[3:01] All right.
[3:02] >> Everybody ready? Yeah. All right. This
[3:05] is the city of Aenddale Estates, Georgia
[3:07] Board of Mayor and Commissioners regular
[3:08] meeting. It is August 26, 2026. It's
[3:11] 5:30. I'd like to call the meeting to
[3:13] order. We have an agenda before us. Do I
[3:15] have a motion to adopt?
[3:17] >> So moved.
[3:18] >> That was Graham. Lot of second. All in
[3:20] favor say I.
[3:20] >> I.
[3:21] >> Can everybody hear me?
[3:23] >> Okay. All right. Um, first up,
[3:26] commissioner comments. Uh, Commissioner
[3:28] Sedman.
[3:29] >> Well, just welcome all of you to this
[3:31] evening's meeting. Um, and I hope you
[3:34] learned something and get to express
[3:35] your, you know, your comments to us. So,
[3:39] uh, I'll hear me out.
[3:40] >> Okay. Mr. Swazo,
[3:43] Mr.
[3:44] >> No. Welcome everybody.
[3:48] This is your chains
[3:50] approach.
[3:50] >> Uh, I don't really have much either, but
[3:53] thank you all for coming in the hot
[3:54] weather. I was just commenting out. So,
[3:56] it feels like August has lasted a very
[3:59] long time, so um I'm glad to see it
[4:01] coming to an end. Um, that's it for me.
[4:03] Thank you all for coming tonight. Yep. I
[4:06] likewise have nothing. Uh, thank you all
[4:08] for being here. We had a good crowd.
[4:10] Appreciate it. Uh, Mr. Manager.
[4:12] >> All right. and I'll say stuff since
[4:14] y'all y'all have no commentary tonight.
[4:17] Uh just want to remind everybody we've
[4:20] got two big events in the city this week
[4:22] um or this weekend. Uh Friday night is
[4:26] the Aendale Estates kickoff centennial
[4:29] celebration with a street festival u
[4:32] from 6:00 to 9 on Franklin Street
[4:34] between Olive and Pine. Uh, we have so
[4:38] much fun to have. Outdoor music DJed by
[4:41] Commune, a dedicated Kid Zone, local art
[4:44] and live improv comedy at Little Tree
[4:47] Art Studios. Those improv show
[4:51] at 7 and 8:00 p.m. We'll have a special
[4:55] Aendale Estates exhibit from the Dicab
[4:58] History Center inside of the Olive and
[5:01] Pine development. A self-care corner
[5:04] sponsored by Referology Pilates. Food
[5:07] and beverages for purchase from Skips,
[5:10] Los Nños Takaria, Enzo Isakaya, Night
[5:14] Owl, and Banjo. And we'll we will also
[5:17] be including a special centennial beer
[5:20] brewed by Wild Heaven. Uh all
[5:22] surrounding businesses will also be
[5:25] open. Free Italian ice will be provided
[5:28] courtesy of Dicab County CEO Lorraine
[5:30] Cochran Johnson. We will have decade
[5:33] themed photo opportunities, temporary
[5:36] tattoos from Aendel Estates's own Swinx
[5:38] Tattoo Emporia, free coasters, and a
[5:42] chance to see a working 1924 letter
[5:45] press at Methane and specially designed
[5:48] Centennial items for purchase by Methane
[5:50] Studio and much much more. And then
[5:53] Saturday night, the community is hosting
[5:57] a centennial gala at the Aenddale
[6:01] Estates Lakehouse. Um, tickets are still
[6:06] available online. There's also posters
[6:09] throughout city hall that include a QR
[6:11] code that will link you right there. Uh,
[6:14] should be a fun event. Uh, so if you are
[6:17] interested in in that, please go ahead
[6:19] and buy your tickets before they sell
[6:21] out.
[6:23] Well, thank you very much. Appreciate
[6:25] that.
[6:26] >> Okay. Any other comments up here? All
[6:29] right. Uh, public comment. Julie
[6:33] and everybody just name and address,
[6:35] please, just for the record.
[6:37] >> Yes. Julie Fleming, 40 Clarendon. I
[6:40] don't yet have a final opinion about
[6:42] what's best for Aenddale with our flock
[6:44] camera contract. I'm here with an open
[6:47] mind to listen. I promised some people
[6:51] to speak first because
[6:57] some people are nervous about public
[6:59] speaking. I have always felt welcome,
[7:04] heard, and respected here. I'm glad if
[7:09] we see more people here or online. Thank
[7:12] you.
[7:13] >> Thank you.
[7:25] Yes, sir. I suppose.
[7:27] >> Okay.
[7:28] >> I apologize, guys. This is going to be a
[7:30] lot.
[7:32] >> You're not going to cut me off. Adam
[7:34] Gallatio, everybody. Yeah, I didn't get
[7:36] a chance to time this. So, um
[7:39] 3048 place. I know a lot of you. Uh I've
[7:42] been around here for a long time. Um so,
[7:43] this is up block. I don't think a lot of
[7:46] people understand what Flock is. It's
[7:47] not a camera system. It's software
[7:49] running AI recognition on all the
[7:50] people, vehicles, everything your
[7:52] national network video and audio sensors
[7:53] picks up to establish profiles in a
[7:55] database um of movement history and
[7:57] real-time location tracking that is
[7:59] searched by anyone with access to the
[8:00] system. It's really big. I should
[8:03] probably just skip all this. My beef is
[8:05] not AAPD with Flock. It's everyone else.
[8:08] Um, you can foil a lot of records and
[8:11] people have uh I checked out a 729
[8:14] search where we were one of 6,138
[8:17] other network search. My concern is not
[8:19] AAPD, it's the other 6,137
[8:23] networks out there that have access
[8:25] potentially to our system. Um,
[8:29] there's the access we know about and
[8:31] there's the access we don't. Block has a
[8:33] documented history of lying to people.
[8:36] uh block gave DHS backdoor access to uh
[8:39] Washington, excuse me, Washington State
[8:42] Police Department networks without their
[8:44] wishes or without their knowledge and
[8:45] against their wishes. So, they cancel
[8:46] the contracts. Um there's loginins for
[8:49] sale on Russian hacker sites. Uh though
[8:52] Flock maintains they've never been
[8:53] hacked. Technically could be true. A
[8:56] local guy named Ben Jordan got into
[8:58] their system through what's basically
[8:59] advanced Googling. Um, and Flock
[9:02] maintains that was not a hack, which is
[9:04] accurate because it's not breaking in
[9:06] when the doors open. Uh, Ben's stuff is
[9:09] uh I shared is what one guy can public
[9:11] share without being sued or prosecuted.
[9:14] Imagine what an entity with more
[9:15] resources and less concern for US law
[9:18] can do with this system that's
[9:20] accessible in our town. Um, then there's
[9:22] Flock themselves. Done what he dad found
[9:24] out a Flock employee accessed a camera
[9:26] in a kids gymnastics studio against
[9:28] their agreement. Uh Flock said it was a
[9:30] sales demo except that guy only accessed
[9:33] one camera that day, which is a little
[9:34] weird. Uh and then behind closed doors,
[9:36] Flock brought in a $100 million National
[9:38] Political Crisis Management Firm to meet
[9:41] with Dunwy City staff. Then of course
[9:43] there's the 100 plus cases of officers
[9:45] stalking their exartners, 20 of which
[9:47] were in Georgia. Uh there's the Dunwhaty
[9:49] search that I found for vehicle with a
[9:51] political bumper sticker. I can't
[9:53] imagine what legal legal circumstance
[9:55] that could be demonstrating. Um, it's
[9:58] everyone else I'm worried about. Uh, the
[10:00] system is also horribly inaccurate. They
[10:02] advertise a 95% accuracy rate uh with on
[10:05] 20 billion processes. That's 1 billion
[10:08] false identifications per month. Um,
[10:11] there's some I sent you guys a pretty
[10:12] long email. Sorry about that. Before
[10:15] this, um, they're also running
[10:18] predictive policing features now that
[10:19] flag people in vehicles on behavior
[10:21] their I AI thinks is suspicious, way
[10:23] match behaviors to a crime. Uh, and
[10:26] again, so I'm not concerned with AAPD.
[10:28] It's everyone else. Lock will tell us no
[10:31] one else can access our system, but they
[10:32] have repeatedly lied about this. There's
[10:34] lots out there. There's so much out
[10:36] there that I can't find articles I found
[10:38] before because they are getting buried.
[10:41] >> All right, that's it, right?
[10:42] >> Yes. Thank you.
[10:43] >> Y'all got the email you're reading.
[10:45] >> Thank you.
[10:50] » Yes.
[10:52] Sorry, I don't know your name.
[10:55] Hello, my name is uh Gregory Hendler. I
[10:58] live at 712 Stratford Green. I am also
[11:01] commenting on Flock. Uh I'm curious
[11:04] about the details of our current
[11:06] contract in the transcript from the
[11:08] January meeting. When it was approved
[11:11] and talked about, it was described as a
[11:12] two-year trial run contract to see
[11:15] whether or not this system works for us.
[11:17] That I believe would have been up in
[11:18] January of this year. I would like
[11:20] clarity on the current state of the
[11:21] contract, whether it has been expanded
[11:24] or extended, and whether those details
[11:27] were ever discussed publicly. Since that
[11:29] original two-year contract, we've
[11:31] learned a lot more about the Flock
[11:33] system. Flock is a company. A lot of
[11:35] what I was going to say has been touched
[11:37] on here. I'll reiterate, my concern is
[11:40] not with the Aenddale Police Department.
[11:42] I don't think any of us have any reason
[11:43] to think they have done anything
[11:45] untored, but we're in the system and we
[11:50] know that this system has been used for
[11:52] the other purposes. Even during that
[11:54] initial presentation,
[11:56] some questions were raised about
[11:57] potential security concerns. They were
[12:00] dismissed and the flock representative
[12:04] uh said that the uh people using the
[12:06] system are too busy doing their jobs and
[12:09] only use it when they need it. We know that is not true. There have been
[12:13] dozens of cases locally alone in which
[12:17] law enforcement officers have been
[12:19] caught using the system for nefarious
[12:22] purposes unlawfully.
[12:24] Um some are still under investigation.
[12:26] Many have been arrested.
[12:29] Block claims his goal is to eliminate
[12:31] crime. They want credit for any law
[12:33] enforcement success stories, but they
[12:35] show no accountability when the system
[12:37] is abused countless times. Successes are
[12:39] attributed to the systems power, but
[12:41] misuse is attributed to individual bad
[12:44] actors. Recently, the Flock CEO even
[12:46] implied that's actually a great thing
[12:48] that so many law enforcement officers
[12:50] are being caught abusing their system.
[12:53] Quote, "I don't think Flock created
[12:55] police abuse. I think we're the first
[12:57] company to shine a light on it and build
[12:58] the tools to find it." So, allegedly
[13:01] now, the purpose of Flock is to find
[13:03] police abuse by giving them the tools to
[13:06] be abusive. It doesn't make any sense
[13:09] and they're taking no responsibility or
[13:11] ownership for creating the system and
[13:13] opening it up indiscriminately to
[13:15] everyone they can. There's a concept in
[13:17] system design that says the purpose of a
[13:20] system is what it does. It does not
[13:22] matter what the original intentions of
[13:23] the flock system are. Invasion of
[13:25] privacy is what it does. Many civil
[13:28] rights groups like the ACLU oppose them.
[13:30] Many other cities have already cancelled
[13:32] contracts from Los Angeles, California
[13:34] through as of yesterday, Asheville,
[13:35] North Carolina. Aenddale should be a
[13:38] leader and join them in protecting our
[13:40] citizens privacy. Thank you.
[13:42] >> Thank you.
[13:44] >> Yes, please.
[13:49] » Hi. Um Lizzie Ber, 712 Stratford Green,
[13:52] also speaking on Flock today and also
[13:54] during the working meeting later. Um, so
[13:57] I urge the city of Aenddale Estates to
[13:59] please take the concerns of the public
[14:01] to heart today. We are not merely
[14:03] reacting to social media posts. When we
[14:05] first signed our initial contract with
[14:07] Flock in 2024, the technology was new on
[14:10] the scene. In the years since, there
[14:12] have been shocking reports that exposed
[14:13] the dangers of ALPRs as a tool of mass
[14:16] surveillance. In my letter to the editor
[14:19] published in Decatorish last November, I
[14:21] outlined several concerning cases,
[14:23] including a Virginia resident who was
[14:25] tracked 849 times without cause
[14:29] and cities including Austin, Texas, and
[14:31] LA cancelling their contracts due to
[14:33] data privacy concerns. And most
[14:35] concerningly, a family held at gunpoint
[14:37] due to a flock camera misreading their
[14:39] license plate number. Since that was
[14:41] published, even more disturbing story
[14:44] stories have surfaced. Just this month,
[14:46] eight Dicab PD officers were suspended
[14:48] over misuse of ALPRs. And we are in
[14:51] Dicap County. Security vulnerabilities
[14:54] have been presented to the company that
[14:55] they have failed to remedy. And cameras
[14:57] located inside of a children's
[14:59] gymnastics room in Dunwy have been
[15:01] accessed for sales demo purposes.
[15:04] A woman in Florida spent two weeks in
[15:06] jail and seven months in traumatizing
[15:08] legal limbo due to a mistake on the
[15:10] flock data and officers putting their
[15:12] full trust in this technology. This is
[15:14] high stakes stuff and there's no room
[15:16] for error here. Earlier this year, Santa
[15:19] Cruz, California terminated their
[15:21] contract with Flock after reports that
[15:23] outofstate agencies were accessing their
[15:25] city's data despite assurances that this
[15:28] was not the case. I want to be clear, I
[15:30] am not accusing APD of misconduct and
[15:33] there's no evidence of that. But we are
[15:34] connected to this entire network and
[15:36] this company or any similar company such
[15:38] as Axon do not get to define safety. I
[15:42] believe that we protect our residents
[15:43] and visitors here by ensuring that when
[15:45] they are here, they will be safe from
[15:47] any exartner using our cameras and our
[15:49] data to track their whereabouts. Sadly,
[15:52] this is becoming a near weekly news
[15:53] event here in Georgia. We have had our
[15:56] trial run and I believe that when we
[15:57] know better, we do better. And we know
[15:59] better now. And I'm happy to provide my
[16:01] sources for the cases I've used to
[16:03] inform my public comment. I will end
[16:05] with a quote from the ACLU.
[16:08] Literally the only way to protect data
[16:10] from being misused is to not collect it
[16:12] at all. Thank you.
[16:14] >> Thank you.
[16:26] » Everybody, my name is Kate Denny. I live
[16:28] at uh 37 Clarendon
[16:31] and I appreciate the work that you do
[16:34] for us. You're part of our community.
[16:36] you we voted for you so that you would
[16:38] represent us and do what we want. Um
[16:43] I think it's important that we remember
[16:46] that
[16:47] Chief Hess is going to you know tell us
[16:49] about how potentially flock has helped
[16:51] us but I think that we need to remember
[16:54] that we're self-governed.
[16:56] So whether flock is saving us from a
[17:00] huge disaster it's still our choice
[17:03] whether we have flock or not. It's just
[17:06] basically as simple as informed consent,
[17:08] right? Like in the hospital, your doctor
[17:10] says if you do this treatment, it'll
[17:12] save your life. If you don't do it, this
[17:14] is what's going to happen. You are
[17:16] allowed to choose. We are self-governed.
[17:18] We are allowed to choose. We're allowed
[17:21] to say no. Even if it's helpful for us
[17:24] and most of us who are, you know, really
[17:27] educating ourselves on this do not think
[17:30] that it is helpful for us. But I
[17:32] appreciate that you recognize that we
[17:35] are self-governed and we can say no even
[17:39] if our police in Dicap County think it's
[17:42] in our best interest. We're in charge.
[17:44] We celebrate that as a hundred years,
[17:47] right? Of us being in charge of
[17:48] ourselves. We do have this opportunity
[17:50] to be the first state, the first city in
[17:53] the state of Georgia to say
[17:56] we can make our own choices. We're all
[17:58] looking for that right now, for our
[18:00] leaders at every level to really
[18:03] represent us and to listen to our voices
[18:05] and and thankfully you do that. So,
[18:08] thank you for that and I hope that you
[18:10] continue to listen to us and what we
[18:12] want and allow us to make our own
[18:14] decisions for our own community.
[18:17] >> Thank you.
[18:27] online.
[18:29] >> Uh, Jennifer online.
[18:33] » Hi, my name uh Oops.
[18:37] I don't know if you can see me. I can't
[18:39] make the camera work. But my name is
[18:41] Jennifer. I live at 402 Kensington Park
[18:44] Drive. I am urging you all to please
[18:47] reject these flock cameras. These
[18:49] systems create a searchable record of
[18:52] where private citizens travel and the
[18:55] dangers are no longer hypothetical. As
[18:57] some others have pointed out, there are
[18:59] dozens of documented cases showing these
[19:02] automatic, excuse me, automated license
[19:04] plate readers, make mistakes, and then
[19:06] police act on that incorrect
[19:08] information. Innocent people have been
[19:10] stopped, searched, handcuffed, detained
[19:13] at gunpoint, and even jailed because a
[19:15] camera misread their license plate or
[19:18] incorrectly identified a vehicle. They
[19:20] were then forced to prove their
[19:22] innocence at the cost of their time,
[19:24] money, jobs, and dignity. Uh the
[19:27] potential for deliberate abuse is
[19:29] equally disturbing. As others have said,
[19:31] we now know police officers, not Aendale
[19:34] police, but police officers nonetheless,
[19:37] have been using these databases to stalk
[19:39] former partners and other women. When we
[19:42] give the government power to track
[19:43] people's movements, we cannot simply
[19:45] assume that data will be used
[19:47] appropriately or that every automated
[19:49] match will be accurate. Public safety
[19:52] should not require tracking of private
[19:54] citizens and placing innocent people at
[19:56] risk. Once this surveillance network is
[19:59] built, it will be extremely difficult to
[20:01] undo. Please, please reject these block
[20:05] cameras. We do not want to be a
[20:06] surveillance state where private
[20:08] citizens lose their privacy in the name
[20:10] of false safety. Aenddale should reject
[20:13] this insanity. Thank you.
[20:16] >> Thank you.
[20:21] » Any others?
[20:24] Okay. Uh any others in the audience?
[20:27] Yes, Paul.
[20:31] » Paul Dora 820 Stratford Road. I'd like
[20:34] to speak to
[20:36] agenda item 10.
[20:39] This is the regular meeting. Says
[20:41] consideration of the project agreement
[20:44] for downtown Evenddale Multim
[20:46] Improvement.
[20:49] I'm going to encourage you to read
[20:50] appendix F as in Frank. The way I read
[20:53] that appendix,
[20:56] if if you if you accept this, if you all
[21:00] pass this the way it is,
[21:03] that appendix says that Aenddale reads
[21:06] two things. One, not to be a sanctuary
[21:09] city. and two, more importantly, who
[21:12] agreed to have our Aenddale Police Force
[21:16] assist other enforcement
[21:19] agencies with the arrest of what are
[21:21] described as criminal negligence.
[21:25] My concern has to do with what's going on in our country with ICE.
[21:30] Uh, from a practical standpoint, I'd
[21:33] like to see you all consider
[21:36] mending the agreement to drop appendix F
[21:38] entirely.
[21:40] Uh if you read it closely, it really has
[21:43] nothing to do with the road project. The
[21:46] state of Georgia and Adidel are simply
[21:48] trying to build a road.
[21:50] Uh the the sanctuary city and the
[21:55] especially the
[21:57] having our police force assist with
[22:00] those arrests doesn't seem to be
[22:02] project. I'd encourage you to drop
[22:04] offendings. Thank you for that.
[22:07] >> Thank you, Paul. You're welcome.
[22:18] All right.
[22:20] Uh, no one online.
[22:24] Okay. Any last call
[22:26] in the audience?
[22:29] Okay. Seeing no comments, I'm going to
[22:32] bring it back up here. All right. So,
[22:34] thank you for all your comments. All
[22:36] right. So, we're going to move to item
[22:37] number five. Um, we have before us the
[22:41] August 12th, 2026 regular meeting
[22:43] minutes and the August 12th, 2026 work
[22:46] session minutes. Do I have a motion to
[22:48] engross?
[22:49] >> So, move.
[22:50] >> That was Lou. Do I have a second?
[22:52] >> Second.
[22:52] >> Mike. All in favor say I.
[22:54] >> I.
[22:55] >> Okay.
[22:57] All right. Uh, item number six,
[22:59] presentation of fiscal year 2025 audit
[23:01] results from Malden and Jenkins. Mr.
[23:03] Manager, could you tee this up for us?
[23:05] Yes, as we do every year following the
[23:08] aual audit uh process and the release of
[23:12] the annual comprehensive financial
[23:14] report, uh Josh Carroll with Maldin and
[23:17] Jenkins, who is our independent audit
[23:19] auditing agency, uh is here to uh
[23:23] deliver a report uh regarding the
[23:26] results of the 2025 fiscal year audit.
[23:30] So Josh
[23:38] Thank you, Patrick.
[23:40] And can you hear me? Yeah.
[23:42] >> Oh, it goes. Okay. And thanks to the the
[23:45] mayor and the the board for having me.
[23:46] As Patrick said, I'm going to just kind
[23:48] of quickly go through a PowerPoint here
[23:51] to go over our results of the 2025
[23:53] audit. Um,
[23:56] this is kind of my agenda. I'm going to
[23:58] go over our team, our opinion. I got a
[24:00] few financial trends, the results, um,
[24:04] and questions at the end, but if
[24:05] somebody has a question as I'm going,
[24:06] you can feel free to stop me as we're
[24:08] going along. Uh, next slide. This is
[24:10] Amal Jenkins. Um, we've been around over
[24:12] 100 years now. We spent a lot of time in
[24:14] energy investing in state and local
[24:15] government audits. I spend my whole year
[24:18] doing nothing but counties and cities
[24:20] and development authorities and state
[24:21] agencies um, all over the Southeast. I
[24:24] don't do any tax work like a traditional
[24:26] CPA. I do government audits all year
[24:28] long. Everybody that works on your audit
[24:30] is in the same position. Um, you know,
[24:32] we also audit Dicap County. We audit
[24:34] many of your neighbors. So, we bring a
[24:35] lot of local knowledge to your audit as
[24:37] well. Next slide. The statements are the
[24:39] responsibility of the city's management.
[24:41] Our objective is your external auditors
[24:43] to express an opinion. We followed all
[24:45] the generally accepted auditing
[24:46] standards, the government auditing
[24:48] standards, and we did issue an
[24:49] unmodified or clean opinion, which is
[24:51] what you'd hope to receive from your
[24:52] annual audit. So, as far as we're
[24:54] concerned, your statements are
[24:55] materially correct. Uh, next slide. We
[24:58] also report a compliance and control.
[25:00] Got to come in and we look at really all
[25:02] your accounting cycles. We look at how
[25:03] you receipt cash, how you disperse cash,
[25:06] how you're on board and terminating
[25:07] employee contracts with vendors. We look
[25:10] at PC card transactions. We look at your
[25:12] spending of SPLS dollars. Kind of kind
[25:14] of go through everything. We look at
[25:15] your segregation of duties and how funds
[25:17] are flowing in and out of the city. And
[25:19] you have clean opinion there. The city
[25:20] has pretty good segregation of duties.
[25:22] Um, you also had a big grant program
[25:24] this year. This year, highway planning
[25:25] and construction. We looked at those
[25:27] costs, compared them to the agreement,
[25:29] city did all the reporting requirements
[25:31] that come along with federal programs,
[25:32] and you got a clean opinion there as
[25:34] well. So, all in all, really clean. Um,
[25:36] this slide, if I was on the board, I
[25:38] think I'd want to know, do we have
[25:39] anything unusual or maybe aggressive in
[25:41] your accounting policies or maybe our
[25:44] estimates or judgments in your
[25:45] statements? You don't. The policies are
[25:47] disclosed in the notes. They're very
[25:49] similar to a city of your size. Many of
[25:51] your neighbors have very, very similar,
[25:53] very common policies. And your only
[25:55] estimates are really your useful life of
[25:56] capital assets. Like how long do we
[25:58] think a police car is going to last or
[26:00] we're going to use it. We depreciate it
[26:02] over that life. We we review those. We
[26:04] feel pretty good about them. And your
[26:05] actuary uses assumptions for your
[26:07] pension liability. You're kind of in the
[26:09] GMA plan. Everybody is in that plan has
[26:12] the same assumptions. We kind of look at
[26:14] those. We feel pretty good about them.
[26:15] Uh next slide. We have a good
[26:18] relationship with management. It
[26:19] definitely takes the city. It's not just
[26:21] the auditors. It's a lot of work on the
[26:23] finance team of the city. Um, we come
[26:25] in, we ask for a lot of information.
[26:27] Nothing seems hidden or covered up. We
[26:28] get everything we need, often more
[26:30] information than we ask for. So, we
[26:32] really appreciate the city partnering
[26:34] with us to get the audit done and
[26:35] dedicating your resources uh to help us
[26:37] get it done. Um, we didn't have any
[26:40] adjustments either. Um, we get a trial
[26:42] balance. I know Britney's no longer with
[26:43] us, but she gives us a trial balance and
[26:46] we audit it. We do our thing. We don't
[26:47] have any adjustments. is very clean and
[26:49] I've worked with Tony Joe in the past
[26:51] and I think you guys will be really
[26:52] pleased with her and we'll be in the
[26:54] same place for the 2026 audit. And we
[26:57] are independent. Um we don't close the
[26:59] books. We don't post journal entries. We
[27:00] don't reconcile bank accounts. We just
[27:02] do the audit. So the clean opinion you
[27:03] have is not influenced by us kind of
[27:05] auditing our own work. Uh next slide. Um
[27:08] you can skip this one. We'll go to the
[27:09] next one. Um so this is kind of my one
[27:12] uh financial trend. This is your general
[27:13] fund which is the main operating fund of
[27:15] the city and it shows your fund balance.
[27:17] Another word for fund balance is equity.
[27:19] Um, and it kind of shows it as compared
[27:21] to your your annual expenses and your
[27:23] transfers out to other funds. So, kind
[27:25] of had a big dip down this year. And the
[27:27] purple there I wrote we transferred a
[27:29] lot of money to the capital fund. Um, we
[27:31] just kind of moved it over there. So,
[27:33] that fund's going to hold it and use it
[27:35] for whatever capital we budget to spend
[27:37] in the future. So, that's the real
[27:38] reason for the big dip down. If we took
[27:40] that out, you still be at 53%. The
[27:42] GFOAS, the standard setting body for
[27:44] local government, they recommend two to
[27:46] three months as a minimum threshold. We
[27:48] don't want to see anybody go below that.
[27:49] That's 16 to 25%. So you're you're even
[27:53] double that even with the big transfer
[27:54] out. You got a healthy fund balance. Um
[27:56] what we like to see. Um next slide. So
[27:59] we do have two management comments. We
[28:01] don't have any findings findings make it
[28:02] into your actual audit report. These are
[28:04] just FYI we came across them. They were
[28:06] here last year. They're kind of repeats.
[28:08] And the the one is the payroll
[28:11] processor. you know, the the the company
[28:13] we use, they don't have a sock one
[28:14] performed, and that creates some low
[28:17] level of risk. We have some procedures
[28:19] in place where we review their
[28:20] information, but just want to kind of
[28:21] continue to remind them that they don't
[28:23] have a SAC one reformed where it kind of
[28:25] walks through their controls and how
[28:27] they they how they operate and how they
[28:28] do what they do. Um, and the journal
[28:30] entries, you know, Britney was still had
[28:32] the ability to post journal entries and
[28:35] approve them without kind of an
[28:36] independent segregation of duties.
[28:37] That's not a perfect world. It's a small
[28:39] finance department. Um, that has trended
[28:42] down over the years. It used to be a
[28:43] whole bunch of them, but she does have
[28:45] an employee in there and there was some
[28:47] segregation, but sometimes she just had
[28:49] to get it done, so she posted entries.
[28:50] So, kind of continue to highlight that,
[28:52] but nothing over consu concerning. It's
[28:54] a clean audit. You got good segregation
[28:56] of duties throughout the city. You know,
[28:58] cash coming in gets to the bank and
[29:01] there's checks and balances on the money
[29:03] going out the door, which is really what
[29:05] I think the board will be most concerned
[29:06] with. Um, next slide. And we are a
[29:10] full-ervice EPA firm. We have a
[29:13] government advisory services group. Um
[29:15] they do a lot of projects in these four
[29:16] buckets here. They deal they deal kind
[29:18] of operations. You know the audit that I
[29:20] do is very financial in nature and are
[29:23] we reporting the money right? Are we
[29:26] following Gazsby and following GAP and
[29:28] following acral basis of accounting and
[29:30] they deal more with operations and kind
[29:32] of like the flow of funds and how are
[29:34] things flowing through the city? Why are
[29:35] we doing what we're doing? how to that
[29:37] align with maybe our own internal
[29:39] policies and maybe best practices and
[29:41] how could we ultimately deliver more
[29:44] efficient services to this the citizens
[29:46] of Aenddale. Um so that is something we
[29:48] offer outside the scope of the audit.
[29:50] It's something the board is ever
[29:51] interested in hearing more about. I'd
[29:53] love to, you know, connect you with the
[29:54] partner that heads that up. It's it's
[29:56] not an audit. They're not CPAs. They don't do accounting. They do, like
[30:00] I said, it's just more operational and
[30:02] what we're how we're doing and how the
[30:03] funds and everything are flowing through
[30:04] the city. Um so that is something we
[30:06] offer. Next slide. And we also have an
[30:08] IT group. Um they do a lot of cyber
[30:10] security assessments. Um they look at
[30:12] kind of like a gap analysis of what
[30:14] information do we have from you know our
[30:17] citizens or any vendors we work with and
[30:19] how do we protect and keep that data you
[30:22] know safe and what are we doing? Well
[30:24] the world's ever changing. I usually use
[30:26] this slide as just kind of a reminder
[30:27] that we have information and the hackers
[30:30] are always out there and I see this a
[30:32] lot. It's some of the largest
[30:34] governments we work with and even some
[30:36] that are minuscule. So, no one's too big
[30:38] or too small. So, just kind of remind
[30:39] our IT group to stay a breast of the
[30:41] changes and but we do have a group that
[30:43] deals with this if it's something you're
[30:44] interested in. It's outside the scope of
[30:46] the audit, but we'd love to help out.
[30:48] Um, and then we can kind of skip to the
[30:50] end. These are Gazsby's busy, but we'll
[30:52] implement those as they come along. And
[30:54] that's really all I've got. It's a clean
[30:55] audit. And, you know, like I said, we
[30:57] really appreciate the city partner with
[30:58] us to get it done. Um, it's a big big
[31:00] task for y'all. And we do offer free CPE
[31:03] to all of our clients. Um Tony Joe will
[31:05] attend those. They're they're a heavy
[31:07] government accounting basis, but anybody
[31:09] at the city's welcome to attend. And
[31:10] they are free. They're quarterly.
[31:12] They're virtual. You don't have to drive
[31:13] anywhere. You just do it on Zoom or
[31:15] Teams. And so appreciate the opportunity
[31:18] to work with y'all. And if there's
[31:19] questions, I'm happy to answer them.
[31:21] >> Thank you.
[31:22] >> Great. Thank you.
[31:23] >> Yeah. Thank you.
[31:24] >> I have none. Anybody?
[31:28] » No. Thank for coming up with a clean
[31:30] audit.
[31:31] >> Yeah.
[31:32] >> Thanks for having me.
[31:33] >> Thank you.
[31:33] >> Good job, guys.
[31:36] >> Yes.
[31:38] >> Thank you. Okay. Uh any questions,
[31:42] comments appear regarding that?
[31:46] >> All right. Uh item number seven, Mr.
[31:49] Manager?
[31:50] >> Yes. So tonight is the second read andor
[31:53] consideration for uh the 2026 fiscal
[31:57] year proposed budget amendments. Uh
[32:01] nothing has changed between uh the last
[32:05] read and this read. So it's still the
[32:08] same information. Uh one thing I do want
[32:10] to bring to your attention. Uh however,
[32:14] we're not ready to make a a
[32:15] recommendation on a revision for this
[32:18] quite yet. Uh but uh we we have received
[32:22] uh the 30% engineered drawings for the
[32:26] Southwoods storm water and dam
[32:28] rehabilitation project.
[32:30] uh the phase one. If y'all recall, uh,
[32:34] we began the the engineering work for
[32:38] the phase one, uh, which is the west
[32:41] side of the, uh, South Woods where the
[32:45] pipe was exposed.
[32:47] >> Uh, and, uh, that cost is projected
[32:51] lower than, uh,
[32:55] or maybe I should say within anticipated
[32:58] budget. uh which will allow us to now
[33:02] move forward with the phase two design
[33:05] uh comfortably. Uh we anticipate by the
[33:08] end of the year we will have those
[33:12] completely engineered and ready for bid.
[33:15] Uh at that time we will be able to get a
[33:18] really good cost estimate for the
[33:21] project in its entirety. And so when we
[33:24] go through the 27 budget process and
[33:27] begin to adjust the capital program for
[33:29] that, uh I think we'll have an
[33:31] opportunity to um uh reallocate some of
[33:36] the funds that were otherwise pledged
[33:39] for that project to other storm water
[33:41] projects, which will probably also allow
[33:44] us to free up uh capital monies uh for
[33:49] other purposes. So that is good news. Uh
[33:53] we're very we're very excited that uh
[33:55] we're going to be able to move forward
[33:57] with that project in its entirety. Um,
[34:01] regarding the remainder of the the uh
[34:05] consideration for you tonight, uh, just
[34:08] kind of as a quick recap, um, we have
[34:12] revised
[34:14] uh, the 26 budget uh, for um, a a kind
[34:19] of a a reduction in property tax
[34:22] anticipated property tax collections
[34:24] based on uh, the final digest and the
[34:28] change in millage rate. Uh we have also
[34:31] included uh the the operating budget for
[34:35] 2026 centennial activities
[34:39] uh and uh made some changes to the
[34:42] capital program to reflect the inclusion
[34:45] of the center street storm water
[34:47] project. uh the increase in the uh
[34:52] monies allocated for uh the the the
[34:56] improvements to the city hall facility
[34:59] and uh monies that were provided via
[35:03] donation uh thanks to Waffle House. Um
[35:07] if y'all have any additional questions,
[35:09] I'm happy to answer. Uh but that's all
[35:13] of the information you have remains
[35:14] unchanged.
[35:16] How much was that estimate that they
[35:18] gave us
[35:19] >> for phase one?
[35:20] >> Uh, $1.3 million.
[35:25] » Um,
[35:36] uh, what what projects do we um
[35:40] out of this list do we think we're
[35:42] actually going to get done hopefully the
[35:43] end of the year?
[35:45] um that that it depends. Now, I want to
[35:50] remind you and the remainder of the
[35:52] board that the capital program is not a
[35:54] one-year budget. That is a two-year
[35:58] rolling program that is that continues
[36:01] to roll. It's like a it's a living
[36:03] program. So, um not all of those
[36:07] projects on the capital program are
[36:09] scheduled for completion this year. Not
[36:11] all of those projects that are on the
[36:13] program will be scheduled for completion
[36:15] next year. Some of those will roll into
[36:17] future years. Those are just the
[36:20] identified capital projects that we know
[36:22] of and potential funding sources
[36:25] allocated to those. Any any of those
[36:28] projects to actually begin execution
[36:32] would require an additional uh
[36:35] appropriation via a contract from you
[36:38] guys. So y'all actually get a acute
[36:42] opportunity to make a decision about any
[36:45] of the projects that are listed within
[36:47] the capital program.
[36:54] » Any other questions up here?
[36:56] >> Well, I just um I would just like to
[36:58] make a comment. Um I feel like that um
[37:02] that we need a uh more cash flow basis
[37:06] for our capital projects reporting. Um
[37:09] so that we do see you know most places
[37:12] do three to five years out where we kind
[37:15] of project and then you know a more
[37:17] specific kind of um information about
[37:20] where the revenue is coming from to pay
[37:23] those projects. um some of it's kind of
[37:26] wrapped into the balance. Um and so to
[37:30] me it's not, you know, it's just not
[37:33] clear enough, you know, as to what we
[37:35] are going to get done and when we're
[37:36] going to do it. And I would like to see
[37:39] that expanded.
[37:48] » Others
[37:50] motions, comments. Good.
[37:53] >> Everybody good? All right. So, let's
[37:55] see. Uh, do I have a motion to approve
[37:58] an ordinance amending the budget for
[38:01] fiscal year 2026 for the city of Avidel
[38:03] Estates?
[38:04] >> So, moved.
[38:05] >> That was Graham. Do I have a second?
[38:07] That was Mike. All in favor say
[38:09] I. I.
[38:10] >> All opposed. Nay.
[38:12] >> Um, and that is because there are some
[38:14] projects on there that I don't approve
[38:16] of and also that I don't feel like I
[38:17] have a clear enough u idea of the
[38:20] revenues coming through to
[38:32] » Okay. All right. Item number eight. Uh
[38:36] we have talked about adopting a civility
[38:38] pledge for two meetings.
[38:42] I think two
[38:43] >> yes multiple meetings that has been
[38:45] discussed in the work
[38:47] >> and we have kind of
[38:49] settled on for lack of a better word two
[38:52] versions. Um so we agreed that we were
[38:55] just going to vote up or down on the
[38:57] two. Um any comments beforehand up here?
[39:02] Um
[39:04] well, I mean, I would like to make a
[39:06] motion that we um pass the one that
[39:10] includes the final comment that the
[39:12] board recognizes that these principles
[39:14] are intended to establish the standards
[39:16] of professional conduct perspective of
[39:18] city officials. Conduct inconsistent
[39:20] with these principles may be may be
[39:22] addressed by the board through its
[39:24] existing authority under the charter
[39:26] city ordinance, personnel policies,
[39:29] employment agreements, and other ethical
[39:31] laws. That's what I would like to have
[39:34] to approve.
[39:35] >> Okay, that's version two. So,
[39:37] Commissioner Stevens made a motion. Is
[39:39] there a second?
[39:46] Is there is there a way to get
[39:47] clarification on the because like I
[39:50] apologize. Um
[39:52] >> just a further explanation on that that
[39:56] >> version one and version two are almost
[39:59] identical. Version two includes section
[40:03] 8 with the language that Commissioner
[40:06] Steedman just referenced.
[40:12] Is there anything wrong with that?
[40:14] >> Is there can you explain section 8? Are
[40:16] you able to um
[40:19] as to what what difference I mean
[40:22] >> materially? No. Uh
[40:26] the the the language simply uh states
[40:31] um or or condenses or compiles
[40:36] um
[40:37] you know a a reaffirmation
[40:40] to follow your existing laws and and uh
[40:45] policies.
[40:55] But it's just a reaffirmation. Correct.
[40:57] >> That is correct.
[41:04] » So motion has been made.
[41:07] >> Got a second. Wait, I did not have a
[41:09] second.
[41:10] >> It just it just reaffirms what the prior
[41:13] ones do. I mean, is there any
[41:15] difference? I um
[41:17] >> there's no legal difference here.
[41:24] I mean, if there's no legal difference,
[41:26] I mean, and we're reaffirming the
[41:28] previous points, I mean, I'm okay with
[41:31] the second.
[41:32] >> Okay. So,
[41:34] Mr. Smith has made a second. Okay. All
[41:37] in favor say I.
[41:38] >> I.
[41:39] All post say nay.
[41:41] >> Nay.
[41:41] >> All right. So, that's two, three. All
[41:44] right. So, do I have a motion to approve
[41:46] version one?
[41:47] >> So moved. That was Graham. Do I have a
[41:49] second?
[41:49] >> Second.
[41:50] >> That was Louie.
[41:52] >> Any comments, questions?
[41:53] >> I'll make a comment.
[41:54] >> Okay. So the reason why I feel that the
[41:57] first one is more consistent with what
[42:01] it is the civility of
[42:05] uh
[42:07] a civil
[42:11] sorry because
[42:15] um again the la to me the last bit as I
[42:19] mentioned publicly before just feels
[42:21] like a bit of a stick at the end and
[42:24] It's for the purpose of this document as
[42:27] it's written. That's sort of not in the character of it what it's
[42:32] trying to say. Um I felt like it was
[42:34] just trying to add something. I wasn't
[42:37] in the spirit of what this tended to do.
[42:45] » Any other comments?
[42:47] >> Um yes. I don't feel like that that
[42:50] statement at all was a stick. It was
[42:53] simply a statement that we acknowledge
[42:55] that this is important and uh that there
[43:00] you know that we're assuring our
[43:03] residents that we take this cons we take
[43:05] it seriously. Um I don't think it's
[43:08] there's anything there that would
[43:09] suggest that we are you know imposing
[43:12] anything on anybody.
[43:17] » Any other?
[43:19] >> All right. So I'd like to ask for a
[43:20] vote. All in favor say I. I
[43:24] >> was it five?
[43:26] >> Yes.
[43:26] >> Okay.
[43:28] And none opposed. Okay. Thank you. And
[43:31] I'm glad we have done that. Okay. Um
[43:36] so item number nine. Um
[43:41] was that the one? Uh we could do a
[43:44] consent vote and vote this in first
[43:46] time. Correct, Patrick?
[43:49] >> All right.
[43:49] >> Correct. Um did you want to say anything
[43:51] before this? I mean this is fairly
[43:53] straightforward.
[43:54] >> Yeah, just briefly uh to remind the
[43:57] board and the public that um every so
[44:00] often the state uh uh updates its
[44:05] regulation of storm water discharge and
[44:09] requests uh municipalities that reside
[44:12] within the state to update their local
[44:15] ordinance to reflect state law change.
[44:17] This is exactly what is being performed
[44:20] here.
[44:21] >> Okay. [clears throat]
[44:25] Uh we did talk about this before. This
[44:26] is just as the manager said, this is a
[44:29] fairly straightforward thing. We
[44:30] basically have to adopt it to receive
[44:32] funding and some other stuff. Um
[44:36] so normally we do two reads on a change
[44:39] to the ordinance. This would be the
[44:40] first read. There would be a second one
[44:42] in two weeks. Uh we did change the
[44:44] ordinance a couple years ago to say that
[44:47] we can vote on the first read if we have
[44:49] a consent vote and that consent vote has
[44:51] to be five. It has to be unanimous. So
[44:56] do I have a motion to have a consent
[44:58] vote?
[44:59] >> So moved.
[45:00] >> That was Graham. Do I have a second?
[45:02] >> Second.
[45:02] >> That was Lou. All in favor say I.
[45:04] >> That's five. Okay. Now we are unable to
[45:06] vote on this. Um so uh we have before us
[45:10] an ordinance by the city of Aendell
[45:12] states to amend chapter 11 of the code
[45:14] of ordinances health and sanitation to
[45:17] add new section 11-12 entitled private
[45:20] decentralized wastewater systems
[45:23] prohibited to article one of said
[45:25] chapter for the purpose of prohibiting
[45:27] certain private wastewater systems
[45:29] within the city of Aenddale states in
[45:31] accordance with the metropolitan north
[45:33] Georgia water planning district
[45:35] requirements. Do I have a motion to
[45:37] approve?
[45:39] >> So moved.
[45:39] >> That was That was Mike. Do I have a
[45:40] second?
[45:41] >> Second.
[45:41] >> That was Lou. All in favor say I.
[45:43] >> I.
[45:43] >> That's five.
[45:46] >> Thank you everyone.
[45:48] Okay. Now item number 10. Uh Mr.
[45:51] Manager, could you?
[45:53] >> Yes. So, as we discussed at the last
[45:56] work session, uh before you, you have
[45:59] the first of what will be two project
[46:02] framework agreements with G DOT for the
[46:04] purposes of receiving a federal award
[46:08] um through G DOT. That award uh is for
[46:12] what we are calling our downtown shared
[46:14] streets project uh to provide for
[46:17] multimodal improvements to our downtown
[46:20] road network. uh this framework is for
[46:24] the design phase of the project. You
[46:26] will have another framework uh for the
[46:28] construction phase. I did want to take
[46:31] this time to address the comment made by
[46:33] Mr. Doro during public comment. Uh that
[46:36] is a legal requirement that that exhibit
[46:39] F is a legal requirement from the state
[46:41] of Georgia to receive federal funds via
[46:43] G dot. Um, so if we uh were to not
[46:48] accept that project framework agreement,
[46:50] that means we could not accept uh the
[46:53] grant award.
[46:57] » Well, and that would be problematic
[46:59] because then we would be essentially
[47:01] blacklisting ourselves all future
[47:05] transportation.
[47:06] >> Well, each of them are voted on,
[47:08] correct?
[47:10] >> What's that? I mean, you're not you're
[47:12] not just sort of blanket listed
[47:16] >> proving.
[47:17] >> No, I mean, if we if we if we do not
[47:19] follow state of Georgia law, then we
[47:22] would not no longer be eligible for
[47:25] these awards.
[47:26] >> I mean, that we don't have a choice.
[47:28] >> How much is this award?
[47:30] >> It's over three million.
[47:33] >> Um, is this being required of all
[47:37] >> Yes.
[47:37] >> municipalities? every single one.
[47:40] >> And also the state law that was adopted
[47:42] I think two years ago uh essentially
[47:46] holds that if the state concludes that a
[47:50] municipality is a sanctuary city then we
[47:53] will not receive any state funding
[47:57] if so it's not just this project or
[47:59] other projects that we would bid on
[48:04] » proposed for.
[48:06] What's the timeline for this particular
[48:09] um
[48:11] item vote
[48:12] >> then? Now,
[48:16] >> I I would highly advise y'all to uh
[48:19] follow the state law.
[48:22] I don't think we have any recourse,
[48:25] positive recourse by not doing so at
[48:28] all.
[48:30] >> Um I've got something on another matter
[48:33] with this. Um, so I see where it says
[48:37] the city's responsible for accomplishing
[48:38] the preliminary engineering work. Is
[48:41] that part of that 100,000 or is that
[48:44] additional funds?
[48:46] >> So part of the grant award is for design
[48:50] engineered design. Part of the grant
[48:52] award is for construction.
[48:54] >> Yeah.
[48:54] >> This project framework agreement is
[48:57] >> covers the design piece.
[48:59] >> The match component throughout the
[49:01] entire award is the same. It's an 8020
[49:04] match component.
[49:05] >> That that that wasn't what I asked or
[49:07] don't think. Basically, it's saying here
[49:10] and I don't know if it's kind of
[49:12] separating it says that the city is
[49:15] responsible for accomplishing the pre
[49:17] preliminary engineering work. That's the
[49:19] $500,000.
[49:20] >> That's correct.
[49:21] >> Okay. And then our the our part of it is
[49:23] h 100,000 which the DEA is paying for.
[49:26] >> Correct.
[49:27] >> And what happens if we go over on that
[49:31] 500,000?
[49:33] If if design costs cost more than that,
[49:38] >> um I I I I think we would certainly have
[49:43] to to to increase our contribution of
[49:46] local funds. We don't anticipate that to
[49:48] happen or we ask for more money and
[49:52] every time that's true. Every time we
[49:55] have run into that situation in the
[49:57] past, G do has provided additional
[50:00] funding to cover the gap.
[50:02] >> All right. Thank you.
[50:05] >> Okay.
[50:11] So,
[50:14] any other questions, comments?
[50:20] » Well, I will say I appreciate Mr. Dora
[50:23] for bringing this up. It's frustrating.
[50:26] It's annoying that that has to be shoved
[50:28] into into these grant agreements.
[50:32] Um we've benefited from many grants and
[50:35] as have other
[50:37] organizations and municipalities. Um but
[50:41] I I do appreciate the sentiment in which
[50:43] it was brought up and I think it's very
[50:45] frustrating.
[50:46] you know, has the potential for making
[50:48] it look like we're complicit when really
[50:49] we're trying to because the purpose of
[50:51] this multimodal
[50:54] improvement is to make a, you know, two
[50:57] streets be less, you know, vehicle
[51:00] friendly and more pedestrian friendly.
[51:03] make them, you know, where um uh make
[51:07] that part of our downtown feel like you
[51:10] can walk down the middle of the street
[51:11] and the cars are the ones that have to
[51:13] be patient and wait for you to get by or
[51:15] for the kid on their bike or the person
[51:17] walking their dog. So, this is all meant
[51:20] to um really do something for the
[51:23] healthy welfare and benefit of the
[51:25] residents. Um and it has that little
[51:28] thorn in it that makes you feel a little
[51:29] bit icky now. So, um, you know, if I
[51:33] vote to approve this, it in no way and
[51:36] none of us, I believe, is is meant to
[51:38] imply that we are, um, think that's a
[51:41] nice way to do business with the state.
[51:46] >> You're welcome. And there's a simple
[51:47] solution that you'd like to hear at some
[51:49] point that keeps having where you can
[51:53] get the money and solve the problem.
[51:56] Okay.
[51:57] >> U, I have to agree with with Louie. I'm
[52:00] very disappointed that that's in the in
[52:01] the contract, but at the same time, you
[52:05] know, we need state contracts to get
[52:07] things done in this city. And u it's
[52:09] just unfortunate that we have to sign on
[52:11] to something that includes um you know,
[52:14] something that we may not support in
[52:16] order to get money to improve our city.
[52:22] And I agree as well. Um
[52:26] well uh
[52:30] I just think this is something that's
[52:32] been decided from a state level. So I
[52:34] mean everybody can vote accordingly in
[52:36] their state elections as well.
[52:39] It's true.
[52:41] All right. So uh [sighs] I have read
[52:46] Well, no I haven't. Okay. So I haven't
[52:49] made a motion. So, do I have a motion to
[52:52] approve a project framework agreement by
[52:54] and between Georgia Department of
[52:56] Transportation and City of Aenddale
[52:58] states for transportation facility
[53:00] improvements?
[53:02] >> That was Mike. Do I have a second?
[53:03] >> Second.
[53:04] >> That's Louis. All in favor say I.
[53:06] >> I.
[53:06] >> That's five.
[53:14] » All right. And last item of business
[53:17] this evening. Uh, Mr. manager, could you
[53:19] tee this up as well?
[53:20] >> Yes. Uh before you, as discussed at the
[53:23] last work session is an easement
[53:25] agreement with the property owner at 732
[53:28] Stratford Road. Uh that typo
[53:30] transposition has now been bent. Uh this
[53:34] is for the purposes of uh allowing the
[53:38] city to perform work on private property
[53:41] to address an issue with its own storm
[53:43] water system. Um and uh the property
[53:48] owner has already agreed to the e the easement agreement that you have
[53:52] before you and in order to complete that
[53:54] agreement uh we would also need um
[53:57] consideration from the
[54:00] >> Thank you. Uh any questions, comments on
[54:03] this one?
[54:05] We did discuss this last time. Again,
[54:08] this is just sort of a I wouldn't call
[54:11] housekeeping but close to it. We just
[54:12] need to get an easement so we can access
[54:15] our storm water structure that's on
[54:16] someone else's property. So, um,
[54:20] questions, comments?
[54:23] Okay. Do I have a motion to approve an
[54:26] easement agreement between Samuel
[54:28] Sundelle Grantor and the city of Aendell
[54:31] States Georgia Grantee Municipal
[54:34] Corporation? So, Louie, do I have a
[54:37] second? Laida. All in favor say I. I.
[54:40] >> That's five.
[54:44] Thank you. All right. So, that concludes
[54:46] our business for the evening. Uh, do I
[54:48] have a motion to adjurnn?
[54:50] >> So, move.
[54:51] >> Do I have a second?
[54:52] >> Second. That's Mike. All in favor say I.
[54:54] That's five. Uh, for those of you who
[54:56] haven't been to one of our meetings
[54:57] before, we're going to take a 10-minute
[54:58] break. Uh, we will reconvene uh down at
[55:01] the table for our work session. You are
[55:04] more than welcome to stay. Um,
[55:08] but that's just how we're running things
[55:09] now. So, 10-minute break. It is what
[55:11] time you have.
[55:13] >> It's 6:22. We will reconvene at 6:32.
[55:16] So, thank you all.
[1:07:44] This is our work session. It's August
[1:07:46] 26, 2026. It's now 64
[1:07:51] 34. Um, I'd like to call the meeting to
[1:07:54] order. We have an agenda for fourth. I
[1:07:57] have a motion to adopt. So, I was grate.
[1:08:02] I Okay.
[1:08:04] >> All right. First item up for discussion.
[1:08:07] Uh item number three, continue
[1:08:09] discussion of an amendment to the golf
[1:08:11] cart ordinance to allow crossing from
[1:08:14] South Avenue to Pine Street. Uh Mr.
[1:08:16] Manager.
[1:08:17] >> Yes. Uh so we began this discussion at
[1:08:20] our last work session uh in order for us
[1:08:24] to uh potentially obtain uh G dot
[1:08:28] permission uh for a crossing to be um
[1:08:34] instructed
[1:08:35] uh from uh South Aenddale to Pine Street
[1:08:39] for the purposes of golf carts traveling
[1:08:42] across uh 278. we would have to amend
[1:08:46] our own ordinance uh prior to receiving
[1:08:49] that permission. Uh if y'all recall um
[1:08:54] our discussion evolved from one where we
[1:08:58] were then beginning to talk about some
[1:09:01] other regulations within the golf cart
[1:09:03] ordinance that we might want to address
[1:09:06] uh and decided to bring that back to
[1:09:08] work session. And so that's where we uh
[1:09:12] remain today.
[1:09:15] Um, and I may have been the the primary
[1:09:19] person behind that. Um, I'm concerned
[1:09:22] for just younger drivers,
[1:09:27] you know, safely crossing the road and
[1:09:29] not creating a
[1:09:31] hazardous situation that could result in
[1:09:34] something bad. Um,
[1:09:38] I guess really I've been thinking about
[1:09:40] this a bit. Uh our our our current
[1:09:43] ordinance does allow a person who has a
[1:09:46] Georgia driver's license to drive a golf
[1:09:48] cart. Correct.
[1:09:50] >> Uh I would like us to consider changing
[1:09:55] it that to drive a golf cart. You got to
[1:09:56] be 18.
[1:09:58] >> Uh and that
[1:10:01] Stephen just for purposes of moving the
[1:10:04] discussion forward. the state allows for
[1:10:07] local municipalities to increase the age
[1:10:11] at which eligibility occurs,
[1:10:13] >> right? With with 18 being as low as we
[1:10:16] can go
[1:10:17] >> or as high. I'm sorry. as high as
[1:10:21] >> well. And I was talking to
[1:10:23] >> someone after the meeting last week or
[1:10:26] two weeks ago and was a younger person
[1:10:29] and they put it most succinctly that
[1:10:31] golf carts create the illusion of safety
[1:10:34] and they are not as safe as a car. Uh
[1:10:36] cars are rigorously tested. Uh we all
[1:10:40] see the commercials and hear about all
[1:10:41] that and golf carts are different. I
[1:10:43] mean they're meant to be on a golf cart
[1:10:45] on a golf course, you know. Um, and I
[1:10:50] just feel like
[1:10:52] even though the state of Georgia says a
[1:10:54] 16-year-old can drive a car on the
[1:10:56] interstate or cross country, uh, I think
[1:11:00] that I don't know. I just would like us
[1:11:03] to consider upping the age for golf
[1:11:05] drivers just perhaps there's a little
[1:11:08] more maturity there, a little more
[1:11:09] appreciation for
[1:11:12] safety and what can happen and and how
[1:11:15] thing how quickly things can go wrong
[1:11:17] and um you know perhaps uh someone who's
[1:11:22] been driving a car for two years can
[1:11:23] appreciate that a little more. But I'm
[1:11:25] just I don't want to be overly paranoid.
[1:11:27] I just, you know, not sure that uh all
[1:11:31] the 16 year olds out there driving golf
[1:11:33] carts are really
[1:11:36] sort of mindful of the hazard of driving
[1:11:39] that they should be. So that's just
[1:11:41] that's in a nutshell is just maybe some
[1:11:44] consideration up in the age on that one.
[1:11:48] >> Um
[1:11:49] >> it's not a concern for safety. I mean
[1:11:51] it's just not trying to penalize anyone.
[1:11:53] I don't want to assume anyone's
[1:11:55] >> I'm sorry.
[1:11:56] >> Whatever. No, you didn't. I would. I I
[1:11:58] just I just think a couple extra years
[1:12:01] might help prevent
[1:12:05] some driving that you do otherwise. So,
[1:12:08] no good.
[1:12:08] >> That's okay. I just wanted to make Are
[1:12:10] these items that were highlighted in
[1:12:12] yellow? Are those the only changes or
[1:12:15] are those the exact changes that we're
[1:12:17] making?
[1:12:19] >> Yeah.
[1:12:20] >> Yes. Well, in a rough draft form, I mean
[1:12:22] once we get the more direction
[1:12:25] >> from the board, then I will take that
[1:12:29] rough draft and word smith it.
[1:12:32] >> So, so we're thinking content right now
[1:12:34] rather than exact wording. If you have
[1:12:36] [clears throat] an exact wording, then
[1:12:38] >> so it says here that only 18 years of
[1:12:41] that year older may register the
[1:12:42] vehicle. 16 can drive, right? Right.
[1:12:48] Um
[1:12:50] I saw somewhere where it said only 18
[1:12:52] year olds cross the street
[1:12:55] in the thing but it just
[1:13:00] um just for my curiosity. I think the
[1:13:05] fact that
[1:13:07] you know before 270 it was the the
[1:13:10] highway concept when when it changed to the new complete street um is it's I
[1:13:19] thought golf carts were not allowed to
[1:13:21] put in the speed limit.
[1:13:23] >> That is one component. Okay. So uh and
[1:13:26] not just the speed on 278 but also the
[1:13:29] speed on the road connecting. So South
[1:13:32] Aenddale. Okay. Um
[1:13:36] that is another step in the permitting
[1:13:39] process from G dot um to uh provide for
[1:13:44] this crossing would be a reduction in
[1:13:46] speed on South Aenddale Road. uh which
[1:13:50] um would require a speed study to um
[1:13:54] demonstrate that a reduction in speed on
[1:13:56] that road is even uh palatable or
[1:14:02] >> what is it now?
[1:14:05] >> 30 correct
[1:14:07] >> 35.
[1:14:08] >> Oh, it's 35 on South.
[1:14:12] » Yeah, it has to go. So any any road that
[1:14:14] has golf motorized carts that can be no
[1:14:17] more than 30.
[1:14:18] >> So in order for the crossing to be made,
[1:14:23] >> okay,
[1:14:24] >> the speed, the highest rate of speed
[1:14:27] permitted on South Aenddale Road has to
[1:14:29] be reduced from 35 to 30 because of the
[1:14:34] aforementioned dangers that uh the mayor
[1:14:37] has spoken. So we have to go through a
[1:14:39] study before we could lower it to 30 or
[1:14:42] could we just lower it 30 if we
[1:14:43] >> No, G dot has to uh allow us to reduce
[1:14:47] the speed in order to provide for this
[1:14:49] permit. So first step is amending the
[1:14:52] ordinance to provide for language
[1:14:55] allowing the crossing to be made. Next
[1:14:58] step would be to ensure that the speed
[1:15:03] of travel on South Aendale uh can be
[1:15:06] lowered to accommodate the crossing. Um
[1:15:10] and of course uh we've already taken
[1:15:12] other steps to accommodate the crossing
[1:15:14] such as making that intersection a
[1:15:16] protected intersection with lights um
[1:15:19] and a designated crossing spot. There
[1:15:21] would also be a requirement to place
[1:15:24] signage at the location indicating that
[1:15:28] it is a golf cart crossing uh and that would be the only place that we
[1:15:34] would allow for uh golf carts to cross
[1:15:37] 278. So there are several things that we
[1:15:40] would have to do in this process. This
[1:15:41] is just the first of those.
[1:15:43] >> So North Aendelle is 35. South Aendelle
[1:15:46] is the residential side
[1:15:48] >> and it's 35 as well. I think it's
[1:15:51] actually 30 and it needed to go to 25.
[1:15:55] >> Yes,
[1:16:01] » I'm okay with the crossing. It's taking
[1:16:04] this first step. Um, and I've
[1:16:06] considered, you know, changing the age,
[1:16:09] but I think the bigger issue is
[1:16:14] educating people with DOM cards. like we
[1:16:16] can tell all day long they don't have to
[1:16:18] be 18 but you know the police can't
[1:16:20] really pull them over if they don't look 18 don't look 16 or whatever
[1:16:26] so it's like and I know we can't you
[1:16:28] know we can't uh legislate good behavior
[1:16:31] but good you know ownership or whatever
[1:16:35] but somehow and I know the police
[1:16:37] department's been really trying to do
[1:16:38] this with registering the carts having
[1:16:40] the golf cart rodeos and things like
[1:16:41] that somehow we have to figure out a way
[1:16:44] to reach every golf card on her and you
[1:16:47] know
[1:16:49] they'll you know really figure out how
[1:16:52] to educate them on what you're supposed
[1:16:54] to do with these things that they're not
[1:16:55] as safe as car that they're not as uh
[1:17:01] carefree as people think they are. So I
[1:17:04] mean it's like
[1:17:06] but you know the crossing I think the
[1:17:08] road this was part of our plan to begin
[1:17:11] with think people with golf cars will
[1:17:14] welcome us I want to bring some activity
[1:17:17] between two sides of the road which I'm
[1:17:20] always looking to do um with crossing I
[1:17:23] don't have any issue with uh I think you
[1:17:26] know I think it needs to be done
[1:17:28] absolutely the G9 specifications I guess
[1:17:33] 25 is fine. Feel like most of us in the
[1:17:35] city 25 already. So
[1:17:39] um and I think I think just you know
[1:17:42] somehow
[1:17:44] figuring out how to
[1:17:47] teach our teach I don't know what the
[1:17:50] right word is but educate our golf
[1:17:53] that you know there are laws and you
[1:17:56] have to follow these laws. It's not okay
[1:17:59] to just
[1:18:01] >> And do you mind if I elaborate on
[1:18:03] something? Sure. uh speaking to your
[1:18:06] point about um recognizing age.
[1:18:11] >> Um so
[1:18:14] in order for for the police to um
[1:18:21] stop a golf cart user or engage a golf
[1:18:25] cart user in the course of them using
[1:18:27] the cart. uh there there would have to
[1:18:30] be a moving violation in order to make
[1:18:33] that engagement. So um we can't just
[1:18:36] profile uh I just wanted to clarify that
[1:18:39] for you guys. So um
[1:18:43] >> so if someone was like noticeably like
[1:18:45] 10
[1:18:47] [laughter]
[1:18:47] like
[1:18:49] >> unfortunately no.
[1:18:50] >> Okay.
[1:18:51] >> Unfortunately in this time and age you
[1:18:53] have 12 year olds that look like they're
[1:18:54] 21 and you have 20 year olds that look
[1:18:56] like they're 12.
[1:18:57] >> Yeah. and and can't go off of solely
[1:19:01] like I think Patrick said it we're
[1:19:03] profiling at that point which is highly
[1:19:05] illegal. We have to have probable cause
[1:19:07] or reasonable article suspicion and
[1:19:09] profiling does not fall into the
[1:19:11] reasonable article suspicion. Uh it
[1:19:13] would have to be a violation
[1:19:16] come out to legal interaction.
[1:19:18] >> Probably not going to catch speed.
[1:19:25] » But they do people do run stop sign.
[1:19:28] >> No, that would be a moving violation
[1:19:30] that would that would allow for a stop.
[1:19:35] I I I for one I think um
[1:19:40] I initially I'm I would not be in favor
[1:19:43] of raising the the age. I just I think
[1:19:48] golf carts are part of this neighborhood
[1:19:50] and I think I'm more concerned about the
[1:19:53] ebikes and how fast they go. There's
[1:19:56] kids that are eight, nine
[1:19:58] years old that are going 40 miles an
[1:20:00] hour and like these I mean the carts I
[1:20:04] mean if we can restrict it to a safe
[1:20:06] crossing I think think that's something that um
[1:20:12] you know there's always inherent risk
[1:20:13] with with everything pedestrians even
[1:20:16] but I think
[1:20:18] I don't know I would I would not be in favor of of
[1:20:24] race
[1:20:26] 16
[1:20:27] they can drive a car drive a
[1:20:33] » um now with when they register now do
[1:20:36] they get a decal or something to put on
[1:20:38] their vehicle and are we having problems
[1:20:41] with people registering I mean or do we
[1:20:44] >> actually with well we've um
[1:20:47] >> we we've been able to capture a lot of
[1:20:49] unregistered golf carts the previous two
[1:20:52] years with our golf cart registration
[1:20:53] drives
[1:20:54] Uh so that is less of an issue than it
[1:20:58] was previously and we'll continue to do
[1:21:01] that. Um so that we don't have
[1:21:03] unregistered vehicles on our streets. Um
[1:21:07] now an unregistered cart and I'll defer
[1:21:10] to Chief Hess on this uh would
[1:21:13] potentially be a moving violation
[1:21:16] >> potentially. Potentially yes. The um
[1:21:20] only concern with that is we've kind of
[1:21:22] come up with consistent place to put
[1:21:25] said sticker the last two years.
[1:21:28] Previous administration, previous wave
[1:21:31] stickers were put on were all over the
[1:21:33] place. And with the aging stickers,
[1:21:35] we're finding uh more and more residents
[1:21:37] have reached out to Detective Powrill
[1:21:39] about getting a new sticker because
[1:21:41] their old sticker is falling apart or
[1:21:44] fallen off or weathered. um she is
[1:21:47] working with those residents as a a case
[1:21:49] by case basis. So um we can more than
[1:21:53] likely yes we see a golf cart moving and
[1:21:58] we can stop and make contact.
[1:22:01] >> Can you state where the preferred spot
[1:22:02] was? Uh but moving forward it's going to
[1:22:05] be the driver side rear like quarter
[1:22:07] panel uh either right of on either front
[1:22:10] or rear because the golf carts nowadays
[1:22:12] they've got like basically no fender to
[1:22:16] the rear. Some of them do, some of them
[1:22:17] don't. So we've putting them on that
[1:22:19] driver side rear tire fender area.
[1:22:27] Well, I don't know if I have any trouble
[1:22:28] with um the 18y old requirement because
[1:22:31] I wish they changed that with driver's
[1:22:33] license.
[1:22:35] My granddaughter is going to be 16 next
[1:22:38] June and I'm horrified.
[1:22:41] The thought of her driving around in
[1:22:43] Atlanta.
[1:22:50] Well, crossing is the part that I'm uh
[1:22:54] most
[1:22:55] looking forward to and the fact that
[1:22:58] we've got, you know, new residences,
[1:23:00] single family residences, etc. being
[1:23:02] built on this side. Um, it it it's a way
[1:23:06] to promote connectivity. It's a way to
[1:23:08] promote sort of ease. I mean, there is
[1:23:11] definitely something nice about putting
[1:23:14] children in a golf cart, driving to
[1:23:16] their school, dropping them off. that I
[1:23:18] mean that's a lovely thing and you don't
[1:23:20] get to do that in many places and um I
[1:23:23] would hate to have some people have the
[1:23:25] ability to do that and others not. Now I
[1:23:27] know that still exists and know there's
[1:23:29] other parts that can't do that but at
[1:23:31] least there is a part here that will
[1:23:34] hopefully will it will
[1:23:37] and just to be clear I'm all for the
[1:23:38] crossing. I think it's great and I think
[1:23:40] it'll be just an expansion of that
[1:23:43] specialness that you know we enjoy. I'm
[1:23:45] all for that. I'm just, you know,
[1:23:49] as I said before, I was not the most
[1:23:52] careful 16-year-old driver. So,
[1:23:55] um, yeah.
[1:23:59] Well, okay. So, we're all okay with the
[1:24:02] crossing itself.
[1:24:04] >> Is there any appetite for open age?
[1:24:06] >> Straw both.
[1:24:09] >> You're not.
[1:24:10] >> It don't matter either way.
[1:24:12] >> And you can drive a car.
[1:24:15] >> Okay. All right. So, we'll drop that.
[1:24:17] So, what's next?
[1:24:19] >> So, based on that direction, the only
[1:24:22] amendment that we will propose to you
[1:24:24] guys via ordinance is for the crossing.
[1:24:29] Um, so that will be brought forward to
[1:24:32] you at the next regular meeting for um
[1:24:35] first street,
[1:24:36] >> right? For street.
[1:24:37] >> Okay. And I'll say one more time like I
[1:24:39] think that that doing this I think will
[1:24:41] be good opportunity to teach people just
[1:24:45] number one where that crossing's going
[1:24:47] to be. It's not every crossing, you
[1:24:49] know.
[1:24:52] >> Well, I think there's going to be signs.
[1:24:54] >> Yeah. I think the important thing though
[1:24:55] is you cross, you don't get on. Yeah.
[1:24:58] Exactly.
[1:24:59] >> And that's going to be
[1:25:01] >> that's not going to be I mean that's
[1:25:02] always going to be
[1:25:04] >> not allowed.
[1:25:04] >> Correct.
[1:25:05] >> Yeah.
[1:25:05] No travel on on the highway.
[1:25:10] » Uh curious. I know we have, you know,
[1:25:14] that that this is discussion about
[1:25:16] crossing on that side, but I mean, is
[1:25:18] there even access to the downtown area
[1:25:22] from like say the other side
[1:25:24] >> without a hill like?
[1:25:27] >> You mean here down here?
[1:25:28] >> Yeah.
[1:25:29] >> For a golf cart?
[1:25:31] >> No. Because it's not protected with
[1:25:35] >> signaling.
[1:25:37] Yeah.
[1:25:37] >> Is there a theoretical possibility that
[1:25:39] when that rest of the
[1:25:41] >> road from here to Kensington Station
[1:25:43] gets upgraded that whatever could occur
[1:25:47] theoretically if there was a will to
[1:25:49] make it to
[1:25:50] >> I don't want to weigh in Ellen that uh
[1:25:53] without good information. Um so uh I
[1:25:58] I'll try and seek that information for
[1:26:00] you guys but uh I don't have it right
[1:26:03] now. when you dropped, would you be able
[1:26:05] to drive around this neighborhood back
[1:26:07] here?
[1:26:07] >> Yes. Yeah. So, once you get if you would
[1:26:10] cross like so if you cross 278 down
[1:26:14] there,
[1:26:14] >> right,
[1:26:15] >> and that would allow for you to drive
[1:26:18] your golf cart on any of the the the
[1:26:22] interior roads here. So, theoretically,
[1:26:26] um I you know,
[1:26:28] >> but you couldn't cross at Laredo.
[1:26:30] >> You mean like cross Clarendon? cross
[1:26:33] Laredo or Clarendon.
[1:26:35] >> You have to cross Laredo to get over
[1:26:36] here.
[1:26:38] >> I mean, you you Yes. Well, you'd have to
[1:26:41] cross Clarendon.
[1:26:42] >> Yeah. Yeah.
[1:26:43] >> But there's Right. Right.
[1:26:44] >> But you can go right into Laredo, too,
[1:26:47] off where Center Street curves.
[1:26:50] >> Well, you can already do that.
[1:26:52] >> Yeah.
[1:26:52] >> Well, I'm saying if you wanted to get
[1:26:54] from
[1:26:56] the area
[1:26:58] across Clarendon over to this side.
[1:27:01] Okay.
[1:27:02] >> I I you know I don't have a a good
[1:27:06] knowledge of the the allowance for
[1:27:08] crossing clarity.
[1:27:10] We really haven't discussed that. But
[1:27:12] you can tell that declaration drive over
[1:27:15] those.
[1:27:18] >> Yeah. I think
[1:27:20] >> this intersection was here 278
[1:27:23] >> right
[1:27:24] >> way too high too much traffic. I mean
[1:27:27] there are lots of constraints around
[1:27:30] that that intersection did not
[1:27:36] » so we'll we'll have those discussions
[1:27:38] and talk about declaring the cross if
[1:27:41] that's even
[1:27:43] possible. So you may it it could be that
[1:27:46] you are limited to staying on the west
[1:27:50] side of Clarendon u in the downtown of
[1:27:54] course unless you own a home on the east
[1:27:57] side of Clarendon and you're not
[1:27:59] crossing over Clarendon.
[1:28:01] >> Yeah, that that was kind of my like the
[1:28:04] residents that I live I mean
[1:28:07] >> just some I just it crossed my mind
[1:28:10] >> pocket over here.
[1:28:11] >> Yeah. And and then the people that live
[1:28:13] over by the like that are in Ael tracks.
[1:28:17] >> Yeah. Where the town homes are
[1:28:20] >> town homes. And then isn't there another
[1:28:22] part of Aenddale that like
[1:28:26] where the the elementary school
[1:28:28] >> that's actually well AES right down
[1:28:32] there
[1:28:33] >> or are you talking about the
[1:28:34] >> DSA elementary school? Is that part of a
[1:28:37] city? That is not
[1:28:38] >> That is not but there are there is a
[1:28:39] pocket of homes back there the Windsor
[1:28:42] area.
[1:28:42] >> Okay.
[1:28:43] >> Yeah.
[1:28:43] >> I just want to make sure B if we're
[1:28:46] looking down the road maybe providing
[1:28:48] access. Currently, we do not have
[1:28:52] any provision
[1:28:55] unless it's otherwise already legal for
[1:28:58] persons who live
[1:29:00] uh on the north side of 278 east of
[1:29:05] Clarendon to cross Clarendon over into
[1:29:08] the west side
[1:29:10] uh of the downtown. Okay.
[1:29:15] All right. So, uh, again, first read
[1:29:18] will be at the
[1:29:22] » what's the what's the date?
[1:29:23] >> September 9th.
[1:29:25] >> At the September 9th meeting.
[1:29:31] Good. All right. Next item. Uh, item
[1:29:36] number four. review an easement
[1:29:38] agreement with Maple 278 Ventures for
[1:29:40] temporary construction staging and
[1:29:42] landscaping in the alley at 102 Olive
[1:29:45] Street.
[1:29:46] >> Yes. So, as we've encountered in the
[1:29:49] past, uh there is a series of alleys
[1:29:54] um that exist in the downtown. Some of
[1:29:57] those are actually private, some of
[1:30:01] those are publicly owned. Uh the Aba
[1:30:06] Hedgewood team has identified a small
[1:30:10] portion of the alley
[1:30:12] uh that was immediately to the north of
[1:30:15] one of the properties they purchased uh
[1:30:18] which we refer to as the Roric property.
[1:30:20] It's that vacant corner property uh as
[1:30:24] an alley that uh they would like to be
[1:30:27] able to use for two purposes. Uh one is
[1:30:32] uh during their construction to be able
[1:30:35] to use that alleyway to transport
[1:30:37] materials and then the other uh is to
[1:30:43] once they have completed construction to
[1:30:46] be able to nicely landscape that
[1:30:49] alleyway in order to um create an an
[1:30:53] inviting uh area. Um, now, uh, that
[1:30:59] alleyway is really small. Um,
[1:31:04] if y'all are familiar with that lot.
[1:31:06] >> Where is it?
[1:31:07] >> So, that lot is on the corner of Olive
[1:31:09] in 278.
[1:31:11] >> So, it's on the west corner of Olive.
[1:31:14] Uh, it was a just kind of a tiny
[1:31:16] property.
[1:31:17] >> Is it next to um
[1:31:18] >> We have a canal in the pack.
[1:31:21] >> Oh,
[1:31:22] >> yeah.
[1:31:23] It was in
[1:31:25] >> which
[1:31:27] work
[1:31:28] >> number
[1:31:42] right next to
[1:31:46] » you little cottages down there.
[1:31:48] >> That's what I was
[1:31:49] >> right. It's It's immediately south of
[1:31:52] the building known as 120 Olive that
[1:31:55] houses Little Cottage.
[1:31:56] >> Okay.
[1:32:03] » There's an alley there.
[1:32:05] >> They're not developed alleys. Uh they
[1:32:08] are just identified as alleys. And um uh
[1:32:13] again um we we check these on a
[1:32:16] case-byase basis as development concerns
[1:32:19] arise because what we found is there's
[1:32:22] no real consistency of ownership. Some
[1:32:24] of those alleyways go with the deed to
[1:32:26] the private property. Some of those
[1:32:28] alleyways are excluded from the deed and
[1:32:30] are public.
[1:32:32] >> On in this case have
[1:32:34] the people that own that building been
[1:32:37] told about it? They don't have any
[1:32:39] ownership of that.
[1:32:41] >> I know they don't, but I mean, as far as
[1:32:42] that it will be used that way, just, you
[1:32:45] know, informing them of
[1:32:47] >> I I don't I don't know the answer to
[1:32:49] that question.
[1:32:51] I mean, I I doubt they would care given
[1:32:54] the fact that uh if the whole entire
[1:32:58] property was utilized as a um uh for
[1:33:02] construction easement on 278. If y'all
[1:33:05] recall, we had some some lay down of
[1:33:08] that property. Uh I don't think it
[1:33:12] affects their ingress and egress
[1:33:18] and the alley exists on the Avalon
[1:33:20] property. It's just a public portion of
[1:33:23] that property. So the adjacent neighbor
[1:33:26] doesn't have any
[1:33:28] right.
[1:33:30] >> I understand. I was just talking about,
[1:33:32] you know, them being aware that it's
[1:33:33] going to happen.
[1:33:38] » Um,
[1:33:42] » so
[1:33:44] any other questions or so this be
[1:33:47] something we vote on September 9th,
[1:33:49] >> correct?
[1:33:51] >> Am I okay with that?
[1:33:55] >> Okay. Item number five, presentation by
[1:33:57] Chief Hess. But like to start over here
[1:34:00] with Mr. managers.
[1:34:01] >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, um we're
[1:34:04] making this presentation to the board
[1:34:07] tonight uh mostly because of increased
[1:34:12] discussion about uh flock safety company
[1:34:16] uh not only locally but at the national
[1:34:18] level. Uh and I think we've all we've
[1:34:23] all had internal conversations about our
[1:34:25] use of flock safety equipment.
[1:34:28] um and realize there are very valid
[1:34:31] concerns about uh potential abuse of the
[1:34:36] system that uh you know not only our
[1:34:39] residents have but persons throughout
[1:34:41] the country. Um and uh not only that but
[1:34:47] um you know as most large topics of
[1:34:52] discussion
[1:34:54] uh result in there is you know some
[1:34:58] misinformation we've identified in in
[1:35:00] discussions that perhaps we could speak
[1:35:03] to to to clarify
[1:35:06] um what type of equipment we have and
[1:35:08] what we use it for. Um, I realize that may not matter to some folks. Um,
[1:35:15] and again, I I I
[1:35:18] uh very much empathize with the the
[1:35:22] concern about flock safety and the
[1:35:25] products that they provide. I think we
[1:35:28] are very aware of um, you know, some of
[1:35:33] the
[1:35:34] very real pitfalls of the system. Um but
[1:35:39] uh for the purposes of um you know
[1:35:44] encouraging further discussion and
[1:35:47] inviting our residents to participate in
[1:35:49] that discussion, we felt it appropriate
[1:35:52] at this time to go ahead and have a
[1:35:56] chief hes make a presentation about uh
[1:35:59] ADAL state's flock safety program so
[1:36:01] that we can um you know help move that
[1:36:05] discussion um in whatever way it
[1:36:08] evolves. So, um, without further ado,
[1:36:12] I'll hand it over to the Chief Hess and
[1:36:15] he can walk us through the Aenddale
[1:36:17] Estates's block safety approach.
[1:36:19] >> All right. So, good evening. Um, like to
[1:36:21] reiterate what Patrick said is, you
[1:36:23] know, [clears throat] I've heard
[1:36:25] residents, I've heard concerns, and
[1:36:28] hopefully, you know, I can't control how
[1:36:30] you feel, but I think education plays a
[1:36:33] big factor. Um and you know so basically
[1:36:37] what we're going to do is go over basic
[1:36:39] background of flock safety corporation
[1:36:42] the technology and the policies that I
[1:36:44] have adopted for the Aenddale state's
[1:36:46] police department. Please keep in mind
[1:36:48] that when I'm speaking about policies
[1:36:50] and how we use the system I am only
[1:36:52] speaking about how Aenddale's police
[1:36:55] department utilizes this system and how
[1:36:58] it benefits our city. I cannot speak to
[1:37:00] other agencies. I cannot speak to other
[1:37:03] administrators or their policies in any
[1:37:05] way, shape, or form. And law enforcement
[1:37:07] policies are not cookie cutter by any
[1:37:09] means whatsoever. Um, and I've got
[1:37:12] experience with that. So hopefully uh I
[1:37:14] can educate y'all a little bit and uh
[1:37:18] answer some questions. See if this
[1:37:20] works. It does. All right. So, Block
[1:37:22] Safety is a public safety technology uh
[1:37:25] platform that helps a law enforcement
[1:37:27] investigate crimes by providing
[1:37:29] information captured on their devices
[1:37:30] associated with incidents. Um,
[1:37:34] moving forward, Flock offers, and if you
[1:37:37] guys don't mind, I'm just going to refer
[1:37:38] to as Flock instead of Flock Safety.
[1:37:40] Moving forward, they offer um several
[1:37:42] different options. And to clarify what
[1:37:45] we use, uh the first is the license
[1:37:48] plate readers are often referred to as
[1:37:50] automated license plate readers or
[1:37:52] ALPRs. We use this system. We also use
[1:37:56] the software behind the ALPR system and
[1:38:00] that is it. Do not use their mobile
[1:38:03] security trailers. We do not use their
[1:38:05] gunshot or gunshot detection software or
[1:38:08] devices. We do not use their drones and
[1:38:12] we do not use their pan, tilt, zoom, or
[1:38:14] CCTV camera systems in any way, shape or
[1:38:17] form. Uh we do not subscribe to any of
[1:38:19] the extra software that would have to be
[1:38:21] enabled to be able to use this system,
[1:38:23] nor do we have any of their devices
[1:38:26] other than the ALPR systems.
[1:38:32] The plot falcon ALPR is the only device
[1:38:36] that we use as I stated previously.
[1:38:39] Basically, an ALPR camera captures f
[1:38:42] photos of the rear of a vehicle, their
[1:38:44] license plates, records the location,
[1:38:47] date, time uh the photo was taken.
[1:38:51] Vehicle license plate is listed as
[1:38:53] stolen, linked to other criminal
[1:38:55] activities. wanted or and wanted or
[1:38:58] missing persons. An alert will be sent
[1:39:00] out to ALPD a staff who are logged in
[1:39:05] via the software via a desktop software
[1:39:08] or a mobile application.
[1:39:13] So, common concerns and questions that
[1:39:16] are uh I've heard recently, you know,
[1:39:19] what does ALPR detect? It detects
[1:39:21] vehicles and license plates. Does not
[1:39:22] detect people. It does not record
[1:39:24] people. Uh, it's only vehicles and
[1:39:26] license plates. What does it not detect?
[1:39:29] Once again, people, gender, race, or fa
[1:39:31] any type of facial recognition software
[1:39:33] built into our system. How many ALPRs do
[1:39:37] we have? We currently have 10. And we
[1:39:39] have 10 cameras in 10 separate
[1:39:41] locations. We do not have any cameras
[1:39:44] that are multiple cameras on at one
[1:39:46] location. Just to clarify because I know
[1:39:49] uh some people have asked me about that.
[1:39:51] Um, our 10 cameras are in 10 different
[1:39:54] locations spread out through the city.
[1:39:57] The data retention is 30 days on a
[1:39:59] rolling basis. What that means is that
[1:40:02] it's not at the end of the month all the
[1:40:04] data. So once 30-day hits on that date
[1:40:07] and time, that data is permanently
[1:40:10] erased, which I'll get kind of more into
[1:40:11] here in a minute. Okay.
[1:40:14] Uh, federal sharing and safeguards flock
[1:40:16] does not contract with federal agencies
[1:40:18] such as ICE or DHS. And I'll go a little
[1:40:21] bit more into data sharing in a few
[1:40:23] minutes too. Data resale flock does not
[1:40:26] sell LPR data privately. [clears throat]
[1:40:30] And uh the flock alpr systems are not
[1:40:33] connected to DDS or DMV softwares.
[1:40:37] They're all connected through portals
[1:40:39] for GCIC and NCIC which is Georgia
[1:40:42] Criminal Information Center as well as
[1:40:44] the National Criminal Information
[1:40:45] Center.
[1:40:49] So, when we're talking about the data,
[1:40:51] what kind of data is collected by the
[1:40:53] ALPR? It's a license plate text. Oh,
[1:40:56] sorry, I forgot the head. That's my
[1:40:58] fault. Um, it's a license plate text.
[1:41:02] It's the date and time the image was
[1:41:04] captured or when the vehicle passed that
[1:41:07] camera, hammer location uh that captured
[1:41:10] the image and basic vehicle attributes
[1:41:14] such as make, model, and color. That is
[1:41:17] all Eclipse
[1:41:23] um tracking a vehicle block does not
[1:41:26] have the capabilities to physically
[1:41:28] track a vehicle. Uh the A alpr system
[1:41:32] does not track vehicle. It's a moment in
[1:41:34] time at a specific location. So your
[1:41:37] vehicle passes a fixed location. It
[1:41:40] captures the image. It doesn't know if
[1:41:42] you went up to the next street and turn
[1:41:44] right, left. The only way we can see
[1:41:47] that is it when you pass the next block
[1:41:51] camera. If you pass another block
[1:41:53] camera, it cannot detect after that
[1:41:56] image. It does not detect if you turn
[1:41:57] down the next street, went three streets
[1:41:59] forward or turn left or right. It only
[1:42:02] is capturing, think about it as a moment
[1:42:06] in time, like I stated, one location
[1:42:08] with a date and a time. That is it.
[1:42:12] Once you pass the camera, AED and Flock,
[1:42:16] uh, have no idea what your route is. U,
[1:42:19] I'm going to use this as an example. We
[1:42:21] had an incident earlier this week where,
[1:42:24] uh, after the crime occurred, the
[1:42:27] vehicle fled the location, did not pass
[1:42:29] a single one of our flock cameras,
[1:42:32] did not hit a single flot camera
[1:42:35] throughout Ticap County.
[1:42:37] It only hit a camera in uh, 8 bill.
[1:42:41] And that's where we're able to kind of
[1:42:44] bring the case to a closure, so to
[1:42:46] speak. So to give you an example, from
[1:42:49] here to Hateville is approximately 15 20
[1:42:51] miles. Did not fast pass a single flat
[1:42:54] camera from Aenddale states until it hit
[1:42:57] a camera in the hate bill.
[1:43:03] So I know the news has been reporting on
[1:43:06] Senator John Albert's uh task force
[1:43:08] lately. Uh I want to bring that up. he's
[1:43:11] uh to increase a oversight with ALPRs.
[1:43:15] Um the partners, which I think is very
[1:43:17] important to be aware of, is the Georgia
[1:43:20] Sheriff's Association as well as the
[1:43:23] Georgia Association of Chiefs of Police,
[1:43:25] which I'm currently the third vice
[1:43:26] president of. Because of that, I will be
[1:43:29] heavily involved with the Senator
[1:43:32] Albert's task force moving forward. We
[1:43:35] actually have meetings scheduled
[1:43:38] um and I will be attending those
[1:43:40] meetings. So the idea is to figure out
[1:43:42] what if any oversight needs to be
[1:43:45] legislated
[1:43:46] um best practices, sample policies for
[1:43:50] law enforcement agencies throughout the
[1:43:51] state. Those are just some of the things
[1:43:53] that we are specifically looking at and
[1:43:55] addressing some of the currents coming
[1:43:57] from our legislators at the capital as
[1:43:59] well to uh specifically address those in
[1:44:02] the state of Georgia. So that will be
[1:44:04] more to come as time goes on.
[1:44:08] So again, I want to reiterate the policy
[1:44:11] for [clears throat] Aenddale State
[1:44:12] Police Department is only our policy. I
[1:44:14] cannot control or dictate other agency
[1:44:16] policies in any way, shape or form. Uh
[1:44:19] pulling out of our ALPR policy. I just
[1:44:22] wanted to highlight some things. Uh
[1:44:23] considering operation is used for
[1:44:26] official law enforcement business only.
[1:44:29] Officers must complete training on the
[1:44:31] system and pol and review the policy and
[1:44:34] training on the policy prior to being
[1:44:35] issued any type of credentials
[1:44:38] to utilize the block ALBR system. Uh the
[1:44:42] data retention is specifically mentioned
[1:44:43] in our policy with a 30-day rolling
[1:44:47] basis.
[1:44:48] uh after 30 days. It's important to know
[1:44:50] that once it's deleted, it cannot be
[1:44:54] recovered for any reason what whatsoever
[1:44:56] by my by any of my staff, my agency,
[1:45:00] another agency, or the vendor
[1:45:02] themselves. It is completely hard wiped
[1:45:04] from the system. So that 30 days
[1:45:06] expires, if we get information on day 31
[1:45:09] that a vehicle may have hit one of our
[1:45:11] cameras and it's day 31, we can't even
[1:45:15] search. It's not going to give us any
[1:45:16] information on that regardless of what
[1:45:18] it's involved in. It could be a
[1:45:20] homicide. There's no way for me to pull
[1:45:22] that stuff out. Uh accountability. I
[1:45:25] think this is uh very important and I
[1:45:28] want to highlight something. Uh Deputy
[1:45:29] Chief Branch actually leads this on a
[1:45:32] weekly basis. We conduct audits of our
[1:45:35] officers and how they're using the
[1:45:36] system. And I want to get into the audit
[1:45:39] basis uh uh factors in a minute. Um, and
[1:45:43] also important to note that our they're
[1:45:47] single user login. They're specific to
[1:45:49] one user and they're
[1:45:50] multi-authentification
[1:45:52] login. So, um, if an employee leaves on
[1:45:58] their last day, we take them out of the
[1:46:00] system. If if if loginins are appearing
[1:46:04] on the web, they maybe more than likely
[1:46:08] are not good login. can't confirm or
[1:46:11] deny that, but it's up to the agency and
[1:46:14] the administrators to ensure that if an
[1:46:16] employee is no longer an employee, they
[1:46:19] should not have access to it. And we do
[1:46:20] that as employees leave. Luckily, we
[1:46:22] haven't had to deal with any employees
[1:46:24] legally. So,
[1:46:28] all right. So, we have adopted a three
[1:46:30] tier search access for the city of
[1:46:32] Aenddale States Police Department on
[1:46:35] tier one. Um,
[1:46:38] I'm behind here again. I'm sorry. Tier
[1:46:41] one is absolutely no search access with
[1:46:44] the within the database. That includes
[1:46:45] our line level officers which account
[1:46:48] for six of our staff. Myself and deputy
[1:46:51] chief branch do not have searchability
[1:46:53] factor. The reason why we do not is
[1:46:55] deputy chief branch and myself are over
[1:46:58] the audits and for transparency reasons.
[1:47:01] How are we supposed to officially and
[1:47:03] truthfully audit ourselves if we have
[1:47:05] search bill?
[1:47:07] We don't need it at our level and we're
[1:47:10] conducting audits. So, we've removed
[1:47:12] oursel from being able to search flock
[1:47:14] for any reason. On tier two, it's in
[1:47:18] state of Georgia searches only. Those
[1:47:20] are assigned to our four patrol
[1:47:22] sergeants that run a shift, our four
[1:47:24] shifts within the uh police department.
[1:47:28] And then tier three is a full search
[1:47:30] access which only our two detectives uh
[1:47:33] the sergeant inc as well as our one
[1:47:35] detective have full access to that which
[1:47:38] again they they're logged and audited on
[1:47:41] a weekly basis.
[1:47:46] So some additional state cards. I want
[1:47:48] to reiterate that our staff receives
[1:47:50] training on the system. uh they receive
[1:47:53] uh electronic training uh web training
[1:47:56] as well as when they're in their field
[1:47:58] training program they are given uh real
[1:48:00] world training by their field training
[1:48:02] officers and they're also trained on the
[1:48:05] policies. Additionally, the policies are
[1:48:07] electronically acknowledged and logged
[1:48:09] for accountability. So the officer says
[1:48:12] they've read the policy, they understand
[1:48:13] the policy, they can't come back and
[1:48:15] say, "I didn't know I couldn't do that."
[1:48:17] Um, so that's another level of safeguard
[1:48:21] when conducting searches within the
[1:48:22] system. Any of our staff that has search
[1:48:25] capabilities are required to put in the
[1:48:28] case or CAD number. A CAD number is
[1:48:31] generated by Dicap County E911. You call
[1:48:34] 911, they're dispatching a call. It's
[1:48:37] given a CAD number. Not every call
[1:48:39] generates a report.
[1:48:41] So sometimes a CAD number can be used um
[1:48:44] instead of a case number, the criminal
[1:48:47] offense being investigated. It also logs
[1:48:49] the date, the time, the officer's name,
[1:48:53] what type of device they were on, and
[1:48:55] that all pulls up in our audit logs as
[1:48:57] we do those weekly audits as well.
[1:48:59] >> And they can't search anything about
[1:49:01] case I
[1:49:02] >> Yeah, they have to have a case or a cat
[1:49:03] number. Let me Some people may ask why
[1:49:06] would we search without a case number?
[1:49:08] Uh prime example um is uh Dicab County.
[1:49:13] Just an example, DIC County PD puts out
[1:49:16] a be on the lookout on a stolen vehicle
[1:49:19] that was last seen in the area memorial
[1:49:22] and coming to the highway. Okay. Because
[1:49:24] of the proximity, the officer may want
[1:49:27] to search and make sure that that didn't
[1:49:29] they didn't get a delayed hit or maybe
[1:49:31] ensure that it's not coming in the city.
[1:49:34] They can put the CAD number which then
[1:49:36] deputy chief because we didn't generate
[1:49:38] a case or case report. They can put the
[1:49:40] CAD number in
[1:49:41] >> that they get from the cab county
[1:49:43] because it's the cab county call that
[1:49:45] we're assisting on. Um similarly a
[1:49:48] missing person vehicle be broadcast. A
[1:49:51] lot of times an Amber alert or a
[1:49:53] Mattiey's call gets put out. There's a
[1:49:55] vehicle associated with it. Our officers
[1:49:56] may log in, put a reference and search
[1:50:01] and see where if it's been hidden up in
[1:50:03] our area, if they have reason to do
[1:50:05] that,
[1:50:09] kind of dig into the audit process and
[1:50:12] what we look at. We look at the
[1:50:14] frequency a staff an individual staff
[1:50:16] member runs number. Additionally, we
[1:50:19] look at the frequency a tag number is
[1:50:22] run by all staff. That may be a red flag
[1:50:25] also.
[1:50:26] Ensure vehicle that is associated with
[1:50:29] to we also ensure the vehicle associated
[1:50:31] with the case or pad number that we are
[1:50:33] conducting the audit on. Ensure the
[1:50:35] criminal offense is being investigated
[1:50:37] is logged and confirm the vehicle is
[1:50:39] linked to the case or pad. Um, we have
[1:50:43] seen
[1:50:45] we have had to dig into some um things
[1:50:48] that kind of raised our spidey senses,
[1:50:51] but they were directly correlated to
[1:50:55] uh a report, a case, a CAD number, which
[1:50:59] was completely justified by
[1:51:02] investigation. One example is that was
[1:51:05] uh one of our tags off of one of our
[1:51:07] Mark patrol cars was stolen two months
[1:51:09] ago. Well, that tag number showed
[1:51:13] multiple entries by multiple officers
[1:51:17] over multiple days because what they
[1:51:19] were doing was when they would come into
[1:51:21] shift, they would log in because we want
[1:51:23] to try to find where how and why the
[1:51:25] government tag was stolen. Can't tell
[1:51:28] you why. Doesn't make sense. But every
[1:51:31] that audit came up as a red flag for us
[1:51:34] because we were seeing the government
[1:51:35] tag being run by multiple staff members
[1:51:37] multiple times by each member because
[1:51:39] what they were doing was they were
[1:51:41] logging in and they were running that
[1:51:42] tag when they started their shift to see
[1:51:44] if it popped up on any of the flock
[1:51:46] cameras in our area to make sure it
[1:51:48] wasn't being used on a fraudulent
[1:51:50] vehicle or anything like that.
[1:51:56] » Let's see.
[1:51:58] So, an alert, I mentioned alerts earlier
[1:52:01] where if a tag, whatever it may be, um
[1:52:06] actually alerts one of our staff
[1:52:08] members. I want to stress the importance
[1:52:10] of this because this is also um
[1:52:14] it may cover some of the concerns of
[1:52:16] officers taking action that the
[1:52:18] information was wrong. Um our staff the
[1:52:21] information sets an officer being alert
[1:52:24] includes a photo of the rear of the
[1:52:25] vehicle, license plate, the location,
[1:52:27] date and time stamps. An alert tone,
[1:52:31] this is important. Alert alone is not
[1:52:35] reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle.
[1:52:38] We have to take that alert one couple
[1:52:40] steps further. Our officers must
[1:52:42] visually verify the plate and the
[1:52:45] vehicle from the alert is correct. Um, I
[1:52:49] think someone may have brought it up
[1:52:51] earlier. Um, uh, an eight may come up as
[1:52:55] a B in flock.
[1:52:57] Well, that that means that that stolen
[1:52:59] vehicle is not that tag. They have to
[1:53:02] visually verify that tag, confirm that tag matches the alert. In addition
[1:53:08] to that, the officers must verify the
[1:53:11] hit via their incar computer andor cab
[1:53:15] county dispatch. So what that means is
[1:53:17] stolen license plate coming through our
[1:53:19] city. ABC123
[1:53:21] alert
[1:53:23] officer deputy chief branch gets behind
[1:53:26] it. He can't just turn on his blue
[1:53:27] lights. He's going to get on his radio
[1:53:30] county e 911 and tell him run this tag.
[1:53:34] I'm getting a flock alert for a stolen
[1:53:35] vehicle ABC123.
[1:53:38] Give it a minute or two. Decap county
[1:53:39] police is going to come back and say
[1:53:41] that is confirmed. It is a stolen
[1:53:43] vehicle. Now we have articulable
[1:53:45] reasonable probable cause to conduct a
[1:53:48] traffic stop on that vehicle or which
[1:53:50] has happened negative that vehicle is
[1:53:53] not stolen. Guess what? We don't do
[1:53:57] anything. So there multi levels that we
[1:54:01] require our officers and our staff to do
[1:54:03] before taking actions. The alert alone
[1:54:06] is not enough reason to take law
[1:54:10] enforcement action. We need to visually
[1:54:12] verify, confirm the alert as being
[1:54:15] active and valid. And that's the most
[1:54:17] important thing because a stolen vehicle
[1:54:18] may have been recovered and for whatever
[1:54:21] reason it hasn't hit updated in the
[1:54:23] flock system. So we want real-time
[1:54:25] information to confirm everything.
[1:54:31] Moving on to some of the data concerns.
[1:54:33] Freedom of information act captured
[1:54:35] license plate data by law enforcement
[1:54:37] agencies shall not be subject to public
[1:54:39] disclosure. That's in Georgia law 35122
[1:54:43] subsection F. That 35122 addresses all
[1:54:48] license plate data, ALPRS, LPR data for
[1:54:52] Georgia law. Captured license plate data
[1:54:54] means global positioning, device
[1:54:56] coordinates, date, time, photograph,
[1:54:58] license plate number, any other data
[1:55:01] captured or derived from the automatic
[1:55:03] license recognition system or any way or
[1:55:06] any other source. That's 35122
[1:55:09] subsection A2. That's important to know
[1:55:12] because basically that says anything
[1:55:15] coming out of the flock system is not
[1:55:16] subject to open records.
[1:55:19] >> We do not release ALPR data under
[1:55:21] Freedom of Information Act or Open
[1:55:23] Records Act. So we we don't whatever
[1:55:26] that flock system is capturing. We get a
[1:55:29] request for that. We will not release it
[1:55:31] to the public in any way, shape or form.
[1:55:33] nor would we release it to an agency
[1:55:35] that is not a subscriber to Flock for
[1:55:36] any reason. But what that means is that
[1:55:39] jump back to what I was saying that PL
[1:55:41] does not contract with federal agencies.
[1:55:44] Okay,
[1:55:49] getting a little bit deeper in the data.
[1:55:51] Uh once again, I really think I I want
[1:55:54] to hammer this home that the data is
[1:55:55] only retained for 30 days on a rolling
[1:55:57] basis. Once it's gone, it's gone. It's
[1:55:59] gone forever. After 30 days, no one can
[1:56:02] retrieve it to include my agency, my
[1:56:04] staff, block, or any other agency that
[1:56:07] may have access to the debt.
[1:56:10] This information can be accessed by law
[1:56:12] enforcement for law enforcement. I put
[1:56:14] parentheses investigative purp purposes
[1:56:16] only. That is what's getting officers in
[1:56:19] trouble, not law enforcement purposes.
[1:56:26] agency sharing. I will admit we Sorry.
[1:56:30] Go ahead. Go ahead.
[1:56:31] >> Um, you have to put a case number in.
[1:56:32] Yes. So, if you don't put a case number
[1:56:34] in,
[1:56:35] >> it won't even let you search.
[1:56:37] >> Okay.
[1:56:39] >> We've added that within our system in
[1:56:41] the search parameters, we require it.
[1:56:44] So, thus, you have to put something up.
[1:56:46] So, even if one of my staff wanted to
[1:56:48] say, I'll just put make up a case number
[1:56:51] or whatever, that's going to be a red
[1:56:52] flag in RV. This is not going to
[1:56:55] correlate with anything we have.
[1:56:57] >> But do you have um a so the cab when
[1:57:01] they send their alert they would send
[1:57:02] you their case number or CAD number?
[1:57:05] >> We Yeah, we would do the CAD number. If the CAB was passing along information
[1:57:10] that someone was seen in our
[1:57:11] jurisdiction, headed to our
[1:57:12] jurisdiction, maybe have reason to
[1:57:14] believe that an endangered person or
[1:57:17] Mattiey's or Amber call was coming
[1:57:19] towards our jurisdiction. Obviously, if
[1:57:20] we have that CAD number, we want to stay
[1:57:22] on top of it and see where it is, if
[1:57:25] it's hitting on any camera. And going
[1:57:27] back to that previous example, you can
[1:57:29] get from Aenddale to Hayville, not hit a
[1:57:31] single flock camera. Um, but yeah, they
[1:57:34] would have to enter something.
[1:57:39] the agency sharing uh within the flock
[1:57:41] system. Law enforcement agencies that
[1:57:43] are contracted under flock can request
[1:57:46] and grant access to other agencies to
[1:57:48] share our data. And by data, what I mean
[1:57:51] is the searchability of a vehicle,
[1:57:53] location, a time, and a date. Um all
[1:57:55] requests have to be approved by myself
[1:57:57] and solid. So, uh we do share it with
[1:58:00] local agencies. We do share it with
[1:58:02] agencies throughout the US, but there's
[1:58:05] reason for it and
[1:58:07] it it's successful. It really is.
[1:58:12] » So you actually give them a access to
[1:58:16] search our data
[1:58:18] >> within reason. I have capabilities to
[1:58:21] restrict
[1:58:24] hot list. I can have capabilities to do
[1:58:26] search only. I have capabilities.
[1:58:28] Generally agencies when we share our
[1:58:30] data it is searchability only um and
[1:58:34] that's because again we got the hit from
[1:58:38] hateville we share our system with
[1:58:39] hateful PD going back to the incident
[1:58:41] from earlier this week shared
[1:58:44] reciprocates that shares it with us um
[1:58:47] and we were able to get that tag is it
[1:58:50] turned off or terminated
[1:58:53] so they always have access until I go in
[1:58:55] and physically remove
[1:59:00] Do you
[1:59:01] >> do I
[1:59:01] >> physically remove after you?
[1:59:04] >> No, I have not had a case where I needed
[1:59:06] to I felt like it needed to be removed
[1:59:09] and and and going back to and we'll get
[1:59:12] into some success stories here in just a
[1:59:13] second. Um
[1:59:15] the the sharing is reciprocated
[1:59:18] and I can only control my staff. Um,
[1:59:24] I understand some of the concerns that
[1:59:26] come along with that. Um, but you start
[1:59:30] cutting off partners because of one
[1:59:33] person. I I think it's more detrimental
[1:59:36] to the investigative tool that it
[1:59:38] actually has to offer to us, which has
[1:59:41] paid huge dividends for our city. Um,
[1:59:45] and obviously being a smaller city, I've
[1:59:47] been able to get more involved in this,
[1:59:50] and that's what I want to be is more
[1:59:52] involved with with our policy decisions
[1:59:54] and how we're operating and everything
[1:59:55] else. Um, you know, if a circumstance
[1:59:59] did arise, obviously, I would consider
[2:00:01] it. I would take action if I felt like
[2:00:03] it needed to be. Uh, currently, I just
[2:00:06] kind of [clears throat]
[2:00:08] >> So, would you get grant that access to
[2:00:10] one user or the whole agency? It's the
[2:00:13] agency and then the agency then has the
[2:00:15] ability to restrict
[2:00:17] what their staff or who similar to my
[2:00:21] tier three tiers.
[2:00:23] >> So we can share it but my line level
[2:00:25] officers and deputy chief branch and I
[2:00:28] cannot search
[2:00:30] Georgia. We cannot search anywhere. We
[2:00:33] can't even search our own campus. Um, so
[2:00:36] in a lot of agencies, I I have a feeling
[2:00:39] the discussion within law enforcement is
[2:00:43] looking at the restriction, who has the
[2:00:45] rights to search and what do those
[2:00:47] rights look like? And and you know, we I
[2:00:50] feel like we kind of got ahead of the
[2:00:52] curve and teared it off into that. And I
[2:00:54] think I had the reason to do it and it
[2:00:56] makes sense for us.
[2:01:01] » Let's see where we at. All right. So,
[2:01:03] the contract with plot uh signed January
[2:01:05] 2024,
[2:01:06] multi-year contract to provide 10 of the
[2:01:09] Falcons automated license plate readers.
[2:01:11] Uh the cameras were placed along Highway
[2:01:14] 278 within the residential area and
[2:01:17] along surface streets. Um basically the
[2:01:20] idea was to
[2:01:23] strategically place them where I can get
[2:01:26] see who's coming into the city. My
[2:01:29] concern are the criminal activities, the
[2:01:33] individuals that are, you know, that we
[2:01:35] would get alert from naturally that the
[2:01:37] vehicle is associated with a crime
[2:01:39] already stolen wanted individuals coming
[2:01:43] into the city that obviously I want to
[2:01:46] protect our citizens. That's the whole
[2:01:48] idea. So, most of the cameras are coming
[2:01:50] into the city along uh 278 with I
[2:01:54] believe it was two of the residential
[2:01:56] areas and one on the uh north side of
[2:01:58] 278.
[2:02:03] Last but not the least, um
[2:02:07] not trying to sell anyone on anything,
[2:02:09] but I think it's very important to hit
[2:02:12] where these were
[2:02:14] the the cameras provided us resources
[2:02:17] that we were able to close some cases
[2:02:21] that if we didn't have it, there's no
[2:02:23] those cases would be sitting in limbo
[2:02:25] right now. Victims would be not have
[2:02:28] closure or anything else. Uh to me the
[2:02:32] big two in two things are the first two
[2:02:36] we had two um residents of Aendale
[2:02:39] states with diminished uh mental
[2:02:41] capacity were reported missing on two
[2:02:43] separate incidents two separate people
[2:02:46] um one was located in Dawsonville
[2:02:48] Georgia because of flock uh we share our
[2:02:51] cameras with Dawsonville as soon as the
[2:02:53] person was met reported missing use
[2:02:56] block search for that tag and that
[2:02:58] vehicle they were last seen in it was it
[2:03:00] all up 75 into Dawsonville. Dawsonville,
[2:03:04] uh we were able to locate with the
[2:03:05] sheriff's department and return that
[2:03:07] resident's home safely. Uh one that was
[2:03:10] a little bit more recent, uh an
[2:03:12] individual had been not seen for about a
[2:03:15] week or two. A resident called in. Um
[2:03:19] the vehicle was located in a small town
[2:03:22] in North Carolina. Additionally, the
[2:03:24] resident was found wandering in the
[2:03:26] woods on the brink of hyperotherm
[2:03:29] block. You know, I'm not saying I'm not
[2:03:32] gonna say the what if game because
[2:03:33] there's no way to predict the future,
[2:03:34] but that one really hit home because we
[2:03:37] located the vehicle. The deputies set
[2:03:40] out a search area up in North Carolina
[2:03:42] and found this individual wandering in
[2:03:44] the woods. What would have happened if
[2:03:46] 12, 24, 48 hours would have passed? You
[2:03:49] just don't know. Um we had a robbery
[2:03:52] where all we had was a color make a
[2:03:54] model of a vehicle. We were able to
[2:03:56] locate that vehicle uh in East Point and
[2:04:00] additionally that we were able to
[2:04:01] identify the suspects make an arrest and
[2:04:03] those suspects were tied to additional
[2:04:05] robberies in East Point, Atlanta and
[2:04:07] South
[2:04:08] entering auto suspects um and attempted
[2:04:11] entering auto suspects. These are u
[2:04:13] numerous for us where if we get only
[2:04:16] have a description of a vehicle or a
[2:04:18] neighbor's ring camera that doesn't
[2:04:19] capture the tag but gets me a yellow
[2:04:22] Chevy Camaro. [clears throat] Plug that
[2:04:25] in there, start doing our searches. This
[2:04:27] is detectives doing these searches. Sure
[2:04:30] enough, that vehicle hit. Uh recently we
[2:04:33] were able to identify a vehicle within
[2:04:34] 24 hours with assistance with the cab
[2:04:37] over on Colombia. stop the vehicle,
[2:04:40] arrest the suspect, and decapitate them
[2:04:42] to almost 50 or 60 additional entering
[2:04:45] autos the night they hit two of our
[2:04:47] residents. So, reoccurring criminal
[2:04:49] activity and then theft damage to
[2:04:52] property where the ring camera of the
[2:04:53] resident,
[2:04:55] you know, captured the vehicle again,
[2:04:57] make model, were able to track them
[2:04:59] down, affect an arrest in a short amount
[2:05:01] of time to where that individual
[2:05:02] couldn't come back and or the victim had
[2:05:05] closure, so on so forth. These are just
[2:05:07] a few. Um,
[2:05:09] I could go on and on for hours with some
[2:05:14] of the success stories that we've had
[2:05:16] because of Flock. And these are success
[2:05:18] stories that it's not taken away from
[2:05:21] the boots on the ground where the
[2:05:22] detectives doing the investigative work.
[2:05:24] They're still using the doing the
[2:05:25] investigative work. still have to go in
[2:05:27] front of a judge. But this is a tool
[2:05:30] that they're now using that we're able
[2:05:32] to link criminal activity across
[2:05:35] jurisdictional boundaries, solve cases
[2:05:38] and fractions of times without this in
[2:05:41] without this system could potentially
[2:05:44] limbo for years with no workable leads.
[2:05:49] But again,
[2:05:52] » um, okay. So, now that we've we've
[2:05:56] learned about the program itself, I
[2:05:58] wanted to talk about the contract just
[2:06:00] briefly. Uh, the way it worked was that
[2:06:04] um,
[2:06:06] we entered into essentially a 4-year
[2:06:08] contract with Flock Safety with an opt
[2:06:12] out after two years, which we chose not
[2:06:15] to do because of its success. Um,
[2:06:20] the way it works is you're essentially
[2:06:21] leasing the equipment. So, we have 10
[2:06:25] cameras. [clears throat]
[2:06:26] To lease each one of those cameras over
[2:06:29] a year's period is $3,000
[2:06:31] >> per camera.
[2:06:32] Correct. So, it's a $30,000
[2:06:37] um lease deal a year. U we our contract
[2:06:42] expires in 2028, the first quarter of
[2:06:46] 2028.
[2:06:47] Uh so that would be our opportunity to
[2:06:53] um either continue to lease the product
[2:06:56] and enter into a new contract or to
[2:06:59] remove the product without penalty.
[2:07:02] Now I have noticed um just reading news
[2:07:07] stories from across the country uh that
[2:07:10] cities are terminating the contract
[2:07:13] during the contract period. Um, and some
[2:07:17] of those cities are paying the remainder
[2:07:20] of the contract and some of those cities
[2:07:22] are arguing breach a contract in order
[2:07:24] to not pay the remaining uh uh value of
[2:07:28] that contract. Um, I can't speak to
[2:07:33] um
[2:07:35] whether or not we would be potentially
[2:07:38] successful in
[2:07:41] um removing ourselves from the financial
[2:07:43] burden if we were to terminate that
[2:07:45] contract early.
[2:07:47] uh depends on you know
[2:07:51] what that decision would look like what
[2:07:53] we would what the discussions with flock
[2:07:56] itself would be whether we take legal
[2:07:59] action or anything like that. Um so
[2:08:02] essentially uh we go ahead and pay for
[2:08:07] that
[2:08:09] annual lease rate early in the year. So,
[2:08:12] from a financial standpoint, we are
[2:08:14] currently 3/4s of the way done with the
[2:08:17] contract. Um, so, uh, let's just say you
[2:08:22] decided that you no longer want to be
[2:08:24] associated with Flock and you wanted to
[2:08:26] terminate that contract effective
[2:08:28] immediately. If we weren't able to reach
[2:08:30] an agreement with Flock or take
[2:08:32] successful legal action, we would owe
[2:08:35] $30,000
[2:08:37] um, to fulfill the terms of that
[2:08:39] contract.
[2:08:41] um plus lose the back third of the value
[2:08:45] that we've already spent for um
[2:08:49] you know the contract to date this year.
[2:08:52] Uh now we are we did not bring this to
[2:08:55] you in order to necessarily engage in a
[2:08:58] discussion about whether or not to
[2:09:01] continue the use of the block safety
[2:09:03] program. We didn't want to necessarily
[2:09:06] make that assumption. We just wanted to
[2:09:08] start the conversation by informing you
[2:09:11] and the general public how we use the
[2:09:14] program. Uh and really to also make it
[2:09:18] very clear that we
[2:09:22] very much understand the concerns of the
[2:09:25] general public, any concerns you may
[2:09:27] have and the potential pitfalls that are
[2:09:30] associated with the product. Like Chief
[2:09:32] has said um there is no way currently
[2:09:37] uh to address how another agency or the
[2:09:41] members of that agency would use the
[2:09:43] product if we allowed them to access the
[2:09:45] product if they are a block subscribing
[2:09:48] agency. Um those are some of the things
[2:09:53] that uh Chief Hess will be involved in
[2:09:57] discussing
[2:09:58] uh with Senator Alers and the potential
[2:10:02] formation of this task force in order to
[2:10:05] provide
[2:10:07] um you know a regulatory framework that
[2:10:09] has you know teeth to it. Um we're not
[2:10:14] there yet. I do believe there's a
[2:10:17] meeting tomorrow to begin that
[2:10:19] discussion. Correct. Um
[2:10:22] so uh
[2:10:25] that's where we stand contractually.
[2:10:29] Uh
[2:10:31] obviously I think you know if if a
[2:10:34] regulatory framework existed to uh
[2:10:38] remove the concerns that we in fact have
[2:10:43] about other abuse by other potential
[2:10:47] agencies who subscribe. Uh that would
[2:10:49] allay a lot of our concerns. Um however
[2:10:53] we're, you know, to to be candid, we're
[2:10:56] not there yet. Um and you have seen uh
[2:11:00] localized abuse. I mean uh Chief S uh um
[2:11:05] we we we discussed the you know the CAP
[2:11:10] had had to place multiple officers on
[2:11:13] leave for unauthorized searches. Um you
[2:11:17] know this happens in other
[2:11:18] jurisdictions. Uh it hasn't happened
[2:11:21] here. Uh, of course, the way we we try
[2:11:24] and guard against that is with our
[2:11:27] weekly audit program. Uh, knowing that,
[2:11:30] you know, uh, if somebody were to violate,
[2:11:36] uh, the policy that we have in place and
[2:11:39] that they have signed to adhere to that,
[2:11:41] they would be subject to serious
[2:11:43] disciplinary action. Um so uh that is
[2:11:49] the proactive approach we're taking. We
[2:11:52] realize we can't ensure other agencies
[2:11:54] are taking that proactive approach.
[2:11:56] That's why we are participating in
[2:11:58] creating a regulatory framework to
[2:12:00] ensure that happens um at least across
[2:12:03] the state of Georgia. Um but uh you know
[2:12:08] like uh a resident stated earlier this
[2:12:11] technology is still very new. Um, you
[2:12:15] know, our use of it is new. A lot of use
[2:12:18] by other cities, not only in Dicab
[2:12:21] County, but the state of Georgia and
[2:12:23] nationwide are new. Um, so, you know, it
[2:12:26] we are unfortunately in a kind of learn
[2:12:30] as you go process from a legal
[2:12:32] standpoint about how we address some of
[2:12:35] these concerns. But um that being said
[2:12:39] uh I think it is important for us to
[2:12:42] continue having this discussion with the
[2:12:44] public, having this discussion amongst
[2:12:46] ourselves. um to weigh uh you know the pros versus the cons. uh to
[2:12:55] understand, you know, um
[2:12:59] you know, what value we want to place on
[2:13:04] uh being able to close cases and make
[2:13:07] arrests that we wouldn't otherwise be
[2:13:10] able to with the use of the system
[2:13:12] versus, you know, potential, you know,
[2:13:15] privacy value lost by uh residents who
[2:13:19] live here. So, I think that's the
[2:13:22] conversation. uh we're very much open to
[2:13:24] it and um you know want to be as
[2:13:28] transparent as humanly possible uh with our residents and you know visitors
[2:13:34] to this city you know not not just our
[2:13:37] residents are affected um it's anyone
[2:13:40] who travels through here really it's
[2:13:41] anyone who travels through Dicap County
[2:13:43] because um if you'll recall and I think
[2:13:47] uh Graham and Mike have just joined the
[2:13:50] council when we began considering this
[2:13:54] um was that uh you know we at that time
[2:13:59] we actually existed as a whole in the
[2:14:01] system where um you know other law
[2:14:05] enforcement agencies around us already
[2:14:07] had the system installed. We didn't. So
[2:14:10] there was kind of a loss of
[2:14:11] investigative capability as vehicles
[2:14:14] entered and exited uh at states. So um
[2:14:18] that's why we brought this to you all
[2:14:21] tonight. We want to, you know, make sure
[2:14:24] that the public understands that we get
[2:14:26] where a lot of their concerns are coming
[2:14:29] from. We want to be, we want to have an
[2:14:31] open, honest discussion about it. Um,
[2:14:36] that's led us to this point.
[2:14:40] >> Uh, you said it's 3K per camera. Do we
[2:14:43] have any software maintenance expense or
[2:14:46] data storage?
[2:14:47] >> So, we had a no a contract. We had an
[2:14:50] installation expense when we first
[2:14:52] contracted the equipment, but the
[2:14:54] entirety of the program is built into
[2:14:56] each camera.
[2:14:58] >> So, $3,000 per camera includes the use
[2:15:02] of the software in order to,
[2:15:05] you know, execute searches for
[2:15:07] >> okay,
[2:15:08] >> the data.
[2:15:08] >> Um, so am I understanding that this is
[2:15:11] not video, this is like it's taking
[2:15:13] pictures.
[2:15:15] >> They are snapshots in time. So, so, uh,
[2:15:18] like Chief Bev said, um, they are
[2:15:21] location, date, and time specific and
[2:15:24] stamped to that effect. Um, and, uh, the
[2:15:28] cameras that we have, and of course they
[2:15:31] block offers different products, but the
[2:15:33] cameras that we have takes pictures of
[2:15:36] the rear of vehicles only.
[2:15:39] >> And we have a specific vendor that we
[2:15:41] work through or
[2:15:42] >> it's Flock.
[2:15:43] >> It is Flock.
[2:15:44] >> Yeah. Flock. This is their product.
[2:15:46] Okay. Um, just one last question. Sure.
[2:15:48] Uh, how many agencies would you say have
[2:15:51] access to our system?
[2:15:57] » I was just looking at it yesterday. Um,
[2:16:00] I think we're at
[2:16:04] most and I will let me just preface
[2:16:06] this. Most of them are in the southeast.
[2:16:10] Um, mostly Georgia. I would say probably
[2:16:14] 80 plus percent are shared access in
[2:16:17] Georgia. We do have uh several in
[2:16:21] Florida. Uh we do have Alabama, North,
[2:16:25] South Carolina, Tennessee, Southeast
[2:16:27] mainly. Um I feel like the the ones that
[2:16:30] are outliers, we had a case that kind of
[2:16:34] went up to Maryland, so we added the
[2:16:37] states between Georgia and Maryland. Uh
[2:16:39] we had a case that went out to Arizona.
[2:16:41] So we started adding and reciprocating
[2:16:44] those out to Arizona. So you know I
[2:16:48] review every one of them. Matter of
[2:16:49] fact, I had three this morning and all
[2:16:51] three were from Georgia that just
[2:16:53] actually came on board with Flock that
[2:16:56] are fairly close like
[2:16:59] >> the access is case specific though,
[2:17:01] right? They don't have blanket access,
[2:17:02] right?
[2:17:03] >> No, they they would have to they would
[2:17:05] have to do the search data input to be
[2:17:07] able to search our campus. And when you
[2:17:09] do that, you can do your cameras, you
[2:17:11] can do within 50 miles, you could do
[2:17:13] state of Georgia. So you, you know, when
[2:17:17] you're searching, we limit our searches
[2:17:19] to what do we need? You know, we're not
[2:17:22] going to search New York City just to
[2:17:24] search New York City. get out.
[2:17:29] >> So, I'm a little confused on the you
[2:17:31] have to have a case, but if somebody's
[2:17:32] coming in from another, you know, place,
[2:17:36] they're not going to have a case number.
[2:17:38] I mean, don't understand that.
[2:17:40] >> So, every agency can set their own
[2:17:42] parameters within Flock. and and I I
[2:17:45] don't want to misspeak so I may have to
[2:17:47] follow up with you on that because I I
[2:17:50] will say Flock has been adding a lot of
[2:17:53] the audit tools that we we used to do
[2:17:56] audits by hand. Now they have an audit
[2:17:59] tool in addition to us still doing
[2:18:01] audits by hand. Um and th those systems
[2:18:04] they're bringing on audit system. So if
[2:18:07] you don't mind I can get you an answer
[2:18:08] tomorrow. I just don't want to misspeak
[2:18:10] about what's required on all agencies.
[2:18:16] >> Um, thank you, Chief H, for the
[2:18:19] presentation and for all the
[2:18:23] work that you've done and safeguard
[2:18:27] try to make our use of it responsible.
[2:18:30] Um, I just have like a couple questions
[2:18:33] and you might not know the answer to
[2:18:34] this one, but even if it's a even
[2:18:36] [clears throat] if I know we only
[2:18:37] subscribe to the, you know, moment in
[2:18:39] time snapshot, but do the cameras that
[2:18:41] we have, are they capable of taking
[2:18:44] pictures of other things like people and
[2:18:47] things like that, even though we don't
[2:18:49] have access to it because we don't pay
[2:18:50] for it.
[2:18:51] >> The only thing that triggers that photo
[2:18:52] is a view.
[2:18:54] >> Okay,
[2:18:54] >> the cameras, and this is something I may
[2:18:56] probably should have put in there. So,
[2:18:57] the cameras are in the rightway of the
[2:18:59] roadway.
[2:19:00] >> Yep.
[2:19:01] >> Way the cameras are angled, they're not
[2:19:02] angled at the sidewalk. They're angled
[2:19:04] into the roadway to be able to capture
[2:19:06] that. Now, I will say that
[2:19:11] >> you may get a a more down the road
[2:19:14] picture of a sidewalk because the angle
[2:19:17] that the the the wide ang the angle of
[2:19:19] the camera capturing it,
[2:19:21] >> right? But it would be a car car that
[2:19:24] would happen to be somebody on the side.
[2:19:27] Well, my my other question is like what
[2:19:31] would it mean like let's say we get rid
[2:19:34] of our flock ch what would it mean for
[2:19:36] our city to be a no flock zone in the
[2:19:40] middle of a area that is heavily blocked
[2:19:43] like could it could let's say somebody
[2:19:46] commits a crime
[2:19:47] >> and they know I know I've driven by 10
[2:19:50] blockheads getting away from the scene
[2:19:52] of the crime could they theoretically
[2:19:55] then ditch that car somewhere in Adele
[2:19:57] states, steal another car, then get out
[2:20:00] of Adale.
[2:20:02] >> Hey, Mike.
[2:20:03] >> That that's kind of a loaded question.
[2:20:05] [laughter] I mean, don't get me wrong. I
[2:20:07] mean, we can throw a theory out. Yeah,
[2:20:09] that's a theory.
[2:20:10] >> Yeah.
[2:20:10] >> Um,
[2:20:11] >> but like,
[2:20:12] >> do I want to give that much credit to a
[2:20:13] criminal?
[2:20:14] >> Yeah,
[2:20:14] >> probably not. But
[2:20:16] >> what what it is is
[2:20:20] >> we're a whole in a network. And right I
[2:20:23] will tell you the cab county we work
[2:20:26] very closely together all of our
[2:20:27] municipalities
[2:20:29] >> and Susan went on board our first
[2:20:31] agencies that were approved were the cab
[2:20:33] county agencies capdo marshals you know
[2:20:38] >> the municipalities um
[2:20:40] >> it it pays dividends across the board
[2:20:42] and you know don't want to get into
[2:20:44] speculation but you know that that's
[2:20:46] just something that's only only the
[2:20:49] future would know is if we were to
[2:20:51] become another void weekend. Um because
[2:20:54] every agency in the cab minus Pine Lake
[2:20:58] >> is a subscriber to
[2:21:00] >> so Clarkston
[2:21:01] >> Clarkston
[2:21:04] » everybody not to mention the caps county
[2:21:08] actually has very robust robust system
[2:21:11] um and
[2:21:13] >> yep and and you're seeing all the the
[2:21:15] flock is feeding into real time crime
[2:21:17] centers on these bigger cities that have
[2:21:20] a need and create these real time crime
[2:21:24] Yeah.
[2:21:27] >> Um, Chief, are you because I know some
[2:21:29] of the concerns that have been um talked
[2:21:32] about
[2:21:34] concerns like legality and and privacy
[2:21:37] concerns and are you able to elaborate a
[2:21:40] little bit on like the legal hurdles
[2:21:42] that allow Flock to even run this model
[2:21:44] in the first place? So you know what the legal things that they pass and
[2:21:51] what's passed and you know to because we
[2:21:54] do have private laws and place and
[2:21:57] stuff. Can you elaborate on on some of
[2:21:59] those concerns and what was what
[2:22:01] measures were
[2:22:02] >> yeah? Um
[2:22:06] the arguments that have been made in
[2:22:08] district courts and that's where it's
[2:22:09] been at now are fourth amendment fourth
[2:22:12] amendment
[2:22:14] illegal search and seizure to capture
[2:22:16] that data. Um those arguments have been
[2:22:20] struck down by circuit courts. Um there
[2:22:23] are still several pending to include the
[2:22:25] one in our circuit um and it'll be the
[2:22:28] first one that's heard out of Florida.
[2:22:31] The way that the the way the rulings
[2:22:34] have geared is to be a Fourth Amendment
[2:22:38] illegal search and seizure. They're
[2:22:40] arguing the track versus the snapshot
[2:22:44] and time.
[2:22:46] When a citizen is in public in a public
[2:22:49] space to include a roadway,
[2:22:52] they do not have a right to privacy. Uh,
[2:22:55] it goes back to you see videos of First
[2:22:58] Amendment auditors that stand on a
[2:22:59] sidewalk and videotape shopping center
[2:23:01] trying to get a reaction because you
[2:23:03] have no right to privacy when you're in
[2:23:05] a public space. Um, the roadway
[2:23:08] specifically, you have no right to
[2:23:11] privacy preventing an officer running
[2:23:13] your tag just to run your tag. Um,
[2:23:17] that's been ruled on as well. So what
[2:23:20] Flock is virtually doing is doing what
[2:23:23] any officer could do at any time and
[2:23:25] capturing that data and getting that
[2:23:28] return and if it's on a what we call a
[2:23:30] hot list wanted stolen vehicle wanted
[2:23:33] stol wanted person missing person
[2:23:36] associated with other criminal activity
[2:23:38] that falls in that category.
[2:23:41] It's capturing that and basically doing
[2:23:42] an officer's job. Um, I don't want to
[2:23:46] pinch and hold myself, but it is a huge
[2:23:48] force multiplier for a 14 person police
[2:23:51] department in metro Atlanta
[2:23:54] that it really is. Uh, now I also
[2:23:58] respect everyone's right to privacy. I
[2:24:00] mean, when I take the uniform off and
[2:24:02] I'm out with my family, you know, if
[2:24:04] someone were to throw a video camera up
[2:24:05] my face in public, I wouldn't react.
[2:24:08] But, I mean, would it kind of burp me?
[2:24:10] Yeah, I respect that. But that's where
[2:24:13] [clears throat] we're at with the
[2:24:15] current federal case laws, current
[2:24:18] circuit court rulings.
[2:24:20] Can that change in time? We all know one
[2:24:24] of these cases go to Supreme Court.
[2:24:26] justices rule differently.
[2:24:28] It changes the whole scope of that. But
[2:24:30] until that happens, we work in the here
[2:24:33] and now of that this is all public
[2:24:36] information. It's the right privacy.
[2:24:38] It's not tracking your vehicle as I
[2:24:40] explained before because it's a moment
[2:24:42] in time at a specific location. That's
[2:24:44] why [clears throat] if I were to put a
[2:24:46] GPS tracker on your vehicle, I would
[2:24:48] have to have a warrant to place that
[2:24:51] tracker to track your vehicle and
[2:24:54] actually give me where your vehicle's
[2:24:56] travel. Flock doesn't do that. The ALPR
[2:24:59] system does not do that. Let me
[2:25:00] reiterate, I'm only talking about what
[2:25:02] we have.
[2:25:05] It's a moment in time. It's a snapshot
[2:25:07] on a public roadway in a vehicle where
[2:25:10] you're legally required to have a
[2:25:12] registration a tag on that vehicle.
[2:25:17] » Thank you.
[2:25:20] >> I've got a question.
[2:25:23] So, first thank you for you personally, for your activity
[2:25:27] with your your organization with the
[2:25:29] chiefs of police and with your demeanor
[2:25:32] and the way you talk about this and the
[2:25:35] way you consider it because it's clear
[2:25:38] that you are seeing it holistically. You
[2:25:41] are aware of personal, private, big
[2:25:46] picture and small picture concerns.
[2:25:48] you've given examples of lots of
[2:25:50] different ways where it could go in in
[2:25:52] different directions. So, thank you for
[2:25:53] that. I really appreciate the way you
[2:25:55] address this. So, I have a two
[2:25:58] questions. One is about retention time
[2:26:00] frame and one is about a technical
[2:26:03] specific thing about camp. So I saw that
[2:26:08] the uh police chiefs of city of Decar
[2:26:11] did a similar presentation to their
[2:26:13] board and I think I also read I just
[2:26:16] can't remember where that the flock
[2:26:18] systems has changed their maximum
[2:26:21] retention day to 7 days instead of 30
[2:26:24] days
[2:26:26] for not for cases like when it's in a
[2:26:28] case it can keep going but just for like
[2:26:31] the raw data let's say can you comment
[2:26:35] on
[2:26:36] So
[2:26:39] that [clears throat] specific retention
[2:26:40] period has come up in some preemptive
[2:26:43] conversations leading into some of these
[2:26:45] future meetings we're going to have with
[2:26:48] GACP and GSA sheriff's chief
[2:26:51] associations
[2:26:52] um is further reducing that time limit
[2:26:56] down shorter. Um
[2:27:00] I personally what I have seen is
[2:27:05] reducing it down to 7 days may be a
[2:27:07] little bit too much. The reason being is
[2:27:11] we may be investigating a case and we
[2:27:15] may not have that vehicle information
[2:27:17] for six days. We may not only get that
[2:27:21] vehicle information till day seven.
[2:27:24] Could I see it being reduced? Yeah, I
[2:27:27] think seven days is a little bit much.
[2:27:29] I'm I'm open to discussions with my
[2:27:32] peers as we move forward working with
[2:27:34] the um legislators.
[2:27:37] I think seven days is too little. And
[2:27:39] also think about prime example of this
[2:27:42] is how many of y'all go for a vacation
[2:27:44] for a full week? That's seven days. You
[2:27:47] come home and you realize your house is
[2:27:49] fertilized. You have Ring cameras. You
[2:27:52] didn't see the alert. It captured the
[2:27:54] vehicle.
[2:27:56] day eight you're reporting that burglary
[2:27:58] or day seven in the you know 11 hour
[2:28:02] you're reporting that burglary and that
[2:28:04] data is gone and that's what I'm looking
[2:28:07] at is in a perfect world we have vehicle
[2:28:10] information in real time in a real world
[2:28:13] situation most of our cases we're not
[2:28:15] developing those leads of a vehicle for
[2:28:18] several days so seven days I've seen it
[2:28:23] and you know And I'm preparing for some
[2:28:26] of these meetings, I'm going to be
[2:28:27] talking to my criminal investigators and
[2:28:30] kind of seeing what their timeline is on
[2:28:32] when they're developing realistic leads
[2:28:34] because we don't want to go every, you
[2:28:37] know, black SUV. We want to make them
[2:28:39] up. You know, we may not get that
[2:28:42] Cadillac Escalade till day seven or day
[2:28:44] eight. Um, that's kind of where I'm at
[2:28:47] with that.
[2:28:49] >> Okay. Okay. And then just a practical
[2:28:51] camera question like you mentioned
[2:28:53] uh when the system's installed or when a
[2:28:56] camera is installed or if the future
[2:28:58] camera were to be installed, do you
[2:29:00] personally get an opportunity to see the
[2:29:03] angle or view that that that camera has?
[2:29:05] >> Yeah. So basically in the um coding
[2:29:09] phase, the development before approval,
[2:29:12] um they have to send a scout team out.
[2:29:14] Um I give them I give them locations
[2:29:17] where I would like them. um those
[2:29:19] cameras are solar powered. So they have
[2:29:21] to send a scout team out and they have
[2:29:22] to do some map work on the back end to
[2:29:25] make sure that it's going to generate
[2:29:26] enough solar power.
[2:29:28] Additionally, it gives me a snapshot um
[2:29:31] of what that angle would look like
[2:29:34] before install and then after install.
[2:29:37] We can see it in real time and we can
[2:29:39] also make adjustments. I mean that
[2:29:40] that's the thing too is they they have a
[2:29:43] an angle downward angle because they're
[2:29:46] up on holes as well as like an angle
[2:29:48] away from the road that they maintain
[2:29:51] for their system to be effective. I know
[2:29:53] that, you know, many people would prefer
[2:29:55] to just maybe not have it, but if there
[2:29:59] is an an if there were a camera in a
[2:30:02] what someone might consider a sensitive
[2:30:03] location, like near a school, if there
[2:30:06] was other places where it could be, if
[2:30:07] it could be moved 50 feet and still
[2:30:09] operate function, is is there an
[2:30:11] opportunity to consider that?
[2:30:13] >> Yeah. If there was a concern, a
[2:30:15] reasonable concern if even if it's just
[2:30:17] to feel better and feel like the school
[2:30:20] is not in the field of view, for
[2:30:22] example,
[2:30:23] >> absolutely and that could be done. Um, I
[2:30:25] will just caveat that with uh once the
[2:30:29] cameras are in place and everything is
[2:30:31] good to go. There is a cost associated
[2:30:33] with moving the equipment. To me, it's
[2:30:35] minimal. It's anywhere between $500 to
[2:30:38] $1,500 based on location and everything
[2:30:40] else.
[2:30:41] um you know th those can be considered
[2:30:43] and dealt with after installation.
[2:30:46] >> Thank you.
[2:30:50] » Okay.
[2:30:51] >> Thank you, Chief H.
[2:30:54] >> Thank you.
[2:30:55] >> All right.
[2:30:56] Uh let's move to the next
[2:30:59] item since I know there's people here.
[2:31:02] Um
[2:31:05] » Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So uh the dicab
[2:31:10] municipal association which is the
[2:31:12] association of municipal governments
[2:31:15] within the capab county. So all of the
[2:31:18] cities of the cab county have a um
[2:31:22] working group to discuss items of mutual
[2:31:27] relevance.
[2:31:29] And uh one of the the
[2:31:33] items of mutual relevance,
[2:31:36] though unlikely and far into the future,
[2:31:40] if ever considered, would be the
[2:31:43] complete municipalization of the cab
[2:31:46] county, meaning that uh either existing
[2:31:50] cities would expand their boundaries or
[2:31:52] new cities would be created to remove
[2:31:55] uninccorporated areas of Dicab county.
[2:31:59] Now, the likelihood of that happening,
[2:32:02] um, as the mayor and I understand
[2:32:05] politically, is about 0%.
[2:32:09] Um
[2:32:10] however uh as an exercise
[2:32:15] uh the BMA executive director has asked
[2:32:18] all of the municipalities
[2:32:20] to provide a map of its
[2:32:25] ultimate aspirational
[2:32:28] annexation goals if there were no
[2:32:31] political hurdles.
[2:32:34] um so that
[2:32:36] Brook the city of Brook Haven who has a
[2:32:40] u robust GIS system can plot all of
[2:32:43] that. The reason to do that is so that
[2:32:46] if this ever came to fruition uh we
[2:32:49] would have a head start on those
[2:32:51] discussions and not uh be embroiled in
[2:32:56] inner city conflict.
[2:32:59] Uh so
[2:33:01] what I am proposing to submit to the
[2:33:05] Dicap Municipal Association for this
[2:33:08] exercise purpose is the study map that
[2:33:11] we developed in 2018 with the Carl
[2:33:13] Vincent Institute. And I've included
[2:33:16] that map uh in your packet.
[2:33:21] The map is a little out of date because
[2:33:24] uh some of some of the area that we
[2:33:28] studied for annexation purposes has
[2:33:30] already been annexed i.e. Berkeley
[2:33:33] Village. Um so my thought was to provide
[2:33:40] DMA with this map for the purposes of
[2:33:42] their GIS exercise knowing that this is
[2:33:46] not a decision point for you guys. It's
[2:33:49] not a decision point that will happen
[2:33:52] anytime in the near future or something
[2:33:54] that the county is interested in taking
[2:33:56] on with the state legislature or
[2:33:59] anything that the state legislature is
[2:34:01] actually interested in taking. So, uh I
[2:34:05] say that to say that our submission is
[2:34:10] likely um just for for show purposes.
[2:34:14] Now, what could become a reality
[2:34:18] and the CEO has expressed interest in in
[2:34:22] the fans is that there are what we kind
[2:34:27] of refer to as donut holes in already
[2:34:30] incorporated areas where you have
[2:34:35] a a property or an assemblage of
[2:34:38] properties that still exist as
[2:34:41] uninccorporated within the normal
[2:34:44] boundary. of the incorporated area and
[2:34:46] we have two of those. Um the first is
[2:34:51] Aendell Station Apartments
[2:34:53] and the other is the American Legion
[2:34:56] property. Uh now the CEO has expressed
[2:35:00] an interest because it's difficult for
[2:35:02] them to provide services to these
[2:35:05] properties within the boundaries of
[2:35:07] cities. So she she has expressed
[2:35:10] interest in hearing uh a case from the
[2:35:14] municipalities for incorporating
[2:35:17] existing donut holes. Uh I don't know if
[2:35:21] what her interest level is. I
[2:35:23] [clears throat] don't know whether or
[2:35:25] not uh the state legislature would share
[2:35:28] that interest because it would have to
[2:35:30] be a legislative annexation. Uh just to to clarify with you guys, there's
[2:35:35] only two ways that a city uh can
[2:35:38] accomplish a leg an annexation outside
[2:35:41] the bounds of of state legislation and
[2:35:44] that is through either the 100% method
[2:35:46] or 60 method to
[2:35:51] uh brush you up on that those processes.
[2:35:53] The 100% method means that a property
[2:35:56] owner with a you know who has control of
[2:35:59] an entire property says we want to annex
[2:36:02] into uh the city and if the city is
[2:36:06] interested in that proposition from that
[2:36:08] property owner and it's contiguous then
[2:36:10] the city can grant that annexation
[2:36:13] petition. There's also another method
[2:36:16] for neighborhoods called the 6060
[2:36:19] method. This is
[2:36:21] >> yeah 60 no it's 606 it's 60 and I'll
[2:36:27] explain
[2:36:28] >> okay so so the 6060 method for
[2:36:32] neighborhoods so prop individual
[2:36:34] properties owned by multiple you know
[2:36:36] you have more than one owner such as
[2:36:38] what happened with Berkeley Village 60%
[2:36:42] of the property owners in that area and
[2:36:44] 60% of the registered voters in that
[2:36:47] area have to sign the annexation
[2:36:49] petition for you guys to even consider
[2:36:52] the action. Um, so, uh, needless to say
[2:36:57] again, what I'm proposing to submit to
[2:37:00] DMA is really just for exercise purposes
[2:37:03] only. And uh uh I you know I propose
[2:37:08] revising this map uh to to uh exclude the need or the want or the
[2:37:16] desire for Berkeley Village which is
[2:37:19] already in the case.
[2:37:20] >> This was the map you did in 2018.
[2:37:22] >> Yeah, those were areas we studied for
[2:37:25] potential addexation noting that that
[2:37:26] would be uh the the far reaches of
[2:37:31] boundary expansion.
[2:37:33] That's correct.
[2:37:43] And if we if one other thing to uh speak
[2:37:47] to
[2:37:49] um was that potential municipal conflict
[2:37:52] earlier. So let's just say we reduced
[2:37:58] these areas. uh that would provide a
[2:38:02] greater opportunity for your neighbors
[2:38:05] in Clarkston or Decater to try food
[2:38:08] those are. So you want to be as um
[2:38:13] aspiration
[2:38:17] but like Patrick said I mean I think the
[2:38:19] chances of something like this happening
[2:38:22] are pretty slim.
[2:38:24] I mean the county has no I mean other
[2:38:27] than these donut holes you mentioned you
[2:38:28] mentioned which are this really
[2:38:30] departments of the American Legion
[2:38:32] there's no reason for the county to want
[2:38:33] to do this I mean they're just you know
[2:38:37] why would they do it it's like
[2:38:39] >> think they would be very opposed to
[2:38:41] >> they would I mean unless they're
[2:38:42] spending more on services in that area
[2:38:44] than they're collecting in taxes which
[2:38:46] is rare I mean I don't know maybe it's
[2:38:48] not but generally that's not something
[2:38:51] they're super interested
[2:38:56] um
[2:38:57] there would be some advantage to them
[2:38:59] municipalizing themselves for the entire
[2:39:02] southern part of the county because they
[2:39:03] collect a whole other range of taxes
[2:39:05] that don't currently collect
[2:39:08] >> and um but the argument for that is not
[2:39:12] actually that great either. Um and there
[2:39:15] would be probably some serious
[2:39:17] opposition to that. I mean, there was an
[2:39:19] effort for years to municipalize the
[2:39:21] whole southern part of the county and it got a tiny bit of traction, but it
[2:39:25] eventually fizzled out after years of
[2:39:29] effort.
[2:39:30] And um
[2:39:34] you know,
[2:39:36] I think if if if we could gain some of
[2:39:39] these properties like the Legion and the
[2:39:41] apartment complex, that'd be great. That
[2:39:43] makes sense. there's been an indication
[2:39:46] that the countyy's interested in doing
[2:39:48] that because again they're
[2:39:51] the cost of servicing those is I guess
[2:39:54] in their mind not really worth it and there's a lot of those in the county
[2:39:59] and um they probably studied that and
[2:40:02] said hey you know it's not going to be a
[2:40:03] big big enough hit for us these cities
[2:40:06] need it we don't want it you know works
[2:40:09] out better
[2:40:12] but like Patrick said to not participate
[2:40:14] in this could be falling in. Well, you
[2:40:17] just you never know. But
[2:40:19] um because the legislature changes
[2:40:21] frequently and what the legislature was
[2:40:24] 10 years ago or 12 years ago is not what
[2:40:26] it is now and that change and the
[2:40:30] who knows. Um yeah. So we're just trying
[2:40:34] to
[2:40:37] as we've done many times before just
[2:40:39] make sure we put our claim in.
[2:40:42] Um,
[2:40:45] so
[2:40:46] >> that's it.
[2:40:46] >> Is that fair where we are?
[2:40:48] >> Yes.
[2:40:50] >> So,
[2:40:52] you know, so I mean,
[2:40:54] >> y'all are all good if I send
[2:40:56] >> We have
[2:40:57] >> Yeah.
[2:41:00] >> Um,
[2:41:01] this is probably at least the third time
[2:41:04] we've done this.
[2:41:07] Like, okay, let's try it again. Why not?
[2:41:09] You know, so let's see. Um but uh anyway
[2:41:15] I got nothing more.
[2:41:16] >> That's it.
[2:41:16] Okay. So any other we take a
[2:41:20] two three minute break.
[2:41:22] >> Sure. Two minute break.
[2:41:23] >> All right.
[2:41:25] >> She's counting. Don't count.
[2:44:19] We have um
[2:44:22] you know covered all of our discussion
[2:44:25] items and so public comment. We're now
[2:44:29] open for public comment. If you see the
[2:44:31] thing three minutes, please give us your
[2:44:33] name and address just for the record. Uh
[2:44:35] yes, Phil. Uh Phil 891. Um
[2:44:41] been ordered about regarding the golf
[2:44:45] cart ordinance. Um I
[2:44:48] would basically agree that keeping the
[2:44:53] game fast 16 I guess makes sense. Uh
[2:44:58] but
[2:45:00] I would like
[2:45:05] counselor and
[2:45:08] to explore
[2:45:10] mechanisms for giving uh police force a
[2:45:15] greater opportunity to actually do
[2:45:18] policing on golf carts because I from
[2:45:21] what I am seeing which included I think
[2:45:24] yesterday
[2:45:25] someone ing with a baby strapped to
[2:45:28] their chest um in a golf ball. U that
[2:45:35] some some greater form of enforcement I
[2:45:38] think is necessary to keep uh something
[2:45:40] from happening because obviously even
[2:45:42] with the roads occurring people are not
[2:45:46] uh the existing laws and raising the age
[2:45:50] is going to change that. Uh then uh
[2:45:54] regarding the the clock system
[2:45:57] I would encourage
[2:45:59] to continue the current uh in the
[2:46:03] current contract. Uh and but be very
[2:46:06] cognizant of what is doing to make the
[2:46:10] security
[2:46:13] to eliminate abuse of the program. Uh
[2:46:16] and then hopefully having that
[2:46:19] information available
[2:46:21] the decision on whether to renew it and
[2:46:23] thank the chief for having a really good
[2:46:26] policy for us and uh hopefully influence
[2:46:29] any building policies for uh statewide
[2:46:32] task force and then I will say with a
[2:46:35] great amount of relief uh I'm happy to
[2:46:38] hear that it was an exercise only for
[2:46:41] the annestation because uh and seeing
[2:46:46] Gam and discussing it to my better half.
[2:46:50] Uh I was very very worried about what an
[2:46:54] increase in geographical size of of the
[2:46:58] what's being shown there uh would be to
[2:47:00] the the character of our city as a
[2:47:03] whole. Thank you.
[2:47:05] >> You go on.
[2:47:10] Yes, ma'am.
[2:47:11] >> Hi, I'm Laura Whan. I'm SFDA executive.
[2:47:14] Uh thank you chief foration. I very much
[2:47:17] appreciate that. Um two things strike
[2:47:20] me. Um thank you for putting some guard
[2:47:23] rails in place more of our
[2:47:27] appreciate that. Uh two things that were
[2:47:31] said. Um chief you said that
[2:47:34] approximately 300 agencies beyond Avenue
[2:47:38] have access to our
[2:47:41] chat. I don't know if you looked at me,
[2:47:43] but my mouth dropped open like a fish
[2:47:45] when you said that. Um because it
[2:47:46] doesn't go away. That's the fight that
[2:47:49] concerns. I realize that your control
[2:47:51] over here you said and is true. you
[2:47:56] don't have a woman as if using it in
[2:47:59] appropriate use in other places that is
[2:48:04] um I ask you to think about not having
[2:48:08] revoking or limiting that access because
[2:48:11] that is extreme
[2:48:13] you can control what happens here.
[2:48:18] Um and then Patrick you mentioned and
[2:48:21] maybe chief as you can speak to this if
[2:48:24] this is an if someone violates the
[2:48:26] policy prison
[2:48:29] inappropriate use
[2:48:31] here Patrick you mentioned discipline I
[2:48:35] want to know what that is and can you
[2:48:38] think
[2:48:41] >> let me just point this is public comment
[2:48:43] and we try not to engage in sort of a
[2:48:47] debate or dialogue and we're recording
[2:48:50] your questions and can get back to you,
[2:48:53] but we can't always answer everything on
[2:48:55] the spot and we try to avoid that. So,
[2:48:59] >> comment with more dialogue than
[2:49:01] >> it's not it's actually there, but I'll
[2:49:03] do Yeah, we've done that in the past,
[2:49:06] but it doesn't work.
[2:49:09] >> So, if you're able to get back to me,
[2:49:11] how will that
[2:49:12] >> you'd have to give us your email or
[2:49:15] >> I can go back. We have comment
[2:49:19] there.
[2:49:20] >> So the comment on it will be responded
[2:49:24] to.
[2:49:25] >> Okay. Thank you.
[2:49:26] >> And that's just to be fair to everyone.
[2:49:28] So
[2:49:30] >> um yes ma'am.
[2:49:32] >> Um my name is Diane Dhy and I'm uh live
[2:49:36] in the condos and I'm also a member of
[2:49:39] Aendale Action.
[2:49:42] I'm very concerned about what you had
[2:49:45] said. I I loved your presentation.
[2:49:48] I'm very satisfied with the uh work of
[2:49:51] Aenddale
[2:49:53] um police, but what I am concerned and I believe the local structure is
[2:50:00] being framed properly with a with uh
[2:50:05] benchmarks
[2:50:06] so that you could look back and see how
[2:50:09] this is working. My large concern is of
[2:50:12] um is building a larger surveillance
[2:50:15] network. And at any point in time,
[2:50:21] we couldn't stop it.
[2:50:23] And I would like to know whe uh when you
[2:50:27] go to these meetings with the senator, I
[2:50:30] think it's really important to have
[2:50:32] everybody understand that even if there
[2:50:35] is oversight in Georgia, this is much
[2:50:39] larger than one state or the southern
[2:50:43] states and we have to keep in mind the
[2:50:47] broader picture of what is going to um
[2:50:51] be the final outcome.
[2:50:53] as laws change.
[2:50:56] So I think it's it can be a very good
[2:50:59] thing, but a lot of times when you build
[2:51:01] something that is this massive and
[2:51:04] grows,
[2:51:06] I think it could become something that
[2:51:08] is uh um out of that can get out of
[2:51:12] control
[2:51:14] and could come back to bite us.
[2:51:17] Thank you all and thank you for your
[2:51:19] efforts.
[2:51:28] Okay. Uh, yes, ma'am. Back there. And
[2:51:31] then,
[2:51:32] >> yeah. U, my name is Paula Rose. I'm at
[2:51:34] 842 Stratford. And I was not planning to
[2:51:38] speak tonight, so I don't have anything
[2:51:40] prepared, but I did want to say I came
[2:51:42] into it, uh, as many people have already
[2:51:45] said, not necessarily concerned about
[2:51:47] the AEPD.
[2:51:49] Um, and thank you, Chief Hess. What you
[2:51:51] said tonight really just confirmed that
[2:51:54] we, you know, we don't necessarily have
[2:51:56] anything to be worried about locally.
[2:51:58] That being said, my bigger concerns are
[2:52:01] with Flock as a company and not just
[2:52:04] Flock, but also their competitors. Um,
[2:52:08] the idea that they the data just
[2:52:11] disappears after 30 days.
[2:52:14] Maybe I'm cynical, but I don't believe
[2:52:16] that.
[2:52:17] >> [laughter]
[2:52:19] >> And that's that's the concern that I
[2:52:21] have. It's not even not not Aenddale and
[2:52:24] maybe not even, you know, some of the
[2:52:26] other access, which is a concern, but my
[2:52:28] bigger concern is is the bigger picture,
[2:52:31] the flock, what they're doing with it,
[2:52:34] what other companies are working with
[2:52:36] them to do with it, what governments are
[2:52:37] working with them to do. Um, whether
[2:52:40] it's under the table or above the board.
[2:52:44] >> Thank you. Pleasure.
[2:52:46] Great.
[2:52:48] Uh
[2:52:50] yeah.
[2:52:50] >> Hey there. Uh my name's Ethan. I live at
[2:52:52] 315 Stratford Green. Um I believe you
[2:52:56] are a good man. I appreciate you
[2:52:58] preparing this presentation. Cheap pets.
[2:53:00] The gap in your logic is yes. Perhaps
[2:53:02] now. This seems on the up and up. I
[2:53:04] understand you want to focus on the now.
[2:53:06] You reiterated that many times. You said
[2:53:08] you don't want to play the what if game.
[2:53:10] Then why have the risk? You do seem
[2:53:12] ready to focus on what if when we're
[2:53:14] talking about a 7-day limit. Why is this
[2:53:17] different? Why should we trust SLO? What
[2:53:19] if the policy changes in the future?
[2:53:22] >> Yep.
[2:53:22] >> Shouldn't the purpose of the chief of
[2:53:24] police be to be forward thinking for
[2:53:26] assessing risk and leading by example?
[2:53:28] Wouldn't you want a leader with
[2:53:30] accountability?
[2:53:31] Why should we trust Flock to look out
[2:53:33] for that in those states? Cities in
[2:53:36] Colorado have canceled their Flock
[2:53:38] cameras and are taping garbage bags over
[2:53:40] the cameras because Flock won't take
[2:53:42] them down. Does that seem like a vendor
[2:53:44] we can trust for our city?
[2:53:46] >> Speak on it.
[2:53:47] >> I'm skeptical of the claim that we don't
[2:53:49] that they don't track roots as these
[2:53:51] cameras are everywhere. It doesn't
[2:53:53] matter what route you are taking if they
[2:53:55] are tracking the points where you are.
[2:53:57] Also, your hateville point is flawed
[2:54:00] because if you take 285 block doesn't
[2:54:02] monitor interstates yet. You can get to
[2:54:05] Aenddale to hate because it's on 285.
[2:54:07] Otherwise, Atlanta is the most surveiled
[2:54:10] state in the country.
[2:54:13] There's a lot in your in lot of
[2:54:14] information in your presentation about
[2:54:16] what's happening now, but we are worried
[2:54:19] about how these systems will may be
[2:54:21] abused now and in the future. I hope you
[2:54:24] will join us in being proactive and
[2:54:27] thinking about a better world that we
[2:54:29] would like to live in.
[2:54:31] >> Thank you.
[2:54:36] » Yes. Well, again, thank you for the
[2:54:39] presentation. I do really appreciate
[2:54:41] steps you've taken locally. You seem
[2:54:43] like you've been proactive more than
[2:54:45] what was required to be on top of a lot
[2:54:47] of these concerns. I think it's clear
[2:54:49] not everywhere has. Um but beyond just
[2:54:53] potential for abuse, I also want to just
[2:54:55] talk about what even the company does on
[2:54:57] the surface. I understand that it's
[2:54:59] taking still pictures, not technically
[2:55:03] tracking you, but if there's cameras at
[2:55:06] every corner, you can see here, here, that paints a very clear picture.
[2:55:11] I understand the cameras are not
[2:55:12] everywhere right now, but the push seems
[2:55:14] to be to install more and more of them
[2:55:16] and expand them to get to that point
[2:55:20] that is effectively tracking.
[2:55:23] Um, even the distinction with still
[2:55:24] pictures between videos, a video is just
[2:55:27] a lot of still pictures. If you put
[2:55:29] enough still pictures together, you get
[2:55:31] a very clear picture. It might not be 24
[2:55:33] frames per second. It might be one frame
[2:55:35] per second, one frame every 10 seconds.
[2:55:37] You can still clearly see what's going
[2:55:40] on with that. Um,
[2:55:43] this creates a database on everyone that
[2:55:45] passes in front of these cameras whether
[2:55:47] they committed a crime or not just in
[2:55:50] the database ready to be looked up. I
[2:55:52] think regardless of a technicality, I
[2:55:55] know it's a legal gray area currently
[2:55:57] going through the courts. I think that
[2:55:58] makes a lot of people uncomfortable.
[2:56:02] Um, I also don't really believe the
[2:56:05] company's claims about still photos and
[2:56:07] only tracking vehicles. Not in Evan
[2:56:10] states, but in other places in Georgia,
[2:56:12] there's lot cameras in parks, on walking
[2:56:14] trails, places where cars would never
[2:56:17] be. If all they can do is take pictures
[2:56:20] of videos, what are those cameras doing?
[2:56:23] It just doesn't seem to add up. The
[2:56:26] company has been publicly called many, times before. I don't know why we
[2:56:31] really trust them.
[2:56:41] Greg Tendler, 712 Stratford Green.
[2:56:45] >> Uh, Will Kidd, uh, 13 South Avenue
[2:56:48] Plaza. Uh, thank you for addressing some
[2:56:50] of our concerns, Chief. I just been
[2:56:54] wondering throughout all of this in
[2:56:55] discussion of lock cameras. Why would
[2:56:58] like an a more analog type of traffic
[2:57:00] camera not be sufficient? one that is
[2:57:03] not included on this enormous nationwide
[2:57:07] database with so many points of access
[2:57:10] to so many different people who we have
[2:57:12] no idea who they are. So that's that
[2:57:16] makes sense.
[2:57:17] >> Thank you.
[2:57:20] >> Yeah, Phil,
[2:57:22] Philip Pavish, 3230 Kensington. My whole
[2:57:25] career has been in IT, so I just want to
[2:57:27] talk about kind of the IT concern I
[2:57:29] have. Um
[2:57:31] I don't know about flock. I don't know
[2:57:32] about the company how good they are but
[2:57:35] once they deliver data to somebody
[2:57:37] they've lost control of it. So the claim
[2:57:39] about 14 days for 30 30 days of data
[2:57:42] retention. Yeah you lose ability to
[2:57:43] search but once it's out there it's out
[2:57:45] there. And so if the data go you know
[2:57:47] prints screen captures you know copy
[2:57:50] paste whatever. We live in a world of
[2:57:52] aggregation where people are taking all
[2:57:54] this data about us and putting it all
[2:57:55] together about where we shop and what we
[2:57:57] do and photos. So once that data is
[2:57:59] delivered to the customer, the data
[2:58:01] retention, it's not a moot point, but
[2:58:03] it's a lesser point. So I just want
[2:58:04] people to remember that once it
[2:58:06] delivered, it's delivered. And the data
[2:58:08] retention doesn't really stop that.
[2:58:10] Thank you.
[2:58:16] » Yes, ma'am.
[2:58:18] [clears throat]
[2:58:19] >> Um, hello. I'm Ashley Kinger. I also
[2:58:23] live at 3154 Stratford Green.
[2:58:26] Uh, I understand that you find the block
[2:58:29] system is successful, but I wonder if
[2:58:31] it's worth all of us living in a
[2:58:33] surveillance state. Uh, while you say
[2:58:36] it's a snapshot, the success stories are
[2:58:38] because it tracks people across the
[2:58:40] state and over state lines. A system
[2:58:43] across our country is being built that
[2:58:45] have tracked women looking for abortion
[2:58:47] care, have stalked women, have stopped
[2:58:49] activists and protesters. What else will
[2:58:52] it track in the future? and our cameras
[2:58:54] contributes to this system. It would be
[2:58:57] easier to arrest people without the
[2:58:59] Constitution, without needing a warrant,
[2:59:01] without having to prove just cause. Just
[2:59:04] because these cameras make your job
[2:59:06] easier doesn't mean they're right.
[2:59:09] [clears throat]
[2:59:10] It's the scale and connected network
[2:59:12] that makes it a violation. It's also our
[2:59:15] money and our community. uh we can say
[2:59:18] if we don't want to be photographed in
[2:59:20] public with our own tax dollars every
[2:59:22] time I go past the falcon.
[2:59:25] >> Thank you.
[2:59:33] » Yes, Adam Galludo 3048 open place. Uh
[2:59:38] back again still here.
[2:59:40] >> Um so the 7-day thing is a setting. You
[2:59:43] can revert it back to 30 days. It's just
[2:59:44] a default setting. Um, the DHS thing,
[2:59:47] check the email. It's a lot. Uh, the,
[2:59:50] uh, let's see, facial recognition,
[2:59:53] vehicle making model, those are full
[2:59:55] video sensors. They can do it. Raven was
[2:59:57] a gunshot detection system and then a
[2:59:59] software roll out turned it into a human
[3:00:01] distress detection system. It's all
[3:00:04] there. Whether or not they're giving it
[3:00:05] to us, that's a different question. Um,
[3:00:07] also Dunwy PD, they ran a search for a
[3:00:10] vehicle with a sticker. That's uh,
[3:00:13] that's more. Yeah, it's you can find
[3:00:15] this stuff. It's all been foyed. Um,
[3:00:18] let's see. I don't know about John
[3:00:20] Alvers. I don't know anything about him,
[3:00:21] but there's some interesting stuff
[3:00:23] online about uh Flock's access to Chris
[3:00:25] Carr or AG. So, I'd be surprised if
[3:00:28] Garrett doesn't show up at all meetings,
[3:00:30] honestly. Um,
[3:00:33] privacy argument is uh basically
[3:00:35] predicated on the fact that they're so
[3:00:38] disconnected, it's not tracking. Atlanta
[3:00:40] is not the most sur the correction on
[3:00:42] that is Atlanta is the most surveiled
[3:00:44] city in the world outside of China. We
[3:00:47] have 28 they have at least 28,000 flock
[3:00:49] cameras and AJC clocks it at 60,000. I
[3:00:52] just don't know if they're all connected
[3:00:53] to flock. So at some point how dense
[3:00:56] does it have to get before you are
[3:00:57] tracking? Um so this system wasn't built
[3:01:01] to be secure. It was built to make
[3:01:03] money. I'm glad they finally added
[3:01:05] multiple factor authentication and
[3:01:07] requiring case numbers, but they didn't
[3:01:08] before. Block is just plugging holes in
[3:01:12] a dam after they're found in a foyer
[3:01:14] request that makes a national news
[3:01:15] story. So, if I was wearing that badge,
[3:01:17] I would absolutely be arguing on how to
[3:01:19] use this ethically because it's very
[3:01:21] powerful and it's helpful, but we can't
[3:01:23] unfortunately. It's just bad. It's just
[3:01:26] a bad system and we cannot control how
[3:01:30] other people use it. So, we're part of
[3:01:33] this thing trying to use it well, but we
[3:01:35] can't control how everyone else is using
[3:01:37] it. And we can't know if the company is
[3:01:40] doing to us what they have
[3:01:42] demonstrabably done to other
[3:01:44] municipalities throughout. So,
[3:01:46] unfortunately, we just can't use it.
[3:01:48] It's a venture capital backed private
[3:01:50] firm in their series G funding round.
[3:01:53] >> They are uh what are they up to that we
[3:01:56] can't foil is basically the question.
[3:01:58] like how much policing do we have to be
[3:02:00] doing of block to make sure we are not
[3:02:03] participating in all these things we
[3:02:05] know that have already happened nations
[3:02:09] um yeah oh and and the cameras by the
[3:02:12] way I've walked by cameras uh that are
[3:02:14] pointed at kids parks um it's all there
[3:02:18] pools stuff like that it's it's all
[3:02:19] there thank you
[3:02:28] Yes.
[3:02:30] >> So, I won't reiterate my entire
[3:02:32] statement again, Lizzie Bourge, 712
[3:02:34] Stratford Green. Um, but as per the
[3:02:37] concerns mentioned in the regular
[3:02:39] session about ICE having access to us
[3:02:43] and I know that Flock says they've not
[3:02:45] contract with federal agencies, but if
[3:02:48] we can be compelled to work with ICE or
[3:02:50] DHS as per appendix F that was mentioned
[3:02:54] last meeting, then effectively our data
[3:02:56] is their data. But I do think we have to
[3:02:58] keep that in mind. We're thinking about
[3:02:59] security. This is I understand Chief
[3:03:02] Hess is doing everything he can to keep
[3:03:04] it safe within ABPD and I appreciate
[3:03:06] what you've done, but respectfully it's
[3:03:10] out of your hands. Thank you.
[3:03:21] » All right. Uh do we have any online?
[3:03:26] >> [clears throat]
[3:03:26] >> None.
[3:03:28] >> Okay. All right. Last call from the
[3:03:30] audience.
[3:03:32] >> Is anybody missing a phone?
[3:03:36] >> Oh,
[3:03:38] personal tracking device.
[3:03:43] » You don't think this thing is listening
[3:03:44] to everything today?
[3:03:46] >> Um, okay. Any other comments?
[3:03:51] Once or twice? Okay. Thank you all for
[3:03:55] being here. Thank you all for your
[3:03:56] comments and and waiting through three
[3:03:59] hours of meeting. I hope that it was
[3:04:02] worthwhile in some way for you. Do
[3:04:04] appreciate you being here this time with
[3:04:07] that. Any folks comments up here? We all
[3:04:11] >> Okay. So, do I have a motion to move?
[3:04:14] >> Do I have a second? Call say I
[3:04:18] >> Thank you all again.
[3:04:20] >> Have a good evening.