City Council - Special Meeting

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Hey, hey, hey

Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah.

Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah.

Oh, oh, oh

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

so

Thank you.

do you

Praise the Lord, everyone. Welcome to our September 3rd Special Call City Council meeting. Let us stand for the pledge, please. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Mr. Mayor, I just have one agenda item tonight. It's consideration of adopting a resolution regarding the temporary pause of the city's 15 fixed flock cameras, support the Lynchburg Police Department, and providing notice and license revocation in accordance with the contractual terms and conditions of the city's agreement with Flock Group, Inc.

Thank you. Mr. Flaherty?

Move the adoption. Second.

Is there any discussion? Mr. Berard? I believe the resolution speaks for itself. Let's pass it. Ms. Reid?

Thank you, Mayor. Just for the record, I just want to make sure everybody understands what's happening tonight, which is just like the many localities around us who voted to have this flock take place in their county or city, I'm sure with all good intent, we are now joining with them to reconsider because we've listened to the concerns of our citizens, concerns that weren't prevalent at the time when Flock was voted in, but now are. And it's our responsibility to readdress things as they come up with us, to us, and that's what we're doing tonight. We've heard a loud cry from a large portion of our citizens that have deep concerns about this. And so we want to take those concerns just like the other localities have done the same thing. Campbell County, Appomattox, Giles, the list goes on, who have done exactly what we're doing tonight, reconsidering something that they brought in at some point, and now they're making a change. So that is what we're doing here tonight, and I think this is the right thing to do. Thank you, sir.

I DO SEE THE VALUE OF THE CAMERAS. I DO SEE THE VALUE OF THOSE. I WAS WATCHING A NEWSCAST EARLIER TODAY AND THEY WERE MENTIONING THAT A CASE WAS SOLVED BECAUSE OF UTILIZING THOSE CAMERAS. I DO SEE THE VALUE OF THE CAMERAS. don't have those. Is there other measures or is there something else we can use that seems like it's so controversial right now and it's like a buzzword? Is there anything else? And not to downplay the concerns of persons. I hear that. I'm not trying to downplay that. But are there other measures you can use for our police department, other measures we can use to assist you in getting, like if a child is stolen or if a child is kidnapped or something? and you have certain measures to track rights or whatever, is there other measures we have to our disposal that we can utilize in our community?

Good evening, Mr. Mayor and members of council. Yes, Dr. Wilder, there are other vendors out there, other companies that provide similar public safety initiatives like this.

And in the meantime, is there certain things we, the police department, can utilize if something happens, like if we don't have the flock cameras, something that we can do? I don't know what you normally would do in this case if you don't have those kind of measures.

Well, we've encouraged through the Hill City Connect program that we have that is – I guess that would be a partnership with private citizens, with business community, and they can already do that with our police department where they have the option to voluntarily register their home security cameras, their business security cameras that are outward facing, public facing cameras with the police department. And additionally, they can take it a step further should they elect to voluntarily and actually provide access to their cameras to the police department for criminal investigations.

Is that the same for businesses? Most businesses, we have cameras in our business. Can businesses also sign up for that same measure?

Yes. It's something that's offered both private citizens, home security cameras, as well as businesses and their business security cameras as well.

Hill City Connect. Great. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you so much.

just uh i want to get a couple points of clarification on this and i don't know if this question is for you mr city attorney or uh the city manager but this this new resolution that we just got yesterday it doesn't appear to have any any dates when it relates to the the term as far as the expiration goes and i want to make sure that this isn't going to continue until the end of the current subscription term, because I think as I understand it, it goes two years and then another two years. So I wanna make sure what we're doing here isn't gonna hold it off until, I guess it would be November of next year. So this particular resolution has no dates, no timeframes, it just says notice. And it references the agreement, not the license agreement, but the contract. So what I'm asking is, based on how this resolution is prepared, on what date would we be able to expect that they need to start removing their equipment from the city rights-of-way because they are no longer permitted in the city rights-of-way?

So we would have to talk about that internally, I think, but as I understand it, it would be terminated in a way to maximize avoiding any monetary penalties being incurred by the city.

I understand that, but what I'm asking you is are we going to continue having flock equipment operating in Lynchburg until the end of the current two-year term that we're in, which would be well into 2027?

Not if you adopt this, because it makes clear that even if you adopt this and there's no certain date set that needs to be figured out by staff, they remain on a pause.

So, but... What I'm asking is, are we giving them the 30-day notice term that's spelled out in the license agreement, which is superior to the contract agreement and does not have any cost associated with it?

Is that what we are doing?

Because the license agreement is extremely clear. The contract is also extremely clear. When there's a conflict between the two of them, the license agreement prevails. And then according to the license agreement, all we have to do is give them 30 days notice. And then on the 31st day, the equipment is no longer lawfully in our city rights of way. So I'm trying to get a clear answer. If we're going to vote on something that is this consequential, we should be able to have a date definite of when it goes into effect. So I'm asking what is the date definite of when this will go into effect and the citizens can expect that this is actually accomplished, not just some, you know, Undefined term, essentially.

Will it be terminated in accordance with the requirements of the contract? That's all I can tell.

But the contract is what stipulates the fees to remove the equipment. The license agreement does not stipulate any fees. So I'm asking, are we terminating the revocable license agreement or are we terminating the government agency agreement? So then we are going to continue having this till the end of the subscription. Is that correct? The end of the term?

If we did, they would only be idly sitting in the right of way, not operating.

So that means that we will still have acoustic sensors operating throughout the city well into 2027?

That I can't speak to.

Well, I mean, I think that we're going to make a consequential decision on city policy. That's something that needs to be spoken to, Mr. City Attorney. Or this resolution was never ready for prime time?

That would need to be addressed by LPD.

Okay. Mr. Police Chief, based on this resolution that says we're going to, pursuant to subsection 6.1 term of section six term of termination of the government agency agreement and the revocable license agreement, when can we expect that the flock equipment is no longer operating in city rights of way?

So the 15 fixed flock cameras that are on pause now that have been disabled and have been covered, so they're essentially offline. As this resolution, depending on what council decides to do, votes on this evening or in the future, the contract, as I understand it, for the 15 fixed cameras, if you end the contract and end the agreement with the direction that we then immediately contact FLOC, then there is a $500 per unit charge that certainly was not budgeted for in the police department to have those removed. If the contract is allowed to just expire, which it actually would expire next April 2027, then based on a new negotiated contract not being in place, Flock would take that equipment up without charging that $500 per unit.

So that means that the equipment will continue, so the Raven system, the acoustic sensors will continue well into 2027?

The Raven gunshot detection system is not part of the 15

Flock fixed cameras, so we're not getting rid of flock.

We're just getting rid of the cameras The 15 fixed cameras are paused and disabled the gunshot detection is still operational It was my understanding that this entire debate was based on the 15 cameras the gunshot detection Doesn't have a camera with that device so

The whole debate is that we don't want a big tech mass surveillance system in Lynchburg and 55 acoustic sensors are microphones that with the firmware update can be listening 24, seven, three 65 for things like, Hey, I didn't get vaccinated. We all remember how crazy government got during COVID. because they tried to push a firmware update in June for sounds of distress until they got public backlash, right? So this was never about just the cameras. So this agreement then, this resolution that's before us tonight actually keeps the big tech mass surveillance infrastructure in place in Lynchburg. It's just the, audio equipment it's not the visual equipment is that correct no there are so much of your uh uh comments you've just made that's not correct which parts aren't correct again we've explained it we've uh i'm asking you you just told me that my the citizens elected me to ask these questions you just told me that the statements that i made were incorrect chief so i'm asking you just please tell me what i said that was incorrect okay mass surveillance Okay, I think that's a matter of disagreement, but that's not a factual thing. But the acoustic sensors, I guess the question is, the acoustic sensors are still going to continue operating in the city?

They are continuing to operate currently, yes.

And will this resolution do anything with the acoustic sensors?

As it reads, it's the 15 fixed flock cameras. So I can't speak to that because it's not in the wording in the language of the resolution.

I just find it very interesting that we have so many staff members in here that can't seem to answer a basic question about what we're actually voting on tonight. This was a meeting that was called yesterday with 25 hours notice. Like it all should have been put together. We should have known what we were doing. But apparently, I can't get an answer to a question about what we're actually doing. Because I'm trying to ask, when will the equipment be taking the infrastructure? You don't believe that it's mass surveillance. That's fine. That's not a misinformation thing. That's just a disagreement. It is a big tech company. It's a private, big tech company that collects this data. I know that the... Lynchburg owns the data, but they still have backdoor access to it. It's their system. And I don't want our citizens data being held by a big tech company, whether it's audio or visual. And I don't want our citizens taxpayer dollars paying to collect that data for a big tech company. That's what it's always come down to for me. It's too much power for government. And it's definitely too much power for a big tech billionaire. And I'm concerned that we don't know what we're voting on. So my question remains, when do the acoustic sensors come down?

I have an answer.

I think under subsection two of this resolution, it makes clear that if notice is provided for the cancellation of that contract, As long as those sensors fall under the FLOC contract, I think it would apply to them as well.

Do the sensors fall under the FLOC contract, Chief? Yes. Okay. But you just said if notice is provided, so is this going to require that notice be provided if this is adopted? Who's going to provide that notice?

I think it's going to be the city manager's designee because the city manager is over contracting with the city.

So are there some details that maybe we should add to this resolution to show, you know, like that the city manager or his designee is going to provide this notice to flock that the license agreement is?

It's there. It's under number four.

I'm going to yield to Council Member Timmer because I may have more questions after I hear what she has to say because I'm curious about her questions.

Go for it.

Chris. Point four reads that the city manager or his designee shall ensure the substance of this resolution is effectuated no later than what is provided under the contract, after which all flock technology shall be removed from the city rights of way and its property. Earlier in the resolution, the term contract is defined as both, for the purpose of the resolution, defined as both the governing agreement and the license agreement. So for the purpose of this conversation, that's the term being used here for contract. I would also point out that point three says, let me get to the right point. I'm sorry, point two. Point two speaks to the fact that when the notice is given and the fact that it must be given before that 30-day window, which would be any time from the adoption of this resolution to what would that be, March? Some point.

Can you repeat that, Chris?

Most commissions didn't hear you. That pursuant to subsection 6.1, term of section six, term and termination of the governing agreement, I'm gonna skip a little bit, including as exhibit A, under revocable license agreement, dated November 28, 2023, between FLOC and the city, which will be defined as the contract, the adoption of this resolution shall serve as notice to flock as defined in the aforesaid subsection. When applying that, now this is my interjection, when applying that with point four, which I read earlier, that means that the manager or his designee must provide notice no later than one day prior to the 30-day window for the contract to automatically renew.

Ms. Timmerman?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'd like to make a substitute motion that we do not move forward tonight and we wait until the agenda items this Tuesday. It is clear that there is confusion in the nature of the current discussion.

I'll second that.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We have a lot of citizens here tonight. I greatly appreciate your turnout on a short notice meeting. Thank you. Tuesday, we will be able to hear your public comments. And we also have had months to review the resolutions that have been brought forward according to our rules of procedure and agenda items to be aware of what they entail and how they actually affect our contract with FLOC. The resolution brought forward tonight was brought forward speedily. And there's something that, well, And I believe it would be prudent and valuable for us as a council to adhere to our rules of procedure when it comes to agenda. And not just the function of the rules of procedure, but also the spirit of the rules of procedure and how it allows for time for deliberation and development of these ideas for a fruitful discussion. So that is why I bring forward my substitute motion. I am prepared to vote to cancel the flock license tonight. I am prepared to vote to cancel the flock license on Tuesday, but I believe it falls, again, in line with the prudence of our discussion, the spirit of our rules of procedure, and honoring the public comment of our citizens to do so on Tuesday. You've already heard our comments. Many, not all.

I just want to make sure we're actually doing what we all want to do, which is get out of this license agreement and get this equipment out of here as quickly as possible. Because I'm looking at section 9.7 of the license agreement right now. And I would ask, make a request, Ms. Finney, that we incorporate both the GAA, the general, Let me, I want to make sure I say this right. The general government agency agreement, right? And the license agreement into the official record of this meeting, because section 9.7 of the license agreement, which is what we approved, I didn't vote for it. I voted against it back on November 28th of 2023. but city council in a 4-3 vote did adopt the approval of this license agreement. The very last sentence, bold and underlined, and I think it's the only thing bold and underlined in the entire license agreement says, again, section 9.7, in the event of a conflict between the license and exhibit A, which is the GAA, the contract, the government agency agreement, such conflict will be resolved in favor of this license. That means that the license overrides the contract. And for Article 2, termination of the license agreement, it says the term of this license shall commence at the time it is fully executed and shall continue month to month thereafter, but in no event will this license continue beyond a period of five years without a formal renewal by the parties. This license is revocable, non-exclusive, and may be revoked unilaterally by the city upon 30 days written notice to the provider in the city's sole and absolute discretion. That means it's our discretion. And if we revoke the license agreement on the 31st day, after we revoke the license agreement, the equipment is no longer authorized to be in city rights way. So I don't understand why we aren't just doing something simple and revoking the license agreement tonight, rather than having all of this conversation where I'm asking questions and I get one response that says it doesn't include the acoustic sensors. Then I get another response that says it does include the acoustic sensors. I want to know what I'm voting on. And right now I'm not confident that this is going to get the job done. Fortunately, If this does pass and it doesn't get the job done, we got another resolution coming up on Tuesday that will get the job done. So, you know, there is that as well. But, you know, the difference between the two is very short, right? The resolution that comes up on Tuesday City Manager for the City of Lynchburg or his designee is hereby directed to effectuate the termination of the City's existing contractual relationship with Flock Group Incorporated in accordance with the requirements of that certain revocable license agreement dated November 28, 2023 between the City and Flock. On October 25th, 2026, and after the required notice having been provided by the city manager or his designate, the license granted to Flock pursuant to Lynchburg City Council Resolution R23097 shall be deemed revoked. All matters related to the removal of equipment, disposition of data, and any other matters arising from or connected to the city's use of Flock technology shall be handled in accordance with applicable law and applicable contractual requirements. And you know what? It's very clear the license agreement supersedes the contract, the license agreement doesn't say anything about $500 per piece of equipment for removal. So, you know, I just, I wanna make sure that we're actually doing what we're doing. That's why I entertain a substitute motion, because I like the idea of the conversation about this, because I'm very confused by what's been presented. And quite frankly, by the answers that I've gotten from both our city attorney and staff. And I want to make sure that we're actually doing what the public demands. doing what I voted to do back in 2023, not be in this license agreement in the first place, right? When you actually take the time to think things through and make sure what you're doing is the right decision. You know, when this whole debate started back in January, it was a gentleman by the name of Justin Gaver. He came, he spoke before city council in public comment He talked about, and that's the person that deserves the credit, right? I mean, if there's anybody that this resolution should be applauding, it's Justin Gaver for coming in in January and saying, hey, you know what? This is gonna be a hot debate. Mass surveillance, that's what he thinks it is. I tend to agree. And he talks about the data integrity and the data security and issues that they were having back then, issues that were proven. at the time, that caused us to put it on the agenda because of his comment back in January and to have this discussion. And, you know, when he first came forward, I was thinking to myself, I gotta go back and look. I hope I didn't vote for that. It's been a few years, right? Went back and I watched the entire work session and the entire debate in the meeting where I ended up voting against it. And it was very simple. It's too much power for government. That was the bottom line when I cast my no vote. And I agree. But it happened. Now we're getting an opportunity to fix it and reverse it. and I want to make sure that we do it. So I don't know if you still want to keep the substitute motion.

I'm fine with drawing it. I just want it to, I want this to work so we can vote Tuesday.

Exactly. So I'm fine voting tonight, but if we find out that it didn't do what it's supposed to do and we can't get a definitive date, because I'll tell you my expectation of staff on Tuesday is that we have a definitive date on when the equipment will be removed from city rights of way. That's my expectation of staff. A definitive date, all of it, when all of the equipment is out of the city. And if we don't have a definitive date because of what we did tonight, then we've got a backup plan with another resolution that terminates the license agreement on the spot with the 30 days notice. it will get the job done.

Well, I need to withdraw my substitute motion.

So I formally withdraw my substitute motion. With that in mind, I believe 30 minutes have transpired. Every member of council has spoken. I request the vote.

into the record.

I'm happy to. Public records, Mr. Mayor, I mean, is there any reason why the public shouldn't get to see what we're actually voting to terminate or revoke tonight? We're voting tonight to remove the 15 fixed flat counters. That's not what was just told to us.

unless there's a legal reason. I don't see there a reason to be concerned about including them in the public record.

Chief, all this is public safety. That's what concerns me, public safety. And this was an instrument in your arsenal for public safety, right? Yes, sir. The shots fired, I requested them a long time ago, because all the shooting and what's the wild does in my neighborhood. We had a big shotgun blast the other night. Somebody's out here doing things that have no business, and they need to be caught. And if we got an instrument to help you do your job, public safety, I think some things we need to keep in place. But we will be voting on item one tonight. Thank you, Chief. Public safety, right? Yes, sir. Thank you. Mr. Mayor? Yes, sir.

So just to be clear, since you're the chair and you're speaking to the motion, I've now had the police chief first said we were only talking about the cameras. and we weren't talking about the acoustic sensors. Then the city attorney said we were talking about the cameras and the acoustic sensors. Then the police chief said, we're talking about the cameras and the acoustic sensors. And now you're telling us that we're only voting on the cameras. Which one is it, Mr. Mayor?

We'll vote it on the cameras. Mr. Florati.

Okay.

Point four, that the manager or his designee shall ensure the substance of this resolution is effectuated no later than what is provided under the contract, after which, All flock technology shall be removed from the city's rights of way and its property. 30 minutes have transpired. All members of council have had an opportunity to speak. Let's vote.

And just to be clear, the term in the contract is two two-year terms. So that term ends in 2027. Mr. Mayor.

Let's vote.

Happy to take a voice vote. Not everyone has a chance to log in. If you're ready, Mr. Mayor. Council Member Farrelly?

And this is for passage of the resolution?

This is for approval.

Yes.

Council Member Mischens? Yes. Council Member Reed?

Yes.

Council Member Timmer? Yes. Council Member Wilder?

Yes.

Mayor Taylor?

Yes.

The motion passes 6-0 with one absent.

Meeting adjourned.