City Commission - Regular Meeting

formal meeting for city commission's call to order. Clear call the roll.

Mr. Ricketts. Here. Mr. Rigsby. Here. Mrs. Tackett. Here. Mr. Wallace. Here. Mr. Rue.

Here. City manager.

Good evening. Good evening commissioners. Tonight we have a presentation update on the Tremont Barrel fill from our partners with the EPA.

Good afternoon. I'm Adrian Palmeque. I'm a community involvement coordinator with the US EPA and also for the site for the Tremont City Barrier Field site. Just located next to the Tremont City Village. And we had the opportunity to provide an update last year about this time. Back then, we were just briefing up the city on, we had reached 30% remedial design report at that point. And we have moved quite a bit since then. We had a stakeholders meeting this morning. We had a lot of people from the city, of course. We had people from the county, from the township, all interested in the site. We were able to provide quite a detailed presentation this morning, but we wanted to provide just a shorter version, just real quick for everybody's awareness. And as I was mentioning a year ago, we're in the 30% remedial design report, and we recently conditionally approved the 95% remedial design report on June 4th. And we received a draft 100% remedial design report on August 3rd from the RESA group, the potential responsible parties for the site. So we're excited that things are moving forward. And we have here with us tonight a representative from the RESA group, Mr. Bob Ruhl. And also we have from GHD, John Priebe, which will provide a little bit of an update regarding the status of the site.

Thank you for your time, everyone. We appreciate that you're willing to let us come in and talk. As Adrian said, last time we were here was about a year ago. Since then, we've done a lot of work to get the designs completed. As Adrian said, we submitted the 95. It's been approved, moved on. We submitted the 100 last week, the 100%. With the 100% design, we also made a recommendation to US EPA to let us start some of the site prep work sooner than the approval comes in. We received that approval today. So as early as mid-September, we may be moving some equipment in to start some of the site prep activities at the Barrel Fill. Site prep will include what I would call a non-intrusive activities, things like upgrading the roads, putting in fencing so that we have purity out there, putting in some of our staging areas for the barrels, putting in our administrative trailers, things like that in anticipation of perhaps as early as December starting to pull the drums out provided we get approval from US EPA on the design. Also, since we met last, we had agreed to do some baseline sampling at the site. We have completed two rounds of baseline sampling. We received the results on the first one that we did last December. and no appreciable difference in the contamination. It's not moving, so groundwater is still protected. We just did our second baseline event in July. Data are starting to trickle in and We don't have it all, but it's looking about the same. So no appreciable differences in the last 10 years that we have seen. So we're getting started at a good time on the barrel fill. As I said, we're going to get started as early as mid-September. One of the things that we'll do, we'll start working with the first responders. Part of our submittal with the 100% was an emergency response plan. So we'll start working with our first responders out there to make sure that we do some tabletop exercises, get them out to the site so that they can see where we'll be working, what we'll be doing. In the event that we have to call, they'll know what they're walking into. With that, I will ask, are there any questions?

I do have a question. Are you staying or going to be staying engaged with the neighbors that may be directly impacted by the traffic, just giving them updates?

Yes. Last night, we met with a village of Tremont City for their meeting as well to let them know timeframes. As soon as we leave here, we're going to German Township, and tomorrow we're meeting with Clark County.

Other than meetings, are you door knocking? Are you doing anything at that point?

Okay.

All right. Thank you.

As somebody that's been involved in this process for a long, long time, of that group. This is something that's been a long time coming. I can't tell you how happy I am that we are at this point. And I'm also appreciative of the EPA for having enough faith in DeMaximus to allow them to start the process of actually working at the site before we're at 100%. most of the work that they're going to do, in fact, all the work that they're going to do is not going to be on top of the barrel fill. This is the work of putting up buildings of where the decanting will take place of the barrels. This is improving the road up there. This is getting everything ready so that once that 100% mark is reached, and we hope that that's hopefully sometime in October, November, then they're ready to go. EPA could have said, no, you need to wait until we're a hundred percent. Well, that might've taken us into October, November, December, winter's here. Then they can't put their buildings up and do everything until next year. We're looking at another six or eight month delay. This is, this is really huge and I'm very appreciative of all the parties involved. Thank you guys very much.

Other comments from commissioners? We appreciate all the hard work you're doing and look forward to getting this going. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you for allowing us. Thank you. We have about seven minutes before we'll start public comments. Is there a motion to adjourn the work session?

So moved.

Second. It's been moved and seconded. Clerk, call the roll.

Mr. Ricketts?

Yes.

Mr. Rigsby? Yes. Mrs. Tackett? Yes. Mr. Wallace? Yes. Mr. Rue?

Yes. Spurred just over five minutes from now. Public comment period of city commissions called to order. Clerk, call the roll.

Mr. Ricketts? Here. Mr. Rigsby?

Here.

Mrs. Tackett? Here. Mr. Wallace? Here. Mr. Rue?

Here. The city commission remains committed to creating a conducive environment for constructive and productive dialogue and engagement for the community. Those wishing to speak must fill out a public comment part and provide their name and address for the record. A state issued ID and driver's license must be provided. When filling out the card and those residing in Springfield and Clark County will be permitted to speak during the public comment period. Cards will be accepted up to 15 minutes after the start of the formal legislative meeting. Those who have determined to have provided false information on the card will not be permitted to speak at this meeting or the next scheduled meeting. We're truly committed to making the meeting an environment where people have an opportunity to share their ideas, thoughts, and concerns. While we fully respect First Amendment rights of all individuals, disruptions or any conduct that impedes the orderly progress of the meeting will not be tolerated. Should any individual be escorted or asked to leave due to disruptive behavior on three separate occasions, they'll be notified they're considered trespassed and barred from attending future City Commission meetings. As a reminder, citizen participation guidelines allow comments on legislative items. Each citizen may comment up to three agenda items per meeting and total speaking time of three minutes. Before I read the first card, our law director has a statement to read.

Thank you, Mayor and Commissioners. Before we move to the remainder of tonight's agenda, I want to address the ongoing matter involving City Manager Brian Heck. As the city has previously shared, this matter has been referred to the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigations for independent review. That process remains ongoing and there is no additional information that the city can provide at this time. We recognize that members of the community have outstanding questions. However, it is essential that we allow the investigative process to proceed without interference and respect the due process afforded to all. As law director, I have advised the mayor and city commissioners to limit their public comments while that review is underway. As this process unfolds, the city's work remains uninterrupted. Under the leadership of Acting City Manager, day-to-day operations continue and city employees remain committed to serving our residents and maintaining the delivery of essential services. We appreciate the community's patience as this independent process continues. Thank you.

Thank you. At this time, we have cards. We'll begin with Melissa Rexroth.

It's been a couple weeks since you announced that investigation. During this time, a lot of speculation is going on. It appears there was some type of a meeting where an employee was aware of the incident and he was going to be fired. There was this meeting and he took advantage of knowing this information and that helped him gain advantage in being fired somehow. Possible nondisclosure agreement was signed to protect Brian. We, the people, want to know if any of this is true and if anybody was aware when this incident happened. Did anybody request an investigation? Was an investigation done at that time? Many people are concerned that this is just going to be brushed under the rug. The AG was the county prosecutor here. That almost seems a conflict of interest. If NDAs were signed at any time, can we get copies of that? Who was in that meeting? And again, did anybody take responsibility to make sure that this was investigated? If anybody is found to known about this incident, are any corrective actions going to be taken? We'd like answers to some of these. I know things are being investigated, but when all said and done, again, I think we deserve to know when people knew and how long they've known about this and if things were done until it was put out in the public first. I have asked several meetings ago about how raises were determined and why Brian received such a high salary nobody answered my question about that but as you see in the newspaper article it's obviously the city payroll here is higher than it should be and for the state that the city is in I don't know how you're not embarrassed Crime has increased. So I'm questioning how these block cameras are really helping. You're saying that they help with crime, but again, our crime rate is increasing. So can you please explain how that constitutes paying money for these block cameras? I have been opposing them. I am opposing them again today. Block can keep that information. They delete it after 30 days, but they can keep any of that information. It's in your contract. I read it. Did any of you? They can keep that information. The city can keep that information. Does the city keep it? If so, where do they store our data? Where does Flock store the data? Has Flock kept any of our data? They're able to, and they can share it as well. They can't sell it, but they can share it. It's in the contract. I also asked at the last meeting, were there any other incidents in Springfield where there was misidentification by flock cameras? Because as I said, there was the Andrew Thacker situation. Again, no answer. um again PFAS there was some EPA results where there were forever chemicals found in a well that was tested same well last year it was 1.94 this year it's 2.07 of the PFAS now that's the one that's in our drinking water again forever chemical no amount is safe What is the source of that? I've asked this again. Do we know the source of this? Are we going to monitor glycol because we know that data centers have glycol in their systems? Are we going to start being proactive because this PFAS has already gone up? This is water going into your children's stomachs. I know my time is up, but I don't think that the Brownfield side or whatever you guys are talking about with Fremont City, I'm warning you guys now, we're going to be possibly looking at that in the future because nobody did their due diligence.

Thank you. Diane Daniels.

good evening mayor and commissioners we dodged a bullet today for sure and um with the weather and i'm really liking the early warning system because i got one on my phone and i really appreciate that so those of you haven't put an early warning from clark county emergency services you should do that SO THAT WAS VERY HELPFUL SINCE NOT EVERY TIME EVERYONE CAN HEAR THE SIREN, THAT'S ONLY FOR PEOPLE OUTSIDE. SO THAT'S MY PSA FOR TONIGHT. TO THE CONCERNS ABOUT SALARIES AND OUR IMPENDING PROBLEM WITH FINDING MONEY, THAT'S A REAL CONCERN. AND I HAVE HAD A SUGGESTION AND I'VE MADE IT BEFORE AND I'VE CLARIFIED IT NOW AND DRILLED IT DOWN. 25% OF THE TOP SALARIED EMPLOYEES will receive their salaries, will take their salaries back to 2021. The next 25% of salaried employees will then take their salaries back to 2022. The remaining salaried employees, I'm talking salaried, not hourly, will take their salaries back to 2023. Then salaried employees will receive the same bump in salaries that is given to those that are working an hourly basis, fair and equitable. Secondly, I would like to address the many above our merry band of malcontents that has spent the last two years diligently combing court records and reporting traffic infractions to DHS and ICE. What we've been reporting is the number of infractions that an individual receives and how they are pleaded down to, let's see, drunken, let's see, drunk driving, OVI, no license, no insurance, personal injury, property damage, pleaded down to nothing more than a taillight. Those things we have been reporting by the hundreds. and that's for Hispanics and other foreign nationals in addition we and that's not just me have been combing all of the business licenses for foreign nationally owned businesses here in Springfield we've turned those over as well in addition we know where the hot spots are and we are the ones that are turning them in I'm quite proud of that So action will not need to happen here in Springfield because we've taken the necessary steps to indicate what individuals have been less than flying, how do I want to say it, safely and doing things by the book. So I would like to thank the merry band of malcontents. Plus 100. You've done a great job. Thank you.

Terry Atkins.

Good evening. Thank you guys and everybody else involved for the Tremont situation. It's been far too long shoved under the rug. I used to work with a guy that lived at the bottom of the hill. He's no longer with us. He's very extreme, not an ordinary form of character. He takes it back to some things, but It's like they told the lady out by the airport, if you didn't test your water before this happened, you can't prove that now is the reason. But finally, something's been done. So thanks to everybody that's involved. It's well needed. The, you know, as we all know, everything on the Internet has got to be true, right? And it's there. It was posted that, you know, we were going to get an upgrade soon. report about what i call wienergate and we've got the same report that you gave two weeks ago you know there's got to be a little more information that you will not impede the investigation that you can allow for the citizens of frankfield to be aware of You know, speculation goes crazy, creates a lot of issues that may be situations farther down the road that could be avoided. You know, again, transparency. We've been demanding it for years from everybody sitting up there, and here we go again. You know, come on, guys. You can do a better job. Thank you.

And Baron Selig.

evening i posed a question a few questions some time ago to uh the mayor city council uh regarding the finances that were spent on sheltered ink i said over the last 20 years i'll i'll see i'll take the last 10 years months have went by no one's ever got back with me on it no one's even said anything about it i call down you know, like I'm told to do and go down to the city hall. Everybody's busy. I understand you got a lot on your hands right now. I just need to know how much we spent with that. That's question one. Question two, is there anything... that is brewing. I don't want to be that guy to find out in March, oh, we've been working on this deal since last November. Is there any deals brewing behind the scenes to help with homeless crisis in Springfield right now? Does the city have they forecast money to help with that? Is there money earmarked, you know, CBDG, XYQ, whatever money? What's the story with homeless? What are we going to do? Once again, I'm standing at this very podium and telling you, it's hard to imagine it, but winter's coming. It's coming again. The last time, not saying that the warming center that I did was without errors, but the one that came after me was a total chaos. not good we need to plan for what we're doing again i'm going to offer to meet with anybody up there that would like to hear what i have to say what's going on i'm out there every day guys and we have a problem here we have a problem and it's only going to get worse only going to get worse until we address it uh i'm in negotiations right now uh because this is public. I don't want to say a whole lot about it, but I'm in negotiations right now for what I think is going to be a plan, and I'm going to act on that. But it would sure be nice to know that we were working together to help them. Help helps, guys. You know, the rest of my comments... I see are going to be addressed in two, three, two different things on the agenda later. So I'll save that for then. And please, you know, everybody up there. Is there anybody up there that doesn't have my phone number? You know, Rob's got it. I guarantee it. Tracy's got it. Guarantee it. Get with them. Get my phone number. Call me, guys. Let's sit down and talk and let's. Forget about party lines and all the politics involved. Let's get busy with the business of helping our homeless, okay? Not giving handouts. Handouts are not the answer. Hands up are the answer. Let's give them a hand up. Let's figure out how to win. I have a plan. I can show you how we can do it.

Thank you. Thanks for your heart for the homeless. Amanda Richardson.

Sorry, everybody. I'm a little bit sick today, so hopefully you can hear me okay. My name's Amanda Richardson. I was born in Springfield, and I've lived here most of my life. Wanted to talk about blocked cameras again. I know, but it'd be annoying like that. problem with flock cameras is not the license plate reader technology there are competitors in that space the issue is with flock is twofold it is that your data is being shared with everybody even when you don't approve it and it's been shown time and time and time again that this is the case other cities have found the same thing and every time flock just says oh oopsie we made an error they don't fix it flock is smart enough to fix these issues they're choosing not to They're choosing to not do it because they can say, laying on their contract, say, well, the city is the one, the municipality is the one who's responsible for seeing who looked at their data. Not to mention that if you don't approve these other entities to look at it, they're still getting it anyway from Flock. And there's security issues around their cameras. Again, they're smart enough to fix these issues. They choose not to. That is the issue that I have with them as a company. Now, it's going to be more expensive to get your own license plate readers run them internally that's just the way that it is that's how these cloud companies like flock use their cloud data center to offset some of the costs but the offset of that cost is that you're they're making money off of your data our data everyone who lives works comes to school visit springfield all of us now i understand there are use cases for flock and that people have been helped. I'm not saying that it stinks that I want to get rid of flock for those reasons, but I think the abuses by the company and who they allow to abuse the data within the company, as well as outside of their company, the other municipalities that have access is just too big of an issue for us to continue to ignore. Now, I understand if you have to approve the monies because of contract language, blah, blah, blah. And you can't necessarily rip out block tomorrow. What I would like to see though, is we have people in this community, myself included, who have expertise in some of these areas. Is it possible that we could do something like a advisory council of citizens who have expertise in these areas and can advise when it comes to some of these contracts or some of these technical things that maybe you don't have the expertise on staff. And I'm not saying that to make fun of your staff, but not everybody can know everything. So if we can't get rid of them tomorrow, at least can we start moving that direction and getting them out of our community? Because it's just a surveillance state that we don't need. The company's irresponsible and they don't care.

Thank you. We do have a CPAT, which is Community Police Advisory Team. I would recommend you definitely would take part in that and these issues do come up. Devin Hendricks? Yes.

What's up? I want to talk about fighting. What I've seen this past couple years is our city fighting, fighting for a lot of things. Whether you're fighting for front cameras or whether you're fighting for the data centers or whether you're fighting for humanity and our immigrant neighbors. um you gotta keep fighting because one thing about fighting somebody gonna get tired if you keep swinging it might be the one that just it just pushed them out so we gotta keep fighting um i've been fighting for my life uh lately you know i ain't gonna get into details but uh but um I've let hate consume me, you know, dealing with certain people in my own city, you know, just letting hate consume me. I had to stop that. I had to stop indulging in that, you know, because it was taking everything out of me. It was taking everything out of me, you know, and almost to where I don't even want to fight no more, you know, and I'm a fighter, but Got to keep the fight alive. So when you think it's small, when you think you're just small and you're going up against the Giants, you know, David B. Goliath, you know, so you got to keep fighting, fighting for what's right. And yeah, keep fighting. Yes, keep fighting. I want to leave with this, though. No, I'm going to leave that alone. I'm going to leave that alone. I'm going to just leave that alone. I'm going to leave it on that. Just keep fighting, everybody. Keep fighting for what's right. You know, keep fighting for what you feel that's right. Keep the fight alive. Keep swinging.

Thank you. Jillian Potter Bonzo.

I'm here to talk about the flat cameras as well. So over seven months ago on January 8th, Springfield flat camera logs were requested to be audited by one of our partners through a public records request. The request was denied by Randy Stevenson saying that it was against the law to provide them. Many other cities, including Dayton and Columbus have released their flat camera logs and have not seen this as a violation of the law to do so. It would go a long way in building trust with our community if the city of Springfield would release the flock logs to show whether or not ICE and DHS have been accessing our flock cameras. It would go a long way if the city could make sure that that never happens. Dayton has bagged their cameras. Columbus has stopped sharing their flock data with any police departments that have a 287G agreement contract with ICE. That could go a long way in building trust as well if Springfield did something like that. I'm aware that the city's latest stance is that it has already agreed to another year-long contract with Flock, but I'm also aware that even so, the city's able to end that contract at any point, as Amanda mentioned, or put bags on the cameras. I would argue it's impossible to make an informed decision in tonight's vote without knowing the content of our city's Flock logs. Lastly, we must acknowledge that Springfield is being targeted. As many of you know, for the last few weeks, many Haitians in our town have been receiving letters that require them to go to appointments at the ICE detention centers in Columbus and Cincinnati, where they're having ankle monitors put on them as if they've committed a crime. This does not seem to be happening to Haitians in any other city around the country, just Springfield, Ohio. When Dayton finally released their flock audits, it showed that ICE had accessed their system for immigration purposes over 7,000 times. When Columbus released their flock audit logs, it showed that ICE had accessed their flock cameras over 15,000 times. we know that ice is targeting springfield and we know that ice often uses flock cameras to track and detain immigrants why would we assume that they won't use our flock cameras and say physically come here to detain people i appreciate the police chief and the mayor and the city council's willingness to have these discussions and hear from everyone I have immense amounts of compassion for the immigrants and refugees who have had to uproot their lives and the lives of their children over and over again to try to find safety and who finally found that here in our town. Those same people who were targeted and traumatized by gangs in Haiti are now being targeted and traumatized by our government. So our request remains the same. Protect immigrants, protect Springfielders, bag the cameras.

Thank you. Thank you. because the block legislation is on our agenda. There will be more discussion information during that time and from our chief as well. Laura George.

Thank you for allowing me to speak today and thank you all for your service to our community. today I also want to talk about flock cameras and first I want to be clear I trust this commission and I trust our police chief I trust that you guys have good intention so my concern is not with you my concern is with flock I don't believe flock has been fully transparent with our community about what happens with the data these cameras collect flock's own terms and conditions state Customer hereby grants Flock a limited, non-exclusive, royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual worldwide license to use and disclose customer data to provide the Flock services and use customer data to support and improve Flock's products and services. Irrevocable, perpetual, and worldwide. That raises a basic question, who really controls our data? Is it our community or is it Flock? My second concern is that Flock, what Flock can do with our data? Flock openly admits to the use of AI and pattern recognition. And there's a big difference between using a camera to identify a vehicle involved in a crime and creating technology capable of learning patterns about where people travel throughout our community. We've investigated crimes and identified vehicles for decades without creating this kind of a system. If we can achieve the same public safety goal with a less intrusive approach, we should. Here in Springfield, we don't agree on many things, but I believe we have common ground here, and this is exactly the type of things we should try to build upon. So what I'm asking this commission is to consider bagging the cameras and put the issue on the ballot. Let the people of the community decide what they want to do. Thank you.

Thank you. Wes Babian.

Good evening and thank you, Mayor Rue and commissioners for the opportunity to speak this evening. There's much on my mind in this moment. For one thing, I profoundly regret what is in my opinion, the inhumane ways that our Haitian and other neighbors are being treated at this time. I feel like I must say that. However, I also wish to affirm how you as a commission and as stewards of the wellbeing of this city, respect the importance of hearing the voices of those in our community of our community members, whether I agree with the opinions offered, which I often do not, it is important to attempt as much as possible to understand the why and what of those opinions. In fact, such respect is the very core of the greatest hope for our future. In recent days, I read former Mayor Warren Copeland's book, Doing Justice in Our Cities. He asserts in that book that our best hope for the future of our way of life lies in both freedom and diversity. which are integral parts of healthy civic life and that cities, not just Springfield, are places where freedom and diversity can be and are uniquely realized. So I want to thank you and others of our civic leaders for the courage and commitment to that end.

I have a statement to read about TPS and the current status. Again, I want to take a moment to address the question, continue questions we have and what we're hearing, what you're seeing on social media about immigration enforcement. And at this time, the city has still not received any information from ICE on planned enforcement operations. We will continue to monitor developments, share verified information if and when it becomes available. Locally, just need to understand that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility and locally our responsibility remains clear on public safety, provide essential city services and serve everyone in our community fairly and according to the law. Springfield has been through a great deal over the past two years, and I continue to ask our community to treat one another with dignity and respect. We may have different perspectives on immigration and other issues, but we all share a responsibility to keep Springfield safe and peaceful. The City Commission will remain focused on the people of Springfield and the well-being of our entire community. Thank you. Is there a motion to conclude the comment period? moved second it's been moved and seconded clerk call the roll Mr. Ricketts yes Mr. Rigsby yes Mrs. Tackett yes Mr. Wallace yes Mr. Ryu yes thank you the formal meeting of city commissions called to order clerk call the roll Mr. Ricketts here Mr. Rigsby here all

Mrs. Tackett? Here. Mr. Wallace? Here. Mr. Rue?

Here. Please stand for the invocation and the pledge. God, I thank you for Springfield. I ask that you would continue to give us peace. Would you bring more peace to our community? And I ask that you give us wisdom tonight as we govern the city. Amen. Is there a motion to approve minutes?

I move.

Second. It's been moved and seconded. Clerk, call the roll.

Mr. Ricketts?

Yes.

Mr. Rigsby? Yes. Mrs. Tackett? Yes. Mr. Wallace? Yes. Mr. Ryu?

Yes. Clerk will proceed with first readings by title only.

Amending ordinance 91 number 91 90 past March 12 1991 and commonly known as the codified ordinances of the City of Springfield Ohio by amending certain sections of part 11 entitled zoning code. Amending ordinance number 22-138 to modify the residential rehabilitation tax exemption available within the Springfield revitalization community reinvestment area pursuant to Ohio revised code sections 3735.65 and 3735.70. implementing sections 3735.65 through 3735.70 of the Ohio Revised Code, amending the Springfield Revitalization Community Reinvestment Area in the City of Springfield, Ohio, and designating a housing officer to administer the program. Establishing a fee structure for the City of Springfield Community Reinvestment Area application processing and annual monitoring administered pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Sections 3735.65 through 3735.70. Authorizing the city manager to enter into a contract with Rumpke of Ohio for trash pickup at various city facilities for a period of three years with an option to renew for two additional one-year periods for an amount not to exceed $110,143.19 for the initial three-year period. Authorizing the city manager to enter into a contract with Lorenzo Anderson doing business as all things truck hauling and dumpsters LLC for nuisance abatement services as needed by the city for a period of one year with an option to renew for two additional one-year periods for an amount not to exceed $50,000 for the initial contract year. Authorizing the city manager to enter into a contract with Gary Gilbert Jr. doing business as Gilbert's lawn service for nuisance abatement services as needed by the city for a period of one year with an option to renew for two additional one-year periods for an amount not to exceed $50,000 for the initial contract year. authorizing the city manager to enter into a contract with OMAC Hauling Incorporated for nuisance abatement services as needed by the city for a period of one year with an option to renew for two additional one-year periods for an amount not to exceed $50,000 for the initial contract year. authorizing the city manager to enter into a contract with Rest Lives LLC doing business as pure clean home savers or nuisance abatement services as needed by the city for a period of one year with an option to renew for two additional one year periods for an amount not to exceed $50,000 for the initial contract year. Authorizing the City Manager to submit an application for financial assistance and accept a grant from the State of Ohio, Ohio Public Works Commission to obtain funding in an amount up to $522,368 for the CLA State Route 41-14.86, PID number 117964. And authorizing the City Manager, Law Director, Finance Director, and City Engineer to do all things they consider necessary for the submission of the application for financial assistance and the acceptance of the grant. Authorizing the city manager to enter into a plat agreement, subdivision development between the city and Sycamore Ridge project one LLC or phase three of the Sycamore Ridge development and authorizing the city manager, law director and finance director to do all things necessary to implement the said plat agreement subdivision development.

Thank you. As the city manager explained a few of those in the first readings, Why don't you go through, let's start with Sycamore.

I think I will have our service director, Chris Moore, speak to that.

This plan agreement for Sycamore Ridge, this is the subdivision that is down around Leffel Lane and Burnett Road. This puts in place all the provisions necessary for them to subdivide that land and build the public infrastructure and give us the assurances that we need to know that they will properly build the public infrastructure. Okay.

Thank you. Other comments from commissioners on first readings? No comments from the public on first readings only. Brian?

Good evening. Brian Kuhn, Superintendent Clark Shawnee Local School District. Specifically offering comment on the third item, 174-26. We're looking at the Springfield Revitalization Community Reinvestment Area. I first want to start by thanking Cassie Scott and Tom Franzen for meeting with me today via Zoom, just after the first tornado warning, just to talk and get some general questions answered. As a district, we recognize and acknowledge that there are great things and positive growth going on in Springfield, Clark County, and our community as a whole. Why I'm here tonight is requesting some consideration from the commission as you consider this legislative item. Globally, the expansion of the CRA will have positive impact on many areas of our community. And what we're asking is that you consider a few of the parcels of concern, my term, on the expansion map. As a district, as Clark Shawnee local, our three main concerns of the parcels that were identified And the map you saw at the work session two weeks ago. The southernmost parcel in yellow, which is the site that was the original proposed site for the jail, across the street from that proposed site for the Kroger's. That impacts our district. On the east side of the map, right just north of Melody Parks, there's a single owner farm property that is Clark Shawnee as well that we're concerned about. And of course, Reed Golf Course. So during our meeting today, we discussed one phrase, one moniker that I think we both agree is that a rising tide floats all ship. All right. And we agree with that to a certain extent. Right now, Clark Shawnee is in a position where we're bailing out our proverbial vessel. because of legislative changes that have impacted property tax, school funding. We're kind of getting modified on both sides, revenue sources both locally and at the state level. So we're bailing out our proverbial ship. So our ask tonight as a district is just throwing out two things, and I did share both of these with Ms. Scott and Mr. Franzen. that you might consider phasing the CRA expansion. So, for example, those parcels of land that would be on the Clark Shawnee local tax duplicate or be revenue streams for us, maybe they come in at a later phase. That way they're not subject to immediate development and growth with that expansion. And or consider language in the ordinance that would require that expansion We get a seat at the table to discuss compensation plans. When Bridgewater was introduced, we were part of that discussion from the get-go, shared that again today. And just to be able to have a seat at the table to understand the entire scope of things, have a voice where we're able to, would be extremely helpful and we would appreciate that. So why are these asks relevant? In the 2019 housing study that was completed, these parcels of land were identified and labeled as poised for growth. They're prime for development, right? The Reed Golf Course and the area on 72 and that farmland north. I know there was just a recent housing study completed in January of this year. We haven't got a chance to put our hands on that yet, but we know that those areas are poised for growth. So again, to close, appreciate the opportunity. to share on behalf of the Clark Shawnee Local School District and appreciate your consideration of some of the suggestions that we would have that would help see us Clark Shawnee Local as our community grows, as in our school district grows. Thank you.

Thank you, Brian. Appreciate the job you do. Would Cassie and or Tom be able to speak to this meeting, please, and share some city perspective?

So I think that Superintendent Coon raises some legitimate concerns. As with anything, there are always trade-offs. One of the areas that he's speaking about is a floodplain, so we don't anticipate that being easily developable. Another one of the areas is probably more likely if it's going to be a subdivision to use a TIF instead of the CRA to redirect the taxes to that area. But as for having a seat at the table, we certainly welcome that. And they do get a seat at the table for all commercial agreements above a certain threshold. And we want them to feel included in this process. As for the areas that we're expanding this to, the new housing study did show that those home values are lower in that area. The homes are older and there is a higher concentration of renter households in that area and a need for more housing. And Tom can add anything additional. He doesn't have anything.

I don't need to add anything other than we appreciate the conversation with the school district, very positive in nature. And so it was nice to have that conversation, realizing it is a great opportunity for us now, right? The community is growing.

I think it would be important that we would always have the school district at the table of all these discussions. I know you've been a part of several of the discussions that passed post-Melody Park, so even that you were somewhat at the table for that, but I understand there needs to be more engagement in that area. So I'm certain the commission would want that to happen as well. Thank you. Comments from first readings. Go ahead, Melissa.

um it was about the same thing is that the thing you guys were talking about there was the panel in at the last meeting where they were discussing is that what that's about yes yeah okay so i oppose it um there are plenty of dilapidated buildings here in springfield within the zone that can qualify for that why Why are we letting this continue to just crumble instead of fixing that problem first before moving on to new problems? Why aren't we fixing what's wrong first? I oppose expanding it. I think that's great to do the rehabilitation. When I heard that, that's amazing. That is what Springfield should be doing is encouraging rehabilitation from all of this crumbling around us, not expanding to better neighborhoods. Fix this. And also another concern is one of the people there from the panel, they were a representative for one of the communities where I believe one of you live on there. And I feel that was kind of, is that a conflict? Why were they represented and why are we wanting to expand to that area? And again, so opposing this, if they can't, these builders can't afford to do it and they need these deductions or whatever, don't do it. If you can't afford it, don't do it. What are all of us told? If you can't afford something, don't go buy it. Period. Springfield needs money. Stop giving abatements credit. Stop. Period. We need the money.

Thank you.

So I would agree with Melissa that we do have a number of aging housing structures here that need rehab and that's why we're proposing as one of the recommendations that we increase that from 10 years 100% to 15 years 100%. I still want that to happen and this only furthers that. In addition, there are houses outside of the zone that also need that work. so this allows for that as for a conflict of interest i'm not aware of any i'm happy to talk about that after the meeting um and i think i address all of your concerns but if not i welcome a meeting with you other comments on first readings miss diana so

I had an opportunity to look at the 15-year plan, 25-year plan, and the 50-year plan. And what was interesting was the kind of the Dearborn effect, as I call it. If you think back, we had close to 80,000 residents within a footprint that is one-third smaller than your current actually more than that one-third smaller than your current city footprint so now we're looking at 50 000 residents 58 000 in an expanded footprint and yet we want to make that footprint bigger that the math isn't mathing that's what i'm saying and i always knew that the plan was to expand out 72 so while i'm not you're going to put a real big surprise on my possum woods fan friends in raymar and limecrest so they'll be here next week for your second reading And that floodplain, yeah, that was something we already did. We were going to fight when I first moved into my house on Hedgley Road 25 years ago that we had that whole entire area declared a wetlands. So good luck because that is still in effect. but you're going to do what you want to do because you're the government and we are just the people who get trampled on.

We're not, we're not developing anything, Diana.

I know. Okay. Just want to make sure this, I understand that, but it's the developer, right?

It is. It's developers for those areas you're talking about. So thank you for your comments, ma'am. If you'd like to go to the podium, just state your name for us and speak to first readings. Thank you.

This is only my first time.

Would you just give us your name? Thank you so much. Rachel Martin. Thank you so much. Go ahead.

This is just my first time at a meeting. I just have a simple question. This division that they are hoping to build, that some are hoping to build, Who would what group of people are they appealing to? Is this appealing to rental making these rentals or are these first time homeowners? I was just curious.

Thank you. Yes. Cassie, would you come back up and just explain what exactly is we're discussing here again?

So the community reinvestment area, that's a great question. It applies to all different kinds of housing types. So it can apply to multifamily, single family, assisted living homes. It's really meant to meet all of those needs for everyone in our community.

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Barron? My comments, questions, concerns... in reference to 184.26 through 187.26. I'd like a definition of nuisance abatement services, and I want to make sure I'm clear on this. This is for $200,000. Okay. with a renewal for $400,000 for the second year.

No, sir. So this is a $50,000 contract, and any of these companies may be called upon to fulfill weed, junk, trash, clean out of abandoned property, mowing certain areas, up to $50,000 for the contract.

Contract total? All right, so these are our annual contracts, our... Community Development Deputy Director Steve Thompson is here to provide further.

Sure. Good evening, Commissioners. So this is our annual nuisance abatement contract. So nuisance abatement, that's removing junk and trash from private property. Code compliance issue orders when there are items in yards that aren't compliant with code. If the owner chooses not to remove them, we hire these contractors to remove those items for us. And that's our nuisance abatement contract. And these contracts, the not to exceed amount is $50,000. So that doesn't mean we're going to spend $50,000, but that allows us to use up to $50,000 for each of these contractors to remove items. Just to give you some info, last year, the most recent year of this contract, we spent... Most recently, we spent $104,425. Previous year, we spent $156,938 on the contract. So we typically don't spend up to $200,000, but we have that leeway. So we can choose the contractors depending on workload, effectiveness, so on and so forth.

So my question is... So it is $200,000 up to $200,000 for the first year and with renewal, which could be a total up to $400,000. I guess my question is, is the city pursuing the property owners? I mean, this isn't taking stuff off a city property. This is off a private property.

I'm watching the community development director behind you shake her head. Yeah, we do. These nuisances are exactly what the word is. These are nuisance properties, people that have abandoned the properties, people, owners of properties that refuse to take care of their properties. These are the calls that their department receives and when these contracts come into play. Is that right?

Yes, that's accurate. I would just add this is also for occupied properties oftentimes as well. People have junk and trash in their yards that they choose not to remove after a code compliance issues orders to them, and then we send these contractors out to remove those items to remove that plate.

But ultimately, it's the property owner's responsibility. What is the city doing? I mean, how are we doing? What's our record? Are we getting most of that back?

No. No. And it's nothing. We'd love to get it back, Baron, as you can imagine.

But there's people living, sitting in their homes, not taking care of their properties.

And then we get calls from good folks like you all that says, clean that up. I'm tired of looking at it. And then we get an email and it goes to Steve.

And that's how it happens. I'm going to try to meet with the commissioners and the mayor and the city manager here. I might have a solution for this that involves our homeless. Thank you. Thank you.

No other comments on first readings. We'll continue with second readings.

Authorizing the city manager to enter into amendment number one to the contract with Four Corner Property Management LLC for weed cutting and lot clearing services as needed by the city to increase the contract in an amount not to exceed $40,000 for a total amount not to exceed $90,000. So moved.

Second. Been moved and seconded. Are there comments from commissioners? Comments from the audience? Clerk, call the roll.

Mr. Ricketts? Yes. Mr. Rigsby? Yes. Mrs. Tackett? Yes. Mr. Wallace? Yes. Mr. Rue?

Yes.

Authorizing the city manager to enter into amendment number one to the contract with Mike's Lawn and More LLC for weed cutting and lot clearing services as needed by the city to increase the contract in an amount not to exceed $40,000 for a total amount not to exceed $90,000. So moved. Seconded.

moved and seconded the comments from commissioners from the audience are you coming over with a question yeah this is the second reading on the second uh mowing contract okay thompson was just up there and talked about tires and junk and mowing

So is this contract, I did the math on here and it is $180,000. And this is to keep the weeds and the trees that hang over the street. I know I just called the city and they came right out and trimmed the overhanging trees. Thank you for that. I appreciate your promptness. It was tearing up truck and everything else. My question is, Is this the same pot of, for lack of a better word, is the money coming out of the same purse that we just talked about, 400,000? Is this an additional 180,000?

This is a separate contract. This is our annual mowing contract. This item and the previous item are related to. So similar to the nuisance abatement contracts, we already authorized up to $50,000 for these two contractors. They've both done a lot of work this year. They're about to exceed that amount. So now we're asking for additional funds that cover us for the rest of the year for these two contractors for all the mowing.

And are these additional funds or are you...

moving funds from other contractors that didn't actually reach to fifty thousand it's both we look at our budget see where we are see where we need to move money it could be reducing our existing contractors that aren't performing as well as the others to compensate these and again these are not city-owned properties these are property owners

that aren't mowing their grass. I know I don't mean to make it that simplistic but we'll use that for the example. Where are we at with pursuing them?

Every one of these complaints, Barron, are pursued by the actual property or landowner first. Okay. And when they don't, this is when the city has to step in and actually spend your tax dollars to mow their lawns.

What would you say the success rate is? Robbie or Steve, what would you say the success rate is on getting my money or our money?

back unfortunately this isn't this isn't a hope hope to get paid back program these are things that come up logan i think even has more information but these are things that come up that have to be taking care of that legally i would think no logan please

Good evening, Commissioners. Logan Copps, Director of Community Development. I think it's important to note that staff really does do our due diligence, and you just referenced this earlier, Mayor Rue, in really working with property owners in hopes that they'll clean up their own properties, right? It is never our hope, ever our intention to send out a contractor, but at times, situations do call for them. So we're sending out multiple notices. At times, we're issuing civil fines. Once those go unpaid, then yes, we are sending out a contractor to make sure that we are... protecting the health and the safety and the welfare of our community members. And sometimes that is necessary. I also think it's important to note as we talk through recouping costs, We are also assessing these two property taxes at times as well to try to recoup those costs in partnership with the county who collects property taxes. So we're doing everything that we can. It's never our intention to utilize funds. Would love to see that number decreased and eventually not need contractors. But we are at that point currently.

So an example, I remember Chris Moore explaining this in the past. If we don't care for these properties that are being abandoned or uncared for, what happens is people throw trash in the midst of this four-foot grass. And so it becomes a junkyard instead of just overgrown grass. So that's one of the reasons the city will step in and mow with these funds to keep trash from accumulating in certain areas that fall intent and purpose has been abandoned by the property owner. One more question Barron.

I appreciate that that response but the first on today's agenda a nice agenda alone 400 over a half a million dollars of tax dollars says any working.

It's not that it's not working. It's not that it's more that people are not caring for their properties. And as a community, every municipality has to have funds set aside to care for the uncared properties. And so, yes, is it costing you taxpayer dollars? Absolutely. We would love for everybody. I think everybody would love for everybody to take care of their properties, but because they don't, hundreds of thousands of dollars have to be set aside to care for the uncared properties. Thank you. And I get it. We're going to go on to second readings.

Thank you, sir.

It's not working. Second readings.

We need a vote.

We need a vote. Vote. Call the vote, please.

Mr. Rigsby?

Yes.

Mrs. Tackett? Yes. Mr. Wallace? Yes. Mr. Ricketts?

Yes.

Mr. Rue?

Yes. Okay.

Authorizing the renewal of the services agreement with Flock Group Incorporated to provide services related to the automatic license plate reader camera system for an amount not to exceed $114,000 and confirming and approving related expenditures incurred from July 27, 2026.

So the chief is going to speak to our usage of flock cameras, maybe clear up some things that were said in the last meeting. One of the things that has been discussed is a portal. that I believe a couple of you brought up to see the information. I want to know, I'll speak for myself personally. I do believe that these systems must be held accountable. So whether I do agree with many of your concerns, but I will personally tell you that we are fighting crime with these. There are people, there are murders being solved with these cameras. There are people that have been lost, found with these cameras, not in the city, but in, and there's been other cases solved. So maybe in the city too, but I just want to say, I wouldn't, I personally would not sit here and vote yes on this without really contemplating some of these. And, and this is going to sound silly, but, but I do mean it. Bad guys are getting badder. And, and if we don't give our officers and our department the right equipment to keep us safe, we're not going to be safe. At the same time, I do want to be clear, tech needs accountability. So I agree with you 100% on that. With that, I know the chief's prepared some remarks, and then other commissioners may have remarks.

Yeah, good evening, Mayor Rue, commissioners. Thank you, Director Veidt. So just to echo what you said, Mayor Rue, we know that law enforcement is ever-evolving. Technology is ever-evolving. We've been using technology for many years, and it has continued to evolve. I will reiterate what you said in that, you know, we expect the highest standards out of our officers who use these platforms. And we expect that that's reciprocated with any sort of platform owner. So that is an understanding and expectation that we have. I want to thank the public again for their concerns, bringing their concerns to us, because that's how we become better. And that's how we continue to make this process better. And we will continue to reevaluate these practices and the use of this platform. We've taken these concerns into consideration along the way as they've come up. We've also spoken with commissioners and folks in the public and within our agency on how we continue to improve our practices, putting additional safeguards in place. We also take a look at the contract and we recognize that while this is a one-year renewal and this will be up again in another year, we take that very seriously and we recognize that any changes that Flock or the company makes, we will be diligent in reviewing that and we will continue to ask those additional questions as we already have. We've sat down and had those conversations. We've taken a deeper dive into the contract and where we can take some of these considerations back to the company if there is a concern that we can get additional answers. I will tell you that our rep has been responsive to us and we will continue to push back if there are concerns that do come up. If the public finds additional information and has specific facts that they can point to that they can bring to us, I encourage them to reach out to us and make us aware of that because that's how we're going to address the issues and continue moving forward. I will say it again. I think I've said it the last few times I've spoken about it. Public safety and privacy are not competing values. They are not mutually exclusive. And we want to make sure that we're continuing to move forward in holding both of them in high regard and balancing. We recognize that while I want to make sure that victims and survivors have every opportunity, legal law enforcement purposes, legal opportunities to have every tool that we can use legitimately to solve their crimes and to make sure that they are that they're brought justice and these are one of these tools it is true that we have not had these in years past but I will tell you again I'll reiterate the first 48 hours matter and when we talk about homicides and missing persons amber alerts you know minutes and seconds matter so if we can use these platforms to garner and gain information quickly, we have a much better chance of identifying individuals involved or locating someone safely without further harm continuing to occur. So again, just appreciate the public continuing to bring these concerns to us. We'll continue to hear it. And if there's something we need to take a look at, we will do that.

I mean, I would like to see this portal be made public and whatever information we can make public as far as the usage, as far as what other communities are doing with block to share information with community that is shareable. I think it's important. So we have a public safety portal that's on our website now. I want to speak to this a little bit.

Yeah, so in hearing the concerns and obviously taking a look at best practices, looking at what other communities are seeing with their use of flock and some of the things that have been raised as concerns, we have put up frequently asked questions as it relates to the flock usage and flock cameras. We will continue to make those improvements and changes as needed. Additionally, you can see at the bottom there is a link that shows our transparency portal and our usage. So if you click on that link, it will show you additional data that you can take a look at. And there are also additional questions that Block commonly gets that they can help answer if there are questions specific to our use. And additionally, I will tell you that we've been very open and transparent with the fact that we do share with other agencies. As we know, we've had several situations where crime doesn't stop at state lines or county lines and individuals flee to different communities all across the country. And we have been able to use those platforms and that information sharing as far as the camera capabilities with other agencies to track down individuals in other states and to be able to affect arrests and stop further harm. So while we recognize that that is also a responsibility of each agency that we share with, we will continue to review that. We are currently actually reviewing all agencies that we are sharing with to ensure that we're remaining accountable and that there are no outlying issues.

I want to make sure, I asked this the last time, I want you to answer it again. Are our cameras being used for immigration purposes?

So when I spoke to that data or that tab that we have enabled, and when I say enabled, we've turned that tab on, which does not allow for immigration related searches. Um, so, and federal, uh, we do not share with federal agencies and I will let captain Williams, Jeff Williams, uh, speak to that information. He has some additional information he can provide as it relates to that. That was just put in place, um, earlier this year. So obviously, um, previously that there is some, you know, um, that, that tabulation was, or that tab was not available. But anytime that FLOC has had something new, we've reviewed it and we've made sure that we're being diligent in how we operate.

So are you auditing the system on a regular basis or somebody asked to audit? An update comes, are you auditing to make sure nothing is sneaking in to be used without permission?

when there is an update such as that or something to the system, we are certainly making sure that we're taking a look at that information, what the changes could be, and making sure we're remaining diligent in that.

Thank you.

And I can have Captain Williams speak to a couple of those additional information. Thank you so much. I know there's some additional questions about data sharing and just some things like that. And our platform, I know we spoke on that last time. Thank you.

Mr. Mayor, commissioners, good evening. I do want to talk about a couple of things the chief was mentioning right there. But I also want to mention a question that came up before that I wanted to make sure that we get a chance to answer specifically. And that was at the images that the flock cameras produce when we make a search on the system. It's been known that flock keeps those images for 30 days. I wanted to know specifically if those images, when they say they are deleted from the system after that 30 day period, if they are truly gone or if they are recoverable by flock at any point. So I reached out to our customer service manager and pose that question to her. And I will paraphrase the first part of her response, but then I will quote the last part of her response. And she indicated that, yes, the images are permanently and unrecoverably deleted after the retention period. official policy states that data is, quote, hard deleted on a rolling 30-day basis by default, unless there is a different requirement by a local law. We do not have any laws here that would make it any different than that 30 days. And the part that I will quote is the second half of her email reply back to me. It says, this hard delete process follows Amazon Web Services or AWS protocols for data sanitization and media destruction and which are designed to render data stored on physical devices irrecoverable. This process is compliant with standards like NIST 800-88, Once the retention period expires, the data is permanently destroyed and cannot be retrieved by Flock or any other party. This is fundamentally different from a soft delete where data might be recoverable in some circumstances. So that is the answer to that.

I would think if a company like this didn't have something like that in place, their success would be short-lived. The concerns that have been brought up that it would be done, like communities would pull out of...

Sure, and this isn't the only community where that concern exists, and we had that concern about whether that capability actually existed, so that's why we wanted the clarification. As far as some of the tabs, the chief was talking about these search filters. So currently, I know a lot of this got started, and I won't speak to their specific issue. The city of Dayton had an issue that was brought to the news that caused some concern that The issue was specific to the city of Dayton and some agreements and ordinances they have in place. That is their own city, and I will not try to answer any specifics on those. You can ask the city of Dayton or any of the organizations who've covered that story for those specifics. But I will speak to what we have in place here in Springfield. In Springfield, there are no local ordinances, state or federal laws that prohibit the use of block cameras to be used for searches that involve immigration-related searches. There is a filter that will not permit any searches that's indicated that it's immigration related. We have that filter turned on and that is as a matter of preference because we understand the scrutiny, the immigration issues bring here. We understand the concerns, privacy concerns. And so we opted to turn that filter on. So no immigration related searches can get through on our system, but it is not a matter of law or policy. It is a matter of our preference. And that's why we have that turned on. We also have a similar filter turned on that blocks out searches for reproductive care issues. There are some other states where that has become a big issue. There are no laws to prohibit those type of searches. However, we turned that filter on as a matter of preference, again, to protect as many people's privacy and rights as possible. And we also turned on a filter that does not allow searches on our system from any federal agencies who also have flocked counts or flocked camera networks.

If the chief review department of the safety department would recommend

certain things that need to be placed into ordinance i would i would be willing to to listen to and have a session on that a work session in the future for sure thanks for uh researching that so well sure does anybody else have any questions questions from commissioners go ahead yeah i just i've i've spent a lot of time lately looking at the flock issue i've pulled the contracts pulled all the documentation uh met with several citizens uh communicated with them about the issue to try to understand about this. A couple of things have come to my knowledge, but I want to just make sure that I'm right. The flock system and the leads system, which is where you would look up license plates, have no connection. There's no flock can't run license plates. That is correct. So in other words, when an officer, a detective or otherwise, is trying to find a criminal or a lost person or whatever, They take the information, send it to FLOC as far as, hey, where did this license plate go? When they get that information back, they then have to go to the LEADS system. And in both systems, they have to, one, have trained, they have to be, what is it, CJIS trained?

Yes, Criminal Justice Information System.

Yeah, CJIS trained. They have to agree that they're using it for valid law enforcement reasons. They have to log that. their name, their information, the date and time, and what the valid law enforcement reason is to use both systems, as well as understanding and acknowledgement that to do so improperly is against the law.

That is correct, and they have to do that on both systems separately, yes.

Yeah, both systems separately, and we don't allow anybody to access the flock system who's not also been the CJIS certified. That's correct.

Every sworn officer in our agency, and I believe all of the civilian employees in our agency who have access to any type of data, have all gone through criminal justice information security training. That's correct.

which then lets them understand the proper uses, the improper usage, all of that.

And the possible penalties up to including termination and possible criminal prosecution.

Absolutely. Yeah. And I think the second is as important as the first. I mean, it's, you know, all of which is saying that, you know, hopefully our people are ethical, which I believe they are, and they're not going to be doing this, but there are severe penalties for misuse. And we further audit the use of the system.

And since you brought that up, I'll add a little bit of detail to that. So the FLOC system itself has an audit assistance tool. And it will look at searches conducted by officers or employees from our agency. And if it sees anything that it deems that it could be irregular, it will, I'll say, flag it. And it puts it in a notice for anybody who's an administrator in the system would be able to see. So we go back then and look at those flag searches or series of searches, and it will tell us why it flagged. It has algorithms that do this. It's not a human being sitting, right? So they're algorithms, but they notify us. And then it's up to us to go back and investigate those searches or series of searches and find out if they were actually made for legitimate criminal justice purposes or not. And again, Some information that I provided that if it hasn't already been, it would be given to Commissioner Packett to answer some questions she had as well. Between January 1st and today's date, the system flagged 63 separate either searches or series of searches. We have gone back over the months and looked at every single one of those. And some of those we could tell right away that they were legitimate searches and that they checked okay. And some of them, it was not immediately obvious. So we sent inquiries to the employees who made the searches to explain why they made the searches, the reasons, what their objectives were, to make sure that they were lawful searches, that they were made in accordance with division policy, with law, with criminal justice information, security protocols. And to date, through the use of the block system, we have not found any searches that were done by any Springfield Police employee that's been improper or against policy or law. in addition to that tool, and that's created by the system, we also have the ability to download the searches that are made by our officers. Now, those searches, when we download those, do not include the actual images or anything that were generated by the searches. It does not include any of the search results, but it is the individual search identifier. It is the date and time the search is made, the logged in user account that was done, the search reason, the offense type, and some other information. That is the information that has not been released publicly. Some agencies have decided to do that, although they are not bound by law to. As a matter of fact, the law I've consulted with Ms. Allen, we have looked at the Ohio Revised Code and found that those are not public information according to the Ohio Revised Code. And I'm certain that the lawmakers did that for a multitude of reasons, but one of them is because some of those searches involve ongoing investigations. We would not want to jeopardize any ongoing investigations or anything that could bring to light sensitive information. Again, the privacy and security worries of the public, right? We wouldn't want to bring anything to light that may endanger anybody's privacy or security. So, those we do have ability to look at those though and we can look at everyone that's been conducted on the system since we started using the system i personally have downloaded all of those searches i actually do that on a monthly basis so i have a lieutenant that works for us who reviews those system the audit assistance tool where it flags those and he investigates those and separately i look at the searches that we have made and check to see if there's anything that looks irregular to me so We're basically doing it from two separate angles with two separate capabilities, kind of cross-referencing, if you will. And then, of course, if there's any other information brought to light where we think a search or searches may need to be looked at, we will certainly investigate those if an issue comes up like that, although to date, none of them have. We're talking about the transparency portal up here. So... If anybody clicks on that transparency portal and is looking down through it, it shows some of the information on how we use it, on who we share with and who is sharing with us. It talks about some of the privacy measures that we take. It also talks about some of the capabilities of the system, what it can do, what it can't do, what it does, what it does not do. But if you'll notice up there in the top right-hand corner, it says visit Flock. That is Flock's homepage. And if you click on that, There is a section for any users to sign in, as you can see on the top right in that white oval there. But as you scroll down through that webpage, there is quite a bit of information available to the public so that they can read into the system, its privacy, its security, its public trust. There are some videos in sections of that where some people actually explain. There is a video where after hearing the public comments about Flock being hacked, they went to one of the best cybercrime units in the United States, which is the Miami-Dade County, Florida police. and they have a cyber crimes unit, and they asked them if they could try to hack the network using the same methods that people had espoused publicly online, and pretty much the best cybersecurity unit in the country could not hack Flock using the methods that had been reported. So there are some things like that, and I'm not asking anybody to trust me 100% or necessarily to trust Flock 100%, but I would say when making a decision on what you believe about a system please search out all available information. And then of course, just like with anybody, come to your own conclusion. And if anybody has any questions about any of this, they can feel free to reach out to myself or Chief Elliott at any time. We'd be happy to answer any questions that we can. Thank you.

I still have some questions out to the flock people, and I've not gotten those answers back. I think it's part of doing my due diligence is to understand. One of those questions is I want to understand completely what the sensor package that we currently have in our cameras that we have. In other words, is it simply, and I've been told, but it's not the official answer, that we just have sensors the camera portion and it records literally a snapshot of the back of the vehicle and enough of the vehicle to form its picture that it needs. But there are sensor packages out there that will read EMF data from, you know, basically Bluetooth signatures, Mac addresses, those things. I've been told, but I don't have the official answer, that we do not have those types of cameras, but that's something we should know.

That is one of the, I'm sorry, I want to answer your question there. That is one of the things that we also reached out to our customer service manager and specifically asked. And we were told that the cameras we have do not have any features that are dormant that are able to be turned on later. So literally, we just have the cameras. They do not have other technology packages loaded onto them that could be turned on should we decide to subscribe to them later. The actual... physical equipment itself would have to be changed out if we ever did something like that.

And that was kind of my question was, you know, is the technology there just not active and it could be activated at some point should we or they decide it was necessary? And the other thing I'm given to understand is that tonight is not a renewal of the contract. It is payment for the second year of a two-year contract and that in the second at the end of the second year we will then decide whether to renew the contract on a yearly basis correct and so one of the things i asked city staff to do was uh for next year give me enough time to make the decision you know yes no maybe do we go with flock do we look at another vendor do we forego it completely but enough time so that we can have time to complete our research. Suffice to say, I'm not going to stop researching this, but enough time to complete the research and then make an informed decision. So I just, I don't know that even requires an answer.

Sure, no, just as you're doing your due diligence, Mr. Commissioner, we are doing ours. And as the chief said, anytime there are updates made to the capabilities of FLOC or to their system, we try to stay abreast of all those updates. Also, find out what that would mean for our organization, for our cameras, for our equipment, and how it would affect our community. And of course, if we see anything that lags our attention, that it might deserve your attention, we will certainly make sure that you get the information as soon as we have.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

You just took Director Allen off the hook because that's what I was going to bring up as well about the second payment. But can you share, stories matter, can you give us some brief stories of success stories that we've had here in the community where they have been beneficial?

Yes. Good evening, Commissioner. Thank you. So I can stand up here and I'm not grandstanding in any way. Genuinely, we have had several circumstances where we have been able to successfully apprehend individuals before there's further violent crime or additional crime, missing persons. Things like that. But a couple that I would like to share, and I think I shared previously, before this flock system even came to Springfield and we had the opportunity, the city of Dayton had flock cameras prior to us. We had two officers who were responding to a robbery and a situation that occurred here within the city. And as they approached the house to intervene, they were shot at. And the end of the suspect fired multiple shots at them and fled the scene. And we were able to use Dayton's flock camera system, their assistance and their flock camera system to, to eventually identify the suspect involved where we were able to apprehend that individual safely and be able to prosecute that crime further. Additionally, we had a situation where we had an individual who had kidnapped his child and the mother of his child and then ended up fleeing to another city here within the state. With that, we were able to locate that suspect and apprehend them and obviously the mother and the child were safely found or located without any harm or further harm done. We've had multiple homicide cases, one specifically where we were able to very quickly identify the suspect vehicle involved. And we were able to track that again to another city within the state of Ohio. And within that first 48 hours, we were able to identify that individual that was involved and bring justice to that victim's family and the survivors and prosecute the individual.

Thank you chief for sharing those stories. And I've spent, um, time with the sheriff as well listening to stories that he has shared on the impact that flock has had on the community and it's a good good tool for policing um director allen i do have one question though um with this agreement if it was voted down or we don't pay this can we be sued liable for an agreement not being

Sure, you could be sued for specific performance of the contract and trying to enforce that. There's always an option for the other party of the contract to pursue it.

Thank you.

Commissioner Tackett, again, I appreciate that. I appreciate the support. Look, we recognize this is a very effective tool. We use technology for an advantage for us as law enforcement. As we know, it's continuing to evolve, but We do take very seriously any concerns that are raised. We do not take it lightly when it's brought to our attention. And we will continue to be diligent and review these processes as they continue. Just because there's an opportunity to renew or enter into this second year of this contract doesn't mean that we just rest on our laurels and that we continue to let it go. We will continue to be diligent. because there should be accountability, again, as I said before. Anybody who is expecting all of us to responsibly use their platforms, it should be reciprocated.

I just want to say for our folks who have already spoken about the block, the only reason we're talking at this in detail and a lot of these questions asked is because concerned citizens have brought these items up more and more. I mean, why we're talking more openly about that. So I want to say how important it is to continue to fight the fight because you do need to continue to bring this to the public. And I do appreciate that. Again, big tech needs accountability. I'm grateful for the information that our law department, our department has shared. I just wanted them to be as prepared and to share as much as they could. The portal was a discussion over two weeks ago to have this up and going. And so as transparent as we can be, I think, What I hear from our chief is that they desire to have as much accountability as possible and transparency as possible. So I appreciate that. Is there new information or new questions about flock? Go ahead, Larry has something before we, we're on commissioner comments, just a minute.

I've spent a great deal of time also talking with citizens, some of you here. I also sat down with Captain Williams and the chief and for over an hour and a half discussing the use of flock and what our protocols were and everything else. I want to address the, you know, the videos that I've seen online. It's hard to compete against the internet because there's always videos being posted. Sometimes not all the information is posted. I know one of the concerns is the problem with other police departments where somebody within the department has used the flaw cameras to spy on a... Illegally. Illegally. On a ex-spouse, significant partner, whatever. But not in our department. That hasn't happened here. Yes.

You need to make sure these things are clear for Miss Jessica out there, okay?

Thank you. I just want to say that, and a lot of people that I've talked to said, have told me, I trust our chief, but I trust our chief, period. And talking with her and looking at the protocols they have in place, I have no doubt that she takes this and Captain Williams takes this very, very seriously. And I think they've done everything that they possibly can, a lot of it based on feedback from the public, to make sure that our system, those officers that have abused this system They have been found out. The system works. If we hadn't heard anything about anybody abusing this, I would be more suspicious. But the fact that these people are actually found out tells me that protocols are in place. And when they do something like that, they get caught. And we have those protocols in place. And I have absolute 100% faith in our chief and in Captain Williams in assuring that that type of thing does not happen. If it does, that it will be dealt with severely.

Yeah, I'm not going to be the dead horse. I think everybody has said a lot of the things that I've heard as well. I do trust our police department. I do trust your due diligence and how you are going to audit and keep everybody accountable. I understand this is a continuing contract that we are signing today. but I would voice that I hear the community. My cars drive through these same streets as well. My information goes through this situation as well with these cameras, as well as the police. I would just reiterate, please continue to do your due diligence with flock. All right. I trust you totally. I trust our police department, our I can see what you guys are doing. But during this next year, I would like to hear from FLOP if they want to continue to do business with our community. I would like to hear from them and see how important their account is with us. And I'm sure our community would like to hear some answers as well as we continue this contract going into our next term with them.

Aaron, you have something new to add? Yeah, I'd like to know if the city council and the people that spoke on the flock cameras, are you willing to sit down in a public meeting, not in this format, to where the people, I'm going to say on this side, are able to present things and talk and have questions answered? Because there's spin on both sides, guys. There's spin on both sides. And yep, I have full faith in the chief of police and the sheriff and the mayor and the city manager. Leave it at that. Thank you.

No information.

Yep. I want to quote Benjamin Franklin. Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither Liberty or safety. You are selling our data.

We're not selling your data.

You are. No, I just want to be clear. It's an inaccurate statement. This is my time.

No, ma'am.

You've already spoken plenty, but I'm going to let you speak more loud for your rules to ask about three agenda items. This is up to three minutes. Go ahead. Okay. Thank you. So that gentleman was wrong when he said that flock, I have the contract right here. He was wrong when he said that they do not keep the information that they absolutely delete it. It says right here, Flock may access, use, preserve, and or disclose the footage to law enforcement authorities. Preserve. That means keep. Also, as she already read to you in the contract, agency hereby expressly grants Flock a non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free right and license. which goes into the World Economic Forum and United Nations that I've asked you guys about prior. If any of you know anything about them that the United States is a part of, if any of you know anything about it, if you watch their meetings, if you read their agendas, nobody answered me. And when I went to the meeting at the firehouse with Brian, I asked him again and he said, no, I never watched it. I don't know anything about it. And I don't have time for that. I'm too busy. Now, when you're implementing the agendas that the WEF has, I think you should know about it. It's your duty to know about this. Why do I have to do this and come to you and say, oh, you should know this. This should be your job to do that. You're implementing what the WEF and United Nations want. So you should know about it. I'm formally asking you to cancel the contract with Flock. You have the right to face your accuser. I can't face the camera. It's the same with those cameras when they were taking pictures of red lights. I don't agree with them either. You can't face your accuser in court. And that's a right that you're taking away from us. And I don't have faith in the police. I used to. I believed in all of these things until I had to deal with it myself. I was a victim of domestic violence. The police did not help me. And then I went through your corrupt court system. So, yeah, you all trust it until you've been through it yourself. That court told me I wasn't able to. I was court ordered to silence all kinds of things. The police recently, when I witnessed a hit and run, we were told no victim, no crime. So you want to tell me that I should trust that?

no i don't i'm sorry what you've been through mr heimlich you have comments okay new information mr heimlich um i just point of clarification um and perhaps i can ask this as a question all of the audits that were conducted were the mention was to internal staff so is there any audit function that Completely covers all of the external requests or use of the data in addition to the internal staff uses. I would like that answer too. Thank you for stopping my clock. My heart appreciates that.

I'm slow getting up here. I don't mean to take up your time.

That's all right. Go right ahead.

So every network is shared with us. That agency sends us a request. And that request has to indicate what type of information they want to share. And then we decide based on their request whether to approve that or not. If we approve that, and as the chief said, we are actually currently in the process of going through each and every agency that we have a sharing agreement with and try to find if there's any information the best we can about anybody at any of those agencies misusing data, whether it be the flock system or any other criminal justice information system. If we determine anything like that has occurred, we have the ability to stop that sharing agreement with that agency at any time. And if we even think that there's anything that has been done improper, we can stop that sharing agreement. If it turns out that there was no impropriety on the part, we could turn it back on if we want. But that is completely up to us. And we would base that on any information that we find doing any of the research that we have with information that is available to us.

And would that research include not just a description of the reason for the request, but background information that justifies it is actually part of an extant case or a specific action that's being taken by that department?

So individual searches, so I'm talking about the sharing agreement itself, but the individual searches conducted by any of those agencies that touch Springfields, They do have to include search reasons, offense types. And of course, we are also able to see the date and time. Some of the information is obscured from us, such as like asterisks in the place of individual user IDs. Again, because sometimes they are investigative sensitivities. It could be an undercover officer whose identity being exposed could jeopardize their safety or could jeopardize an ongoing investigation. And so we cannot see absolutely all of the data. but we can see the search reasons, the offense types, and those things when they do make searches. And we do have the availability, and I have downloaded those as well, and we go back and look at as many as we can. It's probably impossible due to time constraints to look at every single available search, but I do try to take a random sample of the searches from the agencies that we can see. And if anything looks either improper or I have a question about it, I do have the ability to reach out to those agencies and speak with them. We're not afraid to talk to people. As police officers, part of an investigation, whether it be for a crime that occurs here in the city, whether it be for a system that we use, whether it be for a conduct that we see in other agencies with which we have agreement, we can talk and ask questions. And I'm not opposed to getting information from wherever I can get information from, if need be.

Thank you. I appreciate that. I have just a couple more. You can start my clock again if you'd like. So, one, I appreciate that answer. Thank you. That was very clear and concise, and I appreciate that. And it sort of goes to my point is that we're four years taking this medication, and we're just now asking questions about side effects. We're just now asking questions about that. And so my interest here is that we're approaching this intelligently and intentionally. We still have the right tomorrow to enact a separation clause in the contract with Glock. We can notify them in advance of our wish to terminate the agreement. There are processes that have to be resolved when that's undertaken, but we still have the option to do that should we decide to do so. And the last thing that I wanted to mention, and I do appreciate really what's going on here tonight and commissioner ricketts you said you know we have these protocols in place or we wouldn't have caught those folks those folks were caught because we requested the audits the system did not request the audits the departments did not request the audits the communities requested the audits that released that information that exposed those individuals and that's our concern The concern is the internal due diligence, your desire to be intentional and ask questions on my behalf. Right. And I get that you have a lot of, um, responsibilities and you rely heavily on the experts that provide information to you. And I respect that. And believe me, I'm very, very familiar with the lives saved argument. Um, but I also understand that there's a cost for every medication and there's a benefit and a cost, and we have to be aware of the side effects. And other folks have said this much more eloquently, but that's my request is that your intention and your due diligence has been inspired by the fact that others have brought that possibility to your attention. That's my comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, you have any additional new information?

First thing, I've seen situations in the heat of the moment, I'll call it, when police are chasing a bad guy, be it a child rapist or somebody skipping out on TPS, whatever the case may be. Someone is breaking the law. And they run to another county, another state. The equipment that we have is basic, I'll call it. What if the other counties that they're using is using systems that we're not approving to use here? And that information that we use in the end connects us with getting the bad guy off the street. Now we're back to, okay, we're not subscribing to this level, but we're using that system through somebody else. Is that, you know, how we are doing that? And I've also seen situations, there's some lawsuits out there that I've seen, you know, the court cases and such. You guys or our police department are inevitably responsible for the information that Flock gives to us to apprehend the bad guy. If it's wrong, and there are cases where it's been wrong, one number on a license plate smudged or whatever, and it's been wrong. And there's no accountability to flock because it was brought up. It relies back on the city. So in the bottom line, if there's damages, we're going to have to pay for it, not flock. Now, with that said, I like that kind of a system. Anything that can help our law enforcement to get bad guys off the street, save lives. I'm all for it. But there's things that the accountability side, you know, we don't need to take the accountability when flocks the problem or whoever. But, you know, there's something that has to be done that if they give us false information, as been proven in the past has happened, you know, we don't need to be accountable for that by ourselves. It needs to be, you know, you got to give us the right information so we can act accordingly. Because, again, we don't need to pay for it.

Hi, my name is Jacob. My concerns are you have several states that have already had cybersecurity attacks. And sorry, not sorry, hackers don't request information. They just go in and take whatever they want. I think that should also be a concern that we should be talking about.

Okay, Amanda, hopefully this is new information.

So when my understanding is when there's a request for a search, whether it's one of our internal staff or it's another requesting agency, it's just a text field that they have to put information in. Are we reviewing those to make sure people are not putting just junk information in there, like just generic investigate? Investigate what? You know what I mean? That's part of the way that people have gotten around abusing the system.

And he's coming up to answer that question, but it's my understanding they have to check off in about two different areas to say I'm legally accessing this information. And while they're doing that, if they're not legally doing it, they're up for termination and or some sort of criminal charge. That's what I heard him say. Is that going to answer your question? Go ahead.

Yeah. So if they improperly use the system, um, as the acknowledgements, when you log into that system, you do have to agree to go by FBI criminal justice information security protocols. And of course, if you violate the violate those, those are those do carry penalties up to and including criminal prosecution. Um, that aside, if you're talking about just searches and the agreements that we have with another agency, um, Like I said, due to time constraints, it's not possible to look at and verify every single search that is made. And the way the searches work, you don't actually look at and approve each search before it can be conducted. That's part of the sharing agreement. However, like I said, at the ability to download the searches that were conducted and we do do random checks, random audits, if you will, And if we see anything noted in the search fields or the search reason or the offense type or anything that looks like it is questionable, we do have the ability to either immediately cancel that sharing agreement or, of course, like I said, reach out and talk with the agency and find out if there's more information to that. Of course, text fields only allow so much information to be input. And sometimes additional questions need to be asked. And we do have the ability to do that, of course.

Now, when you talk about downloading the audit logs for review, does that include all the searches, not just the internal, but also the external agencies as well?

So, yes. So there are two separate audits. One is called an organizational audit, and that would be all the searches conducted by our employees. And then there is also a network audit, and that is all the searches that have been conducted by other agencies with which we have sharing agreements that would touch our network when they do so. And a quick example is, so we have many, many, many agencies that we have those sharing agreements with. And if I conduct a search today, it will ask me what networks that I want to search. Well, I can just click a checkbox that says all networks that I have access to. So if I run a check, it may hit 2000 networks. just one search right and so those other agencies they have the ability to do that too so when they're searching they may not just be searching the city of springfield they may just be searching everywhere in the country with that they have an agency sharing agreement with because it gives them a broader search net right and again all of these searches they show images that any person standing on the street that see a vehicle drive by if they wanted to write that down in a notebook it's just a picture right so they are basically looking at pictures or ability ability to look at pictures from all over the country when they're trying to find some information and there's the same capabilities that we have when we're reaching out on their networks as well

When you download those audit logs, how long are you guys keeping those with your internal policy for that?

We are actually in the process of revamping our policy to make it more thorough than it originally was. Just as we promised you, if new capabilities and we learn new things about the system, we are updating our policies and our procedures to make sure that we keep up with the time. So we are actually in the process of doing that now. I will tell you that all of the audits that I have downloaded, I have saved and I have not deleted any of them. And that's since the beginning when we started using the system in I think sometime in the spring of 2023. So, so far we have them all.

Um, and for the, for the commission, cause I don't think the right move is to just not pay flock because that creates other problems. But as far as ongoing discussions of what we could do instead, um, again, there's license plate reader systems that you could run yourselves. Don't rely on, and they're not, and you're not doing the data sharing. I realize that is not attractive to law enforcement, but the only way to protect the city of Springfield's data is to retain control of that data.

Chief, I think we should look at that CPAP meeting and maybe expand one of them, or we have a scheduled time where the topic would be flock cameras. That could be in a couple months or something. We could discuss that. So again, it's already a community policing organization that you apply for, but we can have an open meeting with that. Mr. Barron's point about having this discussion on flock only and setting time to do that. Okay. Call the roll.

Mrs. Tackett? Yes. Mr. Rigsby? Yes. Mr. Wallace? Yes. Mr. Ricketts? Yes. Mr. Ryu?

Yes. I want a resolution.

Supporting the city's application to the Ohio Department of Development's Brownfield Remediation Program for demolition and site remediation at 1210 Kenton Street, 1318 Kenton Street, 0 Kenton Street, and 811 Burt Street.

So moved.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded. Other comments from commissioners? From the audience? Call the roll.

Mr. Rigsby?

Yes.

Mr. Wallace? Yes. Mr. Ricketts? Yes. Mrs. Tackett? Yes. Mr. Rue?

Yes.

Confirming and approving change order number one for the contract between the city and the Shelley Company for the 2026 North Murray Street Paving CDBG project. to decrease the contract in an amount not to exceed $40,016.84 for a total amount not to exceed $457,018.16 and to extend the project completion date to July 17, 2026, authorizing the city manager to execute said change order number one and declaring an emergency therein. I'll move.

Second. It's been moved and seconded. Other comments from commissioners? From the audience, clerk call the roll.

Mr. Wallace. Yes. Mr. Ricketts. Yes. Mr. Rigsby. Yes. Mrs. Tackett. Yes. Mr. Rue.

Yes.

Confirming and approving change order number three, the contract between the city and CW Tree and Outdoor Service LLC for the 2025 sidewalk curb and gutter program to decrease the contract in an amount not to exceed $319,574.09 for a total amount not to exceed $1,283,181.91 authorizing the city manager to execute said change order number three and declaring an emergency therein.

I'll move. Second. It's been moved and seconded. Other comments from commissioners? From the audience? Clerk, call the roll.

Mr. Ricketts? Yes. Mr. Rigsby? Yes. Mrs. Tackett? Yes. Mr. Wallace? Yes. Mr. Ryu?

Yes.

We have one new item on the agenda, consenting to the reappointment of Dori Geyer to the Board of Zoning Appeals and declaring an emergency therein.

So moved. Second. Been moved and seconded. Are there comments from commissioners? Appreciate Dori continuing to serve and lead that board. From the audience, clerk, call the roll.

Mrs. Tackett? Yes. Mr. Ricketts?

Yes.

Mr. Wallace? Yes. Mr. Rigsby?

Yes.

Mr. Rue?

Yes. Okay. I would also be interested, Ms. Logan, if we could schedule a public meeting to discuss where we are with Homeful Homeless Plan, things like that, in the next two to three months as well. And then another idea, but I won't wait. Announcements from commissioners. I have a motion. Okay. Yes, you do.

I make a motion to accept the recommendations of the fact finder and state employment relations board case number 2025-MED-09-0882 issued August 11th, August 11th, 2026. Second. Second.

It's been moved and seconded. Clerk, call the roll.

Mr. Ricketts?

No.

Mr. Rigsby?

No.

Mrs. Tackett? No. Mr. Wallace?

No.

Mr. Ryu?

No. Okay, now there's no items on the agenda. Is there comments and announcements from commissioners?

Yes. I wanted to announce that the downtown trick or treat is set for October 30th. That's Friday, October 30th for the folks interested. This will be the ninth year. I also had a couple questions from citizens that I wanted to see if we could speak to. Can you chief remind us of why the scanners were taken down? Yeah, the scanner.

Okay, can you, ma'am, if you can please just clarify, just so I don't misspeak on what you're asking, what's been specifically asked.

We had concern about citizens coming to calls and the scanner

went off offline okay so you're saying when we encrypted our radio channel yes is that is that what i'm tracking yes yes so uh appreciate the the inquiries again obviously we spoke back on this specifically in 2024 when we uh did encrypt our radio channels uh it was not just one specific situation incident or reason it was a multitude of reasons uh a large part of that as you shared we did have individuals showing up to scenes um before officers were able to to get there and we had situations where individuals could have been further assaulted, involved in domestic situations where the suspects are listening to the radios specifically, in addition to individuals showing up to crime scenes and removing evidence as part of those scenes prior to us being able to lock down that crime scene and preserve that evidence to pursue justice for those individuals involved. Obviously, there's concerns with fraud, and that was a large concern that we had started to see and the concerns with personal information being put out over the radio. Additionally, again, I know we talk about officer safety and sometimes folks share back with us that officer safety is always kind of a catch-all for everyone when we respond to something like that. And it's maybe not something that's always further explained. Obviously, officer safety is a big concern. We want to make sure that our officers, when they're responding to these incidents, they can do it. safely with the best information and tools necessary and when an individual is able to respond you know before us or interfere with that before us it creates a very dangerous situation not just for our officers but for the public and the victims or individuals involved in that call.

Thank you thank you for re-explaining that I think it was brought up because we're talking about safety and so I had a lot of concerns coming at me the past couple weeks so thank you for

I appreciate that. I appreciate the context behind it and where it's coming from. Happy to have further conversation if needed. Obviously, there's several scenarios. We also have had situations where, you know, when the scanner or the app was able to be accessed all the time, we had several challenges with misinformation and misinformation of calls that are occurring online. or misidentification of individuals that were involved because somebody initially called into dispatch and and typically when somebody's calling when they're in crisis or there's a very serious situation they're trying to report they may be panicked they may misspeak they may state something that's not actually true or maybe not factual at the time until our officers get on scene are able to investigate further and find that maybe something totally different occurred however that information was already placed out into the world essentially and everybody has that access to information or maybe so-and-so's name an individual's name was mentioned who was not involved and it was somebody misspeaking on it but now that information is put out there and there is no final correction once that happens and there is often not follow-up that individuals will then put back out onto the internet to follow up on those calls.

I think it's appropriate to note that Commissioner Tackett was probably going to bring that up during the 252.25 that we skipped over. So we need to go back and read that ordinance and bring it up and vote on it. So we have one ordinance that we did not go over, which would have been why you would have been prepared to answer that. Go ahead.

Confirming and approving the increase of a purchase order for a monthly access fees for Mark's radio communication system equipment from the Ohio Department of Administrative Services Office of Information Technology for an amount not to exceed $240 for a total amount not to exceed $32,340 for the period of July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026 and declaring an emergency therein.

moved okay been moved and seconded are there other comments from commissioners from the audience okay Amanda did uh somebody drop their radio and run over it that was the 240 dollars sorry I was trying to bring some trying to bring some levity no but a more serious question

Yes. No, I'm kidding.

The state fiscal year runs July 1 to June 30, right? The city's fiscal year is the calendar year, right? How do you guys handle contracts? Correct.

We're January 1 to December 31st.

Yeah. So just a point of clarity for me, just because I'm nerdy and interested. How do you handle contracts with the state? Because usually they force everything to be their fiscal year.

Unencumbered monies or encumbered monies in the current year for us flow through to the next year and the next calendar year. So it's just a matter of when those grant monies are received or when those dollars are budgeted. If it's not grant monies for the year that we encumber them in, if it's calendar year, if that state fiscal year switches, then we have those monies already encumbered in our next calendar year from that grant.

Okay. Just curious. Sorry. Thank you. Trying to be funny, but it is nine o'clock.

Claire, call the roll.

Mr. Rigsby?

Yes.

Mrs. Tackett? Yes. Mr. Ricketts?

Yes.

Mr. Wallace? Yes. Mr. Rue?

Yes. Are there any other announcements or acknowledgments from commissioners? Is there a motion to adjourn the meeting? So moved.

Second.

Been moved and seconded. Clerk, call the roll.

Mr. Ricketts?

Yes.

Mr. Rigsby?

Yes.

Mrs. Tackett? Yes. Mr. Wallace? Yes. Mr. Rue? Yes. Thank you.