[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.

August 26, 2026 BOMC Regular Meeting and Work Session

Transcript