City Council - workshop

you

Thank you, good afternoon, and welcome to the June 17th, 2026 City Council Work Session. Thank you for joining us today in this hybrid meeting format. For work sessions like this one, there's no opportunity for public comment, and those wishing to access the meeting can do so by watching the live stream available on our website, the broadcast on Comcast Channel 21, or by calling into one of the phone numbers listed for this meeting on the public webcast and meetings materials page of the City of Eugene website. Thank you again for joining us today. And I now call the June 17th, 2026 work session of the Eugene City Council to order. And I will turn now to the city manager to introduce our first topic, which is a work session on mass surveillance policy discussion.

Thank you, Mayor. Today we're going to discuss current surveillance technologies used by the city and also examples of governing policies and approaches. This is also an opportunity for the council to provide feedback around values and principles as it relates to how staff assesses emerging technology and also existing technology. Tonight's conversation is or today's conversation is just for information only and it is a response to a work poll requested by a counselor.

Thank you.

All right. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. I'm Assistant City Manager Matt Rodriguez. Today we'll be discussing surveillance technologies currently used by the city, the policies that govern those technologies, and the potential considerations should Council wish to develop a surveillance technology policy. This is intended as an informational and exploratory discussion. We're not seeking a decision today, but rather feedback on principles and potentially policy considerations that may guide future work. We'll begin with a brief overview of today's objectives, review the city's current use of camera-based technologies and the policies that govern them. We'll then discuss emerging technologies, review recent state legislation related to automated license plate recognition, summarize how other cities have approached surveillance technology policies, discuss policy design considerations, and walk through a few examples. Today's objectives are threefold. First, the overview that I shared with you in the agenda, and well, actually, that's the first two, with the third being obtain council feedback on the values, principles, and or policy considerations that should guide future evaluation and deployment of surveillance-related technologies. We'll begin by establishing a baseline understanding of the camera-based technologies currently in use. Staff conducted an initial inventory and identified six categories of camera-based security management technologies currently used across city departments. Access to these systems is limited to authorized users and governed by established retention and access protocols. Facial recognition is not used in any of the city's current implementations of these technologies. Because this is the City's first coordinated inventory effort, the inventory may continue to be refined as additional information is gathered. We'll start with security cameras, of which there are three varieties. The first, fixed security cameras represent the largest category of camera-based technologies used by the city. Their primary purpose is facility and infrastructure monitoring. Examples include securing city buildings of facilities, monitoring traffic operations, supporting traffic signal functionality, and monitoring wastewater treatment processes. Most are used for operational or security purposes. These systems record video only and do not capture audio. Some uses such as traffic operations are for real-time observation only with no data recording. Data that is recorded is typically stored on City of Eugene equipment, and we have approximately 700 cameras in 26 locations citywide. Portable cameras are the second type. and serve a similar purpose but provide greater flexibility. They can be relocated as operational needs change, although they are typically mounted in a way that requires significant effort to relocate them. Public Works primarily uses these systems to monitor certain parks facilities, while Eugene Police Department uses them as a crime prevention and public safety tool in accordance with established departmental policies. Like fixed cameras, these systems record video only and data is typically stored on City of Eugene equipment. We have approximately six camera units in five locations citywide. Mobile security cameras are the third category. They are typically trailer-mounted systems that can be rapidly deployed to locations experiencing specific security concerns or operational needs. These systems provide a temporary presence and allow departments to respond to changing conditions without installing permanent infrastructure. Currently, these systems are used by Public Works and EPD, and deployments are based on operational need and are governed by existing departmental policies. These systems record video only. Data is typically stored on City of Eugene equipment, and we have approximately 10 camera units deployed based on need. Camera security screening technology systems differ somewhat from traditional cameras. Their primary purpose is not observation, but security screening. They combine video technology, metal detection, and machine learning algorithms to identify potential concealed weapons. City-owned systems are currently used at two locations, the Holt Center and City Hall Council Chambers. These systems are especially effective at providing security screening while maintaining a steady flow of people in the large events. The systems capture still images rather than continuous video and do not record audio. Data is stored in the cloud. We have six city-owned units at two locations city-wide. In addition to city-owned installations, this technology is also used at the Cuthbert by the venue operator. Small unmanned aerial systems, commonly known as drones, provide specialized capabilities that can improve safety and efficiency. Public Works uses drones for infrastructure inspections, construction monitoring, and assessments of natural systems. EPD uses are for public safety and are much more limited and governed by state law, city policy, and departmental policy. In most cases, for law enforcement purposes, EPD must obtain a warrant unless specific legal exceptions apply. Additionally, EPD does use their drone systems to assist Eugene Springfield Fire when needed. These drones collect video only and data stored in the cloud, and the city currently owns approximately 27 drones which are deployed based on need. In-car video systems are installed in police patrol vehicles and are intended to document interactions between officers and members of the public. These recordings can provide objective evidence during investigations, assist with complaint resolution, support officer accountability, and improve transparency regarding police community interactions. The use is governed both by state law and department policy. These systems are used in approximately 125 EPD vehicles and record video and audio with cloud-based data storage. Body-worn cameras serve a similar purpose to in-car video, but provide a closer perspective on officer interactions. The cameras are deployed to all sworn personnel and operate under both Oregon law and departmental policy. As with in-car video, the intent is to improve transparency, accountability, evidence collection and public trust while creating an objective record of interactions. Currently, the department has approximately 250 body-worn camera units, worn by sworn personnel, which record video and audio with cloud-based data storage. The city currently uses automated license plate recognition technology, also known as ALPR, for parking management purposes. And to be clear, EPD does not currently use ALPR. Two different types of ALPR systems are used. The first are fixed ALPR systems that are typically installed on poles, on buildings, or at other fixed locations. Currently, these systems are used by the Planning and Development Department parking services team at two downtown parking garages and at the Eugene Airport parking facilities. These systems support parking operations and facility management, and these technologies are not connected to law enforcement systems. However, at the airport, the ALPR system is included in the TSA-approved airport security program. These systems record video only and data stored in the cloud. The Planning and Development Department parking services team also uses vehicle-mounted ALPR technology to improve parking management and enforcement efficiency. These systems assist staff in identifying parking violations and unpaid parking citations. As with the fixed systems, these technologies are not used by APD and are not connected to law enforcement systems. Use of the vehicle-based ALPR is governed by an established data policy specific to parking operations. These systems record video only and data is stored in the cloud. These systems are installed in approximately 14 parking service vehicles. That concludes the technologies we currently have in use. I'm gonna speak a little bit about emerging technologies, and I'll start with EPD's emerging technology considerations policy. And I just wanted to note that that established policy has evaluation criteria that must be looked at before new technologies are adopted, including a number of evaluation criteria that have to be addressed before a new technology is obtained by the department. An example of a new technology that is being explored is automated red light and speed safety cameras, which are not currently used in Eugene. However, they are identified in the city's Vision Zero action plan as proven tools to reduce serious crashes and fatalities on the transportation system, especially at some high crash locations. Since the plan was adopted, state legislation has expanded local authority to use automated speed enforcement technologies in addition to red light safety cameras. Staff are currently evaluating operational staffing and funding considerations associated with a potential future program. Any future deployment would require additional policy discussions and council direction. Earlier this year, the Oregon Legislature adopted Senate Bill 1516, which establishes a comprehensive framework governing law enforcement use of automated license plate recognition technology, once again known as ALPR. The legislation includes requirements related to allowable uses, data storage and retention, detailed logging of queries, data sharing, publicly accessible monthly audits, requires a host of related policies to be put in place, restrictions on use of the data by vendors, ability of the public to seek civil penalties against vendors who misuse information, and conditional exemption of ALPR data from public records requests. While the city's current ALPR systems are used for parking management only rather than law enforcement, the legislation provides an example of how policy makers are addressing privacy, accountability, and public transparency concerns associated with surveillance technologies. We've also reviewed how other jurisdictions have approached surveillance technology governance. City surveillance technology policies are still relatively uncommon across the United States. Most of the existing policies stem from the American Civil Liberty Union's Community Control Over Police Surveillance, or COPS, framework, which began in 2016. According to the ACLU, just over two dozen cities have adopted policies based on those principles, and they span a wide range of sizes and regions from Seattle, San Francisco, and Berkeley, to Grand Rapids, Madison, Nashville, Detroit, and New York. Here in Oregon, Portland is the only city that appears to have implemented a surveillance technology policy. After a significant community engagement process, Portland adopted its policy in February of 2023 as a council resolution, establishing a citywide surveillance technology inventory and setting procedures for privacy use and acquisition. Next I'm gonna talk about some policy design considerations and we'll look at how three cities approach their policy design. To inform a surveillance technology policy, several foundational decisions would need to be made. First, what technologies would fall into the policy's scope? Should the policy apply to all city departments? What documentation reporting and technology specific reviews would be required? Who would review and approve new technologies? Noting that any policy review process that council may choose to establish is different than contract approval with specifically falls under the authority of the city manager. And lastly, whether existing technology should be reviewed under a new policy, and whether limited exemptions should be permitted. To understand some of the differences in how cities have implemented surveillance policies, let's take a closer look at Berkeley, California, Portland, Oregon, and San Jose, California. The city of Berkeley surveillance technology policy represents one that is closely aligned with the ACLU COPS model. Berkeley's policy incorporates a broad definition of surveillance technology, including electronic devices used to collect audio, electronic, visual, location, thermal, olfactory, and biometric data. When a department wants to acquire or use a covered surveillance technology, staff prepare a surveillance impact report describing the purpose of the technology, expected benefits, potential risks, and proposed safeguards. A technology-specific use policy is also developed that addresses topics such as authorized uses, data retention, access controls, and reporting requirements. The proposal is then reviewed through a public process, including a review of police technologies by the Police Commission before being considered by the City Council. Council approval is generally required before new surveillance technologies can be acquired or deployed. Berkeley's model places a strong emphasis on transparency, public engagement, and direct elected official oversight, but it also requires significant staff time and an extensive review process. Portland, Oregon spent several years engaging community organizations, privacy advocates, city bureaus, and other stakeholders to develop a surveillance technology governance framework focused on transparency, privacy, and accountability. Their approach has been phased, beginning with the creation of a citywide inventory of surveillance technologies already in use, rather than immediately creating technology approval requirements. Portland's first focused on understanding what technologies existed and establishing a governance structure around them. Portland defines surveillance technology as any electronic or analog device, equipment, software, information, and or associated metadata, automated decision systems, data processing systems, or software solution that is designed or primarily intended to be used for the purpose of surveillance. And it goes on to further define surveillance. The policy applies citywide, and Portland is now implementing privacy impact assessments to evaluate technologies and identify potential privacy concerns, while also creating public reporting and transparency requirements. The process is managed by Smart City PDX and the Office of Equity and Human Rights, with oversight transitioning to a new city data and privacy office once it's established. Council's role is primarily establishing the overall framework through resolution and receiving information, while much of the implementation work and technology approvals are carried out through administrative and privacy governance processes. Like Berkeley, Portland's process is resource intensive, but differs in its focus on administrative process with public sharing of analysis, decisions, and reporting. We wanted to conclude with San Jose, California because it takes a somewhat different approach than either Berkeley or Portland. Rather than focusing primarily on whether technology meets the definition of surveillance technology, San Jose focuses on the privacy and civil liberties risks associated with the technology and its intended use. Departments proposing a new technology submitted for review through the city's privacy program. The level of review depends on the level of risk. Lower risk technologies can generally move through an administrative process while technology with greater privacy implications receive additional review, documentation, and public engagement. The city also publishes privacy decisions and supporting information to improve transparency. Their general approach is that oversight is proportional to risk rather than applying the same review process to every technology. This approach allows routine operational technologies to be managed administratively while reserving more intense review and council engagement for technologies with greater risk of privacy impacts. So that concludes the presentation. At this point, we'd like to shift from providing information to hearing from counsel. As you consider the information presented tonight, we're interested in what questions you have and your thoughts on what values, principles, and or policy considerations should guide the future evaluation and use of surveillance related technologies. Finally, while this afternoon's discussion is focused on surveillance technology, the feedback we receive will also help inform ongoing work related to the city's artificial intelligence policy, implementation of a new data governance framework, and consideration of emerging technologies more broadly. Many of these same questions about transparency, accountability, appropriate use in public trust apply across these areas, and council's feedback will be helpful in shaping that work moving forward. So with that, we welcome your questions, comments, and feedback.

Thank you, Assistant City Manager Rodriguez, for that presentation and a lot of useful information and I think a lot of questions answered just from what you've shared. I'll now open the floor for council discussion and have Councillor Zelenka and then Councillor Clark in the queue.

Yeah, thank you. The main question for me in all of this is what's the role of the city council in the mass surveillance policy? And is that policy a, is that a policy question, the use of mass surveillance technology, or a management issue? And I hearken back to what I consider the Oracle on this. Ken Tolinar, who used to be a city councilor here, he also wrote the model code for Eugene. And I once asked him, what's the difference between, there's kind of a gray line between policy and management. And policy is the purview of the city council and management or contracts are the purview of the city manager. And he said, It's pretty simple. If it's controversial, it becomes policy. And I thought, oh, that's kind of a little bit too simple. But then as I used that over the years, that's become kind of the way that I look at this. If something becomes controversial, becomes in the public realm, it then becomes a policy issue and is the... is the threshold, goes beyond the threshold and becomes a policy issue that is of the purview of the city council. So when that issue reaches the threshold of significant public concern and input, it then becomes a policy and then it becomes under the city council So for me, the answer to the question of whether the city council should establish a mass surveillance technology policy, the answer is clearly yes. It ceased being a management or contractual issue under the purview of the city manager when the flock issue blew up into the public sphere and continues. When the perceived threat of the likely misuse of data and images by the Trump administration became very real, it shifted into the policy realm. So should the council approve the use of all mass surveillance technology? I think yes. Should the council establish rules on how, when, and under what rules the city uses mass surveillance technology? I think the answer is yes. But can we grandfather in some existing mass surveillance technologies that we already use? I think the answer to that is yes. and we can, by that, approve them. And should we have policies for both new and existing or grandfathered-in ones? Yes. Should there be a public input process as we develop this process? I think this policy, the answer is yes. And so we have some really good examples of the type of policies from Berkeley and Portland that we could use to help craft this policy. I like San Jose's risk level thing to determine what level you do that at. I think that's a good one. So I'm eager to get working on this and have this set up and have this put in place by the end of the year.

Councillor Clark.

Thank you, Mayor. And thank you for the presentation, Matt. I don't get an opportunity to say this very often, always makes me roll my eyes a little when I do, but I agree entirely with Councillor Zelenka's comments. I would say that if we're going to establish a policy, I tend based on the limited presentation scene to favor the San Jose model myself. I did have a couple of specific questions. One was that, Matt, during the presentation, you mentioned with red light cameras and speeding cameras that that technology is currently being reviewed. My question, by whom?

So, Councilor Clark, thanks for the question. It's not being reviewed, it's being explored. So, in other words, a number of cities around Oregon have implemented the technology. It is part of the two different actions in the Vision Zero Action Plan, and the team is trying to understand logistically how we would implement it if we chose to, how much it would cost, how that would work through municipal court, and how that would work through EPD. So before that moved forward, we would be coming back to council to talk about that as a proposal. Okay.

That will be reviewed by council before implemented no matter what, correct?

Yes. And yes. The simple answer is yes, both for the implementation and also likely budget needs for a program like that.

Okay. I'm strongly in favor, as I said, of the San Jose model where we have at least the flexibility for routine level things to be discussed. But I also agree with the Ken Tolinar kind of analysis of staff ought to be really careful that something can't blow up into a public issue and ought to always lean towards the side of caution when involving the public in the conversation in advance. I wrote a question in response to this work session poll and didn't receive a memo response or anything in the AIS. And so if the chief is there, I'd like to ask a more specific question about a different kind of technology. And my question is whether or not EPD makes use of geofencing warrants. if he's available. There he is.

Well, good afternoon to everyone. Uh, counselor Clark, I'd have to get a better sense of what, what context you're referring to geo fencing warrants.

Do we ask courts to help us through the means of a private company like Google to say in this area defined at this particular time, please give us a list of old devices that were there. So we asked the court to insist that Google give that to us.

Yeah. So there are a variety of investigative techniques that we will use to geofence certain pieces of information in the hopes of being able to either locate somebody or to assist us in that investigation. Those are as a result of writing a warrant for that information. So I guess the quick answer would be case by case, depending on the investigation, we would write a judicial warrant, have that signed by the judge, and then the judge would grant our ability to look at that specific information. A good example of that would be, although maybe not geofenced, is our cell phone pinging. We write warrants for oftentimes, unless there's significant exigent circumstances, we'll write warrants to be able to ping an individual's cell phone to be able to get their last known location for a variety of different reasons.

But that's with a known individual as opposed to... My question focuses more towards the gathering of any device in a particular area at a particular time without a known person as part of the warrant. I know that 4th Circuit and 5th Circuit have divergent opinions on this before the Supreme Court. So that's what I'm just wondering what the regular use for EPD is of what's sometimes referred to as a reverse warrant.

My experience has been that we have a very specific investigative need for these warrants, usually anchored to an individual or a group of individuals that we're looking for. It's not just done just to cast a wide net and just gather whatever data we think we can gather. It's very, very focused.

My second question in regard to those type of warrants is what we do to store the data after the fact and how long we keep it.

Well, that's on a case-by-case basis, depending on what data we're keeping. Now, understand, anything we're doing is, if it's a warrant, it's been signed by a judge, and it's lawful police action. As we collect that data, likely, if it's of evidentiary value, it goes into our digital evidence management system, which holds all of our digital evidence.

Okay. Thank you, sir, very much. Greatly appreciate it.

Councillor Groves.

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Matt, and Chief, for your comments as well. I agree with a lot of what I heard Councillor Salenka saying, and I would very much like to see whatever we do have it done by the end of this calendar year. While I really support the use of technology, we encourage our staffs to explore and find technology that helps them be more efficient in their work, and that's going to be even more important as we start wrestling with budget problems, or continue wrestling with budget problems, I should say. But at the same time, with this access, I think comes great responsibility. And so we need to have some level of oversight, and I think a lot of it comes down to what do we do with the data and how do we store it. So any policy we come up with, that's going to be something I look at, just so that we understand the sphere of control and how far and where that can and will go. That's a critical piece. I would like to know more about some of these. We've got some nice bullets here for the programs that are in place, but I would like to find a way to maybe do a little more reading on those. I don't know if that's available online, but I'll certainly take a look. Because I don't want to see us reinvent the wheel. But at the same time, whatever we find, we have to tailor it to this community. I also agree that we need to do more public outreach on this. We heard some loud voices during... Public comment period at our council meetings, but I would really like to get a feel for for how the entire city Feels about it. I also heard comments that were very supportive of surveillance But those people did not show up at council meetings to speak so some way we can have a safe way of kind of pulling the community I think would be very as we proceed with this process and what we work on. So those are kind of my initial comments. I've got a lot of things going through my mind right now, but I really want to kind of think more about this before I start digging in too deep. But again, I do think we need to move forward with this. I do think we need to have a plan, and I like the deadline by the end of the calendar year. Thank you.

Councillor Yee.

Yeah, thanks. I also agree with, I think Councillor Zelenka had a lot of really great points and summed it up really well. Thank you for doing that. So I also agree we should use a broad definition for surveillance technology. I also agree that looking citywide rather than just in one or two departments makes a lot of sense. The adding an element of risk assessment I think also makes sense, especially if you consider more emerging technologies often carry more risk just because they are less known. So if that is a component of it, I think that would make a lot of sense. I would love to have it done by the end of the year. I'm not sure how realistic that is, so I would love for a next step to be staff bringing back to us you know, what a realistic timeline would be for doing this work, especially if our expectation is that we're going to be going out to the public, and we've already seen that this is a difficult topic to engage people with, for them to feel comfortable engaging with us with, right? So how are we going to make those opportunities where people feel comfortable expressing their opinions? And so that may take, multiple different types of touch points, and I assume that will take more time. So having staff get back to us about what a realistic timeline for that would be, I think the next step for us at this point. Just Matt, real quick, do we feel like we have a decent, it sounds like Portland spent a very long time figuring out what they had. Do we feel like we have a pretty... We're a lot smaller. We are smaller. Do we have a good grasp of what we're talking about, or do you need more work in that area?

So, you know, as was shared, we focused on camera-based technologies. If we're, you know, expanding that definition similar to other cities, we'll have to go through and do another dive. And one thing I just want to say is that the definition of what we're talking about is the most important part. So just... For comparison, none of the other cities use the term mass surveillance. It's surveillance. So it might be something that's used that's only very specifically collecting data about one person. But if they consider it a surveillance technology, it's part of that policy. So that foundational piece really helps understand the level of work. And as you said, Portland actually took a number of years before they adopted their resolution doing engagement. These have not typically been fast processes with the cities that have put them in place.

I think two years would be not what we're looking for. So if the feedback to us is if you want us to go super broad, it's going to take a really long time. Perhaps feedback about where those boundaries are for maybe a first phase to be able to do some work might be helpful for us if we need to kind of start small and then work our way out to other technologies.

Sure, and I'm sorry to be clear, I think most of that time was really the public engagement, not necessarily the inventory of technologies.

Okay, excellent. Thank you.

Councillor Leitch.

Thank you, Mayor. I agree with my colleagues. We definitely need to implement a surveillance policy, I think citywide. There's got to be that public process and council process component In my opinion, as we saw last year, the last thing we want is for the public and council to find out about new technology as it's being installed. We want that process to start earlier. I like the risk assessment factor of the San Jose model as well. I have a question around that. Who would be doing that risk assessment? Is that something that would be independent or outside or is it kind of the in-staff, city staff?

Counselor Leach, I think that would depend on how counsel defined it. I believe in San Jose they do That risk assessment internally and also to be clear in Portland. They do all of that internally So the the council direction was high level about establishing a program and then review and approval happens through that smart city PDX and office of equity and human rights

team um now soon to be transitioning to a data privacy office okay thank you and so yeah you mentioned that heavy staff load for the process in a model like with portland and berkeley and i and now i see why if it's all all of that's done internally um but again we're also a small city and the assumption is that we're not going to be doing this every day um You know, we have identified about six different types. I support grandfathering our current tech end. But I think the fact that there is this kind of slower process built in makes sure that we are doing better. The right steps for the public for the community for the council, and so that when we are implementing a tool, we know that we can do that confidently without as much backlash. And so I'm really looking forward to continuing to talk about this. I don't know if you assistant city manager. Can you. Since we've gone a whole round, can you give us some feedback on what else you need from us to move forward and kind of a timeline that feels reasonable? I know that by the end of the year has been brought up a few times. Does that feel feasible?

If I could just weigh in, I appreciate all the comments that council has made. Between now and the end of the year, we have over 100 items that are coming to you on your agenda. So just given that context, I think that we can put a timeline together, but understand that it's competing with a lot of other just as equally important things. And so I think how you want us to take this approach in bite-sized pizzas would be flexibility in that way. The phased approach would be very helpful. I think we can take a meaningful first step and give you some policy framework, probably within maybe six months. But in terms of actually getting a full policy implemented, that is going to take us some time. So I just wanted to present that context in front of you.

Thank you, city manager. That makes a lot of sense to me as well. The fall goes by very quickly. But if we had the ability to look at something that feels like actionable moving forward by the end of the year, that'd be really amazing. Thank you.

Thank you, Council. We'll head into a second round, and I have Councillor Zelenka in the queue before offering the microphone to Councillor Zelenka. I just want to add a couple of observations, and one of them is that I do think we've heard very clearly interest in a citywide surveillance policy. And also in thinking about the commitment to doing work well and The points at which this set of policy questions intersects with other current policy that are before the city council, I think there could be an opportunity for us to think about a phased approach that is very strategic and uses this body's time well, but also helps us to focus that surveillance conversation on emergent technologies and issues that are already aligned with the work that is in the next six month work schedule for this body just with the items that are already before council. So I wanted to just offer that I think there is a lot of wisdom in that phased approach in initiating this work and for looking at the areas where we know we might need early feedback or feedback sooner so that we can progress efficiently with other areas of work and not get caught up in a conversation that is much broader and longer about the entirety of our surveillance work because I do think the citywide surveillance policy development is important. and that it coming forward in components of work is a very solid approach to that. Having a policy framework within six months would be amazing. So thank you for offering a little bit of that sense of timing. Beginning the second round, we have Councillor Zelenka in the queue. Councillor Zelenka.

Thanks, Mayor. Fortunately, we can learn from the other cities that have gone before us, and that can speed up our process pretty dramatically, since we have some models to work off of, since we wouldn't necessarily have to be starting from scratch. So I think that helps us quite a bit. So cribbing off of all the other policies that already had thoughtful discussions, in some cases two years, will be very, very important. This is a very important policy issue, and I think it's a of one of the highest in front of the council. Councillor Groves' comments, being mindful of budget and being efficient, I think is a really good one. This isn't uncomplicated stuff. There's a lot of moving parts going on. Some people say that we should just ban all of it, and it's really not that simple. There's some current technology that's very useful. For example, Public Works uses drones to do rooftop inspections instead of risking someone going up there and coming back down and walking around upstairs on a roof. And police use drones to track suspects at night when they can't find them. That might put the officers at risk or other people at risk. There's legitimate uses for this stuff that make our work more efficient, lower our cost, and make it even more effective. So I agree with the phase-in approach, a process that builds over time. I think at the very least, an overall policy framework will start by the end of the year, starting with grandfathering in the stuff that we already have and what the rules are around that. Those are the less intrusive ones to me right now, and we've got experience with them, so we know what they are, and we also have policies around most of these already. So having that be incorporated would be a fairly straightforward process. And then go on to new rules for new tech. In particular, we want to have something in place before we do anything with... ALPR so that would so you could phase it in that way and that way we could be able to do it in a more Systematic fashion, but also do it fairly quickly At least the big bulk part of it is could be done.

Thanks Other questions from council Assistant State Manager Rodriguez, I do have a question because I am in touch with all three of the mayors in these cities. And you can imagine in the last year that we have had a couple of conversations about surveillance work and public safety and community engagement. And it's a very different picture in each of these cities. And they're structured in different ways and have different resources, different relationships to technology. The mayor of San Jose, I would say among all of the colleagues that I've met in this last year and a half, is probably the most forward-thinking mayor around issues of technology and AI engagement. He comes out of the world of tech and certainly that is of influence in the work in that community. But I do think that we have some great examples to build off of from Berkeley and the lessons from Portland as well. I'm curious if you could share a little bit about what we learned in our past year, year and a half of work and our community conversations and Compare that to what you saw come through the legislature with the new legislative engagement and Senate Bill 1516. By the time that that Could you just speak, I guess, a little bit to any utility that we as a city have experienced related to the passage of that bill, how having that new floor for engagement with one area of technology could influence other conversations? I'm just curious, because that was all happening at the same times. And even last year, as we were having a very intense community conversation about technology There was also internal work happening to learn from and improve upon what we were doing, though not all of that was implemented because, of course, we ended our flock contract and ALPR use by early in the fall. So I don't want us to lose the lessons that were learned along that way, and I'm just curious if we can contextualize how we're thinking about this work and how the state seems to be thinking about it.

Thank you, Mayor. I can try and add some to that conversation. So the Oregon legislative session work I think actually was a great example of a number of different parties with different perspectives that were working with legislators to craft something they thought would be functional yet address concerns around use of a technology that some folks are worried about being abused. You know, we have our own policy on ALPR for that EPD policy that was created in conjunction with the police commission that I don't believe that's been updated yet to agree with state law because we haven't talked about reimplementing that technology. But as folks have talked about, you know, just having really clear guidelines on data retention, right, of And some of these things are exactly what we were doing, but having a state law that makes it consistent, I think, was the important goal. So 30-day retention, making sure there's detailed logs of queries, posting audits, all of these things that help folks understand how a technology is being used. One of the things that the legislature also did was made vendors who misuse data subject to potential civil penalties for misuse. So I think that's probably in the specific instance of technology something that's reassuring to folks who may not believe that a contract is enough. So I think there were some interesting lessons to learn there about bringing groups together to understand how you actually have a functional policy for a technology that can do good and also make sure that it feels like it has the right level of oversight.

Thank you. Thank you for those examples because I realize not everyone is following the actions of the legislature as closely as this body and its staff and especially related to this issue. Councillor Zelenka.

Yeah, in particular on the legislation that was passed in 26, SB 1516. I thought that that law had the basics right and got most of the stuff in there that needed to be in there, but it didn't go far enough on security from my perspective. To me, it felt like there were too many loopholes. And when we look at that policy, we want to take good... look at what that law says and how we might beef that up to make it a little bit more transparent and a little bit more secure than what the legislature was able to go through. I think it sets the floor. Well, it is the floor because it's the state legislature, but we can certainly go beyond that.

Any other questions or comments, discussion that council would like to have today regarding surveillance policy and what sounds like a pretty solid trajectory and maybe even some thoughts on timelines? Okay, well then with that, I will say thank you to staff for a very informative presentation and for all of the work that has gone into repairing this overview. I know it is significant and touches many different areas of our work. And I'll just say thank you to everyone, and that concludes our agenda for today. And I now close the June 17th, 2026 City Council Work Session, and we are adjourned.