[0:05] A pledge of allegiance, please.
Pledge allegiance to the flag of the
[0:10] United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands, one nation
[0:15] under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all.
[0:23] » Roll call, please.
[0:27] » Beha, here. Young
>> here,
[0:30] » Dilling
>> here,
[0:31] » Neighbors
>> here,
[0:32] » Boone
>> here,
[0:33] » Doyle,
>> Adrien
[0:36] » here.
>> All right. First on the agenda, we have
[0:38] a proclamation, uh, September 2026,
Suicide Prevention Awareness Month. So,
[0:43] I'll read the proclamation here.
September is known around the United
[0:48] States as National Suicide Prevention
Awareness Month, and it's intended to
[0:51] help raise the visibility of mental
health resources and suicide prevention
[0:55] services available in our community. The
goal is to speak openly about the
[1:00] importance of mental health and the
impacts of suicide to help remove the
[1:04] surrounding stigmas and to direct those
in need to the appropriate support
[1:09] services. Suicidal thoughts can affect
anyone regardless of age, gender, race,
[1:14] orientation, income level, religion, or
background. And according to the
[1:18] American Foundation for Suicide
Prevention,
[1:21] suicide is the 11th leading cause of
death among adults and the second
[1:25] leading cause of death among individuals
between the ages of 15 and 34 in the US.
[1:31] 48,824
people died by suicide across the United
[1:35] States in 2024
with an average of 135 suicides uh
[1:40] completed daily and an estimated 2.2
million suicide attempts in the United
[1:45] States in 2024.
Each and every suicide directly impacts
[1:49] a minimum of a 100 individuals including
family, friends, uh co-workers,
[1:54] neighbors, and community members. The
Village of Manhattan is no different
[1:58] than any other community across the
country, but chooses to publicly place
[2:02] our full support behind local educators,
mental health professionals, athletic
[2:06] coaches, law enforcement officers, and
parents as partners in supporting our
[2:10] community and simply being available to
one another.
[2:15] National organizations like the American
Foundation for Suicide Prevention and
[2:19] Suicide Prevention Services are on the
front lines of a war that many still
[2:24] refuse to be discussed. As suicide and
mental health remain to uncomfortable to
[2:29] talk about, every member of our
community should understand that
[2:33] throughout life's struggles, we all need
the occasional reminder that we are all
[2:37] fighting our own battles. I encourage
all residents to take the time to check
[2:41] in with their family, friends, and
neighbors on a regular basis and
[2:45] honestly communicate their appro
appreciation for their existence.
[2:50] By any gesture uh they deem appropriate.
A simple phone call, a message, a
[2:54] handshake, a hug uh can go a long way
towards helping someone realize that
[2:59] suicide is not the answer. So I, Mike
Adrienson, mayor of the village of
[3:02] Manhattan and a board of trustees, do
hereby proclaim that September 2026 be
[3:07] designated as National Suicide
Prevention Awareness Month in the
[3:10] Village of Manhattan.
[3:15] » So [applause]
Shelley, would you like to say a few
[3:18] words?
[3:21] » Thank you.
>> Got to push the button. Uh, thank you
[3:25] Mayor Adrians L and Village Board for
allowing me to speak tonight and for
[3:29] continuing to recognize September as
suicide prevention awareness month here
[3:34] in Manhattan. Every September I stand
before you and I talk about suicide
[3:40] prevention. And every September I wish I
had a different reason for being here,
[3:44] but I don't.
Six years ago, my husband Chris and I
[3:48] lost our son Jackson. He was only 15
years old when he died by suicide.
[3:53] Jackson was much more than a way than
the way we lost him. He was our son, a
[3:59] brother, a friend, and a kid who had his
whole life ahead of him. He should have
[4:03] grown up, graduated, built a career,
fallen in love, and experienced all the
[4:08] moments that we know we will never get
to experience with him. One of the
[4:13] hardest things for us to accept is that
we didn't see it coming. There were no
[4:17] obvious warning signs, no red flags that
told us how much pain he was in.
[4:23] And that is something I want people to
remember. You may not always know.
[4:28] The person sitting next to you, the
teenager laughing with their friends,
[4:32] the coworker who shows up every day, or
the neighbor who says they're fine, may
[4:36] be struggling in ways we cannot see. And
this isn't just a national issue. It's
[4:43] happening right here in our community.
Over the past 12 months, Manhattan has
[4:48] had 12 documented calls related to
mental health crisises and three
[4:53] suicidal attempts. Those numbers are
more than statistics. Behind every call
[4:58] is a person, and behind every person is
someone who loves them. So this year, I
[5:04] want to leave you with three simple
words. Ask, listen, stay.
[5:10] Ask someone how they're really doing.
Listen without judgment. You don't have
[5:15] to have the perfect words or solve their
problems. Sometimes simply being there
[5:20] matters. And stay connected. Check on
the person who's been quiet. Call the
[5:25] friend you haven't heard from. Reach out
to someone who may be struggling. And if
[5:30] someone is in crisis, please remember
that help is available by calling or
[5:34] texting 988, the suicide and crisis
lifeline. After losing Jackson, our
[5:41] family wanted to find a way to turn our
heartbreak into something that could
[5:45] help other families. That's why we
created the Jackson Lewis Memorial
[5:49] Foundation. Through the foundation, we
work to keep Jackson's memory alive by
[5:54] promoting suicide prevention awareness,
supporting programs and help that help
[5:59] young people, and providing scholarships
to local students. We can't change what
[6:05] happened to Jackson. We can't bring him
back, but we can make sure his life
[6:09] continues to have meaning.
And maybe if sharing his story
[6:14] encourages one person to ask for help,
one parent to start a conversation, or
[6:20] one person to stay a little longer, then
Jackson's story can help save another
[6:25] life. That is what I hope about this
month. Not just talking about suicide,
[6:30] but talking about life, connection,
compassion, and hope. So please
[6:36] remember, ask, listen, stay. You never
know when those three things might make
[6:42] all the difference in someone's life.
Thank you.
[6:46] [applause]
[6:54] » Thanks, Mike.
>> Can someone take a picture for me,
[6:57] Kristen,
>> or do you want to come here? Can I not
[7:02] take your notes? [laughter]
[7:12] Thank you.
>> Can we have a group picture with you?
[7:14] » Can all my family and friends come over
to the
[7:24] » Thank you, Mike. Thank you, Lord.
[7:49] All right. So, next item on the agenda
is public comment. Um, we have uh let's
[7:55] see three so five people. We'll do the
same format. three minutes to speak and
[7:59] then um you know I'll I'll just kind of
give you a wave and see if we can wrap
[8:03] it up and then we do have the flock uh
issue on the agenda for open discussion
[8:08] so that could be after this but um
Philip Buck
[8:17] » all right thank you guys I'm going to do
my best to keep this under three minutes
[8:21] um it is regarding the flock issue but I
this is the format I set it up for so
[8:27] » um I'm going I read as fast as I can, so
don't ignore the heart behind it. Okay.
[8:32] All right. Uh, I'm here representing
over 250 individuals regarding the Flock
[8:37] uh contract here in Manhattan. Um, which
is um
[8:45] it's uh up for renewal. Um,
[8:51] many of which had far more colorful
language than I'm willing to use ever.
[8:55] So, um, I want to be clear that as a
resident of Manhattan, I am unwilling to
[8:59] compromise, uh, my beliefs on the
Constitution. Mass public surveillance
[9:03] is not, uh, um, a right uh, is not a
rightful place, uh, where I want and I
[9:11] want it removed. Um,
if for some reason this council decides
[9:16] to renew the flock LRP AR mass
surveillance camera systems, uh, we are
[9:22] asking that a referendum be put before
the city uh, so that the public has the
[9:26] ability to vote for it. Uh, a mass
surveillance system should not be chosen
[9:31] by uh, individuals. It should or by a
small body. It should be something
[9:35] chosen by the masses.
[9:39] Uh after speaking with much of the
leadership here, um there are several
[9:44] conclusions that I've come to. Uh the
first is that this is a rather
[9:48] unprecedent unprecedented
technology and needed further uh
[9:53] investigation prior prior to it being
installed. Um unlike Will County that
[9:58] has decided to go ahead and allow it and
I quote uh we'll write the rules later.
[10:04] No doubt that this is a powerful tool,
but there are many questions regarding
[10:08] its legality, ethics, safety costs, and
overall uh reduction costs versus crime.
[10:15] And then the distrust that's caused
between the community and the
[10:18] government.
This is uh a violation of my fourth
[10:23] amendment right. It does not uh require
a warrant for searches. My vehicle is my
[10:28] private property, my driving habits, my
whereabouts, my face, and many other
[10:33] items that these cameras can capture.
Storing personal data and allowing
[10:38] random uh for allowing random searches
later is a unconstitutional unwarranted
[10:44] search. A breach of my privacy and often
turn in turn ends up becoming more
[10:50] illegal activity like stalking, which we
have seen
[10:55] most recently. We've seen it here in
Will County.
[10:59] The system violates uh oh, sorry, let me
jump down. Uh for those who would say
[11:04] that there is no right um to privacy in
public, I would say the system far
[11:09] surpasses that ideology as it does not
just it's not just a camera that takes a
[11:14] photo of a license plate, but it's a
database that is designed to create and
[11:20] monitor people that are
everyone whether criminal or not,
[11:25] innocent or not.
For those who say that there are already
[11:30] these devices in place like ring
cameras, ring cameras are privately
[11:34] owned, private property and generally
unless given over require some form of
[11:39] warrant.
>> And I I'll just say that three minutes
[11:42] is coming to an end.
>> I'm really sure.
[11:44] » Okay. And you're certainly welcome to
say that in the discussion, too.
[11:47] » Yeah, absolutely. I've just got two
paragraphs last. Um,
[11:54] everyone here, um,
I'm jumping down so I can synopsis very
[12:01] quickly.
[12:04] Everyone here just pledged allegiance to
the flag of the United States of
[12:07] America. And I'm going to quote, um, one
nation under God with liberty and
[12:11] justice for all. There is only one power
on this planet that has the right to
[12:16] monitor where everybody is at any given
time, and that's God himself. So unless
[12:21] this body is deciding that is higher
than God and higher than the
[12:24] constitution, I'm asking for it to be
removed and or at very minimum be voted
[12:29] on by the public.
>> Thank you.
[12:34] Corey Buck.
[12:43] » That'll be Cody Buck.
>> Oh, [clears throat] Cody, I'm sorry. I
[12:47] apologize.
Good evening. I uh spoke at the last
[12:51] meeting regarding fault cameras. Uh
since then, I've learned quite a bit and
[12:56] given even more reason and questions as
to why Manhattan should continue using
[13:00] the system.
Last time I came looking for answers,
[13:04] tonight I want to address what those
answers and the questions still
[13:07] unanswered actually mean.
Since then, we've identified eight
[13:11] apparent fraud cameras within Manhattan.
while the transparency information
[13:15] reports 15 LPR and other cameras associ
associated with this area.
[13:21] I'd like some clarification on what
those 15 cameras represent, who owns or
[13:25] operates them, and what access Manhattan
police has to the information they
[13:29] collect. We're also told Manhattan isn't
sharing its flock data with other
[13:33] jurisdictions. Yet, the transparency
information appears to show Manhattan
[13:37] receiving information from outside
jurisdictions. So, what exactly does
[13:41] quote unquote not sharing mean?
Can Manhattan search other communities
[13:45] data? Can outside agencies obtain ours?
And does every outside request require
[13:51] Manhattan's permission?
Then there's individual misuse.
[13:56] I'm not asking whether policies prohibit
an officer from abusing the system. What
[14:01] actually prevents an authorized
individual from abusing it? Who
[14:04] proactively audits searches? And are
residents notified when the information
[14:09] is improperly accessed?
[14:13] And my concern doesn't begin and end
with Faulk. Flock is one company. LPR
[14:18] networks, automated cameras, AI assisted
searches, and other surveillance
[14:22] technologies will continue advancing.
We're not simply deciding deciding
[14:27] whether we trust Flock today. We're
establishing what level of surveillance
[14:30] Manhattan is willing to normalize
tomorrow.
[14:35] If these systems gain new capabilities
or if lock is replaced by something more
[14:39] powerful, what requires another public
discussion or vote? And if something
[14:43] legal today becomes illegal tomorrow,
what binding safeguard prevents this
[14:47] infrastructure from being repurposed to
identify or locate residents to enforce
[14:51] a future law this community considers
fundamentally unjust?
[14:56] I'm not asking whether you would do that
today.
[15:00] I'm asking what prevents someone from
doing it tomorrow.
[15:05] And before I finish, I think there's a
larger question of public consent.
[15:09] A decision involving surveillance and
the collection of information about
[15:12] people's movements affects this entire
community, not simply the people
[15:17] participating in one meeting.
Something with consequences this broad
[15:22] deserves a method of public input
equally broad.
[15:26] The people of Manhattan should have a
meaningful say in whether this is
[15:29] something we want in our community at
all.
[15:32] I don't believe the answer is another
compromise or another policy promising
[15:36] these cameras will will only be used
respectfully and responsibly.
[15:41] These systems are capable of far too
much for that to be enough. You can give
[15:47] us safeguards today, but what prevents a
future board, police administration,
[15:51] company or legislation legislator from
changing or removing them tomorrow? Once
[15:57] the surveillance infrastructure exists,
the rules can change without rebuilding
[16:01] a single camera. So I am asking for one
of two things. Remove the LPR camera
[16:06] system or put its continued use before
the people of Manhattan and let us vote.
[16:11] If this system truly has the support of
this community, then give the community
[16:14] of the choice.
>> Thank you.
[16:22] » All right. Next up, Nicole B.
[16:31] Hi everyone. I'm Nicole Bach. Uh I'm a
businesswoman uh locally here. Uh an
[16:37] avid world traveler. Um and right now a
really proud mama because uh how often
[16:43] do you see a kid that age uh just
turning into adulthood decide to really
[16:48] care about his community and nation. So
I'm really proud of that. Um I've also
[16:51] been really happy to call Manhattan
home. Um, and it's just more recently
[16:56] that I woke up to turn left from my home
and find a whole lot of flop cameras
[17:00] outside of it, which frankly really
shocked me for the kind of community
[17:04] that we are. I was very surprised. Not
surprised, maybe some other places, but
[17:08] really surprised when it hit Manhattan.
So, I I'll keep this brief. Um, I have
[17:12] five main reasons I'm against mass
surveillance. Uh, and then I might
[17:16] digress just a tiny bit from there. One,
creating a database. We're creating a
[17:20] database that it's probably not even
constitutional to search. Two, it's mass
[17:25] interjurisdictional sharing of
information. Three, false
[17:29] identification. There's been a lot of
instances of it. Just because your car
[17:32] happens to be similar, make a model.
You're guilty now before you can be
[17:35] proven innocent. That's not the American
way. I think that's the Mexican
[17:38] government does it that way, right?
That's not the American way. Four,
[17:42] misuse is not hypothetical anymore.
We've had many instances of stalking,
[17:46] domestic abuse, uh, just recently in low
county like Phil said. And five, it's a
[17:52] really slippery slope. And that's
probably my biggest issue with it
[17:55] altogether is it's a very slippery
slope. So I said I was a world traveler.
[17:59] I've even lived in a communist country
before. So I'm just going to paint a
[18:03] picture and let us just think through
what we might be ready for. And I want
[18:06] us to start asking questions and really
think it through if we're ready for all
[18:09] this.
Are we ready for every road become a
[18:14] toll road? If it can take your license
plate, it can take a toll. So that 54%,
[18:19] you know, hike on the toll road, guess
what? that now can be on every street.
[18:23] Manhattan has a drone. Are we ready to
put those kind of cameras and that kind
[18:26] of technology and AI on drone systems?
Are we ready for that? Are we ready for
[18:30] guilt until proven innocence? Are we
ready for stalking, especially of women
[18:35] and children? How about retaliation for
political disscent or disagreement?
[18:40] Are we ready for for the environment
just like we were ready for for our
[18:45] health or for our safety? Those are the
slippery slope concerns that I have
[18:49] regarding a mass surveillance system.
Additionally, I have one last issue. We
[18:54] have said over and over, and that's why
my family has been so supportive of this
[18:58] administration, is that we don't want
Springfield involved in our Manhattan
[19:02] government. We want independence. We
don't want Springfield to tell us what
[19:05] to do. We don't want Will County to tell
us what to do. We certainly don't want
[19:08] our governor to tell us what to do. We
don't want Chicago telling us what to
[19:11] do. We want to be independent. But yet
we were so quick to take free checks and
[19:17] cameras from the state attorney. We were
so quick to align oursel with Will
[19:20] County. And to me that's double speak.
And I'm it's a misalignment in terms of
[19:24] what we said we and who we said we
wanted to be and what we're actually
[19:27] doing. Thanks for your time.
>> Thank you.
[19:36] » Gillum. Is that pronounced right?
>> Sounds good.
[19:46] Bart Gilliam is my name and I can't
believe that I'm doing this. When I left
[19:51] my previous job retired, I said I am
never standing in front of the board
[19:56] again. And here I am standing before a
board. But the reason I'm here today is
[20:02] a not really a local issue. If I had a
local issue, I've brought in local
[20:06] issues up to Mr. Tikeke before and
they've been addressed immediately.
[20:10] However, I'm uh very concerned about a
situation that I ran into yesterday or
[20:16] yeah, it was yesterday. Last evening, I
saw a woman trip and fall in the
[20:22] intersection right here by the bank. She
fell in a pothole
[20:28] uh right in the right in the crosswalk.
And I know that the board has
[20:32] connections with obviously I do DOT
because of all the new signage and the
[20:37] the safety things they put in place
already. I know the board has
[20:40] connections with ID do and to put cold
patch in that little hole that's there.
[20:45] They've done it before, but it comes
right back out again. And it's to me um
[20:51] um it's a safety hazard for sure that
could be immediately addressed rather
[20:55] than waiting to talk about it at a a
strategic planning meeting, which I
[21:00] understand there's some going to be
coming up. Unfortunately, I don't think
[21:03] I can make those meetings. So there were
just a couple of things I wanted to
[21:08] bring up that could put into people's
mind when those meetings occur. And
[21:12] number two thing that I had and the I
mean you you can't miss the hole when
[21:18] you every time you make a right-hand
turn off of 52 onto Foxford, you thunk
[21:22] your back tire. So it it's there. So, if
they can get some some cold patch or not
[21:29] cold patch, I'm sorry, hot mix asphalt
with some type B primer on it, maybe
[21:35] make that suggestion to your contacts at
IDOT. That cold patch isn't going to
[21:39] stay there. It's going to become a
hazard right over again. So, if maybe we
[21:43] can get that fixed. And then just I one
thing that I want to say when those
[21:48] strategic meetings come up,
I would like the village to consider
[21:55] looking at the hot spot. When you go
down by the bridge by Siko here, every
[22:00] time I go down there and I see kids
crossing that bridge, it's like a
[22:04] glowing hot spot. It's something's going
to happen there.
[22:10] We're we're funneling people down the
sidewalk to a trip hazard right on the
[22:16] bridge and it's right on the pavement.
So, I've made a suggestion before that
[22:22] maybe there's a park grant, an ADA grant
available where we can put a pedestrian
[22:29] foot bridge
before that goes over the creek and
[22:34] redirect them away from the roadway.
Maybe I do has a bridge inspection
[22:39] report that's not good and they need to
redo the bridge. Maybe we can make it
[22:44] safer then. But maybe look at a grant
through a ADA or something because it's
[22:50] you can't get a wheelchair obviously
over there. Uh I've seen mothers with
[22:55] wagons that have difficult time getting
through there. So please take a look or
[23:00] consider looking at a pedestrian foot
bridge. You've seen them. They have
[23:05] them. They're all over the place.
They're metal bridges with wood decking
[23:09] and they're sloped for handicap. So
maybe there's a way we can redirect that
[23:15] sidewalk. Put a bridge over there. And
because I think the village may own that
[23:20] property on the other side of Ziko
across the street, there's an empty lot.
[23:23] Maybe they own that there. Maybe we can
make that really safe over there.
[23:28] Um, other than that, maybe a buffer
along 52 here by the the McDonald's and
[23:34] stuff. But hey, thanks for your time. I
appreciate all you what you're doing and
[23:39] hopefully we can get something going on
that. I don't know why I came up here.
[23:43] Somebody pushed me up here. So,
>> thanks.
[23:47] » Thanks for listening.
>> Thank you for coming. Thank you,
[23:51] » Nancy Honeyut.
[23:55] [clears throat]
[24:00] Good evening. I'm Nancy Honeyut. I've um
live in Century East. I've been a
[24:05] resident, a happy resident of Manhattan
for 37 years. Um I just want to talk to
[24:10] you a little bit about the changes in
our water bill that went through this
[24:13] year. Um we got our water bill this past
this past month and my bill was $651.
[24:21] Now, I always know in June, June, July,
and August, we occasionally have to fill
[24:26] our pool. Um, and we have a sprinkling
system and we water our garden, and we
[24:30] do that every other day. So, I always
have had higher bills in June, July, and
[24:35] August, but couldn't understand how it
could be $300 more than our last year's
[24:41] bill. So, when I looked at our bills, I
realized that there were two two price
[24:45] hikes that um were incurred this year.
Um that put our water alone up over 30%
[24:52] of what it was last year and the sewer
is up almost 6%. But that probably
[24:58] wasn't the biggest impact. With with
that alone, it brought us from $12.58
[25:03] per thousand gallons of water to almost
$15 per per um thousand gallons. I
[25:09] looked into changes in the sewer. Well,
last year I and you're very well aware
[25:13] because you changed the uh the
guidelines here um there was a cap at
[25:18] 10,000 gallons um of water for sewage.
So if you watered your grass or you
[25:23] filled your pool, you weren't getting
charged sewer because it's obvious th
[25:28] that water does not end up in the sewer.
But I guess in in earlier this year, the
[25:32] board made a ch a change to get rid of
that cap for June, July, and August. And
[25:38] so people like me who like to maintain a
nice yard and have to and like to garden
[25:43] will end up paying $600 over $600 um a
month for my water bill. Um I'm retired.
[25:50] One of my hobbies is gardening. I love
gardening. We love keeping a nice lawn.
[25:55] Um but I think this is a burden to
anybody who wants to do that. Um, the
[26:00] village has had multiple [clears throat]
enormous projects from the beautiful
[26:05] junior high to the um the huge fire
station and the the pumping station
[26:11] that's just down the block from me that
went in that's enormous. Um, and these
[26:15] are all aesthetically beautiful,
but as a resident, I'm being prevented
[26:21] from beautifying my own property because
I'm paying so much for water that isn't
[26:27] even going into the sewer. I actually
feel that that's a little bit illegal
[26:31] because, you know, as my husband and I,
we are the only ones living in our
[26:34] house, okay?
There's no way that we use between 35
[26:40] and 39,000 gallons of water to maintain
our bodies and clean our home. And my
[26:47] normal bills are um I are like around
6,000 gallons of water. So all of this
[26:52] is going into our yard. So why when it's
obvious that this this water is not
[26:59] going to the sewer, we're paying we're
paying for the uh for all of that water
[27:04] in our sewage. it it doesn't make any
sense. There there are also options. I
[27:09] don't understand why the cap was taken
off June, July, and August. Uh are we
[27:14] having to fund other things within the
village by by raising that? Because
[27:20] that's the that's all where all of our
money is going. Um, there's two options
[27:26] to to I would like you to consider
either putting the cap back on just for
[27:30] June, July, and August or or letting
people install deduct um meters. Now,
[27:37] » okay. So, um that's at the three
minutes, but if you if you want to
[27:40] finish up and then we're certainly glad
to uh you know, work with you on this
[27:44] after the meeting or
>> Okay. Um that that is my ask. Um, if you
[27:49] would consider the the deduct meters,
um, I have the policy that New Linux
[27:54] has. You know, the village will supply
it. You pay the $300 for it and install
[27:59] it because
personally, my water bill would pay for
[28:03] that deduct meter in one month. And I
think it's not right that we aren't
[28:07] allowed to to um, water our lawns. We
want a beautiful community, but we don't
[28:12] want you don't want us to be able to
afford to make it beautiful.
[28:18] Thank you.
[28:23] [clears throat]
>> All right.
[28:27] » All right. So, first item on the agenda
is a consent agenda. It consists of
[28:30] August 18th, 2026 village board meeting
minutes. Uh approval of September 1st,
[28:35] 2026 bills list. If anyone would like
any of these items pulled from the
[28:38] agenda for further discussion. If not,
looking for a motion to approve. Consent
[28:43] agenda.
Motion.
[28:46] Second
>> roll call, please.
[28:51] » Yes.
>> Young,
[28:52] » yes.
>> Staling,
[28:53] » yes.
>> Neighbor,
[28:55] » yes.
>> Bone,
[28:56] » yes.
>> Doyle.
[28:59] » Okay, motion carries. Uh, next item is
under new business, a resolution
[29:03] approving a final plat of subdivision
for Oakidge subdivision phase 2. Uh this
[29:08] is the Prairie Trails development
proposing um the subdividing to 12.76
[29:13] acres uh just south of Ranch Oaks for 16
residential lots. Um all lots
[29:20] [clears throat] meet the village's
minimum requirements. Uh drainage and
[29:22] detention will be utilized by the
existing Prairie Trail Ponds uh with
[29:26] additional drainage uh along Arabian
Trail, Arabian Avenue. The planning and
[29:31] zoning commission unanimously
recommended this uh previously so they
[29:35] approved it. So, if anyone has any
further discussions,
[29:39] uh, you know, would like to discuss it
further. If not, looking for a motion to
[29:42] approve a resolution for a final plan of
subdivision for Oakidge subdivision
[29:47] phase 2.
>> Motion.
[29:51] » Second. [clears throat]
>> Okay. Roll call, please.
[29:55] » M,
>> yes.
[29:57] » Dyl, [clears throat]
>> yes.
[29:58] » Neighbors,
>> yes.
[30:00] » Boom.
>> Yes.
[30:01] » Doyle.
>> Bina,
[30:04] » yes.
Okay, motion carries.
[30:08] [clears throat]
[30:14] [clears throat]
[30:18] » Sorry, I just want to make sure I don't
have to read a bunch of numbers. Um, so
[30:22] this next item is a resolution objecting
to special use permits for certain
[30:26] property located unincorporated county
within one and a half miles of our
[30:30] corporate boundaries. Uh, 15520 West
Baker Road. Uh the village is uh
[30:35] proposing that we formally object to the
county special use permit for 51 acre
[30:40] solar farm with battery storage at the
northeast, I'm sorry, the northwest
[30:44] corner of Baker and Eastern uh with site
access from Eastern Avenue. A public
[30:49] hearing is scheduled for September 15th
before the Ro County Planning and Zoning
[30:53] Commission. The proposed development
does not align with our comprehensive
[30:57] plan uh which identifies the property
for future residential use. Uh the
[31:01] village also believes the solar farm
would disrupt the natural progression of
[31:05] development in the area. The other thing
is the township uh voted to object to it
[31:09] as well yet last night and they had some
concerns that the development never
[31:13] spoke with Will County Forest Preserve.
That's Jackson Creek there and uh with
[31:17] the battery storage concern and the the
trail is over there. So um they did the
[31:23] development company did drop off some
information for everyone this afternoon.
[31:26] So we just printed it out. Um, but
anyone have anything to say or discuss?
[31:34] » Motion.
>> Okay, we have a motion to approve a res
[31:38] resolution objecting the special use
permits for certain property located in
[31:42] corporate Wil County and within 1 and a
half miles of the corporate boundaries
[31:46] of the village of Manhattan. That's
15520 West Baker Road.
[31:51] Second.
>> Okay. Roll call.
[31:54] » Dylan.
>> Neighbors.
[31:57] » Yes. Boom.
>> Yes.
[31:59] » Doyle. [clears throat]
>> Behind.
[32:01] » Yes. Young.
>> Yes.
[32:04] » Okay. Motion carries. Uh, next item on
the agenda has to do with our sanitary
[32:08] sewer. So, resolution authorizing a
design engineering for cleaning and
[32:13] televising of sanitary sewer which has
to be done in Centry East. uh public
[32:18] works is uh requesting approval to
proceed with Robinson Engineering to
[32:21] investigate excessive sanitary sewer
flows from Centry East system that occur
[32:25] during significant rain events and
constrain our or exceed our system
[32:29] capacity. So the inflow and infiltration
it's also known as INI um are believed
[32:34] to be contributing factor. Uh we
existing flow meters are collecting data
[32:39] during various weather and seasonal
conditions. Um, so Robinson Engineering
[32:43] would provide uh $12,300 in design
engineering services for the sanitary
[32:48] sewer uh cleaning and televising,
allowing the village to inspect the
[32:52] system. Uh, the work was not included in
this year's budget, the fiscal 2027
[32:58] budget, but staff would consider it an
important investment. Uh, it's
[33:02] approximately $100,000 for sewer
cleaning, televising, and 12,000 for
[33:07] construction observation and data
review. That'll be for the fiscal year
[33:12] 2028. So, right now, we're just looking
for a motion to get the engineering
[33:15] started. Um, that is a cost of $12,300
from Robinson Engineering for the
[33:20] Century East subdivision. Motion
>> second.
[33:25] » All right. Any more questions? Uh, roll
call, please.
[33:29] » Neighbors,
>> yes.
[33:31] » Boom.
>> Yes.
[33:32] » Doyle.
>> Beina,
[33:34] » yes.
>> Young,
[33:36] » yes.
>> Dylan,
[33:37] » yes.
>> Okay, motion carries. Uh next item is uh
[33:40] the flock camera discussion. So uh
previously you know the board did act on
[33:46] uh installing the the [clears throat]
flock cameras license plate readers also
[33:50] known as ALPR. Uh we did receive a grant
from the state's attorney as we did for
[33:55] our K9 officer. Um and that's I think it
was 2024. Um so some of the existing uh
[34:04] contracts are now coming up for renewal.
So prior to placing the renewals on a
[34:08] future agenda for formal action, I just
believe it's appropriate, you know, to
[34:12] have a discussion regarding the current
program and um you know its
[34:16] effectiveness, associated costs, whether
the village wishes to continue with the
[34:20] existing contracts. Um the discussion
will allow the board to review current
[34:24] program and provide uh direction before
any renewal agreements are brought
[34:28] forward as an agenda item for
consideration. So, I just thought it
[34:32] sounded like there was some um major
concerns about these and we've been
[34:36] seeing a lot of stuff in the news. So, I
just thought it was appropriate to have
[34:39] an open discussion. Uh would anyone else
from the public like to say something
[34:42] first or you know, anyone else have any
concerns? Um
[34:50] I I know. Go ahead.
>> What exactly is uh I mean people talking
[34:56] about you know you seeing everything
going on. Are they basically plate
[35:01] readers or what? What? What is
>> Yes. Did you want to give the technical
[35:04] answer? It's a it's a plate reader is
still shots.
[35:06] » So, yeah, it it's all about how you
define input. Flock defines it as a
[35:10] license plate reader [clears throat]
that captures the fingerprint of the
[35:12] vehicle. Now, the fingerprint of the
vehicle can be more than it was in 2022
[35:16] when we signed onto this contract. Um,
it can be the uh a sticker, it can be a
[35:21] roof rack, it can be something like
that. It is a uh it's a photograph
[35:24] image, not a 247 recording like a red
light camera. uh something similar to
[35:29] what the tollway would use or something
like that.
[35:31] » Okay. Now, what uh what happens to the
information that's being gathered?
[35:38] » Great question. Um
>> yeah, so the information is owned by the
[35:41] village of Manhattan that we pay for. Uh
we do um as the gentleman lady mentioned
[35:46] earlier, we do share data with other
towns. We don't uh actually I had the
[35:50] report come this morning. I could be
factual with you guys here. Give me one
[35:53] moment. We share uh this information
with 431 Illinois municipalities. Um but
[36:00] due to recent um misuse of the program,
you know what I mean? I have a lot of
[36:04] questions about how many people and who
exactly that should be shared with and
[36:07] how, you know what I mean? Uh the
problem is there's no guardrail at the
[36:11] uh state level as to how these cameras
should or should not be used, right? Um
[36:16] it's become a huge beast since 2022 when
the prior chief signed onto this
[36:20] contract. Um, but the answer to your
question is we own all the data. Now,
[36:25] was there data breaches there and stuff
like that? Sure. You know what I mean?
[36:29] Uh,
>> now is there a certain amount of time
[36:31] you keep it for?
>> So, currently, um, I'm I've been
[36:34] attempting to get over our new, uh, we
just got a new flock representative.
[36:37] Currently, ours is 30. My intention is
to speak that over with the village
[36:41] board, uh, with legal and with flock.
Um, I don't have the power to turn it
[36:46] down to seven. It has to be done from
the back of a computer, right? Um,
[36:50] they're offering seven days now. So, if
you sign on a flock today, you only get
[36:54] a seven-day retention period. Right now,
we're at a 30, but I do intend on making
[36:58] some changes to that if this is
something that we keep.
[37:01] » So, there was a question someone asked
that we have 15. I think there's only
[37:04] four, right?
>> So, no. Uh, so
[37:07] » the area.
>> Yeah. I forget your name. What's your
[37:09] name, sir?
>> Kovi.
[37:10] » Kovi. Cody. Kobe.
>> Kobe.
[37:12] » Kovi. He's correct. So, uh, on the
transparency portal, it says 15 and he
[37:16] and he's correct. It does say that
actively we only have eight up there.
[37:19] The reason it says 15 is because we have
a portable one that sits in our evidence
[37:22] and has quite a bit of dust on it. Um,
and we have a flock trailer for large
[37:26] scale events. You might have seen it at
the Irishfest. Um, and that's that's a
[37:30] trailer that is a uh it's a it's a
mobile security camera for large scale
[37:34] events and that was funded through the
Will County opioid program. And that's
[37:38] just for uh crowd protection. That's not
a license plate reader or anything like
[37:41] that. But that is by Flock. And uh just
in this conversation, ultimately the
[37:46] decision lies within the village board.
Um I have not even brought that trailer
[37:50] forward to the village board because
that's $25,000 and I would never
[37:53] recommend the village waste their money
on something like that. Um so that's not
[37:56] even coming up for renewal in the
conversation with the with the flock
[37:59] cameras. Um so that's why it says
there's there's quite a bit of cameras
[38:03] on that trailer and that's why it says
15.
[38:08] » I've got two questions.
There was a discussion online on
[38:12] Manhattan about flock cameras and
somebody mentioned that they do heat
[38:16] tracking.
>> Do you know what that is?
[38:19] » So Manhattan doesn't have that. They
when they first came out they had where
[38:22] you can heat track like if a car hit by
you say it hits a 100 times, right? Um
[38:27] it would be red like as if uh I don't
know what the firefighters call it, like
[38:30] a heat gun. Um
>> like it came in multiple times.
[38:34] » Yeah. Like it would be it would say okay
this car traveled that this area
[38:37] multiple times, right? Um, and Flock had
previously told somebody that that
[38:40] wasn't true. Well, that was a lie,
right? Um, but it did it did have that,
[38:44] but we don't have that capability in
Manhattan.
[38:47] » And have has this has this assisted you
in any arrests of any kind?
[38:53] » Uh, so yeah. So, like like I told, you
know, I did have the opportunity to meet
[38:56] with uh Philip
>> Philip
[38:58] » privately uh and and talk to him about
this and this is very public data. Um,
[39:01] you have to consider the cost of benefit
of this, you know, and the cost of uh
[39:05] the substantial amount of misuse going
on. There's no doubt in my mind that
[39:08] there's going to be more misuse stories
coming out in the near future. Um I as
[39:12] much as I don't like paying my mortgage,
I would bet my mortgage on it, right? Um
[39:16] but in Manhattan alone, uh the stories
that we could speak to is it's helped us
[39:19] solve a burglary, a criminal sexual
abuse, financial exploitation of an
[39:23] elderly subject, criminal damage to
property, a hit-and-run accident,
[39:27] aggravated battery, identity theft,
burglary to an ATM, a theft, and a
[39:31] reckless discharge of a firearm. Um and
and with that reckless discharge of a
[39:35] firearm, it had that particular firearm
has been linked to eight other crimes.
[39:40] Um and uh so but you got to remember
with that reckless discharge of a
[39:45] firearm, we got that data off of a Ring
doorbell camera, right? And if you guys
[39:48] remember last Super Bowl Ring doorbell
camera told us, hey, we're using your
[39:51] data to relo relocate dogs to their
owners, right? None of us had a clue
[39:54] that was going on. So AI is a beast that
none of us have a clue what it is, what
[39:58] it truly is. You know, if you told me in
2022 that this block was going to look
[40:01] like this, I'd have said, "You're
lying." Um, but we got to make sure
[40:04] that, you know, there's guard rails
within the state legislative level or
[40:08] federal, whoever, that hold, uh,
everybody accountable outside of our
[40:12] policy. You know, there's got to be laws
to hold, I mean, we enforce laws, right?
[40:16] Laws,
there are guidelines to our trainings.
[40:20] There are guidelines to how we operate,
right? But at the state level right now,
[40:23] there's nothing besides an official
misconduct to somebody abuse it. I think
[40:26] every cop who abuses it needs to go to
jail. Um, that's just my personal
[40:29] opinion, but I I think that's a huge
abuse of public trust. You know what I
[40:33] mean? And
>> so this doesn't help you with traffic
[40:35] violations.
>> No.
[40:37] » No. Um, so I was talking to another
gentleman and he's not here tonight. I
[40:41] thought he would be. So, uh, flock alone
should not be considered probable cause.
[40:45] And cops are are in my opinion, right?
As I said here as your chief, cops are
[40:51] are getting it wrong. Okay? We don't
always get it right. Sometimes we get it
[40:54] wrong. When a cop pulls somebody over
based off a flock hit, should never
[40:58] happen. Should never happen. Why should
it never happen? Because flock isn't
[41:02] probable cause. You have to gain, you
get a picture of the license plate,
[41:04] right? It says that that's a stolen
vehicle. You should go into the state
[41:07] database and which is called leads and
determine that vehicle is in fact
[41:11] stolen. That's your probable cause, not
a system that doesn't have it says it's
[41:15] it, right? It says that it's a stolen
vehicle, but maybe someone didn't take
[41:19] it out. Maybe you never know what
happened, right? you need to go to a
[41:22] state database system that's regulated
by the state, governed by the state, you
[41:25] know, which 22 years ago, a lot of
police went to jail and got arrested for
[41:29] abusing this system, you know, um, and
you need to confirm that vehicle is in
[41:33] fact stolen, you know. So, uh, I'm not a
fan of police who have made their
[41:37] probable cause off of uh, just the flock
hit alone. It's a it's a tool. Okay? I
[41:41] think in police work, there's been three
substantial tools. Um, and and and I'll
[41:46] be clear, I don't 100% agree with Flock.
I'll be honest with you, and I'll put
[41:48] that on the record, okay? Uh but three
three substantial tools uh and and
[41:53] that's been fingerprints, DNA evidence,
and flock cameras have helped us solve
[41:57] crimes. Now, will we solve crimes if
Flock is gone? Certainly, we will. Can I
[42:00] guarantee you we'll have the success
rate that Flock cameras have brought us?
[42:04] No. But I don't know what tomorrow
holds. You know what I mean? I can tell
[42:06] you we're going to try as hard as we've
ever tried whether we got Flock cameras
[42:08] or not. Um but it has substantially
helped solve crimes. I mean, there's a
[42:13] town around here that when Flock cameras
involved has a 70% closure rate, you
[42:16] know what I mean? But is it is it
violating people's privacy? Is it is it
[42:21] too invasive? Is it you know I've heard
facial recognition well at the state
[42:24] level fa facial recognition is illegal
if somebody using flock to do that which
[42:27] it can't. Uh right now it can't. Uh I'm
sure you can flip some chip or I'm not a
[42:32] technological guy. Couldn't tell you how
to fix a computer. But uh I'm sure
[42:36] there's some chip in there that will
tell you hey like we can get fake facial
[42:39] recognition. You know we have the Dreams
Act that we have to follow and and all
[42:42] these different rules about immigrations
and reproductive rights and stuff like
[42:45] that. I can tell you right here, you
know, we the board, we intend on hiring
[42:49] all the best candidates who don't do
this stuff, but there's bad doctors,
[42:52] there's bad lawyers, there's bad cops,
there's bad everything, you know what I
[42:54] mean? I can't guarant I I think I can
guarantee it. You know, I would be one
[42:58] highly upset police chief if one of my
cops abuses, but I would I would say
[43:01] they need to be fired and arrested. You
know what I mean? But um you know, since
[43:05] this conversation is going, I think it's
the most appropriate thing. And and like
[43:09] I said, I I don't 100% agree with Flack,
but I think there's other ALPRs that are
[43:14] uh way more invasive than FLAC cameras.
And I do worry what the future of AI and
[43:19] technology holds with this stuff because
I know what it can do right now. Um the
[43:23] board could tell me tomorrow I'm a
terrible chief and you might have a new
[43:25] guy in charge of this that thinks
something else. You know what I mean? Um
[43:28] hopefully it's not the case, but you
know that that's that's the reality. You
[43:31] know, it's all about who's in control.
And you know, when I was talking to the
[43:34] Philip back there, you know, he says
it's not I'm not worried about, you
[43:37] know, Manhattan police. I think you guys
are doing your job well, but what about
[43:40] this? What about that? And I agree with
that. You know what I mean? I can't tell
[43:42] you, you know, I I hope I can retire
sooner than later. And uh but I can't
[43:46] tell you what the next guy's going to do
with flat cameras or if he's going to
[43:49] install more, if he's going to do that.
You know, I can say that in 2022, the
[43:52] board approved these. We signed on it
with a grant from a some vendor and the
[43:57] state's attorney and then the Will
County Opiate uh grant paid for the
[44:02] other cameras that are up for renewals
now. You know what I mean? Um,
[44:07] it has its advantages and disadvantages.
It really does. But I do I I totally
[44:11] hear people and I know it's not the
popular opinion of a chief to say. I do
[44:14] hear people when they talk about Fourth
Amendment violations and stuff like
[44:17] that. I wish that this case was pulled
to the Supreme Court right now. Um, and
[44:20] and they could end this once and for
all. You know,
[44:22] » that's what keeps changing. Like, you
know, when we decided to install these,
[44:26] it was many years ago. We support the
police. We, you know, as a board, we've
[44:30] tried to give them all the tools that
they could use to keep the town safe. I
[44:34] mean, everyone says it's a safe town.
Don't worry about anything. But I I do
[44:37] think, you know, the Canine was a good
addition. Uh we do have a drone. You
[44:41] know, I think those are just good
additions to help them. We have truck
[44:44] scales that are portable. These are all
things that help support our police
[44:48] department. But now there is some
concerns and that's why I think it's
[44:51] fair that we brought it to an open
discussion and then, you know, we're
[44:54] doing a lot of research. A lot of new
information is coming out daily. It it
[44:57] literally is daily coming out. So
>> it is. And mayor just to add to that. So
[45:01] today, you know, flock is a daily I
probably spend two, three days a day,
[45:05] hours a day dealing flock cameras alone.
Um, crime has, you know, since since
[45:10] this has become a Manhattan issue, we've
had uh three cameras damaged. Now,
[45:13] that's uh over $2,000 that the village
is going to have to spend to fix it if
[45:17] we decide that's the route we want to
go. You know what I mean? Um but just
[45:21] today alone, New Jersey Privacy
Protection Act and Connecticut
[45:24] Connecticut's public act 2614 was passed
which basically uh with ALPRs is um
[45:29] effective October 1st their particular
ALPRs only Connecticut, New York, Rhode
[45:34] Island and I can't say Massachusetts.
[45:42] So Illinois won't have any rights to
that. So what do they what are they
[45:45] thinking that we're not hearing over
here? You know what I mean? So, should
[45:47] we not be sharing our data with anybody
but Wisconsin, Iowa, Indiana, you know
[45:51] what I mean? Um, I made the decision
personally uh when I took when I when I
[45:57] took this on and and really started
digging into the flock that we are only
[46:01] going to share Manhattan only shares
with um instate with instate jurisd
[46:06] municipalities, right? Um, but I'm no
stranger to the fact and I'll publicly
[46:10] say that, you know, West Chicago, uh,
Shanahan, Will County,
[46:16] um, and I'm sure there's more to come,
but you know, they they've had, uh,
[46:19] users abuse the system, right? So, the
question becomes, well, we share data
[46:23] with them, right? So, is that is our
data being abused now? So, there's I I
[46:27] have so many questions and so many
things that I'm still trying to learn
[46:30] and find out, but it's uh, you know,
this that's why I appreciate this open
[46:35] discussion.
>> Yes.
[46:35] » You know what I mean?
Yeah, you mentioned the this
[46:38] [clears throat] is where I think there's
a lot of confusion. Um I'm new to this
[46:43] whole thing. My son should be here. You
know, he's the one telling me flock
[46:47] this, flock that. I'm like, I want to
go. I'm just going to listen to
[46:50] everything. But you tal you you
mentioned something and I'm not debating
[46:53] what you're saying or or picking apart
your stance, but this is where I think a
[46:58] lot of the confusion is. It's our data.
That's what was quoted. Yes.
[47:02] » Yet we share it. It's it's
contradictive. Right. Right. It's our
[47:06] data yet we share it,
>> right?
[47:08] » So, we're going to share it with
>> I think that was because people have
[47:10] said a private company owns the data,
>> right? But let me Yeah.
[47:14] » Well, that's that's still up for debate,
Mike. You know, we don't we don't they
[47:18] say they don't own the data. We don't
know that. There's obvious that's that's
[47:22] and again this was made three four years
ago, but it doesn't sound like a lot of
[47:27] due diligence was done and and looking
and a lot has changed as your chief as
[47:32] you mentioned uh technology, AI,
everything else. That's no excuse for
[47:36] that's that's not a good enough reason
though for um what everyone has
[47:41] expressed and everyone outside inside
the community has expressed against
[47:44] these cameras, right? Or and we have to
look at that the cost versus the
[47:49] advantages versus disadvantages.
Absolutely.
[47:51] » Um and take everything into account. But
you you also mentioned, you know, you
[47:55] decided, and I'm not, again, this is not
criticizing your your choice when I say
[48:00] this, that you decided to share with uh
this jurisdiction or that, but what
[48:05] makes you stop there? Why or you know
what I mean? Like what's the difference
[48:09] if you said, you know what, we're going
to share with Indiana, not Wisconsin.
[48:13] That's where I think another
>> So, I could answer for that real quick
[48:16] if you want. I don't enforce Indiana or
Wisconsin laws. I don't know what they
[48:19] are. I know what Illinois law is, and
that's why I made that decision.
[48:22] » Yeah. And again, it's not about your
decision. It's it's more of
[48:25] » back to the sharing of data.
>> Why is New Jersey sharing with three
[48:30] states, but they're not sharing with all
states? Like if this is a if this is
[48:34] truly a crime fighting tool,
you would think like fraud, for example,
[48:39] everyone would be on board with fighting
fraud. You would think it would be the
[48:43] same thing with this where everyone
would want to share the data across all
[48:46] 50 states, right? If you got a criminal
leaving the state that just committed a
[48:50] rape or something else, why wouldn't
that information want to be shared with
[48:55] every other state surrounding our
border, right? Illinois, Wisconsin.
[48:59] That's where I think a lot of the back
to the questions that the public has and
[49:04] you've already admitted and I think the
board has admitted and everyone else
[49:07] like that we have all of us in general
about it. It's it everything that comes
[49:13] out of it the good there's something
else that contradicts
[49:17] the the positive of it. Right. So,
>> right. And I don't you know I think just
[49:22] to add to your question you know again
I'm no attorney. I don't aspire to be
[49:25] one. Um, but you know, the reason we
don't share our data with all 50 states
[49:30] is because other states allow them to be
used against reproductive rights or um,
[49:36] you know, they they allow facial
recognition or they allow stuff that
[49:38] Illinois attorney general has advised
us. Absolutely not. You know what I
[49:42] mean? Like, you know, I I read the story
and again, this is all just reading
[49:46] stories. You know, I don't I don't know
hard facts, but you know, they tracked
[49:50] somebody from Wisconsin to Michigan or
something like that and they were
[49:52] dealing drugs or something like that,
right? like
[49:55] that's not what that system's intended
to do. You know what I mean? Um and I
[49:58] think that I I have questions about that
practice with the thing.
[50:01] » Back to the data sharing.
>> Yeah.
[50:03] » Just let's make this up. I drive through
my car. What data right I drive north on
[50:09] 53, leave town. What data points did you
just get from my vehicle that's being
[50:14] shared with New Linux, for example?
>> Just your license plate.
[50:17] » That's it.
>> That's it. Well, and the fingerprint of
[50:19] your vehicle, right?
>> Well, no. Well, that's different now.
[50:22] That's so that's where I think the
>> the challenge is. It's not just
[50:25] » just trying to be transparent. Yeah.
>> Right. It's not just the license plate
[50:28] though. So we can't say that anymore,
>> right? That's where the distrust is
[50:32] coming, Chief. Like from
>> not myself, but I just know it from
[50:36] young
>> and I want to say younger generations,
[50:39] but it is like they're the younger kids
feel this way. You know, they feel
[50:44] » and good for them that they're that
they're taking a stance on things that
[50:48] they feel. If it's this, I hope it's
something else next next time that
[50:52] they're
>> right. That's what we want uh our youth
[50:54] to be involved and take part. But that's
a perfect example right there when when
[50:59] we just asked a simple qu I asked a
simple question and it wasn't probably
[51:02] wasn't intentional, but you said license
plate. Then you said backed up actually
[51:05] it's a fingerprint. So what part of that
finger like tell me more. How can I get
[51:09] a print out of exactly what's shared?
You know, that's all the things that
[51:14] it doesn't stop there. And I think
that's the big concern, right?
[51:17] » Yeah. And I don't think I mean unless
you could prove me wrong. I just don't
[51:21] know, right? I don't think there's a
camera out there that will take a
[51:23] picture of just the license plate,
right? So I think every ALPR, Tollway,
[51:28] Flock, Axon, Motorola, whoever it is. I
think they all get the fingerprint of
[51:32] the vehicle, right? So, uh, it's not a
matter of tripping up on words and
[51:35] nothing like that, but that's what shows
up in the photo.
[51:39] » Can I can I jump in here?
>> Yeah. So
[51:44] [clears throat] part of part of my
concern with this is not so much the
[51:47] photos themselves. I think we all agree
that a license plate is specifically put
[51:53] there to tag a vehicle so we know what
it is. The biggest problem with this is
[51:57] actually the data itself. We're using AI
to quantify or to quantify whether or
[52:04] not where somebody has been when they've
been there. And I I know we can say well
[52:09] the the data is only stored for so long.
There's nothing stopping somebody from
[52:13] taking that data and storing it
somewhere else and saying we deleted the
[52:16] data. There's you can put it on a
different server. You can put it you can
[52:21] share it a different way. And even if we
say we're going to shut it down here,
[52:25] but we leave the cameras up, there's
nothing stopping another agency from
[52:31] saying I want to purchase the data from
you. It I can't get it legally my way.
[52:36] I'll just purchase this from you. And it
just becomes a back door for the same
[52:39] kind of information. And that's kind of
the problem for me as I look at this.
[52:43] The Supreme Court did rule on tracking
devices on a vehicle. When we put a
[52:48] vehicle,
you have to get a warrant to do it.
[52:53] This has the ability to do the exact
same thing just with photo. We're just
[52:57] saying you went past that camera, that
camera, that camera, that camera. I know
[53:00] where you went and I can go back and
look and see where you went. which
[53:04] eventually becomes you can put together
an argument for where I go to church,
[53:09] what doctor's office I go to, where I've
been, what businesses I go to, what gun
[53:14] range I like to go to. You you name it.
The amount of ability for there to be
[53:20] invasiveness with this technology is
massive. And I would be the first to
[53:26] agree it's a powerful tool for getting
people or, you know, that have committed
[53:31] a crime.
But
[53:35] our principles have been laid out very
clearly in our in our governance that
[53:39] there's only so far the government's
allowed to go.
[53:43] And with the data being the biggest
problem see everybody wants to make it
[53:46] about the camera. It's not about the
camera. It's about the data. It's about
[53:50] the collective of the data. So when I go
through a toll booth, there's only so
[53:54] many toll booths I go through and the
worst you can say is I went to Chicago,
[53:59] right? This is something far beyond
that. It can say, "Hey, I went down to
[54:04] my ranch in Missouri. How long I was
down there, when I came back, how long
[54:09] it took for me to get back
>> that I'm not home."
[54:11] » That I'm not home. So, let's say I want
to do an investigation on this guy. I'll
[54:15] wait till he's in not in town and now I
can go investigate. It opens doors for
[54:20] things that are just unimaginable. And
that's just the technology now. If the
[54:25] infrastructure is there, it can be used
far beyond that later. And it just takes
[54:31] somebody to say, "I'm willing to pull
that switch."
[54:35] That's the problem.
>> I I I I
[54:40] don't want to guarantee. I mean, I don't
know. But I would bet my mortgage as
[54:44] well, Chief, that we might be only
getting you might us Manhattan might be
[54:48] only getting the license plate or the
the fingerprint of the vehicle, but all
[54:54] the rest of the data inside that vehicle
and everything that goes with it is
[54:57] somewhere.
>> It's somewhere.
[54:59] » Yeah. I don't know. I mean, I get
>> it's not just not out. It's just not
[55:03] non-existent,
>> right?
[55:05] » As far as I'm confused at what you're
talking
[55:07] » person who owns the all the data that
comes with that.
[55:10] » So, no, that that'd be incorrect. Um,
for me to pull any data off of who owns
[55:15] that vehicle, we have to then log into
our incar. Uh,
[55:19] » you're saying that's them, not the
system itself.
[55:22] » Right. Right.
>> Capability versus usage.
[55:25] » Yeah.
>> Sure. I mean, so I I guess to answer, so
[55:28] you have a two-prong question, right? So
if Flock gets actually if they get data,
[55:32] which I hope they never do, to the state
database that tells us who owns which
[55:36] car, right, based on running that
license plate, it would automatically
[55:39] populate. Do I think that's possible
today? 100%. You know what I mean?
[55:42] Luckily, today we have to go into the
state database and pull a license plate
[55:46] up and see who owns it and all that. You
know what I mean? And and somebody
[55:51] compared it to and I think he said it
best and he was against flock and I
[55:53] think he had a good example. You have
the cop on the side of the road who's
[55:56] running everybody's license plate who
passes, right? Perfectly legal. It's a
[55:59] human doing it. A human cannot do it as
quick as AI can do it, right? We know
[56:03] this. So that becomes the battle of the
flock cameras, right? Forever cops have
[56:06] sit on the side road run license plate.
Oh, he's got an expired plate. Let me
[56:09] pull him over. Right? Him or her. Um,
you know, but now AI is such a huge I
[56:15] mean such a huge thing. We got we got I
mean if you talk about data, we got body
[56:19] cameras, we got incar cameras. I mean,
I'm spending 20 $30,000 a year just on
[56:23] data, you know, and and that's
statemanded data. Like, state makes us
[56:26] wear body cameras. State state makes us
have dashboard cameras. State make us
[56:30] have prisoner cameras in our car, you
know what I mean? So, you know, I was
[56:33] told when I was young that, you know,
use less paper so we can conserve the
[56:36] trees, but that idea is out of the box,
right? Um, because they're knocking them
[56:39] down and put data warehouses, you know
what I mean? So, um, I can water this
[56:43] all day, you know what I [clears throat]
mean? Um, but you guys have valid
[56:46] points. I'm not, you know what I mean?
I'm not disagreeing with you at all. um
[56:49] that's their choice to make at the end
of the day, right? I can just tell you
[56:52] what it's done for us successfully. It's
been a substantial
[56:55] tool in fighting crime. But um I I do
understand some of your concern, you
[57:01] know, some of your concerns
>> in light of uh flock representatives
[57:07] um outwardly not telling the complete
truth to other boards and police chiefs.
[57:13] Do you support having this contract
renewed?
[57:18] It's a great question. Um,
so I've never been lied to by Flock. Is
[57:23] there
>> know
[57:25] » that I know of, right? Um, I I try to do
my homework pretty well. Um, I I did see
[57:30] the one story. Again, I'm I'm digging
pretty deep, trying to dig deep into
[57:33] this quickly. You know, I'm getting
every angle. Um, I mean, obviously, like
[57:37] I said, you know, it's my job as the
chief to try to give the officers the
[57:40] best crime fighting tools they can have,
right? And and I've said earlier that,
[57:43] you know, Flock cameras has helped us
solve these crimes. Now, uh, we are the
[57:47] sixth safest community in the state of
Illinois. So, something's going right.
[57:51] Am I saying that's to because of flock?
No, it's not. You know what I mean? Um,
[57:54] we're still going to solve crime no
matter what. I told Phil like Philip,
[57:58] whatever. I'm sorry. Either way. Okay. I
told Phil like, "No matter what, we're
[58:01] going to solve crime. You can take my
flockers away. You can whatever. We're
[58:04] going to solve crime. That's what we're
hired to do. And if we don't do it, then
[58:06] we got a bigger problem."
>> Um, I I haven't read too much into the
[58:10] abuse of flock. I haven't really gone
down the rabbit hole of flock lying to
[58:13] the uh administrations. It's something
that I just started looking into. And
[58:16] the first story I got was about the heat
map that was mentioned earlier. You know
[58:19] what I mean? I mean, I'll tell you right
now, if somebody lies to me, um, yeah,
[58:23] it's got to go. You know what I mean? If
they lie to me personally, it's got to
[58:26] go. I mean, you know, uh, you know, in
the in the federal world, you lie to the
[58:31] FBI, that's 5 years in jail. You know
what I mean? So, uh, on the local level,
[58:34] I can't do that. But I I don't want, uh,
I don't want to do business with
[58:38] somebody who's going to lie to us to try
to get money. I mean, if you think about
[58:40] it, and this isn't factual, but think
about it. Flock cameras. If you look
[58:44] just in the state of Illinois, and I'm
no mathematician, but um they make about
[58:48] $21 million a year on Illinois flock
cameras alone. Now, that number could be
[58:52] way off. It's not factual, but that's
just what I quickly looked at and and
[58:55] saw. So, uh they have all the reason to
better their business, right? And we
[58:59] have all the reason to question it. The
problem is is that is the whatifs. You
[59:04] know what I mean? And that the state has
no guard rail. I have a five-page
[59:08] policy, right? But the state has not
implemented any guard rail that said you
[59:12] have to do this, you have to do that.
Would I be in support of it? Sure, I
[59:14] would. Right. But I still have a lot of
questions myself. You know what I mean?
[59:18] Like what is the state like in the state
of Florida today, they got 30 days to
[59:20] remove them from uh from public
roadways, right? And I think they're
[59:24] going to be gone. You know, there's uh
Connecticut put something out today. New
[59:28] York put out something today. I mean,
there's all kinds of things flying. Has
[59:30] it helped me solve crime? Yes. Uh
absolutely. You know, um is is you got
[59:35] to look at riskreward. But if the board
asked me right now, would I want to do
[59:37] something like that? Sure, I would. You
know what I mean? But um you guys have
[59:40] offered great ideas to
see what the community thinks. You know,
[59:44] as many nos have I heard, I heard yes,
I've heard I don't know. I applaud you
[59:47] guys for coming to the board meeting and
speaking up because a lot of people are
[59:50] afraid to do that. You know what I mean?
But, uh, I don't want big brother
[59:53] watching over me. I mean, I work for the
government. I know what they can do,
[59:55] right? Um, but it's it's helped solve
crimes. You know, out of that list I
[1:00:01] read, I can tell you factually at least
three of those would not have been
[1:00:04] solved without flat cameras. You know
what I mean? Um,
[1:00:07] » that's that's a that's
>> Yeah, that's a not other cameras. That
[1:00:11] that's that's
>> in my opinion that is true.
[1:00:13] » Speculation
>> that I could speculate but yeah in my
[1:00:16] speculation that is true because
>> you can't you can't speculate and have
[1:00:19] something true.
>> Okay. Well in my opinion that's true. In
[1:00:22] my opinion it's true. And the reason I
say that is because we had no evidence
[1:00:25] but the flat camera
>> and this is just like an informal
[1:00:27] discussion. It's not accusing police
chief.
[1:00:30] » Someone said and the reason I say that
here's the reason I say that. They said
[1:00:33] it's a red Ford car, right? It ran a red
Ford car ran past it. We got the license
[1:00:38] plate, went and talked to the people and
later obtained a confession, right?
[1:00:41] That's why I could say that's why it
worked for us. You know what I mean?
[1:00:44] That's why it's true to me. Um,
obviously not, you know, unless you
[1:00:47] foyer stuff or unless it's public, not
under investigation information, you
[1:00:51] wouldn't know that, right? But is flock
the end all do all to crime? No, it's
[1:00:55] not. I mean, I'm here to tell you guys I
can work with it. I can work without it,
[1:00:58] right? Um, but it's I I understand that
uh some people I mean, you clearly don't
[1:01:04] want it. You know what I mean? You you
guys have all demonstrated that, but you
[1:01:07] know, it's it's like I said, it's our
job, the village board job, my job to
[1:01:10] give us the best tools we can to keep us
the safest community. And I said, it's
[1:01:14] not the end all do all. It's not. But,
uh, where will this technology be in in
[1:01:18] 3 years? Like, I I don't think in 2022
when I worked here, we would be having
[1:01:23] discussion today because I didn't think
it would get to this level. You know
[1:01:26] what I mean?
>> A lot of people just realized they're
[1:01:28] out there this past few months.
So that that's the part I want to speak
[1:01:32] to really quickly is is the data part.
You mentioned where the techn is going
[1:01:36] to go. Uh the truth is data is the new
currency. Data is the new power. Um I've
[1:01:41] been in the food service industry for 25
years and one of my customers Kroger. Do
[1:01:46] you know 30% of their revenue comes from
selling data?
[1:01:49] » They're selling our data on us, right?
30% of their revenue comes from data.
[1:01:53] That's crazy to me, right? Is it okay?
Probably not. Do I Door Dash because
[1:01:58] that feels invasive to me? Yeah, all the
time, right? Because I don't want to be
[1:02:01] in there. Um, but it's about where the
technology is going and what what the
[1:02:06] value of data is and how powerful the
data can be. So, back in 22, which is
[1:02:11] when we approved this program, was
actually the same time I was working
[1:02:15] with my company to establish an AI
roadmap. So, I'm I'm not anti-technology
[1:02:20] at all, right? Like I hope my company
savage our AI road mapap, but we're, you
[1:02:24] know, public company who created a whole
bunch of safeguards and surveyed our
[1:02:28] community before we even did that
knowing that there were commercial tools
[1:02:33] that would help us be successful. We
still did all that work and laid all
[1:02:37] that groundwork first. And I don't see
Will County doing that. And I'm a little
[1:02:41] bit concerned we haven't done that here.
Um, a lot's changed since 2022 since I
[1:02:46] created that AI roadmap since Manhattan
agreed to this program. The technology
[1:02:50] has come a long way and we may not be
utilizing all of its capabilities but we
[1:02:54] know the capabilities are there. We know
you know we could it can get into heat
[1:02:58] mapping. It can get into algorithms. It
you know it can get into tracking and
[1:03:02] tracing. It can get into facial
recognition. There is a lot of stuff. It
[1:03:06] it can it's so small it can be put on
all the street lights, right? Like
[1:03:10] forget the black things that everybody
can see. It becomes the unseen thing
[1:03:13] that big brother's watching you
everywhere. So those are the things that
[1:03:17] we need to consider that if we sign up
for this, you know, that that's what's
[1:03:20] going to go with us and probably grow
unfortunately with us and are we
[1:03:24] comfortable with that that direction of
data. So thank you. I I do want to just
[1:03:29] add uh chief like we are so blessed and
lucky to have you and we always back the
[1:03:33] blue like win or lose agree or disagree.
Thank
[1:03:35] » you.
>> Thanks. No and I agree with all you
[1:03:36] guys. I mean you guys bring valid
points. You know I'm not a like I told
[1:03:39] you I'm not a a genius in this stuff.
You know, and you mentioned that uh I I
[1:03:43] don't like that. You mentioned that the
um the LPRs are now on street lights. I
[1:03:47] don't agree with that. You know what I
mean? But they're doing it so they're
[1:03:50] not visible.
>> Yeah.
[1:03:51] » You know what I mean? So I I don't agree
with that ALPR. Um I'm not going to name
[1:03:54] the company cuz I don't want to be sued
or anything like that. But
[1:03:57] » we don't actually
>> that that is a thing that exists and I
[1:04:01] don't I don't agree with that. You know
what I mean? Um but you're right. The
[1:04:04] technology is is I'm sure 20 years ahead
of what I already know, you know what I
[1:04:09] mean? And uh ultimately, you know, you
guys bring valid points, you know what I
[1:04:12] mean? And
>> we say those are public roads, right?
[1:04:14] But but the public paid by who. Like we
the taxpayers paid for those roads. They
[1:04:19] actually belong to all of us, right? So,
you know, that's where we're starting to
[1:04:23] like, you know, redefine what belongs to
who, what we can do with it.
[1:04:27] » Yeah. And, you know, as far as the flock
camera is concerned, I had a guy coming
[1:04:30] in who was pro- flock, right? So, I
addressed them with some of your
[1:04:33] questions. You know what I mean? Because
let's have both sides of the story.
[1:04:35] » Yeah. You know, and I and I've been told
like the Secretary of State owns
[1:04:38] [clears throat] your license plates,
they own your driver's license, you're
[1:04:40] just renting them, and you're allowed to
go on the road. And I'm like, "But what
[1:04:42] about this? What about that?" You know
what I mean?
[1:04:44] » Well, they want to turn everything into
a subscription, right? So,
[1:04:46] » no thanks.
>> So, it's it is it's a double-edged
[1:04:49] sword. And, you know, again, like I told
you guys, with it's ultimately the
[1:04:52] board's decision which way we go, right?
Understand.
[1:04:54] » Um,
>> it's my job to keep you guys safe with
[1:04:58] black cameras or with not. Like I said,
we're going to solve crimes. You know,
[1:05:01] it's been beneficial. It's um you know I
I believe we've had no officers based on
[1:05:07] our audits that have abused it. You know
what I mean? I hope it stays that way.
[1:05:10] Um but there's there's bad apples in
every category and it's just it is uh
[1:05:16] you'll probably turn on the news
tomorrow morning and it will be someone
[1:05:19] abused it again. You know what I mean?
Because it is a very powerful tool and I
[1:05:22] understand that but I think the
technology behind it is even more
[1:05:24] powerful. Um, and I don't know what um,
you know what I mean? Like you mentioned
[1:05:28] the the co era where you know, can it be
used to track people? Well, I mean what,
[1:05:34] and this is just a guess. This is just
an assumption, right? You probably could
[1:05:37] have, you know what I mean? If if if the
federal government got their hands on
[1:05:39] this, they probably could have tracked
people off these cameras uh, back when
[1:05:42] CO was around, right? That's why I said
the technology uh, we have to have the
[1:05:46] guardrails at the at the state level. We
have it at the local level, right? We
[1:05:49] have a five-page policy, but we have to
have it at a state level if we if to
[1:05:53] govern everybody and all this because
like I said, right now it's just uh you
[1:05:57] know it it's there's no statute that
governs what happens if it is abused or
[1:06:02] what happens if you know there's no
oversight board. There's no you know
[1:06:05] like the mayor had a great idea was
talking about having an oversight board
[1:06:07] for it. Um you know and I don't know
what that looks like. It's just a great
[1:06:10] idea that we'd have to figure out you
know but you know on the same page I'm
[1:06:14] just here and tell you like what if we
just get rid of it and I don't got this
[1:06:16] headache anymore.
>> Yeah. It's still a slippery slope,
[1:06:18] right? Compromising on the constitution,
but I do thank you, sir. Thank you.
[1:06:22] » Yeah. So, I appreciate your comment. I
appreciate you supporting us and
[1:06:25] hopefully this block debate doesn't uh
change that perception of us.
[1:06:28] » Thank you, sir.
>> Thanks.
[1:06:29] » Um, I'd like to just make some general
comments and I I appreciate everyone
[1:06:33] bringing this to our attention and
honestly, we probably wouldn't be
[1:06:36] talking about it if you guys didn't. So,
it's always good to have, you know,
[1:06:39] conversation. Um, you know, I what I've
struggled with and I understand your
[1:06:43] concerns and I am concerned as well. in
those some of those regards. It's, you
[1:06:49] know, as an elected official in this
town, I I think our our main
[1:06:53] responsibility is to keep our residents
safe, you know, and that's where I've
[1:06:56] been struggling with this because I have
children and this this camera has been
[1:07:02] proven for child abductions to catch
them quickly, quicker than probably any
[1:07:07] other way that I know of uh currently.
So, it's hard to tell the residents if
[1:07:13] we get rid of this that we are safer.
Now, I know we can debate what safe is,
[1:07:18] right? I I do get that. Like our
personal property, our privacy is a is a
[1:07:22] part of safety, but that's where I
struggle. Um I would have a hard time
[1:07:26] looking a mother or father in the face
saying, "I voted down cameras. They
[1:07:30] drive out of town and never steer their
kid again. We may be, you know, could
[1:07:34] have stopped that solve that crime."
That's tough. Um, and as far as I can
[1:07:40] see, and I'm sure more more issues are
going to pop up over the coming days and
[1:07:44] months, you know, there has been more
successes than failures, and it's been
[1:07:47] like a pretty dramatic one-sided debate
on that. I think there's been
[1:07:52] tremendously more success stories than
the negatives, but I mean, we'll see how
[1:07:56] that turns out. Um, but that's the
struggle. It's we we we voted in
[1:08:01] something we thought was making this
town safer and especially after the
[1:08:04] safety act passed where criminals were
getting out on the streets a lot more
[1:08:07] frequently. Uh we want to know when
they're in our town and I think that's a
[1:08:12] fair thing to want as a as an elected
person. I think it's fair for a resident
[1:08:16] to want to know when bad people come
through town if we can. Um it's not
[1:08:20] going to stop them all, but I think it
does deter crime, you know. Um, but it's
[1:08:25] the debate whether it's
is the good and evil, right? Is is the
[1:08:31] good outweigh the evil in my opinion.
That's where I'm stuck struggling with
[1:08:35] it. Regardless of where we land on this
debate, um, I think we have to have some
[1:08:40] oversight. Um, we probably really didn't
discuss that early on. Um, there needs
[1:08:45] to be
somewhere we meet in the middle or
[1:08:48] somewhere where we can ensure that we're
doing the right thing and giving people
[1:08:52] a safeguards that they can be
comfortable with or at least more open.
[1:08:56] Um, either way, as is today, it it
probably can't stay the way it is. But
[1:09:00] um Post does deserve more transparency
and more oversight from us. But I I
[1:09:07] don't know right now if I'm on board to
tell a mother that, you know, we remove
[1:09:13] this because of the whatifs. Um
I don't know. That's where I'm stuck at.
[1:09:20] » Yeah.
>> Because this has been one of the
[1:09:22] frequent misuses. Are you on board to
tell a woman, "I'm sorry that Flock
[1:09:27] camera helped somebody track an
ex-girlfriend, a wife, an ex-wife that
[1:09:31] led to domestic abuse?"
>> Yeah. So, I I guess I would answer that
[1:09:34] is I would say, you know, obviously I'm
sorry that would happen. Obviously, we
[1:09:38] didn't want that to happen, but that
police officer would be immediately
[1:09:42] locked out the door and hopefully in
handcuffs. And you can't stop a cop from
[1:09:45] doing bad things, right? We don't get
rid of guns because one officer has a
[1:09:49] bad shoot.
>> No, but we do teach officers how to
[1:09:52] shoot. and we should teach officers how
to use Spock. I don't disagree with
[1:09:55] that.
>> My my the point I'm trying to make is
[1:09:59] and I said this to to several of the
trustees and I think I said it to the
[1:10:03] chief of police as well. Um there are
certain tools that aren't necessary in
[1:10:08] an environment. So perfect example would
be a tank. The police department does
[1:10:13] not need a tank, right? because it would
be go past what is considered normal for
[1:10:22] protection and safety in the AI world
and in the digital world. This is a
[1:10:28] tank.
We all can agree that there are a lot of
[1:10:31] things we don't know. There's a lot of
things that and if I I would be very
[1:10:38] irresponsible to send somebody in with a
tank in a job that doesn't need a tank
[1:10:43] if he's not qualified or doesn't know
how it works and operates. And that this
[1:10:49] system kind of falls into that bit of a
category where we don't know we don't
[1:10:54] know how it works completely. We don't
know how it how advanced it can get. We
[1:10:58] don't know how quickly it can get there.
We don't know where the data all ends
[1:11:02] up. There's so many I don't knows. It
ends up being a tank in the police
[1:11:06] department.
If you catch, you know, I'm saying it as
[1:11:10] light. I know that sounds really firm,
but I'm saying that as lightly as I can
[1:11:14] from somebody who's only just started
looking into this a few, you know, a
[1:11:19] month ago. So,
you know, and I'm speaking to the tr,
[1:11:25] you know, to the trustees and the board
in this situation because chief and I
[1:11:28] spoke for over an hour and a half, I
think.
[1:11:30] about this and even he's saying and has
said I can do my job without it. He
[1:11:36] would never say that about a firearm. He
would never say that about some of the
[1:11:42] other tools he needs to use. So the fact
that he can say that out loud is a
[1:11:46] concern to its its ethicalness for being
used in this community. That that's my
[1:11:52] point.
>> Like one of the points and I'll make
[1:11:54] this quick, but one of the points in in
their discussion was yeah there's all
[1:11:57] kinds of tools that can deter crime. We
can use a gun and just shoot every
[1:12:00] suspect. That'll determine crime real
quick. But is it ethical? Of course not.
[1:12:05] » You're making them guilty before
>> Exactly.
[1:12:07] » Exactly.
>> And in some ways,
[1:12:09] » there's lots of tools. It doesn't mean
that they're moral, ethical, or
[1:12:12] constitutional.
>> So I I felt the need to say that because
[1:12:15] it's so easy to pull an emotional plea
of that poor mother, that poor woman.
[1:12:19] Well, there's plenty of women getting
beaten because they're being tracked. So
[1:12:22] it it goes both ways, unfortunately.
>> I would also like to speak up. Um, one
[1:12:27] of our founding founders, the founding
fathers has a quote, "Those who would
[1:12:32] give up essential liberty to purchase a
little temporary safety deserve neither
[1:12:37] liberty nor safety."
[1:12:43] This is a quote from Benjamin Franklin.
[1:12:52] » Did you have something in the
background?
[1:12:54] » Yeah. Um,
[1:12:58] so, um, I had this discussion with my
son. I think it was last week and and
[1:13:04] it's I was like, what are you worried
about? I don't do anything. I drive in
[1:13:07] here, who cares what's on my but then
and now I'm here talking about it. So,
[1:13:12] back to your point, Justin, you know,
that was my first thought, too. Like,
[1:13:16] how many how many crimes did it solve? I
didn't know any of this any of these
[1:13:19] stats last week. I'm just having a
conversation with him because he's he's
[1:13:24] younger and he thinks everything's a
conspiracy. I'm not going to go there.
[1:13:26] But I just said, "Well, it's probably
solved some crimes, Vincent, and it
[1:13:30] outweighs the whatever." But then and I
start thinking about it and hearing
[1:13:35] hearing people talk and listening to
I would ask the board as they think
[1:13:41] through this and I don't know when this
comes up. It's more than just a a
[1:13:47] question of
that woman, that man that was tracked or
[1:13:52] whatever else. Could it have solved the
crime? That's not even the question that
[1:13:57] we're talking about here. We're talking
about
[1:14:01] And I'm at a loss for words, but
monumental decisions that are going to
[1:14:05] impact generations to come. And we can
have an
[1:14:10] we can be the leader. We don't have to
we don't have to do what New Lennox does
[1:14:15] or Shanahan or anyone else. We need to
we can be at the forefront of decision-
[1:14:20] making. We can be cautious now. Now we
have more information. We know the we
[1:14:25] know there's more questions out there.
If we take the flock cameras down
[1:14:29] tomorrow, are crimes going to spike?
Maybe, maybe not. Are more crimes going
[1:14:34] to get solved? Maybe, maybe not. But the
bigger impact is, back to this data, we
[1:14:40] know 100% equivocally that that is going
to continue to spike. Our our rights are
[1:14:47] continuously going to be um at question.
And I think that's where we need to
[1:14:52] really focus this decision. And as you
talk through it as a board,
[1:14:57] [clears throat] it's not just a quick
answer of does it solve crimes or not.
[1:15:02] » And I don't think we should lose sight
of that.
[1:15:05] » When is the when is the vote on this
>> next meeting or two?
[1:15:12] » So it have to be prior to the November
22nd.
[1:15:15] » Okay. I would also ask that we
and I don't know if this is helpful or
[1:15:20] not but I think I know myself and
probably others but it sounds like the
[1:15:26] board as well needs some more factual
concrete information statistics to
[1:15:33] support and to look at both sides of the
argument.
[1:15:37] » And that's why we're starting with the
discussion openly with the public and
[1:15:41] going through all that process to look
at and things are coming out every every
[1:15:45] day.
>> [clears throat]
[1:15:47] » The only thing is is that if you go to a
hospital, don't they take all the
[1:15:52] [clears throat] data?
>> You know where that goes?
[1:15:56] » Data centers.
>> Yeah.
[1:15:59] » You know, you don't know that. And if
you don't do nothing wrong,
[1:16:04] why is these clock things so
getting everybody upset right now?
[1:16:10] » Because the definition of wrong can
change. I mean
[1:16:14] the to me I've heard and uh I know
people track everybody on their phones.
[1:16:21] Where does that data go if it's put on
your phone?
[1:16:24] » Yeah. I mean I just want to address
there's a difference between voluntary
[1:16:27] and involuntary private versus public.
This is a government forum. The the
[1:16:31] village of Manhattan. The government is
choosing to or not to use mass
[1:16:36] surveillance, you know, technologies.
And that's different from a private
[1:16:40] company where you get to choose or not.
choose to engage in them. I don't get to
[1:16:44] choose whether or not I turn left on my
house and there's two block cameras
[1:16:48] right flipping there. Like that it
drives me insane. I don't even want to
[1:16:51] turn left on my house anymore.
>> And and you have a you have a valid
[1:16:57] thought, but I and I've said this to
everybody that I've spoken to. I own
[1:17:02] this device, right?
>> Yeah.
[1:17:04] » If I'm over being tracked, I have the
right to leave this device at home. I
[1:17:08] have the right to destroy this device. I
can do whatever I want to to this device
[1:17:12] without any repercussions. I cannot do
that to a flock camera.
[1:17:17] That is a federal offense for me to go
and go attack a flock camera. If I don't
[1:17:22] want to be tracked by a Ring doorbell,
I don't have to
[1:17:28] » the difference is and and if I know a
store has a device, I can choose not to
[1:17:32] go to that store. I can choose to go to
a market. I can choose to there's lots
[1:17:36] of things I can do to not have that
information available. It's just most of
[1:17:39] us don't because it's not convenient.
>> Well, I just figure that if I don't do
[1:17:44] nothing wrong, I don't care where the
data goes.
[1:17:47] » That's my opinion because I'm an older
lady.
[1:17:50] » I understand,
>> but laws can change. [clears throat]
[1:17:53] » The um just Philip, real quick, I do you
know the uh
[1:17:58] » you said it's a federal offense to
damage a flat camera. Do you know what
[1:18:01] that's being charged under by chance?
Just
[1:18:03] » I I don't. I just Okay. I mean I I the
discussion is is
[1:18:07] » it's damage of property. It's a no. We
don't have
[1:18:10] » case. Okay. I just didn't know if the
federal government had picked up cases
[1:18:13] and had been charging it and that I
haven't yet. Like I said, I'm and I'm
[1:18:17] with you. I'm no lawyer. I
>> Yeah. I just was curious cuz I was like,
[1:18:21] well, if they started charging federal,
that's news to me and I got to look into
[1:18:23] it, you know. And the gentleman in the
back, I'm sorry, I missed his name
[1:18:25] earlier.
>> Kevin.
[1:18:26] » Kevin. So, I I think and and we'll kind
of punch it all together. I think
[1:18:33] cameras became a big thing during the co
era. Um because uh just speaking to my
[1:18:37] police career, vehicle hijackings and
stolen vehicle reached an all-time high
[1:18:40] during that time because there was
nothing better for criminals to do,
[1:18:44] right? Nothing was open. Nothing was So
they were hijacking cars at gunpoint,
[1:18:47] stealing stuff and stuff like that. And
I think when that's really when the ALPR
[1:18:51] beast became a big thing. I think it has
substantially uh slowed down now. You
[1:18:56] know what I mean? Um, I mean I don't I
try not to keep up with county crime
[1:18:59] stats anymore now that I don't work in
that county. But, um, you know, I think
[1:19:03] that's when when flock and ALPRs became
really big, but as as your wife had
[1:19:07] mentioned earlier, you know, the
phenomenon of ALPR, it's getting to the
[1:19:11] point where they're putting them on
street lights, they're putting them on
[1:19:13] this, you know, the data is
unbelievable. You know what I mean? And
[1:19:16] and like you said earlier, you know,
we're not worried about the cameras
[1:19:19] themselves. We're worried about the
data. Um, and and I appreciate you
[1:19:22] bringing that to my attention because I
don't think I really looked at it that
[1:19:26] way, you know what I mean? I thought you
were arguing about the camera, right?
[1:19:29] Which we are making valid arguments
about it, but it's the data that's a lot
[1:19:33] of people's concerns that I never really
looked into.
[1:19:36] » Um, you know what I mean? Because
>> like you said earlier, you know, it can
[1:19:39] go into this data warehouse that's on
it's not in Manhattan, so don't take it
[1:19:42] as a rumor, right? On Smith Road. Um,
but you know what stops the person who
[1:19:47] works for um,
uh, who's near here? I don't know. Green
[1:19:52] Garden Police Department, which don't
exist, who made a photo copy of it for
[1:19:55] their investigation who never shredded
it,
[1:19:57] » right? So, there's a million whatifs,
you know what I mean? Um, so I
[1:20:01] understand your your uh data questions,
you know what I mean? And that's
[1:20:04] something more that we I need to look
into, you know what I mean? As well. So,
[1:20:08] I appreciate that.
>> Yeah. We thank everyone for coming and
[1:20:11] bringing some information to our
attention and uh it definitely helps us
[1:20:15] make a better decision and be more
investigating ourselves.
[1:20:18] » And just as a side note, if any of you
guys, you know, if any of you guys want
[1:20:20] to come to my office to talk about it,
the door is wide open. Please come by
[1:20:23] and you know, I'd love to hear your
arguments because uh for some times
[1:20:27] during the day, they get my ear and I
get theirs. You know what I mean? And uh
[1:20:29] I'd love to discuss both options. I've
had very productive uh conversations
[1:20:33] with people both for and against it. And
I do appreciate that. I mean, that's why
[1:20:36] you pay your taxes, right? And I'm I'm
very open to those conversations and
[1:20:40] your point of views because if I didn't
have conversations with you, I wouldn't
[1:20:42] know what the general public thinks,
right? I could leave read Manhattan, but
[1:20:45] as we all know, that's not always true.
So,
[1:20:49] » anyone else?
>> I just for the record, can I add to what
[1:20:52] Bart said regarding the bridge and the
walkway there?
[1:20:55] » Yeah.
>> So, a second individual voiced a concern
[1:20:59] over that.
>> Yeah. I mean, we're definitely going to
[1:21:01] look into that. I mean, I've seen it
myself and
[1:21:02] » yeah, I go
>> brief conversations, but you know,
[1:21:06] sometimes there's There's so many things
that we try to focus on, but yeah,
[1:21:09] that's definitely something we'll
revisit.
[1:21:12] » Yeah.
>> Thank you for bringing that up.
[1:21:15] » Yes.
>> Would the board be willing to revisit
[1:21:18] the uh cap on the water?
>> I want to talk to our public works about
[1:21:22] that. Yeah.
>> And I mean, we could talk again after
[1:21:25] the meeting. You just got a couple
things to finish. And then, like I said,
[1:21:28] I could certainly give you a call if
it's maybe too late today, call you
[1:21:32] tomorrow. Or if you wanted to wait till
after executive session, that's up to
[1:21:36] you.
Okay, I can talk to you tomorrow.
[1:21:39] » I just because I didn't put on the
agenda, so I don't want to spring from
[1:21:42] what we're supposed to do.
>> Last comment I want to make is in all
[1:21:48] fairness, we did bring both a petition
for flock and petition against flock to
[1:21:52] several local businesses. It just said
that business owners uh they would not
[1:21:56] put out the the for. [laughter] But we
did offer both.
[1:22:00] » Actually, it's it's funny you said that
because someone called the police on you
[1:22:03] guys and I said, "No, leave that be."
You know, they uh I Were one of you guys
[1:22:07] in Sunset Lakes as well?
>> Yeah.
[1:22:09] » Yeah. They called and I'm like, "No,
that's perfectly permissible." So, it's
[1:22:13] uh they did call the police on you, but
we kind of knew what was going on. So,
[1:22:15] » that's why I stopped in before.
>> Yeah. So, we appreciate that.
[1:22:19] » All right. Thank you. Um I don't really
have anything. That was a lot. Um
[1:22:26] » Jennifer
[1:22:30] » um I just want to say uh thank you for
the facts that we've learned today. Um
[1:22:37] everyone talking has really kind of uh
opened up a new door for me just to look
[1:22:44] through some more facts and u make a
really good decision for the flat
[1:22:49] cameras. Um, also I want to say um I'm
sorry to the Reed family. They suffered
[1:22:54] a tremendous loss um over this weekend.
So prayers to them. Um and that's pretty
[1:23:01] much all I have. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Justin.
[1:23:05] » Uh yeah, just I mean echo what I said
earlier. Just it's it takes a lot of
[1:23:08] courage and I wish we had more residents
that would come to these meetings and
[1:23:10] voice their concerns because if not,
we're leading the team the village
[1:23:14] blindly at times it feels like. Um, so
just kudos to them and um, yeah, I mean
[1:23:20] kind of what you just echoed to you. You
know, the Reed family is going through
[1:23:22] some unimaginable times right now and
you know any help you guys can give
[1:23:26] them, I'm sure they'd much appreciate it
and just, you know, if you know them, I
[1:23:30] do not know him personally, but if you
do, you know, give them a hug and be
[1:23:32] there and be there, you know, one year
from now, two years from now, it's going
[1:23:36] to be a long time long healing process.
So, thanks.
[1:23:40] » Thank you, Bob.
nothing.
[1:23:44] » I'm very thankful for the disc
discussion we had here tonight and
[1:23:48] there's so much more information that we
need to talk about about FL cameras and
[1:23:53] of course the Reed family. Oh my
goodness. Uh hearts and prayers go out
[1:23:57] to them. Um
that's really all I have. Mayor,
[1:24:02] » thank you. But no, again to echo what uh
everyone else here said. I'm glad a lot
[1:24:07] of people came in today to uh you know
enlighten us and have a good productive
[1:24:11] productive uh discussion. Um it's great
when people come in to talk about the
[1:24:15] issues in a you know formal setting like
this and hopefully more people come in
[1:24:18] with you know any any other issues they
have on their mind with you know various
[1:24:22] things in town. And again prayers for
the Reed family um you know with
[1:24:26] everything they're going through. Um
Chief seemed like the cops and bobers
[1:24:30] event went really well um this past
Saturday. My little guy had a blast. And
[1:24:33] then we already have the fun Labor Day
events coming up Sunday, the parade
[1:24:37] Monday, and then um a lot of my seniors
at work are talking about the garage
[1:24:41] sale coming up the week after. Looking
forward to that. And then on their uh
[1:24:45] quarterly lunchon coming up on the uh
the 23rd. So that's that's all I got.
[1:24:50] » Thank you.
>> I don't have anything.
[1:24:54] » Also, it's the 25th anniversary of 911
this year, so it's
[1:25:01] Rosemary.
[1:25:04] Uh, as you can see, we're wrapping up,
uh, Ivan, the Ivano project. Uh, Route
[1:25:08] 52 is started for the turn lanes going
into the subdivision. Um, so we're
[1:25:12] working with the developer to finish
that along with the landscaping that
[1:25:15] still needs needs to be put in. Um, and
some other miscellaneous punch list
[1:25:20] items like the like the water fountains
and the in the ponds. So, we're hoping
[1:25:24] to try to get that completed by this
winter.
[1:25:27] » I drove by the other day. It's pretty a
lot of dirt move. [clears throat]
[1:25:32] » John,
>> uh we have good news. Uh we started
[1:25:36] deliver having our salt delivered for
the winter season this week. So 100
[1:25:40] degrees out and we're getting salt for
winter.
[1:25:45] All right. You had to say that
[laughter] not until after Labor Day.
[1:25:49] » Oh my god.
>> Carrie, do you want to add anything to
[1:25:51] that?
>> No, I'm good. Thank you.
[1:25:53] » Kent, do you have anything?
>> Chief,
[1:25:56] » uh appreciate the conversation. Thanks
for uh all the input and information.
[1:26:00] » Yeah, it's a it's a it's a beast. The
flock cameras, it's a it's a beast and
[1:26:03] there's a lot of questions to be asked
and I'm glad they're being asked because
[1:26:05] like I said, I don't 100% agree, but I
don't disagree that much either. You
[1:26:09] know what I mean? But I appreciate the
they're having a conversation um and
[1:26:14] stuff like that. We'll see where it
goes, you know? Um the uh you know,
[1:26:18] obviously, you know, prayers to the Reed
family. They're going through uh
[1:26:21] unprecedented, not not easy times. You
know, I feel terrible for them. Um, and
[1:26:26] you know, hopefully the community can
uplift them in these times of uh sadness
[1:26:29] and difficult. And uh Shelley earlier
with her 988 uh with the proclamation
[1:26:33] [clears throat] and everything we did.
And I can't I can't emphasize how
[1:26:36] important that is. You know, I can't say
much about what I know, but um it'll be
[1:26:40] in the news sooner than later. And it
and that number is more important than
[1:26:43] ever to call when uh when someone's
struggling. And uh I wish more people
[1:26:47] would really listen and and reach out
when they need help. You know, at the
[1:26:50] police department, we have all the
resources in the world. But uh you know
[1:26:54] the news will reflect that something
terrible happened today and and it could
[1:26:57] have been averted if they'd have called
this number. So that's all I have.
[1:27:01] » Thank you. Anything? All right. So we're
going to go into executive session.
[1:27:05] There's going to be no action
afterwards, but everyone's welcome to
[1:27:08] stay. So looking for a motion to enter
uh executive session for probable
[1:27:12] imminent and pending litigation and
address meeting and external and
[1:27:16] internal auditors. Uh, governmental fair
governmental audit committees, finance
[1:27:21] committees or their equivalent
>> motion.
[1:27:25] » This one
>> second.
[1:27:26] » Second.
>> Do I have to take that back?
[1:27:29] » Roll call.
>> Boon.
[1:27:31] » Yes.
>> Doyle.
[1:27:33] » Beha.
>> Yes.
[1:27:34] » Young.
>> Yes.
[1:27:35] » Open. Reopen regular session.
>> Motion.
[1:27:37] » Second.
>> Second.
[1:27:38] » Roll call.
>> Sorry if you're not.
[1:27:41] » Yes.
>> Yes.
[1:27:44] » Yes.
>> Yes.
[1:27:47] Okay, motion carries. Uh, no action. So,
looking for a motion to adjurnn.
[1:27:51] » Motion.
>> All in favor?
[1:27:54] » Meeting adjourn.