[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.

VOM Board Meeting 2026 09 01

Transcript