City Council - Regular Meeting

All right, let's call to order the Spark City Council meeting for June 22nd with a roll call.

Mayor Lawson.

Here.

Council members Abbott.

Here.

Vanderwell. Here. Anderson.

Here.

Bybee. Here. Rodriguez. Here. City Attorney Duncan. Here. City Manager Lawson.

Here.

We do have a quorum, thank you.

Thank you. We'll have our invocation by Pastor Jordan McDermott.

Thank you, everyone. If you just bow your heads with me, the Bible says that we should seek the peace of the city where we reside and pray to the Lord, because if it prospers, then we too will prosper. And so, Lord, we pray right now for the city of Sparks, for your peace, for your prosperity, for your blessing, for your wisdom. Lord, upon this meeting today, that you would guide it, that your hand would be upon it. that your favor and your blessing would be upon every staff member of the city, law enforcement, all who are serving you in this great city, upon every citizen of this great town in which we live. And God, we ask for your blessing and for your favor and your abundance, not only on just our city, on our county, on our state, and on our nation, every form of leadership. God, we ask that you would move in a powerful way in this time and bless this meeting. In the name of Jesus, amen. Thank you.

Mr. Abbott, will you lead us in the pledge? All right, I'm gonna move on to a public comment. We have Paul Lennart followed by Sean Sullivan.

Sorry about that, I'm an old man and I don't hear it so well.

I'm an old man too.

Okay, that's a couple of us anyway.

Members of the city council, city attorney, city manager, and city clerk. My name, for the record, is Paul Lenart. In terms of standing, I am your neighbor. Same county, Reno. What happens here affects me as well. I have come here in opposition to any extension of surveillance by any company, whether it be Phlox or Axum or any other. For some years now, people have talked about American exceptionalism, but they're misusing the term. What is exceptional about America is that it has never had an extra system opposition coming from labor or the left or whatever. Everything has been contained within the system, two parties, both of which represent, well, to varying degrees, people of property. Now, the one thing that is hopeful about America is that gradually the franchise has been extended from property owners to white men, to men of whatever color, to women. That was a hopeful trend, which... Unfortunately, and the current situation seems to be getting reversed at the national level, I do not approve of anything that puts additional tools in the hands of a potential and, in fact, more and more actual tyranny Americans, and especially Westerners like ourselves, have assumed that we had the right of privacy, something which is not enunciated in most other nations' constitutions, but which has been interpreted to be a right of Americans by many, many court decisions in the past. This current court, I'm not so sure about, but leave that as it may be. That is not under the purview of this city council. What is under the purview of the city council is to not renew flocks nor go to ax them either.

Thank you. Sean Sullivan followed by McKenzie Nelson.

Greetings, Council, Mayor Lawson. My name is Sean Sullivan, for the record. I'm also here to talk about the large mass surveillance item on the docket. I find it deeply concerning for our rights as well as for our security. And I do just want to clarify that FLOC is essentially the Kleenex of mass surveillance. It's what FLOC is to mass surveillance, what Kleenex is to facial tissue. So anytime anybody is talking about FLOC, they're also talking um i've been noticing more and more all the cameras along i-80 and 395 and uh it's concerning for our rights because uh the fourth amendment guarantees us against unreasonable searches and seizures unless there is uh reasonable suspicion or uh um forgetting the the proper term here uh But yeah, there has to be a reason to search someone. Now, with these cameras and these databases, there's no reason to search anyone. Our location data is constantly being seized and placed in a database. And this is very concerning for security. Whether it's a search or a seizure, I'm not sure. I'm not an expert on this topic. But I believe the argument being used to justify is the greenfield argument. That is that anyone can see these crimes going on. And that would be true, except as soon as it goes into a database, we can't go and see what's going on. We can't see what the AI is doing. how it's categorizing us, if that is incorrect, there's no recourse if the AI gets it wrong, is my understanding. And if it were truly a green field, anyone could drive by and see Joe Schmo growing his poppies and his cocoa plants with the chemical containers surrounding the house, empty chemical containers, that's a green field. Anyone can see it. As soon as it goes into a database, it's no longer searchable, it's no longer a green field. It's illegal under the Fourth Amendment. So please don't wait for the Supreme Court to tell us to stop doing it. This is going to end up being a waste of money in the end because you can simply look at United States v. Jones Supreme Court case from 2012. That was limited in scope to a single person having a GPS tracker placed on their car. However, this system collects vastly more data, but the same data, it collects the same data for every single person on the roads. It also reads your bumper stickers and places you in categories. And again, we'd have no way to check and verify if we have been placed in the correct category. Therefore, it's not a green field. And that's all I have today. Thank you for your time.

Mackenzie Nelson, followed by David Zavesky, Zavesti.

Can you hear me?

Good morning. My name is Mackenzie Nelson. I'm a representative of Northern Nevada DSA. I'm speaking today in opposition of item 9.2 on today's agenda, the contract with Axon. I'd like to begin by thanking this council for deciding to cancel your car, to not renew your contract with flock safety. And I encourage the city to continue in this vein by deactivating the remaining flock cameras and rejecting the contract with Fox on, on question today. This agenda item is positioned as a beneficial trade off. This is a mischaracterization. Though Axon has had fewer public scandals, it is not an improvement over Flock. The technology works the same way, captures the same data, and violates the same rights and privacy standards. Our data will continue to be shared to other agencies outside of Sparks, outside of Washoe County, and possibly outside of the state of Nevada. And acts on cameras can be abused in all of the same ways that plot cameras have been, except this time we have less transparency, less accountability, less public understanding and knowledge of how they work. For these services over the next five years, we will pay over a million dollars, $1,076,000 to violate the rights and privacy of every person in this city and every person who visits. When just seven months ago, the city was proposing a first responder fee to cover budget gaps for emergency services. If the city wishes to save money, start with hostile programs such as these and the facial recognition cameras being placed at legends. Axon's own ethics boards released a report on ALPRs in 2019, which recommended that ALPR technology not be introduced without significant amounts of regulation regarding their use and ample opportunities for public input and understanding. Along with a host of other recommendations, we don't have those regulations in place, not in Sparks and not in the state of Nevada. What we do have is policies left over from our FLOC contract that we have no clue if they're going to stick around or what's going to change with those policies going forward. This meeting today is our only chance to provide input, giving us very little opportunity to understand the way that our rights will be safeguarded, if at all. In 2022, the nine members of that same ethics board committee resigned, saying that they had lost faith in Axon's ability to be a responsible partner. One member said that they had tried and failed to get the company to understand that its customer needed to be the community that a policing agency serves, not the policing agency itself. I urge each and every one of you to ask yourselves that same question. Do you serve the interests of your community, or do you serve the interests of the people policing our community? Because you're members of that community too, and not just its leaders, and the harms of ALPRs will be passed on to you as well. I'm concerned this council sees this agenda item as a choice between flock and axon. This is a false bargain trading one devil for another, and the voices of your community are clear. No flock, no axon, and no mass surveillance in Sparks. Thank you. Thank you.

David Zavesti. Followed by T. Genesee. Oh, I think that's... David first. Okay. Then you, Kay. Thank you.

All right, so for the record, my name is David Zavesky, and I would like to ask the City Council for your undivided attention because with our previous speaker, I noticed that many of you had your heads down. So I would like to give you a couple examples of just how ALTRs have been misused today. Because the data system that collects all of the license plate numbers is nationwide. So that means it collects every single license plate in the country over a period of time. In fact, it collects a billion license plate numbers a month. That is way too many for a data system to collect in one sitting. So here are a couple examples of misuse. In March of 2009, a woman in San Francisco was stopped by the police and violently forced out of her vehicle at gunpoint after the system had indicated a match for a stolen vehicle. It turns out the ALPR had misread a three as a seven and they needed to let her go as a result. In August 2020, a woman named Brittany Gillum and her family were pulled over by police in Aurora, Colorado, dragged out of their car by gunpoint and violently detained because the ALPR in the system had confused her license plate number with a stolen motorcycle license plate from Montana. In 2024, a man by the name of Brandon Upchurch was pulled over by Toledo, Ohio police after an ALPR misread his license plate number as a stolen vehicle. He was forced out of his car at the mercy of police commands and was violently attacked by a canine and was charged with obstruction and failure to comply. After a few months, the charges were ultimately dropped on Mr. Upchurch, and the officer was given a very light reprimand, but the damage had already been done. What do all of these victims have in common? They are all black. ALPRs are a tool to perpetuate systemic racism. Countless more examples of people of color being wrongfully detained or imprisoned because of the faulty mechanisms of ALPRs continue to be perpetuated in society because of the AI technology that is being used to run these systems. One in 10 license reads will end up as false or inaccurate because the AI technology is sloppy. And this isn't the only concern with license plate readers as well. Police officers will often use data from ALPRs to stalk ex-girlfriends, any perceived threats, even after the data disappears after the supposed 30 days because with plot contracts, it's technically supposed to disappear. But sometimes they can download that data and they can hang on to it for their own personal gain. So really, how moral and how can we guarantee public safety and how can we say that this is a benefit for the public when things like this were to happen? We demand Axon and Flock out of our cities. Thank you.

Thank you. Kay Genesee, followed by Alex Milham.

Hi, I'm Kay Genasi and I live in this community. I'm representing community members who are signed a petition about their concerns about critical traffic safety issues. Among those are extreme persistent speeding, aggressive erratic driving, unsafe lane changes, widespread distracted driving on phones, CONSISTENT DISREGARD FOR TRAFFIC SIGNALS ENTERING INTERSECTIONS WHILE THE LIGHT IS RED. AND I ALSO REPRESENT A NUMBER OF US WHO HAVE BEEN REAR ENDED OR HAD THEIR CAR demolished by someone in road rage. And I brought the petitions with you. You received the official one with the signatures in soon, but I wanted to leave it, a copy of it with the city council so you can review it and see what we're concerned about. And I think it's an ignored thing in terms of the, the election and what's happening. And I hope you will look at it. If you want to contact me, the information, my information is on there. So thank you.

Thank you, Kate. All right, Alex Milham, followed by Sierra Keys.

Good afternoon, Mayor Lawson and council.

You're more than welcome to. A little easier to microphone to hear you.

Good afternoon, Mayor Lawson and council members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Alex Milam and I'm with Northern Nevada DSA. I'm here to speak in opposition to agenda item 9.2 and voice our opposition to the city's use of automatic license plate reader cameras or ALPRs to surveil drivers and sparks. Well, it is good to see that the council is considering not renewing the city's contract with Flock. Switching to another provider for the same surveillance technology is not an improvement. I urge the council to reject the proposed contract with Axon for ALPR products, to end your contract with Flock Safety, and to not enter into any new contracts with ALPR providers. Automatic license plate readers infringe on the privacy of everyone who drives by them. They record the license plates and identifying information of every car that passes them and upload them to a database, creating a searchable record of that vehicle's movements. This allows law enforcement to track a person's movements without a warrant. Multiple lawsuits have been brought forward against municipalities for their use of ALPR cameras on Fourth Amendment grounds, including lawsuits by residents of San Jose and Norfolk, Virginia. The live streaming capability of Axon outpost cameras and their integration with other Axon surveillance technology that SPD is using just would increase the web of mass surveillance technology in Sparks. ALPR cameras are also rife with potential for abuse. We have already seen many cases nationwide of law enforcement abusing ALPRs to stalk and harass private citizens, including a police chief in Kansas who used them to stalk his ex-girlfriend and a police lieutenant in South Carolina who used them to track his wife's movements. While many of these scandals are associated with FOX safety, that should mainly be attributed to FOX market share. The potential for these abuses is inherent to the technology itself. It's not a flaw from any particular service provider's model. It's good to see that the council is considering the data ownership and control issues posed by this technology and your currently contracted services with Flock. The problem is that it's not your data to own or control. It's our data. Our vehicles, our commutes from work or school, our trips to visit friends, to stores, to medical services. No one should have this data on every person who drives through the city available at their fingertips. Local governments across the country are reconsidering their contracts with ALPR providers because of the safety and privacy concerns we are voicing today. We're asking the city of Sparks to join this growing movement by declining ALPR services through Axon and ending your existing contract with Fox Safety. Thank you.

Thank you. Sierra Keyes followed by Sarah Millick.

Good afternoon, my name is Sierra Keys for the record. I am a resident of Reno, Nevada. Thank you for your time today. I am here in speaking in opposition to item 9.2, renewing or changing contracts with Flock. Speaking from personal experience, I'm a single woman, I live alone, and stalking is definitely a big concern of mine. There are over 20 cases in the United States of officers stalking. romantic interests or ex-partners, as you heard in previous statements. One officer in Milwaukee resigned after it was revealed that he searched a woman's plate 180 times in two months. Like it was said before, they're able to save this data. They're also able to search nationwide, not only one individual, but her families, mothers, sisters. It's not right, right? It's against our Fourth Amendment right, which is unreasonable searches. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. That is from our Declaration of Independence and this year we're celebrating 250 years of this great nation. So I hope that you will make the right choice as many different cities across the country, many in Washington as well, have ceased these surveillance cameras because they violate our constitutional rights and they do not keep people safe and they hardly ever really actually track down stolen vehicles. I think there's like one case in Washington. Sorry, I don't have it annotated. Thank you for your time. I've got one minute left. I'm just going to say one more thing. I'm so sorry. There is a lawsuit filed by Jason Killinger. He was a man who was arrested in the pepper mill by officer Richard Yeager. I know that the city of Reno is facing a lawsuit on that. That's taxpayers money. That's money that we have to pay when officers are relying on faulty information, faulty surveillance information. And this officer was quoted to have arrested hundreds of persons based solely on facial AI recognition. Now, I know flock cameras are different, but it's all kind of under the same thing, right? It's all officers having too much power, being able to control people and manipulate the evidence. Thank you.

Thank you. Sarah Millick, followed by Tariq Washington.

Good afternoon, good afternoon council. My name is Sarah Millick and I am here today to speak in opposition of agenda item 9.2, the renewal and continuation of mass surveillance in our city. When I leave my house, I am recorded and I am watched, yet I have done nothing wrong. If you are going to go through and vote yes to continue this consistent surveillance, you are saying I have no right to move freely without the presence of another. There have been at least 20 cases of these systems being abused by officers who swore they would protect. Instead, they infringe on the privacy rights of those close to them. Only a few cases were found by internal investigation. Most were discovered after the victims had filed stalking cases with their with their respective law enforcement officers. These belligerent officers are abusing the system that was supposedly made to keep us safe. I encourage you to think about your own life and loved ones and how this will affect their wellbeing and safety if they can be watched by anyone at any time. including those with ill intent. I will not stand aside as my right to anonymity and privacy is taken at the hands of the greedy and the selfish. Thank you very much for listening to my comment.

Thank you. Tariq Washington, followed by Zena Delgado.

Good afternoon. My name is Tariq Washington. I'm here to speak in opposition to 9.2, the proliferation of these flock cameras in the contract with Axon. I am here to represent the Northern Nevada YDSA, and we exist as a club over at UNR, which is nearby Sparks, obviously. College students are 12% of college students report having experienced stalking in their lifetime, which is much higher than the national average. Police claim to protect and serve. They swore to protect and serve us. But these flock cameras are antithetical to this mission, this proposed mission. These flock cameras and their proliferation places us at the complete mercy of police officers. As many others have mentioned, there's been countless cases of abuses and opportunity for countless more. 12% is far higher than the national average, and it's very important that the police choose to protect these vulnerable communities and the people at, or the students.

Yeah, that's all, good afternoon. Thank you. Zena Delgado, followed by Amika Starr.

Hello, I'm Zena. I'm a resident of Reno, but I regularly come to Sparks to see family and for work. I'm here in opposition to item 9.2, the five-year contract with Axon for license plate readers. Whether it's Flock or now Axon or later any other company that attempts to offer the city any type of surveillance, my answer is and will always be the same, we don't want it. This type of surveillance will be and is too easily abused by individuals and groups in power. The purpose of these systems is to control, not to protect. The loose regulation of these surveillance systems will lead to violations to people's right to privacy, and these violations will be disproportionately affect minority groups. Again, do not approve any contract with Axon or Flock or any other surveillance company. Well, my name's misspelled. Okay, well, I just wanted to say, since there's a couple minutes, I was told that there's no Zoom option for this council meeting, is that correct? But there is not a Zoom option. So since I'm in Reno, I have city council over there. I was wondering why there is no Zoom option because it's really convenient for other people to participate when there is Zoom available and there's a Zoom available for public comment as well. So I'm not sure if anyone on the council is under 40 or not, but this is the 21st century. Zoom is not just Zoom either, but just a... something that you can get a meeting online. So some other type, it doesn't have to be Zoom, but this would be very great to have so that other people can participate who are at work, who are on a lunch break, or just aren't able to make it during this time. So if you can consider having Zoom option and especially public comments on Zoom, just so more people are allowed to come and participate and be involved in their community. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Ms. Bell, too.

Amika Starr, followed by Mike, is it Mayva?

GOOD AFTERNOON, CITY COUNCIL. MY NAME IS AMIKA STAR. I AM A RESIDENT OF WARD TWO, DIANA VANDERWOLF'S CONSTITUENT. I WAS BORN AND RAISED IN SPARKS AND THIS IS ACTUALLY MY FIRST TIME SPEAKING AT A SPARKS CITY COUNCIL MEETING. I'M HERE LIKE SO MANY OTHER PEOPLE BECAUSE I STRONGLY OPPOSE THE PROPOSED CONTRACT WITH AXON REPLACING THE FLOCK SAFETY CONTRACT. You know, I'm not going to repeat what everyone else has said, though I do agree with it. What I want to talk about specifically in detail is about this concept of mass surveillance. I graduated from the University of Nevada, Reno with a bachelor's in political science and international affairs, and I'm currently a graduate student studying the violent effects of state surveillance systems. Hundreds of academically rigorous and peer-reviewed studies prove that these systems are not coincidentally harmful, but they are designed to stalk, harass, track, coerce, and control our communities. To give one example, Dr. Simone Brown, PhD of Education and Sociology from the University of Toronto and Professor of African and African Diaspora Studies at the University of Texas at Austin, writes in her seminal 2015 book, Dark Matters, about the historical continuities between our modern security state and chattel slavery. She demonstrates that these technologies like cameras and biometrics are used in the same system so similar to those systems of surveillance used on slave ships and plantations against black people. I believe, as we have seen people talk about, that Axon, Flock, all of these AI technologies are prone to racial profiling, that they target black and brown community members. And I have no doubt that it will be used by the Sparks Police Department, which already has a record of targeting and killing black and poor citizens to do just that. To give another example, Dr. Jasbir Pawar, PhD of Ethnic Studies from the University of California, Berkeley, and Professor and Director of Women's Studies at Rutgers University, writes about how these systems are made to be banal and everyday, but they are not. They take our lives, our humanity, and they turn them into data that is then sold, bought, traded, and as people have talked about, stolen and misused by corporate elites, political elites. Random hackers have already shown they can get into these databases. So in conclusion, like everyone else, I beg you to immediately cancel the Flock contract to turn off the cameras, to refuse to go into a contract with Axon and to use this over $1 million of taxpayer money, my taxpayer money for actual community services, not for violent policing, not to pull people out of their cars using AI and hold them at gunpoint, but for affordable housing, for healthcare, for our education system. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Mike Maba, followed by Elena Cox.

Good afternoon, City Council. I'm not sure if I'm coming here to protest data centers or communication. June 1st, my wife and I attended the Reno City Council meeting on data centers. And to my concern, I was wondering what our sister city, Sparks, where I live, was doing as far as the same thing. Because if Reno is doing a moratorium, what is Sparks doing? So it felt like an open door over here. So I traveled down here to find out, and I called my city council member, and left a message, never got an answer back. Actually, he did leave me a message and asked me to text him, which I did. However, it's been three weeks since I've heard from him. So, you know, communication is real important. But what I wanted to talk about was, you know, I want to commend Ed Lawson back in September 22nd, 2025. I understand that he put together a moratorium or tried to put forth the moratorium on data centers, but that was actually tabled, and we went to the Planning Commission, and that went to Code 20, drafting a plan for data centers. I understand that that becomes a draft, becomes law later on. I tried to look up where we are in the Codes 20, and I couldn't find any information on that. but there looked like there were a lot of restrictions that were put on the data centers that, you know, I thought that was, you know, positive. I started putting a petition together before I found out all that, you know, what's interesting is you go to the clerk's office, And they told me that they've never in their whole time that they've been in a career, no one's ever put a petition together against anything. And this is a proposed initiative ordinance in Sparks Data Center Transparency and Community Protection Act. Really though, if the councilman would have got ahold of me, it probably would have saved me all this trouble. because again, it looked like what you guys put together as far as the code 20, you know, it looks like a good stepping stone, but I just don't know where we are as far as making that law, you know, and where we are as far as moving forward on that. So I think communication would be great as far as in that regards. That's it.

Mike. Elena Cox, followed by Tiffany Coombs.

Hi, my name is Elena Cox. I live here in Sparks and I'm here in opposition to agenda item 9.2, a new contract with Axon for automated license plate recognition or the renewal block contract or any other surveillance contracts for that matter. This would be a massive waste and misuse of city funds that immediately leaves our community rather than investing in the people who live here. While Sparks does not have the budget to be handing out over a million dollars of taxpayer money to out of state companies, that's not even what I consider the main issue here. This is simply not how we keep our broader communities safe and healthy. There is no shortage of evidence showing that heightened surveillance and policing is not effective. And there's also no shortage of evidence showing what is effective. Increased surveillance comes at a massive cost to the privacy and autonomy of everyone living in visiting or passing through Sparks, and it is completely invasive and dystopian to approve the use of technology that allows every person to be monitored throughout their day to day existence. There are proven ways to better the safety and health of our communities. For example, investing in healthcare, investing in childcare, housing, education, ecological health and restoration, and public spaces to name just a few options. Please prioritize these instead, thanks.

Thank you. Tiffany Coombs, followed by Daniel Jenkins.

Good afternoon.

My name is Tiffany Combs, no relation to P. Diddy, by the way. I live on Comet Linear Drive, which is part of the Wingfield Springs Foothills. I'm a concerned resident and homeowner in the Wingfield Springs area. I am strongly against... The proposal to close the Red Hawk Lakes course as well as the plan to build over the open field across from Sparks Firehouse number five and replace it with high density residential development. This project would have a significant impact on the 1994 master plan community. Not only am I opposed of closing the lakes course, but also I'm opposed to building over all that open field just to create village eye. The current vast and beautiful ecosystem thrives there from plants, fireflies, and fish to ducks, turtles, and even larger mammals. This little habitat provides a small peaceful area away from the noisy and heavily trafficked Vista Lane. Many neighbors love to enjoy the recreational activities in the space that it offers, such as walking, biking, and viewing the wildlife. The area is a larger water source, not only for the wildlife, but also a reserve for the Sparks Firehouse number five. We had two wildfires near our homes last year alone. And the brave firefighters of that fire department used the reserve water to save homes in time by extracting it from the pond with a helicopter. And yes, it was pretty cool. It kind of looked like a transformer coming down, but it put out the fire and it saved those homes, including mine. If this land is built over, then the city would need more crucial water resources, and that will leave all the homes in a more vulnerable state to be destroyed by wildfires. With the recently increasing high desert winds in our area, we would be putting our homes and even the new homes that they plan on building at risk for fire destruction. Spanish Springs and the Sparks area is already expanding with so many more homes, apartments, stores, and over the decades, it's been a beautiful thing to watch. But we want to build our community responsibly. If we push the Redhawks Lakes course to be built over for new homes, then we are doing the community a disservice. So please hear my words today and remember, building and expanding a community is only as beneficial if we can sustain it and protect it. I ask that we not build over the lakes course and its surrounding area. And thank you for listening to me today.

Thank you. Daniel Jenkins, followed by Lydia Bloom.

Good afternoon, Mayor Lawson and Spark City Council. Thank you for giving me the chance to speak here today. My name is Daniel Jenkins, and I'm here regarding the roughly $1 million Axon contracts that you all are considering. I'm an expert in the use of surveillance technology, specifically drones, which are really cameras with wings versus cameras on a pole or cameras mounted on a car. My expertise has been used by numerous organizations to include Amazon, Caltrans, Pacific Gas & Electric, NV Energy, Reno Fire, and the drone on the roof of this building. I am deeply familiar with the Axon product family. I've been in the same room as their leadership, and I've listened to them discuss products that have not been released yet. I've also seen the Axon Fusis implementation run in the real-time information center shared by Reno and Sparks. If you all don't know in the room here, all of the information collected by these systems is piped to that building. I understand at a fundamentalist level how these systems work, and I know that that is not the same as what is advertised. And I want to make sure that every resident of Sparks here, of which I'm a former member of Ward 1, understand exactly what they're getting with these ALPR expansions. Effectively, you as citizens are getting nothing but a tax bill, and you're losing any semblance of privacy the second you step out your front door. Where I live in Reno, any direction that I leave my apartment complex is captured by one of these systems. So anytime that I go to the store, there is a time-stamped, location-stamped record of my travel available in that real-time information center. You are constantly subject to warrantless search and that record is maintained for 30 days or more, depending on how the privacy and sharing is controlled. Axon, however, gets a cut of everyone's paychecks here and they get a massive data set on the movement of every single person in this city. They can then sell access to those data sets. We've seen it before with the internet and advertising. Facebook was free because they sold the information that they collected on the people using the platform to third parties. Axon would be kind of stupid to not look at ways to monetize this dataset. Mayor Lawson, I will highlight a promise that you made on your website. Quote, I'll keep Sparks welcoming to business and industry while never losing what makes it a true hometown. Now and always, Sparks should be a place where we can take our kids to celebrate holidays in the downtown square. You kind of left out the part where everybody gets surveilled during those holidays, and people should be aware of that. So I ask that you do not extend the budget for this technology, cancel the remaining contracts with these vendors to include Axon, Flock Safety, and Motorola, and work on privacy policies and data policies that protect your constituents. Thank you.

Lydia Bloom, followed by Grant McBeth.

Hello, my name is Lydia Bloom. I'm a constituent of Ward 1, and I am here also in opposition of item 9.2 today. Last night, when I was reviewing the agenda items, I decided to go onto Axin's website and ended up spending like, FIVE HOURS TAKING FOUR PAGES OF NOTES ON THINGS NOT JUST ON AXON'S WEBSITE BUT ALSO FOR THE AGENDA ITEM LISTS. I DID A QUICK REVIEW OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2026 BUDGET. I HAVE TOO MANY CONCERNS TO JUST BRIEF IN THREE MINUTES BUT I'LL TRY MY LITTLE BEST. A lot of my concerns echo what so many people have already said today about taxpayer money going to an out-of-state company for the explicit purpose of technology infrastructure made to spy on citizens. The automatic license plate readers that are being discussed today would allow for more data ownership and control, meaning that they would integrate more with the body cams and the other information from the other Axon products that Sparks PD is already using, which would then allow them to transcribe redact all of that information across multiple platforms. I noticed too when I was looking for the Sparks PD public ALPR statement on Flock's website that for the public facing information where it shows what it prohibits, what kind of information it holds, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, that under the usage section, it states that 265 external organizations have access, which is crazy to me. Who are those 265 organizations? Why do they have access to that information to begin with? What are they using it for? Is Axiom going to have, are we going to have the same issue moving forward? Not to mention Axiom's technology, which is driven with AI technology. AI and the data centers that power them are notorious for being irreversibly damaging to the environment and citizens, alongside being unreliable, trained on flawed data, leading to flawed conclusions which unfairly target marginalized communities such as queer, trans folk, people of color especially, and kills people as a result. The city of Sparks should be utterly rejecting AI and its implementation as a whole outright in any sector, especially in the policing sector. Based on that alone, especially during this time in history, when it is now more important than ever to prioritize doing what we can to mitigate the ecological, economic, political, and social crises of this time, and focus on what we can do to rebuild, support, protect, amplify, and advocate for the environment, our most vulnerable communities here in Sparks, such as the Hispanic and Latino communities, and the local indigenous communities especially. I'm encouraging the city of Sparks to invest in our communities in ways that matter and ways that make a difference long-term. We don't need AI, not the data centers or the technology. We don't need more police overreach. We don't need more police brutality. We don't need to be surveilled. Thank you.

Thank you. Grant McBeth followed by Adrienne Lowry.

Good morning, Council people of Sparks. I come as someone who has grown up in Sparks, an alumni of Reed High School, and as someone to represent people that I know personally, family, and friends in rejecting agenda number 9.2, and that... What it represents is increased surveillance of our neighborhoods. I remember when I lived here that one of my occasional rituals is basically going on night walks. And with the increase in surveillance, that means that people are gonna be more looked at if they're doing something that's more unusual. like, say, night walks, and possibly be profiled. And that's not something that's hypothetical. We know that it has happened, like, with the incident with Elijah McClain, a black autistic kid in Colorado who was basically, like, put under suspicion and was strangled to death by... officers of law enforcement. And this can happen within our own community as well. I could definitely see like someone who is neurodivergent with autism or whatnot who might go and traverse in the city at night because it's probably like less sensory overload and experience. And I don't want any of that to happen through our community. just a brutalization of some of the most vulnerable people who just want to live in the best they can in a society that doesn't necessarily understand people with disabilities. That's all I really have to say.

Thank you. Adrienne Lowry, followed by Jordan Stone.

Hello, Sparks City Council. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Adrian Lowry. I'm a resident of Sparks Ward 1. I'm also a member of Northern Nevada DSA. I'm speaking today in opposition to item 9.2, the contract to buy ALPR services from Axon. While I'm glad that you're planning to end your contract with Flock, it will not be an improvement to use the same services provided by Exxon. ALPR is a category of products that violates our protections in the United States Bill of Rights. The Fourth Amendment forbids unreasonable searches and seizures unless probable cause has been established. And because ALPR products record the location of all citizens without any warrant and without any suspicion of wrongdoing, the use of ALPR is a violation of these rights. As Nevadans and as Americans, we have a right and an expectation of privacy. We do not want our every move to be tracked and recorded. A lot of information could be inferred from where we travel in our cars. From this data, you may be able to tell somebody's job, their religion, their sexuality, what healthcare offices they're visiting, who they meet with. An operator could infer that if somebody is visiting a motel on a regular schedule, they may be cheating on their spouse. I think any Nevadan sees this level of scrutiny of our personal behavior as normal or as acceptable. We don't see it that way. Across the US, police officers are getting charged over and over again for using LPR for their own personal interests. This is a headline from the Institute of Justice. Police have reportedly used license plate readers to stalk romantic interests at least 18 times in recent years. You may think, well, okay, these violators were caught because of internal controls. That's not the case. In the majority of cases, they were caught because the victims of stalking reported the behavior. We don't know the real number of these instances because not everyone who is being harassed or stalked by a police officer is going to file a report. And they may not be able to connect it to the ALPR tool either. These victims were able to make that connection. We also do not know how many ALPR providers are abusing the information gathered. And like other people have said, what other parties they're selling this data to could be abusing this information as well. And then another person brought up hackers. The data can be lost. And then who has our information? I'm asking you to consider your constituents' rights and expectation of privacy and do not purchase ALPR services from Flock, Axon, or any other provider. Thank you.

Thank you. Jordan Stone, followed by Lisa Lee.

Hello Council, Jordan Stone for the record. And it may shock you, but I am also here to oppose agenda item 9.2. Oh, not shocked? I've been watching you guys the entire time and people are giving comments. You guys haven't been shocked the whole time. All the information people are giving you guys, that's not new. You guys know this. You know how these ALPR systems are used. You have to. They come to you guys to get the contract, right? This isn't shocking information for you guys. So that leads me to wonder, do you guys just not care that you're signing over our privacy to a private company who is not accountable to anyone? They're not accountable to you. They're not accountable to the state government. They're not accountable to the federal government. They're accountable to nobody. And you're wanting to sign over our rights. because you know what they're doing. You know what these systems do. You guys have the same internet that we all do. I'm sure you see the same headlines. I'm sure you hear the same stories about people getting stalked, about these cameras being put up in children's gymnastics studios, things like that. This is not news for you guys I'm seeing. So I'm wondering if it's just that you don't care And that's kind of concerning for me. As a constituent of ward five, it's a little concerning that I don't see anything from anybody up here. So I'm just asking, do you care? And then as a second point, I also like to add on to Zena, who asked about why these aren't, why these meetings aren't accessible by Zoom. Is there a reason you guys can give for that? Why there's not an online way for us to give comment? We have to drive down here, we have to drive past all of the current flock cameras to come down here? Is there a reason? This is public comment, not public discourse. I'm just asking a question. I'm wondering if the city has a policy for why there is not easy access online for people to give public comment via Zoom or anything like that or participate in the meetings via Zoom. Is that just something you guys haven't done yet? I don't know. I guess that's it for me. So... What's up?

Mr. Stoughton, you are more than welcome to come get a card over here and somebody will address your concern afterwards. We're not allowed to discuss that because it is not on our agenda today.

All right. Fair enough. Well, looks like that's my time. Thank you, sir. Lisa Lee.

Good afternoon. I'm Mayor Larson and city council members. My name is Lisa Lee for the record. I live in Reno, Nevada, but I'm a proud Reed High School graduate. And I'm a member of the Libertarian Party of Nevada. I am also here to comment on agenda item 9.2. Oh, and I should have brought my reading glasses because I'm old now. The contract for the Axon ALPR products. I realize that each generation in this room has witnessed the sacrifice of liberty. for the idea of safety throughout our lifetimes. However, safety does not require surveillance, but authoritarianism does. As Americans, we are guaranteed rights under the Constitution. If police can gather and search through location data of its citizens without probable cause, a warrant, judicial oversight, and any ability for citizens to opt out, It's precisely the kind of unreasonable search the Fourth Amendment prohibits. Many legal scholars argue that accessing flock data should require a warrant and that collecting it in the first place is unconstitutional. And as other people have mentioned, there are several communities that are suing their local governments for the use of flock cameras on the basis of Fourth Amendment violations. because it is unconstitutional. These cameras capture everyone and create a database of innocent people's movements, again, without probable cause or due process. We the people have not voted for this surveillance and history shows that surveillance powers rarely shrink, they grow. We also know that any systems that track people's movements carry a risk of misuse and have been used to monitor political opponents, journalists, and even to stalk ex-partners as many other speakers have provided evidence of today. The data collected create a permanent record of people's private lives and can be accessed by people outside of our community. These systems share data with hundreds of agencies across the country. I know people will argue, and they do argue, if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. But privacy is a right, not a reward for good behavior. Real safety comes from strong neighborhoods, responsive policing, and transparent government, not from tracking everyone's movements. These cameras do not just capture criminals. They capture everyone. This flips one of our most fundamental principles on its head. Innocent until proven guilty. In a free society, the government doesn't spy on its own people. In closing, I'd just like to echo the words of Benjamin Franklin. Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Thank you.

Anyone else in the... I'll be wishing to make public comment. Not, we're gonna close public comment, move on to agenda approval of the agenda, item five one. Let's see, let me get my computer over here. Mr. Anderson.

Yes, sir, I move to approve the agenda as submitted.

Mr. Rabbitt. Second. Got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, please vote. Motion carries unanimously. Approval of the minutes. Any additions, subtractions for the minutes for City Council meeting of June 8th? Ms. VanderWaal.

Move to approve the minutes of the regular City of Sparks meeting for June 8th, 2026.

Mr. Rodriguez. Second. We got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, please vote. Motion carries unanimously. Madam Clerk, 7.1, Board and Commission Vacancy Announcement.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. There is one vacancy on the Sparks Civil Service Commission for a three-year term. Members must be Sparks residents. Members cannot be city employees, a member of the city council, or appointed to another board or commission of the city, or related to one within the third degree of consanguinity. Applications will be accepted until July 10th, 2026 at 5 p.m. Persons interested in serving on any board or committee should complete a community services application online at the city's website, www.cityofsparks.us forward slash get involved. Simply complete the volunteer application form and hit submit. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Okay, let's move on to 7.2, Parks and Recreation Month. Is there anybody here from Parks and Recreation? If you're with Parks and Rec, stand up for me. These are the people that keep your parks looking very good and your kids and grandkids and interchange.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mayor, city council members. I'm Emily Pate, Parks and Recreation Manager. And on behalf of our entire team, I... Well, I guess I need to let you read that first.

I think you got a little bit ahead of us.

It's okay. I just have to listen to that part again. There you go.

All right. Whereas parks and recreation programs are an integral part of communities throughout this country, including Sparks, Nevada. And whereas parks and recreation services build healthy, active communities that aid in the prevention of chronic disease, provide therapeutic recreation services for individuals with mental or physical disabilities, and improve the mental and emotional health of all residents. And whereas parks and recreation encourages physical activities by providing space for popular sports, hiking trails, swimming pools, arts and culture, and many other activities designed to promote active lifestyles. And whereas parks and recreation programming and education activities such as out-of-school time programming, youth sports, and early childhood education are critical to childhood development. And whereas parks and recreation increases a community's economic prosperity through increased property values, expansion of the local tax base, increased tourism, the attraction and retention of businesses and crime reduction. And whereas parks and recreation is fundamental to the environmental well-being of our community. And whereas parks and recreation is essential and adaptable infrastructure that makes our communities resilient in the face of natural disasters and climate change. And whereas our parks and natural recreation areas ensure the ecological beauty of our community and provide a place for our children and adults to connect with nature and recreate outdoors. And whereas the U.S. House of Representatives has designated July as Parks and Recreation Month, and whereas the City of Sparks recognizes the benefits derived from parks and recreation resources. Now, therefore, I, Ed Lawson, Mayor of the City of Sparks, Nevada, do hereby proclaim July 2026 as Parks and Recreation Month.

Now I get to go. Good afternoon again, I'm Emily P, Parks and Recreation Manager. And on behalf of our entire team that we have here today, I just wanna thank you for recognizing our department and Parks and Recreation Month for July, 2026. While summer is our busiest season, Our team took time out of their day to come here today, and I just want to point out who we have. We have Brittany Martinez, Sean Olson, Cindy Brantner, Candace Rowley, Doug Foremaster, Emily Trischel, and Raquel Montserrat from our rec side, as well as our director, she's hiding over there, Nancy O'Connor. And as you know, parks and recreation, excuse me, park maintenance moved from public works to parks and recreation department several months ago. So we have our two park maintenance supervisors with me today and I'll let them introduce themselves and their team. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council Members. I am Carl Martin. I'm a Crew Supervisor for Park Maintenance. Thank you for recognizing Park and Recreation Month. And with me today are Buck Larson, Derek Rinn, Brandon Baldrige, Alex Inguano-Melendrez, John Holcomb, and Kelly Mendoza.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. My name is Dan Boatman. I'm the other crew supervisor on the Parks Maintenance Team. We'd just like to thank you again for recognizing July as Parks and Recreation Month. Today I have Mark Reynolds and Ryan Rinaldi. Thank you. Thank you, guys.

Okay, we're going to take a five-minute recess and go take a picture with Parks and Rec. We'll be outside, but we'll be back.

You know, it's just...

on to item eight, consent items. Anyone wishing to pull a consent item? Or I'm looking for a motion.

Mr. Anderson. I move to approve consent items 8.1 through 8.7 as submitted. Mr. Abbott.

Second. I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, please vote. Motion carries unanimously. General business 9.1, consideration discussion of possible approval of the mayor's appointment to the Spark Civil Service Commission from the following pool of applicants listed in alphabetical order. Elise Monroy-Marsala or Elise Monroy-Marsala. Big choice there, folks. Any discussion? Not, I'm looking for a motion.

Mr. Abbott. I move to appoint Elise Monroy-Marcella to the SPARC Civil Service Commission for a three-year term ending June 30th, 2029.

Mr. Rodriguez. I'll second. We got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, please vote. Motion carries unanimously. All right, 9.2. Consideration discussion of possible approval of an amendment number one to contract AC6073 with axon for automatic license plate recognition products and services for a five-year term in the amount of 1,046,005 cents. Chief.

Good afternoon, Mayor Lawson, members of City Council. Just for you, Mayor, I know the five cents is in there. You always appreciate that.

I'm glad you included the five cents. I would have spotted you for it, but oh well.

For the record, I'm Chris Crawforth, your police chief. Next to me is Mariah Northington, one of our assistant city attorneys. I'm before you today with a possible amendment to our current contract with Axon. As you are aware, we currently have a contract with Axon who provides the police department with body and fleet cameras, taser, and the fuses system. This amendment will add automated license plate recognition products and services. As you're aware, we currently have this technology with another vendor. The contracts for services with the other vendor will expire throughout the next 15 months. This contract with Axon will replace the other vendor's cameras as they expire and will provide an additional 22 cameras throughout the city to fill voids we currently have. There will not be a payment to Axon until July of 2027, and the annual cost will be the same amount as we currently pay, which is currently budgeted in the police department budget for services with the other vendor. Axon will start installing equipment in the next 90 days if approved. We will have a mixture of both vendors' products for approximately one year. As I stated previously, the new contract will provide more equipment than we currently have. This will fill those voids that we are missing. Axon products work seamlessly with our other technologies such as fuses, which is not the case with the current vendor. The most important update with Axon compared to the current vendor is the increased control we will have. Automatic purging on non-investigative data and control of the sharing of the data. As was stated a little bit earlier, the portal for the other vendor indicates over 200 shares that we have. We do not have that. That is not an accurate number. That is less than 50. And I think it's actually less than 20, but I just don't want to misquote for that. Axon provides us with the complete control of who we share data with, and data can only be shared through an invite, meaning another agency can ask us, we can put a timeline on it, we could share just for a short term or for longer term. We will control which data another law enforcement agency can have and assign timelines to their access. We will have the ability to immediately revoke access to another agency. Sparks Police will own and control our ALPR data. Sharing is explicit, permission-based, and revocable. Lawful requests go through Sparks Police for read and hit data, not axon. Retention is short, configurable, and automatically enforced. Every action is logged in immutable audit logs that hold up in council chambers, courtrooms, or an oversight review. I also want to remind our public that this technology captures a photograph of the license plate. It does not display a picture of the driver. This access and these photographs are taken on public streets. We do not use a proactive approach with this investigative tool. We clearly don't have the staff to do that. This is just an investigative tool as part of that. This is reactive and was related directly to calls for service from our community. When we have a call for service, a crime report taken, that's when we access this data to see if we have potential investigative tech leads. We do not share information Sorry. We do not share with the 200 agencies, as I already stated earlier. That is on the portal for the other vendor. That is not accurate at this time. Giving you an overview at a glance, the data ownership, the agency, meaning us, own and control their APLR data. Axon does not pull, resell, or independently disclose it. Sharing is off by default. It is invite only, visible, time bound, and revocable. Lawful requests are routed to us as the data owner. Axon does not independently disclose customer data. Federal access. There is no backdoor and no centralized pool. No automatic or standing federal access. Retention is configured by our agency and automatically enforced. Non-evidentiary AOPR data purged for our policy. Audit every access log with user action time and state of reason is an immutable audit log. Axon provides us the ability to automatically purge data that is not part of an active case investigation. All of this will increase our transparency and commitment to the public to only utilize this as an investigative tool while purging data not needed for an investigation. We retain all ALPR data for 30 days. This is to make sure all cases are in and if we need to assign it to a case. All data not assigned to a case at that time is automatically purged from the system. Data assigned to a case is retained for a timeline that is dependent on the type of crime reported. For example, felony level crimes will be retained longer than misdemeanor crimes. Some of the recent case examples are attempt to locate felony child abuse suspect, stolen vehicle identification as soon as just an hour ago, vehicle burglaries, fraud, and even kidnapping. We've seen those stories across this country where children have been returned home because of having this information. Anytime we take our... Issues with any officers has been described here as misuse. It is controlled. We have policies developed for that. We're following those. Our supervisors are watching those. And we take it very, very important. We know how important this is to make sure that we're controlling data gathered and be transparent with our public. So any misuse would be dealt with swiftly and appropriately within the guidelines of our state law. So with that, I'm not sure if Ms. Northington has anything to add, but I will pass it to her just in case.

Good afternoon, Mayor, members of City Council. I am here to address any questions you may have as to the constitutionality aspect of this request, specifically in response to some of the public comments earlier. So if you would like me to just preemptively address that, I'm happy to. Yes, okay. So for the record, my name is Mariah Northington. I'm a Senior Assistant City Attorney with the City of Sparks. Our office has been keeping up on this legal issue since it was initiated here in Sparks. We are in collaboration with lawyers across the country monitoring the case law that has come out on this issue. The most recent of which was out of Norfolk, Virginia, the United States District Court there. upheld the constitutionality of license plate readers. This argument has been made in both civil and criminal contexts, and it has not really caught fire anywhere. All courts have sided with the fact that the Fourth Amendment does not apply here. There's a pretty distinct rule of law that you do not have an expectation of privacy in public places. The Fourth Amendment only kicks in when you have an expectation of privacy, and that does not apply on the roadways. You do not have an expectation of privacy on the road. and therefore the Fourth Amendment does not even kick in in these situations. Additionally, you do not own your license plate. The state wherein you live owns your license plate, and that is another argument that has defeated the ability to find this to be unconstitutional. There has been local cases which indicate how effective this law enforcement tool can be utilized. I was involved in one where there was a hit and run death where a wrongdoer left a woman dead on the street here in the city of Sparks, and he was found because of license plate readers within six hours. And he is now being held accountable. Additionally, approximately three weeks ago in Carson City, a five-year-old girl was abducted from her home. They found her one day later in Southern California, in part due to license plate readers. So again, this argument is being raised. It is a novel argument being raised by lawyers and certain activist groups across the country, and it has not survived constitutional scrutiny. Every court that has addressed this issue has found license plate readers to be constitutional. We are actively monitoring the case law, and if that ever changes, we will adjust accordingly. But for now, this is constitutional, and we have no concerns about constitutionality.

Okay, questions from the council. Mr. Rodriguez.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you both for that information. I mean, obviously, I'm not a fan of people stealing children and umbrellas, things of that nature. So I do understand some of the benefits, but, you know, just kind of echoing some of the concerns and Chief, I know you kind of touched on this a little bit. So thank you for that. Can you kind of elaborate just a little bit more like potential misuse? And I know that we have internal policies and HR and stuff like that. Can you just elaborate a little bit more on how to ensure some of those concerns of potential bad players or anything like that?

Absolutely. Chris Crawford, for the record, the way to do that is just constant spot checking of folks. Our supervisors are watching that, making sure that what they're looking at the system for is related to an incident that's occurring that they're investigating. I've been pretty swift throughout my tenure of dealing with any misuse. We have had no misuse, but it is something that we're aware of. We have developed the policies for that. That is part of why I want to switch so that I believe that there is more control to make sure we safeguard people's privacy.

And I know, sorry, you're back there. So I did get a chance to tour the real-time information center. And I know a lot of that information, it's usually the case numbers attached to also the officer that's investigating things like that. So I also know there's also different levels of supervisor approval to retain some of those records. So I just want to put that out there on the record. So thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Ms. Vanderwill.

Thank you. Mine's a two-part question. So... What is the department's purge policy, number one? And then number two, on non-investigative data, how long is that held? Or is it as soon as we figure it out, it's deleted?

non-case specific data is held for 30 days. What we see a lot is that people report incidents after the fact, sometimes up to two weeks before. So that is the rationale for maintaining that data. If it is not assigned to a case, we will build it with Axon where automatically, if it's never assigned to a case, it just automatically purges at 30 days. So from the date that that's taken. So that's the 30-day thing. And then it really specifies basically on types of crimes. So I'll give you the extreme of a murder. Things are maintained. All are body worn camera, everything. And this falls into that for 65 years for any homicide. We can be as short as one year on some items, three years on others. Seven years is common for felonies with sex crimes being higher. I believe it's 25 years.

Can I have a follow-up really quick? Yes, please. So let's say that someone was in a car accident and there is a police report and everything else. Are they able to come to PD to ask for that video for their insurance company?

It can fit a public records request as they will with everyone else. I don't know if the attorney wants to weigh in more on that, but.

Yes, Mariah Northington from the city attorney's office. It would depend on whether or not the criminal case is open and active. That will dictate the ability to release specific information. If the case is still active, we are able to release limited information that yes, that car was involved in a car accident, but we would not release any records or data until the case is closed.

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Anderson. Thank you. You guys addressed a lot of the questions that I had. We heard some good concerns from citizens that wanted to make sure that we're considering these things. And thank you. As far as the constitutionality of it, I appreciate you clarifying that. Likewise, Chief, you did a good job of knocking off all the questions that I had for you. I did want to clarification though so as I understand all these are is is plate readers how can how can that avoid like we heard an example someone that's out walking at two o'clock in the morning how can it pick up a license plate but not someone a pedestrian or something like that

That's what it's focusing on, the movement of the vehicle, the size of the vehicle, and it's looking to read that license plate. So that's what it is. It's using that AI to read that license plate. We heard earlier testimony about in, I think it was daycares or gyms or something of that nature. These are not in businesses. I think there's a lot of crossover between businesses. camera systems and this camera system this is for vehicle specific we get a picture of generally the back of the vehicle because some states don't require a front vehicle or a front license plate my apologies um so you get a picture of the back of the vehicle with the license plate that's it you can't tell who's driving who's in there if it's a pickup truck obviously you can see things in the bed of the truck so i think that's the uh the difference there but it's specifically looking for that movement which keys it up for a vehicle and takes a picture it is not that camera that's out for us as citizens walk on the street.

And if I could chime in as well, Councilman Anderson, these are not red light ticket cameras either. These get conflated a lot. Red light ticket cameras are not lawful in the state of Nevada. Those are ones that take the picture of the driver as they're running a red light. We do not have those in Nevada. That's not what this is. This technology does not allow for that.

Thank you for the clarification. Mr. Abbott.

Hey, Chief. Could you just talk me through how if one of our officers is driving down the street currently and a license plate pings, what happens when she's up on the screen, kind of that process there?

Absolutely. I think the most common one, like I alluded to about an hour ago, we had what we call a hit, but a notification of a stolen plate. through one of those readers that can pop up onto the patrol car. And then there's all the verification. You've heard me say several times, it's an investigative tool. So they're not going to throw on their lights and go racing across town. If they see the car, they'll get in behind it. They'll call dispatch. They'll verify the plate. dispatch will call with the agency that entered it and confirm that the vehicle stolen the description matches at that point then they would initiate a traffic stop there has been court decisions they're not going to get drug out by uh force or things like that they're going to do a stop and call them back to the car and have a discussion and maybe and see where it goes from there that's probably the most common one and we did just have an alert an hour ago a stolen vehicle

I guess, do you know a ballpark about how many alerts we get in a month right now? I will have to get back on that.

I apologize. No, you're okay.

You're okay.

I was in the weeds a little. Thank you. I had two on my ride along in four hours. And we found out both of them were misread and no stop was incurred. Mr. Anderson.

Sorry, one follow-up. Just the million dollars is a lot of money. And like we heard from other folks, we could be putting it towards other things, which is obviously the case. Help me understand the cost-effective benefit to using a system like that. What does it bring to us as a city and then likewise the citizens of the city?

The quick answer is proficiency. So as you know, right now, we're not staffed the way we should be. This is something we've already budgeted for, but when we have a crime that occurs and an officer is a ways away, this information could start showing that this person is headed their way and we can put together all the other information and maybe do a stop then. If we're able to identify a potential person of interest, Early on, we can handle at the patrol level, which then saves detectives cases, which then puts my detectives to spending more time and getting higher results. So in the long run, we're just more proficient at our job because of our current staffing. So if you break it down, it's $209,000 a year, and that's about one cop. So I cannot be as proficient with one additional cop. Thank you.

Ms. Bybee.

Thank you, thank you both and thank you Mariah for the constitutional question, because that was a concern that I had. Our primary responsibility here in the city of Sparks is public safety and 70% of our budget goes to police and fire and public safety in this community. So it is our top responsibility of keeping our residents safe. Can you expand a little bit, you gave a couple really good examples, but of the, from body cams to the license plate readers to other technologies that we're using right now, what difference that makes and what you've seen in being able to catch people that are criminals. Nobody wants, I don't think any of us, I don't think anybody in this room supports child being kidnapped or somebody being murdered or their crime that and then the person gets away and is committing more crimes. So to really help keep our community safer with the technologies available while at the same time respecting privacy and abuse of a system which I don't support, but I wanna touch on, or can you give me a little bit more on that safety aspect and how we're really seeing quick action to take someone off the street that could possibly harm you or me or anyone else in this room or our family members?

And I'll start off by saying, as I've said a couple of times, it is reactive, meaning we have a call for service. That's when these different technologies can start to come into play. Hey, we just had a residential burglary with force. Someone was home and this car is leaving the area. That's when we can start using all the different technologies to identify, okay, at this location, at this time, there was this color vehicle leaving the area. And we can start working that and see that vehicle as it's leaving town or transversing through town. That allows our officers, the few we have, to get to that location and start putting together more information. As I've said, this is an investigative tool. This is not something that can be utilized as an arrest or the only reason for a stop. So that is really the proactive way. Although we're reactive, that's how we can be proactive faster at getting service to our citizens, which then reduces the number of officers I need for calls. It also reduces, as I said, the time that the detectives are involved, which will increase the time detectives can spend on a case versus how much they have to go through right now. So really the overall success of this at the end of the day is when we have something like a residential burglary that would many times end up in a detective's caseload and you just tend to lose a lot of your success in solving a crime the longer time goes on so with that we're reducing calls for service for detectives as well i hope that answers but happy to

It does, and with the residential burglaries, haven't we also in recent years been able to find some of the rings of people that were coming in from maybe even out of state, came into town here, and we had a slew of residential burglaries, and with... with all of the surveillance and technology, we're able to more quickly and better identify things that are obviously hurting our residents. And I mean, is that true?

That's accurate. We see that pretty commonly. I'm not sure that it's every month, but we see different versions of that, especially people coming from over the hill. We see them renting a car and coming into town and doing mass work. crime sprees, if you will, of different natures, and then back over the mountains. So this helps us identify those earlier, before we're having to spend a lot of time on extraditions from other states, and they're identified and located while still in state.

Additionally, Mariah Northington, for the record, this does help on the back end when we are in court prosecuting these individuals. These tools provide evidence to provide for convictions and to ensure that they are held accountable for their actions. So not only does it help the chief solve the crime, but it helps us prosecutors prove the crime.

Any other questions from the council? Okay, well then I am looking for a motion. Mr. Anderson.

I move to approve amendment number one of contract AC6073 with Axon for automated license plate recognition products and services for a five-year term in the amount of 1,046,005 cents. Ms. Bybee.

I'll second that motion.

I've got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, please vote. Motion carries unanimously. Okay. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. 9.3, consideration discussion of possible approvals to change in the City of Sparks group health plan document benefit from the current practice of a maximum of 26 speech therapy sessions to allow more than 25 speech therapy sessions with proof of medical necessity. John.

Good afternoon, Mayor and City Council. Shawna Halterman, Human Resources Director for the record. The current group health insurance plan document with UMR allows a covered member a maximum of 26 speech therapy visits per year. Should I continue?

Do you want to wait for one minute? Okay. Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Following the statewide change per Assembly Bill 169, which eliminated caps or prior authorization requirements for speech therapy due to stuttering, a request was made by a committee member to eliminate the cap for speech therapy altogether. At the May 21st, 2026 group healthcare committee meeting, the committee voted to recommend to the city council to remove the cap under the provision that a medical necessity review at the 25th visit be required to determine if additional speech therapy sessions are medically necessary. Medical review at the 25th visit is similar to what other therapies do such as physical therapy. While the actual utilization greater than 25 visits is unknown, current speech therapy usage estimates the fiscal impact to the healthcare fund at about $4,000 a year. If approved, the UMR plan document would be revised with the change effective July 1st, 2026. I'm open to any questions.

Okay, questions from the council. I don't see any. Looking for a motion. Ms. VanderWaal.

I move to approve the proposed change to the City of Sparks Group health plan document benefit from the current practice of limiting speech therapy sessions to a maximum of 26 per year to allowing more than 25 speech therapy visits with proof of medical necessity.

Mr. Rabbitt. Second. We've got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, please vote. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Madam Clerk, 9.4, first reading.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is the first reading of bill number 2858, an ordinance amending Sparks Municipal Code section 13.27.080 appeals to update the sewer bill appeals process and providing for other matters properly related thereto. A public hearing will be held and bill 2858 will be acted upon at the regular meeting of the Sparks City Council on Monday, July 27th, 2026 at 2 p.m.

All right, 9.5, first reading, Madam Clerk.

And this is the first reading of bill number 2857 to modify a final approved plan for the Kiley Ranch North plan development, Kiley Ranch North phase three final handbook. To one, modify the parking ratios applicable to medical uses. Two, revise sign standards related to medical campus signage in Village 25. And three, modify parking area landscaping requirements when covered parking is utilized in Village 25. on an approximately 98.4-acre site generally located east of Pyramid Way, west of David Allen Parkway, south of Wingfield Hills Road, and north of Sparks Boulevard, Sparks, Nevada, APNs 08302418, 08302419, 08302422, 08383074, and 08383075 in the NUD New Urban District, Kiley Ranch North Phase 3 Planned Development Zoning District. Public hearing will be held and bill 2857 will be acted upon at the regular meeting of the Spark City Council on Monday, July 27th, 2026 at 2 p.m. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

You're on the deck again. 10.1, public hearing.

And this is public hearing consideration discussion and possible approval of a memorandum of understanding AC6123 between the city of Sparks and the Sparks Police Protective Association non-supervisory revising language related to retiree health insurance premium stipends.

Good afternoon again, Mayor and City Council, Shawna Halterman, Human Resources Director for the record. I would like to present on items 10.1, 10.2, and 10.3 together, although they will need separate public hearings and votes. Is that acceptable?

Yes.

Madam Clerk, do the others need to be read also?

We will do a separate reading and motion on each. Okay, great.

All right, for your consideration today are changes to the collective bargaining agreements, also known as CBAs, with the Sparks Police Protective Association, Sparks Police Supervisory Protective Association related to sergeants, and Sparks Police Supervisory Protective Association related to lieutenants. For background, employees in the police bargaining units currently have a contract where it states those who retire with 15 or more years with Sparks Police receive an annual health insurance stipend. During negotiations for the current CBA, the payment of the annual retiree health insurance stipend was changed from March to August of each year. The purpose of the change was to include any July health insurance premium increases in the annual calculation. Historically, the March stipend was to cover the time period from January through December each year. By shifting the payment to August, retirees received the stipend eight months into the year for which it covers. And by revising this MOU, that issue will be solved by shifting it from a calendar year to a fiscal year. So it'll be from July through June with payment each August. If approved, a letter will be sent to the 10 retirees who are currently receiving the March stipend, explaining the benefit of capturing the July premium by shifting to the August payment and the fiscal year calculation. If they opt to shift to August, they'll receive a partial payment in August of 2026 to convert them to the fiscal year. And then any future retirees that's already going to be in the contract that they would receive it in August for the July through June time period. The MOU also clarifies that the stipend is for medical, dental, vision, and life insurance premium costs. Thank you again for the bargaining units for bringing this issue to our attention and working collaboratively for a solution. One thing I do wanna note is this is not a new benefit. This is just shifting the current benefit from a March payment for a calendar year to an August payment for a fiscal year. So it's not a new benefit. There's no increases to cost to the city. And I'm open to any questions. And these are three separate public hearings.

All right, questions from the council on 10.1. None. All right, this is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to comment on this specific item? Seeing none, we'll bring it back and then calling for a motion. Ms. VanderWaal.

I move to approve the memorandum of understanding AC-6123 between the City of Sparks and the Sparks Police Protective Association non-supervisory revising language related to the retiree health insurance premium stipend.

Mr. Abbott? Second. We've got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, please vote. Motion carries unanimously. Madam Clerk, 10.2.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is public hearing, consideration, discussion, and possible approval of a memorandum of understanding AC-6114 between the City of Sparks and the Sparks Police Supervisory Protective Association Sergeants, revising language related to the retiree health insurance premium stipend.

Okay, any questions, discussions on this? Okay, this is a public hearing. Anyone in the public wishing to comment on this specific item? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the dais. I'm looking for a motion. Mr. Anderson.

I move to approve the memorandum of understanding AC6114 between the city of Sparks and the Sparks Police Supervisory Protective Association sergeants revising language related to the retiree health insurance premium stipend.

Mr. Rodriguez. I'll second. We've got a motion and a second. Oh, public hearing. No, I'm on the vote. Thank you. Good job. Any further discussion? Seeing none, please vote. Most carries unanimously. 10.3, Madam Clerk.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is public hearing consideration discussion and possible approval of a memorandum of understanding AC6113 between the City of Sparks and the Sparks Police Supervisory Protective Association lieutenants revising language related to the retiree health insurance premium stipend.

Okay, any questions from the council? This is a public hearing. We'll open it up to the public for comments. Anyone in the public will speak on this item. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the dais. I am looking for a motion. Ms. Bybee.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I move to approve the memorandum of understanding AC6113 between the city of Sparks and the Sparks Police Supervisory Protective Association lieutenants, revising language related to the retiree health insurance premium stipend.

Mr. Rodriguez. I'll second. We've got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, please vote. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you, Shawna. We have no planning and zoning public hearings and action items. We'll go to public comment. Shawn Sullivan, you're up.

Hello again, Council. Sean Sullivan for the record. Yeah, we've all been listening here. As you can see, some people feel very strongly about this. I would strongly argue we're going to have more flock items coming up or mass surveillance items coming up. So I'm going to just keep going here. Constitutionality has absolutely not been addressed until Supreme Court of the United States hears these cases. Just because they weren't appealed or they settled out of court or whatever the specific case may be does not mean that it has been decided. Even in terms of United States versus Jones, where a single GPS tracker was placed without a warrant collecting the exact same data, all the conservative justice concurred on the Supreme Court concurred that it was unconstitutional. against the consensus and it did not hold up because the computer or the hard drive or the cloud or wherever this data is stored is not a greenfield. It is a place and we don't have an expectation of privacy when we're in a public space by perhaps just 20 or so no-name agencies. I mean, it's still terrifying. All it takes is one Windows computer to have a vulnerability, and that has happened to every Windows computer many times over the last five to ten years. So you can guarantee that none of this data is secure. some cost more than others. We blew up Iran's nuclear centrifuges with flash drives 10 years ago or so. So clearly, there's issues with any tech system. We've been discussing the use case for this, that is child abduction, stolen cars, these sorts of things. And yet we all agree that we want to fight these terrible things. However, marginalized computer communities pay with headlines portray with the abuse of power that has been documented and calling this oversight here in our jurisdiction where Sparks Police, Reno Police and Washoe County Sheriff's Office are the only people investigating the police when there's a police shooting. It's kind of laughable as you can see to the community to call this oversight. We are basically, these marginalized communities also pay for it with the lack of investment. We're heading towards Terminator or 1984 or some other awful dystopian combination of those books. Slippery slope. Thank you.

Anyone else in the public wishing to speak? All right, we'll close public comment and move on to announcements from the Mayor, City Council, City Manager. Mr. Manager, you have anything?

Yes, thank you, Mayor. I just want to recognize our Parks and Recreation team. They are so important to the fabric of the community and the quality of life that they bring. Just a big shout out from my chair and appreciate all their efforts. And then on a... Sad but yet happy note, Mr. Jim Rundle's last council meeting, our community service director, he will be sorely missed. He epitomizes professionalism. He embraces what I think the council wants and certainly what I'm looking for in that position. He will be exceptionally hard to replace. I think he's well respected throughout the community. And I just want to say thank you, Jim, for all you have done over your period of time. how you have embraced me and been a part of our leadership team. And I wish you nothing but success, good times, and enjoyment in the next chapter. So thank you.

Thank you, Mayor. Did you get my letter revoking his retirement? That was sadly on the wall of us. Jimmy, we're going to miss you big time. You've done a great job for the city for a lot of years. So thank you. Mr. Abbott.

Well, since Dion took the thunder there, I will second that. And I got something for Mr. Run D-L-E, Urington's finest. I got you your own little bobblehead, which a little story here. I love her dearly, but I call her the purger. When some of my stuff went away in our offices... Some of the amazing team from CSD, led by Rundle, donated some stuff in our new office downstairs. So all the stuff in there is made up of people in CSD. Rundle gave me Gino Martini's bobblehead, which I'm blessed I have one already.

Put hair on it?

And so, yeah, I put hair on this one. It has Zuntan Flash. That one's for you, Jim. I want to just thank you for all your years of service. You've had a lot of council members, a lot of mayors, a lot of... upper management, a lot of great people, but you've been a great leader for our whole city. You know, this is your second home. I consider you a spark side, as long as you don't wear that Berrien High School hat that some people, you know, maybe next to me and out there might be proud to see you wear, but happy to see that maroon and gold when you're wearing it. But thank you for your service and thank you for just having you down for our city and that you'll continue to do, I'm sure, in your retirement years.

Thank you. All right, from the mayor, we had a mural unveiling on June 27th at 4 p.m. There'll be food trucks, live music, vendors, historical tours at the Tony Armstrong Amphitheater in downtown Sparks, and this is in partnership with America 250 and 39 North. So put this on your calendars, all of you millions of people watching us on YouTube out there. We're going to have a good time, and congratulations. kick off a new mural that will help beautify downtown Sparks. With that, there's nothing else. We are adjourned.

I was like, we're going to fly through this one.

You got it.

Moments granted.

Granted moment.

I need a hearing though.

Are we still good? Okay, we'll call today's Monday, June 22nd, Sparks Rural Development Agency meeting to order with a roll call, please.

Chair Abbott.

Here.

Agency members Lawson.

Here.

Bybee. Here. Vanderwill. Here. Anderson. Here. Rodriguez. Here. Chief Legal Officer Duncan. Chief Administrative Officer Lawson. Here.

We do have a quorum. Awesome, thank you. Move on to item 3.1, public comment. Do we have any public comment? I don't see none. Perfect, we'll close that. Go to 4.1, approval of the agenda. Looking for a motion. Agency Member VanderWaal.

I move to approve the agenda as submitted.

Thank you very much. Agency Member Anderson. Second. We have a motion and a second. Please vote. Passes unanimously. Item 5.1, consideration, discussion, and possible approval of the minutes of the structured development agency meeting for May 26th, 2026. Looking for a motion. Agency member Bybee. Oh, oh, I... Agency member Rodriguez.

I was hearing it kick me out.

It's a curve ball there.

It's a little premature.

Agency member Rodriguez. I move to approve the minutes of the Sparks redevelopment agency meeting for May 26th, 2026. Thank you. Agency member VanderWaal. Second.

Perfect. We have a motion and a second. Please vote. I have yes on my screen, but yes, yes, yes. Thank you. IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. ITEM 6.1, CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE EXCEPTIONS OF THE REPORT OF THE CLAIMS AND BILLS APPROVED FOR PAYMENT AND APPROPRIATION TRANSFERS FOR THE PERIOD OF MAY 12, 2026 THROUGH JUNE 8, 2026. LOOKING FOR A MOTION. AGENCY MEMBER BIBE.

Maybe. I move to accept the report of claims and bills and the appropriation transfers for the period of May 12th, 2026 through June 8th, 2026.

Thank you. Agency member Rodriguez. We have a motion and a second. Please vote. Passes unanimously. Item 8.1, comments from the public. Do we have any public comment? I don't see any. We'll close that. Go to 8.2, announcements from the agency and the chief administrative officer. I see nods, or nods, the opposite of nods. We'll close that, go to item nine, adjourn today, and you guys have a good one.