and we do regional economic development. Tonight, um I am here to talk to you about surveillance. It's already a part of our daily lives. We see it in economic development every single day. It's in phone apps, credit card transactions, doorbell cameras, public transit, drones, you name it. It's the way the world's going.

The difference with the difference with that and flock cameras is that they serve a purpose of public safety safety that directly benefits everyone in our community. These cameras have helped law enforcement solve crime, recover stolen vehicles, and prevent potential threats. They are inex inexpensive, efficient, and datadriven tools that contribute to making our city safer. A safe community isn't just important for residents, it's essential for economic development.

Businesses want to locate and invest and grow in places where employees and their customers feel secure. If we want to retain and attract employers, safety has to remain a top priority. Flagstaff proudly brands itself as the city of innovation. Removing proven technology that enhances safety and operational efficiency doesn't feel innovative. It feels like we're going backwards. Right now, there's a nationwide shortage of police officers.

While we continue to promote law enforcement as a vital, rewarding career through our workforce development efforts, it's important to remember that this technology is not meant to replace officers. It's meant to support them. and I hope that we will continue to do that. Please keep the flock cameras in place. Let's continue using smart, datadriven, informed tools that protect our businesses, residents, and visitors and strengthens our city's reputation as both safe and forwardinking. Thank you.

Thank you, Everett Bonerant. And then Leonardo F. Hello. Hello, city and council. I am Ever Bondron. I have grown up in the city my entire life and I've seen it change a lot and I've heard a lot of different testimonies tonight. I've heard a lot of different business owners and cops say one thing and I've heard a lot of different citizens say another. And so I look to what history has told us. We've had different companies repeatedly sell our data.

We've had different advertisers repeatedly sell our data. We've had different federal agencies already use this data. Which means whether our cops say it's transparent or not, it is not that simple. Whether business owners say it works or not, it is not that simple. It seems for a fact that this data is going to be misused. So the question is not do we need Flagstaff to be safer, but is it worth the cost of it being misused?

Do we need to betray our community in a way that causes them to not feel safe so that we attract employers? Do we need to make it easier for our cops to target different people when we don't necessarily know if it's even effective? Do we need to make sure that these resources are available for when the time comes when ICE wants to use them? When the people around us who do want to target the people in our city want to because the question isn't is it going to be used tomorrow to do bad.

It's is it could be used bad in a year. Is it could be used bad in three years? When these cameras have been implemented and forgotten about who is going to abuse them when these audits have grown tired and ineffective, who is going to keep checking just as effectively or are we just going to hope that this works well?

We've heard already heard citizens say that this doesn't work well in multiple different cities and in multiple different places in the state which means we already know it is not necessarily going to work the way we want. It won't necessarily solve crime. It won't necessarily solve anything. We have many cameras that do these things. We have cameras that find license plates. We have cameras that watch cars, which means we have these extra cameras to watch us extra so that they can see extra.

We don't necessarily know what they're looking for. They say they're going to use it to watch license plates and cars when we know it can detect faces. We know it sees the street. We know that it sees all of it. Why? How? And why can we believe that a company that does not care about Flagstaff is going to protect us?

How can we believe that a company that has effectively proven that doesn't care about local communities, is nationwide and ineffective, is going to actually help Flag Staff, or is it just going to be another way to make this Flagstaff more of a city like Portland that's in chaos? Is it another way to just make this ineffective and chaotic so that we spread discourse between Flagstaff? Because we're a peaceful community. Sure, we have crime, but we don't stab each other in the back.

And this is furthering our way towards that from outsiders. Thank you, Leonardo F. And then Molly Joyce. Good evening, city council, Mayor Daget. My name is Leandro Funes. Uh, I've been a resident of Flax for the last six years. Unlike a lot of my peers, I don't have anything prepared for you because you've already heard the statistics from both sides and personal testimonies. We've heard a lot about promises and the importance of trust.

Um, despite any personal feelings I might have on police officers as a man of color, I have full faith that the men here at Flagstaff Police Department are fully invested in the safety of the community. Um, but crucially missing from these conversations I've noticed is the the cores of trust and that's benevolence and kindness. And I believe that the flot cameras are driving a wedge between the community and the police department as we've seen in testimony today.

I believe that benevolence and kindness are the way forward and I believe that the only way to do that is to have faith in our officers and communicate with them on a personal level. I do not think that these cameras are helping us. Thank you. That's all. Thank you, Molly Joyce. and then Ira Allen. Hello, city council. Madame Mayor, um I'm familiar with many of you as my position on the open spaces commission has brought me here a couple times.

As a person born and raised here, I am concerned about the influence of this technology in our community. Um it's like no one ever read 1984 or history. Um, I feel that this kind of surveillance, once installed, uh, endangers vulnerable individuals or has the potential to. This kind of technology is antithetical to our city's recently adopted regional plan and its commitment to sust sustainability and a commitment to an affordable and safe community.

I'm against Flock for all the same reasons prior speakers have cited and for many of the reasons that its supporters have cited. Um, [snorts] its CEO, Garrett Langley, has targeted Axon and Chinese own DJI, which are drone manufacturers, um, to eliminate crime in 10 years via ground and airborne surveillance. That doesn't sound like freedom to me. This technology, no matter how well positioned in an executive summary, does not guarantee safety to individuals. It guarantees control.

Our data is not protected our data is utilized. do point to the violation of our privacy uh data rights by the department of government efficiency during the first 120 days of our current administration. We already are subject to every aspect of data collection per the gentleman from our fire department uh was so kind as to site. Um so why is this additional surveillance necessary other than to refine control?

I echo the concerns of trust, not in our police department, but in the people outside of our community, beyond our city, beyond our county and state, uh, whose interests are in this company. Your focus should be in making Flagstaff a more prosperous community by lifting us up, not surveilling us. The cost of this technology and its contract is funding that could be used for purposes that actually ensure our safety as a community.

For example, removing the restriction on the number of paramedics our fire department can employ at any given time. a restriction solely based on budget, which limits the quality of emergency care citizens can expect to receive when an EMT or a fire department is deployed to their situation. Um, it also limits the upward mobility of the men and women on our fire department who hope to make enough money to buy a house in Flagstaff per our city's regional plan and what we say we care about.

Um, so I challenge you, uh, I demand that you as a city council put our community first. Um, eliminating crime isn't isn't only attainable via surveillance imprisonment or prosecution. It comes from enabling your citizens to thrive via education, healthcare, and a roof over our heads. Thank you. Thank you, Ira Allen and Chelsea Green, Mayor Daget, Council members. Um, I just came from mountain biking up in our beautiful open And one of the things we don't have up there is a bunch of cameras.

And part of why we don't have a bunch of cameras up there is because we've locally followed the lead of the Forest Service, which does not allow people to install private cameras in the forest for game purposes. And part of why the Forest Service doesn't allow that is because it interferes with the freedom of movement of everyone through the forest. If some people are benefiting from surveilling the forest for their own their own purposes, it's also to prevent poaching.

Okay, I'm timing myself on my device that's surveilling me. I've chosen to allow my device to surveil me because I like what I get in return. We're today talking about a set of cameras and a surveillance system that was installed without any democratic process. In other words, without anything like a possibility for collective consent to the meaning of that surveillance. A lot of people have a lot of reasons that they object to it.

I agree with most of those, but I'm actually just here today to talk about process. Ultimately, if there's some tradeoff between privacy and security, between freedom and security, that tradeoff has to be subject to a substantive democratic process. The meaning of that trade-off has to be determined collectively. But I can't be part of a collective determination of what trade-offs to make at the barrel of a gun. We are effectively today at the barrel of a technological gun.

for us to talk about the trade-offs between privacy and and security when there is already installed a system that makes privacy impossible in substantive ways without having been installed subject to democratic controls is to fail ourselves today you us collectively to be in the position of democracy I don't think that the Flagstaff Police Department means ill or is pursuing anything but what they think will be best for policing. That's not the question.

The question is what process will enable us to collectively decide on what trade-offs between privacy and security we as a community value and find most appropriate and meaningful. Currently, such a process is not in place. There is no way to put such a process in place without first taking the gun out of everyone's faces by deflocking. Thank you. Thank you, Chelsea Green. And then Joshua Booth. Um, hi, I'm Chelsea Green.

I've never actually spoken at the city hall before, but I've lived here for the last 25 years. Um, I worked in the downtown area um at one of the businesses that has one of those cameras. Um, I was one of the people who was responsible for trying to interpret those cameras. Um, I saw how many times that um that was difficult and really uh contentious. Um, I ended up having to let a bouncer go because of some activity that he did that we had to call the police for.

Um, so, you know, I have some experience with some of the things that go on downtown and whatever. That said, um, I have a lot of concerns about this flock system. Um, as the fire chief said, we're all surveiled all the time. This doesn't make sense for us to have additionally except for the fact that there's like an AI component. Um, and that doesn't necessarily lead anybody to feel better about it unless you really do buy into this like AI future.

But like AI future is also related to data centers and data centers are something that is really starting to uh become a new thing, new terrain on the environmental front. um they are starting to uh pop up everywhere as being like something that really takes a lot of water and resources, energy and is raising costs for citizens. And I think that that's something that needs to be considered as well.

I think the uh the consideration of like what happens when something goes wrong because let's be real, something always goes wrong. the fact that we as taxpayers are going to have to pay for that is really really distressing. Um and and yeah, so like I just don't really see what on top of all of the surveillance systems that we already have in place, this is actually doing for us. It is also a little concerning that like nobody really heard about it until after it was already in place.

I heard gentleman say that it was on the agenda. I mean, I don't know. I didn't see any social media post or anything that was like letting anybody in the community know about it being something that everybody would be surveiled. So, despite it being on the agenda, it may not have it may have behooved y'all to let us at least have some comment. Um, so that's that's something that I was concerned about as well. All right. I guess that's I have 17 seconds left, so I'll let you and I'll be back.

Thank you, Joshua Booth. Good evening, Council Mayor. Um, I truly believe that Chief Connelly and the FPD want a safe and prosperous Flag Staff, but this is so far beyond individual wishes. I want to speak to a systemic threat that I see against our immigrant community here in Flagstaff. At a prior city council meeting, there was a comment made by a Flack representative who spoke regarding federal agency's abilities to enter into agreements with local agencies.

This struck me and presented two paths forward in my mind. If city council denies the renewal of the contract, ICE will not be able to ask FPD to share their block data because it won't exist. However, if city council renews the contract, the day will come when ICE asks the local police department to share their data and state that if FPD does not, ICE will use this lack of cooperation to insert themselves further into our community and remove long-standing community members.

This community can't afford to lose another member at the hands of ICE. We've lost too many. I've sat with their grieving mothers and I, as I hope you're all aware, we even recently lost a cherished son, brother, nephew, friend from this earth who was in ICE custody in Florence when he was left to die. Flagstaff will not be able to turn off flock when ICE asks. Thinking this is an option Flagstaff will have is just willful negligence. Thank you. Thank you. We have some online commenters.

Yes, mayor. We do. Our first commenter is going to be Michelle. Michelle, you can go ahead and offer your comments now. Thank you. Good evening and council. My name is Michelle Rucker and I'm the deputy director of Northland Family Health Center. So we are a service provider for survivors of domestic violence, sexual and human traff often a matter of life or Many of our fleeing traffic or perpetrator who can stop them the ability of law enforcement to vehicles defenders.

Michelle quickly Michelle I am so sorry to interrupt you. Could you try turning off your camera and see if because you're cutting in and out. Oh, I see. Yep. Is that any better so far? Okay. Um, so as I was saying, the ability for law enforcement to locate vehicles associated with offenders or to quickly identify a suspect or missing person's vehicle can make an enormous difference in preventing further harm.

ALPR technology which has been used in our community to help locate perpetrators of domestic violence, sexual assault, and trafficking who offended on people residing here in our community. This tool allows officers to act swiftly when every minute counts. For example, when an abuser violates the order of protection or when a trafficker moves a victim across jurisdictions. We recognize the community may have valid concerns about privacy and data use.

However, in our experience, FPD has shown professionalism and transparency in its use of this technology. Appropriate policies and oversight can and should remain in place to ensure responsible use. Thank you so much for your time and considering the perspectives of those who work every day to help survivors of crime rebuild their lives. Thank you. Thank you. Our next commenter is Kevin McCoy. Kevin, if you would like to unmute and turn your camera on, you can offer your comments now. All right.

Hello everybody. My name is Kevin McCoy. I am a lifelong resident of the city of Flagstaff and I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak here today. I had the opportunity to speak on this matter several weeks back at another council meeting and I wanted to return to follow up. I will not go into the details of all the reasons why I believe Flock is a mistake today for our community. Instead, I would rather focus on policies such as trust, oaths, and obligations to the public.

If you are a member of the Flagstaff City Council, you were elected to that office by the people of Flagstaff under the trust and belief that you would represent us and do and act on behalf of the people of Flagstaff. In 2023, we experienced a situation where a measure was moved regarding the Flagstaff Medical Center forward against the will of the people of Flagstaff. When this action was done, the people spoke up and when we pe when the people spoke up, they were mostly ignored.

Once that measure went to a vote, the overwhelming majority of Flagstaff stood their ground and voted down the measure. Currently today on the city council, at least four members voted in favor of that Flagstaff Medical Center resoning. I hope now looking back in hindsight two years later that we learned a valuable lesson on following the will and desire of the people of Flagstaff. Regarding flock, the people have spoken loud and clear at every single community meeting we have held.

The overwhelming majority have vocally stated that they do not want flock in Flagstaff. I hope that we can learn from the mistakes of two years ago to listen to the people who voted you into office. And regarding the chief, I greatly appreciate the chief's dedication to serve the city of Flagstaff and doing in his best efforts what he believes to be the right move for the people.

Chief, what I ask of you today is that you listen to the people, the people who are overwhelmingly telling you not to move forward with this project. The only people I have seen speaking in favor this evening, well almost the only people were police officers themselves. But the actual citizens of this town have been loud and clear. We do not want it. So chief and council members, please, please, please learn to represent the community and listen when they tell you what they want. Thank you.

Thank you, mayor. Our next commenter is Griffin Franklin. Griffin, you can go ahead and unmute and offer your comments now. Hello, my name is Griffin and I'm a resident of Flagstaff. Thanks for the opportunity to speak today. I see Flock and its ALPRs as a serious risk to our private and civil liberties. There's an important difference between phones and cameras and private properties in Flock and that is on some level we can choose our engagement with these data collectors.

Flock cameras do not provide citizens this discretion. These systems continuously record people's movements, often without a warrant, probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion. It's been made clear that our data and driving histories are rarely confined to the town or city where the cameras are installed. There is no guarantee that data from Flock will be kept secure because so far it has not been.

And these cameras are tracking everyone who enters the sphere of the ALPR, not only those labeled as criminals. Once the data is out of our community, we have no control over how it's used or what rules apply. This growing infrastructure has little regulation and won't stop with ALPRs as Flock rolls out new programs and partnerships. Supporting this kind of tracking infrastructure gives citizens no guarantees it will only be used against criminals.

Data from ALPRs has led to wrongful arrests, profiling, and stalking by police officers, and Flagstaff cannot tolerate this kind of misuse. There is no substantial evidence that ALPRs prevent crimes despite Flock's unethical framing of information used to sell its products. We don't need this here for a better future for Flagstaff.

The violence our police department is committed to preventing to keep from happening to our citizens needs to include the harm that comes from violations of privacy and false information that Flock has been incompetent at preventing. We have a fundamental disconnect in preventing harm if the people or companies who are supposed to keep you safe say you're safe and you say you're not.

The people of Flagstaff are saying they're not safe with the use of Flock because Flock is not accountable to us and there are no mechanisms in place to hold Flock accountable to us. That's all I have to say today. Thank you. Let's take the next online commenter. Great. This is our last online commenter. Mayor Emma, you can go ahead and unmute and offer your comments. Hello. Thank you for letting me speak.

My name is Emma Nestro and I would like to echo the concerns my fellow community members have shared about the dangers that flot cameras pose toward our immigrant communities in this current political landscape. These cameras only serve to harm marginalized communities. If a person's license plate is scanned by a block camera, law enforcement will pay them a visit. And understandably, many people, especially people of color and immigrants, do not feel safe interacting with law enforcement.

By keeping flock cameras and flag staff, our community members will know that our city refuses to prioritize the lives and safeties of the minorities minorities in our community and seeks to uphold security practices that have been proven to be ineffective and dangerous. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have Sarah Lee. Hello, Mayor Daget and council members. It's been a long time since I've I've spoken with you guys. I think the last time I talked at city hall was for the noise ordinance.

My name is Sarah and I'm the peer minister of the Lutheran and Episcopal campus ministry and I'm incredibly proud to say that. I stand before you today to say that I do not support the use of flock cameras in our town. I've had many interactions with Flagstaff Police Department in my lifetime, and I have a lot of respect for the officers who have kept me and my congregation safe.

Just because I do not support the use of flock cameras, that does not mean I lack support for the Flagstaff Police Department. However, I have read reports of the data being collected by these cameras being used by ICE agents to unrest to arrest undocumented immigrants. As a Christian, I think it is the right of anyone in an unsafe situation to seek asylum. The Bible itself in Proverbs 31:es 8-9 states. Speak out for those who cannot speak for the rights of all the destitute.

Speak out, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and the needy. If these cameras have the chance to put those most vulnerable at risk, the ones who cannot speak out and defend themselves, then I am strongly against them. It would be against all I stand for to say otherwise. Thank you. So, no more online, no more in person. Okay, Council Member Matthews. Thank you, Mayor Chief. I have a couple of questions for you.

Um so when I did um a tour yesterday just to understand the system um and how we use it here and stuff. Um and one thing that I was surprised to um be made aware of is that NA being a separate agency entity has been using Flock for years and regardless of if we move forward or not that does not impact the county Navajo or NA. Is that correct? Mayor, members of council, council member Matthews, that that's correct.

And so, um, and I just wanted to reconfirm because I I was trying to write down some repeated, uh, comments, um, when the data after 30 days, and that may change, maybe shortened, um, but at 30 days that data just it's just like a camera in a store or at home and stuff. just gets deleted or rewritten or mayor members of council council member mouths. Yes, that's correct. It's gone.

And yesterday when I saw the um example of Officer Hernandez's car after we drove through the cameras, um I was um a little confused on one of the commenters um making a comment that a flot camera could track uh rolling through a stop sign. And I'm I'm confused on how that could happen. Is that is that accurate that that could be tracked as a traffic violation? Mayor, members of council, council, member Matthews, that is inaccurate.

It it doesn't have that ability and I'm not aware of any red light running cameras we have in the city of Flagstaff at this time. And um I I also heard um several comments about um and and I guess it does the flock camera system can help reduce crime by deterrence if a criminal knows or somebody wanting to commit a crime knows that they're there. But really the focus that I understand from law enforcement is um more so in the solving of the crimes and the the speed.

You know, we've gone from no technology 20 years ago to now just, you know, years after years of technology to where we can solve crimes much quicker. Is that a correct assessment to um say that the flock cameras main priority is solving the crimes, not always necessarily preventing? Yeah. Mayor, members of council, council member Matthews, if I could also just elaborate on this a little bit more.

Um, I think there's two things that we need to understand uh in our craft of providing safety and strategically trying to impact crime. There's solving crime and preventing crime. And so you're right, um, this tool is is predominantly used to solve crime. And I hear a lot of discussions about crime reduction. Um, I have a passion for it. I probably live it too much in my mind at times. Um, so to be clear on that, yes, this is a tool to solve crime.

We're not accessing this data till a crime has occurred. I want to be very clear on that. The other conversation related to hey, is this tool reducing crime? Um, upon my arrival uh here, we had a 50% increase in part one violent crimes. That those are those violent crimes tracked by the FBI. As we sit here today, uh I've been here a little more than 12 months, we're at a 12% reduction from that 50% increase.

Now, I'm not going to sit here uh uh and say that it it's a result of this tool in in its monolithic use. Um there are many many contributing and none of us in this room should give one causation to crime reduction. There are many causations when we look at crime prevention through environmental design, working with social service providers to impact social determinants of health, behavioral health, addiction, alternatives to incarceration deflection programs.

Um there's many things that come together, but I will say since we've had this going as one of many pieces in our crime reduction plan, um we're sitting on a 12% reduction in violent crime today. And lastly, because I know it's getting late, um I in the last 12 months, how many um crimes has the flock technology cameras assisted in solving? Yeah, we took a dive into mayor, members of council, council member Matthews, we took a dive into that.

Um and when we looked you know as we are embarking upon a new records management system and I want to thank council for that for this current one is antiquated and not conducive to modern data demands of community and so but as we took a dive into that manually um we located 260 or 271 incidents where victims were serviced in the past 12 months uh utilizing the flock system.

So the the system does work when handled appropriately and and I understand I've heard it I've thought it myself you know there's uh risk always with u especially new technology um and I do appreciate the the levels of um controls that you've put on this um you know it's you know we have to recognize what's happened in the past um and then make changes and put guard rails up to prevent it from happening in the future.

Um, I know there's been some really heinous crimes that have been uh solved through, we can't speak of them right now, but solved through the flop cameras and um, one thing that I I feel that um is important is to remember the victims and victim's families and stuff. So, I appreciate your work on that. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member House. Thank you, mayor. Um, I just want to start by thanking everyone that's come out to speak with us tonight.

I think these are really important conversations that we're having and um, certainly not an easy conversation by any means. Um, we've heard from both sides of this topic in so many ways and so many important questions have been raised by many of you tonight.

Um many important questions have been raised over the time that we've been engaging in these conversations and um a lot of thought has been put into our police department's engagement and willingness to engage and participate in these conversations. Um are moving this petition forward to enable this conversation tonight and the conversations that will certainly continue beyond whatever conversation we have now.

Um, I want to start by saying that I agree with so many tonight who have said that this is not a a question of our trust in our local police department. Um, my faith in our team does not make this conversation any easier. Um, because I believe that our police department is coming at this from a place of wanting to serve our community. um wanting to provide for community safety and the needs of our community um and wanting to do the right thing and and meet the needs of our community.

What troubles me or what I find most challenging in this conversation is the fact that technology is advancing so fast and we are in a constant race to keep up. Um I don't want to be in a position where we are trying to align with technologies rather than ensuring that the technologies that we use align with us, our community, our values and our needs.

Um, I believe that those needs extend to all of our community, including our team here, the service providers that exist within our community and the Flagstaff Police Department. I want us to be [snorts] able to focus on our local needs, our local community, and our local safety. And I agree that the role that we fill is to guide local policies and protect and enhance the quality of life for our community. But we're also a community within a state, within a nation, within a broader conversation.

And I think that that larger broader narrative is much of what's guiding us tonight. Um I don't know the direction that that the rest of council will give tonight. Um my gut um my feeling is that we are in a a place and in a position where we can press pause to ensure that we are doing this in the best way if we continue with flock.

um that we are doing so in a way that hears the voices of our community, that continues to bring forward the concerns that we all share, and that makes sure that our system is set up in a way that is doing it right, that's protecting our community, that is um not becoming a surveillance state. um that is not facing the same risk that other communities have faced in using this sort of technology.

Um I am deeply impacted by the narratives of of people within our community who have experienced what can happen when this technology makes a mistake. Um and I think that that is the fairest way to to put it. Um, technology in itself is not flawless. It is not without the opportunities for mistakes to be made.

Um, a community member shared with me earlier today the story of a a person out of, I believe, Denver who um had the police respond to her home directly, accuse her of uh theft, say that they had her on camera, and that there was no use in her lying about it. She had to then use her own uh porch camera and the cameras around the places that she was visiting to prove that she was not the person that they were looking for.

And it created a deep sense of fear and victimization for her to have to weigh that line between I had to rely on the same technology to prove my innocence, but I also became victim of the same technology that made me a victim to begin with. That is why I say this is not an easy conversation. It's not a black and white issue. Um I have seen so many pieces of evidence on both sides.

Um, I also read about um the NAACP out of I believe Oakland, California that wrote a ringing endorsement of Flock because of the reduction in crime for a predominantly black and Hispanic community. Um, all of that is to say and and I want to wrap up quickly and get to the point.

Um, I believe that if we move forward with this, we have to do so in a way that we are not catching up to the potentials of what could go wrong, but we are setting as many standards in place that make sure that those are not the issues that our community faces. If we are willing to press pause, then I encourage us to do so.

If not, then I say we need to get as many of those measures in place before we move forward with our contract to ensure that our community is in the best position to make sure that if something goes wrong, we stop the system. Um, if it goes right and it continues to um, uh, reduce the cases of property theft, of um, victimization of members of our uh, unsheltered community.

Um, reduce kidnapping and human trafficking and all of the things that we want to see reduced across our community, then we're do doing so in a way that is truly protecting and serving our community and the greater good. Um, so that is my perspective and and direction, I guess, on all of this conversation. I know that there are more um uh questions that will be asked by the rest of council, but that's basically just where I'm at right now.

So, thank you again to the community that came out and shared all of your perspectives with us today. Vice Mayor, thank you. And I too want to echo the appreciation for everyone being here tonight, the emails, the conversations. Um, staff, chief, I've talked with you a few times on this and I have a couple of questions and and maybe a comment at the end. Um, I was able to see the flock system in person. Thank you again for showing it to me.

And I'm hearing the concern that it captures the person inside the car. When I saw it in person, I did not did not see that. Um, and I think I viewed three or four different photos. Can you talk a little bit more on that concern and um what the block camera actually does capture? Mayor, members of council, Vice Mayor, Suite, thank you and I do appreciate you taking the time to engage uh richly in the experience.

I have never seen in the hundreds and hundreds of still photos of the rear of a vehicle and a license plate uh any picture of a person or anybody in or occupying that car. Um, that's not my experience. And if you were to ask some of our most seasoned investigators, in the hundreds and hundreds of images they've looked at investigatively, I've never never seen seen a picture of a person in the car.

Um, and to clarify, that is that snapshot in that moment of time when it is in the pan view of of the camera where the license plate and the rear of the vehicle is is is taken in a photograph and that is it. Um and and and as we reiterate that if we sense that vehicle has been used in a crime, then that is when the officer is accessing motor vehicle information um based on um our reasonable suspicion that that vehicle has been used in a crime and only in that situation. Thank you for clarifying.

Um, another question. I believe it was Joseph that asked about the 50 municipalities that we share with, and I've had a hard time following from point A to point Z on this. So, can you talk a little bit about who we are in the partners with in the 50 and how does it work getting the information? Yeah, may mayor, members of council, and vice mayor, I I do appreciate that and and I think this is a really important part of the conversation. And so, let's just start with the journey.

So, if there's a crime in another municipality um and that officer um has entered his identification, he's put in the reason for why he's accessing the system and that he then sees that and we've done this with other cities for victims in in our community that the suspect is now in another community and he sees that we h we have had that plate captured that initiates uh the conversation um with the system and then with us as investigators.

So that as simple as I can paint that we have that relationship for them to be able to but I want to continue to remind people that people aren't just randomly getting into this system. Those checks and balances um that multi-factor authenticification and the verification and then our own audits are are constantly um assessing that. Um, I also want to be clear.

If there is an agency that I identify um that is um working in collaboration for immigrationon purposes, um we will shut that access down to them as this is our data. Um Flock does not have access to our data once that photo is is captured. Um there's no back entry. It's encrypted. Um and so if I hear of that, we have not experienced that. uh vice mayor as it relates to that. Um and I'm open for conversation. Um we have this in a chief's forum uh statewide and there is a cemetery.

Um I if there is an agency on that list that is identified um I want to have a conversation about its removal. Thank you. And I'm going to ask one more question and then I can follow up. Um, so as [clears throat] I sit here tonight, I'm thinking about, you know, the room was full and I I deeply appreciate that it was, but I also have to think about those that are not here, who's not in the room, what victims are not here, who's forgotten, who's left behind.

Um Chief you and I have talked a little bit about how how this can look in the future, and we you had brought up a possible six-month review period. Um, and I'm wondering from your perspective what that can do. Um, and I guess it's not that I want to punt this, but I think there's a lot of things that we're still working on like the trans the transparency portal, an overarching privacy policy, um, a citizen advisory team.

There's a lot of information that maybe we still need to get out in the correct way. Um, the facts. And I came in here tonight. I've met you several times and I still have questions. So, I think, you know, as we're working on all of that, I'm wondering from your perspective what that six-month review period would would do for us as a community, for you as our police chief.

Um, because I would only move forward if we could have this tackled and and seriously come back and and look at the success of this program. Mayor, council members, vice mayor, um I appreciate that and I I think um that sixmonth uh check-in and I would say that this is something we build into our process where there is a bianual or even a quarterly report to you all um as it relates to this moving forward. Um I do believe we're very close.

Um and so when we look at this process and this system um from systems of accountability to pre prevent intrusion uh that we don't want or or deception and then to utilize it um minuteby minute right now um for victims I think we have that security in place to continue to audit and have conversation and move forward. um these other conversations that have the entire city related to pri privacy policy, these other conversations about engaging in a in an advisory.

I think we can build all that rapidly between now and the six-month time while still with our current policy with the structure and the rules that have been put in place and the accountability with our audits uh and our policy and our procedure and the asurances that we're receiving related to city IT's perspective on system security that we can move this journey along.

Um, and the reason I say that, um, you know, as I looked back at some cold cases in this community that prior to these systems were not solved, um, I I want to be able to continue servicing victims of crime, providing support to these other entities in our community that are supporting these victims. Um, and I think we can do that simultaneously in a rapid manner while holding ourselves accountable to that six-month conversation. Thank you. That's all for now. Council member Spence.

Thank you, Mayor. Um, I have a question for Chief [clears throat] Connley. Um, I appreciate that you've spoken up in the public forum uh at Market of Dreams that if you were made aware of any um inadvertent or intentional sharing of our ALPR data with uh ICE or Homeland Security that you would shut the system down. I respect um that that is your uh stated intent, but my question is how quickly could you shut it down?

The contract that we have with Flock through the Tempee um uh agreement [clears throat] says 30 days that that uh either Asians, the the company or the city could um stop the contract with 30 days advanced notice. But can you really shut the system down like that if that is uh your determination? Mayor, members of council, council member Spencson, I'm glad you you touched on this. I think this is incredibly important.

I can look over to Colin right now as administrator and I can turn it off right now. Um and then uh that contract the system's off and not doing what it's intended to do. Um and then uh we have a monthto-month with Flock um where we could have a conversation about feeling deceived or something happened that wasn't part of our agreement. um and we would be done with the relationship.

The other thing I want to say too, um, when we look at the timeliness of this data and its investigative importance, no matter who you are, um, and I, and I've really tried to spend some time intellectually with this conversation about how this would be operationalized, um, successfully and rapidly from one of the federal administrations we have concerns about um, or or those um, and and I and I come to some conclusions that I could see that in a in a delayed manner on some things, but this in in what is already accessible to them to be completely honest, council member, um from data, this is probably the least valuable and time-sensitive for them uh to operate it.

And I and I and that might be why at times um flag staff and and a lot of the agencies uh in in the state have not had this issue. Um, but I want to be clear. I can turn this off right now. Um, if I believe there's been a misuse of it that rises to the level of us terminating and then the contract would expire, um, and they would take their cameras down. Thank you for that clarification. I respect your uh, knowledge and pledge to the public. Thank you. Thank you, Council.

Council member Matthews. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I think it was vice mayor that that said this. Um, and I forgot to highlight it too and I think it's worth repeating. All the cameras are set to take pictures of the back of a vehicle. So, um, there's none that are facing uh the oncoming traffic to even accidentally uh capture uh who's in the vehicle. Is that correct, Mayor? Uh, council members by and council member Matthews. That's correct.

Um, one thing that you said at your last presentation, um, and you know, also, um, just mirroring off what the vice mayor said about making sure that we, you know, highlighting or or considering the people that that maybe aren't being represented or uh being able to speak.

We've had a lot of emails lately [snorts] uh that are coming in uh now in support, but you made a comment the last time about people verbally telling you um in support, but they were fearful of retaliation from people who may disagree with their point of view. Is that correct, mayor, members of council, and council member Matthews?

I I have had a lot of conversation um with community members and there is um and and objectively as I look at this um there is uh a sentiment in portions of our community that are fearful about commenting on this um I'm not going to um opine onto their own personal reasons but that hasn't been voiced to me multiple times. Um, I think the other part of this conversation is tied to some of this, um, fear that we're all feeling in some of our most vulnerable communities.

And I, Council Member House, I do appreciate you mentioning the NAACP support. I've taken great pride over the years, whether it was Reverend Tilman or others, in working collaboratively. And my experience in my other city was that um my our communities, our immigrant communities and our most vulnerable communities um actually demanded this um through their council members in support of what was going on from a crime perspective.

So it was a a unique perspective and we see disproportionality um at times that's a not a direct result of race um or or bias. it's a direct result of of location of crime and victimization um and suspect. And so, but to your point, um that has been voiced to me by numerous community members.

And um lastly, the conversation I had with some of your officers yesterday when we were reviewing the technology, um I asked them about um to clarify the concerns that many people in our community have about this technology being used.

um you know with ICE and um my understanding from that conversation was um again it doesn't track who is in the car and if there was someone undocumented in the United States that would not be entered into the system unless they've committed a crime that then is being tracked. So, it really has nothing to do with citizenship.

It's if they have if they're being searched because a crime has been committed regardless if they are um a documented or a citizen or whatever, that's the only time it would come up um on a scan and flag. Is that correct, mayor, members of council, council member, me? That is correct.

And I think as you've heard from Flock and others that there is not that relationship and I am not aware of any instance um of a federal immigration agency entering something into into our system or having the ability to do that. Um, I think I also want to make sure is very clear and you know as we worked with keep Flag Staff together under the mayor's leadership to recraft our immigration policy that was more making it more thoughtful and I think intelligent on a lot of levels.

Um, uh, Colin and a lot of the members that have been here around me a lot longer. Um, you know there there hasn't been ICE immigration operations in this community. Um, there is SB 1070.

I think when you heard a certain community mention or somebody in ICE that was arrested for a crime and and then that notification happens through the sheriff's office and so I I think that needs to be considered as we have there's no staffing assigned up here there's no planned operations um and so it's it's part of the decision-making metrics for us as we um move forward together. I appreciate that and I also want to just thank everybody for showing up tonight.

Um you know we we welcome community comment. That's how we hear from our community both online, through emails, in person. So, I just want to thank everyone for showing up and sharing their thoughts and their concerns. Um, you know, a lot of them are, you know, um, legitimate. You know, we have hacking in major systems all the time. We hear about um, air traffic control or other major um, nationwide systems. I think those are something that we have to acknowledge is a risk that could happen.

Um, but does that my question to myself is is that enough to stop and take away a tool that's very effective in solving crimes for those fears of what if it got hacked? Um, what if some you know what if there was one site um cited event where something was abused? that can happen on any system whether it's technology or not and you know it's it's this is a tough decision because it's a very sensitive decision.

It's very helpful that we have been using this for over a year that NAU has had it for multiple years and we have not had an incident so we can look back on history instead of the what if on something very unknown. So um you know that helps hopefully all of us make a decision on weighing the risk to the benefits. So, and and al always, you know, thinking of the victims and um if something happened to one of my family members, I would want the fastest technology to solve that that crime for sure.

So, thank you, Council Member Garcia. Thank you, Madame Mayor. Um I want to thank the public again for coming into these rooms. way back in the day. Point. So, Is is my microphone not on? Oh, okay. Um, so I I wrote down 44 or 45 public comments from you from you all. So, you have been heard and a lot I pretty much came with a blank slate today mainly because I wanted to get the public's input, hear more from the chief and come at this uh freehanded. Now, my um so thank you for coming.

Thank you for the public engagement. If it was this way every week, this person would be a happy man because uh because you know if it if it's not for what y'all are are giving to us for to consider from different perspectives, we don't live on your block. We don't hang out on your street. You know, we don't know what's going on in your world.

But y'all coming down here helps me understand um some of the commonalities that we share and also some of the differences that we share and it enlightens and brightens u my commentary. So, thank the public first and foremost for this process because this is your process, but only when you can engage in it. And that's what we're doing here today. Now, I expect all of you to be here every Tuesday at 3 o'clock. Uh I'm I'm joking. Mayor, I wanted to ask if I could ask uh Brandon a question. Yes.

And I'm sorry, Greg. Thank you. I'm so sorry to interrupt the flow of the discussion. had one comment come in online saying that they lost audio. I was wondering if we can check from somebody online uh to see if the audio is okay before we proceed. Mic check. Mic check. I think we're getting that it's fine. Okay. Thank you again. I apologize. And yes, you absolutely can. Okay. Thank you, Madame Mayor. Uh, so I wanted to bring down the the person that brought this to us, Mr.

I'm going to get your name wrong. I'm going to call you Mr. Traxel. Okay, Mr. Traxel, I'm inviting you down here probably not to talk about what you want to talk about, but I'm inviting you down here to if you if you would please entertain the question and answer it, feel free to. I'm really not inviting you down here to compile more onto your three minutes that you had earlier or talk outside of my questions to be to be very frank. But if uh because you you don't want this to continue.

You want flock to be gone. That's correct. That's not what my questioning is about. But I trust in your wisdom to bring this forward um the change that you've affected in the community and the fact that you brought it into our our eyes. And so with respecting that wisdom, what three things would you um curtail the current system to make it better if we were to keep it? You can't answer that. You're welcome to sit back down.

If council decided not to do what I would ask, prefer, of course, um by far, um the data retention policy 30 days way too much needs to be as low as humanly possible. Um, I definitely appreciate Flagstaff PD removing ourselves voluntarily from the national LPR database and I think we could do so so so much more. As we know with the one-on-one data sharing agreements that we have with 50 agencies, um, they enter their information on a request and they instantly get the last scan.

And we know from my comment and if [snorts] you look online that the most common search reason is the word investigation. And I trust that Flagstaff FPD doesn't do that in their searches. I don't have a way to check currently. Um but again, these are other agencies without um commitment to our community. Um third, to answer your question, I would say ideally just having no way to have our information be retained for long periods of time.

Um, as I shared with multiple members of this council, I believe that what I like to call traditional LPR systems that delete everything that is not actively on a hot list, um, I believe that is the ideal situation um, in regards to citizen privacy. Does that answer your questions, Council Member Garcia?

Yes, and I appreciate you for deviating uh from what your will is here, and that is to eliminate the camera system, but I needed to dig a little bit deeper in that creative and bright and insightful mind that has spawned this conversation that is so impactful and important for our community. Thank you, Brian. Thank you. All right. Well, like I stated earlier, I did write down all those comments and I have questions that are are tied to them.

So, I apologize, but I'm not gonna Well, I guess I'm not apologizing because It's getting late, but like this is our job. This is what we do. So, if we have to take some time to do this, then we have to take some time to do this. And I hope everybody's okay with that. Um, but my first question is what constitutes a hit on a hot list or uh what is a hot list? How do you get to a hot list?

Chief, Mayor, members of council, Council Member Garcia, you know, I think we've we've gone over this a few times. I'll let Colin walk you through um when that officer responds to a crime, realizes that there has been a a suspect potential vehicle and then the process with which they get supervisor permission to enter what we believe is a suspect vehicle. If you want to walk them through that again, that would be great. And you can be brief.

I I was just curious because you mentioned it in the slides, but I didn't hear a context to it. And I also have a scenario. Yeah, thanks, Council Member Garcia. So, a hot list, as you see on the dashboard, there's 2,000 of those in the community every 30 days. And that could be say if if I was driving a vehicle that had a stolen plate, my vehicle was getting pictures taken of it. If I passed through 10 different cameras, that's actually going to be 10 of those images.

So, that's not 2,000 unique vehicles. That's just 10,000 photographs of hotless plates. So, uh, it could be a stolen vehicle, it could be a stolen plate, it could be a missing person, it could be a sexual offender, it could be someone involved in terrorism, or it could be a custom hot list like the example I gave. It could be, you know, a vehicle that I'm looking for that was involved in burglaries or involved in a collision and then I got supervisor approval and I put that in.

So, combined of all those things, there was 2,000 of those in 30 days that, you know, we're tasked to protect our community from. Council member, I think the easiest way to look at it is look look at it as it is a vehicle that we reasonably believe has been involved and is a crime vehicle is associated with a victimization and a crime.

And so it's put in this list that that creates a notification and and um so when we see that it's back in our community or heading towards another victim, we're able to to track it. And and I think I heard from the commentary tonight that like that was one of the main concerns was like, you know, the picture of this vehicle and if like an officer um can just like enter into the system investigation and kind of make up an investigation as they're going along because they think something's fishy.

Don't have to go into too much detail, but uh what you're saying is an officer isn't going to on the fly try to make up an investigation on somebody that they see that they're, you know what I mean, that they just they don't have any proof of anything of. Mayor, members of council, council member Garcia, that's correct. And I have no experience with that. that scenario. Thank you so much.

So, what we've heard a lot in the commentary today and um I'm certainly not going to mention names, but we heard that the tech can track your your route, you know, and in some cases they were concerned that it was going to be from like doorstep to to doorstep. Um my understanding of the technology is that it takes uh a picture of the back of your car in different places in the city.

So, I I I went and I took my routes throughout my life and I I noticed that, you know, where the camera would pick me up throughout the day and none of those are at any of my doorsteps. Um, do you do you can you speak to uh the the um intentionality of the placement of these these devices and how they or can they um you know track you beyond the point in time from the exact spot where the camera is focused on solely. Mayor, members of council, council member Garcia, you're correct.

It's only tracking that moment in time. Now, can it snapshot you at one camera and then further down a road? But we have no understanding of where you're going. We have no understanding of who's driving. We have no understanding if if you went somewhere else in between. It is simply that snapshot, council member. Um, and it it's only being extracted if we believe your vehicle or that vehicle uh was involved in a crime.

Thank you so much for for ask answering these questions so candidly and so succinctly. Um, I I would have been happy to give these to you prior to this, but we're I'm getting them from the public. So, we're we're we're here now. Um, so there was also questions about false positives. Have you experienced false positives? And maybe we could take this one step further in like what are how are we going to do this? But do you can you even imagine of how a false positive would come to us?

And the only reason I asked that is because we don't want to wait until it happens. Mayor, members of council, council member Garcia, I am not experienced in our 12 months of a false positive. Um, but I believe I have heard of of commentary um around the state where um there was a vehicle that the eight was perceived as a a B um but it was caught by the officer in the checks and balances of understanding um that when they ran the plate that didn't match the vehicle.

So there's still that human connection and when when we enter data into ACIC or NCIC currently we we we still have that human element and there can be typos.

Um, you know, there it's not uncommon at times for a vehicle that's been stolen in Los Angeles to end up coming down the 40 and somehow it's parked and our officer runs the plate and there are times those vehicles due to the humanness of data entry in big organizations, law enforcement that those those plates can get entered with with an error.

But I think the redundancy in the checks and balances um within how we run in motor vehicle department ACIC NCIC um has captured those but I don't have that experience here. Thank you so much chief. So this is coming off of a public comment as well. U lot of mention about you know ICE and you've already made the commitment not to be sharing any of this data with any um of federal agencies. Is that correct? That is correct.

So the question I guess is and maybe it's more of a con concept or something that I'm kind of thinking through as we're we're here and that is um like anybody who registered their vehicle, you know, short of it being stolen or a stolen plate is already in a database that you guys utilize, I'm assuming. Correct. Mayor, members of council, C. Yes, absolutely. So, so in my mind, I would think that if I mean I don't know how to say this, but the data is already there on everybody's license plates.

So, if anybody wanted to go to your house, I guess for whatever reason, I don't I don't know what I'm trying to ask here, but what I wish I could have somebody help me walk through this one. Council member if I can try to help you.

I think you know the conversation about how that data is is acquired you know repeatedly um um there has been case law related to the fourth amendment and the ex and the conversation about privacy of the outside of your vehicle on a public road with a governmentissued license plate that our our ability to look at that is not an invasion of your privacy.

Um, so when officers are are patrolling in your communities and things catch their attention, um, they have the legal ability to run your license plate. Um, and what comes back on that is a lot more information, um, than when we simply get a photo of a license plate and a back of a car with no other information on it. That's kind of the point I was trying to get at was it seems like we have a lot more data than what we're concerned about with the the photo of that data.

Um, so here goes to the other point that I was trying to make during the uh the Home Depot conversation with all the private flock cameras and other cameras that we have all over our community. So, this is one of my concerns on the pro uh side of things, and that is is that we have the county, not necessarily sure if they have flop cameras out in the county yet, but if they do, which I'm hearing they do, um then that then the next layer is NA.

We found out tonight they definitely have lot cameras right there. And then we have all so those people are governmental agencies and institutions that are following stringent guidelines because the public holding them accountable um much like we've been doing and plan to do even more if this passes. Um my concern is is all the private companies that were mentioned here tonight so many times by the public that who who knows uh you know who knows what they're doing with their information.

It's none of our business apparently because it's private and that's throughout the city. So it basically puts the hands of those who have the most potential to really abuse this into the private sector where we have no control and then the public is now asking us to take away our ability to use this to help um where we have lots of controls where we where you've stated you want to put controls in to make this happen.

Um and and they and we're being asked to eliminate the part that's helpful to us for um for the parts that we can't have no control over in the private sector and you know throughout the rest of the city which kind of makes us an island in the middle of all this uh which if we say no to this will eliminate flock in that area which means we could see when an offender comes in. I you who knows I'm not exactly sure how how that would be reported to you. Maybe it wouldn't at all.

Maybe the county would just know about it. Maybe NAU would just know about it and then you would just have to live with the fact that we don't know that that vehicle is in our system or in our area until, you know, something bad happens. Um that that's my concern with that. It's not a question.

It's just something that definitely has come through and I I really wanted the public to to think about that while we were talking because it's something that occurred to me this week while I was thinking about stuff. So, I think we're almost to the end here. Chief, thank you for bearing with me. And thank you, mayor, for entertaining me. Um, we have all night. Seriously, we will take as long as we need, so don't feel compelled to hurry. Thank you so much. Thank you, council.

Um so I don't know how candid you want to be about this and and I'm not asking you to be very candid about this. It's just a question. Um, how detrimental is would this would losing this be for the department? And like I said, you don't have to go into very much detail if you just want to tell me yes or no.

Mayor, council members, and council member Garcia, I don't like leveraging fear as a as a as a method of decision making, especially when we're trying to be logical and pragmatic on a whole host of levels. And I just I I try to we try to be data driven and intelligenceled and wrap that around systems of accountability. I call us to what I look at and what Colin and I all of us look at over the past year is those 271 victims and their family members, their social networks.

Um, when we look at the one-year-old that was kidnapped in Southern California that came through our system, as tragic as that initial incident, I don't have control over Southern California or what goes on in other places, but I was so proud and I felt proud for our police department and our city to be able to tell that agency, we got it. We got it. Um, and so I think that that's where I've been laying my head on the integrity of this.

I I think my cons concern and it was tied to Vice Mayor and and Council Member House. I think we have enough in place to hold me accountable and us accountable while we continue to build.

I don't like talking about building an airplane while you're flying it, but but I think we're there on some things and we have a couple way points that we can agree upon to continue because um you know, the city manager [clears throat] and I sat in a family member's house of a murdered victim when I first got here, first couple days of my arrival here. And so [clears throat] to be able to work with that family and be able to achieve that was empowerful for me on a lot of levels.

And I worry about not being able to do that. You know, we're going to work our hardest absent this if it's taken away to be able to do that. And that's my promise to you. But I've just seen the incredible power of this um in my 30 years. This is what been one of the most impactful technologies that I've witnessed. Thank you for that, Chief. Um so I don't know where this one's going to go, but let's go there.

We talk about the rear of the the the vehicle and and the the license plate that it picks up and a lot of people were worried about like bumper stickers and stuff like that. That's a that's a car. There's other vehicles out there. I'm an avid motorcycle rider and I'm an avid bicycle rider. Basically anything on wheels. I love to I love to be a part of that and use as recreation. That's my hobbies. Um, today I drove by a motorcyclist who uh who had a a Cookie Monster cover on his helmet.

It looked legal, you know, you could still see the shade and stuff. I could see this Cookie Monster guy cruising down the road and on the back it looked like he had a Cookie Monster emblem on the back and I was like, "Oh, wow. The Cookie Monster Club, you know." Um and and that's where I where all of a sudden it it deviated from just the back of a car to thinking about other motorized transportations and identification beyond the license plate.

So when I was thinking about this, I that's where I came up with the question like, can you guys on the fly like work work something out? Like if you saw one guy in the Cookie Monster Club and next thing you you saw saw two guys, you might think, well, what are these guys up to besides, you know, delivering cookies voluntarily to the homeless people or whatever they like to do in the Cookie Monster bike club?

and um you know and can you speak to um other forms of transportation and how um the the scene is utilized from that or is it still just down to the license plate and that's it. Um Mayor, members of council, council member Garcia, I'll have to educate myself on the Cookie Monster club. Um but I think I have seen him. I want to be very clear. Um we are when we are in these uniforms on behalf of all of you, we are agnostic in our political views, our religious views.

Um we have no and I and I will take drastic action if I ever learn or am around anybody in this state nationally. I'm having a conversation at the National Center for Civil and Human Rights in Atlanta next month on protecting and promoting civil and human rights in policing. And if we if we hear as chiefs nationally that that action um is being taken based on uh opinions of bumper stickers, symbols on the backs of cars, that is irrelevant on on that.

What could be relevant is if we go to a a v a victim crime scene and witnesses are saying it's a gray Malibu and it did have a certain type of bumper sticker and they articulate the ver. I don't care what it is, but then we're able to access the system and there is that same verbiage and that bumper sticker in addition to that plate. That's powerful. That's powerful evidence for us.

So what you're saying is if if you went to a for instance, you know, an event and you found out that the Cookie Monster came and ate all the cookies, then then it it would be relevant to, you know, if they explained him as, you know, the Cookie Monster bike helmet wearing guy to look at the ALRP and maybe see if the Cookie Monster committed a crime and we had reason to follow our procedures and the law and putting that Cookie Monster into the system and we saw it, then that would be valuable.

That actually makes sense. As weird as that was, thank you for entertaining that hypothetical. Um, I didn't know how else to to frame that question. So, I was hoping I hope that that wasn't too demeaning because I made it fun. I understand it. Now, I'll close with this. I know you guys are thanking God at this moment that I'm finally closing. Um, what council member House spoke to tracks with me. if we have to put a pause on this to make it better, that's I'm willing to do that at this moment.

Um, but I don't want that to get in the way of the fact that I would like to look deeper into the police manual because of some of the words um that qu that I have questions about like national security, how that how that relates to ICE enforcement and stuff like that. you know, as we evolve, I would love to look at the policy a little bit closer or maybe just have it explained to me in a way that I could understand it better.

Um, or possibly have [snorts] some input or some back and forth on that. um because I am I am content with the outcomes that the that have come from the from the product so far, but I just have all of those concerns um of things bigger and that we haven't caught up to.

Um, full disclosure, I reached out to some some folks uh not mentioning any names uh that that had issues with this in other states and I couldn't get a clear picture uh necessarily definitive, but my understanding was that there was some inconsistencies and understanding from the police department. Do I think that's happening here? No, I don't. But I also don't know if it's not. So, if we have to put push pause in order to get to that place, I'm willing to.

Um but uh if that's not the will of the council then I am um excited and enthusiastic that you guys have taken such a communityf facing approach to this and have susted out well all the questions that I've heard plus you've added some of your own to try to make this even a better a better policy um for the community and a better asset for the department and something that's going to help victims as we as we go Thank you, Chief. Council member Alen. Thank you, Madame Mayor.

Thank you, Council Member Garcia. Um, I don't have any questions. I just have a couple follow-up remarks uh regarding my original comments uh at the beginning of September. I'll go ahead and go through those now. I'd like to begin, as I uh always tried to do, by thanking the public for turning out. I think it's very important and valuable what you're doing. I hope you feel that your time is being used uh valuably and wisely tonight.

You are participating in our great American experiment of democracy and that is what is going to keep this engine alive and healthy and uh motivated through a lot of dark times. Um so a few weeks ago I I spoke at length about my concerns surrounding flock and the larger forces shaping our sense of safety and trust.

Uh these are a lot of concerns that I heard echoed tonight as well and I don't feel that I need to rehash every point tonight, but I do want to bring us back to the heart of my message. Um we can't rewrite state or federal law. When data is requested of us, we have to comply. That's not cynicism, it's reality. And it's the fundamental baseline of of where my concerns begin with uh the use of flock in our city. We've built a local police department that I genuinely trust.

They've internalized the values of respect and accountability that council has worked hard to uphold. And that hasn't changed and it's something we should all be proud of. What has changed and what continues to change is the world around us. The political and technological climate has grown more hostile to private and due process to privacy and due process than I've ever seen. We can't pretend those shifts don't affect us.

The deputy chief mentioned etiquette between agencies in response to one of Council Member Garcia's early questions, but I'm seeing examples of norms being twisted and ignored and broken all over our nation right now with very little push back or checks and balances. And so when we're told we don't have to share information if we don't want to, we have to ask how long will that remain true? And I don't have a good answer to that question.

And it's the it's the single hang-up that I have in all of this that is keeping my position the same as it was before. My recommendation against expanding this technology wasn't a vote against our police department. It was a vote for caution, for the imagination to see where these systems could lead if misused, and for the courage to say not right now. I will repeat one thing from my comments last month.

If minimally trained ICE recruits weren't running around the country in masks picking up brown people because they're brown, then I'd be in a very different place regarding this conversation. Policing only works when people feel protected, not watched. And under the broader landscape changes, we have a responsibility to protect our community's trust as fiercely as we protect its safety. My recommendation in early September that we cancel the flock contract has not changed.

Now, I do want to end though by noting that even if our contract which with Flock proceeds, how Flag Staff interacts with the system has undeniably been shaped by the public's influence. The engagement we're seeing is having an impact on the potential breadth and scope of how Flagstaff chooses to use this technology.

I see this as a positive and I hope the concerned community recognize how responsive our police department's culture is to community input no matter what becomes of this conversation. I'll leave it there. I will just say more emphatically that I'm in favor of cancing the contract and if we need to revisit that down the road, we can do it with a clean break that some of the public has talked about. I'm not interested in punting uh this conversation a second or third time. Thank you.

Thank you, mayor. Thank you. All right. I have a couple of questions. Um and one actually came up um because of your comments, council member, when can you can you walk us through again if you received a request? So, so Council Member Alen said we can't say no to state or federal requests and we have participating state law enforcement um offices that we would share um investigative information with.

But we our policy states we won't share anything with um the federal government and we've taken um ourselves out of the um national lookup. Thank you. So what do you say to that to we can't say no mayor members of council? Um I believe I can say no. Um, now I if there is some other avenue legally that that entity would want to try and spend the time and the money and the energy to access that, I can't speak to that. Um, but it is our data. I think that's been made very very clear.

um to access it, you have to have that law enforcement credential that that is is authenticated and then is uh put into the system and the reason and if that reason doesn't involve somebody who's been a a victim of crime, um my my answer is no.

Um and then I as I've told everybody um if for some reason I if there has been deception um within what I've been told what it is examined in the systems of accountability and security um then I then I look over at Colin and we turn it off and I tell flock come pick come get your cameras. Thank you. Um my next question is for it. I understand that CJ is back on and then we have Paul in the back.

Um, there was a comment that said, "We can't make promises about what Flock does with our data." And, um, I'm wondering if you have, um, if you can clarify for us how we how we control our data and and what prevents Flock from sharing our data. Uh, mayor, council, my apologies. I don't have my camera on. I kind of stepped away, but my internet is pretty poor right now. Um, ultimately, a lot of this comes down to their policies and then the third party validation of their policies.

Um, typical with cloud providers is they provide a platform for us to store our data on. then the the best practices are that they would encrypt that data and that they provide in uh controls which prevent their own staff from being able to access that data without our permission. That's fairly typical and best practices for for cloud providers. Um this is effectively what we've observed as their uh you know policy.

I've talked to their um security directors and this is how they manage that data. Um and then again their policies are being validated through audits and um compliance with uh you know sock 2, type two and all and all of those things. So is it theoretically possible that there is another avenue to get the data?

I I I can't speak to the the you know the theory behind that but I do know in relation to best practices with these types of cloud providers with sensitive data this is a common practice and they have through their policies and and um the validation have shown that they really can't access our data um it's our data and it's encrypted from them they would they would be required to go through us to get access to that data. Thank you.

And I know we've um we've all asked um a lot of questions of of you all and and you've taken those questions back to Flock as I understand it. So with that measure in place, how we've had several commenters um saying that flock has shared data without the lency knowing that. So how does that happen if they don't have access to our data? Thank you, mayor, for the question.

Um, in regards to that, I can't speak to every single instance and I um, from what I have seen in relation to some of the articles that state that it appeared as if that agency was actually sharing data. Um, so um, again, I I don't have specific context to every single instance and every single thing and and I apologize. I I did I was not here for um, some of the public comment. I was um out to dinner and it's my uh daughter's birthday today.

But um so I I can't give specific comments to specific um articles, but if an agency had lacks controls within their own agency and they were not checking on the logs, um it's possible that something was shared within those agencies and they just weren't keeping close tabs on it. Uh what I can say is, you know, the commitment from the police department is that we are doing that.

we are um keeping close tabs looking at the a you know the logs and ensuring that agencies are not accessing our data without us without our knowledge. Um so that's really all I can speak to because again I I don't have I don't know specifics to the specific instances. Thank you. I appreciate that. And um along those lines, I'm thinking that I heard you at one point say that um some entities had national sharing on and didn't realize it, didn't read the contract. Um is is that correct?

Mayor, I I don't believe I said that directly um from that perspective, but again, that kind of goes back to my previous comment where it does appear that some agencies weren't double-checking how closely their uh sharing agreements were. Um and as well as uh you know, Flock has implemented a lot more transparency features to really help uh agencies and the public understand who we're sharing with as well. Mayor, mayor, maybe I can help you a little bit if you don't mind if that's possible.

Um, you know, I think when we start speaking to what were the contractual obligations and I heard terms of conditions come, that's exactly it. I don't think we know exactly what those relationships are and I think we're having a lot of conversations. Um, is there any desire to maybe have talk straight to Flock? I mean, we're asking a lot of our IT people and me at times. I know Flock's here. I don't know if there's some questions that related to some of those that might want to be answered.

It's it's an option I should anybody choose here to some of these other contractual relationships or information that's out and about um related to that that might be of value. Um just wanted to propose that if that if if there's any appetite for that. Sure. Um, I would like to hear how how it is that we read that data was shared previously and how our current agreement with Flock prevents data sharing. Great. Uh, Hector Solan Valdez, director of municipal engagement.

Uh, thank you for the opportunity to answer the question. Um, as far as uh the the your IT department, they did a great job answering that question. Flock itself does not does not share any data with any of our customers. We don't have access to the data. We don't have the ability to share it on our own. Um, in those instances, um, as was noted, uh, customers share data sometimes, uh, uh, by mistake or, uh, erroneously.

But uh these system audit tools were what led both those agencies either to notice or the public. We encourage uh this type of uh public conversation. We've built in the safeguards for those uh specific reasons. Um but uh really I think it's important for the public to know that in our contract to you and to every city that we serve uh the data is owned by the customer. Flock does not monetize any data and Flock does not have the ability to share any data for any department. Thank you.

Thank you. I appreciate that. Um, we have a question and a comment from Council Member Matthews. Thank you, Mayor. Um, and and it's not directed at you. Actually, it's to back to the chief. Um, we've talked about, but thank you so much. I appreciate you being here.

Um, so I've heard from the deis, um, several council members have talked about, um, wanting, um, to work on, um, building more guard rails in and and more protocol, but I've heard from you and and going through the tour that um, you've done a lot of changes and stuff. So, what do you think um, more could be done? Um, is there anything else?

I mean, it looked pretty tight when I went to um you know, see how we pulled the data um and learn about the system and how you can build those in and turn things off. So, um and you've talked about you've shown us a screen that shows that the um outlook portal is is close to up and running already. Um, you've you've talked about having a checks and balance in three or six months with a uh community advisory council to um give some outside input.

Um, what else do you think, if anything, the police department could do to bring comfort to um, you know, some of the people that have questions? And yeah, mayor, members of council, council member Matthews, and I know numerous numerous of us have had this conversation. Um, let me let me start with um and I think you heard it from Brandon and some committee members, the national outlook gone.

Um, we then I think the second thing I heard from him was the conversation about um 30 days um in retention. You know, it spans anywhere from three days to three years across the country. Um, when we looked at our data, that 20-day window investigatively was a way point for us that I'm willing to have a conversation about. Um, as is taking it from 30 to 20 days.

Um, and then having an assessment at that six month of, hey, how many victims did did we not service because of it or is it doing what we think? I think that's a good first checkpoint.

Um the other things um there's still more room for growth and I know council member house and I have had this conversation about some of the metrics with which we want to see um in the transparency portal that are more public facing uh more of our audit granular audit information so people can really understand that and I think in this first phased approach of getting the trans transparency portal out a next phase is I want some more of those internal metrics um some more discussions about crime types and breakdowns um when and why data is accessed.

So I think there's work that can be done there. Um I think the establishment um in the two trains um that are the overall uh privacy policy for for the city and then this very specific conversation um you know having now working on our third police chief's advisory board and and hearing from committee I think we could get that in place very soon um to start having additional conversations. Um so I hope that answered your question. It did.

And then so my other question is, and it's been asked, I even asked it earlier, but it keeps coming up and just trying to balance um you know, I know that there's some stories out there of just heinous crimes that we can't talk about right now. And and so I and I bring that up because I I I want to make sure that we're not forgetting about the victims here.

Um and and being able to stop maybe repeat offenders on some of the most hideous crimes that have happened and that we are on a corridor from the 17 and the 40 and a lot of our community um are not aware of the criminality that comes through our city. You know, we look at our city and we say, "Well, we're pretty safe.

You know, we're a pretty good community, but we are a corridor for a lot of crime, um sex trafficking, child trafficking, human trafficking, drug trafficking, and stuff." Um, but the technology going back and just I just feel like it's important to restate reads a license plate and that license plate number pops up with a warning if someone has input um data that says this this is a hot list or this is a potential um vehicle used in a crime.

There's a lot of concern um within our community that fe fearing that ICE would use it for immigration, but we don't know who's in the car. And if someone is not um a legal citizen, um I mean it's reading the license plate doesn't pop up and say that's John Smith. So someone who committed a crime and is it a different car? It wouldn't pop up. The car is the only pops up.

So, I'm I'm lost in understanding how um immigration would use that particular technology to maybe come and apprehend somebody in our community that um they're looking for. Does that make sense? Council member, it does. So can you just restate like how the license plate I mean we have a lot of other technology that they could use and they you know they these government agencies can go and track people that they're looking for.

Um but am I correct in assuming that the license plate in a vehicle itself unless it's entered in because it's committed a crime is not going to help them track down somebody. Mayor, members of council, count council member, there has to be additional investigative measures whether those are done upstream uh in this uh knowledge that this vehicle has been involved in a crime or it's post incident. Um so there has to be that additional the simple photo.

It it doesn't come with MVD and personal information. It is just the picture of the plate uh and the and the back of the vehicle. there has to be additional investigative efforts by whoever's um accessing the plate. Thank you. I really appreciate all the time and all the community outreach that you've done, not just here tonight, but I was at the um town hall at Southw uh Sunnyside.

Um and um I think you guys have done a really good job of just being available to the community and answering questions. I wish more people would have attended those other meetings as well. and um some of our colleagues going through the tour because it really has helped uh connect those dots and fill those gaps that we had and just what we hear and then what we know to be correct and factual. So, thank you vice mayor. Thank you.

Um thank you again everyone for this conversation tonight and I just wanted to clarify um council member Alen said he didn't want to punch this and I don't either. I guess what I was asking is if we have a check-in while we work on these other tools that we're trying to put in our toolbox, is that sufficient for council to feel like we can move forward knowing that we have all the guardrails that have been talked about? We can undo this at any time.

The chief has done an amazing job on listening to the community and trying to tackle the concerns and I don't think we've given it 100% of the of the effort to see where we can land on this. Even if we do take this down, I believe these conversations really do need to keep happening. We need a privacy policy for our community. So, even if we vote no tonight and this doesn't move forward to Council Member Alen's comment, this isn't the end. This will be coming back. Um, technology is here.

We will be needing these policies in place. So, I just wanted to send that out there. All right. Um, so I'll admit that this has been challenging for me. I've read your emails and in my responses to your emails, I told you I've read all the emails, read the articles you've shared with us.

I've done my own research, met with many of you, met with our police chief, deputy chief, our chief information officer, and I'm I'm really trying to consider the issue from all perspectives and hope that time will show I made a good decision. The reason this issue is so difficult for me is that I trust our police chief, our deputy chiefs, and our chief information officers. And at the same time, I have concerns about Flock's conduct, and I'm wary of them in their past practices.

They've earned the public's suspicion. I believe that the data captured by cameras under the proper policies and practices can be valuable for law enforcement and in helping to prosecute dangerous criminals. Most of us have never been crime victims and I'm grateful for that. My family endured a tragedy and many times throughout this discussion I've thought about whether this type of technology would have helped bring some closure to our family faster.

I think it would have and I would have been grateful for that. But it's hard to separate this technology as a useful tool from the improper way it's been used elsewhere. I'm willing to continue this discussion and to allow staff some time to create a citizens task force. In order to do this, I'd like to see the task force assembled. And if CJ's listening, I um I hope this doesn't ruin his daughter's birthday. I would like to see it assembled within the next month.

I want to see our data retention time shortened to in this 14 days. And I want an update on our agenda in six months. I understand that even if we renew the contract, it includes a 30-day cancellation and if needed, you'll shut off the cameras immediately. If there's a Flock data breach or it's again discovered that Flock has misled a client, given a public apology, and promises the problems been fixed, I want to see our contract ended and the cameras turned off immediately.

I appreciate that we've already stopped the national sharing and recognized the limits that that places on law enforcement, but I think it's crucial to establishing some trust with opponents of this technology. I also appreciate that our police our policy states that we won't share data with federal agencies and I trust you and for transparency request that you develop a method to confirm this regularly.

I've always appreciated how much residents care about our community and how willing they are to speak out. I spent many years on that side of the podium giving public comment and um for some it can be a very nerve-wracking experience to get up and speak. For others it doesn't seem to to make you nervous at all. I always strive to make this a place where you can feel safe to say whatever is on your mind. And um I hope that we've done that tonight.

We should value the tension our different perspectives bring um and create because ultimately that's what community is about. And I too very much appreciate you all being here. So I am I'm in support of of um directing staff to put the renewal on an upcoming agenda. Um, but I want to see all of these things in place um, pretty immediately and I want us to keep talking about this and keep it in the public's eye and keep it keep it in front of us as well. Council member Alen. Uh, thank you, Mayor.

I really appreciate your comments and your thinking and your logic um and the thoughtful way you've put your your position together. Um I hate to sort of come in after you to say a couple more things, but I I know we still have to hear from a couple other people, too. So, I just wanted to add uh something really fast to reinforce my thinking to you all. Um I I just want to be very clear.

I'm not at all concerned with the way the system has been working and I'm very pleased with how our department has been reaching uh reacting to the community to strengthen safeguards. My concern is with how all of this could break down in an instant with an executive order, for example. Um and I have many ideas for how state and federal interests could bully us or compel us to suddenly be more cooperative than we want to be. I don't want to voice those out loud.

there's no reason to put ideas out there, but I've already been bullied um by the state numerous times during my seven years on council. Uh as as have many of us. I'm not just saying that to the exclusion of anyone else. It's a common experience uh being on council in Flagstaff that we get bullied by the state legislature.

[sighs] If I'm thinking of other ways that uh other levels of government could threaten us or maltreat us, then you can bet there's plenty of room for creative browbeating and intimidation out there. Uh and that's really where the the final line comes for me. It's not about the way things are working. It's not about the preparations that that our thoughtful people are giving to all these matters. It's about how this could suddenly break down in an instant uh without any forwarding.

Thank you, Vice Mayor. Just a quick comment on um your statement, mayor. I am supportive of the parameters you put up and especially with the 14 days. Um I forgot to put that in my statement, but I am in agreement with that. Um all right. So, we are Yes. to apologize, but I I I wanted to piggy back off of of vice mayor and say that I I also am in supportive of of of how detailed you had about the information going back to us if that's what happens.

Um, but I also wanted to add one more to that and that's it seems to be like there's some vagueness around the uh flock terms of agreement and I think that we would need somebody to be kind of an expert at that at the city level in order to keep up with how those changes happen or um or have a good enough relationship with flock to them for them to send all of those changes to us as they happen. Um just a just a point of of my expectations if this moves forward. Thank you. Thank you.

So, we're looking for direction to staff to either end the contract or move the contract forward to a future agenda presumably for approval um or some other direction that you would like to give. Mayor, I really appreciate um the uh structure that you communicated and the request. I feel comfortable with that and I will um support moving this forward to put on a a regular agenda item. All right. So, that is three. Um we just need to hear from Council Member Spence and and Council Member Garcia.

Thank you, Mayor. Um, I too favor putting it on a future agenda with careful attention to the wording of the contract. And uh, I look forward to um, the advisory council being u expedited as part of how we're going forward. Um, the community has my vote on this one. It'll be a no. Okay. Um, I just wanted to clarify. So, and maybe I should have put a Q instead of a C, but can the police or or deputy chief clarify what is the status of the contract right now?

My understanding is that it is cancelled or that it's uh not cancelled um that it's terminated and would be looking for um renewal or not terminated either expired sorry that it has expired and we were looking at amending prior to renewal. Is that the status? Yeah, thank you mayor council and council member house.

Yeah, I think count or you want I think expired would be uh the correct term and they they've been working with us as the community could hear get more input council could become more informed. So they've they've advised us that they're you know willing to keep the system on until a decision is made from council either to renew the amendment to the contract or if you guys vote to terminate the contract.

And if I could clarify um It's under the same terms and conditions that the contract originally was created with that they're continuing to leave the system on until a decision comes from the council.

So, with what you're proposing um or what has been put forward as the the council recommendation, am I correct in understanding that we would be continuing under the expired contract until we have these further conversations about the amendments that we want to see and the the policies that we want to put in place and some of those safeguardings. Those can happen simultaneously as we move to to have this on a future agenda.

But the cameras would continue operating um while we consider the contract at a future uh on a future agenda. And I mean, according to what I asked for from staff, we would see um the the safeguards that we've talked about, we'd encourage them to continue what they've already been doing and add some additional safeguards.

And if I can put just a finer point on that just from a logistics standpoint from the meeting we had previously on this where the citizen petition first came to you to determine whether you wanted to have this discussion and the renewal was on that agenda to now. We've continued under the same terms and conditions of the contract and that would continue again until it's brought back to you. So it's just the same terms and conditions of of the contract that were originally entered.

And do we have, excuse [clears throat] me, do we have the option to I guess my concern with that is is that we're looking to advance this with um the concerns that have been brought forth by the community, the safeguards and policies that we're looking to put in place. My concern is that until those happen, it's still operating under the the policies that have been a concern. So that's where my holdup is in in giving a thumbs up to the direction.

Um, like I said in my initial comment, I am I'm in favor of continuing the conversation and coming back to that point. I am just personally challenged with the idea of continuing under the current policies that are are part of the the I guess concern and chief um as I've understood from conversations whatever we want included um the 14 days um anything that we've asked asked for Flock doesn't have veto power over.

And so the the the contract is is the contract and and we need to to you know that's what we'll be approving. But all of these things that we've asked for tonight aren't don't run counter to the contract. Mayor, members of council, correct? And and and may I throw something out in this interim time between when we meet again? Um you know, I I think to continue to really focus and be centric with Flagstaff.

Um I'm willing to have a conversation that when we leave here today, we take that to 14 days and I stop state sharing just to build additional comfort as we build out and un and socialize more and have understanding about the realities of it. The one conversation is, you know, NAE was the first police department to bring this to this community and they've had it for two years and they've got the approval to move forward.

The campus is a and that population and their safety is incredibly important. Um, our relationship and our interwovenness with the sheriff's office and I think you heard the sheriff and our relationships that we pride ourselves on so much with the tribal nations. Um and so maybe that buys a little more comfort in this process to getting to some of the other metrics and getting the the committee together.

Um but I think that was some of the big things I heard and when when we've talked I've heard some of those wrangling of the of the conversation. So the national outlook's gone. uh we won't share. I would ask if it's okay to share with NAU um and work collaboratively with NAU and the sheriff as a lot of times we're so intimate daily. We can hold ourselves accountable to that. I know where they stand on some things.

Um so I just wanted to put that out to buy some more comfort as we continue to build out while still keeping for victims of crime and flag staff serviced solely Flag Staff. So just to you're saying not share beyond NAU and Cookanino and the tribal nations we can turn that that those other the state we can turn those other 50 off uh we can go to 14 days and then we can we can have these conversations uh with the transparency portal. We can have the conversations with with the committee.

we can identify some of those things that are most important to you all and community as we move forward. Those have been the big ticket items that I've heard in all my engagement and from you all. I would support that if that was our direction to move this forward. Council member Garcia, thank you for that.

Chief, I I would um I I would hope that you would be doing the the the turning off for a test in order to collect more data to understand how beneficial, you know, having that statewide thing would be and not just as a uh you know, or or or even a way to give us a glimpse of what limited access from the state is. you know, as a metric um by design. So you could say this is what how it was before, this is how it is now.

I would hope that that would be the main focus of having this halt um is just to experiment with the options that we have while we're kind of in this um simmering process to see what works best for our community. And I also want to thank you very much for coming up with that on the fly. That was awesome.

Mayor, members of council, council member Garcia, I think there's just as much to learn for all of us in turning these off and what we lose as there is in what we will gain with our comfortability with privacy and how we how we move forward. You know, I have tremendous concerns at times about the national share, especially when we see um the increase in political violence, no matter what party you're in, and that ability for it to move across state lines rapidly.

And so I think yes, the answer is yes. We will learn a lot from both sides of this. So, Council Member Garcia, does that alter um your position on this particular item? I am going to stick with the community that I've heard from the most and that is no. Okay. All right. So, you have direction. Oh, Council Member um Alen, thanks. I'll just be really clear. I uh I continue to be um my recommendation would be that we cancel the contract.

Although, I do want to add that I'm encouraged by the direction of the conversation that's being had and where the spirit of uh council is unanimously on this. And I um I uh reserve the right to be uh constructively engaged in the process as we move forward with the existence of flock in making it uh the most palatable version that we can get for our community. All right. Does staff feel comfortable that they have direction? All right. Moving on to open call to the public.

This is for any item that is not on tonight's agenda and I don't see any cards. Informationational items two from mayor, council, and city manager. Future agenda item requests. Uh council member Spence. [clears throat] as the council liaison to the um open space commission. I am pleased to report that the commission open space commission has um selected a name for the uh observatory Mesa natural preserve. So [clears throat] this has been a subject of of many uh hours of discussion.

Their um their guiding principle is to have um um continuity and uh comparability to our natural areas. and their selection of this new name um is something we all need to internalize. The Observatory Mesa Natural Preserve. Thank you, Council Member House. Nothing for me. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Nothing for me. Thank you, Council Member Alen. Council member Garcia, I'll be very brief.

I wanted to invite the public out to Market of Dreams tomorrow, October 29th, from 4 to 6:00 PM to engage with the de community development block grant process. It's a public meeting that's going to be speaking to um to how we get that funding and how that funding is used for um people in the community and maybe even could answer some specific questions to those community members who are currently unhoused. I'm sure that they could help you uh point you in the right direction.

And also at Cuts Barber Shop on um the next night, which is I guess the 30th, Thursday, there'll be a trunk or treat for the kiddos. Um I think it starts around 5:00.

Uh, Rev Up Unity local um nonprofit will be passing out pizza from Domino's Pizza and um the motorcycle community will be there in full force to deliver candy, dress up as your favorite characters and kind of step outside of the norms um to to interact with the your inner child and the person that you're not 364 days out of the year on that one day at Cuts Barber Shop this Thursday at five o'clock. Come on out for trunk or treat. Thank you. Council member Matthews. All right.

Um, NAH is holding two open houses. One is tomorrow on their campus. Uh, they have a um auditorium from noon to 1 and then on October 30th from 6:00 to 7. And there is also a community health fair on Friday at the Murdoch Center and that is from 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. And there will be vaccinations, um, screenings, blood pressure checks, youth dental screenings, health education, food and drinks, face painting, and whatnot at the Murdoch Community Center.

Our fix it clinic that the sustainability division does is on Saturday from 10 to 2 at the Mononttoya Center, and you need to make an appointment. So, if you have something that needs to be fixed, uh, make an appointment and go have it fixed for free. Don't throw it out. And, um, city manager, nothing from me. Thank you. It's the last time I'm going to say that and the last time I'll be responding to it. Thank you, Mayor. All right.

Um, oh, I here I was thinking that we're all done and then there's this whole other part at the end. Okay, so we're adjourned. Um, and then I'm calling to order the special meeting and um we don't need to do roll call again. And um council needs to confirm direction on 2.2. 2 and 2.3 and that's it. Oh yes, that's it. Just 2.2 and 2.3. Correct, mayor. And my suggestion is that the recommended action be prefaced with I move to or I make a motion to and then just read that.

That's the simplest way forward. Thank you, Council Member Spence. Thank you, mayor. I move to um direct and authorize the city attorney to proceed as discussed in executive session regarding Desert Mountain Energy litigation up to and including Actually, if I might, um we need to do 2.2 first. We're on 2.2. Um that's 2.3. If I Sorry for the interruption. No. Um that's okay. I I bypassed 2.2.

too because I did not think we were ready for um a motion, but I'll defer to somebody that understands better. Is there someone who would like to make a motion on 2.2? Uh my I think I might be where Council Spences or Council Member Spence is just because of the third bullet. Was that a continued conversation? So, should we exclude that from this? It is. It is, but we will need direction on the the first um two bullets under 2.2. My apologies for that. Thank you for that clarification.

Thank you very much. So, I uh mayor will move to direct and authorize the city attorney and/or designated city representatives to proceed as discussed in executive session regarding uh condemnation litigation updates and legal advice, discussion, and consultation regarding pending and potential litigation. I'll second. Any discussion? All those in favor? I. Any opposed? All right. 2.3. Council member Spence, thank you for the opportunity to try again.

Um, I move that we direct and authorize the city attorney to proceed as discussed in executive session regarding Desert Mountain Energy litigation up to and including potentially refiling or amending claims against Desert Mountain Energy and defend any related new counter claims. I'll second. Any discussion? All those in favor? I I. Any opposed? All right. Great job tonight, everyone. We're adjourned.

Watch on YouTube →