City Council - workshop

OK. I'll go ahead and call the meeting to order. This is the work session of Bella Vista City Council for August 17, 2026. First item on the agenda is review of the minutes from the July 27, 2026 meeting. Anybody have any comments about those? OK. Uh, next item is under unfinished business and ordinance requiring orientation and continuing education for elected officials of the city of Bella Vista, Arkansas, establishing minimum training requirements. Providing for reporting of compliance and for other purposes. It says 2nd reading, but that's 3rd reading.

Yeah.

Okay. Any discussion on that?

I need to point out one thing, and just as a reminder, Ms. Hughes had some amendments that she was offering, but they never got voted on at the last meeting. So if we intend to do that, we'll need to offer those at the next meeting. I just want to remind.

Yeah, okay. That's a good point. Okay, new business and ordinance amending, ordinance number 2017-15... to reduce the prepared food and beverage tax rate from 1% to one half of 1% and for other purposes. And I think this was Travis Hart.

Yeah, thanks, Mayor. Essentially, this will reduce the food and beverage tax by 50%. Just as you had mentioned, it goes from 1% to half percent, but I like saying that it reduces it by 50% because it sounds more meaningful. I did speak with the director of Discover Bella Vista Advertising and Promotion Commission. I'm not sure his exact title. Commissioner? Director? Yeah. And I explained to him that with the polarizing short-term rental topics and the goal of the Advertising and Promotion Commission is to bring tourists to Bella Vista. If we don't have a place to bring the tourists, I think it's probably time that we stop uh spending so much money and taxing so much on advertising for here we've clearly been discovered so i think this is a meaningful change for the residents and it's not a super negative impact to the advertising promotion commission they assured me that they could still operate and do their job they would just need to make some some modifications to their operations if uh if this were to pass so uh shay do you know how much annually that would impact their budget do you have a Yeah, so he brought some numbers and, you know, we don't have the exact, but we think it would be around $120,000 a year.

$120,000? Correct. A quarter of their budget.

Okay.

So it would be $120,000 less than it is now.

Right. Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Another thing I guess is worth mentioning is, you know, whenever you tax the short-term rentals, that is truly a pass-through tax because the majority of people that you know stay in a short-term rental for the weekend don't actually live here in bella vista whereas at the restaurants i think it's a different story obviously we have visitors you know from from other cities that that do go to our restaurants but i would challenge anyone to go to a restaurant at any given day and not find a local there so it would be saving people of bella vista taxes wendy

I did some little math based on my family. So if my family of five spent $200 a week eating out, which is plausible, that's about $10,400 a year. 1% of that is $104, half that's $52. So we would be saving a dollar a week by cutting out the half percentage. It's not the huge savings that one might think it is when you kind of break it down like that. But something to consider, because obviously every dollar helps people, but $52 a year isn't that impactful to my family personally.

Travis. Not to make this a debate, but I understand that it's not an extreme savings for your family, but I know plenty of people that are willing to drive across town to save two cents on a gallon of gas, so I believe that this would be meaningful to a lot of residents.

Wendy. I know Pea Ridge does not currently have an AMP, but I know they are trying to get one. What cities... would we be saving money by going to, by eating somewhere else if we did not reduce this? Because I think Bentonville has an A&P tax. I'm pretty sure McDonnell County does. So I'm trying to think, where would we be saving the funds if we were trying to escape the tax outside of Pea Ridge?

I'm not sure I understand the question. We would be saving Bella Vista residents money because they eat at our restaurants. And also, we've been discovered, so I don't think that having $500,000 a year to advertise for short-term rentals is necessary anymore. But that's just my personal opinion.

Well, I, I can see that where you're coming from, as far as keeping taxes low, um, you know, there is a certain competitive element to the AMP commission. And as you can imagine, places like Bentonville and Rogers have, uh, a lot more money than we do. And, uh, Marketing-wise, they're not afraid to throw their weight around, I'll tell you. I mean, it's a challenge for us to hold our own against them. And to have even less income, I think, would be a big challenge. But, yeah, I can see both sides of it.

That's right. But we're protected in this area, I believe, in northwest Arkansas. We have a lot of, you know, a lot of businesses that protect us from, you know, the market. So people know about us. Tourism's booming. I just believe this is an unnecessary tax. And I think this is a reasonable compromise for both ends of it. But, you know, it's election season. And if you don't want to lower taxes, then that's fine. The voters are paying attention.

Yeah. So. Anyway, this is on first reading, so we'll have some discussion next week. Next one is an ordinance establishing an advisory green committee providing for membership, providing for its organization and duties, and for other purposes. And I think this was Wendy Hughes.

Yeah, this is set up much like the other boards and commissions we have in Bella Vista, where it would be seven-person members open to the public for application, who would be judged based on their CV, their experiences, and their passion for the environment. It would be outlined with the terms of membership, how long their terms would be. Basically, they'd be focusing on advising the city of sustainable practices, to advise the city on environmental concerns they find across the city, to do the best to promote a safe and healthy environment within our city, advocating for practices that maintain the natural beauty of the environment within the city, and educating the public about best practices regarding sustainable practices, recycling, herbicide use, yard waste, and recycling and producing greenhouse gases. And basically it's trying to figure out what we can do to keep Bella Vista beautiful. This came about because several residents have brought up concerns in the past years, right, regarding herbicides or regarding clear-cutting or water conservation and different issues in our area. And so this kind of lets them have a space to make meaningful recommendations to the city with some teeth behind it.

Anybody else, any comments? Okay. That's also on first reading then for next week. Next one's a resolution expressing the willingness of the City of Bella Vista to utilize federal aid monies for replacement of the Browning Creek Bridge on Cullen Hills Drive. Karen Hunt, if you'd like to explain this a little bit.

Hi, good evening. We all know that Bella Vista is the youngest city in northwest Arkansas. And what we also know is that our infrastructure is not as young, and we experience a lot of aging infrastructure that's been replaced recently in these recent years. I'm here to talk about our Browning Creek Bridge, which goes over, it's on Cullen Hills, just east of Scottsdale. I checked the concrete deck on that and the stamp in there, 1984. And so 42 years old, it's starting to experience some age. We are fortunate that RDOT has a program where they have qualified bridge inspectors. They come out, review our bridges, give us a rating. In 2023, they came out and rated that bridge as important, which is a level C. They have a five scale rating, A meaning safety deficiency, requires prompt attention. B is pressing, meaning you need to set a completion goal for the repairs. C is important D routine and E general preventive maintenance. So at that point we're at a C right at the average rating for a bridge at that age. We did apply for the local bridge program at that point in time, and we didn't qualify. The local bridge program is something that provides where we get a ninety percent federal aid funding, and the city is responsible for a ten percent matching. So we had a second bridge inspection in 2026. At this point in time, a couple of our items slipped and now we are rated as a B, which means pressing. We need to design a completion plan, completion goal for the repairs that are required. We applied again to the local bridge program, and this time we've received an eligibility letter. So what I'm here to ask for council today is to approve the next step, which would be a feasibility study. It requires a $5,000 deposit from the city, and in that study, RDOT will come up with the recommended most appropriate improvement type. They'll begin the preliminary engineering. They will create 30% design plans for the city and a planning level cost estimate. I think it's a smart thing for us to pursue this being that we have the age of the infrastructure, the rating of the infrastructure, and the fact that there's an opportunity right now for a 90% federal funding to assist the city in completing this. I suspect that once we get the feasibility study back, I'll be back up here again to present what that looks like, what it may cost, set a budget, and move forward with the R dot on if you guys approve this feasibility study at this stage. Do you have any questions?

Travis so it's a $5,000 deposit to study to say that we need to fix a bridge that we know we need to fix feasibility study.

It's not saying that we need to fix it. We already know there's deficiencies, but it's benefiting the city because they'll do the design phases for us where if we had done this in house, we wouldn't have the 90% funding. but also the planning department would put out a statement of qualification for bridge repairs, and then we would create a budget based off of that. So we would be doing the engineering, everything in-house.

So how much is the study? It's $5,000 deposit.

So I researched it. Since our $5,000 is our required deposit, I researched the amount in those, and we're expecting, and I jotted it down here in the financial impact. Okay. If we were to do our 10%, which is what they're offering on this, a typical study ranges between 50,000 and 150,000. So the city's portion would be five to 15,000. So at this point, we're not asking for any sort of budget adjustment. It's something we would absorb in our street department budget. And then we'd move forward with the new information after the feasibility study has been completed. Either way, the work is required to keep our structure safe for the traveling public.

And then if the city did it in-house, would you have to do a feasibility study?

I don't know all the steps, but I think it could become costly to come up with that 30% design plan.

Okay, thank you.

No problem.

And normally you have some engineering studies involved, you know, a lot of people were agitated about county road 40 being closed for a while and nothing happening. That's because the city of Bentonville was doing the engineering study, which took them some time. But it was aggravating to people to wait that out. But it is kind of a big thing. Engineering studies are important and they they do cost money. We were pretty thrilled about this because, you know, our dot tells you when your bridge is starting to be a problem. And so Karen applied last year and got turned down. But that so often happens with these grants. If you keep trying, sometimes you get success. Plus the bridge gets a little worse the next year. So you're a more attractive candidate because your bridge is getting so bad. So anyway, we're really happy about it.

Yes, I think an opportunity for a 90% funding on a bridge that has to be repaired regardless is a great opportunity that we wouldn't want to miss.

So, thank you. That was a good explanation. So, I guess one decision for us to make is whether we want to put that on the consent agenda, that resolution or not.

I think Larry would not agree to this since it involves money.

Yeah, I'm fine with having either way. I just thought I'd bring it up because it is a resolution. Okay, we'll go on to the next one. A resolution authorizing the mayor and city clerk to enter into a contract with Tool Design Group in the total amount of $101,486 for a grant-funded active transportation education project. Taylor, is this yours?

Okay, this is an active transportation outreach and education campaign. This project really technically started in spring of 2024 when council approved us to apply for a grant through RDOT, which we got. We got it. They decided in December of 2024 that it was awarded to us. and we were put on their procurement path, which delayed us to now. They had a new process that they had started where they were doing in-house selection for cities within the state of Arkansas. Everyone was really excited, so everyone jumped on the program. Well, then that was basically way more than they expected to participate in the program. So all procurement that was under that umbrella got delayed significantly. So all of 2025 basically was lost due to procurement waiting. And so we ended up taking it over. We handled procurement. We removed ourselves from the program and did it ourselves. And we have finished the procurement process and the selection committee selected tool design group who is here tonight. Mr. JP is here if you have any questions for him. But essentially, just a quick refresher, we adopted Vision Zero in early 2024, late 2023. This is a part of that. This is one of the action items within Vision Zero is to educate the public on safety transportation practices involving bikes and pedestrians with the idea that there are no acceptable amounts of significant injuries or fatalities, bikes versus ped versus car. So this is just one of those action items and it was a grant we were given and we would love to use it. It's entirely funded through the RDoC grant as well as Walton Family Foundation. And the resolution to accept them in the budget was done in March of 2025. So we are ready to go. Should take about 10 months once it gets going.

Any questions?

Yeah.

Yeah, okay. Thank you. Consent agenda on that one, yeah. It's fully funded, so. Thank you, Taylor. Next one's a resolution, amending resolution number 2026-45, amending the 2026 city budget to appropriate $155,000 in development impact fee revenue related to public safety building additions. This is Chief Graves.

Okay. If you folks remember, I was up here last month. You folks approved resolution twenty twenty six dash forty five. That was for the building of the public safety sidewalk up front. Something we have to do really should have been done when this building was built. And so we're trying to get that accomplished. And so the numbers that when I asked for the resolution four hundred twenty thousand that was based on some numbers were given by our engineering firm. Of course, as soon as you guys pass that they came back with some updated numbers and said it was going to actually they thought it would be more. And when when bids went out and bids came back in, it did hold true that it would the project was going to cost more. And so the estimate now for the project is not to exceed $155,000. So I'm asking for that resolution to be amended to not to exceed $155,000 for the construction of the public safety sidewalk. And if you recall, that'll be paid for out of impact fees. Any questions?

what changed? That's a huge jump in a big amount of time. Do they give any explanation of just what caused that jump?

I don't know if you've ever dealt with engineering firms, but sometimes you just get these. It's a good firm. We deal with them all the time. When we ask them, hey, can you give us a good estimate for completion of this project so that I can go to council and I can say, look, we think this amount of money will complete it. And they gave us a breakdown, itemized breakdown of what they believed would cost. I don't know. You know, they just, they said increases. They just said, you know, things increase. You know, I can't really tell you. Honestly, I didn't speak with them directly. I'm going off my folks that have dealt with them. But I mean, things do increase, costs do increase. They just thought they had to re-crunch their numbers and they did. And they were actually right because when the bids came in, the bids came in that it exceeded that $120,000 amount. So they weren't wrong. They were just a little slow to the table of getting me the current numbers. And the first numbers it gave me were inaccurate. And so by the time I got those good numbers and the bids came back, we were short. And so that's why I'm here now to let you know that So I guess how I could reassure you is there are new numbers. I believe that they're accurate because the bids reflected that. We had two companies bid the project, and the bid came in and reflected that their numbers were accurate because the original number would not have covered the cost of those bids when the bids came in. Does that make sense? And the actual people giving us the bids are the people doing the work, and so they know what it's going to cost them.

But they actually changed their numbers before you got the bids?

Yes. And so how it kind of went down is I come to you and I get approval. Yay. And so we're getting ready to move forward. Okay. And then my lieutenant who's leading this project says, hey, chief, oopsie, CEI just emailed me and said, hey, before you use those numbers, we crunched them again. You should probably use these numbers. Okay. Well, you know, you're too late. And so now the bids were already out. And then a few days later, as the bids came back in, And it was correct because the bids came in exceeding $120,000. Okay. And the actual bid, I'll tell you, the actual bid we're using is just a little bit more than $150,000. Now, I'm asking for a total of $155,000 because I just don't want to be back here again. I just want a little wiggle room in case something goes wrong, okay? And so that's why I'm here. But in reality, the bid came back at just over $150,000, just so you know. Now, the other bid came back, if my memory serves me right, almost... North of $160,000 and so we took the cheaper bid and it's when I say cheaper less expensive is still going to be a good sidewalk. I mean it's a sidewalk so but but that's what we're needing we're needing this resolution to be amended not to exceed $155,000 to complete this this sidewalk that we have to complete based on a council resolution that mandated this mandated sidewalk for a project like this one.

It's not an additional 155. Correct. It's the difference between what you had and the 155.

It's an additional 35,000. So we're saying, can you please change this resolution that said not to exceed 120 and make it say not to exceed 155? Travis.

Could you just remind me of where the sidewalk starts and ends or where this proposed sidewalk is? Sure.

So if you run across Fort Sills Boulevard, 279, it'll run south of the building. Our property runs just about to where the hauler is going to start, so about where the bike trail kind of goes down into the hauler there. And really, it's just going to – and what's costed a little more is what – and I think what they realized – okay, you asked me a question of why they changed. Now I'm remembering. Um they said when they re looked at things as you as you head down towards the south side of the property, the property drops off for ADA purposes. You can't have the sidewalk drop off even though it's going to go nowhere. Okay, so they have to do some fill in and I believe maybe a little bit of retaining wall to to to flatten out the sidewalk and then guess what? It's just going to stop. They're just going to be like a rail there. Okay, so somebody can't roll off the edge of it and then it's going to run northbound. to the property just north of the streets department where they're building the VA. And then my assumption is the VA is going to be forced to put a sidewalk in as well. And it's going to run up to Rogers Road. And so you have a sidewalk that runs just south of this property all the way along to Rogers Road. And then whatever the future holds, I'm not sure.

But for this $155,000, it's basically from the end of this property to the beginning of the VA property.

Correct.

In front of the place and the street.

I just want to comment for any citizens that might be listening I know sidewalks are a popular thing and everyone wants sidewalks in Bella Vista and I appreciate that and I agree but I think this is a good reminder that sidewalks are incredibly expensive even in a really straightforward yeah application they really are they are quite expensive but I mean it's it's you know I mean we're never gonna have sidewalks don't start somewhere I guess so

Any other questions? Yes.

So what happens if we don't approve it?

Then you're not approving something that I'm mandated to do by a council resolution that was passed, I believe, about four years ago.

But we haven't done it for four years.

It's a condition of their development approval for the project you've got going. Correct. So you could not meet the development requirements that the law puts on.

Thank you for reminding me, Jason. So we're previously... We're presently doing a project in the back of the streets department. We have an operations building back there, and we have an impound lot, and we are in the middle of increasing the size of that impound lot. And part of that project, that's how we sort of discovered this fell through during the original building of this building. And so part of being able to complete that project is that we have to complete that sidewalk. So let's say you were to not approve that project or the sidewalk, then I couldn't complete any construction or work on the current project I'm doing, and it would just kind of sit there, and we've already spent probably $70,000 in engineering fees, and so I guess that's it. Things are expensive to build, I hate to say.

Yes, they are.

I'm glad I'm not a construction guy.

So under the circumstances, I assume we don't want to put that on the consent agenda, and we'll just... I'll go over it next week, especially since a couple of folks are missing. OK, thank you. I really appreciate it. Our next one's a resolution amending the 2026 city budget to appropriate $31,653 in development impact fee revenue for library growth-related qualifying expenditures. Suzanne Adams is here from the library.

Thank you, Mayor Flynn. Good evening, Council. Okay, I want to start with the shelving, because you should have some fun diagrams that I put in the packet. The library is limited in real estate right now. There's no more space to actually add shelving. We got really creative and found some corners, some corners. But then we discovered there are a lot of shelves because I like to repurpose and reuse things. So there's a lot of shelves that were, because we didn't have the appropriate braces, that we had... Some help bolting to the sides of some plywood and we made some nice shelves, but we can't move those shells they're they're stationary they will not move and in a library, you have you have collections like you should have like about. two-thirds of your collection in or one-third out at any given time. So you leave about one-third of each shelf free. But also books are all different sizes. They come like this size, this size, all kinds of sizes. So you need to be able to move those shelves up and down to accommodate your collection. So those won't move anymore. So part of this request for impact fees is is to get proper braces for some of these existing shelves. We can repurpose the shelves that are on those now. We don't have to throw those away. But we still have to buy the actual brace for the unit, the actual unit. And that will increase some of those, I think, a shelf. per side or four is it four because I yeah a shelf per side, but they will also be able to be moved around and the other spots are actually just little places in the library that I found little little places to put shelves. This is about it. This is about as far as we're going to go now. This should this should take us a while. I'd say If both of this stops growing Five years I'd say we have got five years in this plan. So that's the shelving now in terms of the items I have discovered some really interesting things this year. We keep a really good statistics And then we pulled together some very interesting numbers. I couldn't believe the library of things request and That's up 160%, the checkout is, which makes sense, because people moving here expect that, because they already have that in some of the libraries that they come from. So they're looking for tools, they're looking for telescopes, they're looking for all kinds of things. So we would like to request some fees to be used for that particular collection. Some of the things that they've asked us is, like a lot of new parents like these Tonys, and if you don't know what those are, they're like little, Cute audio features, children age three to six love them. So we would like to buy some Tonys. Lots of parents are requesting those. Puzzles, puzzles for low vision. We have a lot of puzzles now, and we have a lot of people coming over to the library putting together those puzzles, but they've requested, some of the groups have requested some puzzles for low vision. Low vision also kits bird watching kits hiking kits things like that are as a big request I have enough metal detectors. I don't think we need any more of those And one thing that was interesting if you'd like to know the American doll series is getting requested a lot so anyway, that's on the library of things and The other items would be just normal books and DVDs that we just still get requests for. So in terms of growth, what we're seeing is You might have a book that's very popular, and if we weren't experiencing growth, we might have five holes on the book. Now all of a sudden, we have 50, and so sometimes we just have to buy additional copies of a bestseller or something just so we can meet the need of the public. But in addition to that, there's areas in there that people are requesting to, like specific areas.

And I would note this is gonna be paid for with impact fee revenue. Is there any questions? Wendy?

Are we agreeable to put on the consent agenda?

Okay, I'll make a note of that. Thank you very much, appreciate it. You're welcome. Next one is a resolution authorizing the mayor and city clerk to enter into a guaranteed maximum price contract amendment with Kleiner Construction Management Inc. and the additional amount of $3,471,293.38. for purposes of renovation and remodeling of fire station number one and administrative offices. And this is phases four A and B.

There's light at the end of the tunnel, finally. After about four years of planning and construction, we are nearing the end of the phase project of the town center project, which I have in front of you right now, which is the Fifth Amendment. We've already been through four amendments on this project. With amendment number four was $9,691,000. $331.29. So if you add the Phase IV A and B to that amount, that's where you come up with your Fifth Amendment guaranteed maximum price at $13,162,624.67. So that's how that number evolves in this amendment number five that you'll be approving for the guaranteed maximum price, not to exceed that over the entire project that started in 22 planning with construction starting around 23. So we've been at this for a while on that. So with this particular amendment here and with the price of this, it was in the 2025 bond. It was... And the bond was listed to completion of phase three, phase four, A and B, and C. And I believe, Mayor, if I was reading that right, we put $8 million in the bond to finish that project.

And the two portions are 3.4 and 3.7. So they come out to 7.1. And the bond had $8 million in.

So that's the number we stand at in the bond to complete those. those particular phase three and four A, B, and C, which currently right now, the four A and B is fire department only. It's two new engine bays. It includes with that, you have two new apparatus bays that are modern, more modern than we have right now currently. which is somewhere in that space with the mezzanines around 2,500 square foot, okay? Inside that square footage area along with it is SCBA storage. EMS storage supply where we store our EMS supplies at, which is going to be heated and cooled space. That particular space will be heated and cooled. You'll have an EMS report study where the, Paramedics will go in and do their EMS reporting. That area also will be, and this is in the lower level, that area also will be heated and cooled space as well. Then you'll have a shop tool room slash storm shelter. So this will be a FEMA-rated storm shelter for anybody that's in that vicinity or that building can seek shelter in if they stop by for a tornado warning or something like that that can be passing through. They'll also have that as well as some of our other stations have that too. Currently, it'll include a turnout gear room, which our turnout gears slide into, which are out of the way of the apparatus. It'll have a decon room where we can decon things if we need to. It'll also have storage space in that mezzanine area. And then of course the part of the top mezzanine will include like 1,800 square foot of storage on the mezzanine with a fitness room that I believe is about, is it around 700, 600, 600 something square foot. And it'll also include a slide, not a pole, Everybody's asked us about a pole. Won't include a pole, but it will include a slide that's a little safer, saves on injuries. They will come from the top floor. When the guys are upstairs, they can get on the slide, and they'll take them to the apparatus bay or floor area. The phase for... The phase for 3, 4, and C was $3,316,458. I believe we're going to be under budget on that, which will actually kind of move over into phase 4A and B, which will tune about close to $500,000, possibly, roughly.

Some items moved from phase 3 to phase 4, so the money's traveling.

Yeah, so it's kind of going a little bit forward with the bond money. You can do that with those phases.

We will be under budget on phase 3.

So with Phase IV A and B is going to be $3,471,193, which you see in the AIA document, which is included in the guaranteed maximum price of $13 million, which that number's in there as well. All those numbers match up. With that, the total of those phases of $6,787,751, which I told you is eight million in the bond. So if we stay within that number, we won't draw down over a million dollars.

Travis. Can you refresh my memory about this guaranteed maximum price contract at the beginning? What was it, and how has that stayed the same through five years?

So if you look at the very front of the, if you look at the second document, or the second page of the document. It lays out what the start of that guaranteed maximum price was. If you see the demolition up there and if you see the second amendment, which is phase 1B, which would include a demo and the completion of the two-story, old two-story PD, which was the $2.6 million. If you just follow it down from there, phase two, which was the two new two-story additions, follows that number, $3 million. Then you come down to there, we had some site work and so forth that was additional added to that guaranteed maximum price of 685,000, which was also approved by council. Then if you look at phase three, if you look at phase three renovation and so forth, it ended up being 3.7 million. So if you kind of just follow that down, then you'll see a deduction from one of the phases, which I believe was phase two. Is that right, when we were doing the two-story? you'll see a reduction of $460,000, which was close to $500,000, minused off of that, which brings you down to this new GMP price for the new addition of the fire station phase for A and B. That's where that, if you follow those numbers down, it gives you the price of $13,162,000.

And then that's assuming we don't have any more amendments or any more phases, right? This is the last phase?

This is the last phase. As of right now, that we know.

It seems like it keeps moving the goalposts and getting more expensive, but maybe that's not the case. Maybe I'll just feel that way.

It was always kind of planned out this way. In fact, the idea about having the new bays and whatnot, that was started during Peter Christie's term, and it was at least... He had at least two years left when he was first talking about this. That's correct. It goes way back. We changed what we did win a little bit because of the fact that Taylor's group was in the... where the fire people used to live, you know, temporary offices. So you couldn't really start this phase until you finish their offices so they could, you know, they're literally in the way of, so we couldn't do, so we stretched it out a little bit because of things like that where, hey, we can't start this phase until we get these folks moved over here, right?

I want everybody to keep in mind, That that project down there, when Mayor Christie was mayor, it started out as taking out where the planning is, not where the planning is going to go, was remove that completely and make that a drive around to the fire station. That was going to be central fire station only at one point in time. During one of the original plans, that whole complex was going to be central fire station. But again, things change, so we had to start looking at ways to

adapt and to grow and how we could grow with new buildings and get everybody in one central location he was actually going to tear down the part of the building that's closest to lancashire which is where taylor's group is going in now that was going to be torn down on our very first plan so yeah so it's it's actually went from a

A smaller plan to a larger plan in the last three years.

I'm not trying to be disgruntled or not supportive, but I'm getting a little fatigued having to go through all these amendments, and it feels like it just keeps costing more and more money. But maybe I'm just in my feelings and not using the facts to support that. So I'm just trying to understand, when will this be done? Do we have an estimated completion?

About 12 months. Starting, hopefully starting about the first part of September and hopefully be done within 12 months.

And we won't have to approve any more than that $13 million. We'll call that $13 million for easy math.

I hope not. Unless something, I don't know, you may have jinxed us by talking about that.

You know, they've never actually had a situation where whenever we contracted for something and had a guaranteed maximum price, they've always been under it. But you can only figure out that you can't sit here and have a guaranteed maximum price for five years from now. So you have to get pretty close to the time to make a contract like this. You try to do it two, three years ahead, nobody can guarantee because they don't know what prices will be like. So that's why we keep approving it in phases because it's got to be kind of close to when you're doing the work. So you kind of know what the price is.

If we could have done it all at one time, we'd already be in there, it'd already been done. But having to do it in phases with everybody having to shuffle around, having people staying here, moving from here to there, that's why it's taken so long, and that's why we had to do it in phases. And phases come with a cost, especially when we started this four years ago, kind of actually planning we'd be in construction three years.

One thing I give Chief Sims a lot of credit for is he said, you know, we can do this construction and run fire station number one out of there the whole time. And that was not very many people do that sort of thing. That was a big challenge for the construction company and for the people in the office. And I have to give kudos to Taylor's group. They've been in kind of tough quarters for a long time waiting for this. I'm happy to see them getting to be in their new locations. Shay?

I just want to point out at the bottom of, I guess, page 109 of our packet, the total ends in 39 cents and our packet says 38 cents. Anyway, I just want to call it the one cent difference if it matters contractually. We might just want to make that number match. But I'm not going to berate you about the one penny. Happy to provide it myself.

Our accounting system every once in a while has a little one penny rounding error. and you can't, I have to call and pay money to have them tell me why it's around here.

For a penny. Yeah, I just want to make sure contractually that it doesn't cause any rub.

Yeah. Any more questions? On the pennies. Try to, anyway.

That's because they're getting rid of them, right?

Yeah, exactly.

We're going to be really under that. What's that? We're going to be really under that. Yes, exactly. Well, that...

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you for the presentation. Appreciate it. The next one is a resolution referring to the Planning Commission for public hearing and recommendation of zoning and development code change regarding changes to minor plat approval requirements and to remove development waivers from Chapter 107. I know. Taylor, can you go over this or?

I don't want to speak for him, but what I understand after we met, so we, he came with his, his open discussion items and we met at the office shortly after. The outcome of that is that a majority of those notes that he had on his open discussion item were already being studied by the Planning Commission under the direction of the Planning Commission, and so those were all withdrawn. However, the items that the Planning Commission had not already sent staff on to work on were these two that are left on there, which is making minor plats, used to be called incidental subdivisions. Most commonly known as lot splits or property line adjustments if they're just making one more new lot. or they're just moving a property line in between two existing lots, you're not creating a whole subdivision of six or more lots, et cetera. It is standard practice that you do not require the developer or the lot splitter, in more plain terms, to develop the road, infrastructure, sewer lines, et cetera. That is typically reserved for someone who is making a large development, which is typically defined by six lots or more. he would like to request that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing on that and change that and make all subdividing under the same development requirements. So whether you're just adjusting a property line or developing 10 lots, he thinks, or I believe, I'm trying not to speak for him, that they should all be subject to the same requirements. So that's the first part. And then the second part that is also not a part of the Planning Commission study is to remove the allowance of waivers from 107 So this would not ship the Planning Commission hold a public hearing on it and vote it to all the recommendation This wouldn't allow waivers from things like sidewalk construction lot size lot width When you're creating a new lot doesn't mean our standard sizes easement with requirements It would remove the appeal process for any that so it just be hold steadfast and sure you meet the code or you don't get your law split and

So I noticed that about the waivers. So those are discretionary with who? The Planning Commission? Normally the way it is now?

Yeah, Planning Commission oversees waivers. Appeals of those waivers go to council if a Planning Commission denies a waiver, just like the sidewalk.

The waivers are really, they're not variances because those are different. The zoning variances are handled by the BZA, which is, is a different animal. But this is to allow for development adjustments basically based on unique circumstances as well. Isn't that fair to say? So if a particular area just wouldn't be, wouldn't work for some sort of requirement, they can be waived. It's not just, we just don't want to do it, waive it.

It's not that. The waiver requirements that are required to be found are much larger, longer, and more strict than a variance. There is no state statute that is discussing the waiver process, so it is entirely subject to the city's municipal ordinance on how those are handled, but we even up to the amount of approvals that it requires to get a waiver. So waivers are technically more difficult to get than a variance. But yeah, so street width, sidewalk construction requirements, Anything that deals with the actual development, whether it's creating lots and or infrastructure, is what the waivers oversee.

So he's actually talking about taking away some of that discretion.

All of it.

Yeah. Yeah.

Per my understanding.

With our unusual topography and whatnot, that seems windy.

Hey, Craig, given your past being on a planning commission, do you have any thoughts on this? Just your past experience or kind of you have great experience on this? Or any words of wisdom or anything?

Mayor kind of reflects my sentiment completely. With him not being here, I'm kind of restricting myself from you know, going at Taylor. For me, trying to find the justification, and I don't know if that's the right term, but I don't really understand what we're trying to achieve by doing that. I mean, I don't know if it puts a burden on the developers, you know, something like that. You know, that's I've got in my nose, just I need to double down, research, make sure I understand And that's, I was hoping to, you know, get that knowledge or understanding tonight, but I really don't have anything to any input that sounded negative. I just don't know.

Thanks. So if council voted yes on this, it would kick it back to the planning commission. To just like we've done.

Yeah a couple of other items But yeah, and then with the idea of bringing back an ordinance change for you to consider at that point.

Yeah Okay, well, thank you for explaining I appreciate that Taylor Okay, let's move on the next item which is a discussion item banning flock cameras and then it says imprints automated license plate readers and and Council Member Shea Newport.

Thank you. And I do appreciate the assistance of staff. I do also just want to start by clarifying. I haven't used the word flock in my communications, and so this isn't about a specific brand, although I will say I know that that is what a lot of people are aware, kind of Kleenex equated with tissues. So mostly this is about ALPR, and this is also about PTZ AI cameras. Pardon me while I go on a bit of a journey with you. I first messaged Mr. Kelly about this on July 27th, and we've been working back and forth on an ordinance to get in front of council. This is super complicated, and so I'll kind of outline some of that. First, I want to start with the city of Bella Vista does not currently have any agreement in place, and we do not currently have any kind of ALPR or AI-enabled cameras in our city. That being said, I'm fundamentally opposed to the spending of city tax dollars to surveil our citizens. I find ALPR automated license plate reader data to be a warrantless search and a violation of our Fourth Amendment rights. While I respect and trust the law enforcement in our city, I don't consent to my location data being aggregated and historically monitored. While there are many forms the government can use to understand my location, such as cell phone data, an entity would need to provide a warrant and a subpoena to obtain my data, and I would have to be under investigation. And that's what I feel like is the major difference between ALPRs that just would be posted up next to our street and would scan our license plates. Those are really different in my mind. So, oops, sorry, I lost my place. ALPR data does not require any formal investigation for the data to be used. There are many instances of the technology and data being hacked and many motors have been pulled over and jailed due to technology error. I want to get ahead of spending any of our precious city resources being spent on technology that is deeply worrisome and I find it very unpopular. I've been concerned about ALPR cameras for a couple of years now. I actually emailed all of my Bentonville City Council counterparts a couple of years ago letting them know that this technology was happening. In their city I didn't hear back from anyone, but I bet they're thinking about it a lot more now. Also, and i've emailed Jason about incorporating this into the ordinance language there's something called a PTZ which is stands for pan tilt and zoom Ai cameras, if you wanted to look more into them. A popular brand name would be the Flock Condor cameras. Those can be posted up in parks, and they scan, and then they look for someone walking. They zoom in on that person's face. They do data recognition of who that person is. It will also record their audio, and it will zoom in on any cell phone they're holding and record what might be on their screen. I also find this objectionable. to be kind of a dragnet surveillance, and I find it a lot more invasive than a simple security camera that might be posted. Let's see. So that being said, I'll have a more detailed ordinance for consideration in September. Jason and I have gone back and forth, and I've also been speaking with Chief Graves about this matter. And I want to get a really good version in front of you all rather than, I think it can get complicated when there's a lot of amendments. And while I'm definitely open to the amendments that you all will inevitably have on the matter, I at least want to start with the cleanest version, I think. That being said, I do think there's room for some compromise. Chief Graves and I have spoke about this and I certainly invite him to come up and share his thoughts. There are options where the data that could be recorded on these devices would be owned by Bella Vista rather than aggregated and quote unquote owned by a third party provider such as Flock. And that's to me a really different matter where someone could put my license plate into Flock and it would aggregate nationwide cameras versus just Bella Vista data being kept within Bella Vista. I think those are really different matters and I think that's worth all of us considering and being educated on. Chief Graves did explain that this can really be a force multiplier, which I think is valuable and I do respect the work that our law enforcement does. So he and I also did discuss that there are options where a camera with this type of technology Again, assuming the data was owned and operated by Bella Vista, they could be mounted to a police vehicle that would only be operated by an officer, which to me is a lot different than just a static camera being posted along some of our busiest roadways. So these are all things just for us to collectively consider on what I don't want to negotiate on. Is our law enforcement teams accessing a lpr data without a warrant or subpoena or as part of an active investigation cameras being posted throughout our citizens throughout our city tracking our citizens or our data being posted on any kind of shared system. So. That is what I have so far. I sent Jason back a really aggressive red line and I apologize and thank you for all the work you'll do on that. And in the meantime, I would just ask, I'd love to hear from Chief Graves. And I would ask that all of us get up to speed on ALPRs, PTZ, AI systems in general and understand the different databases and camera types that can be that can exist and the different applications so that as we consider this next month, we'll be ready to have the most educated conversation.

Before Chief Graves starts, I would like to thank you for clarifying that we haven't instituted any of these embellishments because quite a few of the places around us have and it's become a bit controversial as you mentioned. Chief Graves.

Thank you. It's definitely quite a mess. So I first want to say that I'm not only chief of police, but I am a citizen and I don't disagree with a lot of the concerns that have been brought forward here. Um, you know, like when I met with the council member Newport, I told her I'm a little conflicted as a person because. You know, I'm I by nature am suspicious myself and I've always been kind of like, ooh, big brothers watching. But then, like, I am big brother, you know, I'm like, so I've been my whole adult life. I've been in the military or I've worked as a police officer for over 34 years. So I totally get it because I'm very conflicted myself. I don't want to be surveilled either. But that being said. What I pass out is is just a little sheet of of crimes that we have solved and are missing persons that we have resolved in less than twenty four month period. That's by using other people's flock data. Now I want to get away from flock. Okay, because council member Newport is correct. This is data. There's different companies. They do it different ways and we had that discussion and I'd love to just briefly and I don't want to go on forever because this is there's it's like drinking from a fire hose. This stuff is I really recommend everybody kind of become educated. It's not going to go away. But, um. Um, these are crimes that we saw by accessing other agencies flock data. Okay, so it, which is a LPR data super valuable tool. Um, and I've told Councilman Newport this and this is an adversarial, but I will be against. I will stand against any banning of any. Any full banning of ALPR data for the use of the police department. I'll just be against, and I don't vote for it, so it's not up to me, but I will stand against it, and as best I can defend the ability for the police department to use this data in the future, because as you can see, we currently use it, and I think it's a valuable tool, and I think not to look at it in the future is just not a smart move. You know, technology changes, okay? Can we solve crimes without ALPR data? Sure we can. Sure we can. But here's 12 we probably wouldn't have solved or 10 without the data. DNA data has been around, or DNA data. Using DNA to solve crimes is, I think the first case was 1984-ish or 5-ish. I think in England they use the DNA to solve a criminal case. Could they solve criminal cases before the use of DNA? Sure, sure they could, but they solve a lot more now. Okay, so I think we need to think about that. Okay. Now, that being said, you know, there's different types of DNA. ALPR systems that gather data. I don't want to sit here and talk bad about flock. I really don't want to get sued. But that being said, you know what I know about it anecdotally and talking to people who have a little insight and this is I'm just going to talk in generalities doing your own research. It's out there. There's two there's different types of system. Their data was very an open open source sort of open source system as a law enforcement agency. You can get flock cameras. As Home Depot Corporation, you get flock cameras. So private and public entities can both get flock cameras. And my understanding is you kind of have access to anybody's cameras. You know, if we had a crime here, I can go, hey, I wonder if they went through Bentonville's cameras and we can log on and check that. I wonder if they got to Fayetteville. So you can kind of do that. So my understanding is, well, with a system like FLOC, they didn't own the data. You don't own the data, okay? Now I want to speak of a different type of system, and I'm only going to say Axon because we currently have Axon. I've talked to the reps, so I know about that system, but I'm not promoting Axon. I'm just saying this is the type of system Axon is. Axon, they explain, is more of a closed loop system, okay? Currently, we use Axon for our body cameras and our in-car cameras, okay? We all love those. Everybody loves those. That really solves a lot of problems for officers, for citizens. It protects citizens, protects officers. We never think of getting rid of them. All that data is collected and kept in the cloud, wherever that is, right? But it's called axon.com. And it's kept there. It's encrypted. It's protected. They've never had a data breach, ever, ever, ever. And we own that data, okay? So Bella Vista PD, the city of Bella Vista owns all of our access data, Axon data, okay? Only we can access it and we can allow other people to if we choose to, okay? That's a really distinct difference, okay? Other agencies that have Axon can't go, oh, hey, what is Bella Vista? What'd they do with their Axon? They can't log into our evidence.com and look at our Axon data, okay? Now, our Axon cameras we currently have in the cars do have ALPR capability. It's just not turned on because we haven't paid for it. In the future, if we decide, wow, this is a good technology, we've solved a lot of crimes, let's solve some more crimes. And we paid Axon, because you pay for everything, to turn on that capability. Then that ALPR data that was collected would get stored on axon.com, where our current data is stored and they've never had a security breach. It's encrypted. We own it, and only we own it. We keep it for as long as we want to keep it. We set the criteria of when that data is collected of what we want to hit on us. And here's an example. And I just want everybody to know that anything an ALPR camera can do, my cops can do, just not as fast and quite as good. So you get no extra. There's no extra data collected by an LPR camera that that a police officer can't collect. OK, so it's not it's not digging into your super secret data. It's all data in a public area and not to become confrontational, but it's not illegal. It's not against the Fourth Amendment. It's just not. Now, what will. A case in the future make it illegal some way the way it's collected maybe but but it's not you have no expectation of privacy this sounds bad but there's not an expectation of privacy. In a public setting like that okay an example is if I walk past your yard you have a five foot fence and I'm six feet tall and I peer over your fence and see you unless I'm being a peeping Tom and really being you know creepy about it is walking by and I look it's not illegal. If you have a seven foot fence I'm six feet tall and I get a ladder look over your fence that's illegal okay. So you don't have the expectation of privacy like with your license plate and things like that. And the data collected by an ALPR camera is no different from my officer driving around and then running on their computer ABC 123 right in front of the vehicle, okay? Which they could do that, okay? They don't need a warrant. They don't need anything. They could do that, okay? ABC 123, they run it through NCIC, ACIC, which is state check and a national check, database check, and it comes back with The license plate, the type of vehicle it's on, the color of the vehicle it's on, who owns the vehicle, does the vehicle have insurance, just things like that. Plus, it comes back with, ooh, hey, this vehicle was involved in an armed robbery. This vehicle was involved in a murder. There's a warrant associated with this vehicle. That's what it comes back with. ALPR. I keep saying Flock. ALPR readers are no different, okay? No different. The difference is, right, I could set an officer up on the Missouri border and they could run every vehicle entering Bella Vista from Missouri, every plate, they could just run them, run and run them. They couldn't do it because they're not that fast, okay, but they could legally do it. The ALPR camera's no different, okay? So the data that we're concerned about is data that is currently collected. And data that's currently collected sometimes gets abused. It does. There's cases, not here, knock on wood, but from my old agency in Arizona, we had multiple officers that would run people's plates That's a cute girl or my ex-wife on pistol. There's my ex-wife's boyfriend, whatever the case may be, okay? And they would do it and they would get in trouble because it's always logged and you know who does it eventually and they get caught and they get fired, okay? So this is no difference, okay? If we had somebody abusing ALPR data, guess what? We would find out eventually and they would get fired, okay? And are prosecuted and held criminally liable. So there's really no difference. The difference is... FLOC does allow and did allow somebody to go, hey, I'm looking for a red F-150 ABC-123 and plug it in, and it would track it across wherever the FLOC cameras had hit. That's a difference. It does do that. But you do that with AOPR data anyways. You can go, okay, this is a suspect vehicle. This is the plate I'm looking for. Well, here it is in our city. It hit on our ALPR Axon camera. And you can call other agencies. You think they may be going to Florida because they've got a cousin who lives there. So you just do an investigative process. You get this data anyways. You're currently being tracked on your cell phone. Right now, if you have an iPhone, Siri's listening to everything we say because it has to so that when you say, hey, Siri, do this, it does it. So currently, you're already being tracked. So all I'm saying is this stuff is already happening. I'm not saying I necessarily like it. But I think for purposes of solving crimes, okay, that it's just really short-sighted, and that's not a dig on anybody, but it's short-sighted just to say I never am going to allow Bella Vista PD to use ALPR data and or have ALPR technology within the city to protect the citizens of Bella Vista, okay? I just think it's short-sighted. Now, I think it's really smart to say, hey, if we're going to do this, okay, I can never do this without asking you anyways, okay, because it costs money, all right? It would have to be at minimum, okay? Now, based on this conversation already happening, I would trust you. I would always get counsel approved for something like this because I know otherwise that, you know, the world could be on fire, okay? But that being said, this would always come up at least during a budget cycle because it would be part of our axon contract. I'd ask for an increase in X to turn on LPRs in our cars, and then you would read the budget and go, oh, my gosh, we're asking for an increase in X for LPR data in X. See what I'm saying? So it would have to get approved anyways. It's not something I would just do or I could just do. And especially now, now that I know it's such a – and just so you know, we were looking at flock cameras last year. I am just thankful as heck that I did not convince the council to get flock cameras last year because we'd be in the middle of this mess, okay? I'm really thankful because, and again, not to bag on them, but they did have some problem on the backside in protecting their data. And of course, hackers can hack, and that's what hackers do. But I think they did have some problems on the backside, whereas a company like Axon has never had a problem with that. And so that's just sort of my pitch, okay? I'd be happy to take any questions. And just so you know, this is not something I want to do now, okay? But it is something that I would say as your chief of police, I would be derelict in my duty if I didn't consider it moving forward into the future.

Hi, Shea.

Thank you for that. And I think we both have tremendous respect for each other, which I will maintain. However, I do disagree with you on a few key points, which I just want to highlight for my fellow council members and for any citizens that might be tuning in. I agree that officers can run and capture all of our plates. The difference for me is when it is aggregated and put into a shared database that can then aggregate Every location that I've done on a road trip and can be historically aggregated, that is the part to me that is unwarranted surveillance. You are correct that there's no Supreme Court ruling that this type of data is in fact a violation of our Fourth Amendment right, which is why I'm stressing that it is my opinion that it is that. But since it is my closely held opinion that aggregated historical data of everywhere that me and my car have gone is a violation of my Fourth Amendment right, I don't really support our police department tapping into this data. Just because those cameras might exist elsewhere doesn't mean that I think our police department should be able to tap into that, again, without a warrant, an investigation, or a subpoena. We can decide at what level and what language that would be in our ordinance, at what point we would allow our police to access that data, but I don't believe we should just willy-nilly do it. I do hear that the officer shouldn't and can't willy-nilly Correct. But I think it's important that we have standards around that.

And we already, and please, we already would not do this if we didn't have, if I didn't have an active investigation on somebody, we would not access this data unless they were doing it in a manner they shouldn't have, in which place they'd be disciplined and or fired. Yeah. So we don't willy-nilly track data unless we have an active investigation. There's no reason to do that. Yeah.

I appreciate that. And then lastly, I would just say that I agree with you that our cell phone data is is frightening how much cell phone data. However, for you to access my data, you would have to have a subpoena or a warrant, right? And so that's different to me than ALPR data. So I just wanted to point out that those are my thoughts on it. Again, really respect you and your position in everything you do.

I'll get to you in a second. I had a question. I was wondering about Freedom of Information Act, because I always heard that People use that a lot since we got body cams.

Correct.

So isn't there a danger they could use it for this kind of data?

No, this is more personal data. So even when they access our body camera data and they FOIA a body camera, we redact things. So we redact names and personal information and anything you get through an ACIC run, almost anything there is personal information. And so they couldn't get that. So the data within, and Jason, correct me if I'm wrong, but the data within an LPR program would likely be data that's protected and would be redacted. And so I don't think it would be accessible.

I'm not personally, I don't know personally what all data there is to be able to answer that 100%, but certainly some of it and probably a large part of it would be. I can't say that specifically tonight.

And you could set up these systems, just so everybody knows. So let's say we did have our APR cameras turned on in our Axon system. We can set the criteria and say, collect this data. Like, let's say we had cars driving around. Just collect data all day long. Collect it and keep it for 30 days, 60 days, 90 days, and then dump it. We set how long we keep data for, okay? Just a quick example, just to hold your thought, I just want to make sure, like an example is crimes we have in Bella Vista. Like every year coming through Bella Vista, we usually have these B&E crews, okay? And last year was the felony lane gang, or I think it was this year, I can't remember. But anyways, we have them come through and they go through the north of Arkansas and they drive around and they go into cities and rash or break-ins in cars, okay? And they do that through all the different Northwest Arkansas cities. It always happens. And so an example is if we had, let's say, ALPR camera set up at the main entry points and exit points of our city. And then we had a rash of these B&Es on Sunday night between 12 o'clock because the last person who went out and looked at their car was at 12. Everything was fine. And then 6 in the morning because the first person to get up in the morning saw their car broken into. And then we can just search in our ALPR database, hey, Vehicles entering the city between midnight and 6 in the morning. Oh, poof. Oh, hey, look, there's one that entered and it's got a bolo for B&Es. Wow, look at that. So it's just an investigative tool that allows us to solve crimes that otherwise we couldn't solve, okay? Or somebody says, hey, I saw a car on my street at 3 in the morning because I walked my dog early. It was a four-door red pickup truck with a partial plate of 123. You put that in your ALPIR database. Also, look at that. That truck entered the city at midnight. It gives you a place to go and to solve these crimes. That's just an example. That's why I think it's just to say, no, we'll never do this because it's just the wrong course of action. I think safeguards are important. I don't disagree with you.

Travis.

Thanks, Chief. I'm sympathetic to your situation, your jobs to, you know, catch the criminals. And, you know, I support that. I really do. But like as Shea had already articulated, I just want to reiterate that I can't use somebody's cell phone and follow them from here to Little Rock, you know, without a warrant. So that makes me feel a little more comfortable about all the data that they store. Who knows what they do with it. And the mayor mentioned that this has become a controversial topic, and I'd have to disagree. I think this is probably the hottest topic right now that has bipartisan support. I don't know. I haven't talked to anybody who doesn't support banning this, with the exception of a couple of law enforcement friends of mine, including the chief of Pea Ridge, who just recently discontinued their contract with them. And I'm sure that was a hard decision to make because he had a list like this also where he's got a lot of... crimes they've they've got them you know and obviously it supplements you know having the amount of officers that they need um but i would be really surprised if we don't see state legislation that pretty much prevents this i've talked to the majority if not all of the state legislators in northwest arkansas and i think they're all on board nobody likes this so um well a lot of and i agree with you when it comes to some systems but and i think you know a lot of people are looking at the flock data and they're uneducated and they're thinking that all systems are like that and they're not all

They're all very, very different. And it's a protection of the data on the back end. It's not necessarily because the collection of the data is no different for what my officers already do. It's just no different. That's what that just it's just it's just faster. OK, it's just a force multiplier. Hey, I'll tell you what, I'll agree never to want ALPR cameras if you give me 100 more cops. And then I could just post them all around the city and they could run plates and they could keep crime low. These are force multipliers. And for us to say we'll never do it is just really short-sighted. But I understand the concern. I really do. And your phone's a little different. There is expectation of privacy with your phone. There really is. There's not for your car that has to be registered on the public roadway driving. There's just not. Now, I understand. I don't want to be tracked either. Trust me. I have an older car that's not. If you have a new car, you're tracked anyway. I hate to tell you this. Be careful with these new cars you buy because where's all that data going? Okay. But, you know, it just, I get it. But there's got to be some middle room here to where when people get educated, you start talking about ALPRs as different entities based on the company you're talking about and the way it's used. Okay.

Okay.

So to kind of summarize, I think the main points that I would like for all of us to be educated on are the points around data. Is it going into a shared system that might be owned by a third party, or is it data a little more similar to what Chief Graves mentioned about Axon, where it would technically be owned by us, and it would be – oh, sorry, what's the word – Encrypted sure, so the main three points around data access and equipment Those are the things that we need to either put guardrails on or decide our comfort level and how we want our dollars spent as a city so data access who within our force can access it under what circumstances or what kind of public accountability would we want around that maybe how many searches and Things like that. Those might be guardrails that we would want to put in place. Or lastly, equipment. Who has equipment? What is it enabled with? Where is it at? How much? I think these are really the main pieces that do add a little more nuance besides just an outright ban.

Yeah, just, you know, there's a lot of national stories out there, and the negative ones are out there now mostly. I'd suggest you look for the positive ones. I know there was one just recently, a couple weeks ago, where a mother, her car was basically carjacked with her little girl in the back of it, her little girl boy. Long story short is the bad guy was caught by a flock camera a couple miles down the road, and that's how they caught him. So he wasn't trying to kidnap the kid. He was trying to carjack the car, but the kid was in the back of the car, okay? But there's numerous examples of people. I mean, I bet you if your kid was hijacked or kidnapped and they were rescued by an ALPR camera, you'd be pretty darn happy about it, okay? Again, I don't want to be surveilled either. I don't, okay?

I'll just say this, that, again, I'm sympathetic to you and to the work that you do, and I support law enforcement. But, you know, our founding fathers warned us about this. So I'm pretty much against it, but I'm willing to get educated.

Okay. Mr. Mayor. Craig.

I just have a question, because you just mentioned that the same information that FLOC accumulates is the same stuff that you guys are getting right now. And I think that's the big thing for me is what's the information that you're getting? I mean, outside of my name, possibly social security number, my residence location, whether my cars, so registration and insurance beyond that, what else?

A rap sheet. Like if you had committed a bunch of crimes, we get a rap sheet. Okay. Um, but, but that's, that's really it. And so it's just, you know, these, the LPR cameras do it, do an ACIC and NCIC run. Okay. And they come back with that. They come back with car data. They come back with criminal history data. They come back with, you know, addresses and things like that. But that's what they come back with. They don't come back with, you know, creepy stuff that, you know, we're all worried about, you know, somebody looking at the things that your phone's listening to every night. They don't come back with that. OK, so they come back with with data that we already can capture.

Well, and I understand, you know, from an investigative perspective, standpoint but i mean conversely i just watched a video where a guy's driving his his uh wife's car with his one month old child in the back it misread a x for a y and this guy was body slammed onto the pavement his daughter was taken to you know wherever however all that process goes and that's the thing is that you know if it's if it's totally impossible for this to get it wrong. Because I mean, once you go down that path, innocent, you know, innocent people, their lives get destroyed at that point. I mean, once they're booked, you go down this whole path and, you know, and then you're in the system. Then you got to work out of that system. And so that's the concern that I have is that unless these systems are foolproof or there's either training in place, there's considerations that need to be made to where when somebody gets taken in, I think everybody's really hypersensitive, number one, about their data, just simply because you're getting your video everywhere. And then just how the data broking industry goes. You don't know where stuff's getting sold, and that's kind of my point is I'd like to know exactly what is getting accumulated.

Well, this data is much more protected than the data you're already giving everybody. I'm telling you, this data is way more protected.

I have no doubt, but my concern is that when this information... Just like what we're talking about, the videos. You watch one where a bad guy was caught. I watched one where a good guy, his life was flipped upside down.

Well, and I bet you, look, we already make those mistakes, okay? I'm not trying to tell you my cops aren't perfect, but they're not. We're not perfect. You know, and it hasn't happened here. Okay. But an officer can call in a plate and the dispatcher could punch in the number wrong. Okay. That stuff already happens once in a while. I bet you it happens a lot less with actually ALPR readers because I bet you they make fewer mistakes. I'd have to, I mean, I haven't done the research myself, but it's safe to say that computers probably make fewer mistakes than humans. Okay. So, and that would be resolved 99% of the time very quickly on the street because what would happen is officer would, where's your ID, oh my god sir we're so sorry, you know, so I highly doubt somebody's actually going and getting booked in the jail at that point. If they're just a regular citizen who just. Has a good ID and everything's fine, but the number on the plate came back one digit wrong. I really doubt somebody's getting booked in the jail on that. I think that's going to be resolved on the street. Okay. And that person will probably have a good, pretty good lawsuit against the city at that point. But those mistakes happen already. Okay. So. It's just they're being sensationalized right now, okay? And we're all focused on this like really hard because, oh my gosh, you know, AI, right? AI is out here. And I think those cameras are creepy as well, the ones that zoom around and follow you. And we're not doing that, okay? I mean, so... I don't want facial recognition. I agree with all that stuff. But ALPR has been around forever. We had them in Tucson when I was in Tucson as a young cop 20 years ago. Oh, yeah.

I'm not saying this is something new.

It just does what we do, but it does it faster. And then we can set in our system, hey, let us know if we drive by a plate that's been a stolen vehicle or a bolo associated with it. So it just lets the cop do his job better. That's all I'm saying. Okay.

I just want to attempt to answer one of Craig's questions, which was, what's the difference between the data that an officer could collect in the moment versus what ALPR data? And to me, the difference is that it's aggregated. So it's, I went to work, I came home.

Precisely, yeah. And so that's my... But that's with the flock system. It's not aggregated necessarily with the Axon system.

It's with the data. That's right. It's with the data and it depends on the provider, which is why I really think the main three issues around this would just be how we handle the data, what kind of data are we allowing? the access to that data and then what types of equipment. So I agree. How the data is handled is really to me whether or not it's an invasion of privacy. And then lastly, to answer your point about how the data is used by an officer who might be pulling someone over, right? So maybe our force has used data. We think we have something. I actually proposed in my ordinance that we follow the same standards that our state police use when using an ALPR tip, if you will, And you'll see that in there. But I think we should follow the same protocol that our state police use, which is I think they confirm it. They visually confirm it and they like chat back and forth with dispatch. But they haven't outlined.

So we kind of already do that. I mean, you know, guys, I mean, look, there's there's always bad apples out there. There's people there's hotheads out there that don't do the job right in every profession. But for the most part, and our officers are very professional, we just don't go out there just yanking people out of cars and heavy-handing people. They're very cautious in what they do, and they don't want to make mistakes, okay? Do mistakes get made? Sure, they get made, but it's been like that forever. And so to think that this is something new, that all of a sudden an ALPR made a mistake, well, I bet you on the aggregate it made a lot less mistakes than humans have made with all the traffic stops that are done across the country by all the agencies you know, in a 365 day year. And so I'm just saying, you know, I understand people's concerns, but I just want to pump the brakes and I want everybody to please get super educated. And I mean, you know, if honestly, if you ban a LPR is in Tucson, then you're actually are you pro crime? I mean, that's mean to say, but I'm just saying it's an election year. Are you pro crime? And so that was already said reference something else. I mean, you know, it can go back and forth. And I know nobody here is pro crime, but also we're not. I'm not pro surveillance either. And so but there's got to be a middle ground in there somewhere. Okay. But I think everybody's jumping on this flock bandwagon. Okay. And everybody's really trying to, I think they're trying to do the right thing. And I really do think Council Member Newport's trying to do the right thing. And I agree with her. And the retired me in two or three or four years, Or maybe sooner, who the heck knows? You know, I'll probably be more on your side at that point. But I get it, okay? But I also want to solve crime, okay? Also, I'm responsible when I get all these complaints from citizens about car break-ins and about this and do this. And why aren't you doing that? And why aren't you catching these people? What are you guys doing? you know and so these are just tools to help us do better okay and it just it's it's a force multiplier and it's really you're you're really if you're worried about spending money you want to save money you know this is going to save you some money okay in the long run it really is okay i just wonder if there's a distinction between uh

I totally get both sides of the argument. The distinction between putting one of these up at the border and reading every license plate versus having it on a body cam. Everybody says they love body cams and how important it is, and now you've got a body cam that sees better, don't you? Jake?

Yeah, I agree. I think the type of equipment and how and where we deploy it will really matter. I would just, in response to your last statement, I would be concerned if you didn't have the positions you have. And I like and trust you as our chief, but also to your point, you won't always be our chief. And so I think it makes sense to craft.

Do you know something I don't know?

Uh, I just heard your own words that you, I guess you won't stay forever, even though I would like that. Um, so I do again, I just think it's important that we get educated and that we look at what types of data who has access to that and what types of equipment we are or are not comfortable with in our city.

And I agree with the mayor. I think I think, you know. I think it's more acceptable to have an in-car camera driving around in a car because the cops there anyways. He's seeing everything. I think people are more accepting of that continually recording data because the officer's there. I think that I feel that people will think that's less intrusive than maybe the camera on the border, though they're both just as legal. But the perception, I do agree with the mayor on that.

Well, I just wanted to clarify. I mean, I applaud Councilmember Newport's work. I mean, I think this is important. I was going to try to get this on as a discussion item at some point myself, and she beat me to the punch. But I mean, I think it's a great thing. I'm not saying it's bad. I want to know the nuts and bolts of what it's going to be. That's all I'm getting at is that I think it would alleviate a lot of concern if people understood precisely what information is getting consumed, whatever. I don't know how you want to phrase that. I'm not articulating. Anyway, I think that's the concern. Just for me personally, I just want to know what are you taking on? from the reader or what information is being broadcast or being collated, collected.

And normally, let's say the Axon system, let's say we did have it and we're collecting data, cops are driving around, it's collecting data. Most of that data will never be accessed. Honestly, it just won't because nothing's happening, right? But all of a sudden, if there's a hit and run or if there's a whatever, and we have something, then you get in the system and you go, you know, white sedan, four-door, ABC 123, and then that's when you're actually... Because we have an investigation, just like you were concerned about, right? Otherwise, it's not... Trust me, the cops don't have time to just sit there and scroll through this stuff, okay? It's faster for them if they're going to break the rules to get on the computer and run a plate, okay? It really is, okay? So it's just... In a closed system like that where only we own the data and nobody else can access it, totally different from my understanding. And if I'm wrong, there's going to be a flock person at my door tomorrow, okay? An open system where everybody accesses it, okay? So it's two different animals.

And Chief Graves, you mentioned that a representative of Axon was willing to come speak with us. I think if they were able to come to our next work session, I think that'd be really great.

Okay, I'll work that out. They'd love to be here because, you know, again, they're defending their company. And I think they'll do, I mean, I'm telling you what they told me and what I've researched, so it'll be good really coming from them. And I hope I didn't tell anything wrong, but if I did, I apologize. But I'm pretty sure I was fairly accurate with everything we discussed tonight.

So you're talking the September work session? Okay.

Yeah, I just don't think that we can have ordinance language precise enough that's worth public consideration by next week. Jason and I have gone through a lot of pieces, and so I think, yeah, just bring it up again in the next work session. At that point, I do hope to have what I believe would be a reasonable compromise on data access and equipment, but we can kind of look at it all together.

Travis. I'll sleep better tonight if I get to tell you this story. So not too long ago, I was with the SWAT team as a paramedic, and we were leaving a SWAT call out and flock camera or whatever camera they use. I'm not sure. I use that interchangeably with license plate readers, so hopefully I don't get sued either. But nonetheless, we were leaving the SWAT call and flock. camera hit, license plate reader and camera hit, and we got a really bad person off the street. So I'm sympathetic to your position. I'm of the mindset, though, that we shouldn't sacrifice liberty for safety because then we deserve neither. But I support your department and your officers do a tremendous job here. And I'm personally very thankful for the work that they do. And I just want you and them to know that.

Thank you.

Okay, that was a good discussion. And I think that was our last item for tonight. So we'll adjourn and meet next Monday. Thank you.