City Council - Regular Meeting

Yes.

all right good evening everyone it is seven o'clock Gardner Kansas call the meeting to order please rise if you're able and join me for the pledge of allegiance All right, good evening. If you haven't noticed, we do have a few of our council joining by Zoom. Can everyone hear? We've got Mark Baldwin, Steve McNair, Kelly Johnson all joining by Zoom tonight. Can you guys all hear me by Zoom?

Yes, we can hear you.

Steve, Mark, you guys there?

Yes, we can hear you. All right, perfect. I can hear you.

There we go. All right. We can go right into public comments. There's a few people here for public comments. We use this time to make comments about city matters or items on the agenda that are not part of a public hearing. If you wish to come forward, please limit your comments to five minutes or less. There is a five-minute time clock to your left. That being said, come forward, and if you would, state your name and address for the record. And the podium is now open for that.

Eric Arnold, 294 West Westhoff Place here in Gardner. So two weeks ago, I stood here at this podium and asked for three specific things regarding the city's flock surveillance system. First being that a real policy be adopted with the documented reason required for every search, regular audits. Second, that the system be suspended until a vote because at that time it had no policy and no oversight behind it. Third was that the city bring this contract to a vote by this body and serve notice of non-renewal. Since then, I want to tell you what's happened and what I'm still asking. So here's what's happened. I sent the city another records request asking for things that I had not yet requested. The response I got back was nothing in your email below prompts the city for us to respond any different than it already has. However, in the last meeting, our chief of police had given me his card and offered to sit down and discuss my concerns, so I took him up on it. Last Friday, he and the deputy chief made the time to sit down and meet with me. They answered questions, they listened, we had a full conversation that was open, calm, and relaxed, and then they acted. The chief published a written policy governing this technology, its use, its access, its auditing. and restricted access to the system down to two people pending the council's decision on its future. So two of my three asks the chief handled in 11 days. Gardner is fortunate to have leadership in its police department willing to act and move in that way. The third ask was never the chief's to grant, bringing this to a, sorry, bringing this contract to a vote and serving a notice of non-renewal. That power belongs to the one body and it belongs to the city council. Make no mistake about what it is. FLOC is a surveillance program that tracks everyone who drives through this town, not suspects, but everyone. And we're paying extra for it on top of the other systems that we're currently running within Gardner. When I met with the chief, I learned that we actually have got four cameras. Two of them have been deployed, while other two are sitting not deployed. So my question on that would be, why are we spending taxpayer dollars on that at all? So here's how simple it is to end. I'm not a lawyer, so this is just based on my own reading. But per the contract, section 11.16 lets the city terminate for non-appropriation, 30 days written notice, no penalty, no cost, simply by choosing not to fund it. That's not really my interpretation. That's just based on the contract's own language and how I've read it. So therefore, I don't feel that you're locked in and that you're one action away from ending that contract. Unfortunately, tonight I saw that this contract wasn't listed on tonight's agenda, and because it wasn't, I can't ask for any votes or anything like that tonight, but I am asking you to put it on the next one. Any member of this Council can bring the FLOC contract forward for a vote. Three of you could call a meeting for it. You have the power to make this a public decision on the record. So two weeks ago I said not one of you voted for this system and not one of you has to defend it. While that's still true, it can change from a little bit from day to day as this goes unaddressed. The chief did his part in 11 days and the only question now is what is the council going to do with their part? So bring it forward and let Gardner see where each of you stands, whether you choose to act or choose to wait. Community is watching now. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Arno.

Hi, my name is Carrie Schmidt. I'm going to keep it very brief tonight, but I want to get something on to the record just really quick. So I have been watching the meetings and hearing stuff with flock and axon cameras. I have done research into axon and I am very concerned with what they can do as well as flock. I would hope that the city would remove both axon and flock cameras and with your home rule authority tell the state and the county to get their cameras out of Gardner as well. With all of this data center talk and surveillance cameras, I am very concerned with the surveillance state and worried about the future freedom of Americans from being tracked and monitored unconstitutionally. And that's it. Thank you.

Hi there. Bradley Steinmetz, 409 West Bluebird Street, Gardner, Kansas. Good evening, Mayor and members of the Gardner City Council. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak tonight. I am here because I believe the citizens of Gardner deserve to have a serious and open discussion about the city's use of flock safety license plate reader cameras. Obviously, there's been two people that have spoken before me, and I've met with Eric, and this is a serious issue that I feel that the public needs some accountability from our leadership. Let me be clear from the beginning, I support legitimate law enforcement efforts to protect our community and investigate crime. It is about making sure that this powerful technology is accompanied by equally powerful safeguards. Flock cameras are not simply cameras that photograph a license plate when a vehicle drives past. It can collect information associated with the vehicle, including time and location. Gardner's agreement also provides capabilities including vehicle searches, network access, and the ability to search information. raises an important question. When does a tool designed to help investigate crime become a system capable of tracking the movements of ordinary people who have never been suspected of crime, such as myself? And perhaps even more importantly, what safeguards does the city have in place to make sure that this information is never abused? From the review of the last city council meeting, it appears none are currently in place. This concern is not theoretical. Across the United States currently, there have been publicly reported investigations, including law enforcement personnel who have allegedly used automated license plate readers, including flock systems, for purposes unrelated to legitimate law enforcement. Some of those cases are North Carolina, 86 officers let go due to tracking boyfriend's ex-wife. 87 Milwaukee officers drew weapons on I-94 interstate on a driver due to vehicle being flagged by flock cameras, which was one digit off of the current reader. ABC World News reports on 8.8 that six Savannah, Georgia officers are currently now under criminal investigation for misusing flock camera technologies. These are all examples, and there are more, but in the effort of time, I will continue my point. This does not by any way include or demean Garner Police Department as they should use this technology properly. And I'm not insinuating that they aren't, right? But it's prime examples of why we as the public feel like our liberties are not being... They're being violated, point blank. And I grew up in this city. My father was the one that did all the Christmas decorations right there by Veterans Memorial Park. I've moved away. I came back. And I'm very passionate about this. I've always loved this city. I was the first class of 2001 to graduate from the high school. And this is oversight by our government at this point. We don't feel as a public like we're being taken care of. We're being watched. And that's absurd. uh between several invoices which again some of my my my current citizens here with me anyways trying to say the right word uh i see six invoices that have just stated there are two to four flock cameras but i'm accounting for almost thirty thousand dollars worth of cameras On top of it, I see that Jim Prudig here signed a contract with Axon Enterprises, which I was only provided $169,000 of contract through 2029. However, someone else in this audience was provided something over $900,000 from the city clerk. So there's disinformation being provided to the citizens on top of us having concern about things in the first place. uh as mentioned prior flock contracts this was a 30-day retention period as well to also give law enforcement agencies government officials and third parties any information within 30 days now i heard flock is reducing that to seven but who's the third parties as our government officials you should also be concerned about your privacy as well who knows who they're selling it to you want to buy a snickers bar maybe they're tracking that too um So I have a whole lot more here. I know I'm running out of time and maybe this goes for the next meeting, but I'm very passionate about this. The question is whether Gardner can have public safety without sacrificing the privacy and constitutional rights of our people and its sworn duty to protect. With recent scandals with some of the police department being listed on TikTok and through just word of mouth, I would hope that this body of counsel can not only start looking at this police department, things involved with the flock cameras, but it's just left a bad taste in the citizen's mouth. I thank you for your time and have a great evening.

Thank you. Thank you, everyone. One more coming forward, we will move on to consent agenda. Is there an item on consent agenda council would like to remove? Do I hear a motion for consent?

So moved. Second.

We're going to do a lot of this tonight. Motion, we. Second, Deaton. We approve consent agenda. All in favor?

Aye. Aye. Aye.

All opposed? Okay, I assume that's, since agenda passes, we are gonna move all the way to new business. New business item number one, consider a resolution of the city approving the execution and delivery of a non-binding memorandum of understanding in connection with the development project from the city, Project Velocity.

Good evening. Before I start with my part of this, I'm going to have the developer representative, Josh Shidmer, come up and go over the development.

Good evening. We are proposing an arts and entertainment district here in the city of Gardner. Just a little bit of background about us. We're an arts organization. That's really the economic engine of what we're building here is to really promote the performing arts and education inside Kansas City and the greater area. as you've seen through the program that we provided, that there will be multiple components there for the facilitation of the school itself, venues for entertainment, as well as retail components to build a full district that enhances the overall experience. Again, that's really based around this arts mission to make sure we get accredited educational opportunities for people that want to pursue careers in and around music, media, film, and post-production in the touring world. The venues that will be proposed as we continue to develop through the programming, through this body as we go into the future approvals, we'll continue to flesh those out and you'll see those opportunities come up as we move through the official approval process.

The developer is requesting a mix of incentives to support the project, including star bonds, which are subject to approval by the state. Other incentive requests include a 2% CID, a 1% sales tax for TDD for transportation, financing, industrial revenue bonds for the purpose of exempting building materials and fixed machinery and equipment from state and local sales tax, and the use of transient guest tax revenue not otherwise committed. The decision by Gardner to grant incentives will be based on the project providing significant public benefits that justify the use of incentives. Additional information is necessary to formulate an effective financing plan for the project and determine the public infrastructure needs that it will generate. I've been asked what kind of what the bucket amount is for each of the incentives. And we won't be able to determine that until we find out how much in star bonds is authorized by the state and how much how much we can support through the sale of the star bonds. So once that information comes in, we can look at the other buckets and what's required to fill the gap. The proposed MOU is non-binding agreement that outlines the project concept and describes the intent of the parties with respect to Gardner's provision of assistance to the developer and securing certain incentives for the developer in consideration of their investment of significant funds in Gardner. The proposed resolution approves the execution and delivery of this non-binding MOU. Bond Council Rick McConnell and Emma Kate Dillon of QTAC Rock are here to answer any questions.

Thank you, Chair. Remember, we do offer time for public comment, if anyone would like to comment on this item. Not. Council, questions at this point? This is still early in the process.

I guess maybe the only question I have at the moment is so there is kind of a list of incentives is it does that mean some of the other incentives that could be are not on the table at this time they are not obviously not currently planned but that doesn't mean that they could never be planned that's correct okay so it's just depending upon how the numbers work out right

I don't know at what stage in the process it has to be disclosed, but I was invited to a meeting with the developers and I took them up on it and met them to learn about this project.

I don't think anybody heard your case. I can't hear you here. that is really required for planning and zoning considerations covering my bases and this does go to Planning Commission next Monday and we'll come to council second meeting in September and then once we get the information for the star bonds we'll put together a DA that outlines the incentives and what each one will cover I

Councilman or Councilwoman Johnson or Councilman McNair? Baldwin, do you have any questions?

I don't have any questions right now.

What kind of a timeline are we on for that Starbond answer? Councilman McNair.

I didn't hear.

Councilman McNair asked what kind of timeline are we on.

So they're doing the visitation study. So I mean, it could be four to eight weeks, I believe.

in the sense of state government, that's still pretty quick, I mean.

Right.

Okay, thank you. You're welcome.

Okay, well then is there a motion for the non-binding memorandum?

So moved.

Second.

motion second McNair we adopt resolution number two two zero zero resolution of the city of Gardner Kansas approving the execution and delivery to a non-binding memorandum of understanding and connection with a development project within the city project velocity yes councilmember Johnson yes councilmember McNair yes councilmember Baldwin yes yes Resolution 2200 passes. Look forward to hearing more about this. Thank you. Okay, new business item number 23 and four are all very similar in nature. We'll start with number two. Consider adopting a formal resolution declaring it necessary to acquire property through eminent domain action to construct a planned 167th Street improvements project.

again if you'd like to speak on all three that would be great all right good evening mayor council uh these are all uh similar items dealing with property acquisition in conjunction with several cip projects that the city has going on right now those projects are the 167th street improvement project 175th street improvement project and grand street improvement project Those projects are all in right of way and easement acquisition right now. Typically, when we are in that process, if we have property owners that are either non-responsive or we're off on numbers, that kind of thing, we will begin the condemnation process. These resolutions begin that process and give us authority to kind of start going through the motion on that. this the next step would be if we get to the point where we need to actually do condemnation if we can't come to agreement over the next couple months in order to keep the projects moving we would then bring ordinances to condemn property so this is just basically the starting point to allow us to stay on project tracks timelines while continuing to negotiate with property owners

We do open this up to public comment.

How many people are impacted by this?

Right now, we don't have a number because we're still negotiating and we'll continue to negotiate. We don't have a set number of condemnations until we get to a point of impasse in those negotiations.

And it's... I don't want to say unlikely. It's uncommon that we would get all the way there, at least in my experience from being on here for the last couple of years. It's just we get there by the other means. We don't have to go all the way that way.

Yeah, we would anticipate not very many actual condemnations, but we do have them.

Council, any other questions?

So this is just an incentive to keep people negotiating in good faith. Is that the idea?

Oftentimes, we might just get non-responses until the condemnation process starts. It's kind of sometimes the impetus to get folks to negotiate.

OK, thank you.

All right, so do I hear a motion for new business item number two?

So moved. Second. Second.

Motion, Wayne. Second, Deaton. We adopt resolution number 2201, declaring it necessary to acquire property through imminent domain action to construct the planned 167th Street improvements project.

Is that clear?

Councilmember Johnson.

Yes.

Councilmember McNair.

Yes.

Councilmember Baldwin.

Yes.

Council Member Deaton? Yes. Council Member Ween?

Yes.

Resolution 2201 passes. And then do I hear a motion for new business item three?

So moved.

Second. Motion Ween, second Deaton. We adopt resolution 2202, declaring it necessary to acquire property through eminent domain action to construct the planned 175th street improvements project.

Council Member McNair?

Yes.

Council Member Baldwin?

Yes.

Council member Deaton. Yes. Council member Wien. Yes. Council member Johnson.

Yes.

Resolution 2202 passes. New business item number four.

So moved.

Second.

Motion Wien, second Deaton. We adopt resolution 2203 declaring it necessary to acquire property through eminent domain action to construct a planned Grand Street roadway improvements project from Pine to Center Street.

Council member Baldwin.

Yes.

Council member Deaton. Yes. Council member Wien. Yes. Council member Johnson.

Yes.

Council member McNair.

Yes.

Resolution 2203 pass. That concludes regular business. We can move to council updates. She did you want to go first? I don't know if you want to speak any on on block cameras or where we're at.

Sure, sure. I want to thank Eric for meeting with the DC and I. Again, to Eric's point, I thought it was a very good conversation. I want to thank the public for bringing this to our attention. We did just publish a new policy for ALPR, real-time technology, with audits. We also have done an audit. And within the policy, there's retention for each of these systems. You want to make sure you capture each retention period. In that policy, we will capture each retention period. But the bottom line with Flock, I did shut it down Friday with the exception of myself and the captain temporarily to have discussions. We have two contracts. One expires December of this year and the second one expires February of next year. According to the contract, we can just give them notice of non-renewal and not renew the contracts. I've asked leadership, that's what I would like to do with the flock contract and just remove flock completely from our ecosystem.

I will weigh in here. We also have the option to end the use of the cameras. Anytime we want. We could do it tomorrow. Don't have to go to the end of the contract. Contracts have been paid in full. I believe it's $13,000 total. Is that correct, Kelly?

Yes. Yes, and we've already paid through the contract date.

So we don't have to use them to the end of the contract. We can stop using them now.

Do you see any public safety concerns by doing that?

no because uh as eric pointed out two of them aren't even deployed the other two are but uh no ma'am i don't um the technology is siloed from our other technology which is one of the reasons i don't care for flock as much because it is siloed along with the other concerns of sharing with several other agencies throughout the United States, 1,274, I believe.

And Axon was brought up during public comments. Outside of our in-car cameras and body cameras, do we have Axon cameras on hold or anything like that?

No, we have the ALPR in the cars. We don't share any of that information with anyone else that stays in our ecosystem, nor do we get anyone else's.

And that's not quite the surveillance that flock or the flock type cameras are because you have to be actually driving in the car and doing the things, not just every passerby or.

Correct. Correct. The stationary ones are constantly logging and tagging the tags that come past the intersections.

Is is So in updating the policy, did you also do an audit of who had access, or who, I know you looked at who had access, who has access to the cameras and the data over, I don't know how long we've had them. I looked at the invoices as well, and it was 2023 or something like that, or 22. I don't know if you have any information on that.

So the issue is after 30 days, it's gone. So we were only able to go back 30 days to look at that history. So that's why we put it in policy from here on out. No matter what system we do, whether they have a 30-day retention period, seven days, 90 days, whatever, we're going to do an audit during that retention period so we can capture any patterns, if that makes sense. So if someone were misusing it, we would have that information.

we have the ability to deactivate the cameras tomorrow and not continue with the contract does that need to be an agenda item or can that be a consensus from the dais you guys can have a consensus from the days and i can directly

And as part of a national, I mean, we don't have enough cameras for it to have a huge value for us. It's not that expensive, but having cameras at one place, you know, the value for law enforcement and legitimate law enforcement uses is the national, you know, kind of a dragnet. But it's got very limited value with the number of cameras we have.

Are you seeing other communities going this route? I mean, I know it's become a bigger issue. Your race is a more known issue recently. Are other communities deactivating across the nation? Are you seeing that?

I think there's some, but if we look at us in our peer cities, Johnson County, there isn't a very big footprint right now with flock anyways. There's very few flock cameras, ALPRs, in this region, if that makes sense. There's other ALPR, but not flock, in the Johnson County region.

You feel comfortable, though, that there's no harm decrease in ability for your profession by deactivating?

Not those two cameras. No, sir. You've got a couple of questions.

Go ahead, Steve. Yes. First question is, where is this data from the flock cameras stored? They are cloud based. Whose control is that? Is it stored with Flock security or is it some third party?

I'd have to double check, but I believe that is through, well, it's through Amazon.gov for Flock.

So they are part of Amazon, is that correct?

It's what they're utilizing, and I don't wanna get too hard ahead of myself, because I'm not an IT person, but Amazon.gov is what the government uses. Siege is compliant, it's supposed to be cyber secure, and what the government uses, and many government entities use.

So who has access to this data outside of our department? Or do we know?

TO THE ACTUAL CAMERAS THERE'S RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THROUGH THE DATABASE INDOOR CAMERAS THROUGH FOX NETWORK SHARING IT'S 1200 IT WAS EITHER 34 OR 74 I DON'T REMEMBER IT WAS OVER 1200 I'LL SAY THAT WHICH IS PART OF THE REASON I SHUT IT DOWN OKAY DO WE KNOW WHETHER THIRD PARTIES LIKE INSURANCE ENEMIES ARE BEING NOTIFIED OR GIVEN ACCESS OR DATA FROM THIS SYSTEM That is sensitive. That's our data. So it's governed by NCIC and KCGIS. So no, they should not be able to have access to anything specific to law enforcement.

I guess I'm real uncomfortable with this because once it goes out of the cloud, we really can't control what happens to it at that point.

Yeah, I can speak.

I am glad the chief shut it down. I see no reason to renew the contract and I'm good with shutting down the cameras effective immediately.

Thank you. Councilman Johnson, do you have anything else to add?

I don't have anything to add. I agree with Mark Baldwin. I don't mind canceling that contract and shutting down the cameras as soon as we can.

OK. All right. Merritt, I concur. There's your majority and your consensus.

Yep. I think it's consensus across the board. So yep. There you go.

Will you remove them?

Sell them. So that's another reason I don't like this contract is technically we don't own it. We're paying for this subscription and service, so Flock still owns it. So once we give them notice that we won't renew, at some point, I don't know when I can find out, then they will come and they will take the equipment.

Okay.

we didn't okay we leased the equipment didn't buy the equipment okay essentially it's it's not it doesn't say lease in the contract but yes i thought i'd like to put a motion on the floor i think steve we don't need a motion we just do consensus and we're good okay yeah i think we're we're in agreement and i think they have direction to move forward is that all right no good okay All right. Well, thank you, Chief. Thank you for doing the research on this and Jim as well. Appreciate that.

Nothing tonight. Okay, Matt. Nothing tonight. Nothing tonight. City Attorney Ryan.

Nothing for me. Dave. Nothing. Jason. Nothing for me.

Dave. Nothing for me. Callum. Nothing for me. All right.

Jim. Just want to thank the Velocity team for being here. Nice step forward. We'll keep moving along. So thank you.

Thanks.

OK, let's start with Councilmember Johnson. Do you want to start? Do you have anything?

I just want to say thank you again to everybody who came and spoke tonight. We appreciate hearing from you. And thank you to the Velocity guys who came and spoke. And finally, also thank not thank you. Welcome to our new deputy police chief and our new officers who we've gotten in the past couple of weeks to join the Gardner Police Department. Welcome. And we are glad to have you all here.

Did you want to, really quick, do an introduction? Maybe just a short speech, just like 10, 15?

Sorry, when we started talking about Flock, I got nervous and totally forgot to introduce her. Deputy Chief Pruitt, very happy to have her as part of the team. She's been in law enforcement for 20 years, came to us from Kansas to Kansas. She has been in every facet of law enforcement, I'm really excited. Her strengths, she has many strengths, but community policing, team building. She comes to us with a lot of history and a lot of knowledge, a lot of institutional knowledge. So she will be a big part, a big help.

Excellent. Well, welcome. Thank you for being here. Okay. Council Member McNair.

Thank you. First off, Chief, I wanted to extend a personal thank you for everything you've done and the exceptional leadership that you've displayed in just the very short time you've been here. Hats off to you, sir, and your department. You're leading a fine organization. Number two, thank you for the Velocity people that met with all of us this week. And welcome to our community. We'd love to have you. And I think that about wraps it up for me.

DAVID BURRAGE- Council President Baldwin,

Yeah, I would like to echo the sentiments for the chief. He's been real responsive and I appreciate you looking into the flock stuff as quickly as you did. And obviously having all the details for us tonight so we could make a quick decision. Also to the velocity guys, I hope the citizens are even just half as eager and as, you know, You guys, I'm sure everybody else that met with them could just tell how much they love this project. So looking forward to seeing it, you know, get to fruition and, you know, welcome to the city. And hopefully we have a long term partnership. That's it for me.

Thank you. We have a lady on our team, too, just so we're clear. I don't want to leave her out and let her feel less than me. Sorry. Thank you. Thank you for being here.

A couple of things. I'll also thank the chief. Thanks for taking a look into that. And we appreciate the speed of what you did and our ability to make a decision tonight and turn them off, I think is the right decision to go make. A couple of things. When it comes to velocity, I think we can't overstate just how exciting an opportunity this is for Gardner. um and for that area of town and um i really looking forward to seeing what we what you guys can make of the place and what we can do to help um we talked about walkability uh i know we've had a conversation with a gentleman who walks from um gardner around the conestoga area over to mcdonald's uh he was both blind and deaf and i have no idea how he made it uh i couldn't make it across uh to get from uh walmart to mcdonald's if if you paid me so um i think as we do this and and from a council perspective maybe something that we should look at is how do we continue to make um that area and i'm sure all of it will change and everything will be different and we won't recognize it um but how do we make it walkable from velocity down to the rest of gardner and back up again And to that point, you know, school started last week here in Gardner. It's been a full week this week. I saw a quick little news article that said that a kid had been hit riding his scooter to work, and we just need to be watchful out there. I know as we're driving to work or as we're driving our kids to school, watch out for those other kids out there going to school as well. That's all I have to say.

Thank you. Well said.

I'm going to sound like a broken record. Welcome, Deputy Chief Pruitt. It's nice to have you here, and Chief gave you a glowing resume review, so I look forward to working with you. Chief, thank you for all your work on the flock cameras. um one thing i don't know if we can visit on that i know so we made the decision about the ones that we own at some point in a future council meeting can we look at the ones that are in our city limits but not owned by us and what that looks like what control we do have don't have ryan's probably going to have to be heavily involved in that conversation but just so that we know what if any options we have about those cameras as well And then, yes, thank you to the Velocity team, the whole team, guys and gals, for meeting with all of us. I'm really excited about this project and what it could bring for Gardner. And to echo what Council Member Ween said, I read the article as well. We just need to be very vigilant. Kids are out walking. It is great weather and scootering and biking and all sorts of things. We just need to be really safe off your phones and pay attention. And let's have a great school year.

Thank you. Nothing further? You guys said it well. So I will entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. Motion to second. We adjourn. All in favor?

Aye.