City Council Committee of the Whole · Monday, May 11, 2026 · City Council Digest

3. AGENDA ITEMS

Issaquah Climate Action Plan COM 0258

30 min · Stacy Vynne McKinstry, Sustainability Manager David Reedy, Sustainability Coordinator · packet pp.5–40

Topics: Climate

Previously discussed: Environmental Board · Apr 22, 2026

▶ Watch from 0:38 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

In 2020, the City of Issaquah, People for Climate Action, Issaquah Alps Trails Club, Friends of the Issaquah Salmon Hatchery, and Greater Issaquah Chamber of Commerce co-hosted the first Community Convening on Climate meeting – inviting the community to help shape Issaquah’s role in climate action. The two-part webinar series brought together a broad cross-section of community members, with representation from local non-profits and community groups, government and educational institutions, businesses, and residents. The recommendations from these convenings helped shape the 2021 Climate Action Plan.

Issaquah Police Department Congressional Community Appropriations Grant COM 0262

60 min · Dale Markey Crimp, Assistant to the City Administrator Ryan Smith, Crime Analyst & Mobile Forensic Examiner · packet pp.41–66

Topics: Public SafetyBudget

▶ Watch from 34:34 Open packet at p.41 ↗

Staff report:

Staff recommend City Council consider all information prior to voting on the approval of the awarded funds on June 15th, 2026.

5197 segments .txt ↗

0:03 ↗ Let's do that again. Welcome everyone.

0:06 ↗ I, Council President Tolams, call the

0:09 ↗ May 11th committee of the whole meeting

0:11 ↗ to order at 6:31 p.m. As a reminder, we

0:16 ↗ continue to have remote aspect to our

0:17 ↗ meetings. Both staff and members of the

0:20 ↗ public may be participating in tonight's

0:21 ↗ meeting remotely via WebEx. There are

0:24 ↗ multiple public comment opportunities at

0:27 ↗ tonight's meeting. There is a general

0:29 ↗ public comment opportunity at the

0:31 ↗ beginning of the meeting or you can make

0:33 ↗ comments after the presentations and

0:36 ↗ council question and answer periods on

0:38 ↗ each of tonight's agenda items.

0:40 ↗ Basically, at the point where we switch

0:42 ↗ from an inform informative um aspect to

0:46 ↗ the uh item into the deliberative

0:49 ↗ deliberative aspect. Uh members of the

0:52 ↗ public may address council at this time

0:54 ↗ in person or virtually. Those who signed

0:56 ↗ up in advance to make comments will be

0:58 ↗ called on first. If you're joining us

1:00 ↗ virtually and would like to make

1:01 ↗ comments, please raise your virtual

1:03 ↗ hand. That means if you're on the phone,

1:05 ↗ please press pound three. If you joined

1:07 ↗ by a computer or a smartphone, look for

1:09 ↗ a hand icon or send the host a chat

1:12 ↗ message. If you're in the room and did

1:14 ↗ not sign up, I will ask for other

1:16 ↗ speakers before closing this portion of

1:19 ↗ the meeting. You're invited to address

1:21 ↗ the council regarding matters that are

1:23 ↗ directly related to tonight to Isaac's

1:25 ↗ ISiqua's programs, projects, services,

1:28 ↗ or events. Comments related to political

1:30 ↗ campaigns are not permitted. Please

1:32 ↗ direct comments to the whole council and

1:34 ↗ not individuals. While this is not a

1:36 ↗ question and answer session, we will

1:38 ↗ contact you to follow up if needed. When

1:41 ↗ recognized, unmute your microphone for

1:43 ↗ virtual attendees or step up to the

1:45 ↗ lectern in person attendees and then

1:48 ↗ state your name, address, and

1:49 ↗ relationship to the spa city. Speak

1:51 ↗ clearly and pause frequently. And please

1:54 ↗ limit your comments to 5 minutes. If you

1:56 ↗ are attending virtually and do not

1:58 ↗ respond after your name or phone number

2:00 ↗ is called or if your connection is lost

2:02 ↗ unexpectedly, the meeting will need to

2:04 ↗ proceed. Personal attacks, obscene

2:06 ↗ language, derogatory remarks, and

2:08 ↗ disruptive behavior will not be

2:10 ↗ permitted. For any groups in attendance

2:12 ↗ that may be interested to speak on the

2:14 ↗ same topic, please consider designating

2:16 ↗ a spokesperson. If you want to show

2:18 ↗ support for someone's comments, please

2:20 ↗ raise your hand. Uh clerk, can you

2:23 ↗ identify the first person who has signed

2:24 ↗ up to speak?

2:26 ↗ >> Yes. Um, and I'll be asking you to uh

2:29 ↗ come up two at a time and have the next

2:31 ↗ person kind of wait until um it's their

2:33 ↗ turn to come up. As Council President

2:35 ↗ Mart said, there are multiple public

2:37 ↗ comment opportunities tonight. If you

2:39 ↗ would prefer to wait to make remarks

2:41 ↗ until after the staff presentation on

2:43 ↗ the item you're here for, just say pass

2:46 ↗ when I call your name and I'll switch

2:48 ↗ you over to that list. Okay. So, the

2:51 ↗ first two people we have signed signed

2:52 ↗ up tonight are first Sam Bertis and

2:55 ↗ second Melissa W.

3:04 ↗ >> Uh, press the button.

3:07 ↗ >> Hello.

3:09 ↗ >> Good. All right. Hi, city council. I'm

3:11 ↗ officer Sam Berdis with the Isqua

3:13 ↗ Police. I'm patrol officer here. Today I

3:15 ↗ want to talk about how automated license

3:17 ↗ plate readers or ALPRs can support

3:19 ↗ community caretaking in Washington state

3:21 ↗ when they're used responsibly with

3:23 ↗ proper safeguards. In Washington, police

3:25 ↗ departments also use these system to

3:27 ↗ help to help find missing, abducted, or

3:29 ↗ endangered people. One of the most

3:32 ↗ important ways ALPRs help communities is

3:34 ↗ through rapid response. Imagine a child

3:37 ↗ abduction alert or a silver alert for an

3:39 ↗ elderly person with dementia. Officers

3:41 ↗ can receive alerts when a vehicle

3:43 ↗ connected to that case passes an ALPR

3:46 ↗ camera, helping officers act quickly and

3:48 ↗ potentially save lives. These systems

3:50 ↗ can also reduce investigation time,

3:52 ↗ allowing officers and detectives to

3:54 ↗ spend more time focusing on the

3:55 ↗ investigation elsewhere instead of

3:57 ↗ manually searching for vehicles. In

3:59 ↗ Washington state, lawmakers and local

4:01 ↗ agencies are also recognizing that

4:02 ↗ community caretaking is not only about

4:04 ↗ safety, but it is also about trust.

4:06 ↗ Recent leg legislation including Senate

4:09 ↗ Bill 60002

4:11 ↗ establish statewide privacy protections

4:13 ↗ and operational rules for ALPR systems.

4:16 ↗ These rules limit how long data can be

4:18 ↗ stored, require audits and training, and

4:20 ↗ restrict unauthorized data sharing. This

4:22 ↗ balance rem uh this balance matters

4:25 ↗ because many Washington residents have

4:26 ↗ raised concerns about privacy and

4:28 ↗ surveillance. Community members want

4:30 ↗ tools to improve safety, but they also

4:32 ↗ want assurance that these tools will not

4:33 ↗ be misused. Discussions across

4:35 ↗ Washington have emphasized the

4:37 ↗ importance of transparency,

4:38 ↗ accountability, and protecting civil

4:40 ↗ liberties while still allowing law

4:42 ↗ enforcement to investigate serious

4:43 ↗ crimes. Community caretaking works best

4:46 ↗ when public safety agencies and

4:48 ↗ residents work together. Responsible

4:50 ↗ ALPR use can support that goal by

4:52 ↗ helping officers respond faster to

4:54 ↗ emergencies and protect vulnerable

4:56 ↗ people, all while operating under clear

4:58 ↗ rules that respect privacy and public

5:00 ↗ trust. In the end, technology itself is

5:02 ↗ neither good nor bad. What matters is

5:05 ↗ how we use it. Isqua has the opportunity

5:07 ↗ to show that safety and civil rights do

5:09 ↗ not have to compete with each other.

5:11 ↗ Thank you.

5:15 ↗ >> Melissa W.

5:19 ↗ >> Good evening.

5:21 ↗ Good evening. I'm Detective Oritzky with

5:22 ↗ the Isqua Police Department and thank

5:24 ↗ you for the opportunity to speak

5:26 ↗ tonight. Um, I wanted to take a few

5:28 ↗ minutes to share some perspective on

5:29 ↗ investigative technology, specifically

5:32 ↗ automated license plate readers or

5:34 ↗ ALPRs. Um, and explain the tools and how

5:36 ↗ these are actually used in real

5:38 ↗ investigative work. I also want to give

5:40 ↗ a real world example of the kind of

5:42 ↗ behind the scenes investigative work

5:44 ↗ that most people never see.

5:46 ↗ So, back in December of 2023, I was

5:48 ↗ assigned a burglary case um in a local

5:50 ↗ isan neighborhood. During that burglary,

5:52 ↗ the suspect stole the victim's vehicle

5:54 ↗ and was captured on the Ring camera

5:57 ↗ pointing a firearm towards the house.

5:59 ↗ Watching that video was very unsettling

6:02 ↗ um because it was obvious how easily the

6:04 ↗ situation could have escalated or turned

6:05 ↗ deadly if the homeowner had confronted

6:08 ↗ the suspect or simply walked outside at

6:10 ↗ the wrong moment. The suspect was

6:12 ↗ clearly armed, bold, and dangerous. The

6:15 ↗ stolen vehicle was then entered into the

6:17 ↗ National Stolen Vehicle Database. Um,

6:20 ↗ and during the investigation, I used

6:22 ↗ ALPR technology. That technology led to

6:25 ↗ two detections of the stolen vehicle

6:26 ↗ within Seattle. One of those detections

6:29 ↗ showed the vehicle entering a store

6:30 ↗ parking lot, and from there, I was able

6:32 ↗ to obtain surveillance footage, and

6:34 ↗ positively identified the suspect.

6:36 ↗ Without the uh access to ALPR

6:39 ↗ technology, I likely never would have

6:40 ↗ identified the vehicle at that location,

6:42 ↗ obtained the surveillance footage, or

6:44 ↗ identified the suspect. After roughly

6:46 ↗ two and a half months of investigation,

6:47 ↗ I submitted the case to the King County

6:49 ↗ Prosecutor's Office and the suspect was

6:51 ↗ ultimately taken into custody. Now, fast

6:54 ↗ forward to March of 2026, just two

6:56 ↗ months ago. Abolo or be on the lookout

7:00 ↗ um was disseminated to law enforcement

7:02 ↗ agencies regarding um that same suspect

7:05 ↗ who is now allegedly involved in a

7:07 ↗ homicide in Reton. As many of you know,

7:10 ↗ Isakiqua borders Reton um and State

7:13 ↗ Route 900 is a major corridor connecting

7:15 ↗ the two cities. At the time of the

7:16 ↗ homicide, both Reton and Isakiqua camera

7:19 ↗ systems were disabled due to the

7:20 ↗ changing laws and regulations. Uh the

7:23 ↗ suspect was believed to be driving a

7:25 ↗ very distinctive vehicle with a known

7:26 ↗ license plate. Um, and in the past,

7:28 ↗ investigators would immediately use ALPR

7:31 ↗ systems to identify possible vehicle

7:33 ↗ locations uh to safely apprehend the

7:37 ↗ suspect and quick as quickly as

7:39 ↗ possible. Instead, several concerns came

7:41 ↗ to my mind. First, we had no functioning

7:44 ↗ ALPR systems available to quickly

7:46 ↗ determine whether the suspect vehicle

7:47 ↗ had entered our area, delaying the

7:49 ↗ possibility of apprehension. Second,

7:52 ↗ because of the proximity between Renton

7:54 ↗ and Isiziqua, I was concerned for my

7:56 ↗ 2023 victim um could potentially be

7:59 ↗ targeted in retaliation. It's entirely

8:01 ↗ possible the suspect harbored resentment

8:03 ↗ towards the victim for cooperating in

8:05 ↗ the earlier case that led to his arrest.

8:08 ↗ Third, the suspect was known to be armed

8:10 ↗ and dangerous. Without advanced

8:12 ↗ information, an officer could

8:13 ↗ unknowingly encounter the vehicle during

8:15 ↗ a routine traffic stop with very little

8:18 ↗ warning about the risk level involved.

8:20 ↗ There are real public safety concerns.

8:22 ↗ If investigators had immediate access to

8:24 ↗ ALPR data, we may we may have been able

8:26 ↗ to determine within hours whether the

8:28 ↗ suspect had entered our city and

8:29 ↗ potentially accelerate the apprehension

8:31 ↗ process. Instead, the suspect remained

8:34 ↗ at large for more than a week. And a

8:36 ↗ week during that time, uh there was

8:38 ↗ continued and unnecessary risk to the

8:40 ↗ public. So cases like this highlight the

8:42 ↗ balance between law enforcement is

8:44 ↗ consistently trying to maintain

8:46 ↗ protecting civil liberties while still

8:48 ↗ having access to modern investigative

8:50 ↗ tools that that help keep communities

8:52 ↗ safe.

8:54 ↗ I also think it's important to

8:55 ↗ understand the amount of oversight and

8:56 ↗ accountability involved with these

8:58 ↗ systems. Many pe people assume officers

9:00 ↗ can simply search databases whenever

9:02 ↗ they want and that's absolutely not the

9:03 ↗ case. For example, ALPR data within our

9:06 ↗ system is retained for 21 days. Every

9:09 ↗ search I conduct must be tied to a

9:11 ↗ specific case number and a legitimate

9:13 ↗ criminal investigation. Every query is

9:15 ↗ logged under my individual credentials.

9:18 ↗ If I were to access information without

9:20 ↗ a lawful investigative purpose, I would

9:23 ↗ be held accountable for breaking those

9:24 ↗ rules. So, law enforcement officers

9:26 ↗ simply cannot search a database because

9:28 ↗ we're cops. There must be a documented

9:30 ↗ and lawful reason for every search

9:32 ↗ conducted.

9:34 ↗ I also think there's a great deal of

9:35 ↗ misinformation surrounding this

9:37 ↗ technology. I understand why there are

9:39 ↗ concerns and public health discussion is

9:41 ↗ important, but many assumptions and

9:43 ↗ information about how these systems work

9:45 ↗ or how law enforcement can access these

9:47 ↗ systems are inaccurate.

9:49 ↗ Ultimately, I believe technology can and

9:51 ↗ should be used responsibly with strong

9:53 ↗ safeguards to protect constitutional

9:55 ↗ rights while still allowing law

9:56 ↗ enforcement to effectively investigate

9:58 ↗ crimes and protect the public. Without

10:00 ↗ these tools, um, investigations would

10:02 ↗ become significantly more difficult. In

10:05 ↗ many cases, dangerous offenders would

10:06 ↗ remain unident un unidentified or at

10:08 ↗ large longer than they otherwise would.

10:10 ↗ It would be like stepping back in time

10:12 ↗ to detective work of the 80s, 90s or

10:14 ↗ 2000s. I hope this provides some

10:16 ↗ perspective on the realities

10:17 ↗ investigators face and how these tools

10:19 ↗ are actually used in practice. Thank

10:22 ↗ you.

10:24 ↗ Next, we have Alex Helms, followed by

10:26 ↗ Jan Cox.

10:35 ↗ Perfect. All right. My name is Alex

10:38 ↗ Helps and I'm the community resource

10:39 ↗ officer for the Isqua Police Department

10:41 ↗ and I've had the honor of serving Isiqua

10:43 ↗ for eight and a half years now. So, I

10:46 ↗ wanted to share two Isiqua specific

10:48 ↗ examples that show how ALPRs uh support

10:51 ↗ deescalation and leads to safer outcomes

10:53 ↗ for both officers and the community. In

10:56 ↗ the first case, an alert officer was

10:58 ↗ flagged to a stolen uh license plate on

11:01 ↗ a pickup.

11:02 ↗ >> Oh, no. Can you get a little closer to

11:05 ↗ your mic? There we go. Thank you.

11:06 ↗ >> There we go. Uh, which is often a sign

11:08 ↗ that the vehicle itself is stolen. Uh,

11:10 ↗ officers located the truck parked in a

11:12 ↗ commercial lot and safely contained the

11:15 ↗ scene before making contact. The

11:17 ↗ registered owner soon returned and fully

11:20 ↗ cooperated with officers. Officers

11:22 ↗ determined that the vehicle was lawfully

11:24 ↗ owned and the issue was limited to a

11:26 ↗ stolen rear plate that had likely been

11:28 ↗ placed on the truck without the owner's

11:30 ↗ knowledge. The plate was recovered as

11:33 ↗ evidence. Because officers had real-time

11:35 ↗ information from the alert, they

11:37 ↗ approached it with awareness instead of

11:39 ↗ uncertainty. That allowed officers to

11:41 ↗ quickly reassess the situation, lower

11:43 ↗ the intensity of the encounter, and

11:45 ↗ resolve it calmly with no arrest or use

11:49 ↗ of force. The second case involves a

11:52 ↗ vehicle flagged as stolen. When

11:53 ↗ contacted, the owner explained that the

11:55 ↗ license plates have been legally

11:57 ↗ transferred from a previous stolen and

11:59 ↗ recovered vehicle. Documentation

12:02 ↗ confirmed the plate was properly

12:03 ↗ registered. Further investigation showed

12:06 ↗ the original stolen vehicle record had

12:08 ↗ not been updated. Once that was

12:10 ↗ verified, no enforcement action was

12:13 ↗ taken. Again, the alert served as a

12:15 ↗ starting point, not as a conclusion.

12:18 ↗ Officers used it to guide communication

12:20 ↗ and verification rather than escalate.

12:23 ↗ The situation resolved efficiently and

12:26 ↗ respectfully without unnecessary

12:28 ↗ detention.

12:29 ↗ These examples highlight how ALPR

12:32 ↗ support deescalation by reducing

12:34 ↗ uncertainty and providing clear realtime

12:37 ↗ information. Another key benefit is that

12:40 ↗ ALPR helps officers locate vehicles

12:43 ↗ while they are parked and unoccupied

12:45 ↗ rather than identifying them during

12:47 ↗ traffic stops. Without it, flag plates

12:49 ↗ are often discovered in motion, which

12:52 ↗ quickly escalates and leads to

12:53 ↗ high-risisk stops or even pursuits. When

12:56 ↗ a vehicle is stationary, officers have

12:59 ↗ the time to observe, coordinate, and

13:01 ↗ plan a safer approach. That creates a

13:04 ↗ more controlled environment and in law

13:06 ↗ enforcement control equals safety. This

13:10 ↗ reduces the likelihood of pursuits which

13:12 ↗ are among the most dangerous situations

13:14 ↗ for everyone involved and limits the

13:16 ↗ need for high-risisk stops which can be

13:18 ↗ stressful for the individual.

13:23 ↗ When officers have accurate timely

13:26 ↗ information, they can better distinguish

13:29 ↗ between real threats and

13:30 ↗ misunderstandings.

13:32 ↗ that leads to more measured responses,

13:35 ↗ fewered unnecessary escalations, and

13:37 ↗ more cooperative outcomes. Together,

13:40 ↗ these cases show that ALPR is a decision

13:43 ↗ support and deescalation tool. It

13:46 ↗ doesn't replace officer judgment. It

13:48 ↗ strengthens it by reducing uncertainty

13:50 ↗ and supporting safer, more balanced

13:52 ↗ interactions for everyone involved.

13:54 ↗ Thank you.

14:02 ↗ Takes me a second, guys. Sorry.

14:06 ↗ Is this where I do I unmute there?

14:10 ↗ Sticks.

14:12 ↗ Good evening, city council.

14:15 ↗ My name is Jan Cox and I am lucky to

14:18 ↗ live in this vibrant community. Um, my

14:21 ↗ address is now Seamish, but when we

14:23 ↗ bought our house, it was Isiqua. And so,

14:26 ↗ Isiqua is still home in my heart. It's

14:28 ↗ where I do all of my business and my

14:30 ↗ living and I call it home. So I um this

14:35 ↗ is that's why I care so much about the

14:37 ↗ city and what happens here.

14:39 ↗ >> I'm here tonight because I care deeply

14:41 ↗ about the kind of city that we choose to

14:43 ↗ be.

14:44 ↗ I do understand the arguments being made

14:47 ↗ in favor of the flock cameras. I

14:50 ↗ understand the desire to address the

14:52 ↗ traffic issues and the public safety

14:54 ↗ concerns. I know it's important.

14:57 ↗ I believe we all want safe

14:59 ↗ neighborhoods, but that's not the issue

15:01 ↗ before us tonight.

15:04 ↗ The issue is trust.

15:06 ↗ These cameras do not simply monitor

15:09 ↗ traffic. They create a vast system of

15:12 ↗ surveillance that tracks where people

15:14 ↗ go, where we travel, who we visit, where

15:17 ↗ we live, where we seek our medical care,

15:21 ↗ where we get our groceries. And this

15:24 ↗ information becomes stored data. And

15:27 ↗ once that data exists, it can be

15:29 ↗ accessed and shared and sold and

15:33 ↗ subpoenenaed and abused.

15:36 ↗ This is not speculation. It's happening

15:38 ↗ all over the country.

15:41 ↗ Many residents are especially alarmed

15:43 ↗ because license plate data has been used

15:45 ↗ by ICE and other agencies to locate and

15:48 ↗ detain immigrants. Many and or most of

15:52 ↗ whom are hardworking people with

15:54 ↗ families here and jobs, children's and

15:57 ↗ school, deep roots in our community.

15:59 ↗ There are neighbors and our friends and

16:01 ↗ we care about them. Regardless of

16:04 ↗ anyone's political beliefs about

16:06 ↗ immigration policy, we should all be

16:08 ↗ concerned when ordinary people begin

16:10 ↗ living in fear that simply driving to

16:13 ↗ work or to church or to a grocery store

16:16 ↗ or dropping our children off at school

16:19 ↗ or workers filling up their tanks at the

16:22 ↗ gas station and being abducted. or

16:25 ↗ Latina moms walking their children who

16:27 ↗ are afraid to walk their children to

16:29 ↗ school can be placed on a government

16:31 ↗ tracking system where it can they can be

16:33 ↗ easily found by ICE.

16:36 ↗ I have lived as you can tell a very long

16:39 ↗ life and I have lived and breathed and

16:41 ↗ truly understand the real value of our

16:44 ↗ immigrant communities. I grew up in the

16:47 ↗ Selenus Valley in California which is

16:50 ↗ called the salad bowl of the of the

16:52 ↗ world. We supplied produce everywhere. I

16:56 ↗ was raised around immigrants and these

16:58 ↗ were the laborers who worked our

16:59 ↗ surrounding fields.

17:02 ↗ Oops sorry.

17:05 ↗ They did extremely hard, backbreaking

17:08 ↗ work that our citizens would not do.

17:10 ↗ They took jobs our people didn't want.

17:13 ↗ They were grateful for the opportunity

17:15 ↗ for this work. These immigrants were

17:17 ↗ good, honest people who h whose hard

17:20 ↗ labor provided the benefits that

17:22 ↗ sustained our country. I went to school

17:25 ↗ with their children. They were our

17:27 ↗ neighbors and our friends whose children

17:30 ↗ went on to become productive citizens

17:31 ↗ and lead which rich full lives in our

17:34 ↗ country. These immigrants were the

17:37 ↗ backbone of our economy then and they

17:40 ↗ still are. And we couldn't survive

17:42 ↗ without them. We couldn't run this

17:44 ↗ country but benefits of the jobs that

17:46 ↗ they fill all across the nation in so

17:49 ↗ many industies industries and their

17:52 ↗ value cannot be underestimated.

17:55 ↗ It's the reason I care so much about the

17:57 ↗ injustice and the cruelty that is

17:58 ↗ happening to them and it just hurts my

18:00 ↗ heart. This is the kind of surveillance

18:03 ↗ and it's just another tool would be aid

18:05 ↗ in their aiding to their oppression.

18:09 ↗ A healthy city depends on trust between

18:11 ↗ residents and local government and

18:14 ↗ surveillance erodess that trust.

18:17 ↗ But I also want to speak to directly to

18:20 ↗ the economic concerns as well because I

18:22 ↗ know that matters and because I know

18:24 ↗ this city cares deeply about its

18:26 ↗ reputation and its business growth. Many

18:30 ↗ people of conscience are now paying

18:32 ↗ attention to which communities are

18:34 ↗ embracing surveillance systems that may

18:36 ↗ aid in the aggressive immigration

18:38 ↗ enforcement. And more and more people in

18:40 ↗ our communities are making decisions

18:42 ↗ about where they shop and where they

18:44 ↗ dine and where they have their

18:45 ↗ businesses, where they hold their

18:47 ↗ events, and where they spend their

18:48 ↗ money. The people don't want to spend

18:51 ↗ money in places where their neighbors

18:52 ↗ are being tracked and targeted. The

18:55 ↗ city's reputation matters.

18:58 ↗ We do want do we want to become known as

19:01 ↗ a welcoming forward-thinking community

19:03 ↗ that values civil liberties and dignity

19:06 ↗ or do we want to become a city that

19:09 ↗ helped normal no help normalized mass

19:13 ↗ surveillance because it was convenient

19:16 ↗ as we know history tends to judge

19:19 ↗ harshly

19:21 ↗ is at my time I'm sorry can I can I just

19:24 ↗ finish that sentence it tends to judge

19:26 ↗ harshly the moments people surrendered

19:28 ↗ freedoms little by little in exchange

19:30 ↗ for promises of security. Tonight you

19:33 ↗ have a u an opportunity to show courage.

19:35 ↗ I encourage you to please choose

19:38 ↗ community trust over fear. Thank you for

19:41 ↗ listening.

19:42 ↗ >> Thank you.

19:45 ↗ >> Noting a number of hands went up on

19:46 ↗ that.

19:48 ↗ >> Next we have Marggo Horn followed by

19:50 ↗ Sarah Ryder.

19:55 ↗ Hello, my name is Margot Horn and I'm a

19:58 ↗ new transplant from Chicago and a proud

20:01 ↗ resident of this beautiful town of

20:03 ↗ Isiqua. I'm here to uh categorically

20:06 ↗ state that I am opposed to uh ALPRs and

20:09 ↗ specifically flock cameras. I feel it's

20:12 ↗ a real violation of my right to privacy

20:15 ↗ both in the constitution.

20:17 ↗ uh and it it's just just completely uh a

20:22 ↗ concern to me and I really want to say

20:25 ↗ how opposed to it I am. I I have no

20:28 ↗ trust in the data, the security of the

20:30 ↗ data with flock and uses of it. I am

20:33 ↗ supportive of law enforcement, but I

20:35 ↗ think that the flock is an is a real

20:37 ↗ additional concern and it has no place

20:41 ↗ in our our town at all. In fact, I would

20:44 ↗ like to recommend or propose a an

20:48 ↗ ordinance banning flock cameras

20:50 ↗ specifically from Isiqua and our

20:53 ↗ borders. I would really like to see that

20:55 ↗ from this council, an ordinance banning

20:58 ↗ the flock cameras. And I don't think

21:00 ↗ it's good for business either. Um I have

21:04 ↗ an example. Well, I recently had an

21:06 ↗ evening out with with friends, a group

21:09 ↗ of friends, none of whom live in Isiqua,

21:10 ↗ and we had dinner on Front Street and we

21:12 ↗ saw Greece at the Village Theater. It

21:15 ↗ was a lovely evening, but all of those

21:17 ↗ people, every single one of them had

21:19 ↗ indicated that they are not going to be

21:22 ↗ coming to Isiqua anymore if these flock

21:25 ↗ cameras are in place. You know, it's

21:27 ↗ just impinges on their privacy, too. And

21:29 ↗ they can take their entertainment

21:31 ↗ dollars and their shopping dollars

21:33 ↗ elsewhere. And I think we have to really

21:35 ↗ be cognizant of that because we have

21:37 ↗ such a lovely community that people like

21:39 ↗ to come to and it is not good for

21:40 ↗ business. So that's really all I want to

21:44 ↗ say to say about this, but I really

21:46 ↗ really uh urge you to consider very

21:49 ↗ strongly um not bringing uh ALPR

21:53 ↗ specifically flock cameras to our

21:56 ↗ community. And I also would like to see

21:59 ↗ an ordinance passed by this council

22:02 ↗ banning flock cameras from our city

22:06 ↗ borders. Thank you very much.

22:09 ↗ >> Number of hands went up on that one as

22:11 ↗ well.

22:12 ↗ >> Hi, I'm Sarah Ryder. I live in the Talis

22:14 ↗ community in Isiqua and um just like

22:17 ↗ Margot was saying, I would like to ask

22:20 ↗ the city council to put an ordinance

22:22 ↗ against ALPRs that specifically host and

22:26 ↗ our data is collected on the cloud. Um

22:30 ↗ I'm all for ALPRs. I do work

22:33 ↗ professional security and I'm all for

22:35 ↗ ALPRs when they're in-housed and they

22:38 ↗ are a closed loop system and I'm all for

22:40 ↗ that. However, I'm not okay with a

22:42 ↗ cloud-based system, especially from a

22:45 ↗ private tech company who wants to

22:47 ↗ install them on public streets. So, I

22:49 ↗ would ask the council respectfully to

22:51 ↗ pass an ordinance against any ALPRs that

22:54 ↗ host their data on cloud-based service.

22:57 ↗ Thank you.

22:59 ↗ >> A lot of hands went up on that one, too.

23:03 ↗ >> Next, we have uh Nico Rondelli, followed

23:06 ↗ by Jen Hegodorn.

23:15 ↗ Um before I begin, I would like to thank

23:17 ↗ council for allowing me the opportunity

23:20 ↗ to give public comment today. So my name

23:23 ↗ is Nika Randinelli. I am a student at

23:26 ↗ Gibson High School in the Isiqua School

23:29 ↗ District as well as an intern for

23:31 ↗ Council Member Walsh.

23:34 ↗ We've already seen so many people in our

23:38 ↗ community come out against flock cameras

23:42 ↗ and I really don't see how any of it can

23:45 ↗ be interpreted as a better move for

23:47 ↗ Isiqua.

23:49 ↗ Surveillance does not keep people safe.

23:54 ↗ Flock uses sneaky tactics in their

23:56 ↗ marketing and messaging to claim that

23:59 ↗ they don't collaborate with agencies

24:01 ↗ like ICE, but their technology has

24:05 ↗ already been used in thousands of

24:08 ↗ lookups for ICE, as well as nationwide

24:12 ↗ searches for people crossing state

24:14 ↗ borders to receive reproductive

24:16 ↗ healthcare.

24:18 ↗ Your constituents have made their voices

24:20 ↗ heard. We do not want flock in Isiqua.

24:25 ↗ As leaders, it is your responsibility to

24:29 ↗ listen to the people. Thank you.

24:33 ↗ >> Number of hands went up on that as well.

24:38 ↗ >> Yes, Jen Hegodorn.

24:40 ↗ >> Thank you. My name is Jen Hegedorn. I

24:42 ↗ live up the hill on West Sunset and I'm

24:45 ↗ also the pastor at Spirit of Peace

24:46 ↗ United Church of Christ here in Isiqua.

24:49 ↗ I want to thank you all for responding

24:52 ↗ to the strong community concern about

24:54 ↗ flock cameras that were originally in

24:56 ↗ the grant that you all will be talking

24:58 ↗ about later. However, I am disheartened

25:01 ↗ to hear that ALPR cameras are not only

25:03 ↗ still being considered, but that Mayor

25:06 ↗ Mullet made a presentation about their

25:08 ↗ necessity just last week at Timber Ridge

25:11 ↗ to some of my congregants.

25:13 ↗ My faith compels me to stand with those

25:15 ↗ who are most vulnerable and I am deeply

25:17 ↗ concerned about how ALPRs

25:20 ↗ open our most vulnerable community

25:22 ↗ members to higher levels of

25:24 ↗ surveillance. The UDub Center for Human

25:26 ↗ Rights published a study last August

25:28 ↗ called Leaving the Door Wide Open where

25:31 ↗ they detailed the front doors and the

25:33 ↗ back doors that give DHS access to data

25:37 ↗ often without local police department

25:39 ↗ knowledge. And I see Phil Nef on the

25:42 ↗ screen, so I won't say more about that.

25:43 ↗ Y'all can hear it from the expert

25:45 ↗ himself.

25:46 ↗ My concern is that installing ALPR

25:49 ↗ cameras, whether we intend it or not, is

25:53 ↗ like sending an invitation to ICE,

25:55 ↗ unlocking the door, and then entrusting

25:58 ↗ the key to a private company. A company

26:01 ↗ that has already shown it will use that

26:04 ↗ access however it sees fit. systems

26:08 ↗ outlive our original intentions. Human

26:12 ↗ rights must always be the priority.

26:15 ↗ In the news last week, White House

26:17 ↗ borders our Tom H. Homeman described his

26:20 ↗ plan to increase deportations by quote

26:22 ↗ flooding the zone. He promised that

26:25 ↗ people would see more ICE arrests than

26:28 ↗ ever before and that when that happens,

26:31 ↗ people he called collaterals,

26:35 ↗ so those who were not the target, again,

26:37 ↗ so much dehumanizing language, would

26:40 ↗ also be arrested. I think there's a

26:43 ↗ sense among those of us who have

26:45 ↗ citizenship status, who are white, who

26:48 ↗ are not the targets or connected to

26:50 ↗ targeted communities, that things are

26:52 ↗ better right now.

26:54 ↗ They are not. Every day, people in east

26:57 ↗ side cities are being detained. I hope

26:59 ↗ that you all as leaders are hearing

27:01 ↗ these stories. Fear remains the daily

27:04 ↗ reality of thousands of our neighbors.

27:07 ↗ It shapes every decision, every

27:08 ↗ interaction, every moment. And we can't

27:11 ↗ let our guard down at this moment. And

27:15 ↗ in our current world, ALPR cameras serve

27:19 ↗ to do the exact opposite. They gamble

27:22 ↗ with protections of the most vulnerable.

27:24 ↗ They ask us to trust the asurances of a

27:27 ↗ private company and a federal government

27:30 ↗ that do not care about the community we

27:32 ↗ call home. True public safety cannot

27:35 ↗ come at the cost of lives of the lives

27:38 ↗ and well-being of our immigrant

27:40 ↗ neighbors. I urge you to support the

27:42 ↗ ordinance that would put a ban on ALPR

27:45 ↗ cameras, serious restrictions that don't

27:48 ↗ leave our data to chance. Thank you so

27:50 ↗ much.

27:52 ↗ Number of hands went up on that as well.

27:55 ↗ >> Next we have Nicholas Herang followed by

27:57 ↗ Eleanor Surumgard.

28:04 ↗ Hello city council and mayor. Uh I'm a

28:07 ↗ lifetime Isakqua resident and uh

28:10 ↗ currently live in Oldtown just a couple

28:12 ↗ blocks away. I walked here um and I am

28:16 ↗ deeply in love with this city. Because

28:18 ↗ of this, I'm also deeply opposed to

28:20 ↗ Isakiqua implementing flot cameras or

28:22 ↗ any kind of ALPRs that have a

28:24 ↗ centralized data system that is not

28:27 ↗ fully under Isiqua's control. As you've

28:30 ↗ heard from many people, flot cameras

28:32 ↗ pose a risk to the security and privacy

28:34 ↗ of residents and visitors in Isiqua. And

28:37 ↗ this is not evenly distributed.

28:40 ↗ The risk is taken on by people of color,

28:42 ↗ immigrants, low-income individuals, LGBT

28:46 ↗ community members, and those seeking

28:47 ↗ reproductive care. There are many, many

28:51 ↗ documented cases of ICE using flot

28:53 ↗ cameras to track and target people and

28:56 ↗ other places where it has been marked,

28:59 ↗ walled off, and that has not stopped uh

29:03 ↗ access by the federal government or

29:05 ↗ other agencies. Um, so again, I'm firmly

29:08 ↗ opposed to flot cameras being

29:09 ↗ implemented in Isiqua and I would fully

29:11 ↗ support an initiative to uh block this

29:15 ↗ sort of thing in the city. Thank you.

29:20 ↗ >> Any hands went up for that one?

29:29 ↗ >> Hi, city council. Thank you for the

29:31 ↗ opportunities to speak. I've been a

29:33 ↗ resident of Isiqua for 14 years and I

29:37 ↗ have uh been a voter since I turned 18

29:40 ↗ and I am also against the implementation

29:42 ↗ of ALPR and flock cameras. I um echo the

29:47 ↗ sentiment of many of our uh residents so

29:50 ↗ far um saying that the uh surveillance

29:54 ↗ is not uh perfect and would not uh

29:58 ↗ provide safety if gone through flock. I

30:02 ↗ am opposed to um this because uh it has

30:07 ↗ been shown that while um local law

30:09 ↗ enforcement might be held accountable,

30:12 ↗ the federal um law enforcement will find

30:14 ↗ a way to use this data against our um

30:18 ↗ community. And I want Isiqua to be a

30:21 ↗ welcoming community like it's been all

30:24 ↗ the time I've lived here. And I don't

30:26 ↗ think that this would encourage that.

30:28 ↗ Thank you.

30:31 ↗ So that a number of people supported

30:34 ↗ that statement as well. Um I I want to

30:36 ↗ take a moment every so often and when we

30:38 ↗ have large uh uh public comment

30:40 ↗ sections, I like to just sort of

30:42 ↗ summarize what we've heard so far just

30:44 ↗ so the kind of we know where we're at.

30:45 ↗ So we heard initially about uh ALPRs as

30:49 ↗ a public safety tool and IPD policies

30:52 ↗ and um Senate Bill 60002.

30:56 ↗ We heard concerns about ALPR data use uh

30:59 ↗ by federal agencies including ICE. We

31:02 ↗ heard about uh privacy concerns. Uh we

31:05 ↗ heard suggestions to ban flock cameras.

31:08 ↗ We heard a slightly different suggestion

31:09 ↗ to ban cloud data ALPRs. Uh we heard

31:13 ↗ concerns about flock corporate policies

31:15 ↗ and we heard about concern for

31:17 ↗ vulnerable community members. Just

31:19 ↗ wanted to sort of see where we were thus

31:22 ↗ far.

31:23 ↗ >> Thank you.

31:25 ↗ Next we have John Zl followed by Anne

31:27 ↗ Fletcher.

31:36 ↗ Thank you, city council. Uh my name is

31:38 ↗ John Zmel. I'm an Isiqua resident. Uh

31:41 ↗ [clears throat] would like to share my

31:43 ↗ perspective on flock as a data uh

31:47 ↗ technology professional who's worked on

31:49 ↗ remote sensing systems similar to this

31:52 ↗ one in the past. Uh, I'll get right to

31:54 ↗ the point. Um, due to the design of

31:56 ↗ flock system,

31:59 ↗ any data gathered in Isiqua would be out

32:02 ↗ of the control of Isiqua's officials.

32:05 ↗ It's impossible to make any meaningful

32:07 ↗ guarantee

32:08 ↗ on what might happen to Isiqua data once

32:11 ↗ it's collected by a camera that is

32:13 ↗ connected to and operated by a

32:15 ↗ nationwide network.

32:19 ↗ We've all been online and experienced

32:21 ↗ how data that is stored uh can be

32:24 ↗ breached. In 2025, there were 4,000

32:28 ↗ breaches in the US alone. Uh I mentioned

32:32 ↗ this just to help keep in mind that data

32:35 ↗ rarely stays where you hope it stays.

32:39 ↗ Uh so what about flock specifically?

32:41 ↗ Flock is [clears throat]

32:43 ↗ uh unfortunately a poster child for this

32:46 ↗ principle.

32:47 ↗ Uh let me provide some examples from the

32:51 ↗ state of California which I've chosen

32:53 ↗ because they actually have a state law

32:57 ↗ that makes it illegal to share a to

33:00 ↗ share [clears throat] ALPR data uh with

33:02 ↗ outofstate agencies.

33:05 ↗ [clears throat] Yet still uh in Capola

33:08 ↗ in 2025, local flot camera data was

33:11 ↗ accessed in over 3 million outofstate

33:14 ↗ searches, including by immigration

33:16 ↗ enforcement. The police chief of Capola

33:19 ↗ says these were inadvertent and were not

33:22 ↗ the result of any deliberate attempt by

33:25 ↗ city staff to circumvent California law.

33:27 ↗ I believe her. Santa Cruz 2025. The

33:31 ↗ police chief reported the flock safety

33:33 ↗ system inadvertently permitted law

33:35 ↗ enforcement agencies outside of the

33:37 ↗ state of California to search. Referring

33:40 ↗ to their local data, the police chief

33:42 ↗ also added these violations were not

33:45 ↗ known to the Santa Cruz Police

33:47 ↗ Department.

33:49 ↗ Elserto California.

33:51 ↗ Police say that federal agencies gained

33:53 ↗ access to their flock cameras without

33:55 ↗ their knowledge.

33:57 ↗ The police department then worked with

33:58 ↗ Flock to install safeguards to limit

34:01 ↗ access. However, additional accesses

34:04 ↗ accesses by federal agents were

34:06 ↗ discovered again. The police chief says

34:10 ↗ that uh came as a surprise to me.

34:13 ↗ Also, San Francisco, also Richmond, it's

34:16 ↗ happened here in Washington State. It's

34:18 ↗ happened here in King County.

34:21 ↗ [clears throat]

34:22 ↗ I think you get the idea. So I want to

34:24 ↗ be clear that I personally believe that

34:26 ↗ these cities and police departments

34:29 ↗ were trying their best to adhere to

34:31 ↗ their state law only to find that the

34:34 ↗ company the app that they depend on

34:37 ↗ could not deliver.

34:40 ↗ So I believe this is flock specific.

34:42 ↗ Flock

34:44 ↗ doesn't [clears throat] just operate in

34:45 ↗ the town it operates in. It's connected

34:47 ↗ to a nationwide network by uh through

34:51 ↗ its architecture that is centrally

34:53 ↗ controlled by a software company in

34:56 ↗ Atlanta. It's a sharing driven

34:58 ↗ architecture and a sharing driven

35:00 ↗ business model and it can provide the

35:02 ↗ appearance of control but it does not

35:05 ↗ provide real control or security as all

35:08 ↗ these cities have learned the hard way.

35:10 ↗ My suggestion is that a system could be

35:12 ↗ chosen

35:14 ↗ that meets the criteria that we have

35:15 ↗ here in Isiqua,

35:17 ↗ which could be that our data stays here

35:19 ↗ within control of our city officials and

35:23 ↗ our police department, not software

35:25 ↗ engineers 3,000 m away and not

35:27 ↗ opportunistic outofstate agencies. Uh,

35:30 ↗ I'm sure we could find a better tool for

35:32 ↗ the job. Thank you for your time.

35:36 ↗ >> Any hands went up on that?

35:41 ↗ Next we have BJ Alum and David Kappler.

35:50 ↗ Hello. Um my name is BJ Alum. Um I'm a

35:53 ↗ resident of Isiqua for about four years.

35:55 ↗ I live over on Dogwood. Um I want to

35:58 ↗ thank the city council for their

35:59 ↗ attention to this issue so far. I know

36:00 ↗ it's raised a lot of outcry and I do get

36:02 ↗ the sense that the city council is

36:04 ↗ listening um and prioritizing it like it

36:06 ↗ being on the agenda tonight. I really

36:08 ↗ appreciate that and I think it speaks

36:09 ↗ well of the council. Um I also want to

36:13 ↗ encourage the city council to pass as

36:15 ↗ early as possible an ordinance that

36:17 ↗ would explicitly um put in strict guard

36:21 ↗ rails around what kind of ALPR data

36:24 ↗ could even be pursued to be put up in

36:26 ↗ public in Isiqua. Um, I think that

36:30 ↗ people have been pretty clear about

36:31 ↗ features that disturb them. And I would

36:34 ↗ like to see an ordinance um, put in

36:36 ↗ place that specifically prevents

36:38 ↗ technologies that fit that profile from

36:40 ↗ being considered. Um, things like making

36:43 ↗ sure that that data does not go to a

36:45 ↗ sharable uh, queryable national

36:47 ↗ database, that it's only accessible by

36:50 ↗ um, ISQUA officials for known reasons

36:53 ↗ um, related to active serious crime,

36:55 ↗ things like that. So, thank you very

36:57 ↗ much.

36:59 ↗ >> Any hands went up for that comment?

37:05 ↗ >> Okay, next we have Reagan Harper

37:08 ↗ followed by Will Keryotti.

37:17 ↗ Hi, council. My name is Reagan Harper

37:19 ↗ and I live nearby on Newport Way. Um, I

37:22 ↗ appreciate the perspective supporting

37:24 ↗ Flock and thank those who have shared

37:26 ↗ already. Um, I love our little town and

37:28 ↗ I'm so thankful I get to raise um, our

37:30 ↗ children here, my children. I work in

37:33 ↗ the schools and I'm heavily involved

37:34 ↗ with my kids and their friends. Um, and

37:36 ↗ regarding flock cameras, um, I don't

37:38 ↗ think our kids need more cameras and

37:40 ↗ surveillance in their lives. Um, I have

37:42 ↗ five kids ranging from elementary

37:44 ↗ through high school age. Um, uh,

37:48 ↗ including kids who are starting to

37:49 ↗ drive. They're already growing up

37:51 ↗ surrounded by cameras everywhere in

37:54 ↗ stores, homes, cars, public spaces

37:58 ↗ in a world moving so quickly toward a

38:00 ↗ surveillance state. I would love to see

38:02 ↗ our local kids protected from that as

38:04 ↗ much as possible. Um, I was impressed

38:06 ↗ when Lynwood completely shut these

38:08 ↗ systems down due to concerns about the

38:10 ↗ footage becoming public data. Um, to

38:13 ↗ quote a councilwoman in an article from

38:15 ↗ the Lynwood Times in February of this

38:17 ↗ year, the contract with Flock has failed

38:20 ↗ on its most basic requirement, trust.

38:23 ↗ Council was not promptly informed of a

38:25 ↗ data access breach. Promises that the

38:27 ↗ system would not be used for immigration

38:29 ↗ enforcement were broken. Safeguards we

38:32 ↗ were told were in place did not work.

38:35 ↗ With where technology is headed, how do

38:37 ↗ we know safeguards would not be broken

38:39 ↗ in other areas? Um, besides what Lynwood

38:43 ↗ recently experienced with immigration, I

38:46 ↗ think it's important to start putting

38:47 ↗ reasonable limits in place now rather

38:49 ↗ than continuing to normalize more

38:51 ↗ surveillance in everyday community life.

38:54 ↗ I would love to see an ordinance that

38:56 ↗ restricts the types of surveillance

38:58 ↗ technology allowed in Isiqua and for

39:00 ↗ those protections to be in place before

39:03 ↗ any grant money is accepted.

39:06 ↗ Thanks for the work you all are doing

39:08 ↗ and for taking the time to listen.

39:13 ↗ Many hands went up on that comment.

39:19 ↗ >> Uh, hello council members and thank you

39:21 ↗ for the floor. For the record, I'm Will

39:23 ↗ Keryotti. I live in Isiqua and I go to

39:26 ↗ school in Isiqua. I love it here. You

39:30 ↗ may or may not remember, but I spoke

39:32 ↗ about Flock cameras before when we were

39:33 ↗ trying to get them on the agenda. And

39:35 ↗ when I spoke then, I brought up concerns

39:37 ↗ about my own safety as a person who has

39:41 ↗ been, for lack of a better term,

39:43 ↗ stalked. Um, tonight, I'd like to talk

39:47 ↗ about the safety of my friends and

39:49 ↗ neighbors instead. Um,

39:52 ↗ that night when cameras were brought up

39:54 ↗ as a potential agenda item,

39:57 ↗ the phrasing used to characterize the

40:00 ↗ response was a range of opinions. Um,

40:02 ↗ but it wasn't a range. It was a range of

40:05 ↗ reasons. It was people afraid of ICE

40:10 ↗ stalkers, domestic abusers because this

40:13 ↗ data has been leaked before to people

40:15 ↗ that wasn't just government. Um,

40:19 ↗ and

40:21 ↗ there was a lot of reasons to be afraid,

40:24 ↗ not just of vice, but definitely of ice.

40:27 ↗ Um,

40:30 ↗ but

40:32 ↗ sorry, one moment.

40:36 ↗ What the community response was was in a

40:39 ↗ sense unanimity because

40:43 ↗ everyone there had different reasons but

40:45 ↗ everyone there was afraid.

40:48 ↗ Afraid for themselves, for their

40:50 ↗ families, for their friends, for

40:51 ↗ whoever.

40:54 ↗ The council and the police force are

40:56 ↗ meant to serve citizens.

40:58 ↗ and everyone

41:01 ↗ being afraid isn't serving us.

41:05 ↗ Even if we trust our local forces to use

41:08 ↗ these resources responsibly, the

41:11 ↗ resources themselves, flock can't be

41:14 ↗ trusted due to the fact that flock is so

41:18 ↗ lax with their security and flock, the

41:21 ↗ way the system works, it isn't all

41:24 ↗ within our control.

41:28 ↗ Um, I understand that flock could be a

41:32 ↗ convenient tool for in some ways making

41:34 ↗ Isiqua more safe,

41:36 ↗ but it's not the tool we need. The

41:40 ↗ avenue to safety is very, very rarely

41:43 ↗ through convenience.

41:45 ↗ There is a clear line of what should and

41:48 ↗ shouldn't be okay here. And I really

41:50 ↗ urge you to consider the fears you're

41:52 ↗ hearing about from community members

41:54 ↗ today. Thank you for your time.

41:58 ↗ >> Many hands went up on that comment.

42:02 ↗ >> Nathan Paige is the last speaker who has

42:04 ↗ signed up in advance.

42:10 ↗ >> Hi. Uh thank you for hearing everybody's

42:13 ↗ comments today. Uh I'm glad I did not

42:16 ↗ come with uh prepared remarks since I

42:18 ↗ ended up being the very last speaker um

42:21 ↗ of those here in person today. Um but uh

42:25 ↗ to kind of try and underscore what some

42:27 ↗ of uh us are saying

42:31 ↗ um I also would be in support of an

42:34 ↗ ordinance blocking flock specifically

42:37 ↗ and this kind of uh centralized

42:39 ↗ especially third-party privateowned ALPR

42:43 ↗ systems.

42:45 ↗ um

42:46 ↗ to liken this to uh kind of a concept.

42:50 ↗ Um

42:52 ↗ some of my fellow residents here have

42:54 ↗ been saying uh that it we we've heard

42:58 ↗ from members of the police department

43:00 ↗ that it's an issue of trust. Um but it's

43:03 ↗ actually not an issue of trust. Uh we

43:05 ↗ already know that these systems um have

43:08 ↗ poor security, have been abused, uh will

43:12 ↗ be abused again. Um, and it's sort of

43:15 ↗ like, you know, if our police department

43:18 ↗ is like if there's like a guy, our

43:22 ↗ police department is like if there's a

43:23 ↗ guy sitting next to a river and the

43:26 ↗ river is all information on private

43:28 ↗ citizens of the country, our policemen

43:32 ↗ can dip their hands into the river and

43:35 ↗ uh get specific pieces of information

43:37 ↗ now and again. Uh but the question that

43:40 ↗ we the residents are asking is what of

43:42 ↗ the larger river? Uh there are many

43:45 ↗ people who have their hands in this

43:46 ↗ river and uh even if uh we trust uh our

43:51 ↗ own local police department. Uh again I

43:54 ↗ want to underscore that due to the

43:56 ↗ architecture of the flock system. This

43:57 ↗ is a national database. Um other if we

44:01 ↗ install flock system uh cameras into our

44:04 ↗ neighborhood uh we become part of that

44:06 ↗ national system. It is not just that our

44:08 ↗ police department um has access to this

44:11 ↗ but again uh ICE and other uh agencies

44:15 ↗ who have access to this system uh be it

44:18 ↗ in Washington state or clear across the

44:20 ↗ country um can look in and see

44:22 ↗ information relative uh related to uh

44:26 ↗ everybody here uh if you live here. Um

44:31 ↗ so uh that is my larger concern and

44:35 ↗ um let's see yeah even to underscore um

44:40 ↗ part of the mention of uh their poor

44:42 ↗ security um in coverage of flock cameras

44:46 ↗ um uh journalist pieces and even videos

44:50 ↗ by simple YouTubers have featured uh

44:53 ↗ like video clips um that they took

44:56 ↗ directly from flock cameras because as

44:59 ↗ it turns out the security is so poor

45:01 ↗ that um even being in relative proximity

45:04 ↗ to a flot camera gives you uh somewhat

45:07 ↗ easy access. Um it's probably not uh

45:11 ↗ your mother-in-law who is going to be uh

45:14 ↗ accessing this footage, but um anyone

45:16 ↗ who is like relatively determined uh and

45:19 ↗ can do some web searches uh can find out

45:22 ↗ how to do this and accomplish it. So uh

45:24 ↗ I'll access or uh I'll uh

45:29 ↗ reiterate the uh my support also for

45:32 ↗ like a closed loop um system uh such as

45:37 ↗ my fellow resident mentioned. Um if we

45:40 ↗ ourselves control the data or our own

45:43 ↗ police department controls the data then

45:45 ↗ it's relatively uh safe in our own hands

45:48 ↗ and again we would have more say into

45:50 ↗ actually who gets to access it in that

45:52 ↗ case. Uh, thank you.

45:56 ↗ >> Many hands went up for that comment.

46:02 ↗ >> Uh, council president, we do have a few

46:03 ↗ members of the public with us virtually,

46:05 ↗ but none of them have indicated a desire

46:07 ↗ to speak at this time.

46:11 ↗ >> So, we will ask now if anyone who has

46:13 ↗ not signed up wishes to speak this

46:14 ↗ evening, either in person or remotely.

46:21 ↗ And I'll read the additional uh themes

46:23 ↗ that I heard in the second group of

46:25 ↗ speakers. Concerns around cloud data

46:27 ↗ vulnerabilities. Uh lo a need for local

46:31 ↗ data control requirements. A need for an

46:34 ↗ ordinance with data guard rails or a

46:36 ↗ closed loop. Less government

46:38 ↗ surveillance in general. Uh a concern

46:41 ↗ about leaked data potentially

46:42 ↗ endangering stalking victims. And then

46:45 ↗ concerns around native uh national data

46:47 ↗ access. So, I want to thank everyone for

46:49 ↗ their public comments and remind that

46:50 ↗ there will be uh time for additional

46:53 ↗ public comments beyond what we've heard

46:54 ↗ already uh in both of the items that

46:56 ↗ we're going to have this evening. Um and

46:59 ↗ with that, we will move to the first of

47:01 ↗ our items. Um this is a council of the

47:04 ↗ whole meeting, so these are

47:05 ↗ bothformational items. No action will be

47:07 ↗ taken this evening. We're basically

47:08 ↗ acting as a big sevenperson committee at

47:10 ↗ this point. So, our first item this

47:13 ↗ evening is COOM0258,

47:15 ↗ a SOQA climate action plan, presented by

47:18 ↗ Stacy Vin McKinstry, our sustainability

47:21 ↗ manager, and David Rei, our

47:23 ↗ sustainability coordinator.

47:40 ↗ and members of the council. Uh, as

47:42 ↗ mentioned, my name is Stacy Vin

47:44 ↗ McKinstry. I'm the sustainability

47:45 ↗ manager and joined tonight by David Rei,

47:48 ↗ our sustainability coordinator.

47:51 ↗ The 2021 Isakiqua climate action plan

47:54 ↗ was written as a fi it to include a

47:56 ↗ five-year uh update. Tonight, we're here

47:59 ↗ to share with you an overview of the

48:01 ↗ process we have undertaken to update the

48:03 ↗ IAAP, share a summary of major updates,

48:07 ↗ including highlighting a selection of

48:08 ↗ targets and actions, and discuss the

48:11 ↗ next steps for review.

48:14 ↗ The direction we seek from you tonight

48:16 ↗ is how to move forward with the IAAP

48:18 ↗ review and adoption.

48:22 ↗ When staff began the process to update

48:24 ↗ the IAP about a year ago, we anticipated

48:27 ↗ making a few minor changes uh improving

48:30 ↗ connections between some of the actions

48:32 ↗ and targets and cleaning up the measures

48:34 ↗ and how we were reporting to the

48:36 ↗ community. The 2021 plan was well

48:39 ↗ informed by the community and identified

48:41 ↗ a strong vision, goals, and strategies

48:44 ↗ that we wanted to retain. As we embarked

48:47 ↗ on the process, we identified the need

48:49 ↗ for a more significant update and many

48:51 ↗ changes. This came through multiple

48:54 ↗ meetings with committees, boards, and

48:55 ↗ commissions, as well as our research and

48:58 ↗ review of updates to climate plans in

49:01 ↗ neighboring jurisdictions.

49:03 ↗ There were several targets that needed

49:05 ↗ to be refined, and we also wanted to

49:07 ↗ broaden many of the actions to allow for

49:09 ↗ more flexibility to implement the most

49:12 ↗ meaningful and impactful actions over

49:14 ↗ time. One driver for these changes, as

49:17 ↗ I'll uh speak to a little bit more in a

49:19 ↗ few minutes, is the proposal to move to

49:21 ↗ a 10-year plan that required that we

49:24 ↗ build in more flexibility as well as

49:26 ↗ multiple checkpoints throughout the

49:28 ↗ process.

49:31 ↗ Our approach over the last year to

49:33 ↗ update the plan was broken into three

49:35 ↗ phases, and I'll walk through each of

49:37 ↗ these. During the spring and summer of

49:39 ↗ last year, we formed two committees. We

49:42 ↗ really wanted to take a deep dive into

49:43 ↗ some sections of the plan that we

49:45 ↗ thought needed additional work. This was

49:47 ↗ the natural systems section because many

49:50 ↗ of those actions did not link to the

49:52 ↗ target and the target also needed to be

49:54 ↗ reviewed. The other section that we did

49:57 ↗ a deep dive into was the land use and

49:59 ↗ transportation section. That was because

50:01 ↗ many of the existing actions in the 2021

50:04 ↗ plan were related to the title 18 update

50:08 ↗ which had um happened during this

50:09 ↗ process. We wanted to really take a

50:12 ↗ fresh look at many of the actions in the

50:14 ↗ plan. For the natural systems committee,

50:17 ↗ we invited members of the environmental

50:19 ↗ board, the park board staff and

50:22 ↗ snowqualami tribe to participate for the

50:24 ↗ land use and transportation section that

50:27 ↗ included or committee excuse me that

50:29 ↗ included members of the environmental

50:31 ↗ board, PPC, TAB and staff. During this

50:35 ↗ time, we also met u multiple times with

50:38 ↗ the environmental board on the approach

50:39 ↗ timeline and um process for updating the

50:42 ↗ plan.

50:44 ↗ During the fall and winter, staff worked

50:46 ↗ on revisions to the actions based on the

50:49 ↗ input we had received from the

50:50 ↗ committees and began revising the plan

50:53 ↗ content. We started an in-depth review

50:56 ↗ of the proposed action revisions with

50:58 ↗ our boards and commissions. And we also

51:00 ↗ vetted those actions internally with

51:03 ↗ staff across multiple departments.

51:06 ↗ Our purpose for engaging with TAB, PPC,

51:09 ↗ and the park board was to get an early

51:11 ↗ review of the feedback we'd heard from

51:13 ↗ the committees so that we could then

51:15 ↗ engage with the environmental board,

51:16 ↗ receive their feedback in an iterative

51:18 ↗ process.

51:20 ↗ Excuse me.

51:25 ↗ Mirror Pauly also held a town hall in

51:27 ↗ the fall to share the progress that we

51:29 ↗ had made on IAP implementation and gain

51:32 ↗ input uh from the community.

51:36 ↗ Our next step was to form a metrics

51:38 ↗ committee in the winter. That group

51:41 ↗ began a deep dive into the measures in

51:43 ↗ the plan. The original IAP had a lot of

51:46 ↗ challenging components to measure and we

51:49 ↗ didn't have a lot of clarity on how we

51:51 ↗ were going to measure and report out on

51:52 ↗ implementation.

51:54 ↗ This committee gathered together to

51:56 ↗ propose recommendations and make the

51:58 ↗ measurements simpler and more

52:00 ↗ transparent so we could really

52:01 ↗ demonstrate our progress or lack there

52:04 ↗ of lack thereof progress. The metrics

52:07 ↗ committee was made up of members of the

52:09 ↗ environmental board, TAB, the general

52:11 ↗ public, and staff.

52:14 ↗ In the winter and spring, we worked with

52:16 ↗ students from Gibson High School to

52:18 ↗ complete a survey of youth priorities so

52:20 ↗ we could incorporate that feedback into

52:22 ↗ the plan. We continued to review the

52:25 ↗ actions and target revisions with our

52:27 ↗ boards and commissions and we engaged

52:30 ↗ with the U. PTE committee two times to

52:33 ↗ review those proposed actions.

52:35 ↗ We also continue to vet with department

52:38 ↗ staff.

52:41 ↗ Right. So that is a summary of the

52:43 ↗ process that we've been going through

52:44 ↗ over the last year. Uh next I wanted to

52:47 ↗ turn to summarize some of the major

52:49 ↗ updates that we're proposing for the

52:51 ↗ 2026 ISO climate action plan.

52:55 ↗ I will in just a moment dive a little

52:57 ↗ bit deeper into some of the target and

52:59 ↗ action revisions.

53:02 ↗ So, one of the uh major revisions that

53:04 ↗ we're proposing this plan is removing a

53:07 ↗ lot of the background that described the

53:09 ↗ development that led up to the 21 plan

53:12 ↗ 2021 plan. Instead, we're incorporating

53:14 ↗ the progress that we've made since 2021

53:17 ↗ in terms of implementation as well as

53:19 ↗ progress towards our targets.

53:22 ↗ As mentioned earlier, we're also

53:24 ↗ proposing a 10-year plan. uh we are

53:26 ↗ including many checkpoints throughout

53:28 ↗ the process to ensure that we are on

53:30 ↗ track or that we can revisit the plan

53:32 ↗ and the actions within if we find

53:34 ↗ ourselves off track. In general, we feel

53:38 ↗ like we know the types of work that

53:40 ↗ needs to be done and we've created

53:42 ↗ actions that provide flexibility so we

53:45 ↗ can um make choices and implement uh the

53:48 ↗ best actions at at the time of

53:50 ↗ implementation.

53:53 ↗ We've also worked to improve the

53:54 ↗ connections between actions, targets,

53:56 ↗ and measures. Um, as discussed

53:59 ↗ previously, there were a lot of targets

54:01 ↗ and actions that we felt were

54:02 ↗ disconnected. We reworked many of those

54:05 ↗ to ensure alignment um with the

54:08 ↗ associated actions and uh to ensure that

54:10 ↗ we have measures we can report out on to

54:12 ↗ council and the community.

54:15 ↗ We have also broadened many of our

54:17 ↗ measures. In the 2021 plan, there were

54:20 ↗ specific actions that called out a

54:22 ↗ particular campaign. Instead, we've um

54:25 ↗ really worked to make those actions more

54:27 ↗ flexible so we can implement those best

54:29 ↗ practices over time.

54:32 ↗ We have vetted and incorporated a

54:34 ↗ selection of actions that we feel are

54:36 ↗ going to be very impactful. This was

54:38 ↗ based on input from our um committees,

54:42 ↗ commissions, boards, and the PTE

54:44 ↗ committee. Um these actions are more

54:47 ↗ policy focused and they will require

54:49 ↗ further review and analysis but we feel

54:51 ↗ like they'll have a large impact in

54:53 ↗ terms of reducing greenhouse gas

54:55 ↗ emissions.

54:58 ↗ We have uh restructured the

55:00 ↗ implementation plan of the IAP to

55:02 ↗ provide more transparency in terms of

55:04 ↗ likely cost when the action would be

55:07 ↗ initiated and who would be the lead

55:09 ↗ whether that's a department or a partner

55:12 ↗ organization.

55:14 ↗ This plan also continues to recognize

55:17 ↗ the absolute essential component of

55:20 ↗ community engagement that is both in

55:22 ↗ terms of calling out specific actions to

55:24 ↗ engage community members as well as

55:27 ↗ tracking that level of engagement. Uh

55:30 ↗ this was really incorporated through a

55:32 ↗ lot of public comment that we had

55:34 ↗ throughout the process as well as

55:35 ↗ environmental board feedback.

55:38 ↗ And then finally, uh, this plan really

55:41 ↗ does call out the need for utility,

55:44 ↗ state, and federal regulations in order

55:47 ↗ for us to meet our targets. We cannot

55:50 ↗ meet those greenhouse gas emission

55:51 ↗ reduction targets with local action

55:53 ↗ alone, and we recognize that in this

55:55 ↗ plan.

55:59 ↗ So, next, I'm going to dive a little bit

56:00 ↗ deeper into uh some of the targets that

56:03 ↗ were updated through this plan.

56:06 ↗ I wanted to start with just a general

56:08 ↗ note about the targets. Uh we have made

56:12 ↗ minor changes to targets throughout the

56:14 ↗ plan. We believe that the targets are

56:16 ↗ attainable based on current knowledge

56:19 ↗ and experiences.

56:21 ↗ However, there's no given that we will

56:24 ↗ meet them. We really need to see major

56:26 ↗ shifts in behavioral in behavior. We

56:29 ↗ need federal, state, and utility policy.

56:31 ↗ Um and with that we do think that the

56:33 ↗ targets presented in the 2026 plan will

56:36 ↗ be attainable. Of course we don't know

56:38 ↗ what changes we might see from

56:40 ↗ technological, political or legal um

56:44 ↗ over the next 10 years that may

56:46 ↗ influence our ability to meet those

56:48 ↗ targets.

56:50 ↗ So I wanted to just touch base on um one

56:53 ↗ of the major targets that we're

56:54 ↗ proposing for revising in this plan. Uh

56:57 ↗ this is our uh tree canopy target that

57:00 ↗ sits within the natural systems and

57:02 ↗ water resources focus area.

57:05 ↗ We underwent many discussions with park

57:08 ↗ board, environmental board staff, uh

57:10 ↗ many public comment on this target to

57:12 ↗ really come up with a revised target

57:14 ↗ that we think is achievable.

57:17 ↗ So our current target is a 55% tree

57:20 ↗ canopy by 2035. And what we've proposed

57:23 ↗ or revised in this plan is instead

57:26 ↗ looked at the number of acres that we

57:28 ↗ would plant uh by 2035 in order to

57:32 ↗ achieve a a tree canopy of 53% by 2050.

57:38 ↗ We do think that this is achievable.

57:40 ↗ It's going to be challenging. Um but

57:43 ↗ according to our um urban forester, the

57:46 ↗ planting acreage is available and we can

57:48 ↗ track our progress towards this target.

57:51 ↗ We also added two new targets to this

57:55 ↗ section. One is looking at our tree

57:58 ↗ distribution and we'd be measuring that

58:00 ↗ through uh looking at a tree equity

58:03 ↗ score across our census blocks by 2035

58:06 ↗ achieving a 90% tree equity score. Um,

58:10 ↗ and then the other, and I'll just note

58:12 ↗ too that that one really aligns with

58:15 ↗ objectives in our urban forest

58:16 ↗ management plan as well as one of the

58:19 ↗ callouts from our lead for city

58:21 ↗ certification of looking at tree equity.

58:24 ↗ Um, and then we just learned that the

58:25 ↗ state uh also has a goal around tree

58:28 ↗ equity of looking at 75% tree equity

58:31 ↗ score across census, urban census

58:33 ↗ blocks. So, we'd be striving to go a

58:35 ↗ little bit higher than that state goal.

58:38 ↗ Um, in addition for this focus area of

58:42 ↗ natural systems and water resources,

58:43 ↗ we've added a water target. Uh, we

58:47 ↗ didn't previously have any targets

58:49 ↗ around water. So, in consultation with

58:51 ↗ our public works staff, we've included a

58:53 ↗ target for meeting water reduction t um

58:56 ↗ a water reduction goal as identified in

58:59 ↗ our water system plan to ensure that

59:02 ↗ we're consistent with goals that we're

59:03 ↗ setting with the state.

59:08 ↗ Next, I wanted to highlight one of our

59:09 ↗ other focus areas where we've made major

59:12 ↗ changes both to the targets and actions.

59:15 ↗ Um, this is our community resilience and

59:17 ↗ well-being focus area.

59:20 ↗ This was an example of a section of the

59:22 ↗ plan where many of the actions weren't

59:24 ↗ measurable. Um, and we really wanted to

59:27 ↗ ensure that we had both targets that

59:29 ↗ were measurable, um, and we could report

59:31 ↗ out on progress as well as a series of

59:34 ↗ actions that made sense helping our

59:36 ↗ community prepare, respond to, and

59:38 ↗ recover from any climate emergency.

59:42 ↗ Uh, this section was really informed uh,

59:44 ↗ not only by the measures committee, but

59:46 ↗ also in consultation with the

59:48 ↗ environmental board and our emergency

59:50 ↗ manager.

59:55 ↗ Moving one layer deeper to our actions.

59:58 ↗ Um I wanted to note that we have

1:00:01 ↗ retained uh and clarified some of our

1:00:03 ↗ most meaningful actions or critical

1:00:05 ↗ actions throughout the plan that really

1:00:07 ↗ address our biggest greenhouse gas

1:00:08 ↗ emissions around buildings and

1:00:10 ↗ transportations.

1:00:12 ↗ Um we have really touched um revised

1:00:16 ↗ many of those actions to make them

1:00:18 ↗ stronger and more flexible over time.

1:00:22 ↗ There are a number of new actions that

1:00:24 ↗ we're introducing in this plan. Uh just

1:00:26 ↗ to give a snapshot of some of those,

1:00:28 ↗ they include actions around workforce

1:00:29 ↗ development, looking at a more dedicated

1:00:32 ↗ funding stream, uh water conservation

1:00:35 ↗ programming that was not previously

1:00:37 ↗ included, uh programs that help address

1:00:39 ↗ invasive uh vegetation to uh make our

1:00:43 ↗ tree canopy more resilient to climate

1:00:45 ↗ change, and then um actions around waste

1:00:48 ↗ reduction. particularly uh there was

1:00:50 ↗ interest from the environmental board on

1:00:52 ↗ single-use plastics.

1:00:57 ↗ In addition to um highlighting some of

1:01:00 ↗ those new actions, I wanted to highlight

1:01:02 ↗ a few of the actions that we think will

1:01:04 ↗ need further council review and

1:01:06 ↗ discussion. These actions I raised in

1:01:09 ↗ particular because they may involve a

1:01:10 ↗ new policy. While any proposed policy in

1:01:14 ↗ this plan would undergo additional

1:01:16 ↗ evaluation to consider impacts,

1:01:19 ↗ benefits, greenhouse gas reductions,

1:01:21 ↗ costs to the community or business. Um

1:01:24 ↗ we want to make sure that the council is

1:01:26 ↗ comfortable advancing these uh proposed

1:01:28 ↗ policies in the plan before moving

1:01:30 ↗ forward. Uh some of these proposed

1:01:33 ↗ actions also uh there may be a question

1:01:36 ↗ around our role or the ability for us to

1:01:39 ↗ advance such an action. Um particularly

1:01:41 ↗ staff have flagged the um action around

1:01:45 ↗ uh opportunities and partnerships for

1:01:47 ↗ acquiring timber sales and whether

1:01:48 ↗ council would be comfortable including

1:01:50 ↗ that. So while we are not going to

1:01:52 ↗ discuss these actions this evening, I am

1:01:55 ↗ flagging them just to recognize that we

1:01:57 ↗ uh would like to engage in further

1:01:59 ↗ council conversation to discuss these

1:02:01 ↗ actions prior to finalization.

1:02:07 ↗ So where are we now? Um the

1:02:10 ↗ environmental board uh at our meeting

1:02:12 ↗ last month recommended a few additional

1:02:14 ↗ sections that we include in the plan. Uh

1:02:17 ↗ we are in the process of preparing

1:02:19 ↗ those. They relate to uh identifying

1:02:22 ↗ what we're not able to do in this plan

1:02:24 ↗ because of for instance legal

1:02:26 ↗ constraints um as well as a call to

1:02:28 ↗ action for the community.

1:02:31 ↗ Um other than uh seeing those two

1:02:33 ↗ sections, the environmental board

1:02:35 ↗ essentially has given uh kind of a

1:02:37 ↗ thumbs up pass of the targets and

1:02:39 ↗ actions and the draft narrative of the

1:02:41 ↗ plan.

1:02:42 ↗ Um and we are also finalizing all the

1:02:45 ↗ narrative, working on formatting and we

1:02:48 ↗ anticipate having a full draft plan uh

1:02:51 ↗ ready for review by the end of May.

1:02:55 ↗ Um, as mentioned, the environmental

1:02:56 ↗ board did provide that verbal support

1:02:58 ↗ for the draft plan. Um, and they

1:03:00 ↗ anticipate preparing a formal

1:03:02 ↗ recommendation to council at their June

1:03:04 ↗ 10th meeting when they'll they will

1:03:06 ↗ receive that full formatted draft. We

1:03:09 ↗ are aiming for council approval of the

1:03:12 ↗ plan by July or within July in order to

1:03:15 ↗ inform our budget requests for 27 and

1:03:18 ↗ 28.

1:03:21 ↗ So tonight, as mentioned, the the

1:03:23 ↗ question we have before you is um what

1:03:26 ↗ would you like your next step to be for

1:03:28 ↗ review? Uh we've proposed a few options.

1:03:31 ↗ Uh one is to bring back to a committee

1:03:34 ↗ of the whole on June 8th for a full

1:03:37 ↗ review of the draft plan and to discuss

1:03:39 ↗ specific actions or other aspects of the

1:03:41 ↗ plan that you're um interested in

1:03:43 ↗ digging into. The second would be option

1:03:46 ↗ would be to bring to council June 15th

1:03:49 ↗ for that full review

1:03:52 ↗ uh prior to making any decision on how

1:03:54 ↗ to move forward. And then the third

1:03:56 ↗ option would be to pass back to the PTE

1:03:59 ↗ committee for further discussion and

1:04:01 ↗ deep dive um prior to coming back to

1:04:03 ↗ council. Um and those would be in either

1:04:06 ↗ early June or July.

1:04:10 ↗ So, our next steps are finalizing that

1:04:12 ↗ content and the design of the plan,

1:04:14 ↗ bringing to the environmental board for

1:04:15 ↗ final approval and their formal

1:04:17 ↗ recommendation to council. Um, and then

1:04:20 ↗ following the pathway that you all

1:04:22 ↗ determined for us for that review by

1:04:24 ↗ council um with hopeful adoption in

1:04:27 ↗ July.

1:04:31 ↗ With that, we seek uh your input on how

1:04:34 ↗ to proceed with the approval and

1:04:36 ↗ adoption of the 2026 isqua climate

1:04:39 ↗ action plan.

1:04:42 ↗ >> And with that, I will open

1:04:44 ↗ [clears throat] to uh questions from

1:04:45 ↗ council before we take additional public

1:04:48 ↗ uh comment on this. Deputy Council

1:04:50 ↗ President Jack.

1:04:51 ↗ >> Okay. I have a couple questions. Uh,

1:04:53 ↗ first one, maybe this is a bit of a

1:04:54 ↗ silly question, but I'm curious why

1:04:56 ↗ we're calling this a climate action plan

1:04:57 ↗ when it really is kind of an overarching

1:04:59 ↗ sustainability plan, right? Like water

1:05:01 ↗ conservation, single-use plastics,

1:05:03 ↗ invasive species. It's they're all great

1:05:06 ↗ things to do and I'm fully in support of

1:05:08 ↗ those, but that's not it. In my mind, it

1:05:10 ↗ doesn't really fall under the bucket of

1:05:11 ↗ climate action. So, I'm just curious

1:05:13 ↗ about what the rationale was for that.

1:05:15 ↗ >> Yeah, good question. As we were meeting

1:05:18 ↗ with the committees and getting input

1:05:20 ↗ from boards, commissions throughout the

1:05:21 ↗ year, there were a lot of desires from

1:05:24 ↗ the community as well as the committee

1:05:27 ↗ and um board members to incorporate

1:05:30 ↗ other items that we felt belonged more

1:05:32 ↗ in kind of a more general sustainability

1:05:35 ↗ plan. What we've done over the last few

1:05:37 ↗ months is tried to apply that climate

1:05:39 ↗ filter and said, does this impact

1:05:42 ↗ resilience? Is this reducing emissions?

1:05:45 ↗ Um, so for example, the invasive

1:05:47 ↗ species, what we asked the proposers of

1:05:50 ↗ those actions to do is tie that back to

1:05:52 ↗ climate. And so the tie-in there is

1:05:55 ↗ reducing invasive species in order to

1:05:58 ↗ ensure our tree canopy is more resilient

1:06:00 ↗ to the impacts of climate change is how

1:06:02 ↗ we frame that in the plan. There are

1:06:05 ↗ some actions there that were of interest

1:06:07 ↗ of our boards and commissions to include

1:06:09 ↗ um probably primarily around the the

1:06:12 ↗ waste and materials section that council

1:06:15 ↗ may decide are outside the scope of the

1:06:17 ↗ climate plan, but we've attempted to

1:06:19 ↗ apply that climate filter to all the

1:06:21 ↗ actions.

1:06:24 ↗ Um and then is there any plan to at any

1:06:27 ↗ point have an overarching sustainability

1:06:29 ↗ plan that includes some of the

1:06:30 ↗ sustainability items that aren't

1:06:31 ↗ directly climate related?

1:06:34 ↗ We haven't discussed that. Our work

1:06:36 ↗ really focuses on climate action and

1:06:38 ↗ we've worked to contain that within the

1:06:40 ↗ climate plan. Um within the

1:06:43 ↗ comprehensive plan, uh there was

1:06:48 ↗ a lot of content in there that got to um

1:06:51 ↗ more the wildlife piece. There's been a

1:06:53 ↗ lot of interest from the community on

1:06:54 ↗ incorporating more actions around

1:06:56 ↗ wildlife. um we've incorporated that

1:06:58 ↗ into the climate plan as it relates to

1:07:01 ↗ creating that resilience to climate

1:07:03 ↗ change but at this time I don't believe

1:07:05 ↗ that there is um any uh work from the

1:07:08 ↗ administration to develop a general

1:07:10 ↗ sustainability plan.

1:07:11 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you. Um and then the last

1:07:13 ↗ question this one's a bit more specific

1:07:15 ↗ but I on the slide on some of the

1:07:17 ↗ changes that were made um you said

1:07:20 ↗ something like 150 net new acres of

1:07:22 ↗ trees planted. Can you explain a bit

1:07:24 ↗ about what that means? For example, you

1:07:25 ↗ know, if you if we're going to do street

1:07:27 ↗ trees, is the acreage planted like

1:07:29 ↗ related to the size of the dirt or is it

1:07:30 ↗ related to the size of the tree canopy

1:07:32 ↗ and at what age? If so, what age of

1:07:34 ↗ tree?

1:07:35 ↗ >> Yeah. So the way we worked with the

1:07:37 ↗ urban forest manager on that one is that

1:07:40 ↗ is not necessarily looking at street te

1:07:42 ↗ t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t

1:07:42 ↗ t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t

1:07:42 ↗ trees, but looking at large open acreage

1:07:45 ↗ opportunities, for example, at Lake

1:07:47 ↗ Seamish State Park and if we are to

1:07:50 ↗ plant um or stay on track of planting up

1:07:54 ↗ to 150 acres by 2035,

1:07:57 ↗ um it's believed that the canopy 15

1:08:00 ↗ years from then, 10 to 15 years from

1:08:02 ↗ then would help us reach that 53%.

1:08:05 ↗ um tree canopy. So um through his

1:08:09 ↗ analysis, he's really looking at more of

1:08:11 ↗ those larger open spaces and not

1:08:13 ↗ necessarily kind of the individual

1:08:15 ↗ street trees.

1:08:17 ↗ >> Great. Thank you.

1:08:20 ↗ >> Other questions of an informative

1:08:22 ↗ nature.

1:08:25 ↗ I don't see any. So

1:08:28 ↗ >> Oh, I'm sorry. I I was uh I was

1:08:31 ↗ channeling uh prior prior uh council

1:08:35 ↗ member Hall and just you know doing that

1:08:37 ↗ last minute thing.

1:08:39 ↗ >> Timing is everything.

1:08:40 ↗ >> Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Um Stacy,

1:08:43 ↗ appreciate the presentation. When you're

1:08:45 ↗ talking about the dates, um is there a

1:08:48 ↗ deadline or anything that would urge us

1:08:52 ↗ to go sooner rather than later?

1:08:56 ↗ >> Not in my opinion. I think for us, we

1:08:59 ↗ would really like to have the final plan

1:09:01 ↗ in that direction before the end of July

1:09:04 ↗ as we advance our budget requests

1:09:05 ↗ internally to make sure what we're

1:09:08 ↗ requesting um aligns with the updated

1:09:11 ↗ climate plan.

1:09:12 ↗ >> Okay. And with that, you know, what are

1:09:15 ↗ you really looking to get out of us at a

1:09:21 ↗ future cow council or PTE committee that

1:09:26 ↗ we couldn't provide as feedback tonight

1:09:28 ↗ and that would be needed before a final

1:09:31 ↗ approval?

1:09:32 ↗ >> I think we would like to dig in a little

1:09:35 ↗ bit deeper to some of the targets that

1:09:38 ↗ we have made modifications like the tree

1:09:40 ↗ canopy target. Um, and then some of

1:09:44 ↗ those actions that I highlighted, I

1:09:46 ↗ think we feel having additional council

1:09:48 ↗ input would be valuable. We have not

1:09:50 ↗ with the PTE committee, we didn't

1:09:52 ↗ discuss the targets. We looked at

1:09:54 ↗ particular actions and kind of looking

1:09:56 ↗ at those big impactful actions. Um, so

1:09:59 ↗ having a little bit more of a dialogue

1:10:01 ↗ working session for that feedback. Um,

1:10:04 ↗ and then uh also being able to present

1:10:07 ↗ to you the full formatted plan. uh this

1:10:09 ↗ evening we just provided the

1:10:11 ↗ implementation plan which is our list of

1:10:13 ↗ actions but um you all haven't seen that

1:10:15 ↗ full formatted plan so making sure you

1:10:17 ↗ get eyes on that prior to to council.

1:10:20 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you.

1:10:23 ↗ >> Any other questions?

1:10:29 ↗ >> All right. And uh so with that uh we

1:10:32 ↗ will return to public comment if there's

1:10:33 ↗ public comment and I know there is

1:10:35 ↗ because we have a couple of people who

1:10:37 ↗ were who are at the top of the list

1:10:39 ↗ because they were held over from the

1:10:40 ↗ from the general public comment. Uh so

1:10:44 ↗ uh clerk if you'll walk us through that.

1:10:48 ↗ >> Sure. First we have Annne Fletcher.

1:11:07 ↗ >> [laughter]

1:11:08 ↗ >> Good evening. Good to see all of you. I

1:11:12 ↗ did send detailed comments already and

1:11:15 ↗ so I'm not going to go through all that

1:11:17 ↗ tonight. Um, but I did want to add a

1:11:21 ↗ couple of things that I thought of after

1:11:23 ↗ I sent those. You know how your mind

1:11:26 ↗ keeps going. Um,

1:11:29 ↗ the um the area of buildings and energy

1:11:33 ↗ is where I'd like to focus. uh number

1:11:38 ↗ one and that is

1:11:41 ↗ it's really hard to see how the actions

1:11:43 ↗ that we have will get us to our targets

1:11:49 ↗ um reducing the uh transferring

1:11:52 ↗ transitioning from to clean energy. If

1:11:56 ↗ you think about a heating system in a

1:11:58 ↗ house lasting about 20 years and if we

1:12:03 ↗ start transitioning people when they

1:12:05 ↗ need a new heating system, you could

1:12:08 ↗ estimate that approximately 20 years it

1:12:11 ↗ will take. And if we don't get in place

1:12:14 ↗ ways to do that that really work um that

1:12:17 ↗ are not just a choice that people makes

1:12:19 ↗ or maybe they happen to hear about it uh

1:12:22 ↗ then we aren't going to make those

1:12:24 ↗ targets even in in 20 years. Uh that's

1:12:27 ↗ why I feel like this plan needs to have

1:12:31 ↗ strong uh strong actions uh and some of

1:12:36 ↗ the actions around our commercial

1:12:38 ↗ buildings. How are they going to

1:12:39 ↗ transition? our small commercial

1:12:41 ↗ buildings. We have a state program for

1:12:42 ↗ the large ones. Uh residential, we have

1:12:45 ↗ a great program. How is that going to

1:12:47 ↗ expand enough uh for the energy smart

1:12:51 ↗ east side which is now has a new name I

1:12:54 ↗ think but uh how is that going to expand

1:12:56 ↗ enough uh to make this transition? Uh

1:12:59 ↗ and so I think we need to look at degree

1:13:02 ↗ of implementation

1:13:04 ↗ uh and that is that is where the proof

1:13:07 ↗ will come in. Um the um the critical

1:13:12 ↗ action uh number three in the people for

1:13:15 ↗ climate action uh uh

1:13:19 ↗ the critical actions that I sent to you

1:13:22 ↗ the um small commercial buildings I

1:13:24 ↗ mentioned uh home energy standards um or

1:13:28 ↗ something like that even if we can't do

1:13:30 ↗ that exact thing uh the state has tried

1:13:33 ↗ to pass that three times and it hasn't

1:13:35 ↗ gone through

1:13:37 ↗ uh something more I believe needs to be

1:13:40 ↗ done or we're not going to get there. Um

1:13:43 ↗ and so that's my my biggest concern. And

1:13:47 ↗ we didn't have a special committee that

1:13:49 ↗ worked on that. We didn't we don't we we

1:13:51 ↗ had a committee on natural systems. We

1:13:53 ↗ had committee on on a lot of these

1:13:55 ↗ things that are not our big emitters. We

1:13:58 ↗ really need to have something done in

1:14:00 ↗ that area. I believe some kind of think

1:14:02 ↗ tanker come together. Um and then the

1:14:05 ↗ only other comment I wanted to make was

1:14:07 ↗ on the one of the critical actions

1:14:09 ↗ called uh public engagement or public

1:14:11 ↗ education. People for climate action is

1:14:14 ↗ really really interested in this and has

1:14:17 ↗ uh worked on a um uh an outline of uh

1:14:21 ↗ what what need information and what are

1:14:23 ↗ some different ways we can do this? How

1:14:26 ↗ can we partner with cities each chapter

1:14:28 ↗ with each city? uh how can we partner

1:14:30 ↗ regionally like we've done with the

1:14:32 ↗ energy smart east side. Uh and we're uh

1:14:37 ↗ ready to um to go with that and want to

1:14:40 ↗ re-energize. I think climate needs to be

1:14:42 ↗ re-energized. If I could get as many

1:14:44 ↗ people as came tonight to come for

1:14:46 ↗ climate. Woohoo. That would be great. So

1:14:50 ↗ that's what we'd like to do and we're

1:14:52 ↗ raring to go to help and work with uh

1:14:55 ↗ Stacy and David to do that. So, thank

1:14:57 ↗ you.

1:14:59 ↗ >> Thank you,

1:15:01 ↗ clerk.

1:15:03 ↗ >> David Kappler.

1:15:11 ↗ >> Good evening. David Kappler, 255

1:15:13 ↗ Southeast Andrews Street.

1:15:15 ↗ Um, I hear all about climate by Ann

1:15:19 ↗ Fletcher constantly and uh amazed at the

1:15:22 ↗ amount of time and energy that she's

1:15:24 ↗ devoting to uh working on our climate

1:15:27 ↗ and she's got great partners. You have

1:15:30 ↗ great partners with the staff in working

1:15:32 ↗ on climate. Um I'm all for that. The

1:15:37 ↗ tree the tree initi in initiatives and

1:15:39 ↗ many other initiatives that the city is

1:15:42 ↗ working on is much appreciated.

1:15:45 ↗ My the one area I'm I keep getting

1:15:51 ↗ concerned is assuming climate is not

1:15:53 ↗ going to get better. It's going to get

1:15:55 ↗ drier uh warmer is fire. And we got a

1:16:00 ↗ lot of people on slopes that

1:16:03 ↗ uh fire travels much better uphill than

1:16:06 ↗ across the flats. And we have a lot of a

1:16:09 ↗ lot of fuel out there and we need to be

1:16:13 ↗ doing that. My personal experience with

1:16:16 ↗ fire and putting out fires was almost 50

1:16:19 ↗ years ago, but it was in Eastern

1:16:21 ↗ Washington and um it still can remember

1:16:24 ↗ those incidents where I was the uh a

1:16:28 ↗ first responder but unofficial

1:16:32 ↗ and um we need to we need to really be

1:16:35 ↗ working with with with that to uh make

1:16:38 ↗ sure we we do the best we can and thank

1:16:41 ↗ you for great work the council's doing

1:16:44 ↗ and the staff is doing on this effort.

1:16:46 ↗ Thank you.

1:16:49 ↗ >> Thank you. So, number of hands went up

1:16:50 ↗ on that comment

1:16:53 ↗ >> and a few went up on the previous

1:16:55 ↗ comment as well.

1:16:57 ↗ >> No one online's indicating a desire to

1:16:59 ↗ speak.

1:17:01 ↗ >> Does anyone else from the public who has

1:17:03 ↗ not signed up wish to speak uh on this

1:17:06 ↗ particular uh measure this evening

1:17:09 ↗ either in person or electronically?

1:17:15 ↗ All right. So, back to deliberation. We

1:17:18 ↗ have uh three options in front of us uh

1:17:22 ↗ as suggested paths uh to return to

1:17:24 ↗ council and I would be open to a

1:17:27 ↗ conversation about uh which of those

1:17:29 ↗ would we prefer.

1:17:33 ↗ >> Council member Walsh.

1:17:35 ↗ >> Thank you. Um just recognizing that this

1:17:39 ↗ uh first of all came through PD and we

1:17:41 ↗ had a good conversation and actually

1:17:43 ↗ held it back for another conversation on

1:17:47 ↗ what more we could do around greenhouse

1:17:49 ↗ gas reduction. So I appreciate working

1:17:50 ↗ with staff on that. Um my my first and

1:17:55 ↗ overarching

1:17:57 ↗ feeling on all of this is just

1:17:59 ↗ appreciation that we're taking it

1:18:00 ↗ seriously and that we're getting the

1:18:03 ↗ community input and the feedback. um on

1:18:07 ↗ the things that are important. Um I do

1:18:11 ↗ want to say I think we could tighten

1:18:13 ↗ things up just a little bit to really

1:18:16 ↗ focus on the climate areas. I appreciate

1:18:18 ↗ that there are community interests um

1:18:21 ↗ for some of the other areas. But as much

1:18:24 ↗ as that is the case, there's also

1:18:27 ↗ community interest and as was

1:18:29 ↗ demonstrated by the people for climate

1:18:30 ↗ action um report on like what more can

1:18:35 ↗ we do about the really serious stuff

1:18:37 ↗ like like the things that are causing

1:18:40 ↗ our world to burn. Um so

1:18:44 ↗ making sure that we devote the most

1:18:47 ↗ attention there is really important to

1:18:49 ↗ me. Um, I also appreciate you

1:18:52 ↗ highlighting, you know, some of the ways

1:18:54 ↗ that you are addressing and changing the

1:18:59 ↗ targets um, so that you're really

1:19:01 ↗ looking at the leading metrics, not just

1:19:03 ↗ the lagging metrics. I think on that

1:19:05 ↗ tree canopy one, that was a difficult

1:19:08 ↗ idea for us because it's like, well,

1:19:10 ↗ trees take a while to get to canopy

1:19:13 ↗ point. So recognizing that okay, if it's

1:19:17 ↗ not going to get to that point until a

1:19:19 ↗ future idea, the fact that we have to

1:19:22 ↗ work on a certain number of plantings

1:19:24 ↗ now um is a great recognition of that.

1:19:27 ↗ And so I'll be looking for um other

1:19:29 ↗ areas like that. Um, as far as the

1:19:32 ↗ dates, I guess I would express a slight

1:19:36 ↗ preference to wait until after the envir

1:19:38 ↗ environmental board's written approval

1:19:41 ↗ um is available in case there's going to

1:19:43 ↗ be any um you know comments from them

1:19:47 ↗ about particular areas of focus. Um if

1:19:51 ↗ we feel like we can get that another

1:19:52 ↗ way, I'm fine to do it earlier. Um,

1:19:58 ↗ so I don't have a strong preference on

1:20:01 ↗ date other than waiting beyond that June

1:20:05 ↗ 10th and I would be interested to hear

1:20:07 ↗ from other council members if there are

1:20:10 ↗ any preferences.

1:20:12 ↗ >> Thank you. Other comment,

1:20:17 ↗ Deputy Council President Jay,

1:20:19 ↗ >> thank you and thank you staff for all

1:20:21 ↗ your work on this thus far. I actually

1:20:23 ↗ almost have kind of the opposite

1:20:24 ↗ reaction to the climate action versus

1:20:26 ↗ sustainability plan. Like I'm actually

1:20:28 ↗ totally okay with rebranding this as a

1:20:30 ↗ sustainability and climate action plan

1:20:31 ↗ so that we can incorporate some of these

1:20:33 ↗ other things that are also critically

1:20:35 ↗ important. I mean that's just my

1:20:37 ↗ personal opinion. Take it or leave it.

1:20:39 ↗ Um I also I think I really like the

1:20:42 ↗ focus on tree equity across census

1:20:44 ↗ tracks rather than just focusing on tree

1:20:46 ↗ canopy. Trees and cities are mostly

1:20:47 ↗ useful in so far as they provide

1:20:49 ↗ benefits to people, right? Like if

1:20:51 ↗ you're outside and it's really hot like

1:20:53 ↗ it was today, you're like, "Wow, I wish

1:20:54 ↗ there was a tree on the street to keep

1:20:57 ↗ me in the shade." And honestly, planting

1:20:59 ↗ a bunch of trees in Lake Sammer State

1:21:00 ↗ Park doesn't really do anything to

1:21:02 ↗ provide that benefit to people. Um,

1:21:04 ↗ which, you know, that doesn't mean we

1:21:06 ↗ shouldn't do it, but I do think that

1:21:07 ↗ tree equity metric is really important

1:21:09 ↗ to me. Um, I guess in so far as how this

1:21:14 ↗ should come back to us, I'm I'm kind of

1:21:16 ↗ agnostic. I think we had wanted to bring

1:21:18 ↗ this to the full council because you

1:21:20 ↗ know I think we'd had maybe one or two

1:21:21 ↗ touches in committee and wanted to bring

1:21:24 ↗ service this to the whole council given

1:21:26 ↗ that sustainability and climate action

1:21:28 ↗ is a huge priority for the city of

1:21:30 ↗ Isiqua. I think we're probably one of

1:21:32 ↗ the only cities that has sustainability

1:21:34 ↗ as one of our strategic priorities. Um

1:21:36 ↗ so want to make sure that you know we're

1:21:38 ↗ giving the attention that it deserves.

1:21:40 ↗ Um, so I'm I'm open to either reviewing

1:21:43 ↗ it in uh committee or in full counsel

1:21:46 ↗ again, but want to hear what other

1:21:47 ↗ council members have to say on that.

1:21:49 ↗ Thank you,

1:21:51 ↗ >> Council Member Adair.

1:21:53 ↗ >> Yeah, I think to throw in a vote for

1:21:57 ↗ something, I think I'm leaning towards

1:21:58 ↗ option one for the committee of the

1:22:00 ↗ whole in that I feel like there is

1:22:03 ↗ enough uh material in there that would

1:22:06 ↗ create a fair amount of discussion

1:22:08 ↗ amongst all of us. I know I personally

1:22:10 ↗ already have general questions about

1:22:11 ↗ some of the of thoughts about this

1:22:14 ↗ especially when we get into a lot of the

1:22:15 ↗ larger proposed actions and I'm not a

1:22:17 ↗ member of PTE. So like it feels like

1:22:20 ↗ this this uh plan has a lot of

1:22:24 ↗ discussion points for the whole council

1:22:26 ↗ and thus that seems like one of the

1:22:30 ↗ better uh options to get that level of

1:22:32 ↗ discussion and input from us as a whole

1:22:34 ↗ because I think there is enough here to

1:22:36 ↗ have a larger discussion. So, that would

1:22:38 ↗ be my vote for it.

1:22:40 ↗ >> Thank you, Council Member Nichols.

1:22:43 ↗ >> Yeah, I I will I'll first of all, thank

1:22:45 ↗ you for the presentation. That was great

1:22:46 ↗ as always. Um, I'll save my comments on

1:22:49 ↗ the the substance of it for a later

1:22:51 ↗ discussion, but just as for the specific

1:22:52 ↗ question, when do we want to talk about

1:22:54 ↗ it? Um, I agree with Council Member

1:22:56 ↗ Adair. I think this would be useful for

1:22:58 ↗ the committee the whole um there's a lot

1:23:00 ↗ of cross cutting stuff in here and uh

1:23:02 ↗ while I would be happy to see us address

1:23:04 ↗ it in PTE I and as a member of that

1:23:06 ↗ committee I would be happy to there I

1:23:07 ↗ think it would be more useful assuming

1:23:09 ↗ there's other interest by other council

1:23:11 ↗ members to bring it to the committee of

1:23:12 ↗ the whole as well or instead

1:23:18 ↗ >> any other comments

1:23:20 ↗ council member Boyd

1:23:23 ↗ >> thank you um I think I'm switching I was

1:23:26 ↗ initially

1:23:27 ↗ uh ready to let this um have the

1:23:30 ↗ environmental board um have their you

1:23:33 ↗ know final us to get the official

1:23:35 ↗ version and I'm really interested in

1:23:36 ↗ that. It sounds like they're doing a

1:23:37 ↗ call to action and I think that's

1:23:38 ↗ incredibly important because this is the

1:23:40 ↗ climate action plan but um

1:23:44 ↗ uh I think I'm being swayed. Um, so if

1:23:47 ↗ we get it before us to um another full

1:23:51 ↗ council, I am also not on PTE, then um I

1:23:54 ↗ would be interested in that discussion

1:23:55 ↗ as well.

1:23:57 ↗ >> Thank you, Council Member Walsh.

1:24:00 ↗ I will be willing to be swayed. Um, and

1:24:03 ↗ partially because I think we have better

1:24:05 ↗ discussions at committee of the whole

1:24:07 ↗ rather than a full council meeting. And

1:24:10 ↗ hearing that there are members of

1:24:12 ↗ council who are not on PD who want to

1:24:14 ↗ contribute to that, I think I will throw

1:24:18 ↗ my hat in the ring for option one.

1:24:24 ↗ I see a thumbs up from council member

1:24:26 ↗ Joe and uh I'm happy to decision as well

1:24:30 ↗ also from deputy council president Jang.

1:24:33 ↗ All right. So I think you have your

1:24:34 ↗ feedback. Uh any closing comments from

1:24:36 ↗ anybody on council? Council member Boyd.

1:24:39 ↗ >> Yes. Can I also just say I forgot to

1:24:41 ↗ mention that um thank you so much for

1:24:42 ↗ your work on this. um it passed through

1:24:44 ↗ when I was on the transportation

1:24:46 ↗ advisory board and I um know that some

1:24:48 ↗ of our feedback was to um just make sure

1:24:50 ↗ that we're crosswalking with what's

1:24:52 ↗ already in our existing plans and I can

1:24:54 ↗ see that um in uh the materials that we

1:24:57 ↗ got today and uh I also really

1:24:59 ↗ appreciate the response to you know

1:25:01 ↗ going in at first uh with more of a

1:25:03 ↗ light touch and then upon getting that

1:25:05 ↗ community feedback of want wanting to

1:25:07 ↗ like know let's do a real bigger

1:25:09 ↗ revision. I just really appreciate that

1:25:10 ↗ responsiveness.

1:25:14 ↗ Council member Adair.

1:25:15 ↗ >> Same. I did want to echo I didn't have a

1:25:17 ↗ thank you in my comment earlier and did

1:25:19 ↗ want to commend the work that went into

1:25:20 ↗ this the work that went into the pack

1:25:21 ↗ materials. There was a lot here since I

1:25:23 ↗ was not a part of the you know the 2021

1:25:25 ↗ plan and I could already kind of see so

1:25:27 ↗ many elements of what had changed. So

1:25:28 ↗ this was very informative for me and so

1:25:30 ↗ very good work on everything you've done

1:25:32 ↗ so far.

1:25:36 ↗ >> All right. I don't see any other

1:25:37 ↗ comments. So thank you very much. The

1:25:39 ↗ administration has what they were

1:25:40 ↗ looking for to be city administrator. We

1:25:42 ↗ do. Thank you.

1:25:43 ↗ >> All right. And with that, we will move

1:25:45 ↗ to COOM0262,

1:25:48 ↗ Isiqua Police Department Congressional

1:25:50 ↗ Community Appropriations Grant. We're

1:25:52 ↗ going to have a number of folks uh help

1:25:54 ↗ us on this this evening. Uh leading us

1:25:56 ↗ off and and as ring leader, Dale Marky

1:25:59 ↗ Crimp, assistant to the city

1:26:00 ↗ administrator. We're also going to hear

1:26:01 ↗ from Ryan Smith, prime analyst and

1:26:03 ↗ mobile friends exam examiner. And uh

1:26:06 ↗ remotely, we also have Phil Nef from the

1:26:08 ↗ University of Washington. So, uh, Dale,

1:26:11 ↗ take it away.

1:26:12 ↗ >> Thank you, Council President. Uh,

1:26:14 ↗ members of the city council, fresh back

1:26:16 ↗ from vacation, and it is so good to see

1:26:18 ↗ you all. Um, tonight, the administration

1:26:21 ↗ is reintroducing for your consideration

1:26:24 ↗ information related to a federal grant

1:26:28 ↗ focused primarily on replacing and

1:26:30 ↗ upgrading police department tasers along

1:26:33 ↗ with a small investment in an interview

1:26:36 ↗ room camera system. These are practical

1:26:39 ↗ tools that directly [clears throat]

1:26:41 ↗ support officer and community safety,

1:26:44 ↗ officer accountability, and effective

1:26:46 ↗ policing.

1:26:48 ↗ Acceptance of these grant dollars was

1:26:50 ↗ originally approved by the city council

1:26:52 ↗ more than a year ago. However, due to

1:26:55 ↗ changes in um and delays at the federal

1:26:58 ↗ level, appropriation of the grant

1:27:00 ↗ dollars did not move forward on that

1:27:02 ↗ original timeline.

1:27:04 ↗ And in that time since, circumstances

1:27:07 ↗ and community conversations here in

1:27:09 ↗ Isiqua as well have evolved.

1:27:12 ↗ The original grant proposal included uh

1:27:15 ↗ money for ALPR, automated license plate

1:27:17 ↗ reader technology. And since that time,

1:27:20 ↗ we've heard significant public concern

1:27:22 ↗ regarding privacy, data retention,

1:27:25 ↗ oversight related to that technology,

1:27:27 ↗ specifically flock camera technology.

1:27:30 ↗ Given those concerns and recognizing

1:27:32 ↗ that thoughtful policy development and

1:27:35 ↗ strong data safeguards need to preede

1:27:38 ↗ any tool, uh the administration is not

1:27:41 ↗ moving forward with that portion of the

1:27:43 ↗ proposal at this time. Additionally, as

1:27:46 ↗ you'll learn this evening, uh the price

1:27:48 ↗ of tasers, like almost everything else

1:27:50 ↗ in our world, has gone up significantly

1:27:52 ↗ in the last year. And given that taser

1:27:55 ↗ replacement was the primary need, this

1:27:57 ↗ update updated cost precludes

1:28:00 ↗ consideration of using any of the grant

1:28:03 ↗ dollars for ALPR technologies.

1:28:06 ↗ And lastly, the city is currently in the

1:28:08 ↗ process of recruiting and selecting a

1:28:10 ↗ new police chief. Um, and the

1:28:12 ↗ administration believes it's important

1:28:13 ↗ to have any future chief um in place

1:28:16 ↗ before we have any further discussion of

1:28:19 ↗ ALPR technology.

1:28:22 ↗ Instead, we're bringing a more focused

1:28:24 ↗ request centered on the immediate

1:28:26 ↗ operational and safety needs uh of our

1:28:29 ↗ police department while allowing for

1:28:30 ↗ additional time and community

1:28:32 ↗ discussion. And I think most

1:28:33 ↗ importantly,

1:28:37 ↗ policy work regarding any future

1:28:39 ↗ consideration of any automated license

1:28:41 ↗ plate reader technology or system. This

1:28:44 ↗ evening, you're going to hear from

1:28:46 ↗ several, as Coun pres as Council

1:28:49 ↗ President Mart said, several um public

1:28:52 ↗ safety and uh professionals and uh a

1:28:56 ↗ researcher or expert as he was referred

1:28:58 ↗ to. Um I've had the pleasure of reading

1:29:00 ↗ the work uh today. First, we'll hear

1:29:04 ↗ from our city crime analyst and mobile

1:29:06 ↗ forensic examiner. What a cool title.

1:29:10 ↗ Ryan Smith, who will provide more

1:29:11 ↗ information about the grant and

1:29:13 ↗ application process. One of our police

1:29:15 ↗ sergeants, Sergeant Asbel, who will

1:29:17 ↗ discuss current taser technology and its

1:29:20 ↗ role in offering officer and community

1:29:22 ↗ safety. And Commander Bava from the city

1:29:24 ↗ of Kent will share information about how

1:29:26 ↗ their jurisdiction has implemented and

1:29:29 ↗ used ALPR technology. We'll also hear

1:29:32 ↗ from researcher Phil Nef from the

1:29:34 ↗ University of Washington Center for

1:29:35 ↗ Human Rights, which has done research

1:29:37 ↗ into how border patrol has accessed

1:29:40 ↗ flock necks network within Washington

1:29:43 ↗ state in different ways to pursue civil

1:29:45 ↗ immigration enforcement with and without

1:29:47 ↗ the cooperation or knowledge of the

1:29:49 ↗ owners of those flock systems. So with

1:29:52 ↗ that, I will turn it over to Ryan Smith

1:29:54 ↗ for the presentation and discussion.

1:29:59 ↗ >> Thank you.

1:30:05 ↗ I'm going connect my commu computer

1:30:07 ↗ here.

1:30:18 ↗ [clears throat]

1:30:26 ↗ I'm going to share my screen here so you

1:30:28 ↗ guys can see everything.

1:30:49 ↗ All right. So, hello everyone. My name

1:30:53 ↗ is uh Ryan Smith and I am your local

1:30:56 ↗ civilian crime analyst and mobile

1:30:58 ↗ forensic examiner with the Isiqua Police

1:31:00 ↗ Department. I'm here to talk to you all

1:31:03 ↗ about uh all of the work that our our

1:31:06 ↗ police department has done in putting

1:31:07 ↗ into this congressional community

1:31:09 ↗ appropriations grant, how we began the

1:31:12 ↗ work on this and what it currently is,

1:31:15 ↗ which Dale has uh spoken to quite well

1:31:18 ↗ actually. Thank you, Dale. I also want

1:31:21 ↗ to take a moment. I think this is very

1:31:23 ↗ important that I do this right now. I

1:31:26 ↗ want to take a moment to fully

1:31:29 ↗ acknowledge each and every one of you

1:31:32 ↗ guys who have spoken. It took a lot of

1:31:35 ↗ courage to speak your peace to all of us

1:31:38 ↗ very publicly. um not everyone is able

1:31:43 ↗ to share those those concerns and they

1:31:47 ↗ may have some fears and I want to say

1:31:49 ↗ thank you each of you for sharing what

1:31:52 ↗ you have all of you I've heard that uh I

1:31:56 ↗ I truly do hope that when you hear what

1:32:00 ↗ I have to say that may hopefully assuage

1:32:03 ↗ some of your some of your fears a little

1:32:06 ↗ it.

1:32:10 ↗ All right, let's move forward. And I do

1:32:13 ↗ apologize everybody. Public speaking is

1:32:15 ↗ not my forte. So sorry.

1:32:20 ↗ Okay.

1:32:23 ↗ So the purpose of this discussion, the

1:32:28 ↗ information that I'm going to be

1:32:29 ↗ bringing you is to provide a background

1:32:31 ↗ surrounding the application for and the

1:32:33 ↗ recent award of the 2026 Washington

1:32:37 ↗ State Community Appropriations Grant for

1:32:40 ↗ the Isiqua Police Department. The

1:32:42 ↗ rationale behind this is that uh you

1:32:45 ↗ know this is brought before council as

1:32:48 ↗ the amount of funding is over $100,000

1:32:50 ↗ and requires the additional approval for

1:32:54 ↗ the acceptance of the funding as the

1:32:56 ↗ funds are used on safety technology

1:32:59 ↗ specifically conducted energy devices

1:33:02 ↗ only. Uh these are more commonly known

1:33:04 ↗ as tasers as Dale had just mentioned.

1:33:06 ↗ I'll be referring to them as conducted

1:33:08 ↗ energy devices. Um

1:33:12 ↗ I do want to understand and and point

1:33:14 ↗ out though that originally the first

1:33:17 ↗ iteration of the grant did include ALPR

1:33:20 ↗ cameras uh at our freeway entrances for

1:33:24 ↗ investigative follow-up at the time. But

1:33:27 ↗ this is perfect timing to you know kind

1:33:29 ↗ of discuss information regarding such

1:33:31 ↗ technology again and what it can and

1:33:33 ↗ cannot do publicly. But before we dive

1:33:37 ↗ into the history of the grant and the

1:33:39 ↗ process locally, it's important to

1:33:41 ↗ discuss what the grant is and where

1:33:44 ↗ we're at currently as it stands.

1:33:50 ↗ So, the grant funding source, the grant

1:33:53 ↗ application was submitted to the

1:33:55 ↗ community appropriations request for

1:33:57 ↗ funding from the Department of Justice's

1:34:00 ↗ burn discretionary community project

1:34:02 ↗ funding or the burn discretionary grants

1:34:05 ↗ program. The burn discretionary grants

1:34:08 ↗ program, which is a mouthful to say, uh

1:34:11 ↗ allocates funding for discretionary

1:34:13 ↗ grants to improve the functioning of the

1:34:16 ↗ criminal justice system, to prevent or

1:34:18 ↗ combat juvenile delinquency, and to

1:34:21 ↗ assist victims of crime other than

1:34:24 ↗ compensation. uh which shall be made

1:34:26 ↗ available for the Office of Justice

1:34:29 ↗ programs, burn projects and in spec uh

1:34:32 ↗ specified amounts for community project

1:34:35 ↗ funding or congressionally directed

1:34:38 ↗ spending. And it is under the community

1:34:41 ↗ project funding and congressionally

1:34:43 ↗ directed spending uh portion to which

1:34:46 ↗ the police department submitted a

1:34:47 ↗ project request via the state

1:34:49 ↗ representatives uh representatives

1:34:52 ↗ community appropriations funding

1:34:54 ↗ requests.

1:34:55 ↗ And before I continue forward, I really

1:34:58 ↗ do want to uh emphasize that the process

1:35:02 ↗ to even apply for the grant is highly

1:35:06 ↗ competitive and a selective process.

1:35:09 ↗ Once approvals for securing the funding

1:35:12 ↗ locally were achieved last year, we then

1:35:14 ↗ had to go through a review and approval

1:35:16 ↗ process for the eighth congressional

1:35:19 ↗ district, state review and approvals,

1:35:21 ↗ and then a final federal review for

1:35:23 ↗ congressional funds to be allocated to

1:35:25 ↗ us.

1:35:28 ↗ And to be fair, there is still more

1:35:30 ↗ process for that. Um, but all of that is

1:35:34 ↗ for applying for funding. We were one

1:35:36 ↗ of, I believe, 15 chosen to be moved

1:35:39 ↗ forward locally. And I believe we're all

1:35:42 ↗ aware that in the highly politicized

1:35:45 ↗ atmosphere that is the federal landscape

1:35:48 ↗ right now, uh, honestly then and now,

1:35:52 ↗ uh, securing these funds was no small

1:35:55 ↗ feat.

1:36:00 ↗ All right.

1:36:02 ↗ So the grant project presently as it

1:36:06 ↗ currently stands,

1:36:08 ↗ the grant title is the Isiqua Police

1:36:11 ↗ Department bodywn cameras project uh

1:36:14 ↗ equipment project and they bless you and

1:36:17 ↗ the amount requested is $452,477.

1:36:24 ↗ The summary is as listed and I apologize

1:36:27 ↗ this will sound very boring. Uh the city

1:36:31 ↗ of Isiziqua police bodywn cameras

1:36:33 ↗ equipment project would help obtain

1:36:35 ↗ necessary bodywn camera incorporated

1:36:37 ↗ conducted energy devices CED for law

1:36:42 ↗ enforcement officers of the department.

1:36:44 ↗ The project seeks to enhance community

1:36:47 ↗ and officer safety, promote

1:36:49 ↗ transparency, and collect evidence

1:36:51 ↗ through the use of bodywn camera

1:36:53 ↗ equipment that would enable officers to

1:36:55 ↗ use less lethal means and introduce

1:36:58 ↗ deescalation in use of force through the

1:37:01 ↗ introduction of conducted energy

1:37:03 ↗ devices.

1:37:07 ↗ The outcomes and expectations are as

1:37:11 ↗ fourth. The uh the outcomes expected

1:37:14 ↗ include a greater ability to document

1:37:17 ↗ law enforcement interactions and collect

1:37:20 ↗ evidence for trial with CEDs that allow

1:37:22 ↗ for the bodywn camera to automatically

1:37:24 ↗ turn on when conducted energy when the

1:37:27 ↗ conducted energy device is pulled out as

1:37:30 ↗ well as the increased deescalation

1:37:32 ↗ through the use of less lethal means to

1:37:34 ↗ reduce risk to both law enforcement and

1:37:37 ↗ potential suspects. The city of

1:37:39 ↗ Isiziqua, its population, and its law

1:37:42 ↗ enforcement will jointly benefit from

1:37:45 ↗ the implementation of the project, as

1:37:47 ↗ well as other entities such as the

1:37:50 ↗ prosecutor's office and other law

1:37:52 ↗ enforcement agencies with whom the

1:37:54 ↗ department engages in the course of

1:37:56 ↗ serving the public. And our federal

1:37:59 ↗ nexus for this grant was section 501 of

1:38:03 ↗ the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe

1:38:05 ↗ Streets Act of 1968.

1:38:08 ↗ So in short, the police department's

1:38:11 ↗ grant is requesting funds to purchase

1:38:14 ↗ non-lethal conducted energy devices

1:38:17 ↗ which include the integration with our

1:38:19 ↗ body cam system.

1:38:28 ↗ So now let's dive into this is the the

1:38:30 ↗ whole timeline of what we're working

1:38:33 ↗ with. So, we'll dive into this process

1:38:35 ↗ of the grant submission. Starting at the

1:38:37 ↗ very beginning, uh this is the first

1:38:40 ↗ section here in blue. Uh is where we're

1:38:44 ↗ going to start off. This is prior to

1:38:46 ↗ March 17th, 2025.

1:38:49 ↗ Uh where the Isqua Police Department

1:38:51 ↗ began with drafting two separate grants

1:38:54 ↗ prior to the submission process. One was

1:38:57 ↗ for CEDs, the conducted energy devices,

1:39:00 ↗ and the other was for the use of ALPR

1:39:03 ↗ cameras. So, we'll start there. I also

1:39:06 ↗ think this is where the most interest

1:39:07 ↗ is. So, to be respectful of my uh

1:39:10 ↗ co-presenters here, uh we're going to

1:39:13 ↗ start there, but I have one slide before

1:39:15 ↗ I call on you guys.

1:39:18 ↗ So, the two separate, if I can hold just

1:39:21 ↗ one second, Council Member Walsh.

1:39:23 ↗ >> Yeah. Can you go back a slide? Oh, yes.

1:39:30 ↗ I'm just waiting for it to come up.

1:39:32 ↗ Great. So, this suggests that the city

1:39:35 ↗ had a draft of two separate grants

1:39:39 ↗ before coming to the city council in

1:39:43 ↗ March of 2025 to seek approval for

1:39:46 ↗ funding. Is that correct? That is

1:39:48 ↗ correct. we never move forward with the

1:39:51 ↗ grants and so that's why they never

1:39:53 ↗ actually uh were submitted because we

1:39:56 ↗ didn't actually submit two separate

1:39:57 ↗ grants. [snorts] Uh it was drafted

1:40:00 ↗ because we wanted to look at both the

1:40:04 ↗ CEDs and also ALPRS in the process uh

1:40:09 ↗ which I'll address in uh a couple of

1:40:11 ↗ slides so you'll hear it again there. Um

1:40:15 ↗ we had actually received feedback from

1:40:18 ↗ the panel uh with the 8th congressional

1:40:22 ↗ district who suggested that after

1:40:24 ↗ looking through justifications and

1:40:26 ↗ everything they really thought it made

1:40:27 ↗ more sense to have only one grant

1:40:30 ↗ combined and then with that feedback

1:40:33 ↗ then we said okay let's work on this and

1:40:36 ↗ then let's bring this to city council.

1:40:39 ↗ So when that was brought to city council

1:40:41 ↗ on March 17th, 2025 or to the services,

1:40:44 ↗ safety, and parks committee before that,

1:40:47 ↗ was it ever mentioned to either of those

1:40:50 ↗ groups that the city was seeking outside

1:40:56 ↗ funding or grants for these areas?

1:41:01 ↗ >> Uh, yes, to my knowledge, it was.

1:41:05 ↗ >> Okay. I was not on the services, safety,

1:41:08 ↗ and parks committee, but

1:41:11 ↗ >> I was told that there was no funding for

1:41:16 ↗ this and that thus our approval of

1:41:21 ↗ receiving that services, safety, and

1:41:23 ↗ parks report was going to result in no

1:41:27 ↗ action.

1:41:28 ↗ Um I don't know if there is any other

1:41:34 ↗ deputy city administrator. Do you know

1:41:36 ↗ if that was Oh,

1:41:38 ↗ >> sorry. You go ahead. You

1:41:38 ↗ >> if the grant was mentioned.

1:41:41 ↗ >> So I was going to say that uh before and

1:41:44 ↗ I apologize for for interrupting uh the

1:41:48 ↗ video and I re-reviewed the the video

1:41:50 ↗ from the first one and we can go back. I

1:41:52 ↗ can go fast forward to that slide if

1:41:54 ↗ you'd like to. Um there so there were

1:41:57 ↗ two meetings. There was actually one in

1:41:59 ↗ February and then there was another on

1:42:01 ↗ March 17th and the meeting in February

1:42:06 ↗ had noted that we did not actually you

1:42:10 ↗ know we didn't have the funding itself

1:42:12 ↗ but we could move forward for getting

1:42:14 ↗ the funding

1:42:16 ↗ and then at the March 17th meeting is

1:42:18 ↗ when everyone had appro gone through and

1:42:21 ↗ voted for approval to do it which was

1:42:24 ↗ unanimous

1:42:25 ↗ >> clarifying that was a consent agenda

1:42:28 ↗ vote, including several other areas. We

1:42:32 ↗ were not voting specifically on

1:42:35 ↗ accepting that or suggesting that we

1:42:37 ↗ move forward.

1:42:43 ↗ >> Deputy City Administrator,

1:42:45 ↗ >> thank you. Uh we're going to have to go

1:42:48 ↗ back and just make sure we review all of

1:42:50 ↗ those meetings and understand exactly

1:42:52 ↗ what the asks were. So, it's difficult

1:42:54 ↗ to reconstruct that timeline right here.

1:42:56 ↗ Um, but we're going to need a little bit

1:42:58 ↗ of time just to make sure that we're

1:43:00 ↗ providing council accurate information.

1:43:05 ↗ >> We can definitely go back through that.

1:43:07 ↗ I do have a slide though um listing the

1:43:09 ↗ outcomes from both of those meetings

1:43:12 ↗ which I will be happy to go through when

1:43:15 ↗ we get to that slide.

1:43:16 ↗ >> So,

1:43:18 ↗ >> oh, another question.

1:43:19 ↗ >> Yes, Council Member Nichols.

1:43:21 ↗ >> Okay. my question. So you've got up here

1:43:23 ↗ that this is a draft of two separate

1:43:25 ↗ grants and then the next slide which is

1:43:27 ↗ really what my question is on so you can

1:43:29 ↗ go one forward as well.

1:43:30 ↗ >> Yes, let's move forward.

1:43:32 ↗ >> I guess why are we discussing that it

1:43:34 ↗ was two separate grants because what

1:43:36 ↗ we'll be asked to vote on is a single

1:43:38 ↗ grant and that single

1:43:40 ↗ what we'll be asked to vote on is a

1:43:42 ↗ single grant and that single grant

1:43:44 ↗ includes both of these items in it.

1:43:47 ↗ >> No, it doesn't.

1:43:48 ↗ >> The grant does.

1:43:49 ↗ >> No. So the uh the grant actually only

1:43:54 ↗ has funds for the conducted energy

1:43:57 ↗ devices.

1:43:58 ↗ >> I'm sorry. The grant application, let's

1:43:59 ↗ be clear, the grant application includes

1:44:02 ↗ both of these both of these. It's not

1:44:03 ↗ two separate grants, right? Because we

1:44:05 ↗ are going

1:44:06 ↗ >> No, it is not two separate grants.

1:44:07 ↗ >> So we are going to be asked to vote on a

1:44:09 ↗ single grant and that single grant

1:44:11 ↗ includes both of these items.

1:44:14 ↗ >> No. So uh and that's something that

1:44:17 ↗ >> Were they removed from?

1:44:19 ↗ Yes, it was removed from the grant.

1:44:22 ↗ >> So, I know this sounds a little

1:44:24 ↗ confusing. Um, my next slides do address

1:44:27 ↗ this.

1:44:27 ↗ >> So, I have read this. I do want to be

1:44:29 ↗ very clear. So, it was it removed from

1:44:30 ↗ the grant or is it removed from the

1:44:32 ↗ currently proposed purchase plan?

1:44:36 ↗ >> That's an excellent question. I would

1:44:38 ↗ say probably from the currently

1:44:40 ↗ proposed. Uh we did go back and discuss

1:44:43 ↗ it with the uh with the panel and they

1:44:47 ↗ said that they were more than fine with

1:44:49 ↗ just paying for the tasers. In fact,

1:44:51 ↗ tasers since I haven't gotten to the

1:44:53 ↗ slides yet uh I want it to be known the

1:44:56 ↗ tasers actually or the conducted energy

1:44:59 ↗ devices those uh account for 99% of the

1:45:03 ↗ entire grant. So it is

1:45:06 ↗ >> well depending on how we decide to spend

1:45:07 ↗ it. And the the the reason I'm asking

1:45:09 ↗ this is it it is important from a timing

1:45:11 ↗ perspective. We will potentially have

1:45:13 ↗ multiple votes about this topic and

1:45:15 ↗ related topics including council

1:45:16 ↗ guardrails on it. So I wanted to be very

1:45:18 ↗ clear about

1:45:19 ↗ >> what this grant even there we have

1:45:21 ↗ statements about what we would like to

1:45:23 ↗ do with it. But for clarity

1:45:25 ↗ >> the grant did include both and I think

1:45:27 ↗ that's that's clear.

1:45:28 ↗ >> Originally the grant included both CEDs

1:45:32 ↗ and ALPR cameras.

1:45:34 ↗ >> Yes.

1:45:34 ↗ >> And I will originally Yes. Okay.

1:45:38 ↗ >> So, and then now it is it is just CEDs.

1:45:41 ↗ >> Our proposal is I I we are voting on a

1:45:44 ↗ thing. I want to be very clear. So, we

1:45:45 ↗ we are voting on a grant that had both.

1:45:47 ↗ So, we I I'm going to I'm going to try

1:45:50 ↗ to insist on the last word on that

1:45:51 ↗ unless it's someone else wants to chime

1:45:54 ↗ in and say that that's not true, that

1:45:55 ↗ the grant did not does not include both.

1:45:58 ↗ >> Council Nichols, your interpretation is

1:46:00 ↗ correct. The grant would allow us to

1:46:02 ↗ purchase those things, but we get to

1:46:03 ↗ make the decision on what we purchase at

1:46:05 ↗ this point.

1:46:05 ↗ >> Yes. And the thought was tasers or

1:46:10 ↗ conducted energy devices. The police

1:46:12 ↗ department I would like to move forward

1:46:14 ↗ with this very clearly. We we really

1:46:17 ↗ need conducted energy devices

1:46:19 ↗ [clears throat]

1:46:19 ↗ and that is a priority and in the rest

1:46:22 ↗ of the slides I'm hoping that that will

1:46:24 ↗ be very clear.

1:46:26 ↗ Okay. So really quickly quick summary on

1:46:29 ↗ the two separate so that it's what you

1:46:32 ↗ see here for full disclosure cuz we're

1:46:34 ↗ trying to be transparent of what this

1:46:36 ↗ actual process included.

1:46:38 ↗ This is where we started. Originally the

1:46:41 ↗ police department had two forms of

1:46:43 ↗ public safety technology both serving

1:46:46 ↗ very different purposes that would

1:46:47 ↗ benefit the community uh that we wanted

1:46:50 ↗ to explore funding options for CEDs and

1:46:53 ↗ LA ALPRs. The grant itself included all

1:46:56 ↗ forms of public safety technology and so

1:46:58 ↗ we originally wanted to submit them

1:47:00 ↗ separately. As will be mentioned later,

1:47:03 ↗ it was suggested during the submission

1:47:05 ↗ process that we combine both into one as

1:47:07 ↗ both were considered worthy in our

1:47:09 ↗ justifications.

1:47:11 ↗ This here is a high-level review of

1:47:13 ↗ both, but we have asked a few subject

1:47:16 ↗ matter uh experts to come and take a

1:47:19 ↗ moment to share information regarding

1:47:21 ↗ both subjects a bit more in depth with

1:47:23 ↗ you. For the CEDs, we requested Axon

1:47:27 ↗ Taser 10s to cover all current patrol

1:47:29 ↗ and correctional officers on staff.

1:47:34 ↗ Uh, presently, we have outdated CEDs

1:47:37 ↗ that cover only patrol staffing levels

1:47:40 ↗ from uh over a decade ago. Current

1:47:43 ↗ models have many features, including

1:47:46 ↗ double the range of previous CEDs,

1:47:48 ↗ allowing safer distance between officers

1:47:51 ↗ and subjects, improved accuracy, and

1:47:54 ↗ even more importantly, the integration

1:47:56 ↗ with standardized body cam technology to

1:47:58 ↗ manage event firing logs uh with

1:48:01 ↗ increased uh transparency, additional

1:48:04 ↗ training to enhance use of force

1:48:06 ↗ decision-making confidence and

1:48:08 ↗ accuracy under stress for all officers

1:48:10 ↗ both on patrol and in our correctional

1:48:14 ↗ facility, which not everyone knows, we

1:48:16 ↗ do have actually a jail downstairs in

1:48:18 ↗ the police department. Uh, and this is a

1:48:21 ↗ huge benefit to both the safety of our

1:48:24 ↗ officers and to the community we

1:48:26 ↗ interact with. Additionally,

1:48:30 ↗ uh, the use of bodywn camera CEDs allows

1:48:33 ↗ for greater transparency in our

1:48:36 ↗ interactions with the community. The

1:48:38 ↗ ability to record incidents as they

1:48:41 ↗ unfold provides an unbiased account of

1:48:44 ↗ events, helping to resolve disputes and

1:48:46 ↗ build public trust in law enforcement

1:48:48 ↗ procedures. The estimated quote uh

1:48:51 ↗ issued to replace all CEDs was at the

1:48:55 ↗ time that we received the quote

1:48:57 ↗ $378,976.38.

1:49:03 ↗ Uh this represents 84% of the total

1:49:06 ↗ amount requested.

1:49:09 ↗ The second grant was for the

1:49:10 ↗ installation and one-year lease fee for

1:49:13 ↗ 12 AL ALPR cameras to be placed on the

1:49:17 ↗ perimeters of town on freeway entrances

1:49:19 ↗ and exits prioritizing the exits that we

1:49:21 ↗ see the most criminal activity uh

1:49:24 ↗ exiting on to be exclusively used for

1:49:27 ↗ investigations of criminal offenses

1:49:29 ↗ locally. in particular both commercial

1:49:32 ↗ and residential burglaries as well as

1:49:34 ↗ for other property crimes for which

1:49:36 ↗ traditionally about 70% of our local

1:49:39 ↗ crime consists of. The estimated quote

1:49:43 ↗ for this was 70, excuse me, $73,500,

1:49:48 ↗ bringing the total to $452,000

1:49:52 ↗ uh and $452,477,

1:49:58 ↗ representing only 16% of the total

1:50:01 ↗ amount requested. And that is why the

1:50:03 ↗ grant was originally for $452,477,

1:50:09 ↗ which I think

1:50:11 ↗ speaks a bit to your original question,

1:50:14 ↗ uh Nicholls.

1:50:15 ↗ So,

1:50:17 ↗ let's go quickly into CEDs.

1:50:21 ↗ >> M, Miss Smith, I actually have one

1:50:22 ↗ question before you move on.

1:50:24 ↗ >> So, um, I believe that on the 15th, um,

1:50:28 ↗ we're going to see a proposal from the

1:50:29 ↗ administration that goes 99% for CEDs,

1:50:33 ↗ 1% for interview cameras.

1:50:36 ↗ >> Yes.

1:50:36 ↗ >> Um, were interview cameras part of the

1:50:39 ↗ original grants? And if not, can we use

1:50:42 ↗ that money for interview cameras?

1:50:43 ↗ >> The original uh grant did not include

1:50:46 ↗ the interview cameras, but we are

1:50:49 ↗ allowed to use that as a camera

1:50:52 ↗ technology and that enhances public

1:50:54 ↗ safety.

1:50:55 ↗ >> Thank you.

1:50:56 ↗ >> Yes.

1:50:58 ↗ All right. So, I would like to ask uh

1:51:00 ↗ our esteemed Sergeant Asell to come up

1:51:04 ↗ and uh discuss. Okay. What are CEDs?

1:51:20 ↗ Sergeant, thank you for joining us this

1:51:21 ↗ evening.

1:51:23 ↗ >> Hi, members of the council, members of

1:51:25 ↗ the community. Thank you for the

1:51:26 ↗ opportunity to come and talk to you

1:51:28 ↗ today. Uh, I do just want to take a

1:51:30 ↗ brief moment. Um,

1:51:32 ↗ thank you for being engaged in the

1:51:34 ↗ community and being willing to come and

1:51:36 ↗ speak. uh worked here for 18 years. A

1:51:38 ↗ lot of you spoke um passionately, which

1:51:42 ↗ I deeply appreciate, and a lot of you

1:51:43 ↗ also expressed your trust in our local

1:51:45 ↗ police department. Um that is what makes

1:51:47 ↗ our police department successful and

1:51:48 ↗ makes our community successful. So, I

1:51:50 ↗ just wanted to take a minute to express

1:51:52 ↗ my appreciation for that. So, uh I'm

1:51:54 ↗ here to talk about tasers, CEDs, uh or

1:51:58 ↗ CEWs. I'm going to refer to them as

1:52:00 ↗ tasers because, uh it's the easiest for

1:52:03 ↗ it to come out of my mouth. So, um, like

1:52:05 ↗ I said, I've worked here for 18 years.

1:52:07 ↗ We have had tasers since I started. We

1:52:10 ↗ started with, uh, the X26, which is the

1:52:14 ↗ model prior to the one that we have

1:52:16 ↗ currently. Um, and it's out of

1:52:18 ↗ commission. It's not used anymore. Uh,

1:52:20 ↗ the the CEDs, they're used by us.

1:52:23 ↗ They're a less lethal tool uh that we

1:52:25 ↗ use to um subdue um potentially

1:52:29 ↗ dangerous um individuals and provides us

1:52:33 ↗ basically the opportunity to use

1:52:35 ↗ something other than what would

1:52:36 ↗ potentially be lethal lethal force. Just

1:52:39 ↗ briefly about kind of how it actually

1:52:40 ↗ works. Um so if we draw our our taser

1:52:45 ↗ weapon, we'll arm it. Um and then if you

1:52:48 ↗ pull the trigger, it sends out it sends

1:52:50 ↗ two probes out. So, the way our X2s

1:52:52 ↗ work, um, basically the top probe will

1:52:54 ↗ go out and the bottom probe will come

1:52:56 ↗ out at an angle that is, um, slightly

1:52:59 ↗ lower. Um, it's a fixed distance between

1:53:02 ↗ the two probes as they come out that

1:53:03 ↗ gets larger as it goes further away. Um

1:53:07 ↗ the darts, if you have successful

1:53:09 ↗ contact, they'll make two points of

1:53:11 ↗ entry into an individual and it

1:53:13 ↗ basically delivers a high voltage but

1:53:16 ↗ low electrical p pulse that basically

1:53:18 ↗ just co causes all the muscles to to

1:53:20 ↗ tense up and it makes them have to cease

1:53:22 ↗ whatever action they're doing. As long

1:53:24 ↗ as you have a good spread between where

1:53:26 ↗ the two probes are, uh

1:53:29 ↗ the it um each time that you pull the

1:53:33 ↗ trigger, the taser runs for a 5-second

1:53:35 ↗ cycle and then automatically shuts off.

1:53:37 ↗ And during that 5-second cycle, when

1:53:39 ↗ somebody is under the power of the

1:53:41 ↗ taser, it's uh provides us an

1:53:44 ↗ opportunity to go and get and get them

1:53:46 ↗ into what we would call a position of

1:53:48 ↗ disadvantage. Basically, where we're

1:53:50 ↗ able to make it so that they can't keep

1:53:51 ↗ accessing the weapon they were trying to

1:53:53 ↗ access. they can't continue fighting.

1:53:55 ↗ Um, and it just uh basically gives us an

1:53:58 ↗ opportunity to be able to take somebody

1:54:00 ↗ into custody or detain them in a in a

1:54:02 ↗ much safer manner.

1:54:04 ↗ The uh I'm going to talk quickly about

1:54:06 ↗ what we have currently. Um, so as you

1:54:10 ↗ can see on the screen, um, we have X2s.

1:54:14 ↗ X2s came out in 2011. It took us a

1:54:18 ↗ couple years to get them. After that,

1:54:21 ↗ um, we phased them in. So, initially our

1:54:25 ↗ uh just our patrol had them and our um

1:54:28 ↗ corrections officers had the old style

1:54:30 ↗ of taser still, which um we don't like

1:54:33 ↗ to see because we like to have one

1:54:35 ↗ consistent weapon among anybody who's um

1:54:39 ↗ potentially going to be using or within

1:54:40 ↗ the police department. Also, it makes it

1:54:42 ↗ a lot simpler for training. So, we can

1:54:44 ↗ make sure that everybody is getting the

1:54:45 ↗ same training on the same um type of

1:54:48 ↗ less lethal weapon that we're using.

1:54:50 ↗ Again, the X2s are

1:54:53 ↗ it's not reflected on here because this

1:54:56 ↗ is sort of like decreased, but in

1:54:57 ↗ between the 2011 and the 2023 release of

1:55:01 ↗ the Taser 10, there's actually two other

1:55:03 ↗ weapons that were that were included.

1:55:05 ↗ So, there's a an X26P and then also a

1:55:08 ↗ Taser 7. So, we're at least two

1:55:11 ↗ generations behind. Um, I know for

1:55:13 ↗ example, we had uh one of our one of our

1:55:16 ↗ corrections officers just recently went

1:55:18 ↗ through training and usually they have

1:55:21 ↗ about 30 seats in the training classes

1:55:23 ↗ and we were one of two in the in the

1:55:26 ↗ class that still had these old style

1:55:27 ↗ weapons and basically taser's not even

1:55:30 ↗ didn't even really cover it at all

1:55:32 ↗ during the training. So, um, again,

1:55:34 ↗ pretty antiquated. Um, and there's a

1:55:36 ↗ just a lot better technology out there.

1:55:39 ↗ um a lot better transparency uh a lot

1:55:42 ↗ better access to um you know the data

1:55:45 ↗ that would come from it. There's a lot

1:55:47 ↗ better um

1:55:49 ↗ basically it gives a a loud warning

1:55:51 ↗ alert anytime that you activate it which

1:55:53 ↗ is something these don't have. And then

1:55:55 ↗ also the activation of our body cameras.

1:55:57 ↗ We all have the body cameras now. Um and

1:55:59 ↗ it basically if you were to pull the new

1:56:01 ↗ TAS 10 it activates any body camera

1:56:04 ↗ within a certain radius around um the

1:56:06 ↗ incident that's occurring.

1:56:08 ↗ So this is a quick we'll see if this

1:56:10 ↗ video plays about neuromuscular

1:56:12 ↗ incapacitation and it's basically what

1:56:14 ↗ we talked about where the two probes

1:56:16 ↗ make impact with an individual and what

1:56:18 ↗ that um what that effect is.

1:56:21 ↗ >> Oh thank you

1:56:39 ↗ If you've read about taser technology,

1:56:42 ↗ no doubt you've come across these three

1:56:44 ↗ letters, NMI. NMI stands for

1:56:48 ↗ neuromuscular incapacitation.

1:56:50 ↗ NMI is simple. Basically, we send a

1:56:54 ↗ signal to your muscles telling them to

1:56:56 ↗ flex. This is the same technology you

1:56:58 ↗ see in off-the-shelf muscle stimulators

1:57:01 ↗ used for rehab and muscle therapy.

1:57:04 ↗ Everyone has electric signals that

1:57:06 ↗ travel throughout their nervous system.

1:57:08 ↗ It connects all the sensors in your

1:57:10 ↗ body, your eyes, your ears, your nose,

1:57:13 ↗ the touch sensors in your skin. And all

1:57:15 ↗ these signals are converted to electric

1:57:17 ↗ signals sent through your nerves up into

1:57:19 ↗ your brain. It's an insanely complex

1:57:22 ↗ symphony. And your brain is a conductor

1:57:24 ↗ moving all elements of your body with

1:57:27 ↗ these electrical impulses. These

1:57:29 ↗ electric pulses have a low current and

1:57:31 ↗ they're really quite safe, but they're

1:57:33 ↗ very effective at incapacitating a

1:57:35 ↗ subject and stopping threats quickly.

1:57:38 ↗ Now, depending on how far apart the two

1:57:40 ↗ electrodes are, NMI may be partial if

1:57:44 ↗ the probes are close together or it can

1:57:47 ↗ affect the entire body.

1:57:49 ↗ Now, the greater the distance between

1:57:51 ↗ the two probes, the greater the

1:57:53 ↗ likelihood of total NMI.

1:57:56 ↗ With Taser 10, we introduced a new

1:57:58 ↗ concept of single trigger, single probe

1:58:00 ↗ deployment. This means users can deploy

1:58:03 ↗ one probe at a time to create exactly

1:58:06 ↗ the spread that will give you the

1:58:07 ↗ greatest opportunity to induce NMI.

1:58:22 ↗ Awesome.

1:58:46 ↗ Um, so as you saw in the video, um, the

1:58:49 ↗ Taser 10s, they have, um, 10 cartridges

1:58:51 ↗ in there, and it allows us to, um, fire

1:58:54 ↗ probes and and target them specifically,

1:58:57 ↗ which

1:58:58 ↗ is great because basically for it to be

1:59:00 ↗ impactful, we need that spread distance

1:59:02 ↗ on an individual so that it actually

1:59:04 ↗ gets the neuromuscular incapacitation as

1:59:06 ↗ opposed to just something localized

1:59:09 ↗ where it might just impact the small

1:59:10 ↗ area where it's uh, where it's affected.

1:59:12 ↗ And then also the other um big

1:59:15 ↗ difference for us is the 45 ft range

1:59:17 ↗ that it just allows us um a less lethal

1:59:20 ↗ option at a further distance. 25 ft is

1:59:24 ↗ not that far away. And also since the

1:59:26 ↗ probes that come out on our current

1:59:27 ↗ tasers are fixed, it's a it's really

1:59:30 ↗ easy to miss because the as the spread

1:59:32 ↗ gets gets larger and larger, you can't

1:59:34 ↗ control that bottom probe. And if we

1:59:36 ↗ have the the Taser 10s, um it just

1:59:39 ↗ allows us for a lot more accuracy and

1:59:42 ↗ for use in situations that we would

1:59:44 ↗ potentially not have access to a less a

1:59:46 ↗ less lethal tool and we would only have

1:59:48 ↗ access to a lethal weapon. And this just

1:59:50 ↗ provides another um safer uh tool for

1:59:53 ↗ our community and also for the officers.

1:59:57 ↗ It's fully integrated with Axon

1:59:59 ↗ Evidence, which is what we have for our

2:00:01 ↗ body cameras. Um, in terms of usage at

2:00:03 ↗ the police department, I just looked it

2:00:05 ↗ up today. In the last 5 years, we've had

2:00:08 ↗ 12 taser deployments. Um, so, and then

2:00:10 ↗ in the last three years, we've had about

2:00:12 ↗ seven. So, we're just averaging about um

2:00:14 ↗ just over two per year. Um, and they are

2:00:21 ↗ I've been tased. It hurts. It's

2:00:23 ↗ unfortunate for the five seconds and

2:00:25 ↗ then you you feel you feel okay

2:00:27 ↗ afterwards. I've watched numerous people

2:00:30 ↗ get tased in training. It hurts, but I

2:00:32 ↗ would take that over pepper spray or any

2:00:34 ↗ other less lethal tool in a heartbeat.

2:00:36 ↗ Um, and it just it it's a lot safer for

2:00:39 ↗ our officers and it's a lot safer for

2:00:41 ↗ the community. and having them uh the

2:00:44 ↗ the new technology with the taser tens

2:00:46 ↗ will allow for more transparency and uh

2:00:49 ↗ and it'll keep our officers safer and

2:00:51 ↗ it'll it'll keep our community safer and

2:00:54 ↗ the X2s that we have are at the end of

2:00:55 ↗ their life and we will need to replace

2:00:57 ↗ them in the very near future um one way

2:01:00 ↗ or another. So um that's all I have.

2:01:03 ↗ Again, thank you for your time and

2:01:04 ↗ consideration of of this issue.

2:01:07 ↗ Any

2:01:09 ↗ uh council member Adair?

2:01:11 ↗ >> Uh in terms of the volume, um I mean is

2:01:16 ↗ >> in ter uh I was trying to figure out a

2:01:18 ↗ question in terms of like how many are

2:01:19 ↗ you getting for how many officers in

2:01:21 ↗ terms of

2:01:22 ↗ >> one per officer? Oh, good question.

2:01:23 ↗ Yeah. So one single one single um we so

2:01:26 ↗ we carry them uh like each officer would

2:01:29 ↗ carry one on their person and then each

2:01:31 ↗ of our corrections officers would have

2:01:32 ↗ one as well. Um and then we would need

2:01:35 ↗ some spares. So I would say you know a

2:01:37 ↗ certain number of spares sometimes if

2:01:38 ↗ one goes down you have to send it back.

2:01:40 ↗ >> Okay. So this plan covers enough for all

2:01:43 ↗ of the officers currently that you have.

2:01:46 ↗ Okay.

2:01:46 ↗ >> Yes.

2:01:48 ↗ >> Council member Boyd.

2:01:51 ↗ >> Does it cover I don't know if we have uh

2:01:54 ↗ vacancies. Would it cover any like all

2:01:58 ↗ officers currently assigned plus if we

2:02:02 ↗ have if there are vacancies? Are you?

2:02:05 ↗ >> Yes.

2:02:05 ↗ >> Okay. Yeah. All all of the all of the

2:02:07 ↗ allotted spots that we have filled or

2:02:08 ↗ not, we would it would have enough for

2:02:10 ↗ all of them.

2:02:11 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you. I have a few more

2:02:13 ↗ questions. Um, does the current taser

2:02:16 ↗ certification the officers have, would

2:02:17 ↗ it still be, if we get these upgraded

2:02:20 ↗ ones, would they have to undergo

2:02:21 ↗ training again to use them or it's

2:02:24 ↗ covered by the current certification?

2:02:26 ↗ >> Yeah, great question. Uh the Taser

2:02:28 ↗ instructor certification covers all of

2:02:31 ↗ the Taser models and then internally as

2:02:33 ↗ an agency our instructors would conduct

2:02:35 ↗ the transition course to move from the

2:02:37 ↗ X2s to the to the Taser 10s. So there

2:02:40 ↗ would be a a training process internally

2:02:43 ↗ within there especially just because of

2:02:44 ↗ how different the the two tools are that

2:02:46 ↗ that it would be a robust transition

2:02:49 ↗ process for everyone to get really

2:02:51 ↗ comfortable. Can I ask a specific

2:02:52 ↗ question within that? Would you have to

2:02:54 ↗ undergo being tasered again?

2:02:56 ↗ >> Would say that one more time.

2:02:57 ↗ >> Would you have to Would you have to

2:02:58 ↗ undergo being tasered again in order to

2:03:00 ↗ get the new model?

2:03:02 ↗ >> No. And thank you. [laughter]

2:03:04 ↗ >> Just wanted to thanks for checking.

2:03:06 ↗ >> And I had one more question about the

2:03:08 ↗ interaction with the body cams. If you

2:03:10 ↗ are coming to a scene and you turn your

2:03:12 ↗ just out of instinct you turn your

2:03:14 ↗ camera on and if a taser is being

2:03:16 ↗ deployed in that instance

2:03:19 ↗ um what is the interaction? What if you

2:03:22 ↗ already have your camera on and you are

2:03:24 ↗ does it then undo that? Okay.

2:03:27 ↗ >> No. Okay.

2:03:27 ↗ >> No, it would just be if you're if your

2:03:29 ↗ camera was off or if somebody in the in

2:03:31 ↗ the

2:03:33 ↗ >> kind of like around the vicinity I don't

2:03:34 ↗ remember exactly what the space is, but

2:03:36 ↗ it activates all of them.

2:03:38 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you.

2:03:38 ↗ >> Yeah. Thank you.

2:03:40 ↗ [clears throat] Council member Boyd, I I

2:03:41 ↗ I love the idea of questions that

2:03:44 ↗ presuppose we get to our full staff of

2:03:46 ↗ uniformed officers. Those are always

2:03:47 ↗ great questions to have. Hope springs a

2:03:50 ↗ turn.

2:03:51 ↗ >> Uh other questions uh for Sergeant

2:03:53 ↗ Aspel.

2:03:55 ↗ >> Nope. Thank you so much.

2:03:57 ↗ >> Thank you.

2:04:04 ↗ >> All right.

2:04:06 ↗ So for the second speaking point, I uh

2:04:11 ↗ am asking Commander Baba with the Kent

2:04:13 ↗ Police Department to come up and speak

2:04:15 ↗ to how they are utilizing uh ALPR.

2:04:21 ↗ >> Commander, thank you for joining us

2:04:22 ↗ today.

2:04:23 ↗ >> You bet. Good evening, council president

2:04:25 ↗ and council members. Thank you for

2:04:26 ↗ having me.

2:04:28 ↗ As noted, I was asked to come and speak

2:04:31 ↗ about the city of Kent's ALPR program,

2:04:34 ↗ the automated license plate technology

2:04:36 ↗ program. I'm our operational technology

2:04:39 ↗ commander, which means I oversee our

2:04:41 ↗ ALPR ALPR program as well as another uh

2:04:45 ↗ a number of other technology

2:04:47 ↗ initiatives. So, briefly, I want to talk

2:04:49 ↗ about the history of ALPR in the city of

2:04:52 ↗ Kent. We began using mobile ALPR

2:04:55 ↗ technology in Kent in 2008. These were

2:04:59 ↗ cameras that were affixed to patrol cars

2:05:01 ↗ and they were primarily used to look for

2:05:03 ↗ stolen vehicles. Not listed on this

2:05:05 ↗ slide is that we added stationary

2:05:09 ↗ automated traffic safety cameras in

2:05:11 ↗ 2013. Many people know these as red

2:05:13 ↗ light cameras or school zone speed

2:05:15 ↗ cameras, but they are using ALPR

2:05:18 ↗ technology. Those were authorized by the

2:05:19 ↗ state legislature in 2005. So, we've had

2:05:22 ↗ those for about 20 years in our state

2:05:24 ↗ and the city of Kent began using those

2:05:26 ↗ in 2013.

2:05:28 ↗ In 2023, we added stationary ALPR

2:05:31 ↗ cameras that are not used for

2:05:32 ↗ enforcement in the term in terms of

2:05:35 ↗ tickets. So, these are cameras that

2:05:37 ↗ capture license plates that pass the

2:05:39 ↗ vehicles and then store that data for a

2:05:42 ↗ temporary amount of time and then can be

2:05:44 ↗ used in investigations. They also

2:05:46 ↗ receive alerts from databases such as

2:05:50 ↗ the uh previously it was NCIC which is

2:05:53 ↗ the federal database where stolen

2:05:55 ↗ vehicles are listed, wanted fugitives

2:05:58 ↗ are listed, missing persons, amber

2:06:00 ↗ alerts, things like that. So when those

2:06:02 ↗ cars would pass the camera, an alert

2:06:04 ↗ could go out to any officer that within

2:06:07 ↗ our city, within our system that had

2:06:10 ↗ chosen to receive those alerts, they

2:06:12 ↗ would receive that alert in almost real

2:06:14 ↗ time that the uh that car featuring that

2:06:17 ↗ missing person or that wanted fugitive

2:06:19 ↗ or that stolen vehicle had just passed

2:06:21 ↗ the camera.

2:06:26 ↗ So some of the differences that we

2:06:28 ↗ implemented in 2023

2:06:32 ↗ was the deployment plan. So, previously

2:06:34 ↗ I mentioned we used mobile ALPR cameras

2:06:36 ↗ on patrol cars and then we added

2:06:38 ↗ stationary cameras. So, the deployment

2:06:40 ↗ plan that really changed things for us

2:06:42 ↗ was installing them at entrances to the

2:06:44 ↗ city primarily along with a couple that

2:06:46 ↗ were on some of our highest traffic

2:06:47 ↗ volume roadways.

2:06:50 ↗ This allowed the city to have a good

2:06:53 ↗ awareness of cars that were coming into

2:06:55 ↗ the city and passing those cameras at

2:06:56 ↗ all our major entrances to the city.

2:06:59 ↗ and this aided in investigations as I'll

2:07:02 ↗ get into in just a moment. Uh the second

2:07:04 ↗ difference is that these cameras allowed

2:07:06 ↗ us to do vehicle descriptor searches as

2:07:08 ↗ opposed to just strictly a full license

2:07:10 ↗ plate search. So, as you may imagine,

2:07:13 ↗ it's very common for a crime to occur, a

2:07:17 ↗ citizen who reports the crime to see a

2:07:20 ↗ vehicle and have a description of the

2:07:22 ↗ vehicle, but not the full license plate.

2:07:23 ↗ So, they might tell us it was a blue

2:07:25 ↗ Toyota Corolla or something like that.

2:07:27 ↗ or maybe they saw one letter in the

2:07:29 ↗ license plate but not the entire license

2:07:31 ↗ plate. These cameras allowed us to do a

2:07:35 ↗ search so we could look for all blue

2:07:37 ↗ Toyota Corollas that began with the

2:07:39 ↗ letters ABC for example and then have

2:07:43 ↗ wild cards for the remaining digits.

2:07:47 ↗ What this allowed us to do was what we

2:07:50 ↗ call engage in precision policing. So,

2:07:52 ↗ previously when we might have a vehicle

2:07:55 ↗ description, a blue Toyota Corolla for

2:07:57 ↗ example, it was not uncommon for

2:07:59 ↗ officers to begin looking for blue

2:08:00 ↗ Toyota Corollas and suddenly when you're

2:08:02 ↗ looking for a blue Toyota Corolla, you

2:08:04 ↗ find them everywhere. And then officers

2:08:06 ↗ begin stopping blue Toyota Corollas and

2:08:08 ↗ engaging with members of the public who

2:08:10 ↗ may or may not be the suspect.

2:08:13 ↗ As you can imagine, this also sometimes

2:08:15 ↗ leads to negative perceptions of the

2:08:16 ↗ police department. uh whether the

2:08:18 ↗ accusation is we're engaging in

2:08:20 ↗ profiling or perhaps because the crime

2:08:23 ↗ was a reported crime of violence, the

2:08:25 ↗ initial engagement between the officer

2:08:27 ↗ and the citizen might be heightened uh

2:08:30 ↗ because of a concern that a weapon might

2:08:32 ↗ be involved or something like that. By

2:08:34 ↗ knowing the exact vehicle we're looking

2:08:36 ↗ for through a, for example, a vehicle

2:08:40 ↗ description search or a partial license

2:08:41 ↗ plate search where we can now get a

2:08:43 ↗ photo of the one and only blue Toyota

2:08:46 ↗ Corolla that was in that area within

2:08:48 ↗ that time frame of the crime down to

2:08:50 ↗ maybe several minutes. Now we know the

2:08:52 ↗ exact vehicle and oftentimes we can get

2:08:54 ↗ the full license plate from that photo.

2:08:56 ↗ And now we're engaged in precision

2:08:59 ↗ policing. We're just searching for one

2:09:00 ↗ car and not stopping maybe 20 cars.

2:09:04 ↗ The other thing that these cameras

2:09:05 ↗ really changed for us was that we were

2:09:07 ↗ able to solve crimes that cross

2:09:09 ↗ jurisdictional borders. So if our

2:09:12 ↗ neighboring city had a crime that

2:09:14 ↗ occurred in their city and the car fled

2:09:17 ↗ into our city, we would be able to find

2:09:19 ↗ that photo. And vice versa, crimes that

2:09:22 ↗ happen and then our our vehicle leaves

2:09:25 ↗ our city and goes to another city. that

2:09:27 ↗ information sharing across those city

2:09:29 ↗ boundaries was crucial to solving cases

2:09:31 ↗ because crime doesn't respect those city

2:09:33 ↗ limits.

2:09:37 ↗ So, uh, briefly before I get into that,

2:09:39 ↗ I do just want to talk about information

2:09:40 ↗ sharing a little bit.

2:09:45 ↗ Um, you've heard a lot of concern in the

2:09:47 ↗ media and even in uh, public comment

2:09:49 ↗ today about information sharing. Uh,

2:09:51 ↗ what I do want to reiterate is that uh,

2:09:54 ↗ tech is changing very rapidly. So the

2:09:57 ↗ tools that our technology offered just a

2:10:01 ↗ month ago, those things changed so

2:10:03 ↗ rapidly. In addition to Senate Bill 602,

2:10:07 ↗ which changed a lot of auditing and

2:10:10 ↗ transparency requirements for us, uh

2:10:12 ↗ it's also important to note that there

2:10:14 ↗ are multiple ALPR vendors, not just one

2:10:17 ↗ that you may have heard mentioned very

2:10:19 ↗ frequently today. So that's one thing to

2:10:20 ↗ be aware of. Uh, Senate Bill 602, I do

2:10:24 ↗ want to point out, has sign significant

2:10:26 ↗ penalties for not only government

2:10:28 ↗ agencies that improperly use ALPR, but

2:10:31 ↗ it also has significant penalties for

2:10:33 ↗ the vendor itself. So, it really

2:10:35 ↗ motivates the vendors to comply with

2:10:38 ↗ Washington state law if they want to

2:10:40 ↗ continue engaging in business in our

2:10:42 ↗ state.

2:10:44 ↗ to uh I briefly mentioned traffic

2:10:46 ↗ automated traffic safety programs

2:10:48 ↗ previously, but it's also important to

2:10:50 ↗ note that in 2005, the legislature

2:10:52 ↗ implemented rules right out of the gate

2:10:54 ↗ in RCW for those cameras, how they could

2:10:58 ↗ be used, what they could be used for. We

2:11:00 ↗ didn't have that in our state for the

2:11:02 ↗ last 10 years or so uh for ALPRs or I'm

2:11:06 ↗ sorry, the last 20 years or so since

2:11:08 ↗ we've seen that technology used in our

2:11:10 ↗ state. But now we do through Senate Bill

2:11:12 ↗ 602.

2:11:14 ↗ Uh, as an example, if you're not

2:11:16 ↗ familiar with Senate Bill 602, the

2:11:19 ↗ information sharing requirements in

2:11:20 ↗ there, all agencies that wish to

2:11:22 ↗ continue using ALPR in the state will

2:11:25 ↗ have to abide by the attorney general's

2:11:28 ↗ model policy, which will be published

2:11:29 ↗ soon. And then agencies can only share

2:11:34 ↗ information to other Washington state

2:11:36 ↗ agencies that have a system that has

2:11:39 ↗ been approved by the attorney general's

2:11:41 ↗ office. So if two Washington state

2:11:43 ↗ agencies are both approved by the

2:11:46 ↗ attorney general's office to operate an

2:11:47 ↗ ALPR system, they can communicate with

2:11:49 ↗ one another and share. Another

2:11:51 ↗ Washington state agency that has not

2:11:53 ↗ been approved may not receive any ALPR

2:11:56 ↗ data from any other Washington state

2:11:57 ↗ agency. And that obviously includes

2:12:00 ↗ federal agencies and outofstate

2:12:01 ↗ agencies. So there's a number of

2:12:03 ↗ safeguards in place in Senate Bill 602

2:12:05 ↗ that really tightens the ALPR data

2:12:08 ↗ sharing within our state and keeps that

2:12:10 ↗ data housed internally within the agency

2:12:13 ↗ so that they cannot share it outside.

2:12:19 ↗ This is just a brief summary of two

2:12:21 ↗ about roughly two and a half years of

2:12:23 ↗ data in the city of Kent. And the

2:12:25 ↗ numbers that I'm listing here are

2:12:27 ↗ verified cases where the ALPR

2:12:30 ↗ information led directly to an arrest in

2:12:33 ↗ these cases. So we have many many other

2:12:35 ↗ cases where crimes either have been

2:12:37 ↗ unsolved, have not led to an arrest, or

2:12:40 ↗ where the ALPR data was not instrumental

2:12:43 ↗ to solving the case because there was a

2:12:44 ↗ plethora of other evidence or maybe the

2:12:46 ↗ suspect was immediately apprehended at

2:12:48 ↗ the scene, for example. So some of the

2:12:51 ↗ significant cases in here you can see

2:12:52 ↗ where in uh we've used them to solve

2:12:55 ↗ everything from at least two murders

2:12:56 ↗ over the last two years to a number of

2:12:58 ↗ other crimes such as sexual assaults and

2:13:00 ↗ armed robberies.

2:13:02 ↗ Some of the significant cases I do just

2:13:04 ↗ want to briefly mention

2:13:07 ↗ uh is the one of those that is listed at

2:13:10 ↗ the bottom which was a missing

2:13:12 ↗ endangered adult. This was actually in

2:13:14 ↗ the very first week of our ALPR

2:13:16 ↗ deployment within our city where a

2:13:18 ↗ patrol officer received an ALPR alert

2:13:20 ↗ for a car that was associated to a

2:13:22 ↗ missing endangered adult who is subject

2:13:24 ↗ of a statewide silver alert. And

2:13:26 ↗ actually within minutes of receiving

2:13:28 ↗ that alert, the officer was able to

2:13:30 ↗ locate the car driving and reunite that

2:13:32 ↗ person with their family within 18 hours

2:13:34 ↗ of them having been reported missing.

2:13:36 ↗ And this was an elderly person that had

2:13:38 ↗ dementia. So, had that person not been

2:13:40 ↗ immediately located and had continued to

2:13:43 ↗ go missing,

2:13:44 ↗ it's obviously we can't know, but very

2:13:47 ↗ likely could have led to that person's

2:13:49 ↗ uh an injury or death, for example. A

2:13:53 ↗ second case I want to talk about uh has

2:13:55 ↗ to do with information sharing. This was

2:13:57 ↗ an officer from a neighboring agency

2:13:59 ↗ that asked for our for our assistance in

2:14:01 ↗ helping to identify a vehicle because

2:14:03 ↗ that agency did not have ALPR.

2:14:06 ↗ And in their city, they had a case where

2:14:08 ↗ a car had struck a wheelchairbound

2:14:10 ↗ pedestrian in a crosswalk and then fled

2:14:12 ↗ the scene. So, we had a hit and run

2:14:14 ↗ involving injuries to a pedestrian. A

2:14:16 ↗ search of our ALPR cameras found

2:14:18 ↗ multiple photos of the same make and

2:14:20 ↗ model vehicle and only one that had the

2:14:23 ↗ very distinctive characteristics of this

2:14:25 ↗ vehicle. So, they did not have a license

2:14:27 ↗ plate. They only had a a description of

2:14:29 ↗ the vehicle with very distinct

2:14:31 ↗ characteristics.

2:14:32 ↗ We found hundreds of photos of various

2:14:35 ↗ makes and models of that same vehicle

2:14:37 ↗ and color, but only one that actually

2:14:38 ↗ had the unique roof racks and the uh

2:14:41 ↗ aftermarket hub caps and some of the

2:14:43 ↗ other distinctive characteristics. So,

2:14:45 ↗ we were able to get them a license plate

2:14:47 ↗ within hours of this crime having

2:14:49 ↗ occurred.

2:14:51 ↗ Traditional police work might have

2:14:52 ↗ involved them getting a date a statewide

2:14:55 ↗ list of all the makes and models of that

2:14:57 ↗ vehicle that maybe were in the county or

2:14:59 ↗ in the region and then have and then

2:15:01 ↗ having to visit each of those registered

2:15:03 ↗ owners homes to look at the vehicle and

2:15:05 ↗ try to determine if it was the one that

2:15:07 ↗ matched the description that they had

2:15:09 ↗ and also a blurry surveillance video

2:15:11 ↗ that they had.

2:15:13 ↗ And then the last case I want to talk

2:15:15 ↗ about was a fleeing fugitive from

2:15:16 ↗ another jurisdiction that was wanted for

2:15:18 ↗ sexual assault, had fled. He was on the

2:15:20 ↗ run. He was thought to possibly have

2:15:23 ↗ ties to our city. A detective conducted

2:15:25 ↗ an ALPR search for that fugitive's car

2:15:27 ↗ and located multiple photos that showed

2:15:29 ↗ it driving around in our city. Uh I

2:15:32 ↗ believe it was a sex crime against

2:15:33 ↗ children. Detectives were able to locate

2:15:35 ↗ that suspect and make an arrest very

2:15:38 ↗ quickly based on that information

2:15:40 ↗ provided by another agency and we were

2:15:41 ↗ able to now determine that this person

2:15:43 ↗ on the run for this crime was now freely

2:15:46 ↗ driving around our city.

2:15:50 ↗ So that's a very brief overview of how

2:15:52 ↗ we have used ALPRs in our city and I'm

2:15:56 ↗ happy to take any questions that you may

2:15:57 ↗ have.

2:16:00 ↗ Council member Rudier.

2:16:03 ↗ Um I have a couple questions uh kind of

2:16:05 ↗ somewhat related. Um so we heard a

2:16:07 ↗ comment a while back during this

2:16:09 ↗ discussion of someone bringing up about

2:16:11 ↗ you know SB 60002 and that the

2:16:14 ↗ requirements in it were contractual

2:16:16 ↗ versus architectural and that it's you

2:16:18 ↗ have to abide by these rules but there's

2:16:20 ↗ nothing in the system that requires it.

2:16:22 ↗ And I'm curious with, you know, you

2:16:25 ↗ having this system, how are you dealing

2:16:28 ↗ with that to make sure you are following

2:16:29 ↗ these rules or there aren't accidental

2:16:32 ↗ shares or someone just decides to do it

2:16:34 ↗ on, you know, an officer just decides to

2:16:35 ↗ do it on their own when their friend at

2:16:37 ↗ another precinct calls them. Um, how are

2:16:39 ↗ you handling that since the system

2:16:41 ↗ itself has been a lot of what the issues

2:16:43 ↗ have been brought up of the trust in the

2:16:45 ↗ system, not necessarily the officers?

2:16:47 ↗ >> Sure, that's a great question. Thank

2:16:48 ↗ you. And something I intended to touch

2:16:50 ↗ on and spaced on it. So, I can only

2:16:52 ↗ speak to the vendor that we use. We use

2:16:54 ↗ a major vendor that operates in our

2:16:56 ↗ state and I mentioned how the technology

2:17:00 ↗ changes so rapidly. This vendor has been

2:17:02 ↗ moving quickly to adapt to Senate Bill

2:17:04 ↗ 602. So, some of the changes that are in

2:17:07 ↗ the system that didn't exist previously,

2:17:10 ↗ which you may hear concerns about

2:17:11 ↗ possibly by another presenter after me,

2:17:13 ↗ I can confidently say do not currently

2:17:15 ↗ exist in our system. So, for example, uh

2:17:18 ↗ we cannot share. where it is physically

2:17:20 ↗ impossible for an agency outside of

2:17:23 ↗ Washington state to see our photos. That

2:17:25 ↗ feature is turned off. The it's

2:17:27 ↗ impossible for me with administrator

2:17:29 ↗ powers within the system to change it. I

2:17:31 ↗ have no power to do that. There's also a

2:17:33 ↗ number of safeguards in place where

2:17:36 ↗ search terms that might

2:17:39 ↗ implement or indicate a prohibited

2:17:41 ↗ search under Washington state law would

2:17:43 ↗ be blocked within the system and that

2:17:45 ↗ would be flagged in a in our audit for

2:17:49 ↗ the administrator such as myself to see

2:17:51 ↗ that that improper search was run or

2:17:53 ↗ attempted by an officer. Uh every search

2:17:55 ↗ has to be now uh tied to a a police case

2:17:58 ↗ number with the specific crime type

2:18:00 ↗ listed. So it cannot be a general vague

2:18:03 ↗ term or lacking a case number for

2:18:06 ↗ example and that uh data is now

2:18:09 ↗ restricted down to 21 days to comply

2:18:10 ↗ with RCW. Um I'll also add that the

2:18:14 ↗ audits now are fairly u transparent with

2:18:18 ↗ officer's name, the exact time they

2:18:20 ↗ searched, what exactly they searched

2:18:21 ↗ for, the case number, the crime type,

2:18:24 ↗ and in compliance with RCW, we will be

2:18:27 ↗ uh collecting all those audits. will be

2:18:29 ↗ publishing an annual report that shows

2:18:31 ↗ each and every search that our officer

2:18:32 ↗ ran, what it was run for, what they did

2:18:35 ↗ with the data after they ran it, if they

2:18:38 ↗ shared it to another agency, what agency

2:18:40 ↗ was that, and then if they downloaded

2:18:43 ↗ it, that will be noted to. So almost any

2:18:46 ↗ action that the officer takes with ALPR

2:18:48 ↗ data will now be reflected in our annual

2:18:50 ↗ report, published online, and also

2:18:52 ↗ submitted to the legislature. Is your

2:18:54 ↗ system since it is you say it's a

2:18:56 ↗ different system than ones I often hear

2:18:57 ↗ about is it still cloud-based and this

2:18:59 ↗ while this is the how you access the

2:19:01 ↗ data does the data actually exist

2:19:03 ↗ elsewhere outside of Kent basically so

2:19:06 ↗ again another great question

2:19:08 ↗ contractually our contract with this

2:19:10 ↗ company requires them to be housed all

2:19:12 ↗ the data to be housed within the United

2:19:13 ↗ States it cannot be housed outside the

2:19:15 ↗ United States as well as a number of

2:19:18 ↗ technical

2:19:20 ↗ safeguards I'm not techy enough to

2:19:22 ↗ understand it, but our IT department

2:19:24 ↗ weighed in on that contract to list

2:19:26 ↗ exact uh encryption requirements that

2:19:29 ↗ that company has to abide by how they

2:19:31 ↗ store our data. And um also to reiterate

2:19:34 ↗ that the data belongs to the city. It is

2:19:37 ↗ not the vendor's data. They have no

2:19:38 ↗ power to do anything with that data

2:19:40 ↗ absent our consent which again under RCW

2:19:43 ↗ they would not be allowed to do anyways.

2:19:45 ↗ >> Okay. And my last thing was which may be

2:19:47 ↗ beyond you because this might go into

2:19:48 ↗ city policy stuff. So you mentioned how

2:19:50 ↗ there are penalties for failure to

2:19:52 ↗ follow this thing. So could would the

2:19:55 ↗ city of Kent be penalized were there a

2:19:57 ↗ failure and following these guidelines

2:20:00 ↗ severely? So like the city would be

2:20:02 ↗ forced to pay a great deal should the

2:20:04 ↗ officers fail in some capacity under

2:20:06 ↗ these rules.

2:20:07 ↗ >> Right. I can only speculate as to what a

2:20:09 ↗ court would rule, but uh officers can be

2:20:11 ↗ held personally liable for a crime now

2:20:13 ↗ for misuse of data under RCW. So, it's a

2:20:15 ↗ gross misdemeanor crime for an officer

2:20:16 ↗ to misuse an ALPR system in almost a

2:20:20 ↗ variety of ways. So, if an officer were,

2:20:22 ↗ for example, to download data and share

2:20:24 ↗ it improperly with an agency outside of

2:20:26 ↗ our state or with the federal

2:20:27 ↗ government, that would be a gross

2:20:29 ↗ misdemeanor crime for which the officer

2:20:30 ↗ could be prosecuted and theoretically

2:20:32 ↗ lose certification and be uh jailed. Uh

2:20:36 ↗ there's also penalties for the vendors

2:20:38 ↗ themselves. It would be a violation, I

2:20:40 ↗ believe it's of the Consumer Protection

2:20:41 ↗ Act, where the attorney general could

2:20:43 ↗ then open a suit against the vendor for

2:20:45 ↗ violation of Washington state law and

2:20:47 ↗ subject them to civil penalties.

2:20:51 ↗ >> Council member Nichols,

2:20:54 ↗ >> thank you. I just wanted to clarify one

2:20:55 ↗ thing that you said. You said that it's

2:20:57 ↗ physically impossible to share um data

2:21:00 ↗ with uh entities that you have not

2:21:02 ↗ granted access to. Um my understanding

2:21:04 ↗ is that many of the previously reported

2:21:06 ↗ problems in in flock systems and I I

2:21:09 ↗ believe Kant is using flock um were run

2:21:11 ↗ by officer were searches uh run on

2:21:14 ↗ behalf of officers in other

2:21:15 ↗ jurisdictions um that were then emailed

2:21:17 ↗ to those officers in other jurisdictions

2:21:20 ↗ um that was previously illegal under

2:21:22 ↗ many circum under some circumstances in

2:21:24 ↗ Washington state um though physically

2:21:26 ↗ possible. Do you believe that that it is

2:21:29 ↗ now no longer physically possible to

2:21:31 ↗ email searches to others or is that

2:21:33 ↗ still a a potential risk?

2:21:36 ↗ >> So when I say the physical impossibility

2:21:38 ↗ was for those for agencies outside of

2:21:40 ↗ Washington to access our data u even if

2:21:44 ↗ I wanted to give it to them within the

2:21:46 ↗ system itself. So if you have a sharing

2:21:49 ↗ relationship within the system. So, for

2:21:52 ↗ example, if the city of Isqua had a

2:21:54 ↗ attorney general approved system and the

2:21:56 ↗ city of Kent had a system that was also

2:21:58 ↗ approved by the AG's office, we would be

2:22:00 ↗ able to communicate and share data

2:22:01 ↗ within the system itself. Now, nothing

2:22:04 ↗ prevents an officer from choosing to

2:22:06 ↗ break the law and take data out of the

2:22:07 ↗ system and give it to whomever they

2:22:09 ↗ choose to, which would be a crime. Um,

2:22:11 ↗ but within the system itself, I cannot

2:22:14 ↗ establish a sharing relationship with

2:22:16 ↗ any agency outside of Washington state.

2:22:18 ↗ So, it does not allow them to have a

2:22:21 ↗ sharing relationship with us to see our

2:22:22 ↗ data, and it doesn't allow them to uh

2:22:26 ↗ see anything through like a nationwide

2:22:28 ↗ search. You've heard that term used a

2:22:30 ↗ few times tonight. Um, Washington state

2:22:32 ↗ agencies cannot participate in

2:22:33 ↗ nationwide searches anymore. U within

2:22:36 ↗ the at least our vendor.

2:22:40 ↗ >> Thank you.

2:22:42 ↗ >> Other questions for the commander?

2:22:46 ↗ >> Not seeing any. Thank you very much for

2:22:48 ↗ joining us this evening.

2:22:49 ↗ >> Thank you, council.

2:22:55 ↗ >> All right.

2:22:57 ↗ So, now that we know a little bit more

2:23:00 ↗ about CEDs and ALPRs, let's move forward

2:23:05 ↗ move forward in the process. Uh, so

2:23:08 ↗ following Oh, make sure my slide moves

2:23:11 ↗ forward.

2:23:13 ↗ All right. So following the request to

2:23:14 ↗ see if we could possibly procure

2:23:16 ↗ funding, the police department was

2:23:18 ↗ informed we need to go to city council

2:23:20 ↗ to share uh the justifications and

2:23:24 ↗ information about such.

2:23:26 ↗ So on uh in the beginning on the

2:23:30 ↗ February 25th, 2025, staff sought input

2:23:35 ↗ from the services, safety, and parks

2:23:37 ↗ committee SSP regarding purchasing ALPR

2:23:41 ↗ uh cameras as a supplement to aid law

2:23:43 ↗ enforcement in keeping citizens safe. No

2:23:47 ↗ public no public comment was received at

2:23:49 ↗ this meeting and per the minutes per the

2:23:52 ↗ minutes committee members were generally

2:23:54 ↗ in favor of this me uh of the proposed

2:23:56 ↗ camera system and urged staff to be

2:23:59 ↗ sensitive regarding potential privacy

2:24:02 ↗ issues some of the similar things that

2:24:05 ↗ were mentioned earlier. Uh it was

2:24:07 ↗ already noted at the meeting that there

2:24:09 ↗ would be no access granted to um these

2:24:12 ↗ resources and we were not going to be uh

2:24:15 ↗ using them for tracking or uh

2:24:17 ↗ surveillance and there is no biometric

2:24:20 ↗ tracking features

2:24:22 ↗ uh and that we would also be working

2:24:24 ↗ with uh legal and appropriate data

2:24:26 ↗ management procedures. The committee

2:24:28 ↗ recommended the staff move forward with

2:24:31 ↗ developing uh a purchase and

2:24:33 ↗ implementation plan. And there was

2:24:36 ↗ discussion as to whether this item

2:24:37 ↗ needed to go to before full uh council

2:24:40 ↗ for approval and it was subsequently

2:24:42 ↗ decided at that meeting to bring the

2:24:44 ↗ item to the March 17th, 2025 regular

2:24:48 ↗ council meeting.

2:24:50 ↗ on March 17th, 2025. The item was placed

2:24:54 ↗ on the consent calendar and approved

2:24:57 ↗ unanimously. Uh the agenda bill informed

2:25:00 ↗ the community that in that community

2:25:02 ↗ engagement occurred previously um and

2:25:05 ↗ that this proposal was developed after

2:25:07 ↗ multiple discussions with local

2:25:09 ↗ homeowners associations and

2:25:12 ↗ businesses.

2:25:18 ↗ So now let's go into the rest of this

2:25:21 ↗ process.

2:25:24 ↗ All right. Now after receiving uh

2:25:27 ↗ approval for seeking funding, the grants

2:25:29 ↗ were finalized and combi and submitted

2:25:32 ↗ to the community appropriations portal.

2:25:35 ↗ It was suggested by the panel that we

2:25:39 ↗ condense into one grant. And note the

2:25:41 ↗ majority of funding was primarily going

2:25:43 ↗ towards CEDs. And uh let it be of note

2:25:46 ↗ with the original original attached

2:25:48 ↗ quote, the majority share of the 84% of

2:25:51 ↗ the grant covered the CEDs and that was

2:25:54 ↗ submitted officially on May 2nd, 2025.

2:26:00 ↗ So fast forward to a lot of things

2:26:03 ↗ happened politically. there's a lot of

2:26:06 ↗ things happened and we a lot of new

2:26:08 ↗ information came out as well. And so

2:26:11 ↗ fast forward to uh January 8th of this

2:26:14 ↗ year, we received notice of the award of

2:26:17 ↗ the grant funding. Uh originally it was

2:26:20 ↗ thought that we would receive notice

2:26:21 ↗ earlier, but uh it's hard moving

2:26:25 ↗ Congress fast. So there's that. Um we

2:26:30 ↗ received notice of award of the grant

2:26:32 ↗ funding on uh the 8th of January this

2:26:36 ↗ year. But however in that time period

2:26:38 ↗ there were concerns raised on ALPR data

2:26:40 ↗ access and privacy rights uh that came

2:26:43 ↗ up and and honestly understandably so.

2:26:46 ↗ The Isqua Police Department takes the

2:26:49 ↗ public safety and privacy protections

2:26:51 ↗ extremely seriously. Uh and we made sure

2:26:55 ↗ we were in full compliance of this new

2:26:58 ↗ law. And as it turns out, we do not have

2:27:01 ↗ any ALPR cameras of our own. Uh, but the

2:27:05 ↗ very first iteration of the grant had

2:27:07 ↗ asked for access to them. And so the

2:27:09 ↗ department decided with guidance from

2:27:12 ↗ our newly elected mayor, Mark Mullet,

2:27:15 ↗ uh, to evaluate what were the most

2:27:17 ↗ important priorities for our public

2:27:19 ↗ safety at this present time. And it was

2:27:22 ↗ decided that the purchase of CEDs is the

2:27:26 ↗ most important priority for the

2:27:28 ↗ department and has the highest potential

2:27:30 ↗ cost savings uh that having grant

2:27:33 ↗ funding would help alleviate.

2:27:38 ↗ uh also in that time period. I just want

2:27:40 ↗ to make note then state uh state bill

2:27:43 ↗ 6002 was introduced to Washington Senate

2:27:47 ↗ in regard in regard excuse me

2:27:57 ↗ in regard to uh driver protections. And

2:28:01 ↗ this was finalized and signed into law

2:28:03 ↗ effective uh March 30th, 2026. And with

2:28:08 ↗ this bill, um there are many things with

2:28:10 ↗ this bill, but commonly used companies

2:28:12 ↗ for ALPRs would need to ensure driver

2:28:15 ↗ information protections from federal

2:28:18 ↗ access as well as from jurisdictions

2:28:20 ↗ with differing legal policies among

2:28:22 ↗ other protections.

2:28:25 ↗ So following all of this, it came to our

2:28:27 ↗ attention and uh I will I personally

2:28:31 ↗ will claim uh responsibility for this

2:28:34 ↗ one. Uh, it came to our attention that

2:28:36 ↗ the original CED quote used for the

2:28:38 ↗ grant was now outdated and needed

2:28:41 ↗ updating for the new year if we were

2:28:44 ↗ even going to consider making our

2:28:46 ↗ purchase of new CEDs. So, we requested

2:28:50 ↗ uh this on April 6th, 2026,

2:28:54 ↗ and we did not actually receive the new

2:28:56 ↗ quote until May 1st, 2026.

2:29:04 ↗ which I'm going to show you right now.

2:29:08 ↗ So, a reminder here,

2:29:12 ↗ uh, as stated, the police department

2:29:14 ↗ reached out to Axon

2:29:17 ↗ B me, uh, the company who manages our

2:29:20 ↗ body camera equipment and requested an

2:29:23 ↗ updated quote for the same number of

2:29:25 ↗ CEDs as originally requested to cover

2:29:29 ↗ both patrol and our correctional

2:29:31 ↗ officers. The original grant quote from

2:29:33 ↗ 2025 estimated the total cost of CEDs at

2:29:38 ↗ 378,976.38.

2:29:44 ↗ The newly updated quote received for

2:29:46 ↗ this year estimated the total cost to

2:29:50 ↗ 447,95968

2:29:57 ↗ which is just over 99%

2:30:01 ↗ of all total funds granted to the police

2:30:04 ↗ department. the granter was contacted

2:30:07 ↗ and we were notified that this was fine

2:30:09 ↗ to use the funding for CEDs exclusively

2:30:13 ↗ and that was uh that's what's reflected

2:30:15 ↗ on the website as well.

2:30:18 ↗ Uh there is now I say 99% so there is

2:30:22 ↗ $4,517.32

2:30:27 ↗ that is left over and that money will go

2:30:31 ↗ towards updating the interview room. uh

2:30:34 ↗ camera system in the police department.

2:30:38 ↗ No ALPRs.

2:30:48 ↗ So our proposal timing and next steps.

2:30:52 ↗ So our proposal right now we have no

2:30:54 ↗ actions presently and we are asking

2:30:57 ↗ council to uh consider benefits of

2:31:00 ↗ approval of the grant funding for

2:31:02 ↗ conducted energy devices. Next steps. Uh

2:31:06 ↗ the department will formally request

2:31:08 ↗ approval of grant funding at a future

2:31:11 ↗ city council meeting which will require

2:31:13 ↗ decision by council members. And I

2:31:16 ↗ believe we are hoping that this would be

2:31:18 ↗ the next June 15th meeting.

2:31:21 ↗ If approval is granted, then the

2:31:24 ↗ department will move forward with

2:31:25 ↗ applying to formally accept and receive

2:31:28 ↗ the funds to purchase the CEDs per the

2:31:31 ↗ appropriate federal process. And then

2:31:33 ↗ following this, the department will

2:31:35 ↗ submit um a purchase order for the new

2:31:38 ↗ energy devices and purchase the cameras

2:31:40 ↗ for the interview room.

2:31:47 ↗ And that's it actually. Any questions?

2:31:50 ↗ >> So, uh just process at this point, we're

2:31:52 ↗ still going to hear from Mr. Nef before

2:31:54 ↗ we move to public comment and uh uh

2:31:58 ↗ deliberation, but I want to ask if

2:32:01 ↗ anybody has any questions for Miss Miss

2:32:03 ↗ Smith at this point.

2:32:05 ↗ >> Council member Adair,

2:32:07 ↗ >> I believe this would be covered. I'm

2:32:10 ↗ just going to ask it so it's very clear

2:32:11 ↗ cuz there was a noted earlier that

2:32:13 ↗ council this was brought to council

2:32:15 ↗ originally because it was 100,000 or

2:32:17 ↗ more and thus it needed our approval to

2:32:20 ↗ proceed and in the original quote ALPR

2:32:23 ↗ were 78,000. So just to confirm there's

2:32:26 ↗ not a secondary grant request or

2:32:29 ↗ purchase request for ALPRs even though

2:32:31 ↗ it would be under the threshold to

2:32:33 ↗ require our approval.

2:32:34 ↗ >> That's correct. We are I am not this

2:32:36 ↗ grant is for CEDs.

2:32:40 ↗ >> Got it. Thank you.

2:32:41 ↗ >> Yes,

2:32:45 ↗ >> C. Council member Walsh.

2:32:50 ↗ >> So, does that mean that the police

2:32:51 ↗ department could with our own money, not

2:32:53 ↗ grant money, pursue

2:32:57 ↗ ALPR cameras that cost less than

2:33:00 ↗ $100,000 without coming to council?

2:33:04 ↗ Well, that's a good question. Uh, I want

2:33:07 ↗ to say no.

2:33:12 ↗ >> I'm committ

2:33:15 ↗ uh I I don't actually know the process

2:33:17 ↗ for that. I do not work in finance. I'm

2:33:21 ↗ the crime analyst, but uh I think that

2:33:24 ↗ would be an excellent question for our

2:33:26 ↗ finance. Uh Andrea, do you have any

2:33:28 ↗ thoughts on that one?

2:33:29 ↗ >> I'm going to hand things to our deputy

2:33:31 ↗ city administrator. Hi, thank you for

2:33:33 ↗ that question. So, I have the purchasing

2:33:35 ↗ policies pulled up here and we look at

2:33:38 ↗ um uh what uh who can approve what per

2:33:42 ↗ our purchasing policies. And so, um

2:33:45 ↗ council approval is required for

2:33:47 ↗ anything that's $300,000 and up. Um

2:33:51 ↗ below that amount, we would need to get

2:33:53 ↗ bids, etc. Um and the mayor's approval

2:33:56 ↗ might be required. That said, we don't

2:33:59 ↗ have any budget set aside for this

2:34:01 ↗ purchase. So, um we would need to

2:34:04 ↗ identify budget, which um at this point

2:34:07 ↗ we don't believe that we have um which

2:34:10 ↗ is why we had applied for grants in the

2:34:11 ↗ first place. So, um so that's another

2:34:15 ↗ reason why we would need to return to

2:34:16 ↗ council for the purchase of the uh

2:34:20 ↗ tasers as well to approve that purchase.

2:34:22 ↗ So, not just approve the grant, but then

2:34:24 ↗ approve the purchase for that equipment

2:34:26 ↗ because it's above 300,000.

2:34:28 ↗ >> Let me take that a little bit further. I

2:34:31 ↗ believe

2:34:33 ↗ the mayor can make a purchase under

2:34:36 ↗ $100,000

2:34:37 ↗ without

2:34:39 ↗ requiring council approval. Correct.

2:34:43 ↗ Okay. So without a policy from the city

2:34:49 ↗ council, we could see

2:34:52 ↗ a future purchase from the mayor, which

2:34:57 ↗ I hear you saying there is not an

2:34:59 ↗ intention nor there any

2:35:03 ↗ sense of money going forward. I'm just

2:35:05 ↗ trying to understand that if this grant

2:35:09 ↗ um money no longer has uh availability,

2:35:14 ↗ what

2:35:16 ↗ we need to do as council responding to

2:35:18 ↗ the community and the information we've

2:35:20 ↗ received, etc. And I believe I see city

2:35:23 ↗ administrator Bob Quitz up there.

2:35:26 ↗ >> City administrator Bob Quitz.

2:35:29 ↗ >> Yes. Good evening, uh, Mayor, mayor, uh,

2:35:33 ↗ council president and council members,

2:35:36 ↗ uh, Mayor Mullet has indicated that

2:35:38 ↗ there are no plans to move forward with

2:35:40 ↗ the purchase of ALPR cameras without

2:35:42 ↗ coming back to the council. Um, so I

2:35:45 ↗ just want to regardless what the

2:35:46 ↗ policies say on dollar amounts, uh,

2:35:49 ↗ there are no plans to move forward with

2:35:51 ↗ purchase of ALPR cameras at this time

2:35:53 ↗ and should those plans change, we will

2:35:55 ↗ come back to the city council.

2:35:57 ↗ Thank you, city administrator.

2:35:58 ↗ >> Thank you.

2:36:01 ↗ >> There we go.

2:36:02 ↗ >> Other questions right now from Miss

2:36:04 ↗ Smith.

2:36:08 ↗ >> All right. Thank you so much for your

2:36:09 ↗ presentation this evening.

2:36:10 ↗ >> Yes, of course.

2:36:11 ↗ >> Appreciate it. Did a great job.

2:36:13 ↗ >> Thank you.

2:36:15 ↗ And with that, um, I think we will move

2:36:16 ↗ at this point to, uh, bring Phil Phil

2:36:20 ↗ Nef in for his approximately a 10-minute

2:36:22 ↗ presentation on, uh, material on

2:36:25 ↗ research that has been done on, uh, use

2:36:28 ↗ of ALPR data. Is that right, city clerk?

2:36:37 ↗ >> Hello. Can you hear me?

2:36:39 ↗ >> Yes, we can.

2:36:41 ↗ >> Welcome. Thank you for joining us this

2:36:43 ↗ evening. and fresh freshly back from

2:36:45 ↗ from a long plane flight. So, appreciate

2:36:47 ↗ you being here this evening.

2:36:49 ↗ >> Yeah, thank you. Um, so I'll try to make

2:36:52 ↗ this brief, not take up a lot of your

2:36:53 ↗ time and then uh allow room for

2:36:55 ↗ questions. Um, so you can move to the

2:36:56 ↗ next slide. Um, my name is Phil Nef. I'm

2:37:00 ↗ the research coordinator at the

2:37:01 ↗ University of Washington Center for

2:37:03 ↗ Human Rights um in Seattle. Um, our

2:37:06 ↗ center was established by initiative of

2:37:08 ↗ the Washington State Legislature in 2009

2:37:11 ↗ and our mission is to uh inform the

2:37:14 ↗ public and policy makers about issues

2:37:16 ↗ relating to human rights and to advance

2:37:18 ↗ uh real world change for human rights in

2:37:20 ↗ partnership with um community groups

2:37:22 ↗ both locally and globally. So you can

2:37:25 ↗ move to the next slide please. Um we did

2:37:28 ↗ a first report about ALPR use in

2:37:30 ↗ Washington state in 2022. That report

2:37:33 ↗ was titled who's watching Washington? Um

2:37:36 ↗ and we found a number of instances at

2:37:38 ↗ that time of um information sharing with

2:37:42 ↗ federal immigration enforcement agencies

2:37:45 ↗ um through various means um by various

2:37:49 ↗ uh agencies using different vendors um

2:37:52 ↗ including Vancouver Police Department

2:37:54 ↗ which shared information with ICE and

2:37:56 ↗ Customs and Border Protection through

2:37:58 ↗ vigilant um ALPR systems and Okonogan

2:38:02 ↗ County Sheriff's Office which allowed

2:38:04 ↗ Customs and Border Protection

2:38:06 ↗ officers direct user accounts on their

2:38:09 ↗ LPR system uh via Leonardo and Vigilant.

2:38:14 ↗ Um and uh you can move to the next slide

2:38:16 ↗ please.

2:38:18 ↗ We revisited this topic uh last year um

2:38:22 ↗ with a focus on uh flock systems because

2:38:25 ↗ those had become by far the most common

2:38:29 ↗ system used in Washington state um

2:38:31 ↗ during the intervening few years uh with

2:38:35 ↗ reportedly more than 80 public agencies

2:38:37 ↗ in Washington state using flock um ALPR

2:38:40 ↗ cameras um although there's no

2:38:41 ↗ definitive um listing of of the agencies

2:38:44 ↗ which use those um and so our full

2:38:47 ↗ report is available on our website um

2:38:49 ↗ and via the short URL um on that slide.

2:38:54 ↗ Um you can move to the next slide

2:38:55 ↗ please.

2:38:58 ↗ Um the information that we analyzed um

2:39:02 ↗ through that report was primarily flocks

2:39:04 ↗ audit records. um three specific types

2:39:06 ↗ of audit records provided by the system

2:39:08 ↗ including a shared networks report which

2:39:11 ↗ lists all the networks with a which

2:39:13 ↗ agencies have um

2:39:17 ↗ authorized sharing of their data with

2:39:20 ↗ organization audits which list uh

2:39:23 ↗ searches of the local network by local

2:39:25 ↗ users and network audits which list

2:39:28 ↗ searches um by non-local users of the

2:39:31 ↗ local network. Um, and both of those

2:39:34 ↗ latter two audits include information

2:39:36 ↗ like the uh time of the search, the

2:39:40 ↗ number of networks or devices queried um

2:39:43 ↗ but not details on their location. Um,

2:39:46 ↗ and uh keywords related to the search

2:39:49 ↗ including uh the license plate or

2:39:51 ↗ partial license plate or um vehicle

2:39:54 ↗ descriptor filters applied to the

2:39:56 ↗ search. um and then the uh

2:40:00 ↗ the agency or officer responsible for

2:40:03 ↗ the search and um a a reason uh for the

2:40:07 ↗ search.

2:40:10 ↗ Um you can move to the uh I should

2:40:11 ↗ actually stay there. Um a number of

2:40:14 ↗ agencies uh declined to release those

2:40:16 ↗ audits to us under Washington State

2:40:18 ↗ Public Record Act. um including the city

2:40:20 ↗ of Cedra, Woolly denied requests for

2:40:23 ↗ both organizational and network audits

2:40:25 ↗ and the cities of Arlington, Everett,

2:40:28 ↗ Kent, Madina, and Tquila denied our

2:40:31 ↗ requests for the network audits, stating

2:40:33 ↗ that they had never reviewed those

2:40:35 ↗ audits and therefore they did not

2:40:36 ↗ constitute public records. Um so we

2:40:39 ↗ weren't able to gather full information

2:40:40 ↗ about a number of of jurisdictions.

2:40:44 ↗ Um our findings uh in that report that

2:40:48 ↗ was published in um September of last

2:40:50 ↗ year were that a number of agencies in

2:40:53 ↗ Washington state had enabled direct

2:40:55 ↗ one-on-one sharing of their networks

2:40:58 ↗ with US Border Protection and ICE

2:41:00 ↗ Homeland Security investigations.

2:41:03 ↗ Um and that in addition, a number of

2:41:06 ↗ agencies had their networks searched by

2:41:09 ↗ US Border Protection and ICE Homeland

2:41:11 ↗ Security investigations despite not

2:41:13 ↗ having directly um engaged sharing with

2:41:17 ↗ those agencies. Um because those

2:41:20 ↗ agencies were added by Flock to its

2:41:23 ↗ national lookup feature um during May

2:41:26 ↗ through August 2025 in an undisclosed

2:41:29 ↗ quote unquote pilot program. Um, so

2:41:31 ↗ Flock had always told um

2:41:36 ↗ stated publicly that it had no contracts

2:41:38 ↗ with federal immigration enforcement

2:41:39 ↗ agencies to use its uh service. Um, but

2:41:43 ↗ they initiated this uh pilot program

2:41:45 ↗ that gave um US Border Protection and

2:41:48 ↗ ICE Homeland Security Investigations

2:41:49 ↗ access to uh the system during May

2:41:52 ↗ through August 2025. Um and they uh

2:41:55 ↗ didn't disclose that until it was

2:41:57 ↗ revealed by uh

2:42:00 ↗ press reporting. Um and uh they have

2:42:04 ↗ since indicated that that pilot program

2:42:06 ↗ was paused.

2:42:08 ↗ Um and then in addition to those um

2:42:11 ↗ methods of information sharing, we found

2:42:14 ↗ uh many many cases of what we termed for

2:42:17 ↗ the purposes of the report side door

2:42:19 ↗ searches um

2:42:23 ↗ by agencies on behalf of federal

2:42:26 ↗ immigration enforcement agencies using

2:42:28 ↗ um keywords like immigration or uh ICE

2:42:31 ↗ or border patrol or um illegal alien,

2:42:34 ↗ things like that. uh those were

2:42:36 ↗ primarily outofstate agencies um and

2:42:39 ↗ Washington state networks were exposed

2:42:41 ↗ to searches by those agencies if um they

2:42:44 ↗ had shared their networks with those

2:42:45 ↗ agencies or if they had enabled

2:42:47 ↗ nationwide lookup.

2:42:49 ↗ Um the next slide uh presents just a

2:42:52 ↗ overview of some of the jurisdictions

2:42:54 ↗ where we identified some of those issues

2:42:55 ↗ across Washington state. Um this is not

2:42:57 ↗ comprehensive. if we didn't have access

2:42:59 ↗ to um data from every agency across the

2:43:02 ↗ state that that used those

2:43:06 ↗ uh that that used flock systems. Um so

2:43:09 ↗ you can go to the next slide.

2:43:12 ↗ Um other issues uh for human and civil

2:43:16 ↗ rights raised by um ALPR issues include

2:43:20 ↗ uh potential

2:43:22 ↗ surveillance of people from out of state

2:43:24 ↗ seeking um protected reproductive and

2:43:28 ↗ gender affirming care in Washington

2:43:29 ↗ state. Um those rights are uh enshrined

2:43:34 ↗ in Washington state under the the shield

2:43:36 ↗ law. Um there is at least one case of um

2:43:40 ↗ a sheriff's office in Texas which um

2:43:43 ↗ initiated searches in flock ALPR

2:43:46 ↗ networks for um a woman who uh had self-

2:43:50 ↗ administered an abortion. Um and the key

2:43:52 ↗ that was part of the keyword for the

2:43:54 ↗ search um and it was reported that that

2:43:56 ↗ Texas Sheriff's Office had had um

2:43:59 ↗ considered prosecuting that that person

2:44:01 ↗ for uh um death of a fe death death of a

2:44:05 ↗ fetus. um and that those searches uh

2:44:07 ↗ were present in a number of uh agencies

2:44:11 ↗ in Washington state. Um in addition to

2:44:14 ↗ those issues, there are other privacy

2:44:16 ↗ and civil liberties concerns which other

2:44:17 ↗ commenters um have brought up and which

2:44:19 ↗ I won't um uh reiterate um and which

2:44:25 ↗ were not specifically the subject of our

2:44:26 ↗ research. Um I mentioned uh some of the

2:44:31 ↗ public records issues that we ran into

2:44:33 ↗ in the course of our research. Um since

2:44:36 ↗ our research

2:44:38 ↗ um

2:44:40 ↗ the uh state legislature has passed uh

2:44:43 ↗ state bill uh 602 as discussed which um

2:44:48 ↗ implements additional restrictions on

2:44:51 ↗ sharing of uh ALPR data um as well as um

2:44:58 ↗ establishing that on one hand raw images

2:45:00 ↗ and hits from APR cameras are not public

2:45:03 ↗ records So, I can't, you know, request

2:45:06 ↗ all the ALPR hits for my neighbor's car.

2:45:09 ↗ Um, but, uh, it maintains that all audit

2:45:13 ↗ logs, um, are public records. So,

2:45:16 ↗ agencies that had previously denied

2:45:18 ↗ requests like ours for audit logs, um,

2:45:20 ↗ should not be able to do that in the

2:45:22 ↗ future. Um, so that's a very brief

2:45:24 ↗ summary of our findings. I'd be happy to

2:45:27 ↗ address any questions or, um, you know,

2:45:29 ↗ speak further on any topics um, if if

2:45:32 ↗ there's interest.

2:45:33 ↗ Thank you, Mr. Nef. And in fact, uh

2:45:35 ↗ there's at least one council member

2:45:36 ↗ Adair.

2:45:38 ↗ >> Uh just because I, you know, not fully

2:45:40 ↗ understanding. So my understanding is of

2:45:42 ↗ the systems was you know, you know,

2:45:43 ↗ you're searching by vehicle, by license

2:45:45 ↗ plate, by vehicle characteristics. So

2:45:46 ↗ I'm curious, how do these searches work

2:45:48 ↗ when they're you're saying that there

2:45:49 ↗ are search terms for abortion and

2:45:52 ↗ immigration and things like that? Like

2:45:53 ↗ how does that work with the system

2:45:55 ↗ exactly in terms of a search?

2:45:58 ↗ >> Yeah, that's right. So each uh search

2:46:02 ↗ has to be justified with a reason for

2:46:04 ↗ the search. Um and it's just a single

2:46:08 ↗ field um in the system or the audit and

2:46:10 ↗ it's a free text field. So by far the

2:46:13 ↗ most common reason input there is

2:46:15 ↗ investigation which as a independent

2:46:18 ↗ auditor gives you absolutely zero you

2:46:21 ↗ know context for the purpose of the

2:46:22 ↗ search. Um

2:46:25 ↗ uh some agencies have policies that they

2:46:27 ↗ have to include you know a case number

2:46:29 ↗ or or things like that um which would

2:46:31 ↗ then allow uh you know you to cross

2:46:33 ↗ reference with uh the agency's records

2:46:35 ↗ about what case the search was um

2:46:38 ↗ related to but that's entirely at the

2:46:39 ↗ level of an individual agency. Um and so

2:46:42 ↗ Flock has since the release of our

2:46:44 ↗ report um said that they restricted

2:46:47 ↗ searches in Washington state for terms

2:46:49 ↗ such as immigration or ICE. Um, but

2:46:52 ↗ that's a very minimal safeguard when you

2:46:54 ↗ can just put in investigation.

2:47:00 ↗ >> Council member Joe,

2:47:02 ↗ Mr. Nev, thank you for your presentation

2:47:04 ↗ this evening. Um, I noted that you

2:47:08 ↗ indicated that the audit records are now

2:47:11 ↗ open to the public records uh law. Is

2:47:15 ↗ that going to be the next area of study

2:47:17 ↗ for you? and what are the things on the

2:47:20 ↗ horizon that we as policy makers should

2:47:22 ↗ be aware of as we consider implementing

2:47:25 ↗ or not implementing block cameras in the

2:47:27 ↗ future. Thank you.

2:47:29 ↗ >> Yes, thank you. Um I I do imagine that

2:47:33 ↗ our center will probably revisit this

2:47:35 ↗ topic. Um we're giving it a little bit

2:47:36 ↗ of time to let the implementation of the

2:47:39 ↗ you know law take effect and for the um

2:47:41 ↗ attorney general offices model policies

2:47:43 ↗ to come out. For example, um we had done

2:47:46 ↗ some additional research um for uh audit

2:47:50 ↗ records from early 2026 and those showed

2:47:54 ↗ that um that those those did not

2:47:57 ↗ contradict Flock's statement that US

2:48:00 ↗ Border Patrol and ICE HSI no longer had

2:48:02 ↗ access to networks. We didn't find any

2:48:04 ↗ evidence of ongoing access by those

2:48:06 ↗ agencies in the more recent audits we

2:48:08 ↗ reviewed. Um I I do think that a a

2:48:13 ↗ number of the um aspects of SB 602 will

2:48:19 ↗ be very difficult for independent

2:48:22 ↗ investigators to reliably audit. um

2:48:29 ↗ given the um

2:48:32 ↗ relatively scant information which is

2:48:34 ↗ provided for um each search in the audit

2:48:38 ↗ logs. Um and so there would need to be a

2:48:41 ↗ I think significant role for other

2:48:44 ↗ public entities with uh oversight over

2:48:47 ↗ um you know agencies that uh that use uh

2:48:51 ↗ you know LPRs. Um, I I hope it won't be

2:48:55 ↗ only our center um doing that doing that

2:48:58 ↗ oversight.

2:48:59 ↗ >> Thank you, Mr. Nef. You've given us a

2:49:01 ↗ lot to think about.

2:49:04 ↗ >> Council member Nichols.

2:49:07 ↗ >> Briefly on the absence of findings uh

2:49:10 ↗ for the the first few months of the year

2:49:11 ↗ in terms of data showing um uh searches

2:49:16 ↗ deliberately done by Washington state

2:49:18 ↗ law enforcement agencies on behalf of uh

2:49:21 ↗ federal entities. um would there have

2:49:23 ↗ been any way for you to know if they had

2:49:25 ↗ given that they are now restricted from

2:49:27 ↗ entering terms like immigration etc. How

2:49:31 ↗ would you have actually figured out if

2:49:32 ↗ they were versus this is a absence of

2:49:36 ↗ evidence is not abs evidence of absence

2:49:38 ↗ type of question. I think I'm misquing

2:49:39 ↗ that but you're getting getting the

2:49:40 ↗ basic point like how how would you know?

2:49:43 ↗ That's right. And I should qualify what

2:49:45 ↗ I said was um we did not see direct

2:49:49 ↗ access by US Border Patrol or ICE HSI to

2:49:53 ↗ the networks. So searches of the

2:49:55 ↗ networks identified as being directly by

2:49:57 ↗ those agencies. We did not see further

2:49:59 ↗ evidence of that. Um we didn't have the

2:50:01 ↗ wherewithal to search for any possible

2:50:04 ↗ um searches on behalf of those agencies.

2:50:08 ↗ Um, so I would not say that that we have

2:50:11 ↗ evidence that that that changed in any

2:50:14 ↗ way from 2025 to 2026. Um, we did

2:50:17 ↗ continue to see uh searches by

2:50:19 ↗ outofstate law enforcement agencies on

2:50:21 ↗ behalf seemingly on behalf of

2:50:24 ↗ immigration enforcement agencies uh

2:50:27 ↗ based on um

2:50:29 ↗ uh some of the reason keywords in

2:50:31 ↗ searches.

2:50:35 ↗ >> Other questions for Mr. Nef.

2:50:40 ↗ Well, Mr. Nef, thank you again very much

2:50:42 ↗ for being with us this evening. We

2:50:44 ↗ really appreciate it.

2:50:46 ↗ >> Yeah, thank you. You're welcome.

2:50:49 ↗ So with that

2:50:52 ↗ um we are at the point where um uh I

2:50:56 ↗ will ask Dale Marky Crimp if we are have

2:51:00 ↗ completed theformational section uh on

2:51:03 ↗ this item and if we are ready to move to

2:51:06 ↗ uh uh deliberation given that we're not

2:51:09 ↗ taking any action this evening.

2:51:11 ↗ >> Yes, that concludes the presentations.

2:51:13 ↗ >> Great. Thank you. So, this is the point

2:51:15 ↗ where I will offer up public comment

2:51:17 ↗ again. Um, knowing what we've heard this

2:51:21 ↗ evening, um, I see there are some folks

2:51:23 ↗ who want to speak. Um, so we will reopen

2:51:25 ↗ public comment at this point if you uh,

2:51:28 ↗ if folks want to come one at a time to

2:51:30 ↗ the microphone again, restate your name,

2:51:33 ↗ address, and your relationship to the

2:51:34 ↗ city and any comments you want to have

2:51:36 ↗ for us. Again, five minute limit per per

2:51:39 ↗ speaker.

2:51:41 ↗ So ma'am

2:51:46 ↗ >> I'm sitting in the front, so I guess

2:51:47 ↗ I'll go first. [laughter] My name is

2:51:49 ↗ Shandra Ryder. I live in the Talis

2:51:51 ↗ neighborhood. Um, first of all, I wanted

2:51:54 ↗ to thank Isqua PD for coming out and

2:51:55 ↗ giving a fantastic presentation. Um, I

2:51:58 ↗ want to reiterate for my personal um

2:52:00 ↗ beliefs, my issues are not with Isqua

2:52:03 ↗ PD. I've never had any reason to doubt

2:52:05 ↗ Isqua PD. I've worked with many law

2:52:07 ↗ enforcement agencies in Washington over

2:52:09 ↗ the years and every agency individually

2:52:12 ↗ has a reputation and ISQA has one of the

2:52:15 ↗ best that I've ever heard of. So, thank

2:52:16 ↗ you for that. I want to reiterate that.

2:52:19 ↗ Um, I don't want to go too much into

2:52:21 ↗ flock cuz it feels a little bit like

2:52:23 ↗ beating a dead horse. I did want to make

2:52:26 ↗ a couple of comments on what was

2:52:28 ↗ presented tonight. Um, I am for the

2:52:31 ↗ tasers. Um, I've been trained in how to

2:52:34 ↗ use pepper spray. I would personally

2:52:36 ↗ rather have a taser used on me than ever

2:52:38 ↗ have pepper spray. Um, so I'm all for

2:52:42 ↗ that part of the presentation. Um, I did

2:52:45 ↗ want to, um, reiterate and go back to a

2:52:48 ↗ couple of things that Kent presented on,

2:52:50 ↗ um, you may remember that last time I

2:52:53 ↗ spoke about how

2:52:55 ↗ one of Flock's selling points, and like

2:52:58 ↗ you, um, Council Member Nichols, I I

2:53:01 ↗ believe they use Flock from what I've

2:53:02 ↗ heard from people who live in the area.

2:53:04 ↗ Um something that he mentioned was that

2:53:07 ↗ he's an administrator. So he has

2:53:09 ↗ administrator access and he commented on

2:53:12 ↗ it having input. What he didn't mention

2:53:15 ↗ was that they had any influence or

2:53:18 ↗ ability to install and maintain the

2:53:20 ↗ systems themselves which I think brings

2:53:23 ↗ it back to that backdoor side access

2:53:25 ↗ that we keep reiterating and that we're

2:53:27 ↗ so concerned about as a community. We're

2:53:29 ↗ not concerned about our local police

2:53:32 ↗ officers in Isiqua misusing or abusing

2:53:35 ↗ these systems. We're concerned about

2:53:37 ↗ federal agencies improperly accessing

2:53:40 ↗ these. And uh SP 60002, it was a great

2:53:44 ↗ start. Um we were very excited when this

2:53:46 ↗ bill came out. A lot of us supported it,

2:53:49 ↗ including our local senator, Victoria

2:53:51 ↗ Hunt. Um but you may notice, as I did,

2:53:54 ↗ that her name is missing from the final

2:53:56 ↗ bill. she revoked her name and her

2:53:58 ↗ support of that bill as a sponsor when

2:54:01 ↗ the final language came out because some

2:54:04 ↗ of these protections were taken away. Uh

2:54:06 ↗ data retention at 21 days is very scary

2:54:09 ↗ if you're an impacted community member.

2:54:12 ↗ Um the stats that Isaqua and Kent gave

2:54:14 ↗ tonight about how helpful these systems

2:54:16 ↗ have been. um they gave a relatively

2:54:19 ↗ small percentage of how helpful it was

2:54:23 ↗ in uh in addressing serious crime

2:54:26 ↗ compared to the amount of data that it's

2:54:28 ↗ taking in every single day. We have tens

2:54:31 ↗ of thousands of people who commute in

2:54:33 ↗ and out of Isakqua every single day. And

2:54:37 ↗ um I would just implore the council to

2:54:40 ↗ think about how much data we're

2:54:42 ↗ collecting for a return on that

2:54:43 ↗ investment, not just in money, but also

2:54:46 ↗ in data. Um, one of the other things

2:54:48 ↗ that I noted um when Kent was presenting

2:54:52 ↗ is they said that their contract is to

2:54:54 ↗ keep data within the US. Well, as we

2:54:56 ↗ know in our current climate, that's a

2:54:58 ↗ very scary thing. Um, having Flock is a

2:55:02 ↗ Georgia based company. A lot of their um

2:55:05 ↗ data centers are based in Georgia and

2:55:06 ↗ Arizona. I personally don't want my data

2:55:08 ↗ going anywhere near those two states.

2:55:10 ↗ So, for me as a Washingtonian, um me as

2:55:13 ↗ a progressive, um I I am concerned about

2:55:17 ↗ where that data is going. Um so, I would

2:55:20 ↗ implore you guys to consider um

2:55:22 ↗ releasing a city ordinance before you

2:55:24 ↗ vote on this grant. Um I understand

2:55:26 ↗ there's no plans to to add ALPR systems

2:55:29 ↗ in outside of this grant, but that could

2:55:31 ↗ change. It's a fluid thing. And so I

2:55:33 ↗ think for the protection of the

2:55:35 ↗ community, we want to be assured that

2:55:37 ↗ these systems aren't going to be

2:55:38 ↗ installed in our city um without us

2:55:41 ↗ having a say. Um so I would implore you

2:55:43 ↗ to consider a city ordinance that that

2:55:46 ↗ bans for the time being or severely

2:55:49 ↗ limits these technologies within our

2:55:51 ↗ city. Um and if we do proceed forward,

2:55:54 ↗ let's um work as a community to

2:55:57 ↗ implement a closed loop system um that's

2:56:00 ↗ going to keep the data in isqua or here

2:56:02 ↗ locally on the east side um partnering

2:56:04 ↗ with partners that we know are safer or

2:56:07 ↗ some of the best in class at um

2:56:10 ↗ retaining and collecting data. Thank

2:56:12 ↗ you.

2:56:16 ↗ >> Thank you very much. And a lot of hands

2:56:17 ↗ went up uh of the folks who are still

2:56:19 ↗ here with us this evening. Uh, next

2:56:23 ↗ ma'am on the right side of the audience.

2:56:34 ↗ My name is Janice Matila Smith. I have

2:56:38 ↗ grown up in Isiqua.

2:56:41 ↗ Uh my

2:56:43 ↗ family has been here multiple

2:56:45 ↗ generations.

2:56:47 ↗ Um my daughters were raised on the

2:56:50 ↗ family farm that

2:56:52 ↗ uh I was raised on that my father was

2:56:55 ↗ raised on. They were dairy farmers.

2:56:58 ↗ Um I have a unique perspective among

2:57:03 ↗ a lot of people. I think uh I don't know

2:57:06 ↗ how many people can honestly say they

2:57:09 ↗ have the history that I have with

2:57:11 ↗ Isiziqua.

2:57:13 ↗ Uh I have seen Isiziqua change and morph

2:57:18 ↗ and some of it's good and some of it is

2:57:20 ↗ not good. Um there are a lot of things

2:57:24 ↗ that I really love and cherish about

2:57:27 ↗ this beautiful place and I have chosen

2:57:32 ↗ to raise my children here and um

2:57:37 ↗ and continue to stay here because of the

2:57:40 ↗ beauty of this place.

2:57:44 ↗ I am

2:57:48 ↗ so grateful to

2:57:50 ↗ our police department.

2:57:53 ↗ I'm so grateful to the people that

2:57:57 ↗ um took their time

2:58:00 ↗ to try to get uh

2:58:04 ↗ this grant for us.

2:58:06 ↗ It was a lot of work and and it wasn't

2:58:09 ↗ easy to do. So, um I respect the

2:58:15 ↗ professionalism and the work of our

2:58:18 ↗ police department and I think that they

2:58:21 ↗ need every opportunity

2:58:24 ↗ to

2:58:26 ↗ protect

2:58:27 ↗ the citizens of this beautiful city.

2:58:34 ↗ Um,

2:58:36 ↗ I'm fully supportive of getting them new

2:58:41 ↗ equipment,

2:58:43 ↗ whatever that may be. What we're talking

2:58:45 ↗ about, tasers tonight, fully support

2:58:49 ↗ that.

2:58:51 ↗ Um, I've also heard I'm not 100% sure

2:58:55 ↗ why we're talking about the flock system

2:58:59 ↗ when that isn't part of the grant, but

2:59:03 ↗ if we're just talking about it because

2:59:06 ↗ in the eventuality that it should

2:59:09 ↗ happen,

2:59:11 ↗ yes, I agree with the people that have

2:59:13 ↗ said not supportive of having that

2:59:17 ↗ system where data is uncontrolled.

2:59:20 ↗ controlled and accessible by other

2:59:23 ↗ entities that are not in the isqua

2:59:27 ↗ system. Um, but I've also seen a lot

2:59:31 ↗ more crime.

2:59:35 ↗ I was shopping and I had I was at

2:59:40 ↗ Sephora and I had people come and they

2:59:44 ↗ were shoplifting right in front of me. I

2:59:48 ↗ was arms length away from the guy

2:59:52 ↗ putting stuff into his bag. Like

2:59:56 ↗ shocking to me what kind of a place

2:59:59 ↗ honestly

3:00:01 ↗ what is happening. So if it if it takes

3:00:04 ↗ putting up some cameras,

3:00:07 ↗ I'm okay with that. I'm okay because it

3:00:10 ↗ makes my family safer.

3:00:13 ↗ I want our children safe. I want our

3:00:16 ↗ children to feel safe.

3:00:21 ↗ Anyway, that's about all I have to say.

3:00:24 ↗ Thank you for hearing me out.

3:00:27 ↗ Thank you very much. Would anyone else

3:00:29 ↗ like to speak this evening?

3:00:36 ↗ >> Uh, thank you, city council, for giving

3:00:38 ↗ me the time to speak tonight and thank

3:00:40 ↗ you to Isqua PD for a wonderful

3:00:41 ↗ presentation. Um, my name is Robin

3:00:44 ↗ Blotbot. I've been living in 1st Avenue

3:00:47 ↗ Northwest for about 3 years now in the

3:00:49 ↗ city of Isiqua and I love it here. Uh,

3:00:52 ↗ prior to living in Isiqua, I used to

3:00:54 ↗ live in Hawaii and I come from a family

3:00:57 ↗ of immigrants. My father when he came to

3:01:00 ↗ the US from the Philippines in middle

3:01:01 ↗ school and then when I was born, uh, he

3:01:04 ↗ became a police officer. He served the

3:01:05 ↗ city and county of Honolulu for about 15

3:01:08 ↗ years. And, uh, he told me many, many

3:01:12 ↗ stories growing up. Um, and I know how

3:01:14 ↗ hard the job of public safety and law

3:01:17 ↗ enforcement can be. But while I am

3:01:19 ↗ deeply sympathetic to the plights our

3:01:22 ↗ officers face, um, I do not believe that

3:01:24 ↗ ALPR systems like Flock are worth the

3:01:27 ↗ cost. My fellow residents have already

3:01:30 ↗ expressed their concerns with regards to

3:01:32 ↗ data security, uh, economic concerns,

3:01:35 ↗ and the dangers ALPR systems present to

3:01:38 ↗ the most vulnerable in our communities,

3:01:40 ↗ immigrants, people seeking reproductive

3:01:41 ↗ care, uh, queer people and people of

3:01:44 ↗ color, and more. Uh, I don't need to

3:01:46 ↗ really rehash these concerns, but I

3:01:48 ↗ would like to leave with a reminder that

3:01:50 ↗ the road to hell is paved with good

3:01:52 ↗ intentions, and injustice can be more

3:01:55 ↗ convenient than doing the right thing.

3:01:57 ↗ And I foresee in the future that there

3:01:59 ↗ will be more convenient solutions like

3:02:01 ↗ Flock uh private companies with quick

3:02:04 ↗ and easy systems that prepare to pro

3:02:07 ↗ protect the public. But if and when they

3:02:10 ↗ fall into the wrong hands uh only will

3:02:12 ↗ oppress them even more. So I urge the

3:02:15 ↗ council to implement an ordinance

3:02:17 ↗ ordinance that bans Flock and other ALPR

3:02:20 ↗ systems like Flock. uh to be wary and

3:02:22 ↗ look out for these quick and easy

3:02:24 ↗ solutions and to find something that

3:02:27 ↗ sign find actual solutions that will

3:02:29 ↗ make the jobs of our officers safer

3:02:31 ↗ while not eroding the trust of our

3:02:33 ↗ communities and our residents. Thank you

3:02:35 ↗ for your time.

3:02:37 ↗ >> Number of hands raised in support of

3:02:39 ↗ that statement.

3:02:40 ↗ Would anyone else like to speak this

3:02:42 ↗ evening?

3:02:48 ↗ >> Hi there. Um, again, my name is Nicholas

3:02:50 ↗ Herang and I've lived in Isaakiqua for

3:02:52 ↗ over 25 years. Um, I am not an expert in

3:02:57 ↗ public policy or flot cameras. Uh, but

3:03:00 ↗ my education and career are in computer

3:03:03 ↗ science. And so, um, from what the Kent

3:03:08 ↗ police officer was talking about, I do

3:03:11 ↗ want to raise an issue with the specific

3:03:13 ↗ point where he said there was a physical

3:03:15 ↗ impossibility

3:03:16 ↗ of that data being used outside of Kent.

3:03:19 ↗ Um,

3:03:21 ↗ even if the data was in Kent, that would

3:03:23 ↗ not be true just because of how software

3:03:26 ↗ works and how breaches happen. But

3:03:29 ↗ specifically with the data being stored

3:03:31 ↗ out of Ken and out of state,

3:03:35 ↗ it is impossible for that to make that

3:03:39 ↗ statement to to make to state that as an

3:03:42 ↗ impossibility. Um data can be taken onto

3:03:46 ↗ a flash drive. It can be stored on a

3:03:48 ↗ server with other data and it can

3:03:50 ↗ accidentally be allowed access. Uh it

3:03:53 ↗ can intentionally be allowed access. it

3:03:55 ↗ can have federal

3:03:58 ↗ um

3:03:59 ↗ requisition of that data. Sorry, it's

3:04:02 ↗ like a couple hours past my bedtime. Um

3:04:05 ↗ [laughter]

3:04:08 ↗ but

3:04:10 ↗ but essentially that once that data is

3:04:12 ↗ there especially if it is not you know

3:04:17 ↗ on premises where you are using that

3:04:19 ↗ data

3:04:21 ↗ it is not secure especially when it is

3:04:25 ↗ such wanted and used and valuable data.

3:04:28 ↗ We're pursuing people that are generally

3:04:30 ↗ considered

3:04:32 ↗ um targeted minorities right now such as

3:04:35 ↗ immigrants, trans people, reproductive

3:04:37 ↗ care seekers. Um and again, I just

3:04:40 ↗ really urge Isiqua to

3:04:42 ↗ stay a place that is safer for these

3:04:46 ↗ individuals and these groups. um rather

3:04:49 ↗ than kind of going into this network of

3:04:53 ↗ surveillance and letting that data and

3:04:57 ↗ these people's uh privacy become

3:05:01 ↗ uh compromised in that way. Thank you.

3:05:05 ↗ >> Thank you. Lots of uh hands up in

3:05:07 ↗ support.

3:05:09 ↗ Anyone else wishing to speak this

3:05:10 ↗ evening?

3:05:13 ↗ Second call. Anyone else wishing to

3:05:15 ↗ speak? Clerk, do we have any indication

3:05:17 ↗ that anyone online wishes to speak?

3:05:22 ↗ Uh, so thank you all and I will

3:05:24 ↗ reiterate what you have heard uh from

3:05:26 ↗ the city and from the IPD. Uh, it is

3:05:30 ↗ always challenging to speak truth to

3:05:32 ↗ power. Um, and coming to speak on issues

3:05:35 ↗ like public safety uh is very

3:05:37 ↗ challenging. So I want to thank everyone

3:05:39 ↗ from the public who came to speak this

3:05:40 ↗ evening and uh ask my fellow council

3:05:44 ↗ members. This is the point where we are

3:05:46 ↗ at deliberations, but I don't believe

3:05:47 ↗ the administration is necessarily uh and

3:05:50 ↗ I see microphones up, so I'm just going

3:05:52 ↗ to stop talking and uh I believe Council

3:05:54 ↗ Member uh Walsh had her mic up first.

3:05:57 ↗ >> Thank you.

3:05:59 ↗ Um

3:06:02 ↗ so, first I want to say thank you to the

3:06:06 ↗ community for coming out. This is

3:06:08 ↗ obviously a passion area and an area

3:06:10 ↗ that there is both fear and concern. Um

3:06:14 ↗ but also I would say great hope for um

3:06:18 ↗ being heard and so I want to say that

3:06:21 ↗ you are heard. Um second I want to say

3:06:23 ↗ that I very appreciate very much

3:06:26 ↗ appreciate um Sergeant Aspel's uh

3:06:28 ↗ presentation on CEDs. I will also refer

3:06:31 ↗ to them as tasers because that flows off

3:06:34 ↗ my lips easier. Um, this really seems

3:06:37 ↗ like a reasonable and necessary upgrade

3:06:40 ↗ to our safety technology that will keep

3:06:42 ↗ our residents and our officers sake

3:06:45 ↗ safe. Um, I appreciate the details

3:06:48 ↗ provided there um that give the

3:06:50 ↗ justification for having 15-year-old

3:06:53 ↗ technology and um the ways that this

3:06:56 ↗ will ensure um the safety of people much

3:06:59 ↗ more. Um, I also very much appreciate

3:07:01 ↗ Ryan Smith and the department's um,

3:07:04 ↗ proactive search for outside funding via

3:07:07 ↗ federal grants. We always know that our

3:07:09 ↗ funding is limited and um, there is not

3:07:13 ↗ half a million dollars sitting around

3:07:16 ↗ um, to upgrade this technology, which is

3:07:18 ↗ why it's 15 years old. Um, regarding

3:07:23 ↗ ALPR cameras, you know, I think what

3:07:26 ↗ I've heard from the community is that

3:07:27 ↗ they've asked for strict guard rails

3:07:29 ↗ about what um, data could be collected,

3:07:32 ↗ where it could be stored, whether that's

3:07:34 ↗ the cloud, third party or private, how

3:07:36 ↗ long it could be stored, who could

3:07:38 ↗ access it, and what would be required to

3:07:40 ↗ do a search such as a case number. I

3:07:43 ↗ would add um I think important policy

3:07:45 ↗ considerations are which databases could

3:07:48 ↗ be used for alerting and what our

3:07:49 ↗ policies are related to police responses

3:07:52 ↗ for those alerts. One of my main fears

3:07:56 ↗ is that criminals are very smart and the

3:07:59 ↗ idea of someone rather than stealing a

3:08:02 ↗ car just stealing a license plate and

3:08:05 ↗ switching it out gives the criminals the

3:08:08 ↗ ability to come in even if we have ALPR

3:08:11 ↗ technology. But it also means that that

3:08:13 ↗ person whose license plate was stolen

3:08:16 ↗ and then replaced with a stolen plate um

3:08:20 ↗ a potential safety uh situation

3:08:23 ↗ especially if

3:08:25 ↗ officers are using that data um and

3:08:29 ↗ believing that that is complete 100%

3:08:32 ↗ evidence um of a crime and treating

3:08:34 ↗ someone in that way. So I I think there

3:08:37 ↗ are a lot of policy questions there. Um

3:08:40 ↗ based on some of our initial

3:08:41 ↗ information, I believe that uh state

3:08:44 ↗ bill or Senate bill 6002 does not

3:08:48 ↗ provide enough limits to ensure safety

3:08:50 ↗ of our residents and visitors. And so I

3:08:53 ↗ really think it's important that we look

3:08:54 ↗ at ways that we can use policy to

3:08:55 ↗ protect our residents. and toward that

3:08:58 ↗ idea. I know the administration isn't

3:09:00 ↗ necessarily asking for um specific

3:09:03 ↗ feedback at this time, but I would like

3:09:06 ↗ to point out two um upcoming points of

3:09:10 ↗ engagement. Um June 15th, uh the

3:09:14 ↗ administration is asking us to accept

3:09:17 ↗ the grant. Um what I will be looking for

3:09:20 ↗ as a decision decision maker at this

3:09:23 ↗ point um is a specific statement in that

3:09:26 ↗ grant acceptance that provides clarity

3:09:28 ↗ that we are accepting CED and interview

3:09:31 ↗ room cameras and not ALPR technology. It

3:09:34 ↗ is not enough for me for the

3:09:37 ↗ administration to just say here accept

3:09:39 ↗ this money and here's what our intention

3:09:41 ↗ is in it. Um I think it is very

3:09:43 ↗ important that we have uh strict

3:09:45 ↗ guidelines. However, I will also note

3:09:47 ↗ that uh June 15th is a committee of the

3:09:49 ↗ whole, so I don't know how we are making

3:09:51 ↗ decisions at that point, but I will

3:09:53 ↗ leave that up to council leadership to

3:09:56 ↗ decide.

3:09:57 ↗ Yeah. And then um July 20th, um the

3:10:01 ↗ mayor has a plan discussion on a draft

3:10:04 ↗ policy

3:10:06 ↗ um for city ALPR use. Um, I think there

3:10:09 ↗ are a lot of policy questions here and I

3:10:12 ↗ will be looking for ways to enrage the

3:10:14 ↗ protections that the community is

3:10:15 ↗ seeking. I don't know what those are

3:10:18 ↗ yet. Um, but I would be interested to

3:10:21 ↗ make sure that we are able to put those

3:10:23 ↗ protections into policy and ordinance

3:10:26 ↗ language and not leave it open at that

3:10:28 ↗ time.

3:10:31 ↗ >> Deputy city administrator, did you wish

3:10:32 ↗ to

3:10:34 ↗ >> Thank you. I just wanted to it's it's a

3:10:36 ↗ late hour, but I wanted to just make

3:10:37 ↗ sure we had the correct information out

3:10:39 ↗ there. June 15th is a regular city

3:10:41 ↗ council meeting. June 13th is the

3:10:43 ↗ committee of the whole I'm sorry, June

3:10:47 ↗ 8th. There we go. But June 15th is a

3:10:50 ↗ regular city council meeting.

3:10:55 ↗ >> Thank you, Deputy City Administrator,

3:10:57 ↗ Deputy Council President Jang.

3:11:00 ↗ >> Great. Well, first of all, um I want to

3:11:02 ↗ reiterate Council Member Walsh's thanks

3:11:03 ↗ for all the community members who have

3:11:05 ↗ come here to speak up about their

3:11:07 ↗ concerns and for sticking with us to

3:11:09 ↗ this late hour. It's been over 3 hours.

3:11:11 ↗ [laughter] Um I also want to thank

3:11:13 ↗ Sergeant Aswell for her great

3:11:14 ↗ presentation on tasers. And I want to

3:11:16 ↗ recognize and thank IPD for seeking

3:11:18 ↗ outside funding. Given our challenging

3:11:20 ↗ budget environment, I think, you know,

3:11:22 ↗ taking the initiative to do that is

3:11:23 ↗ fantastic. And for getting information

3:11:25 ↗ about potential grant flexibility on

3:11:27 ↗ short notice. I know that this, you

3:11:29 ↗ know, we uh put this on the agenda in uh

3:11:31 ↗ I believe it was good of the order 3

3:11:33 ↗ weeks ago. Um I'm fully in support of

3:11:35 ↗ the proposed spending plan for the grant

3:11:37 ↗ which does not include ALPRs, but like

3:11:39 ↗ council member Walsh, I would like to

3:11:40 ↗ see some provision about that when we do

3:11:42 ↗ the grant acceptance that this, you

3:11:44 ↗ know, this is the spending plan and it

3:11:46 ↗ can't be used for things outside of what

3:11:48 ↗ has been identified. Um I also want to

3:11:52 ↗ um be clear about what happened in the

3:11:53 ↗ fee February 25th and March 17th

3:11:55 ↗ meetings from last year which were

3:11:57 ↗ brought up. So on February 25th it was a

3:11:59 ↗ services safety and parks committee

3:12:00 ↗ meeting to discuss ALPRS um and then the

3:12:04 ↗ report from that meeting was on the

3:12:05 ↗ consent agenda on the March 17th council

3:12:07 ↗ meeting. Basically, in the March 17th

3:12:09 ↗ council meeting, we approved the report

3:12:12 ↗ essentially. And in that report, the

3:12:15 ↗ staff noted the staff report noted that

3:12:17 ↗ the committee urged staff to be

3:12:18 ↗ sensitive regarding potential privacy

3:12:20 ↗ issues. And the staff uh report asked

3:12:24 ↗ staff to perform outreach to groups that

3:12:25 ↗ may have concerns and get ahead of any

3:12:27 ↗ rumors about the system. Since then, we

3:12:29 ↗ have heard loud and clear from the

3:12:31 ↗ community about many uh potential

3:12:33 ↗ privacy issues and concerns. And

3:12:36 ↗ ultimately, you know, this is a very

3:12:37 ↗ clear case of policy trade-offs.

3:12:39 ↗ Obviously, there are legitimate uses of

3:12:41 ↗ ALPRs to help with cases like stolen

3:12:43 ↗ vehicles, theft, burglaries, or even

3:12:45 ↗ worse. But as Detective uh Werwitzky

3:12:48 ↗ said in her public comment, we do need

3:12:50 ↗ to balance civil liberties with keeping

3:12:52 ↗ community safe. That means we can't have

3:12:54 ↗ cameras that upload data to a shared

3:12:56 ↗ national database where there are side

3:12:57 ↗ doors and back doors for out of state

3:12:59 ↗ agencies, side doors and back doors for

3:13:00 ↗ federal agencies. That means we need to

3:13:02 ↗ have clear internal policies about using

3:13:04 ↗ case numbers in ALPR searches and clear

3:13:07 ↗ accountability measures when officers

3:13:09 ↗ are found out of compliance with those

3:13:10 ↗ policies. I would strongly support a

3:13:13 ↗ local ordinance around data sharing

3:13:14 ↗ protections for any ALPRs or other

3:13:16 ↗ cameras. And I'd like us to consider

3:13:18 ↗ some pretty wide ranging data

3:13:19 ↗ protections. So, first of all, you know,

3:13:21 ↗ ensuring all data is stored on local

3:13:23 ↗ servers rather than national cloud-based

3:13:25 ↗ centralized servers. Um, we can also

3:13:28 ↗ look at what other cities around the

3:13:29 ↗ country have adopted with regards to

3:13:31 ↗ ordinances. So, um, for example,

3:13:33 ↗ Phoenix, um, which is not a particularly

3:13:36 ↗ progressive jurisdiction, unanimously

3:13:38 ↗ adopted an ALPR ordinance recently that

3:13:40 ↗ requires all data requests from federal

3:13:42 ↗ agencies to be escalated to the level of

3:13:43 ↗ their city manager. There are cases when

3:13:45 ↗ there are legitimate requests from

3:13:47 ↗ federal agencies for, you know, DEA or

3:13:49 ↗ things like that, but it does need to be

3:13:51 ↗ escalated so that it's, you know, at the

3:13:53 ↗ level of city manager rather than

3:13:55 ↗ individual officers. Um,

3:13:58 ↗ and, you know, as we're currently in the

3:14:00 ↗ interview process for our new police

3:14:02 ↗ chief, um, our new police chief is going

3:14:04 ↗ to be in charge of, you know,

3:14:05 ↗ implementing any of these data

3:14:06 ↗ protections as well as, um, internal

3:14:08 ↗ policies. So, that's something that we

3:14:10 ↗ want to be very clear about. Um, our

3:14:13 ↗ officers are doing the best they can

3:14:15 ↗ with the tools that they have and we

3:14:16 ↗ want to make sure that, you know, we

3:14:17 ↗ have clear instructions for them on what

3:14:21 ↗ uh they can and can't do. As officer

3:14:24 ↗ Bais said, um, community members want

3:14:26 ↗ assurances that their data will not be

3:14:27 ↗ misused. Community safety works best

3:14:29 ↗ when communities and officers work

3:14:31 ↗ together. So, I'm looking forward to our

3:14:34 ↗ upcoming discussions about ordinances to

3:14:35 ↗ ensure data security and protections for

3:14:38 ↗ any ALPRs or other cameras that may be

3:14:41 ↗ installed within the city of Isqua.

3:14:43 ↗ Thank you.

3:14:44 ↗ >> Thank you, Council Member Nichols.

3:14:48 ↗ Okay. So, uh first off, thank you again

3:14:51 ↗ to all of the community members who have

3:14:53 ↗ shown up uh all of the community members

3:14:55 ↗ who have emailed uh all of the members

3:14:57 ↗ community members who have called uh and

3:14:59 ↗ stopped us in the streets to talk to us

3:15:01 ↗ about this topic many many times. Um

3:15:04 ↗ it's hard to stick around uh show up and

3:15:06 ↗ make your voice heard, but it is really

3:15:08 ↗ one of the most important parts of

3:15:09 ↗ keeping our democracy honest and

3:15:11 ↗ accountable. So, thank you. Um I'll

3:15:14 ↗ [clears throat] also thank the

3:15:14 ↗ administration for putting this

3:15:16 ↗ presentation together. Um, and I also

3:15:17 ↗ want to go back and also thank the

3:15:18 ↗ police department for applying for this

3:15:20 ↗ grant. Uh, and I'm sincere in that.

3:15:21 ↗ Having written many federal grants

3:15:23 ↗ myself, I appreciate how hard these are

3:15:25 ↗ to get. Um, February 2025 was in many

3:15:28 ↗ ways a different time and I don't think

3:15:30 ↗ we should fault anyone for trying to

3:15:32 ↗ save the city money and go out and get

3:15:35 ↗ some additional funding for us. Um, so

3:15:37 ↗ thank you for all the good intentions

3:15:38 ↗ that were clearly placed in this

3:15:40 ↗ proposal. um I brought up in other

3:15:43 ↗ meetings, so I won't repeat myself uh

3:15:45 ↗ too much as far as my overall comments

3:15:47 ↗ and thoughts on ALPR systems in general,

3:15:49 ↗ except to just say to the public that uh

3:15:50 ↗ I will be 100% against any ALPR system

3:15:53 ↗ that doesn't have security guarantees

3:15:55 ↗ that our residents can feel comfortable

3:15:57 ↗ with. Um I do appreciate the public

3:16:00 ↗ potential public safety benefits of

3:16:01 ↗ these devices, but without the right

3:16:03 ↗ guard rails, there there is

3:16:04 ↗ demonstrabably and we heard so much

3:16:06 ↗ about this tonight, clear potential for

3:16:08 ↗ them to be used in ways that none of us

3:16:10 ↗ want. Um, and I'm really hoping we can

3:16:12 ↗ get to clarity on what our guard rails

3:16:14 ↗ are and that we can do that quickly. Um,

3:16:18 ↗ as to the grant itself, I'll reiterate

3:16:20 ↗ that I would want to see something in

3:16:21 ↗ writing in part for clarity for us, but

3:16:23 ↗ also for clarity for the public, but I I

3:16:25 ↗ do have a concern as far as our ability

3:16:28 ↗ to be clear with the public here because

3:16:30 ↗ this is a confusing topic at the moment.

3:16:32 ↗ Um,

3:16:34 ↗ as as was stated, this is a single grant

3:16:36 ↗ and I wanted to get the clarity on that

3:16:38 ↗ since flock cameras are a part of that

3:16:40 ↗ grant and it's in originally intended

3:16:41 ↗ purpose at least. Um, and given that

3:16:44 ↗ context, I think we're at severe risk of

3:16:46 ↗ communicating in a muddled and confusing

3:16:48 ↗ way about what our intentions are. Um,

3:16:51 ↗ even to folks that are paying wrapped

3:16:53 ↗ attention, as I understand all of you

3:16:55 ↗ are. Um, so all I really want to talk

3:16:58 ↗ about now is timing. Um, the

3:17:00 ↗ administration has proposed that we vote

3:17:02 ↗ to accept or decline this grant on June

3:17:04 ↗ 15th. Uh, and like I said, if I were a

3:17:06 ↗ member of the public, I would be very

3:17:07 ↗ confused about what we're voting on the

3:17:09 ↗ 15th. Um, as a single example, as was

3:17:12 ↗ brought up in comments, uh, we had a

3:17:14 ↗ invited speaker discussing the benefits

3:17:15 ↗ of lock cameras. Um, if we're not

3:17:18 ↗ considering purchasing them as part of

3:17:19 ↗ this grant, this is at a minimum a

3:17:22 ↗ confusing time to be discussing that.

3:17:24 ↗ Um, and I really think we owe the public

3:17:26 ↗ clarity on this very important topic and

3:17:28 ↗ that we can do that better with better

3:17:30 ↗ sequencing. Uh, so the administration

3:17:32 ↗ has suggested that several of us jointly

3:17:34 ↗ draft several options for ordinances

3:17:36 ↗ that could place guardrails of varying

3:17:38 ↗ degrees on ALPR cameras. Um, but with

3:17:41 ↗ the proposed schedule, we won't get to

3:17:42 ↗ that until July 20th, which is a full

3:17:44 ↗ month after we vote on this grant. Um,

3:17:47 ↗ we also have our ongoing internal

3:17:49 ↗ studies of our own use of these systems

3:17:50 ↗ that you're aware of and those won't

3:17:52 ↗ report out until even after that based

3:17:54 ↗ on the most recent emails we have on the

3:17:55 ↗ topic. So, if staff time is too limited

3:17:58 ↗ to work on council with council to

3:18:00 ↗ develop those guardrails, uh, I

3:18:02 ↗ appreciate that. That's understandable.

3:18:03 ↗ Um, but since we can set our own

3:18:06 ↗ calendar, I think we should consider

3:18:08 ↗ just moving our vote on this grant back

3:18:09 ↗ a month until after we have these

3:18:11 ↗ guardrails in place. uh or move the

3:18:13 ↗ guardrails discussion up a month if we

3:18:15 ↗ are not staff constrained. Um it it was

3:18:17 ↗ only a couple weeks ago that we were

3:18:19 ↗ proposing not even to discuss this until

3:18:21 ↗ the fall. So with even let's say 10%

3:18:24 ↗ inflation, we're talking about a like a

3:18:26 ↗ half a percent price increase or so with

3:18:28 ↗ a new quote. I don't think it's worth

3:18:31 ↗ risking miscommunication for that small

3:18:34 ↗ potential difference in increased cost

3:18:35 ↗ for tasers, which I I glossed over this,

3:18:38 ↗ but I am also in support of the the

3:18:39 ↗ taser part of this proposal. and I will

3:18:41 ↗ also call them tasers because I already

3:18:43 ↗ forgot what the other acronym is. Um, so

3:18:47 ↗ I would like to hear a little bit more

3:18:48 ↗ from my fellow council members how we

3:18:50 ↗ feel about aligning those two votes um,

3:18:52 ↗ in many different way. There's lots of

3:18:54 ↗ ways we could do this. Um, but really

3:18:56 ↗ just for the sole purpose of giving

3:18:58 ↗ clarity to the voters on what our

3:18:59 ↗ intentions are um, so that people don't

3:19:02 ↗ have to be paying perfect attention and

3:19:04 ↗ they can tune in and understand what

3:19:06 ↗ what our what everyone's intentions are,

3:19:08 ↗ councils and the administrations. Um,

3:19:11 ↗ and I really do think they should be

3:19:12 ↗ co-terminist. So, I would welcome

3:19:13 ↗ further discussion on that topic at some

3:19:15 ↗ point. Council, Council Member Nichols,

3:19:18 ↗ I do not understand your concern. Can

3:19:20 ↗ you restate it?

3:19:23 ↗ Uh, we have presented information that I

3:19:26 ↗ think could be easily confused to by the

3:19:29 ↗ public given that our a good chunk of

3:19:32 ↗ our discussion tonight was on the

3:19:33 ↗ benefits of lock cameras. Even though we

3:19:36 ↗ are at the moment

3:19:38 ↗ the administration is not propose

3:19:40 ↗ proposing having flock cameras as a part

3:19:42 ↗ of a purchase agreement whatever

3:19:44 ↗ purchasing is resulting from those the

3:19:47 ↗ grant that we received. Given that

3:19:49 ↗ confusion and given the fact that a mere

3:19:51 ↗ month later we already have a proposed

3:19:53 ↗ time to discuss guardrails that we would

3:19:55 ↗ put on AOPR systems in general, I think

3:19:58 ↗ we could communicate much more clearly

3:19:59 ↗ to the public what our what our

3:20:01 ↗ intentions are and what the

3:20:03 ↗ administration's intentions are by first

3:20:06 ↗ discussing what guardrails we want to

3:20:07 ↗ place on ALPRs and then discussing the

3:20:10 ↗ grant that still does technically cover

3:20:12 ↗ ALPRs in it.

3:20:14 ↗ I mean, we're discussing ALPRs today

3:20:16 ↗ because a majority of the council

3:20:18 ↗ insisted that we discuss ALPRs tonight.

3:20:21 ↗ >> Uh, we are discussing ALPRs tonight

3:20:24 ↗ because we disc because we insisted that

3:20:26 ↗ the majority of the council discussed

3:20:27 ↗ the grant tonight. The the insertion of

3:20:30 ↗ the of a presentation by the Kent Police

3:20:32 ↗ Department on the benefits of flaw

3:20:33 ↗ cameras was, I believe, a request from

3:20:35 ↗ the administration, but please correct

3:20:36 ↗ me if I'm wrong on that.

3:20:38 ↗ Do you think that the public is not

3:20:40 ↗ aware that 99 that the administration's

3:20:43 ↗ proposal is that 99% of the money go to

3:20:45 ↗ tasers and 1% of the money go to

3:20:47 ↗ interview cameras? I mean, that seems

3:20:49 ↗ like that got said about 20 times

3:20:51 ↗ tonight. I think we have a small group

3:20:53 ↗ of people who are able and uh have the

3:20:56 ↗ time to pay very close attention and

3:20:58 ↗ otherwise they will have heard many

3:20:59 ↗ times that the city is considering flock

3:21:01 ↗ cameras. They will have if even if they

3:21:03 ↗ downloaded our packet tonight, they will

3:21:04 ↗ have seen a presentation from an invited

3:21:06 ↗ speaker on the benefits of flock

3:21:08 ↗ cameras. I think given those

3:21:09 ↗ circumstances,

3:21:11 ↗ clarity is a benefit that we everyone

3:21:15 ↗ would benefit from clarity and we can

3:21:17 ↗ benefit from clarity by simply stating

3:21:19 ↗ our guard rails first before we vote on

3:21:22 ↗ a grant that was originally intended to

3:21:25 ↗ purchase cameras. But wouldn't we be

3:21:27 ↗ giving clarity if we vote on a very

3:21:30 ↗ straightforward funding of tasers and an

3:21:34 ↗ interview camera and then at a later

3:21:36 ↗ date have a conversation about uh ALPRs?

3:21:41 ↗ I mean to continue to conflate the two

3:21:43 ↗ topics together does not seem to

3:21:48 ↗ achieve the thing that you're asking

3:21:50 ↗ for. I I feel like we should have a

3:21:52 ↗ straightup vote on tasers and interview

3:21:55 ↗ cameras and then have a conversation

3:21:56 ↗ about ALPR.

3:21:58 ↗ >> I think we disagree. Um there are

3:22:01 ↗ there's lots of different ways that we

3:22:02 ↗ could potentially get the clarity. Um

3:22:06 ↗ since we are voting on a grant and we

3:22:09 ↗ will see what comes back as far as what

3:22:11 ↗ language is possible to be added to that

3:22:12 ↗ grant to clarify either intentions or

3:22:16 ↗ limitations. I don't know at the moment

3:22:17 ↗ what that will look like. Um, given that

3:22:20 ↗ given the history of this, given the

3:22:23 ↗ even the confusing nature of the

3:22:25 ↗ presentation tonight, which did include

3:22:27 ↗ substantial content on flock, um, I

3:22:30 ↗ think it would be reasonable for many in

3:22:32 ↗ the public to not fully understand where

3:22:34 ↗ we are at the moment and that we could

3:22:36 ↗ get to better clarity by simp if we want

3:22:40 ↗ to pass an ordinance a month later

3:22:41 ↗ that's going to put guard rails on it,

3:22:43 ↗ we can we could make them coterist

3:22:45 ↗ coerminist and then there's no cl

3:22:46 ↗ there's no confusion at all.

3:22:49 ↗ I see. Thank you for clarifying your

3:22:50 ↗ concern.

3:22:53 ↗ Uh I believe next up is Council Member

3:22:55 ↗ Adair. Um I have a few thoughts. One,

3:22:58 ↗ I'll I'll address that part directly and

3:22:59 ↗ that I think I see council member

3:23:01 ↗ Nichols point in that for those that are

3:23:03 ↗ not here today that did not see the full

3:23:06 ↗ presentation. What has been shared in

3:23:08 ↗ social media throughout the community

3:23:09 ↗ has simply been city is considering a

3:23:11 ↗ grant to buy ALPRs. They're going to

3:23:13 ↗ talk about it and then the month later

3:23:15 ↗ they'll say, "Oh, the city has approved

3:23:16 ↗ this grant." and the details of what how

3:23:18 ↗ the grant has changed may not be get out

3:23:21 ↗ amongst the populace other than to hear

3:23:23 ↗ the words the grant was approved. And so

3:23:26 ↗ I though I'm not sure that the swapping

3:23:30 ↗ of dates will do that because I also

3:23:31 ↗ have concerns that ordinances on ALPRs

3:23:35 ↗ will not be a single meeting topic. Uh

3:23:38 ↗ it feels like there's a lot to discuss

3:23:41 ↗ there and I'm not sure we're going to

3:23:42 ↗ come to a consensus and have an

3:23:44 ↗ ordinance all figured out by that date.

3:23:46 ↗ So [snorts] I would propose a solution

3:23:49 ↗ to that problem is simply be some level

3:23:50 ↗ of administrative public announcement to

3:23:54 ↗ really make it clear to the public of

3:23:55 ↗ hey we discussed it alprs are no longer

3:23:58 ↗ on this grant and just have some level

3:24:00 ↗ of a public com you know public outreach

3:24:03 ↗ or social media posts I'm not sure the

3:24:05 ↗ equivalent of that to just clarify this

3:24:07 ↗ issue because right now I can see many

3:24:09 ↗ of the public hear the word grant and

3:24:11 ↗ they think it's alprs and just to make

3:24:13 ↗ that clear before we vote on the grant

3:24:16 ↗ would be helpful for that clarity. So I

3:24:18 ↗ think that's my understanding that's my

3:24:20 ↗ thoughts on it of whether that's an

3:24:22 ↗ alternative to address that concern. Um

3:24:25 ↗ my secondary thoughts is to in terms of

3:24:27 ↗ the general topic is also to reiterate

3:24:29 ↗ what has been said about how much the

3:24:31 ↗ public has been heard from here. I was a

3:24:33 ↗ council member that was okay with the

3:24:35 ↗ delay in this discussion initially and

3:24:37 ↗ it was the public outreach that changed

3:24:39 ↗ my opinion to have the discussion now

3:24:41 ↗ and I very much appreciate all that

3:24:43 ↗ outreach and it I reiterate that it was

3:24:45 ↗ heard and great job in our public and

3:24:47 ↗ coming out. Uh I equally approve the use

3:24:50 ↗ of this for CEDs. I love the idea of

3:24:52 ↗ non-lethal options. I you know in terms

3:24:54 ↗ of law enforcement and think this is a

3:24:56 ↗ very good use of these funds.

3:24:59 ↗ Uh the fact that you're getting money

3:25:00 ↗ out of the federal government is amazing

3:25:02 ↗ to me. Uh cuz I that's just not

3:25:05 ↗ something I expect to see at all

3:25:06 ↗ anymore. Um and then as far as the

3:25:09 ↗ actual ALP ordinances to be discussed,

3:25:12 ↗ yeah, I agree that I do not think

3:25:14 ↗ SB60002

3:25:16 ↗ is enough and think there is more that

3:25:19 ↗ would have to be done in order to accept

3:25:20 ↗ them in this community. um to the point

3:25:23 ↗ that you know made earlier of tech moves

3:25:26 ↗ fast you know equally government moves

3:25:29 ↗ slow and I think that's on purpose

3:25:31 ↗ because I think we need to take our time

3:25:33 ↗ with make you know doing these things

3:25:35 ↗ making these decisions um you know I

3:25:38 ↗ will say like I have you know I love the

3:25:40 ↗ idea of guardrails but I I have a just

3:25:42 ↗ fundamental question of do we need these

3:25:44 ↗ at all like I'm a big believer in you

3:25:47 ↗ know build a longer table not a taller

3:25:49 ↗ fence and these to me feel like building

3:25:51 ↗ a fence around the city and do we need a

3:25:53 ↗ digital fence around the city? So even

3:25:56 ↗ in terms of ordinance talks, my

3:25:57 ↗ questions are is this even necessary or

3:25:59 ↗ what we want for our community? Hence

3:26:01 ↗ why I'm not sure that we'll have a

3:26:03 ↗ solution to that discussion right away.

3:26:05 ↗ So um you know those are my thoughts and

3:26:07 ↗ that I you know prove the CD usage, but

3:26:09 ↗ I would say you know if we could get

3:26:11 ↗ some sort of public outreach out to make

3:26:13 ↗ it clear that the grant had is no longer

3:26:15 ↗ going to be used for these devices would

3:26:17 ↗ be helpful.

3:26:19 ↗ >> Thank you. Council member Joe. Oh,

3:26:22 ↗ >> did what?

3:26:24 ↗ >> Uh, city administrator Bob Kitz was on

3:26:26 ↗ camera. I didn't know if he wanted to

3:26:27 ↗ make a comment or not.

3:26:31 ↗ >> City

3:26:32 ↗ administrator, you have the mic.

3:26:34 ↗ >> Yeah.

3:26:35 ↗ >> Yes. Thank you very much, council

3:26:37 ↗ president. Um, as I said a few moments

3:26:40 ↗ ago, uh, the mayor has no intention

3:26:42 ↗ moving forward with this. And I think

3:26:44 ↗ the suggestion was made by Deputy

3:26:46 ↗ Council President Jen, uh, and I think

3:26:48 ↗ also Council Member Walsh that we can

3:26:51 ↗ make a clear statement when the grant

3:26:52 ↗ comes back. Um, we have the money

3:26:55 ↗ available to us. We don't want to see

3:26:57 ↗ another price increase for Tasers. So,

3:27:00 ↗ we would like to move forward. We will

3:27:01 ↗ make it very clear uh what the grant is

3:27:04 ↗ purchasing, what the grant is not

3:27:05 ↗ purchasing and then work uh with

3:27:07 ↗ bringing back an ordinance with the

3:27:09 ↗ prescribed time frame that we've given.

3:27:11 ↗ But we can do that. We have a very smart

3:27:13 ↗ community. They'll understand. And

3:27:15 ↗ again, I don't want to wait any longer

3:27:17 ↗ to see another price increase uh for

3:27:20 ↗ this equipment.

3:27:23 ↗ >> Thank you, city administrator. Council

3:27:24 ↗ member Joe, did you have comments?

3:27:25 ↗ >> Yeah, just briefly. Um, my comments were

3:27:27 ↗ very similar to

3:27:29 ↗ uh, city administrator Bobitz's uh,

3:27:32 ↗ comments right there. Um, the way the

3:27:36 ↗ federal dollars are being put out,

3:27:38 ↗ withdrawn,

3:27:40 ↗ given out, taken away, I think we need

3:27:42 ↗ to seize on this as soon as we possibly

3:27:43 ↗ can. The policy for ALRPS uh, is going

3:27:48 ↗ to take a little bit of time to to wade

3:27:49 ↗ through. Um, our citizens are smart.

3:27:52 ↗ There are a number of groups that are

3:27:53 ↗ following our conversation and uh I got

3:27:57 ↗ stopped at the market a couple of weeks

3:27:59 ↗ ago and one of the members said, you

3:28:02 ↗ know, we're following the conversation.

3:28:03 ↗ I spread what happened at the council

3:28:05 ↗ meeting to all of the members in the

3:28:06 ↗ group and um they know what's going on

3:28:09 ↗ and if we're clearly stating that this

3:28:11 ↗ is only a grant acceptance for CEDs or

3:28:16 ↗ tasers um we'll be okay there. Um, and

3:28:19 ↗ if there is an issue or a problem and

3:28:21 ↗ it's not clear to our our public, we can

3:28:24 ↗ of course table the issue to a date

3:28:25 ↗ certain as per Robert's rules of order

3:28:28 ↗ and go from there. But I think it should

3:28:30 ↗ be on the agenda for uh approval as soon

3:28:32 ↗ as uh practical. Thank you.

3:28:35 ↗ >> Thank you, Council Member Boy.

3:28:39 ↗ >> Thank you. Um, I will also reiterate

3:28:43 ↗ that uh deep thanks for the community on

3:28:45 ↗ um showing up at every turn of this

3:28:47 ↗ conversation. Uh it's uh helped shape my

3:28:51 ↗ thinking for sure as has this uh great

3:28:53 ↗ presentation um and all the hard work

3:28:55 ↗ from staff and these outside presenters.

3:28:57 ↗ I really appreciate it. Um I'm in favor

3:29:00 ↗ of the I I will also call them taser

3:29:02 ↗ upgrades. Um I uh think I've some of you

3:29:06 ↗ may know I've shared that uh in my uh

3:29:08 ↗ vacancy application my mother is a

3:29:10 ↗ police officer and when I was you know

3:29:11 ↗ looking through these and the specific

3:29:13 ↗ model this is quite literally not my

3:29:14 ↗ mother's taser. Um uh I appreciate

3:29:17 ↗ especially the just safety aspect of the

3:29:19 ↗ distance that it can put between um and

3:29:23 ↗ um uh I guess I'm getting into the

3:29:25 ↗ weeds. I know it eliminates the warning

3:29:27 ↗ arc and is now a warning um alert and uh

3:29:32 ↗ yeah interesting. Um

3:29:35 ↗ uh I think the question that's been in

3:29:38 ↗ my throughout this conversation um

3:29:42 ↗ I I've had something in my mind and I

3:29:46 ↗ think that it's very um

3:29:49 ↗ in our equity framework uh

3:29:53 ↗ question or framework nine really gets

3:29:55 ↗ at this of have we sacrificed the

3:29:58 ↗ experience of marginalized people for

3:30:00 ↗ the comfort and safety

3:30:03 ↗ of other residents. That's just kind of

3:30:04 ↗ a it's not exactly what it says, but and

3:30:07 ↗ so I think that really that's what's

3:30:09 ↗ grounding my thinking of this. Um and so

3:30:13 ↗ I echo I would also I would potentially

3:30:17 ↗ be in favor of an ordinance that puts

3:30:19 ↗ some guardrails on things. I want to be

3:30:20 ↗ wary of um uh you know making clear

3:30:24 ↗ carveouts for we have traffic cameras in

3:30:26 ↗ town right for various in a few

3:30:28 ↗ different spots and uh there are private

3:30:31 ↗ businesses that I think already do use

3:30:32 ↗ these and so um just [snorts] not

3:30:35 ↗ wanting us to get ourselves in any kind

3:30:37 ↗ of legal trouble with things that are

3:30:39 ↗ already existing that's outside of the

3:30:40 ↗ city's scope but uh

3:30:44 ↗ um as far as the timing of it uh I

3:30:49 ↗ certainly would want clarity on the

3:30:51 ↗ grant for both the community uh aspect

3:30:57 ↗ how they've been tracking this issue and

3:30:59 ↗ for my own how I'm voting on it. Um I

3:31:03 ↗ want to be very clear on what I am

3:31:05 ↗ either approving or disapproving.

3:31:07 ↗ [snorts]

3:31:09 ↗ >> Thank you for your comments. Before I go

3:31:11 ↗ to Deputy Council President Jang, I'm

3:31:12 ↗ going to take a chance to do finish the

3:31:14 ↗ first round of comments on this. Uh yay

3:31:17 ↗ tasers. Um that's fine. So, on the

3:31:20 ↗ subject of, you know, ALPRs, right? If

3:31:23 ↗ you've got a spectrum that runs from one

3:31:26 ↗ end to the other, um, if you've got a

3:31:29 ↗ Yay ALPRS,

3:31:30 ↗ uh, that that has been a small, uh, and

3:31:34 ↗ really exclusively IPD, uh, uh, group

3:31:37 ↗ thus far, every everybody else has been

3:31:39 ↗ sort of someplace else. And there's

3:31:41 ↗ people who are who are basically saying,

3:31:43 ↗ "No, it's a terrible idea just in

3:31:45 ↗ general." And we've heard some of that

3:31:46 ↗ tonight. We've heard some of that

3:31:47 ↗ historically. There's folks who have

3:31:49 ↗ said if you can guarantee that there's

3:31:52 ↗ no possible way that this data will ever

3:31:55 ↗ be misused, um that is a hard and I'm

3:31:58 ↗ not entirely sure uh uh genuine position

3:32:04 ↗ to take because um if you have laws that

3:32:08 ↗ say it's a gross misdemeanor for a

3:32:09 ↗ police officer to take data and do

3:32:12 ↗ something with it, um that to me is a

3:32:14 ↗ pretty good uh standard. So, so I I I'm

3:32:18 ↗ not there. That's not the position I'm

3:32:20 ↗ at. Um I hear time and time again that

3:32:22 ↗ there's a lot of folks that are super

3:32:24 ↗ concerned about local data. And I'm I'm

3:32:27 ↗ of the school of thought that it's worth

3:32:29 ↗ having a conversation when there are

3:32:32 ↗ technologies available that would keep

3:32:34 ↗ the data local and in the control of the

3:32:36 ↗ IPD, then it's worth having a

3:32:37 ↗ conversation. You know, 15 years ago, I

3:32:41 ↗ wanted the IPD to get body cameras

3:32:43 ↗ because I thought body cameras would

3:32:45 ↗ make the public safer. And they couldn't

3:32:46 ↗ do it at the time because at the time,

3:32:49 ↗ um, there were just all these issues

3:32:51 ↗ about data, right? And what would happen

3:32:53 ↗ if somebody did a public records request

3:32:55 ↗ and they just said, you know, for

3:32:57 ↗ instance, I want to see all the people

3:32:58 ↗ arrested for prostitution. And then they

3:33:00 ↗ put up a website that shows everybody

3:33:01 ↗ who's arrested for prostitution, right?

3:33:03 ↗ As an example of the kinds of issues you

3:33:06 ↗ get into when you deal with public data.

3:33:08 ↗ And so the technology just wasn't ready

3:33:10 ↗ 15 years ago. And it and the ACLU

3:33:13 ↗ eventually came around to it and then

3:33:15 ↗ the Washington ACLU eventually came

3:33:17 ↗ around to it and civil liberty issues

3:33:19 ↗ got addressed by how they handled body

3:33:22 ↗ cameras. And I see a lot of parallels

3:33:24 ↗ today in the conversations about ALPRs.

3:33:28 ↗ I mean, I will note that England has

3:33:30 ↗ 13,000 A&PRs. um and we go to visit

3:33:35 ↗ England and we don't feel like we're

3:33:37 ↗ being trampled. So, um I also think that

3:33:40 ↗ there's DEI arguments. Um Council Member

3:33:43 ↗ Boyd, I I really appreciate you bringing

3:33:45 ↗ up um uh the the equity lens. You know,

3:33:48 ↗ there's an argument that says that ALPRs

3:33:51 ↗ are actually positive for DEI because

3:33:54 ↗ they're colorblind, right? And

3:33:56 ↗ historically speaking, one of the areas

3:33:58 ↗ that police forces get into trouble is

3:34:00 ↗ when they pull people over and they pull

3:34:03 ↗ people over disproportionately people of

3:34:04 ↗ color in upper underrepresented

3:34:06 ↗ communities, right? ALPR's

3:34:09 ↗ um address that um by being rigorously

3:34:13 ↗ colorblind. So I look forward to a

3:34:16 ↗ conversation at some point um when the

3:34:19 ↗ technology

3:34:21 ↗ addresses you know my personal my

3:34:24 ↗ personal point where I'm willing to have

3:34:25 ↗ a conversation is when I know the data

3:34:28 ↗ is going to be local then I'm willing to

3:34:29 ↗ have the conversation and say how do

3:34:32 ↗ these technologies meet the needs of the

3:34:34 ↗ community. Um so that's sort of where I

3:34:36 ↗ come to on on the guardrail question. Um

3:34:39 ↗ so that's where I'm at um this a this

3:34:42 ↗ evening. I'm I'm excited about spending

3:34:44 ↗ 99% of this grant on uh tasers and 1% on

3:34:49 ↗ uh interview cameras. And with that,

3:34:50 ↗ we'll go to round two with Deputy

3:34:52 ↗ Council President Chang.

3:34:54 ↗ >> Um okay, I just have one really quick

3:34:56 ↗ question. Uh so when does the current

3:34:58 ↗ quote for the tasers expire just in

3:34:59 ↗ terms of, you know, the timing that

3:35:00 ↗ we're looking at?

3:35:02 ↗ I I can't tell you the the quote

3:35:04 ↗ expiration, but I do think it's

3:35:06 ↗ important to note that that we do have a

3:35:08 ↗ date by which we have to accept the

3:35:10 ↗ grant, which I believe is the end of

3:35:13 ↗ September

3:35:16 ↗ >> of 2026,

3:35:19 ↗ and Miss Smith will look up the quote

3:35:21 ↗ expiration, but I think the potential

3:35:24 ↗ nearer term concern for me um is

3:35:26 ↗ thinking about that that September 30th

3:35:28 ↗ date.

3:35:29 ↗ >> Great. Thank you.

3:35:32 ↗ I don't I don't have anything to add

3:35:34 ↗ beyond what I already said.

3:35:36 ↗ >> Anybody else want to go to round two?

3:35:39 ↗ Council member Nichols,

3:35:41 ↗ just briefly on Council Member Ver's

3:35:43 ↗ point, um, as far as do we have

3:35:46 ↗ guardrails or do we just say none at

3:35:48 ↗ all, I think that's that's a very good

3:35:50 ↗ discussion and I don't think we have to

3:35:51 ↗ necessarily limit ourselves to guard

3:35:52 ↗ rails only. I think we could certainly

3:35:54 ↗ have a discussion of do we want anything

3:35:55 ↗ like this technology in the community

3:35:57 ↗ and uh that's that's a conversation I

3:35:59 ↗ would also support. Any

3:36:05 ↗ other closing comments?

3:36:08 ↗ Is there anything the administration

3:36:10 ↗ would like us uh Oh, I'm sorry, Council

3:36:13 ↗ Member Boyd. I didn't see your mic. I

3:36:14 ↗ think just to address the issue of color

3:36:16 ↗ blindness,

3:36:18 ↗ I'm asking myself if the impact of uh

3:36:22 ↗ installing ALPRs

3:36:24 ↗ if that impact would be felt in a

3:36:26 ↗ colorblind way um by who is being

3:36:31 ↗ policed.

3:36:33 ↗ So I think I understand what you're

3:36:35 ↗ saying.

3:36:38 ↗ I just want to I have a very not

3:36:40 ↗ poignant uh followup to what the

3:36:43 ↗ question you just posed which is an

3:36:44 ↗ answer to the question that you asked um

3:36:46 ↗ which is that the current quote um is is

3:36:49 ↗ good until the end of June. So then we

3:36:51 ↗ would seek another quote.

3:36:55 ↗ >> Great. That's super helpful to know

3:36:57 ↗ because I was wondering what the urgency

3:36:58 ↗ was for accepting the grant and quote in

3:37:01 ↗ June and you know if we have to go out

3:37:03 ↗ and get another grant if we're already

3:37:05 ↗ at 99% of the federal grant if you know

3:37:08 ↗ it goes up by even one more percent

3:37:10 ↗ we're really kind of pushing it. So

3:37:12 ↗ thank you.

3:37:16 ↗ >> Any other comments, questions?

3:37:20 ↗ >> Deputy state administrator. Uh do you

3:37:22 ↗ need anything else from us this evening?

3:37:25 ↗ >> No. Thank you council for um all of your

3:37:27 ↗ feedback on this issue tonight.

3:37:31 ↗ >> Great. Thank you. Thanks staff. We are

3:37:33 ↗ at good of the order. Is there anything

3:37:35 ↗ uh for good of the order? Council member

3:37:37 ↗ Joe,

3:37:38 ↗ >> just a quick reminder, the

3:37:39 ↗ Asian-American Pacific Islander event is

3:37:42 ↗ this Sunday, starts at 2 p.m. till 4

3:37:44 ↗ p.m. at the community center if you'd

3:37:45 ↗ like to join us. Registration is

3:37:47 ↗ required, so go to the website and sign

3:37:49 ↗ up. Thank you.

3:37:50 ↗ >> Thank you so much. Anything else for the

3:37:52 ↗ good of the order?

3:37:55 ↗ Seeing nothing else with the order, we

3:37:57 ↗ are adjourned at 10:08 p.m. Thank you

3:38:00 ↗ all.

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (7)

Paul Adair

Erika Boyd

Kelly Jiang

Russell Joe

Tola Marts

Kevin Nichols

Lindsey Walsh