City Council - Regular Meeting

meeting to order. Welcome everybody. I'm glad to see such a good turnout for tonight's meeting. First we will offer our invocation and we're going to ask Pastor Calabretta to do that and then we'll do the pledge together.

Father, I come to you and I thank you again for all your grace. Thank you for the city of Bowie. Thank you that you're interested in what goes on here. And I know that it affects businesses and people. And so I pray that you would just bless in the council meeting tonight. that you would just give a good understanding and that you would just allow us to glorify you through all that we do. So bless this time tonight, these that are here, in Jesus' name and for his glory.

Amen. Amen. Please join me in the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, So if you're standing out there, we have a couple of chairs over here if you'd like to come sit down.

There's still a few in the audience.

No? Okay. All right. Let's open up the meeting with... Items of community interest. It's the end of summer, heat wave. I don't know that we have any city activities that are immediately on the books that need to be made aware of. Do you guys know?

Not that I'm aware of.

Okay. So then, city manager, would you like to say anything about tonight before we get started?

Oh, ma'am.

All right, then let's move into public comments. I'm sure that's why you all are here. So I ask you to go to the podium. Make sure the microphone is pulled down in front of you. State your name. And the newspaper is sitting right beside the podium. Make sure she gets your name. And you will have three minutes to speak on any topic you want. Nobody? I'll go.

OK.

Thank you for having me today. My name is Brian Ford. This is my first city council meeting. Has my time started already? Okay. I'll try and go fast. I moved to the Bowie area because I thought that we were different. I had kind of grown tired of some of the big city antics and was looking for a slower pace of life, honestly. You know, these flock cameras and what I think that this meeting is about is concerning to me as a citizen. You know, I'd like to quote some of our founders. You know, Benjamin Franklin, he had said that anybody that gives up liberty for safety deserves neither. You know, I think that this is a very serious thing. I'm really concerned about it and the infrastructure that we're building for my children and our grandchildren. And I think that we should take this really seriously. And I mean, I'm against crime. I want all the crimes to get solved. But at what expense? I mean, if we put a camera in every bedroom, think about how many crimes we could prevent. But at what cost, guys? I mean, this is America. This is Bowie, Texas, USA. And I thought we were different. And I was disappointed to learn that we are you know, allowing this constrictor to, uh, to wrap around our community. I think it's serious and, um, I hope you guys take it seriously. Thank you.

I'm sorry, sir. What was your name?

Thank you. And I'll be honest. I live west of Montague. Some of my tax dollars go here. I'm not even sure if I'm allowed to speak here, but, uh, I figured I would. And man, I love you guys and I love this community. And I just hope that we understand what we're agreeing to here. Thank you.

Thank you.

uh good evening my name is laura flood i appreciate your time and attention regarding this important matter my family and i moved here about two years ago and we quickly fell in love with this community we attend church here we started a business here and we are raising our children here this town is not just where we live it is our home and because of that i care deeply about the decisions made here and the legacy we leave behind i would like to respectfully share my concerns regarding the proposed use of automated license plate readers or alprs At the foundation of our country is the Constitution, not a document that grants rights, but one that protects the rights we already have. The Fourth Amendment guarantees that we are secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. It requires that government action can be based on probable cause, not broad, ongoing surveillance or innocent people. ALPRs, by design, scan and store data on thousands of vehicles every day, most of which belong to law-abiding citizens. They create a record of where people go, when they go there, and how often. Over time, that data can reveal deeply personal patterns, where someone worships, where their children go to school, or even where they seek medical care. This kind of mass data collection runs directly counter to the very principles our founding fathers fought to defend and enshrined in the Constitution. The Supreme Court has already recognized the dangers of long-term tracking in United States versus Jones and later in Carpenter versus United States. The court acknowledged that prolonged surveillance can violate reasonable expectations of privacy even in public spaces. The dangers of error and misuse are not just theoretical. They are real, documented, and deeply concerning. In February of this year, in Sherwood, Arkansas, an automated license plate reader misread a single digit on an innocent couple's vehicle and incorrectly flagged it as stolen. As a result, they were pulled from their car at gunpoint while their six-week-old baby was left alone inside. The system was wrong, but in that moment, their rights, their safety, and their sense of security were all put at risk. This is not an isolated incident. There are a growing number of documented cases where ALPR errors have led to wrongful stops, detentions, and dangerous encounters, cases that are readily accessible and increasingly difficult to ignore. I want to be clear. I support our law enforcement. I believe they work hard to keep us safe. But even good tools can be used in ways that conflict with our constitutional values or can fail in ways that harm innocent people. We must ask ourselves, is increased surveillance the kind of safety we want and at what cost? Because once systems like this are put in place, they rarely shrink, they expand. And the freedoms we trade away today are not easily reclaimed tomorrow. As parents, as neighbors, and as citizens, we are not just making decisions for today. We are shaping the kind of community our children and our grandchildren will inherit. I urge you to carefully consider whether this technology aligns with both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. Public safety matters, but so does liberty. And the two must never be separated. Thank you for your time and your service to this community.

Anybody next?

Thank you.

Howdy, everyone. I'm Hunter Coomer. I live in Sunset, but I spend a lot of time here in Bowie. I bail hay around here. I actually got out of a tractor to come to this meeting. And I just wanted to say I'm very happy to see people my age out here. I feel like I'm sure this is my first meeting. This is probably a lot of y'all's first meeting too, but these Flock cameras are a huge risk to our community, not only for the reasons of mistakes that it can make, but these private companies have no, there's no way to govern these private companies. They can sell our data. They are collecting and selling our data to companies to, like she said, they can track your habits. They want to sell that. Companies are not the government. They do not have your best interest in mind. All they care about is making the most profit. And if we allow these companies to put cameras and track us to destroy and strip our liberty of privacy and freedom, then we'll have nothing left, basically. I just want everyone here to know that it is extremely important to me and my generation especially here. And I know a lot of them don't show up or can't show up because of work scheduling and stuff like that. And most people here don't even know that we have town meetings. It feels so important to me to stand up here and talk about this. And it's so sad to see that every community around us has adopted these cameras without any kind of safeguards. And it's just deeply concerning to me. So thank you for your time. Thank you.

My name is Evan Trim, and I moved here in 2022, but my family has had history here longer than that. We had a I don't remember too many specifics. It was my great grandparents, but we've had a lot of roots here, lived on family property since coming here, and Bowie has been an amazing town. I've worked in fast food for most of my life as an adult, and I've served, I think I recognize several of y'all's faces here, but specifically regarding the flock cameras, I'm very concerned about them because there is a lot of lack of oversight regarding them. Before I get into that, though, whenever we got in here, we said the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States of America, not to China, not to Jeff Bezos, not to Elon Musk, not to Mark Zuckerberg, to the American country, the American people. Those are our values. I want to share specifically the couple that the lady over here was talking about. I believe it was you, right?

Yeah, their names were, I have it written down here.

Hugo Para and Eliel Beltran. They're pulled out of their car at gunpoint because a flock camera misread their license plate. I put a post up with a lot more names and examples. They were more than just license plate being misread though. There are police officers who use them for corrupt purposes. For example, I don't know how to pronounce the name, but a Milwaukee police officer who was caught using a flock system to track his ex-partner around 170 to 180 times. Orange County police officer, I can't pronounce many of these names, I'm not the best at that, but who used it to stalk his ex-girlfriend 69 times, her mother 24 times, and her father 15 times. These do not have oversight. They don't answer to the government. They answer to AI companies, and the AI companies have been lobbying the government to try to not have oversight. They do not have our best interests at heart. They have their own interests at heart. They don't care about people. Specifically, one company, Anthropic, has a bit of a better policy. They specifically asked the government not to use their stuff for public surveillance or for military use because AI cannot be held accountable the way a human can. The government has tried to crack down on this, or on that company specifically, because they were arguing with them, and they didn't like it. These companies, however, are largely not reliable. They steal public data. They purchase data from people who they say are reliable, but the people that they say are reliable are purchasing the data from illegal sources who are scraping your data off the dark web, off of various tracking networks, things of that sort. So for anybody here who isn't as familiar, they do not have your best interests at heart. And even if the officers that we have today are great, and I'm sure that all of you are, I have a lot of faith in all of you, whoever follows you might not be later down the line. And if these systems are in place for them to take advantage of, it could only get worse. If you start and things are at the best it could possibly be, which I hope that it is. Don, you go sit down. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

My name is Kylie Woodworth. Good evening, everybody. I am going to kind of talk about something a little bit different, but also involving the flat cameras. I do agree with everybody who has talked so far that these are something that we don't want as citizens of Bowie. I do believe that they are very concerning to our safety, but something else that I would like to bring to light. This past weekend, I and a friend have deep dove very much into all of this, not just in our city, but also the legalities of these. Yesterday, I submitted a Texas Public Information Act request asking for the actual text of the Resolution 202621, the proposed TxDOT multiuse agreement, and the documents identifying the cameras, vendor locations, funding source, and the city's total financial obligation. As of tonight, I haven't received those documents. On March 24th, Resolution 2026-11 was presented on the agenda as authorizing to submit the MVCPA grant application. According to those meeting minutes, he explained that the grant involved six flat cameras and a $3,600 match, but did not give any further information. Tonight, we are being asked to approve Resolution 202621, which would authorize the installation and operation of automated license plate recognition cameras in the TxDOT right-of-way. My request is simple. I'm asking Council to postpone this resolution until the public has had an opportunity to review the actual resolution, the proposed TxDOT agreement, and the information regarding the cameras, financial obligation, and the plans for damages. I'm not asking council to make a decision based on an allegation. I'm asking for transparency and for citizens to have the opportunity to understand exactly what is being authorized before the council takes action. If council chooses not to postpone this item, I ask they consider throwing this out completely. This does not preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and our laws like each and every one of you took an oath to do. please consider and uphold that truth my concern tonight is that the public has not yet been provided any of these documents showing exactly what is being authorized and of course the city's full financial obligation to these thank you so much

All right. My name is Levi Bailey.

I'm here on the flock cameras.

Surprise, surprise. I'm going to take a different side of this. I understand everyone is very concerned about their First, Fourth, and 14th Amendments being violated. Personally, I don't think the flock cameras go far enough. That's why I've spent the last week building an app called the I'm Not Guilty app. It'll allow buoy citizens every day every hour to check in and confirm that they have not committed a crime. Now that's just the first version of the app. The second version is actually going to utilize and by the way I've actually built this app have a QR code for anyone that wants to download it have screenshots if the council is interested. The second version is going to utilize your camera and microphone so you can continuously upload to the police what you're doing every minute of the day. After all, if you haven't done anything wrong, No reason to not do that. Third version is going to utilize biometric data so we can monitor your heart rate and tell if you're ever nervous passing a bank or perhaps going to a city council meeting just to be on the safe side. Of course, use of this app is going to have to be mandatory. Anyone that resists, well, for the safety of everyone involved, we should probably preemptively put them in a prison cell. And then if they need to go see their family or go to a city council meeting, police can escort them to it and back, guaranteeing safety of the whole community at all times. Now, I know what I'm saying is obviously intentionally absurd. But each individual step can be justified in exactly the same way. It might help solve a crime. It might make law enforcement's job easier. And innocent people have nothing to hide. So perhaps the question before us is not simply whether flock cameras are good or bad. The question is, at what point do we stop being citizens whom the government must have reason to suspect and become suspects who must continuously prove our innocence? Thank you for the time.

Hello, my name is Brandon Walker. You all know me. I live here in Bowie. Flock cameras may be sold as a crime fighting tool, but we have to ask a bigger question. What happens when the government builds the ability to track daily movements of millions of law-abiding citizens? Our founding fathers didn't fight a revolution so the government could create a permanent record of where innocent citizens worship, who they visit, what political meetings they attend, or what businesses they support. The Fourth Amendment exists because our founders knew government power expands if we don't keep a check in it. This isn't about protecting criminals. If law enforcement has probable calls and gets a warrant, then they already have powerful investigation tools. But collecting data on everyone first and asking questions later flips the American principle of the innocent until proven guilty on its head. Conservatives always believed that the government should be small, accountable, and limited. History shows that surveillance powers, granted for one purpose, often goes beyond their original intent. The question isn't whether you trust today's officials, it's whether you're willing to give willing to give every future administration the same power. As Ronald Reagan famously said, government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem. That doesn't mean government has no role. It means that we should be cautious whenever it asks for more authority over our lives. Freedom isn't lost all at once. It's lost one reasonable step at a time.

And then that's it.

I'm Troy Case. I've lived here since this was Piggly Wiggly. So I've been here a long time. And growing up, it was more my parents' responsibility to make sure I did the right things. And my neighbors or my friends' parents would let them know when I did something wrong. And I guarantee you, I'd get my butt busted. So we don't need to give that privilege to an AI camera. We need to keep that in our family and make this community our family. Then on another subject, I know we're doing a lot of infrastructure stuff on the roads, but when they patch it with asphalt that's this thick, that's useless. I don't know if this is a contractor or city contract, But you take there by CVS, the first rainstorm, it was sinking down this far. The roads and buoy need a lot of attention. And I know our infrastructure needs a lot of attention. And it's up to y'all to help us make sure, if it's not done right, that it's corrected. Thank you.

Nobody else? Thank you for all your comments. Let's move on to our agenda council. First item on your agenda is the approval of the minutes from the July 14th meeting and the utility write offs 2026 19 utility and 2026 20 library. And we have the financials. So before we make a motion or ask for a motion to approve the financials, I mean, the consent agenda items, do we have any questions on the financials? We're going to open with you.

Fantastic. So I started looking at the and the general fund revenues. The school resource officers. Yeah.

Awesome. Please come forward.

Go ahead. Looking at the year to date actual we're over budget on those. Just curious where where we go over how we're, you know, as we're doing this budget process, this may be more budget questions, but I think they're related. Where is this a number that we should be including? In our budget going forward, where do these overages come at? We are on page, well, there are all kinds of different pages. 16.

Do you have a copy, Sandy?

Yes. That has to do with what we bill the school for the school resource officers. We're billing them the actual cost So that would include some of their overtime as well? I'm not sure about that. I can't answer that question right now.

So we bill that straight to them, and they don't have a set amount that they're going to give us every year. Is that correct? Well, we set a budget for it.

But what we bill is we bill based on what the officers make. the salary and the benefits. And that varies as an officer changes from this officer to another officer, the new officer may make more or make less, and so that amount changes.

And then the $500,000, just right underneath that, the $500,000 that came in on a state local grant, which one was that for? I'm looking to see where you're at. Just right under that line.

as a very next item.

Oh, okay. I can't tell from that. It's probably... I was curious if FEMA paid. No. Oh, no. Don't go to dream world. I know. But it's probably... If I had to guess, it's probably the, one of the department acts on their grants or one of those, but I'd have to get in and look at it in a, in the general ledger to be able to tell you immediately. Okay.

So since Austin's at the podium, let's let him go over it.

Sure. Yeah. I was just gonna kind of go high level again. Um, sort of like I did for that quick one we did for April. Um, and this is just going over the third quarter, uh, you know, basically we're 75% of the way through the year. I know you all spent a lot of time on the budget last night, so I'm not going to try to take your whole evening this evening. But I just wanted to kind of go over high level. Utility fund revenues are looking a little bit under in electric, but we're also hitting summer right now. So July, August, September should be big months, as they always are with electric revenue. And then also, on the flip side of that, water and sewer are right on pace. I think water is at 76% of budget, and sewer is at 78% of budget. So they're right where you would expect them to be at 3 quarters of the year. And then an even better news is that expenses are all under in each department, electric, water, and sewer. So for the utility fund overall, net income should actually be even healthier than budgeted. So that's always good news. I told Bert this is going to be a good one tonight because it's nothing but good news. That's a fun one, right? I didn't get to start and say I'm not here to speak for or against flock cameras. Uh, so yeah, the, the utility fund, uh, like I said, net income should be good based on what we're seeing so far. And then electric, obviously we're all the way through July right now. So we've seen what electrics look like so far for July. So we know we got big months coming. Um, so that's a good thing. And I was actually, um, even before the workshop yesterday morning, I sent Bert probably 15 questions about the budget. So I kept him busy all morning before he all got hold of him last night. So, uh, then in the general fund, obviously, uh, you know, you're seeing that 500,000, I mean, if that was to come in, general fund revenue right now is sending 88.5% of budget at three quarters of the year. So that's really good. The general fund revenues are healthy, actually even healthier than what was planned. And so, you know, I was talking with Robert this morning. It's, you know, when you do a budget, you're trying to budget conservatively. You're trying to make sure that you're not overshooting revenues because If you overshoot revenues, it's just dream land, right? It's just dream revenues. So you don't want to overshoot revenue, but you also want to make sure that your expenditures are everyone's getting what they need. And, you know, so kind of on both sides of the coin here, we've got revenues at 88.5%, expenses at 70% through June. So overall, for the entire general fund, that's really good because you've already got... You've got your departmental transfer in there. So that net income that you see for utility fund, that's just going to carry over and hopefully build a little bit of a reserve going forward, because obviously, as was mentioned, there's obviously infrastructure of things that you can always do. Um, so having that capital plan, and I know with the budget last night, you went into some of the expenditures that you're looking at for next year. Um, and, and it is always good to put together. I mean, this isn't something I've necessarily talked through yet, but like a five year plan, 10 year plan for what are some big, big spends that we need to do. Um, and how are we gonna fund those? Um, obviously BERT's always on top of the grant application. So that's one funding revenue or a funding source you can have. Obviously you could issue debt. Those sorts of things so but just just at a real high level general fund revenues good expenses are under so again You're gonna see a really healthy net income there, which just builds a reserve going forward and And then just quickly on the EDC and then the 4B sales tax core, both are, you're seeing good sales tax and interest revenue. The investments are healthy and doing well. I know they had a CD that just, I think it just matured like last weekend. So they should be, they should have a cash influx there to meet all their debt obligations and everything. EDC for B books look good expenses are well under budget there I know they had some spin that they are either going to do right at the end of this year or The very beginning of next year so they have that in their budget going into next next year. So Had a good meeting with Janice on that. So overall city very healthy financial position We're not having to borrow a bunch of money. We're not having to not that it's a bad thing to borrow money always there's things that need to be done, but not having to borrow anything right now, being able to kind of build up a little bit of that reserve, which is good. And finally, on those last five pages, just kind of those ad hoc reports back there, uh one thing i need to probably look into it looks like second monday is trending down a little bit like i think in 2024 fy24 it was at about 44 000 net income then it went down to 37 it's looking like it's gonna be more like 30 this year so just trying to see if they're like what the creep is there if there's either expenses are a little bit more or we're not getting many vendors so the revenues are down a little bit just trying to you know trying to make sure that it's still healthy obviously it producing income at all is a good thing like that you even if you're running that at a slight negative, it's bringing people in town, it's bringing sales tax to town. So, you know, it's a good thing. It's just, you might want to kind of, we might want to look into that here in the next few months and see what's causing that trend in the current year. And then community center, again, community center runs to provide a service to the city, right? So it is looking very similar to previous years as far as revenue expenses are concerned. Last couple ambulance, you know, right on track with ambulance is pretty much the same. If you're, If it's being used a lot, revenues are high and expenses are high. And if it's not being used a lot, revenues low and expenses are low. So it just kind of flows with usage. And then electric, like I said, electric should jump in this month, in August, September, and we'll see if we kind of creep up to that budgeted number. But either way, net income looks really healthy. And then investments, again, still in strong position. When I was looking at just future capital projects, I sent Bert, you know, a couple page thing on should we finance stuff? Should we, you know, pay for stuff with cash? Just kind of going through all the different options there. And obviously investments being healthy is a good piece of that. If those were not performing well or if there wasn't much of a reserve, then it would be we'd be in a different position. So. Um, yeah, try to kind of hit all the high points there. And if y'all have questions on anything specific, hopefully me or bird or Robert, somebody can, can give it to you. And like I said, last time I was here, I'm always available, you know, give me a call, shoot me an email. I'm definitely happy to talk through anything. Anytime doesn't have to be at the meeting.

So when we're looking at, you know, ideally, you know, having revenue over expenditures. We had talked in the past. I don't think we ever put it into action, but having a certain amount of certain percentage decided every year, that would be go back to an infrastructure type of bond. Uh, that was restricted for us.

We actually did put that in writing, right?

Where is it?

We're not the end of the year yet. It's the balance. We use the balance at the end of the year.

And then, but now that we have all these infrastructure expenditures just right behind it, does it matter if we put it into that restricted fund or.

We won't know what the balance is until we get to the end of the year. And then it's there for the council to choose which projects to put, to use it on. So you'll, you'll definitely have a say so on how it's spent.

Perfect.

Any other questions for Austin? Okay. Awesome. Thank you. All right.

I appreciate y'all. Thank you.

Thank you. Awesome.

All right. I'd entertain a motion to accept the consent agenda items as presented.

So moved.

Sproul's. Do I have a second? Second post. True acts. Holstein.

No.

Sproul's post. I make you in. All right. Shaw.

Yes.

All right. So the next couple of pages over. The next item on the agenda is a second reading of Ordinance 2026-08, an ordinance providing a general election in the city of Bowie, authorizing the Montague County elections administrator to officially conduct the November 3rd, 2026 election, setting forth council positions and terms, establishing regular and early voting places and establishing an effective date. That ordinance is in your packet. As you can see, we have three positions open this fall. So I'll entertain a motion to accept the ordinance. So move. Go with post to second.

Second.

Thank you. Truax. Holstein. Aye. Shaw. Aye. Sprouls. Aye. Post. Aye. And McEwen.

Aye.

All right, Mr. Calabretta, would you go to the podium? The next item for consideration is the recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission to replant lot 2R1 through 2R6, block 24, original town of Bowie, creating lot 2R1-1, block 24, original town of Bowie, also known as 303 Jones Street, unit A through F.

Okay. Of course, this is the property between Jones and 59 and, uh, six properties, small being consolidated into the one big property. That's what the, uh, owners are asking for.

So do you guys know where the property is? It's the original, it's the little tiny homes over behind the old feed store on 59, but between the old feed store and the county yard. Um, they were planted into six individual back in, uh, David 21, 21. And there, there was an issue with the original flat. So I would like for David to actually give the council an explanation on that. If you wouldn't mind.

When this property was replanted, they, they wanted six individual lots for tiny homes. So they could actually sell those properties if they wanted to. or rent them out either way. After we approved that replat and built the homes, it was discovered last year that the surveyor made a mistake on the actual replat. So another surveyor surveyed it and discovered this property next door. And that's how we figured all this out. And so the owner paid to relocate two homes over to get it in the right positions. And the buyer that's buying it from the original owner now agreed to make it all one piece of property because he doesn't have any plans to sell each one individually. So all the homes are on one big lot if this survey is approved and the survey is correct. double checking it with another surveyor. It's pretty complicated.

Yeah, that's the reason the property owners hired their own survey. So that it doesn't fall back on us. But yeah, they were a little over, one of them was 10 feet over the property line, one of them was a couple feet over the property line.

But he did it.

Never, I've never seen that. I don't know, I know the original owner, got with the surveyor that he had hired at that time and they worked out some kind of deal with relocating those those two homes and the utilities and all that cost was between them so we're we're fixing this with this replay

So that they've been moved there within all the constraints of the setback rules and everything. So we're just looking to, again, approve a plat on that same piece of property.

And to fix the plat, they had to make it one as opposed to since all six units are still there.

Because as I understand it, you would not be able to divide that property with the setbacks necessary from one another for there to be individual property lines in between them. So the best thing to do was to put it all in one.

Could work out.

So basically this is, we split it and now we want to put it back together. Is that what it basically boils down to here? Okay. Just in layman's terms for me.

I've got a question on that. How many homes are there?

Six.

Six homes. One person owns all of them?

Yes.

And that's the person that wants it to one flat?

Yes, but he is selling it to another individual owner financing.

And he's going to keep those as rental properties or whatever? Correct. If he ever sells it, it'll sell at one flat. Correct. It was just a little confusing.

It is.

And I'm sure it was for the people that bought it and sold it. Uh-oh, you're on my property.

Right.

And the utilities, the stalls, still be on that one flat?

Yes. That's okay. You're fine, Troy.

So thank you for explaining that to them. Thank you. So what we're here for now is to re-approve the plat as presented. I think it's in all your packets.

Yeah.

So I would entertain a motion to approve the plat as presented tonight, all one piece.

So moved.

Thank you, Mr. McEwen. Do I have a second?

Second.

Directs? Second. Shaw? Aye. Holstein? Aye. Truax? Aye. McEwen? Aye. Post? Aye. And Sproles? Aye. Thank you, Mr. Calabro and David. All right. So the next item on the agenda is to accept the waste connections consumer price index, the CPI rate increase, which we do every year. It's in our contract with them. And Burt wants to give you the update.

We received the letter dated June the 23rd on July the 13th. I don't know if that has anything to do with the 30-day notice or whatever, but the increase is connected to the Consumer Price Index, and the Consumer Price Index went up 2.61% according to government figures, so that's the amount that they go up because of the contract is written such that. To give you an example, A poly cart right now is billed at $17.29 a month. That'll go to $17.74 a month. And I just picked one of the big containers, the three cubic yard container dumpster is $77.32 right now and that's going to be going to And there are similar adjustments to that all throughout their billing cycle. So actually, we'll see not that much of an increase. It's just like last year. There wasn't an awful lot of inflation. Three years ago, there was a lot of inflation. It went way up. So this is pretty good information.

And you'll notice that that will take effect September 1st, not October 1st.

September the 1st is what the letters is.

And we've been obligated to this by a contract. Yes. We really don't have any choice because of the contract. How long has that contract got left?

20 years. I mean, I don't know how long it has left. It was a 20-year contract.

Probably about 15 years left on it.

But based on what I could say, I'm sorry, did you say 15 years remaining on the contract?

Yeah, I would get, I want to say, I'm pretty sure it's 2038, 2038. No, that's BTU. That's BTU. So it's a 20 year contract and I think it started in 20, maybe 19 long time. So, and, and cost comparison, I will tell you the people that are outside the city limits for that same $17 and whatever cent can, um, they're paying, um, $75. Waste Connections customers. So, you know, having the city do the billing and collecting obviously gives us a much better discount. So I will entertain a motion to accept the CPI increase rate adjustment with Waste Connections.

So moved.

Shaw to have a second second host McEwen. All right. Sproul's Truex show. All right. Holstein.

All right.

Thank you very much.

And post.

Do what?

Did you ask me?

Yeah.

No. Post. Post. Post. Look, I'm sleep deprived because of my kid. I am so sorry.

Welcome back. What's your answer?

All right. Yes, I did forget it. There was not a checkmark. I'm sorry. All right. So the the reason everybody's here tonight, next item on the agenda, please, Chief Green, come to the podium. The resolution 2026-21, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Bowie, Texas, authorizing the police chief to enter into a multi-use agreement with the State of Texas Department of Transportation, allowing the installation and operation of automated license plate recognition cameras in Texas Department of Transportation right of way and providing an effective date. I've asked Chief Green to give you guys a full breakdown on what he's going, where this goes with this agreement.

Number one, I would like to say, I appreciate everybody that spoke, everybody being professional and nice and giving us your opinion. It really, I really appreciate that. Number two, um, I was born and raised in this town. I love Bowie and I appreciate the gentleman that said he moved here because we wanted a small I'm with you. I want what's best for this town. I'm my family is here. My family's been here for years and years. I'm invested in this community. So I only want the best for it. Number three, anybody that has questions is welcome to come to my office and talk to me Monday through Friday 8 to 5. I have an open door policy on anything. So feel free. Come talk to me. Now, what started this, my thoughts, let me back up. The Sheriff's Department has four flock cameras in this county. And they're waiting for TxDOT to approve four more. So there's going to be eight flock cameras in Montague County contracted with the Sheriff's Department. The state of Texas Department of Public Safety has flock cameras in Montague County. If you ever go to the River Star Casino, you come back, there's a camera right there. It belongs to the Highway Patrol, DPS. The state of Texas has those. The city of Wichita Falls has two in Sunset.

That's true, but please don't interrupt him and make your statements after he finishes talking.

I'm just I'm just giving you some facts. OK, I didn't interrupt you, sir. I'm just trying to tell you what's going on. We can be civil and get through this. Not a problem. OK, I'm just saying they're there now. We have and Captain Parker can probably tell me I don't know the exact number. We have recovered several stolen vehicles with the flock cameras from our neighboring agencies, most of them out here at the new offsets because they notify us, hey, this can't this vehicles come by. I'm sorry, I'm supposed to be looking at you. No offense. A vehicle's come by. The license plate reader picks it up. It's entered. The vehicle is entered stolen by some agency. Usually it's in the Metroplex. And they notify us. The county gets it. They call us. Hey, stolen vehicle. And normally when we get out there, they see us. They whip into all sups. And we recovered several stolen cars from there, which is great. It makes insurance go down. It helps people get their vehicle back before they're chopped up, destroyed, whatever. It's a good thing to get somebody's equipment or property back to them. So they start thinking, you know, if we had those, we could be better stewards of our community, help our citizens if somebody comes in here. So my thoughts were apply for this grant so it doesn't cost the city taxpayers a dime to try to get these cameras at the edge on the state highways to protect, not to surveil our citizens, not to spy on our citizens. I don't have a problem with our citizens. I've been doing this for 30 years in this town. We have great citizens. The thoughts are protect us from the people that come in here from out of town, from other places that want to cause us harm, that want to do bad things, want to steal our things. Human trafficking, as you know, gets pushed on law enforcement. We're trained. Human trafficking, human trafficking. I don't want to have to answer to anybody and say somebody's kid got kidnapped and we were not able to save them. Something bad happened. So I'm looking at what can we do as the Bowie Police Department to better serve our citizens solve crimes faster for them because i want to do a good job all of our officers want to do a good job we don't want to be here just right traffic tickets we want to solve crimes and prevent crimes so my thoughts were put get cameras out here on the edge town somebody comes in here does something somebody's ring camera whatever picks up a tag we can put in the system we know okay it went out on eighty-one or it went out fifty-nine south or whatever the the case is. So when I came to you in March, as part of the application for the block cameras, ALPR cameras, that was just to get your approval to say that you would agree to pay the 20% part the city had. So we went through that process. This one is just to see if you will allow me as the chief to sign the agreement with the TxDOT to put them on the state right-of-ways. That's all this is. But that's why we're at where we're at now.

Where is the state right-of-ways?

So the thoughts right now that we've already been through the DPS process with TCIC and all that and got approval, this is the next step, is to put one on 59 South, out close to the Selma Park Road, one on 81 close to the hat company, one out by the Ford dealership on 287. As you exit into a buoy on 81 right there, out by the radio station, and then on the west end of 287. Who monitors the collection of this data? So the data is in the system. We can't get access as the police department to that system unless you have six cameras. They won't let you have it. So we can't utilize the data that the Sheriff's Department and everybody else is using The thought process is not to get in there, where'd this car go? The process is only when we have a crime to put that license plate in there, or if somebody has stolen a car, to get that information. Now, there's lots of things you can do with it. We, some agencies, and I can't speak for every agency, but some agencies let everybody in their department have access. That is not my thought. My thoughts are only the detectives and myself. Now, TCIC and the Motor Vehicle Crime Prevention Authority, which gives out this grant through Texas Department of Motor Vehicles, which is funded by insurance companies a lot, They require that you adopt a stringent policy that if somebody misuses that, they will be punished. Now, you all should know, based on my department, when people do stuff wrong, they are held accountable. We've proven that. We've terminated people. We're not going to put up with that. Now, anything that you use can be used. People are involved. Bad things can happen. No doubt. Not arguing that. But I assure you, as long as I'm the chief, it will be used properly or they will not be here to use it. I don't know if that answered your question or not, but yeah.

Okay.

Um, yes, sir.

During my research, I saw a couple of things that there has been legislation introduced at the federal level to, um, potentially remove these cameras and also at the state level to eliminate the use of grants for, uh, the flock cameras.

Right.

So you were speaking of a grant to pay for this.

Well, so you've got to look at it this way. You've got a congressman or a senator who says, I'm going to introduce a bill. That does not mean that that bill is going to make it through it.

I understand that the bill has not passed, but the legislation is pending on the floor.

Right. But there's legislation filed on all kinds of things all the time. But the money comes from the state of Texas. of Interstate 35 that they were being installed. They want them on every state highway in the state of Texas. So if we do it or not, the state may wind up coming in here and putting them everywhere.

Well, then it doesn't cost us anything.

Well, it's not going to cost us anything either. We're getting this from a grant.

That's the other thing. When I was looking at it, it said that the city is responsible for installation.

No, that's included in the $18,000. The $18,000 cut. the equipment, all that stuff. The city's required to put in the $3,600, but that's not taxpayers' budgeted money. That's coming out of a technology fund that comes back from the state again. You'll have to ask her. I'm not sure. Ask it to the council.

I want to ask if there's any subscription fees or any additional costs other than installation fees.

That all, yes. And all that's included in that 18,000. So if you do it, that's a yearly thing. So if you do that next year, we watched numerous cities and government go to this meeting and they apply every year and they have to get up and give a spill before this board that they have down there and So the first year is the highest. The next year it drops down because you're not putting equipment in again. You're paying for the subscription fees on a yearly thing. But that you can apply. Most of those places are not. All of that money is coming from grant money. Otherwise, they're not doing it. They're not going to strap that on a city.

Could you clarify for me, how many cameras are we looking at? Six. Six. Because we can't use it unless you get six.

Right.

What about additional? Is there a plan for additional purchases of cameras?

Not right now, no. No. I mean, that doesn't cover every... Like, there's a few state highways or foreign markets that are coming into town that don't cover that, but right now we just tried to hit the main... Are these cameras going to be stacked on top of, like, Sheriff's Department's cameras and DPS cameras? No, they won't put them in the same... So, okay, that's a good question. So if we put these six cameras in and if we get into the system, then that gives me access or us access to those other cameras the county has. So there's no need to put them side by side or in the same area. The Sheriff's Department, Monte County Sheriff's Department has four and they're already waiting for the next four to be permitted by the state to be installed. So they will have a total of eight. I don't know where they're at. I just found that out today, and I haven't called over and asked them exactly where they're going. Now, they know where we want to put them, and I knew they were going to do more, so they knew not to try to put them in those areas.

So these cameras are just sitting out there in these locations, and they're taking pictures, like on the toll road. You get on the toll road, it's taking a picture of your license plate. And that data is just going somewhere until what?

It's in the system, my understanding, it's in the system for 30 days. Now, if that license plate has been put on a hot list, say this agency says, this vehicle right here, we know the tag number's wanted for murder, whatever it is, it's gonna flag that. Now, if it's entered into the state DPS TCIC, that will alert automatically because it's entered as stolen. Now, let me give you another piece of information. You don't just, like I said, I can't speak for other agencies, especially in other states. This agency that I represent, you're not going to take a camera, took a picture, and go, oh, I'm getting a warrant on that guy. That's not how it works. That's one tiny little piece. We have to prove. probable cause to show, and it's more than one thing. You're going to have several different things to put that together. I wouldn't just go out and get a warrant on somebody. I don't think a judge would sign a warrant based on, oh, well, a camera picked up a last play. That doesn't tell you anything, really. It just tells you that car went by there. It's not illegal to go by there. It just is one more little piece in the trail to go back. If you do a thorough investigation, it's one more little piece of breadcrumb to get you back to the right place.

So will other agencies that have six cameras have access to ours?

Yes. OK.

So you can't guarantee. I trust you in our department whenever I say this. But you can't guarantee that we might have somebody shady in the Sheriff's Office.

I can't tell you about any other agency, unfortunately. Now, but as you know, people that commit crimes don't stay. They're mobile. So you may have somebody from Wichita Falls that does something illegal in Wichita Falls. Let me back up. So city of Wichita Falls is going to be like a, I'm only going to investigate something that happens within this city limits, okay? So if I'm looking for whatever kind of offense and I put that tag number in there or the description of that vehicle, it doesn't necessarily have to be a tag number, and the camera picks it up, northbound on 287, okay, and then, It picks it up in the next one in Wichita Falls. Oh, it just tells me that person's mobile. It may tell me I might need to call the city of Wichita Falls and go, hey, have you ever dealt with this tag number? And they go, oh, yeah. We've had that in the system. We've dealt with them both on a traffic stop. We've had them linked to car burglaries or whatever. It's just another breadcrumb and tool for us to maybe get some information from them that helps us start building a case. It's not designed... In my mind, it's not designed to just sit out and go, oh, where'd these cars go? Certain cars went by. No, it's only if we give an offense that we're trying to investigate.

And the next question is, is if you are, is there like a, let's say a paper trail on who logs on to these cameras?

Absolutely. You cannot, FLOC has safety features in it. I've been, we don't have it yet. But I've been assured they have safety systems because they know humans are involved. People can do bad things. Cops are human. There's bad ones in every facet of life. There's bad people. They have that where you have a unique login. They know you've logged in and what you've searched and what you've put in is not going away. That's staying. So you know. You audit that and make sure it's being used correctly and not being misused.

He has a question. Sure, go ahead.

This guy had a, he's been waiting.

He made a comment that there's one shot at stake, but it is truly a collection.

And then you said Wichita Falls, if you go ahead and put the data in there, you can talk about Wichita Falls, but you get the impression at one time it's only one shot. It's actually a collection.

That's what they say. Well, that's what they say.

Right. The other thing is when it comes to police departments, there's an internal unfairness. That tells me that there's not necessarily all police good.

Well, there's no perfectly good in anybody, any facet of jobs.

Right.

Let's take our question.

Can I ask another question? Yes. I just want to do, when you had opened up your statement, you had mentioned quite a few times regarding human trafficking. So I feel as if maybe that is something that is strong for you. But specifically, I just, I mean, a A lot of us did quite a bit of research and got actual data. I just want to know if you knew that only 10 people in the whole United States have been not even verified of human trafficking, but in Los Angeles alone, 161 people in one month.

I don't know anything about Los Angeles or California. I sure wouldn't compare Texas to California for anything. So I don't know. But now human trafficking in Texas, human trafficking, there's lots of things that fall under human trafficking. I mean, it can be all kinds of things. Somebody that's taken to make them do work. It doesn't necessarily have to be sexual related. Specifically with black cameras themselves, there's only been 10 cases that aren't even verified in the whole United States worldwide. Oh, you're just saying from flock cameras, isn't it? I misunderstood you. I'm sorry.

From flock cameras, only 10, and that would include sex trafficking, any child trafficking, any human trafficking, and those 10 cases are not even legally verified.

So those could also be false as well. Yeah, I don't know. So I just wanted to make sure that you...

Okay.

I mean, the thing that started me off was for the stolen vehicles because we were recovering stolen vehicles based off the neighboring plot cameras that's what started my thought process of maybe we can be better for our citizens and do a better job for our citizens and maybe we can protect our citizens from these people that are moving in here that don't want to do nice things here i do want everybody in this town to be happy and feel comfortable shouldn't have to lock your cars but you do we you know it's not the world We grew up in, I grew up in, it's not that world anymore. Sadly enough, we can't act like it's 1950 around here anymore because people are evil. They're just flat evil. And my job, I saw one post, I'll say one post, I saw one post on Facebook that said, this is a small town, the crime rate's low, we don't need these, it doesn't warrant it. Well, to me, it would be asinine to wait until we do Why would I want my hometown to become horrible and criminal and run around where people don't feel safe and then me try to play catch up and do something about it? So I'm constantly trying to be progressive and proactive to try to make sure it stays a calm, quiet town for the citizens that I'm sworn to protect. And my job here is to keep the safety and well-being of this town, and I take that very serious. So to me, it's just another tool to try to help me do my job better so people feel comfortable living in this town. That's it.

Yes, ma'am.

Sorry, I got off on that.

That's OK. That's wonderful. But we're here to determine whether or not the council is going to agree to the MOU with the Texas Department of Public Safety.

This agenda item is only if you will let me sign the agreement with TxDOT. That's what it is.

There are consequences to the council not agreeing to sign the MOU out with the Texas Department of Public Safety because you're wanting to put all these on the outside of the city limits.

Right.

So without an agreement with the Texas State Department.

So you're asking me what's going to happen if you say no tonight? Because we've already been approved for the grant.

So the only place you can put them is in the city limits.

With all due respect, and I don't mean this to come out wrong, Well, I don't know how to say that without it sounding bad. I'm not asking your permission to half-lock cameras. I'm asking your permission to agree with TxDOT. It's no different than the other tool we have at the police department. The council doesn't deal with the day-to-day operational water investigative tools we use. We can use the money to put license plate readers on all the patrol cars that have been a standard practice since the 90s. We can use the money for that, or we can just move them inside the city and put them on city streets. We weren't wanting to drive up and down the neighborhoods of town

and and have it read everybody's last plate and we were worried about the people coming in on the state highways that was the goal right so this mou that's what i'm trying to make sure you guys are all fully aware of i'll get to in just a second um is this is to have an agreement with the state to put them outside of our city right yes sir you have a question what's the chances or are they already in the state affected

What's your question exactly? Well, they're not flock. The vehicles are not flock. It's the license plate reader. Yeah, the deal in the middle of the highway at Wise County that tells you your speed, it doesn't care what your speed is. It's a license plate reader. Okay. They got the devices on the, yes, those are license plate readers. That computer in that car is taking every license plate that it sees, whatever street it's on, it's reading it and running it through a database with the state of Texas going, is this vehicle wanted for anything?

So can flock cameras be utilized in the future for that?

Well, that's what flock does, but not on cars. Now, I don't know if there's plans to put them on cars or not. They're standalone on poles. It's a different system. Not faces, tags. The ones that are on the cars only are reading license plates. Well, it's taking a picture of the license plate. Now, whatever it gets while it's in the picture, it may pick up a face. But it's designed to pick up the license plate.

But it can identify a face.

Not to my knowledge, but I'm not an expert on that. I'm not the expert on that by any means. I mean, if you're looking, it's designed to pick up the rear of the vehicle. But if it happens to pick up the front, and it's kind of like a toll tax or a colt, sometimes it picks up faces.

So basically, whether we vote no or yes, we're getting blocked. Is that what you just said?

Well, with all due respect, it's a tool that your job is to set policies and to sign agreements and stuff. And so it's a tool that I am going to use. I'm just asking your permission because the state requires that I have to have your permission to sign if they're going to be used outside the city on state highways.

But you will have the cameras. The grant's approved and the cameras are coming. Right. So if we don't approve it, they'll be in town. If we approve it, they're going to be at designated spots outside of town. That's always an option.

That's an option, yeah. That's not a guarantee, but that's an option.

And then one more question on the utilization of it. If you guys pull over someone in town at a stop, can you ask for that plate to be run during that stop to see where the car came from?

If we make a traffic stop, every vehicle, every single vehicle we pull over, we do that too, and we always have since I've worked here 30 years. That's standard procedure. Any officer in a police vehicle can drive down the street and look at a car, and if there is some suspicion or some reasonable suspicion, they believe something's being, they can just pick the mic, run the tag, and the dispatcher, Gives it back to them. The last 10 years or so, we can do that in the car. My car doesn't have it, but the mark units can reach over here and type in the computer right there in the car, and it'll tell you who it belongs to.

But does that information come from the camera? In other words, yes, you can get the information, but in a traffic stop, theoretically, if we have those cameras, could you then see where that person came from before they're released or during a traffic stop?

You're saying if we had it on the cars?

You can call it in and have them enter the number to see where the car came from.

The way we do it right now, all it tells us right now, when I run a license plate right now, all it tells us is the vehicle, the year model, the expiration, the VIN number, the address, and who it's registered to. That's it. It doesn't tell us where it's been, nothing.

Okay, so I think you're misunderstanding his question. I guess I am. When we have the cameras.

The flock cameras is what you're talking about.

Then could that be a second entry to know where that car came from according to what the flock cameras have recorded coming and going up from the?

I don't believe that would be standard procedure. I don't see any reason why every time we run a license plate from the car for it to be ran through flock. In my mind, you would have to have reasonable suspicion that some crime's been committed to do that.

Sure, but if you needed to...

If you needed to, I could go to the computer in the office. Dispatch wouldn't have access to do that. We want to keep it limited to the detectives. Yes, we could put that... We stop a car, and we see something in plain view, and we believe, okay, I saw something there that I believe was stolen over here. I could put that in there, and it could tell me if it had been out on 81 at some point or whatever.

Or it came from...

Yes.

Okay. So let's um, there's a gentleman in the back that had his hand up.

So my question is, uh, we're not voting on whether you're right.

What they're voting on is whether they allow me to sign an agreement with text dot to put it out on the state highway. Right.

Go ahead, sir.

Yeah, just a couple of questions.

First off, I'm sorry for interrupting you. No, it's okay.

You're fine. So a couple of things. First off, you kind of said this won't cause taxpayers to dime. Then you kind of said 20%.

There are some ongoing maintenance costs, and there's even a threat of vandalism. And, you know, kind of repositioning that, I think, would fall on the city.

The second point you made is that as chief, you... Well obviously I can't do that.

somebody has to say no and we don't necessarily want to be everybody else.

At least I don't.

I understand.

tracking our citizens, we're just tracking everybody else. I mean, all this language is very frightening to me, and this is kind of how liberty gets stripped away. I'm not doubting that you couldn't solve more crimes. I understand it's a useful tool, but we're only talking about the positives. There is a negative side to this. There is a risk.

Oh, I'm concerned with it. And there are risks in everything. I mean, there are all kinds of things that the general public doesn't know the police department can do. All law enforcement agents can do. We have access to other things that we can do, but you have to use it properly within the law. I am, but I can't do anything about that. I can't. But it's not any different than any other tool we could that could be used wrong. Like what?

Anything.

There's all kinds of things law enforcement uses that we have to make sure we're doing it properly. I'm not going to get into the details. I'm not going to get into the details of the day-to-day operations. Yeah, I agree.

So I don't know what you mean by we've got a lot of tools that we use all the time.

so the cameras are coming there we're not the cameras are coming regardless of what our vote is we have a lady in red that wants to make a comment so i would like to know we've discussed several issues of different evils that have happened with these cameras what are you going to do to prevent those because all these people all these big cities are taking away so what are you going to do to

We are only going to allow the three investigators and myself to have logins. We will do audits to make sure what they're checking, what they're logging in and requesting, to make sure it is attached to a criminal case or an investigation. And if it's not, if somebody's doing something wrong, there will be discipline up to and including possibly termination. We are constantly looking at anything and everything we can do to be better, so yes. I'm choosing Flock. They don't have to be used for Flock. That's generally what most of them are used for, but it doesn't have to be. There's other, some, not a whole lot of options, but there are some other options, yes. There's drones, there's similar things that can be used for.

Go ahead.

You had mentioned that, like, even if they say no to approving, like, that, that is still going to come, and they're going to come with the state limits. Is that based on, like, your doing, or are you talking about the state doing that?

That would be my doing. Okay.

Because we haven't gotten any of the proposed TxDOT, the multi-use agreement, and then the resolution 2026-11 that was talked about last time, that's not something that was given to the public in reading. So I'm just questioning, in that agreement, that grant application that you had sent that they approved last time, in what does that state that gives you authority

Well, like I said, it's not any different than any other tool. There's programs or software that we can log into and run somebody's name and find out all kinds of things about them. It's just another tool. I don't come to the council every time and say, well, I want to use this new little program that we use to investigate cases.

I'm just asking specifically, like if you're stating, well, if you guys don't approve this, I have the authority to still move on this. Is that something that was actually stated in the grant?

I think what we're misunderstanding here is the grant is only for the funding. Correct. The grant does not write rules. Right. So the policy in Bowie is that the police department has what do we call it earlier today when we were talking about the policy that you set within your own organization or that is set by the council within the police department, that you buy your own investigative tools that we don't we don't approve each individual. And I don't remember exactly what we I don't remember exactly how it was worded, but we we don't we don't

The day-to-day operations.

So the grant was only for the funding, period. That only deals with the money. I mean, he doesn't come to us every time he needs new sidearms for the officers.

I know that makes sense, but the way he had stated it made it seem like if you guys don't approve the ALPR readers, then... No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

If we don't approve the MOU, mutual understanding, with the Texas Department of Public Safety, that has nothing to do with approving the cameras.

It was just placement, essentially.

That's only covering the placement of them. Brandon, you were next.

That seems a little extreme, but.

I don't know if we could do that or not. I mean, it's an ordinance that the city would have to look at. So regardless, that would be a council decision.

Well, and we also have state highways that are running right through Bowie. So technically, take stock. They could wind up in the right. Oh, wow. Yeah, because the state road runs right down to right through to the city. I mean, regardless of that, we're going to get them anyway. But depending on what you guys vote tonight is really.

The vote tonight, yay, takes them outside the city limits. A no leaves you.

A yes allows me to sign an agreement with TxDOT. That's what it is. Yes.

What's the obligation we have to TxDOT in that agreement as far as, like, what are we agreeing to with them in that actual agreement?

I forget exactly what it says. What does it say there? She can read the resolution.

Authorizing the chief of police to enter into a multi-use agreement with the Texas Department of Transportation allowing the installation and operation of automated license plate recognition cameras in the Texas Department of Transportation right away.

What's happening is they're just saying we can put them in their right away. That's all it is. Yes, you can place those in our right away.

But we could put them anywhere we want. It's not limited to that.

They don't have to be there. No, you're right. Correct. Correct. But if I want to put anything in the right-of-way with TxDOT, with the state, you have to have their permission. A sign. If the city wanted to go out here and put a welcome to Bowie sign, you've got to have TxDOT's approval if it's in their right-of-way. Just like people can't put garage sale signs or for sale signs down here by the Rodeo Arena because that's in TxDOT's right-of-way.

But your statement, to me, made it sound like if we don't approve this, then you're going to be more invasive with them than if we just go ahead and... That's not what I was trying to say. I was asked... That's what it sounded like.

I was asked what would happen if we don't do that, and I said we would move them on a city street.

Isn't that what I said?

I didn't say, oh, by God, we're going to move that in on a city street and get you. I just said we'd move it in on a city street. You're inferring on... I'm just stating the fact I was asked a question.

And, Guy, I think one of the things that you did, I discussed before, is a good place to put them would be at the intersection of Mill and Y Street, at the intersection of Mason and 59 and Y Street, and put them there. But they work better outside the city limits. They do. We had that discussion before. Right. You don't want them there. You know, it'd be better out outside the city level.

Oh, I got hands up in there again. We're going to take a few more questions. So the gentleman behind Laura has not had a second question.

So I don't have this 100% verified, but a quick search tells me that 47 either cities, towns or counties have canceled contracts with law.

Of course I'm gonna obey whatever the City Council if they I enforce the law I'm not a lawbreaker so if the council created an ordinance says we don't want to allow them and That's what we do. They're the bosses. I'm not trying to be defiant or I'm not trying to be rude or I'm just answering your questions.

Sir? This lady in the back there has been waiting quite patiently. If you guys vote no and they're not installed outside, who comes in and decides where they get installed?

The I will work. I'm sorry. Go ahead. It would be me with flock. We would decide where they went. Right. And I don't think that's the best place to put them on the inside. That's not my desire.

Okay, the gentleman back there has a hand up.

Yeah, so obviously I work in tech, and everything you're describing with this that already really is the current version of the software that's used with this.

So I'm curious, it's not an accounting No, no. Yes sir. Two things real quick. One, along the tech deadline, there's a lot of vulnerabilities that have been exposed with their system. Two, so we're not stuck with FLOC. FLOC is not good. Two, what is your plan for damages? Because as many other cities, I'm not saying it will happen, but if you look at all these other cities that have FLOC panels, there's a lot of panels. What is your plan? You said it's not going to cost the city money to prevent this grant. Well, what's the cost for them

I don't know the answer to that. I'll have to get with Flock and specifically ask them. If somebody damages it, how do you know that?

Because I've done research.

OK. Have you talked to Flock? I mean, we can do, no offense, but we can look at internet and get 15 different answers to the same question. You know, it's just, that's just how it is. It's a good question to answer before you sign the agreement.

I understand. It's going to cost us more and more money every time.

And I think there's going to be more cost than benefit.

There's a question over here by the door.

I'd like to know, what is the urgency to approve or disapprove this resolution tonight?

Nobody said there was an urgency. It's on the agenda.

It's on the agenda. So we wouldn't necessarily lose anything were this to be tabled for further discussion. Is that correct?

No, I mean, we wouldn't. I mean, we don't even have the cameras yet, do we? No.

There's no deadline on this. It has to be signed.

I mean, you're going to want it signed before you get them.

You have to sign if you're going to put them there before before you can move forward.

So this was an agenda item tonight. The council can decide to postpone it. The council can decide to table it. The council can decide to vote on it. Yes, sir.

Okay. Right.

I don't know any truth to any of that. I don't know any of that for a fact.

Okay.

I can't, I don't, I guess the answer would be no. I can't control what another agency does with the information that they get. Okay.

The last one, I don't want to put you on the spot here, but again, he brought up an exact point, or he didn't exactly point out an exact point right now, but to mention the president, this is word for word, those who would give up essential liberty to purchase little temporary safety deserve even more safety.

I don't want, I mean, I love America and Texas and Bowie, so I'm not wanting to violate anybody's rights or take anybody's rights or anybody's liberties away from them. That is not the purpose behind. Anybody that knows me will tell you that's not my desire. Well, I can tell you this. This gentleman over here, the city manager, he's my boss. So if he or whoever's in that position says, when I retire or leave or whatever, if they want to say, hey, we're not going to do that anymore, then they can just, you know, the city manager's the boss. If he tells me, you're not going to do the flocks, I'm not going to do the flocks. So he can tell the next chief, you're not going to do that until you prove whatever they decide.

I have a question.

Yes, ma'am. Sorry, I was like, who's saying that?

It's okay. In your professional opinion, you're stating if we put these, you know, you stated that if we put these on the outskirts, you know, do you feel that that would protect us from the state possibly putting more cameras inside the city limits? Does that make sense?

I get what you're saying, but... I honestly don't know how to answer that because there's DPS, like I said, they've got one on 81 coming into the state. They are putting them up and down 35. I don't know if they have what their plans are about putting them. They may decide they want to put one at the intersection of 81 and 59. Nobody's going to be able to stop them if they do. But I have no idea. I don't know if us putting them out, if they're going to go, oh, hey, there's already some there. We're good. I would think possibly that they might not want to bring any more here if it's already in the system. I mean, Jack County's got numerous amounts of them on almost every road coming into Jacksboro. I wouldn't think the state would want to double up the, There would be no reason, I would think, for the state to come here, but I can't speak for them. I don't know. I honestly don't know the answer to that. I can tell you that one of the board directors on the board of the Motor Vehicle Crime Prevention Authority is Major Sharon Jones with the Department of Public Safety. She's on the board of directors. And she votes on, is one of the voting members that votes if somebody requesting a grant gets it or not. I don't know if she's the person. I'm assuming the colonel of DPS would decide. I don't know. I would assume based on, I don't think the colonel of DPS would go to the governor or every time and say, hey, I want to use this. They're going to give him a budget, and he's going to spend it because they're not going to deal with the day-to-day operations, just like the council's not going to do the day-to-day operations of all the other departments in the city. They give you money, and they say these are the city ordinances, and this is what you abide by. But honestly, I don't know the answer to that. I don't know.

It's called the state legislature?

Probably.

It could be the state legislature. I don't know.

When we talk about the state doing this or doing that, what's the rate of expansion that the state is doing outside of the majority of populous areas? We're acting like the state's coming tomorrow to put cameras up.

I didn't say that. And I don't feel like that's I didn't mean to infer that if I said that I don't feel that I'm just telling you there already have some in Monte County. That's all I know.

Stephanie's point. Regardless of what we do here, the state can still decide they want to put a camera at 59 and 81?

They could, right. Absolutely.

That has nothing to do with whether we approve or disapprove.

You know, if we don't do cameras, I don't know if the process, I don't know if the sheriff, because we're in Montauk County, I don't know if the sheriff petitions TxDOT and says, there's not any in Bowie. I want one right in the middle of downtown Bowie on the TxDOT right away. And they may say, yeah, you can do that. And the sheriff's getting all the... He's getting the access to the information and being able to check things and do things where we're not. But I don't know the answer to that.

Well, obviously other cities can get them outside of their city because Wichita Falls has one at sunset.

The city of Wichita Falls has one going both directions right in the middle of sunset on 287. And they're getting that information. And they contact us sometimes and say, hey, stolen vehicle went through there. So they do tell us, hey, there's stolen vehicle go through there, and we go out, hopefully catch them by the time they get to Bowie.

What's the difference in the plot camera and the speed limit sign in Decatur?

I don't know exactly the answer, but I don't think there's anything different.

Are there any better options that make our citizens feel better about the whole situation?

I think an ALPR reader is an ALPR reader, and they're going to probably all be very similar. But I don't know the answer to that, to be honest with you.

Yes, ma'am, in the red.

I don't know the answer to that. I'm sorry.

Yes, sir.

I've seen that the state-owned license plate readers, those are on private servers. Through the state who owns them, these spot cameras are through a private AI-driven company.

The camera, the flock camera that is on 81 when you come back into Monte County from Texas is a DPS flock camera. We just attended a meeting in Fort Worth, and DPS is contracting with flock, and they're putting them all over the state of Texas. So it's not a private. It's flock, just the same exactly like ours. Yes, but it's still through a private company. No, it's flock. But it is flock. It's not a separate private company. You're saying it's a separate. It's not the same. Okay. Okay. I'm sorry. Misunderstood what you're saying. I'm just saying it's the same thing we're talking about is the point. Okay. All right.

Let's make sure we're on the same page.

That's what I thought he was saying, but the one out here is on by flock. Okay.

I don't know. That's the state. I don't know.

I can't answer for them. I don't think that would be cost effective for the city and it would cost the citizens a lot of money probably because I don't know that the grant would let us just buy our own system and do the, not that I'm aware of.

Definitely. Well, I'm a, I'm sorry to stir up a whole lot of stuff on all night with this conversation. And I know that there's very few people in the room that are in agreement with this, but it's really up to the council. So now we need to decide where you guys want to go. I can entertain a motion. We can have a conversation I dare say you can table it, but it will be back on the very next agenda if you do that.

So I'm tempted to say table it, but I don't know that that changes much for what we're talking about in this particular thing. I don't necessarily think I would like to have them in our town, but I understand all the points you've made as well as the citizens here. And to this particular item, I think that it makes sense that they are outside of the area in those right of ways is my thoughts.

And I don't, I don't think anybody Like the ideas of the cameras, the systems, the more that we find out about them, the more we realize we're being tracked. And there's very few, if any, that are OK with that. Um, so we, we share in y'all's thoughts and, and, um, wants, um, as far as this vote, um, I, I would lean towards the same sentiment as councilman Shaw in that this would at least clear them of the city, get them outside on the backside of that. There's also a stop gap in my mind that has been mentioned that the city council at some time for whatever reason could also, um, do away with that. Um, tonight's not that night. Will that night ever come? I don't know. Um, it sounds like there's quite a few in the community, in the state, in the nation that are making that decision, whether it's before, during, or after misused. And that's always, uh, it's just, that's always gonna be no matter what it is. Unfortunately, we're all human. Um, and there are bad people in this world. Um, so it, it, as far as tonight, um, My motion would be to move forward with it would be a yes.

So you're making a motion to go forward?

Yes, ma'am.

All right. So a motion to approve by McEwen. Is there a second from the council?

As long as they stay out of the city limits, I'll second it.

Truex is a second. So I'm going to go with post.

I have to say no.

McEwen.

Aye.

Sproles? No. Holstein?

No.

Truax? No.

The fact that. Wait a minute. We got to vote. Oh, okay. We'll vote. And then let me, I gotta say something to these people.

Yes.

Okay, so we're a four to two. Now that leaves us in Chief Green's hands.

Okay, thank you.

So I guess Chief Green will just.

Are you throwing things around? I'd just like to say I'm not mad at anybody for having a different opinion. We're all on the same. We all want the best for the town. I'd just like to end with that.

So we will wait to see what the future holds then, I guess, for your phone cameras.

And just to you in front of everyone, I want you to understand that I am pro-law enforcement. Absolutely.

Oh, I don't believe that's what this is about.

I don't. And so please don't take it wrong.

No, I don't. I appreciate you saying that you don't have to.

These people put me here.

I understand.

These people did put us here. I represent them. understand but i'm not mad at anybody and that's kind of what i wanted to say was the fact that all of you and so many young people sitting out here makes my heart feel good to know that you're you care about the constitution you care about your city you care about this country we just said no to that so right now those cameras got to go somewhere else that's not what we're doing tonight

Okay. We're going to have to because it's not tonight. We're going to save this for another day. Thank you, Chief. I'm going to call the meeting tonight at 636. Guys, thank you all for coming. Please come to more meetings.

I encourage you to come to more meetings.

Yes. We don't know.

Yeah, when you see high, what do you see? But when you start reading down the fine print, it's saying high that he's got the antibodies.