Springfield City Council — October 20, 2025

0:05 Call the Springfield City Council work session to order with roll call. >> Mayor Van Gordon >> here, >> councelor Weber here, councelor Mo >> here, >> councelor Rodley >> here, councelor Blackwell >> here, and councelor Stout >> here. Thank you. >> Have two items today. We have the term ward 5 counselor interviews, deliberation, and appointment. Mary Bridget. >> Uh good evening, mayor and council. I'm here today to uh walk you through the process for uh W five vacancy uh deliberation and potential appointment. In the work session portion this evening uh you're scheduled to interview the one candidate Andrew Buck. You should have a list of questions up at the dis and this will be similar to other uh vacancies where each counselor will answer will ask a question and Mr. Buck is here to

0:52 um answer those questions. You have about 15 minutes for this item. Then you have time in the regular session. So if you um get done with the interview, you can deliberate in the regular session time. Um and then there's time scheduled for a vote. Since there's only one candidate, we have a lot less complicated process in terms of uh voting and deliberating. So I can answer those questions in the regular session, but um Mr. Buck is here and ready to be interviewed if you are. Have >> questions for Mary Bridget before we have Mr. Buck up? >> All right, I think we are ready. Thank you. MB, you want to get MB, you want to grab the door right there, too. When you go, we we we left it open. We were totally out of control in the last session.

1:41 >> Andrew, you can sit right here and the microphone's up. >> Thank you. >> All right, Andrew, thank you for joining us tonight. Um, we have a preassigned questions, which I'm super excited about. Um, I'm going to turn it over to the council to start asking the questions. All right, question number one. What do you like best about Springfield and why? >> Uh, I think the thing I like best about Springfield is over the last 20 years, there's a lot to be proud of. And I think the thing that I like best is our best days are yet to come. I think there's a lot of potential. Uh, and and really there's just an upward trajectory. We have the right people making the right decisions and um we

2:27 have all all we have is opportunity right now. Um challenges exist but I like all the opportunity that Springfield has. Not not every city can say that. If if there were some changes in Springfield you were permitted to do, whether it be to add, eliminate, or change anything, what would those be? >> Well, um I feel like Portland has had the monopoly on Top Golf for way too long, so we need Top Golf. I'm just saying. I'm just saying. Um but I think that Springfield has done a really good job. Um there's there's lots of good things

3:14 here and I I think more things for our community to do um that are that are recreational um while I'm lane does a great job but uh I say Top Golf in all seriousness. I mean I think something like that for Springfield I would love to see. >> Thank you. Counselors are elected citywide rather than by ward. What advantages or disadvantages do you see with that process? >> You know, I see advantages. Um, we are Springfield, right? When somebody says, "Where are you from?" You don't say, " 6." You say, "You're from Springfield." And all the wards, they're all unique. They all have their own characteristics,

4:00 almost a personality. Uh, but they all they all work together. And so you have to have a lot of collaboration because we are one community. >> I am next. Uh since there are six city council positions, what do you believe are the advantages and disadvantages of collective decisionmaking and shared leadership? Well, again, I think the advantages are, you know, as we're one community, we also do come from six different perspectives and I think everybody kind of offering their perspective from the ward they live in and what do they see every day? I can tell you there's

4:45 there's things that I see every day in Ward 5 that um I would love to see addressed by council. And again, every as we're making decisions that affect every all all of us citywide, being able to to bring perspective from your little corner of Springfield, whether it be Ward 4 or Ward Six or any of the wards, it's um being able to bring that perspective. How does that look in my ward? And how does that affect the community at large? >> When faced with a complex problem with multiple solutions, what process do you use to find the best solution to the problem? >> I would listen. Um because

5:31 that's the step that's the first step in problem solving is listening. Um then asking questions to make sure you understand. I think that solid questioning for understanding is underutilized a lot of times and if you understand the the challenges and the problems then you really can look at all the solutions. Multifaceted problems and multiaceted solutions don't always mean that there's a lot of good solutions. There might be many solutions. Finding the best one requires looking at all angles. Can you describe your understanding of the relationship between the council, the city manager, and the staff?

6:16 Um, yes. Uh, I'm going to start off by saying I probably don't understand it very well. Um, if I'm being completely honest, the city manager's office um handles the business of the city. the city council uh are the is the elected body that makes decisions that require th those decisions heard and made by uh an elected elected by the elected officials. Um and then this the staff support all the work that's done in in Springfield. um that is like the million-foot view of it and probably some of that isn't right and and so I'm I'm very well aware that there's a lot that I don't know about

7:02 how cities run and one of the things when asking about this with uh from counselors is they said yeah that's true you don't until you've you've been in it probably takes at least a year to really understand or two to understand how it all works so the best answer is, you know, kind of maybe no. >> Do you have any questions for us or is there something you'd like us to know that wasn't addressed in the questions? >> Yeah, I do. Just just one question for you guys. You know, um the job of a city councelor is to work as a team, work as a unit, collaborate, and so what are you looking for in

7:47 um a representative from W 5? what are you looking for in that person to collaborate with you guys in the work you're doing? >> Yeah. >> Uh my perspective I I am glad that we all have different perspectives that we bring to the table. Um different, you know, backgrounds, different ideas. And I think that that when you have that and you can all kind of work something out or, you know, make a decision on something that's pretty imperative for, you know, the city as a whole, that that's important. So someone that can bring their bring something to the table, bring their perspective and and not afraid to share that perspective. >> Thank you. Mine's very simple. Um I just really

8:33 appreciate people who take the work seriously and who show up with opinions and ready to make decisions. I think that's, you know, I I love that we all have different perspectives, but it helps if people are like, I take this seriously and I'm here to do the work. >> Councilor Stone, your experience on the planning commission is also really important to us because it shows your deep investment in public service here already and your knowledge of how everything works on the planning side and that is a huge component of what we have to tackle. So, that was a huge part of your profile that we appreciated. Um, I like your comment about listen first and for me like the first year

9:18 that was a big component for me was just listening and not thinking that other experiences that I've had, you know, in my time not as a counselor would I just the listening part was really good. I learned a lot from that. Um, and just making sure that we're doing that with each other and really hearing each other's perspectives and and taking those seriously. bring fresh ideas to us. Listen to your constituents and we all get together and we listen and we come to decision we think is the best for the whole city. >> All right. Thank you so much, Andrew.

10:09 >> Okay. Um I think looking at the time I would say we probably want to deliberate in the regular session because this uh next item is going to be pretty pretty meaty. The next item's the flock camera update with the city manager and the chief. >> Mr. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to uh invite Chief Rish uh forward and as well as um Detective Austin. And I think they've really put together some comprehensive materials uh for the community and for your consideration. So, I'm just going to turn it over to Chief at this point. Thank you. >> Uh good evening, Mayor and Council. Uh as you know, I am Chief Rush and with me this evening is our tactical analyst,

10:54 Brian Austin, who will be sharing some information related to flot cameras. Um, but before Brian begins, I wanted to say a few words to the council and to the Springfield community. Our presentation this evening is intended to address the concerns raised by members of our community, highlight the benefits of ALPR technology, and reaffirm that this discussion is not about choosing between technology and community, but rather as an opportunity for us to work together to develop strong, trusted, and accountable practices that ensure this technology serves and protects everyone in our city. SPD recognizes that community concerns about the potential misuse of any tool or technology are valid and deserve our full attention. At the same time, it is important to acknowledge the significant benefits this technology provides, such as

11:40 locating missing persons, um solving violent crimes, locating dangerous offenders, and deterring future criminal activity. Discontinuing its use based on information or fear of potential misuse would mean losing a tool that has already proven effective in enhancing our ability to respond to serious crimes. Our goal is not to dismiss community concerns, but to address them directly through transparent communication, robust policies, and meaningful oversight. I've had the opportunity to meet with several community members to hear their concerns firsthand, and I remain committed to continuing those conversations. We are focused on working through these concerns collaboratively, implementing and continually improving the safeguards to ensure responsible use, prevent misuse, and hold individuals accountable

12:27 if violations do occur. I believe that we can maintain the use of this tool while actively engaging the community in shaping how it's used. This balanced approach can uphold public safety while respecting the privacy and building trust. I respectfully I respectfully ask the council to support the use of ALPR technology and together we can ensure it is used in a way that reflects our shared values, our collective commitment to safety, accountability and transparency. And with that I will turn it over to analyst Austin for the presentation. >> Thank you, Chief. So the presentation is going to be fairly quick, fairly objective uh when it comes down to it. This is just something that we want to make sure we get across the main the big points of what has been addressed.

13:13 So, Springfield, like many communities within our state, is facing a surge in organized retail theft that's greatly impacting our retailers and their willingness to operate locally. We've already partnered with local retailers and other local law enforcement agencies to fight this issue with incredible results through our targeted retail stings. But those operations are on targeted days and do not capture the daily thefts taking place that fuel this issue. ALPR itself gives us a proven, widely adopted tool to identify suspect vehicles from these crimes along with stolen vehicles and wanted suspects. Flock APR specifically allows us to conduct comprehensive investigations through regional collaboration and shared networks, preventing the transient nature of these sophisticated crews from creating unsolvable criminal activity. This system is grant funded.

13:59 No use of general fund dollars whatsoever. So what is APR realistically? Uh this image that's on the screen before you is exactly what is captured. Automated license plate readers capture still images of vehicles traveling on public roadways. They are not video cameras. They do not capture video in any way. These this style of flock cameras that we have implemented does not capture video. They do not track people. They are a modern upgrade to an officer spotting a plate manually. Only now it's more efficient and can immediately notify us if a vehicle is linked to a crime, an Amber Alert, or any other critical alert that we place in the system. To date, the networking capability of Flock has assisted us in

14:44 quickly and safely working with law enforcement in Washington to capture a suspect in a double homicide and arson case before our first camera was even installed. Data storage and security uh is a core concern. These images are encrypted before they even leave the camera and they are stored in a secure government approved cloud through Amazon Web Services. They're subjected to a hard deletion automatically after 30 days, which means they're not simply moved to the trash can like you do on your desktop. They are completely overwritten, erasing all data permanently. These images are never connected directly to personal information like DMV records unless they're accessed through the legal

15:29 channels by an by authorized personnel within our organization. Any any images that are retained by Flock for purposes of training their AI to recognize vehicle features are completely scrubbed of the metadata associated to their location, date, and time. We have implemented a clear and strict policy by adopting best practices within the law enforcement industry which govern every aspect of this system. Just like all technological products used within the law enforcement profession, sharing is limited to vetted law enforcement agencies and only for valid purposes. We also require yearly audits of the system by a designated command staff member to ensure transparency and accountability.

16:15 So the transparency piece of this, our transpar our system is backed by a public transparency portal. Uh anyone can see how many images of vehicles are captured, how often searches are being conducted by SPD personnel, including the reason for those searches. Searches are fully logged by the system and they are auditable. Beyond the general safeguards, we have opted into advanced filtering such as blocking searches related to immigration enforcement or reproductive healthcare investigations by anyone accessing our network's captures. The planning comport portion of this, we conducted months of planning to locate the most effective and least intrusive placement for all 25 cameras. They are positioned at hightra entry and exit points and near key retail corridors within the city. not in neighborhoods.

17:02 Very importantly, their space to prevent invasive tracking of a vehicle's path across the city. As can be seen on the map above, the spread of these cameras is not going to allow us to track somebody's movements from the moment they leave their house to the moment they arrive at any location within the city. As you can see based off their spacing, I would like to clear up a few myths that have been provided within testimony to the council. These cameras do not purposely record faces or bodies and absolutely do not record movement in any way. There is no technology called gate used within the Flock LPR cameras and there's no mechanism in place to use or record any movement due to these cameras only being able to capture still photographs. They cannot be hacked just

17:48 by standing nearby due to the multiple levels of encryption and firewalls in place for secure transmission. Even if somebody got a plate image, it is intrinsically worthless without access to a secondary, even more highly restricted database such as DMV or NCIC. They're not surveillance cameras. They are investigative tools. A few key objective aspects of our system. Every vehicle is captured the same way. There's no profiling or recognition of drivers or passengers. The system simply does not have the ability to discriminate or adversely record or adversely affect uh or record any information outside of the vehicle attributes including the license plate. Uh for example, the Oakland NAACP

18:34 actually addressing rising crime in their own city has publicly supported flock ALPR specifically and their systems to help their community stay safe. And I think that kind of speaks volumes about the different uh levels of community engagement that has actually occurred in other locations that are not being addressed here. Uh and this technology can truly serve equity and justice when with when implemented with the correct controls. A few things about the contractual piece. There we go. about the contractual piece of the relationship. We retain ownership of all of our data. The pictured text is a direct excerpt from the enduser license agreement that we carry with

19:19 Flock. Since City Manager Newton within her legal authority signed the contract between the city and Flock through our third party procurement partner, if the system were deactivated, we would still be responsible for the full cost paid for through the grant. Cancelelling this contract could also jeopardize our ability to receive future funding through the same grant source through the community or the criminal justice commission out of Salem. And that's why we work so carefully with the city council, city manager, and the city attorney's office evaluating the legal elements to plan for our next steps in this. So, moving forward, uh right now the cameras are installed but are not operational. The erroneous information that was provided during testimony about the search audit still showing daily

20:04 searches kind of shows the misunderstanding of the different metrics and two distinct activities that are completely mutually exclusive of each other uh that are on the transparency portal. The public search audit has zero correlation to our network of cameras actually capturing vehicles. Those are two separate things. The metric is recorded under the unique vehicles detected in the last 30 days. a number that has not risen a single digit since 24 hours after the final camera was installed. And we uh went with the council recommendation to uh deactivate the cameras upon installation. We've absolutely stayed to that. Uh it seems like it's kind of an attempt to show some deception within our departmental practices and uh or even listen to uh what we're being asked to do and and it kind of further has furthered the derision. Uh we've devoted

20:51 an incredible amount of time to answer questions, respond to public records requests, and ensure all stakeholders are properly informed regarding the system. We have strong policies, grant support, and public transparency measures in place. And the system should be working as a powerful tool to enhance our investigation capabilities while maintaining public trust. And that is the end of my presentation. >> So Rodley, >> I'll kick us off. Um, so there was a slide back, a couple slides where you where it mentioned a custom search filter and you mentioned that a couple of times. Um, I'm curious about that because it sounds like um we have these individual choices to put those on or off, which is and you can tell me yes or

21:39 no, but but is potentially good, but also those are the wiggly places where depending on who's sitting in your seat or who's sitting in your seat, people could make different choices about what those search filters are. And so I that's a place I just kind of wanted to dig around a little bit and say like what is our policy around that and is that in am I understanding it correctly and that that is a place where depending on what the the vibe was we could decide to be looking at different things >> in regards to the search filters that I the the ones that I addressed in there. Are you referring to the immigration and reproductive rights search filters? Is that >> so slide back where it was like says something about these search filters and how we set them and so it could be it could be that it could be any additional

22:25 filters that a future us could decide to put on. >> Sure. So our policy requires us to enter a reason into every one of our searches. That's the first thing it has to be entered in is a reason. Um that could be anything from an in criminal investigation, drug investigation, narcotics investigation, uh stolen vehicle, anything along those lines could be entered as a reason of that is giving us the legal reason to search for a vehicle that we're looking for in that realm. So the search filters that were brought up in regards to that were ones that we actually reached out to Flock and added them to ask due to these sanctuary acts that are in place in both the state and city where we want we wanted to be able to go beyond what uh the standards were and have them. and

23:10 they were willing to work with us on that. And they actually built filters into the system um that if any agency searches in with any terminology that could be related back to uh immigration enforcement or reproductive right enforcement uh that they will not actually have access to our captures in our from our city's cameras. So those are the filters I believe that you would be referring to in that way. um if we came up with other that were if there was other legal issues I would say with uh terminology or something along those lines something else came into place that we would need to uh I mean Flock was able to do that within two weeks of asking our representatives from Flock they were able to um add that filter in so I don't believe that that would be an issue if we came across future uh things that we needed the same type of uh action on

24:06 I'm still not supportive of these. Uh, who's who's funding it? How much? Where' the money come from? >> It was from the CJC grant. >> The what? >> The Criminal Justice Commission grant. The organized retail theft grant that we applied for. >> Where did that money come from? >> Where did that money come from? From the state. >> Seems like somebody's somebody's funding it for some reason. Uh we were all raised don't trust the government. I don't feel that way. But this is leading more people to believe that. And then it's going to be accessible by the federal government. Talk about maybe not trusting anybody. I don't trust them because all they have to do is come to us. We'll change the rules and

24:51 regulations to make make it easier to do things and we just keep going. I don't like that. >> Am I able to respond really quickly? Yeah. Can Can I ask where you what do you think the accessible by the federal government in in what way? Because we don't share our camera captures and I understand that there's there's beyond that point, but we do not share our camera captures with any federal agencies. We have the right to share with whoever we choose to share our captures with. >> I think I'll end up taking in that gate. So I guess my question is and maybe you guys can clarify it by policy right when we like based on how all the documentation's written today we would not share any information with with the federal government.

25:37 >> Correct. >> And if federal government showed up and asked for information we would say no thank you. But if they brought if the federal government showed up with a federal warrant then we would >> correct just like any any other >> correct. Okay. Thank you. Uh, councelor Stout, uh, two questions on the network shared with SPD as part of the packet that we got. Is that information that's shared with us currently, not information, do we have a reciprocal responsibility to share with these other departments? >> We don't, we can limit, we don't have anything to share at the moment really. So, um, we can limit who we would share that to. Um, anybody can say you have access to ours. We can limit who we would then share ours with. And then my followup would be let's say

26:24 we had a some license plate number we wanted to look into. Can you walk me through exactly how we might have a flock request like you know there was a crime and then committed and somebody reported a license plate number. How exactly does this work? At what point how does somebody like sit down and like access the DMV beta database? I just want to understand like how is it operating within the department. >> So, uh let's say an officer is investigating a a stolen car. Um so they would respond and uh the the owner would say this is my license plate. My car was stolen. We could then enter that into the system and we would be able to see if that car has hit on any of our 25

27:09 cameras within our current 30-day retention period. Um and then we would be able to to work from there. like did it hit in Gateway an hour ago? If it did, then we can send officers to the Gateway Mall, start looking for this stolen car. Um, if for some reason I had a reason to then figure out, let's say I was uh investigating something else and I wanted to find the owner of a of a license plate that I was looking for. Flock does not do that. I have to take that information and then I have to go to the DMV site, which I have access to as a law enforcement officer. I have to use my credentials to enter that information to gather that protected personal information from a separate system. >> So you have like two different completely monitor completely different

27:55 systems. Thank you. >> Go ahead. Thanks for >> I thought I turned it on. Anyway, I pushed the button. It didn't go on. I think it's a neat idea, but my concern is the protection of the general public in the future. And we don't have any control over that changing those rules unless the council does it or somebody else does. >> And I guess to respond to that, counselor, um if they were to do that, we could end our contract and no longer participate if there were rules that were made that we did not agree with. So on a on attachment for that's the is

28:42 that the list of um in the packet is that the list of all uh the uh the people we're sharing data with? >> It's the list of people who've requested that we share data with but we don't have any data to share. So we could go through and eliminate that. Yeah. >> So can we you I see I see a lot of lows on there. Um, and I see like a lot of credit unions on there and some other things that look like non-government agencies. >> So that's actually that's my that's actually the list of people who have allowed us to share their act their networks. >> Okay, >> that's what that the list that the PDF I believe is is those those are agencies and private entities who have shared their access to their flock cameras and captures with the Springfield Police

29:27 Department. >> So okay, then I think I have two questions here. So, is it fair to say that some of these are sitting on private property, privately owned that we're accessing through the law enforcement portal? Is that accurate? >> Yes. >> Okay. The second piece that I have is when you think about our policy about who we share information with, is our like are we set up in any situation where we'd be sharing data off of a public platform to a private entity? >> No. Because those are not our captures. Those are not our network. Our network only involve our 25 cameras. >> Correct. >> But like the way I'm read I guess the way I'm reading this is you've got sort of private actors and public actors. You know, is there any place where a private actor could request access to the public portion of it?

30:13 >> Well, they could request it, we would not grant it. So like it's a reciprocal, >> right? But if I'm if I'm reading this from a policy perspective, I know that that's what we're doing and we're sort of acting in in good faith here. How do I know like that we're not going to do that is sort of written in policy. >> We could add that to our policy. >> Well, public entities are actually not able to request from law enforcement. It doesn't go both ways on for private I'm sorry, private entities. So, Lowe's or Community Credit Union, any of the other ones that have a contract with them, they're not able to reciprocally request that from us. We are only able to request that from them. Okay? It is only a one-way street on for between a public and a private entity.

30:58 >> Okay. Other questions that people have? Go ahead, Councelor Blackwell. >> Uh thank you for being here and continuing this conversation. I felt that the presentation and all the information that was supplied in the packet was very helpful um for my own questions and concerns. Uh so I appreciate that and I thought it it did a good job of addressing a lot of the questions and concerns that have been brought up um to us as council. Um, I typically, you know, support and stand behind any kind of, uh, tool or, um, equipment that our first responders need in order to do their job more effectively and more efficiently. Um, this one has given me a bit of pause and I think a lot of that has to do with just learning about the the AI system itself and and what that actually means for us and then also having, you know,

31:44 such an outro of opposition um in Springfield for uh the flock cameras that we've we've heard here at council and gotten many emails on. And so anytime I hear, you know, that many voices um speaking out, it just makes me question it alto together. as well. >> Those are really really um well said comments and this I the thing I struggle with is addressing the public concern because there's very clearly some passion behind it and and I understand and appreciate all of those concerns. Um, the other side of this, there's a trade-off, right, for public safety and, you know,

32:29 Amber Alerts and stolen cars and all of the different things that this tool allows us to do to protect our community and its citizens. Um, you know, we've heard a lot about data access, data storage, the timeline, you know, where it goes, how easy it is to get to it. Um, is there any benefit or opportunity to to shorten that 30-day window um to something a little more maybe compromise for the community? I don't know if it'll help, but I mean something just to think about and have something to talk about with with our community. >> Yes, there is the ability to um to shorten that window. Currently, it's set at 30 days, but we do have the ability to reduce that.

33:18 Councelor Stone, I'll share just kind of the direction I'm leaning and I'll ask my fellow counselors to to follow up with this. Um, my big discomfort level doesn't come from um the Springfield chief watching the Springfield data and watching the Springfield LPR uh recognition like you you have our full faith and trust. Where my real hesitation comes in is in and I appreciate knowing that private entities cannot request that from a police agency. It's actually, and I don't want to be too precious about this, but um it's actually the sharing of data with other agencies that actually has me concerned. And I would hold every single act of sharing uh I would I would hold indirect, but yourself accountable every single time we chose to share data. So

34:04 the there's that's one direction that I really would say um our chief is number one accountable for every last search query that any other department might produce in there. And um you know obviously warrants are warrants but if somebody calls us up from another jurisdiction says can you run a a search on this particular one? I want to know really darn well what that looks like and I'd be very interested. Hey, here are the number of of ones that the chief authorized or or deputy. I don't mind that. But here are the ones that here's how many we authorized from out of the jurisdiction. I just I can't in good conscience support a open sharing with another department at this point. Um so that's that's my one my first comment

34:50 and then just the other half of this is um I I would be very interested. I I know Flock says publicly, "We don't sell anybody else's data." I'm I'm really asking, do we not even sell the anonymized data? Is there any any what frame of truth or shred of truth whatsoever to the allegations that Flock is selling anonymized data? That's that's that's all. Thank you. >> Um to go back to your first statement, we do have the ability to obviously decide who we want to share with. So there are departments who only share with them the state of Oregon. We could start with only sharing with Lane County agencies. Um and so that makes it a lot easier for us to uh make sure uh that

35:38 we're getting the you know correct information entered. We could require uh case numbers and or CAD numbers. So computer aided dispatch numbers which is a number that's generated when a call comes into the police department. um we could require those um and limit our sharing network. Uh again, this is a tool that I think is very valuable and if we need to baby step our way into people feeling more comfortable with it, we have the ability to shrink it down and start small. Uh and that's where it kind of sounds like it's going with like a a a shorter retention period and keeping it closer to home. So, we do have the ability to do that. As far as the anonymized data, it's my understanding and Brian you can clarify that they do not sell any of our data.

36:25 >> That's correct. Any of the the scrubbing and again it kind of comes back to the intrinsic worthlessness of a picture of a license plate even with all the metadata scrubbed from it. There's there's no value when it comes down to that like credit card numbers, other PII, anything along those lines. >> Okay. Um before we go to councelor Rodley and this is it and this is a place that I think you know everybody getting to kind of share the shared facts would be helpful. I read it I did not read it in a way that said that Vlock's got any room to share data. The PD you guys are saying there's it is that contract they would be in Vlock would be in violation of their contract with us if any data left that was Springfield data and was sold on the open market. Is that correct? Correct. >> Okay. I'm going to tag in my my favorite

37:11 lawyer here and your reading of the of the of the contract is the same. There is like contractually there is no wiggle room that that data can that data can get sold used to train other AIs used for anything that is not a Springfield driven you know process where we own it inside this building. >> That's correct. That's my interpretation of a contract as well. >> Okay. Thank you, Councelor Rodley. >> Thank you. Um, I think since councelor Stout has shared where he is and councelor Mo shared where he is, I think the the lens that I'm bringing is um we've we've worked so hard with our public safety to to start to renew trust and to um kind of build up this um to

37:57 strengthen our relationship in this community. And I it's important to me that we are listening to all of the voices and we go in a direction that continues to strengthen that trust and continues because I want people to feel I want everyone to feel safe in Springfield and I want them to feel like we're moving in a direction that just continues to grow that safety which is why I think this is so hard, right? Because I think we all want to lean into tools that are going to help to improve public safety and to protect our first responders and protect our officers. We want to be able to do that. And we need the community to have confidence and faith in that and feel like it is it is increasing the way they feel about

38:43 Springfield. So, I'm not there yet because I think we have heard I've heard from very few people that are like, I think this is fantastic. And I've heard from people across the political spectrum who are concerned about that that trust and what's going to happen. And a lot of it has to do with timing. It has to do with the world that we're living in right now and what is happening to policies and protocols and things that we have all felt that we have agreed to that are kind of crumbling around us. And so we can't ignore that it's it's happening within the context of the time. And so just con I'm I'm not I'm not a I'm not on board yet because I want to represent what the people of Springfield need and want to make them feel safe living here

39:29 >> and I and I think this is the conversation that we needed. It's been well well ranging and lots of great questions about it. Could you back and I'm going to ask one more question and then we're going to pause and switch switch meetings and then we'll come back to this. Could you just back us up to the original point about when we got from the retail theft uh grant and why we chose um this as a way to implement that? Like what was the original use case? That is something that I'm trying to connect in my in in my head about why do we request this to meet the needs of the grant? >> So it wasn't to meet the needs of the grant. It was as a tool uh involved in the grant. We the grant covered a multitude of different facets in regards to personnel and other equipment as

40:15 well. The reason that this was looked at in the grant and this was actually a secondary look that we took at the grant where we actually moved funding around specifically that the grant had already been approved for because we realized what had happened is uh when those awards were awarded by the criminal justice commission. Um >> I would I believe if five or six different agencies that had asked for funding through them including Eugene Police Department had asked specifically for funding for uh flock ALPR or ALPR in general. >> Okay. Um, looking at that and looking at the networking capability that Flock has built into the their investigative tool of their ALPR, we realized that this could be something that we could absolutely leverage as a huge piece of what we're looking at as well to be able to solve crimes to be able to look at

41:01 this. These organized retail theft crews, like I said, are very, very sophisticated and they're transient in nature being that we're on I5. And so having the tools to be able to record license plates uh while they are coming and going very quickly out of our area is where that was uh looked at. And we now have access and and we sh have sharing with multiple agencies up and down the I5 corridor that have actually already solved crimes just having access to their cameras for this exact uh for the organized retail theft realm. >> Okay, great. Thank you. Um, I'm we're going to switch meetings, but we will come back to this right after business from the audience. We appreciate your uh flexibility. I'm going to go ahead and adjurnn us from the work session.

41:51 I'm going to call the Supreme Council City Council regular session to order with roll call. >> Mayor Van Gordon >> here, councelor Weber here, >> councelor Mo here, >> councelor Rodley here, >> councelor Blackwell here, and councelor Stout >> here. Thank you. Please join me for the pledge of allegiance. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all. There are two there are two times designated for public testimony this evening under public hearings and

42:36 business from the audience. If you are attending in person, please complete the request to speak card located at the front of the council chambers and turn them into the city recorder. If you're joining with a tablet, smartphone, or computer and wish to speak at either of those times, please use the raise hand feature in Zoom. The order of public testimony is as follows. Anyone in person in the council chambers and then anyone who has raised their virtual hand. First item, please. >> Mayor, the first item is the consent calendar. >> I move to approve the consent calendar with removal of the resolution of necessity. >> Second. >> Could you vote, please? >> Yes. Councelor Weber, >> yes.

43:21 >> Councelor Mo, >> yes. Yes. Councelor Rodley, >> yes. >> Councelor Blackwell, >> yes. >> And councelor Stout, >> yes. Thank you. >> Motion passes. Six yeses or five yeses, zero nos. Next item, please. Well, I guess we need the motion for the uh other item. >> So, we removed it for discussion. If there's a need for that, do we need to >> I don't think we need discussion. We just need a separate motion. Does anybody want to discuss that item? >> Okay. Just making sure. Oh, well actually then why don't you bring them up because we got questions about why we why we removed it or if you are do you have enough information to talk about why we we removed that item. That was the resolution of necessity. >> I can assist with that too if you need. >> Okay. >> So uh this is a first step in a

44:07 condemnation action. This is for um which must come before the public body uh to make the um finding of the public purpose for potentially taking property for a capital improvement project as described in the packet. I had recommended it be removed from the consent calendar. So if there are any questions from the council or any discussion, they'd have the opportunity to do that. Now that it's been removed, the council can ask questions um or just put forward a motion and a vote like typical if there's anything. Um this is for several pieces of property, mostly temporary construction easements, but it's still significant issue when the government is starting a resolution of necessity and just wanted the time to discuss it if anyone had questions. >> Thank you, Mayor Burgett. Does anybody

44:52 have questions? All right. >> Okay. Thank you for that clarification. I move to adopt the resolution exercising the power of eminent domain in pursuant OS 35.6000335.625 concerning acquisition of permanent rightofway and temporary construction easements necessary for street repair projects funded by measure 20-351 at Daisy Street B210007. >> Second. >> Could you call the vote, please? >> Yes. Councelor Weber. >> Yes. >> Councelor Mo. Yes. Councelor Rodley. >> Yes. >> Councelor Blackwell. >> Yes. >> And councelor Stout. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Motion passes with five yeses, zero nos. Next item, please.

45:37 >> Next item is public hearings. You have one public hearing this evening. Public hearing number one is a proposed amendments to the Glenwood mixeduse plan district including the zoning map, Springfield development code, and sections of the 2014 Glenwood refinement plan. Tom Severs is here for this item. Good evening, mayor and counselors. Uh, I am Tom Sever, senior planner in the current planning section. I am before you tonight to hold a first reading and public hearing on proposed amendments to

46:23 the Glenwood Riverfront mixeduse plan district. The amendments were presented to the planning commission at a public hearing on September 16th for which they prepared an order of recommendation for your consideration. The subject site is at the center of tonight at the center of tonight's hearing is located in southwest Springfield. More specifically, the master planned area depicted here in yellow consists of 38 lots on approximately 22 acres. This area received annexation approval earlier this year and has further reached a milestone by submitting the subject applications for review. A forthcoming master plan and subdivision application will ultimately reconfigure and redevelop this area. The subject

47:08 applications include a zoning map amendment, development code text amendment, and a refinement plan text and map amendment. The applications work together to implement the Glenwood Riverfront master plan vision by reconfiguring residential and commercial mixeduse zoning, increasing commercial mixeduse acreage, modernizing development code standards, and updating the refinement plan map and text to align with the zone and code amendments. Current zoning depicted here shows an east- west configuration within the master plan area with limited commercial acreage. commercial being the lesser reddish color. The residential mixeduse zone is focus is housing focused requiring high density residential

47:54 development uh a minimum of 50 dwelling units per net acre uh with smallcale commercial uses allowed only a secondary ground floor uses. Comparatively, the commercial mixeduse uh zone is commerce focused, prioriti prioritizing employment, retail, office, hospitality, and entertainment while allowing highdensity residential development. The zoning map amendment requests the adjustment of the zoning boundary between the Glenwood residential mixeduse, the GRMU, and Glennwood commercial mixeduse, GCMU, uh, in a north south configuration and an increase in commercial acreage by approximately 7 acres.

48:39 Overlays such as the nodal development area and the multimotal mixeduse area remain in place, supporting walkability, transit use, and compact urban form. The development code amendments are shown here with the code as it exists on the left side of the slide and the proposed amendments marked in red on the right side of the slide. The development code text amendments include a set of targeted amendments that apply only to the Glenwood Riverfront mixeduse district. This includes updating permitted uses to include food trucks as eating and drinking establishments, indoor recreational facilities as retail sales and service uses in in residential mixeduse formats, and permitting other uses as seen here with red peas to be

49:26 allowed within the residential and commercial mixeduse zone districts of the Glenwood Riverfront area. Further provisions of the GRMU and GCMU code are shown here with changes intended to provide flexibility to both mixeduse zone districts. Some of this mirrors the use updates as seen on the previous slide, while other amendments here work to modernize allowances based on current market forces. Since both mixeduse zones seemingly operate in cooperative forms, mixeduse residential versus mixeduse commercial, uh these changes are necessary to better support highdensity housing, employment, and commercial development.

50:11 The applicant proposes to remove the exception language in SDC 3.4.230B3. Currently, any modification to the street grid or park blocks in the Glenwood Riverfront area must go through a formal refinement plan amendment, a lengthy and legislative process. This elevates even minor adjustments like realigning a block or shifting a park boundary to a major public process. Removing the exception here would allow these modifications to be reviewed administratively as standard type 2 changes, improving efficiency, maintaining consistency with other mixed use zones, and preserving all existing development standards. Additionally, the applicant's footnote provided in their narrative explains that the exception is unnecess is

50:57 unnecessary because existing code provisions already ensure consistency with the Glenwood refinement plan. Thus, removing it would simplify procedures while maintaining full alignment with existing policy and oversight standards, and staff agrees with the applicant's position. Finally, refinement plan amendments are necessary to align the GRP with the zoning map and development code amendments. As seen here, the existing GRP designations reflect the existing zoning map configuration. The refinement plan amendments make two key changes. A map amendment, as seen here, works to realign the boundaries of the residential mixeduse and commercial mixeduse designations along with an increase in the commercial

51:43 mixeduse acreage to match the zoning map amendment request. And a text amendment mirrors the proposed code amendment language affecting the GRP that removes the existing 50% cap on standalone highdensity residential development. uh in the commercial mixeduse zone. Under the amendment, highdensity residential is proposed to occupy up to 100% of of a development area while commercial and employment uses remain permitted. In summary, staff's analysis, the applicant's narrative findings, and the planning commission's order collectively demonstrate that all proposed amendments meet the criteria of approval. staff requests that the council consider its decision based on these findings and the supporting planning commission order. Uh

52:31 and for one final matter, I received an email today from the law office of Bill Close uh requesting himself and Phil Marvin of Two Blue LLC to be included or entered as parties of record uh here tonight. Uh I do plan on sending them the final decision when that comes through uh here in the near future. Again, this is a first reading only and I expect to bring this back for a decision on November 17th at a second reading. Thank you for your time here tonight and I and the applicant are here for any questions you may have. >> Okay, great. Uh Mary Bridget, could you clarify what being entered as a party of record does? >> You know, I'm not really sure. Are they asking to be in an interest on the interested parties list?

53:16 >> Yes, I believe so. um the law office of of Bill, he reached out to me um shortly before the end of the day just asking that he receive and his client of two blue receive the final decision. So I just wanted to read it in tonight. >> Yeah, it's a good idea. I think it's just a formal way of saying that they um are an interested party and want to be included on the mailings for this item. >> I didn't receive any further comments or anything like that. So they weren't going to be here tonight as far as I'm aware. I think it was uh the use of party of record and that kind of threw me there for a minute. Thank you. Um are there questions before I open the public hearing? Is this for before the public hearing or >> Go ahead. >> Do it afterwards. >> Go ahead. >> Are we going to Is this process also

54:01 going to get the city name right? >> I hope so. Yeah. Oh, yeah. I think Go ahead, Council Mo. We are finally doing what I've been working years and years and years to do. Change the refinement plan where it really suits the public and Glenwood. And if Ali Camp hadn't come along, I think we'd still be that way. So, I really appreciate what she's done for us. >> Absolutely. >> And used to be called West Springfield when I was growing up. So, this thing name change. >> Let's bring it back. >> All right. Uh, thank you. Um, I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing. I have no cards for this item, Neil. Do we have anybody raising their hand

54:46 online? >> Mayor, we have two hands raised. I don't know if it's for this item. Um, but I will >> So, if you are raising your hand for the item around Glenwood, please leave your hand up. If you're waiting for business for the audience to talk about other issues or other things that are on your mind, please do. Do you have >> no hands raised now? If those >> we'll come back to you online. >> If those folks would raise their hands, we'll put them back in the queue in the same order. >> Okay, great. I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing. This is a first reading only. No action required. Next item, please. Thanks, Tom. >> Next item is business from the audience. >> Okay. Do are they coming back up online? Okay, great. Um, I've got eight cards. I'm

55:33 going to call you two at a time since there's two spots. Um, and then we'll just go one, two. Please na uh state your name for the record and location in the city, ward, address, anything to kind of give us a sense of where where where you're from. First two people are Terry Pratt and Elliot Harwell. I Taran, you're uh you have to the button that's right in front of you. It's going to go green and then name and

56:18 uh location in the city for the record. >> Terry Pratt, I've lived in Ward 2 for over 35 years. I want to remind the city council in the community that our vulnerable neighbors have good reason to fear the flock cameras being installed in Springfield and the public officials responsible for putting them here. Springfield has a dubious history when it comes to vulnerable populations. Since I have lived here, there have been some frightening events. In 1992, when I started my family here, Springfield became the first municipality in the country to include anti-gay legislation in its city charter. With the help of the Oregon City, sorry, Oregon Citizens Alliance, the measure was passed by more than 25% of

57:03 Springfield vote 55% of Springfield voters. In 2017, Jimmy and Judy Maher regularly drove their Nazi mobiles around Springfield and up and down the I-5 corridor with Trump do the white thing and diversity is code word for white genocide written on them in large proud font. In 2020 during the Black Lives Matter protest, David Laval, current chair of the Lane County Commissioners, patrolled Main Street with an AR-15 rifle. When asked about his justification, Laval told the Eugene Weekly in an article published May 1222 that former Springfield Police Chief Rick Lewis told mainstream businesses that Black Lives

57:49 Matter and Antifa were going to burn the city to the ground and that he recommended they protect their property as they saw fit. For Commissioner Loveall, that meant carrying an assault weapon down the main street of our city. For the Springfield police, it meant participating in a crackdown in Thirsten with Proud Boys and Black Lives Matter protesters. The events led to a federal civil lawsuit against the city and police, as well as an independent assessment of the police response. History informs our neighbors abilities to feel safe in their community. Our bipac, immigrant, and LGBT neighbors have good reasons to feel unsafe in Springfield.

58:34 The flock camera system is system is not just an AL PR system. Flock camera data has been used by ICE and DHAs and other municipalities and has deficiencies in the built-in security that leave the system vulnerable to hackers with little more than high school knowledge of breaking into a network. You, the current city council, have an opportunity to choose a different history. You can say to citizens and the visitors of this city that you care about their rights and security above the ease of installing a flawed surveillance system during the most frightening period the United States has faced. I urge you to show the citizens and visitors of Springfield, your neighbors,

59:20 that their safety and security matter. Remove the block cameras from Springfield, please. Thank you. Uh, hello. My name is Elliot Harwell. I live in Ward 3. Uh, I want to start by thanking Terry for her comments. Um, as a transwoman who lives in Springfield, um, I'm acutely aware of the changing political climate that I exist within and the often culpability of law enforcement in constraining and hurting people like me. Now, having said that, um, I moved to Springfield because a trans friend of mine recommended it. I have found this

1:00:05 to be, at least over the past 2 years, to be a wonderful and pretty safe place to live. I like to go to the store and I see people like me. Um, and it feels as if the police department has attempted to make really significant reforms in that department, in that area. What I can say is that as a spokesperson for Eyes Off Eugene, Eyes Off Springfield, that the police department, particularly the police chief, has treated us with a great deal of respect and responsiveness and that we have had very clear and good communication with them. And it feels as if we have built a really meaningful working relationship where we are being

1:00:51 listened to. But implementing the flock cameras as they exist would be something that would be putting us back. It would be putting a tool in dangerous hands. And I I don't mean the Springfield Police Department in the in the main. What I mean is that whatever policies the Springfield Police Department implements, whatever rules it follows it itself, it can't ensure that other departments will be following those same rules or be using those the same same principles that are guiding our police department. What our one of our foremost concerns is that at the end of the day, Flock Safety is a private corporation. You've expressed concerns about sharing your data with private companies like Jerry's or OCCU places that potentially use

1:01:38 cameras, but flock cameras at the end of the day, they're not government. They are a private company in and of itself. and the data that's being collected by us is being filtered and used to train their own systems separate from from what we do. I also want to to highlight two two points. Um, Senator Roden Widen wrote a letter to Flock Safety on October 16th in which he addresses some of the points that we've heard today. One of the one of the points is that Flock has lied about the data that it shares with the federal government. Back in July, it was discovered that they were lying about sharing it with Customs and Border Patrol. Subsequently, it's been revealed they were also sharing it with DHS and other instit institutions.

1:02:23 Also, the search filter that was talked a lot about in work session can be left blank or simply filled in with the word investigation. It doesn't actually help filter the ways that we are being promised it does and we're not safer. Thank you. Thank you. Uh Cameron, I think Stringfield. Oh, thank you. And uh Christa N. Thank you. Uh hello, my name is Cameron Stringfield. I live in Eugene, Oregon, but I work here in Springfield, Oregon. Uh and I'm with the Party for Socialism and Liberation. Um, as we are facing an imminent intrusion of the National Guard

1:03:08 into Oregon by the fascistic federal administration, the flock issue becomes even more serious and more grave. Today, the ACLU came out with a lawsuit against the city of Eugene over flock. While that was over the denials of public records requests, and to their credit, Springfield has been much more transparent, much of what was said about Flock still applies here today. from the ACLU letter. Quote, "Flock cameras are a type of advanced surveillance technology that presents a significant threat to privacy by tracking the movements of every vehicle and even images of pedestrians, bicyclists, and animals without a warrant, suspicion, or consent from the public. Flock allows for this personal data to be uploaded to a centralized AI powered platform that can

1:03:54 be accessed by law enforcement and private companies across the country with little to no regulation. Mass surveillance through the use of technology like flock cameras present a dangerous threat to every Oregonian's privacy and rights to be free from invasive and unjustified government searches into our personal lives. The concern is heightened by extreme levels of federal aggression being c currently directed at immigrants, transgender people like myself, black and brown people, and people exercising their first amendment rights, said Kelly Simon, ACLU of Oregon legal director. The Civil Liberties Defense Center also implied the threat of litigation to Eugene in September if they continued with the Flock mass surveillance system, saying, "It is our opinion that when

1:04:40 EPD, as an Oregon law enforcement agency, implements Flock, it is violating OS181A.250." Making matters worse, it appears that EPD has also been sharing the data it collects with other other entities and potentially with the Oregon Titan Fusion Center. and they added, "We urge the city of Eugene to immediately halt the use of flock technology to avoid further violations of the US Constitution and Oregon statutes and expensive and protracted litigation to uphold the constitutional rights of everybody living in and traveling through Eugene. This system not only opens up our community to real physical and emotional harm, it also opens up the city to costly lawsuits and the humiliation that comes with it. Not to mention, if

1:05:25 anything goes wrong, as they often do with AI and ALPRs, you could be looking at even more lawsuits. This seems like a huge liability for the city of Springfield just to catch a handful of criminals. There are other costs associated with this. Three were cut down this week, which for the record, I don't support. I want you guys to take them down so that you don't have to replace them because how are we going to pay for the replacements and the maintenance and the subscriptions? Don't count on that OT grant forever. Uh, I don't have much time left, so I'll just say please terminate that flock contract. It's not safe no matter how it's reformed. >> Thank you. Go ahead. >> My name My name is Kristen. >> You hit the button until it turns green. >> Okay, >> perfect. Thank you. >> My name is Kristen N. I don't remember

1:06:10 my ward, but I live near the Wamlain Activity Center in that neighborhood. I'm against the flock cameras because they make my neighborhood less safe. I enjoy living in a neighborhood where we all know each other and look after each other and know that that is our real safety. And my neighbors and I are not happy about how these cameras have been brought into Springfield without public input and they're a misuse of taxpayer money which is needed for human services that make our community strong. And I'm very concerned about the advancement of a technocratic state um

1:06:56 which is managed by unelected business people and often abuses our civil liberties. Plus this overuse of technology is requiring limited water resources especially to maintain all the data facilities. Um, I I'm really concerned about how I see my country becoming more of a police state. I don't know how many of you were at the um New Kings rally with thousands of people. I saw a bunches of signs of people concerned about ICE and that they feel less safe um in our country.

1:07:41 So, um I I too am very concerned about how this kind of technology targets vulnerable citizens. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next two folks are uh Jason Profett and Dale Tron. Yeah. Oh, come on. Come on up. >> So, it's Jason first and then deal. >> Uh Jason Profit into quarry at W 2. That right? Yeah. So,

1:08:28 it took me a little while to understand grants. Grants aren't raised by car washes and doughnut sales. That's my tax money going where I don't have any place any say in it in the f contract. That was a waste of money. Could have went for the fire department. Could have went to the police department. Uh stop annexing this city until you can start providing services. I've got a mess up there still that's not cleaned up. stop annexing until you hire enough or you can tell by this the summer help you hire contractors. You guys can't keep up with the work. I was down on Fifth and Centennial today

1:09:13 and that at 3:00 the school schools let out and that is like tripled what what used to be down there. You can't hardly get through there in the in the clock camera. I don't know in whoever sign whoever signed that contract and wasted that grant money in that contract. We need to do better. That's all I'm going to say. >> Thank you. Go ahead, Dale. >> Hi, my name is Dale Tron and I live in Ward 2. I speak for no one but myself, but I think the major sticking point with the flock safety cameras is not the tracking of cars believed based on probable cause to be involved in criminal activities. The problem is the

1:09:58 collection of surveillance data on the 99 plus% of the population who are just going about their business. I'm a retired research scientist and not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the Supreme Court has ruled not that long ago that the government cannot track the movement of a car without a search warrant. Here, the police are trying to make an endun around this limitation by saying, "We're not surveilling anyone. It's being done by a private company." Flock safety is saying, "We don't have a legal right to surveil anyone, but we can do it because the police have asked us to do it." each saying the power to violate the rights of the people of Springfield comes from the other, but they both can't be correct.

1:10:44 You shouldn't be listening to the ramblings on the law by some doofus like me. I'm just a guy who walked off the street. You need to hear from experts on privacy law and constitutional rights and give them more than the three minutes that all the other critics of this project have been limited to. I suggest you invite someone from the ACLU or the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who has also been heavily into privacy issues, to talk with you at one of your work sessions and find out what the law really is. A policy formed by listening to only one side is unlikely to be a good one. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh Trevor Chandler.

1:11:37 Hello, council. Thank you for the opportunity to talk to you. My name is Trevor Chandler. I'm the director of public affairs for flock safety. Uh wanted to address you, answer any questions before, after, during that you might have. I'm extremely proud to be uh back in Oregon. I worked on the Oregon marriage equality campaign as well as the Oregon against discrimination campaign. Um, the state means a lot to me and I wanted to touch on a couple of different items that we've heard today and concerns you might have heard of. Again, very briefly, not comprehensive, but we're here to be a resource for you. First, uh, I want to to touch on the biggest item first is that Flock does not sell data. Period. Period. We don't sell anonymized data. We don't sell any data. It is contract. We are contractually obligated that we cannot sell your data. Your city owns

1:12:22 your data. End of story. Second, uh you've heard from your police department uh that you're able to customize this. We realize that public safety is not one-sizefits-all. Flock serves over 5,500 law enforcement agencies across this country with varying degrees of values. One of the reasons we're so proud of Flock is that it's customizable, so your community safety never has to come at the expense of community values. As your chief said, you can choose not to share and just use it within your own city or you could share within the county or just between one or two other cities. And so that is totally up to you. Flock will never make a decision to share your data. Only you can make that decision to share your data. And so we're happy to provide additional guard rails. Anything else you think might be helpful, we're extremely proud that we're a tool that

1:13:07 can adjust to values to make sure that you can have safety and your community values at the same time. and we'd be happy to continue that conversation with you. And it's also important to note that accountability and transparency are features of the flock system, not bugs. The reason you might hear certain stories that might come up of an individual officer here or there that might have misused the system is precisely because we have an auditing feature that we have the transparency portals that you're able to see. And you know, sometimes being transparent and having that accountability results in some negative stories, but I think all of us can agree we'd rather have an accountable and transparent law enforcement than one that doesn't isn't able to see the mistakes that might be made. And we're happy to even increase those transparency and accountability features for you. Uh it's also important to note uh your your uh chief

1:13:55 investigator noted we're supported supported by the historic Oakland, California NAACP chapter. They noted a couple of specific things in their letter of support. One is how important flock is to reducing bias in policing. Replacing the subjective judgment of an officer of who may or may not be suspicious. Run this plate rather than that plate, that driver rather than the other driver. Flock only alerts your license your your police officers to vehicles that are actually suspected of being involved in a crime, providing actionable objective evidence. We're also supported against by mothers against drunk driving because less than 50% of hit and runs are solved. We're supported by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children that runs the Amber Alert program because we've found over a thousand missing persons. So, there's real good here and we're committed to being a good partner with

1:14:40 the city and hope we can continue the conversation. >> Thank you. I have no other cards. Neil, do we have anybody online? >> We currently have three hands um for business from the audience. Uh Jeffrey Gordon, you'll be the first up and I'll unmute your microphone followed by Jeff Salada. So Jeffrey, you should be able to unmute. >> Casting, can you hear me? >> We can hear you. >> Excellent. Thank you. >> Um greetings. Uh my name is Dr. Jeffrey Gordon. I actually live and work in Eugene Ward 7 as a clinical psychologist. So, I truly appreciate the opportunity to share my perspective on the flock surveillance draget system and

1:15:27 I appreciate the respectful commentary from your police chief. That was refreshing for a lot of us watching from Eugene. I will paraphrase the chief in my comment. I'm concerned by the chief's comment that you can quote baby step implementation of the flock surveillance dragnet while the public becomes more quote comfortable with the non-consensual loss of their privacy. That is what I call a slippery slope. Now, I'll quote the following directly from the ACLU, which you can find on their website. Quote, "These small unassuming cameras allow police to potentially sit with unblinking eyes 24/7 on every street corner, in every parking lot, and in every neighborhood. The data captured by Flock cameras can reveal very private details about a person's life, including what meetings a person attends, what doctor's offices,

1:16:14 and religious institutions they visit, who a person associates with, and even where they sleep at night. That means that use of the flock national surveillance drag net is a violation of the fourth amendment per the Supreme Court's recent ruling, I believe in 2012. And the city of Eugene was just sued by the ACLU for a violation of public disclosure laws relating to the underhanded implementation of the flock surveillance drag net in Eugene. That's a slippery slope you don't want to slide down. Ditch Flock and save yourselves a headache. And uh one more thing um I I I wasn't really going to address uh well I'll just put it this way. One more thing. The statement from the salesman from Flock I think was extremely disingenuous in claiming the system reduces discrimination. It's already been

1:16:59 demonstrated to have been used in acts of discrimination and persecution. That's all. Thank you. >> Thank you. The next speaker is Jeff Salada followed by Jacob True. And Jeff, you should be able to unmute your microphone. >> Hi, can you hear me? Okay. >> Yes. >> Excellent. Uh, first of all, thank you for the chance to speak. Thank you for your concern and thank you for hearing us. First, I must say that I have to say that it is disingenuous and it is a covert action for the flock director to speak under this pretense. He is not a citizen of Lane County. This should have been done in a more intentional public

1:17:45 and professional manner. But this is how Flock operates with backhanded tactics. And I would like to contradict him. Flock does sell data. It sells data to cities around the country with their tens of thousands of cameras. Furthermore, cops do use it to track people. Documents called from a public records request from the Eugene police mentions a slide where the Eugene police intentionally is training their officers to do so. There are pictures of a car and statements saying things like, "Oh, there's the suspect on a bike walking next to it." Now, let's put in the search term to use all cameras and just

1:18:31 follow that person. So, it is false to state that block does not track anything but vehicles. We were also told earlier by the tactical analyst that every search requires a detailed description behind the reason for the search. Well, from the uh city of Springfield's public transparency quote unquote portal, here are some of those descriptions from September 27th. And this is from Springfield, so I should say, I don't know if this was during the kind of testing of this, but these are the terms. On the 27th of September, quote, law enforce quote. On the 27th of September, quote, law enforcement, end

1:19:18 quote. On the 28th of September, quote, ATLdk, end quote. On the 28th of September, quote, suspect, end quote. on the 1st of October, quote, stolen, end quote. On the 16th of October, quote, theft, end quote. These general terms could mean anything contrary to what was earlier said. Um, I feel that our public safety officers are intentionally misleading the public with select details and a select focus on certain issues regarding flock. from the ACLU. I quote, "Even a pedestrian, bicyclist, or animal who happens to be caught in the frame of a flock camera can be swept up in the vast

1:20:04 and unregulated flock surveillance network." I continue. The cameras then analyze the recordings using an AI algorithm, uploads the data unencrypted to a national surveillance platform, runs the data against sometimes faulty hit lists. Just look for the settlement that Aurora Colorado paid out. $2 million. Flock is not transparent. >> Our next speaker is Jacob True. And Jacob, you should be able to unmute your microphone. >> Thank you. Now, my name's uh Jacob True. Um I live over here in uh Eugene, but my

1:20:49 kids were playing over there in Springfield with their grandma. He lives in uh Cory Rodley's ward, ward three. Um proud to spend an awful lot of time in Springfield. It's a you know it's a sister city and I've been grew up here and uh North Eugene North Eugene and spent a lot of time in Springfield. Always like going over and uh playing at the uh Splash Pool over there with my kiddos. Had a birthday there not that long ago. But I'm here talking about Flock cameras. Um, you know, folks folks uh who know an awful lot lot more about the details of it have uh spoken spoken pretty well about it already. Um, but I mean the fact remains that uh this mass surveillance system just isn't in in accordance with uh either of our city's values. You know, we don't uh it's just

1:21:38 it's just not worth it. you know, you don't y'all don't need this uh um this overreaching and uh uh this program um to uh perform police and other functions. And the fact is, you know, the uh salesman from Flock here was just speaking a little bit before me was saying, um I I just don't think we uh we trust this company, you know, when it comes down to it. We've already found that down in uh Medford they were sharing sharing data with ICE um you know and uh and all those other ones the Aurora Colorado you know the Aurora Colorado you know inaccurate arrest settlement they had to

1:22:24 pay there a while ago. And when it comes to it, a whole bunch of other city councils and other cities around the country are all cancelling their contracts too because when it comes down to it, they just don't trust this company. And uh you know, they have an awful lot of money, that's for sure. They've raised a bunch from from uh you know, private equity sources and Peter Teal and all those sort of folks. and they're suspending it, trying to oppose you uh canceling your contract. Um you know, by sending sending representatives up here, saying things that I don't know, sure doesn't sound like what everybody else has been saying. I'd like to encourage you to go ahead and cancel that contract. Use that money, that grant money for something else. There's an awful lot awful lot of things that we

1:23:09 could be doing with that money other than paying a company that uh we just don't trust. Oh. Uh, so yeah, appreciate your time. Um, thanks for listening to me even though I'm uh just outside the city. Um, my kids are over there all the time. >> Cheers. Appreciate you. >> Thank you. Do we have anybody else? >> No other hands for this item. >> Okay. Um, normally we go to some council response. Does before we get into the conversation around Flock because I think we're going to have the PD back up here in a second. Does anybody have council response that is not Flock? All right. I do. >> Oh, go ahead. Then >> the lady in the white hair back there, I didn't write your name down.

1:23:55 You talked about the election we had in 1992. I remember that. And it turned out to be an anti-gay. Springfield was famous over the whole United States about that. We were just disgraced. I uh I'm sorry we did that. Somehow it's gone away. But the other part of that is often when I try and bring that up with somebody, nobody remembers it. Nobody knows it. I do. And it was a sad thing that we did. So, thank you. >> All right. Um maybe we can have the chief in back up.

1:24:44 I I think what we're going to try to do is wrap up the conversation we were having earlier in work session. We had about half this conversation, then we stopped and then, you know, um received a lot of feedback. And before I turn it back open to council to see if you had more questions, did did you guys have anything that you wanted to bring up based on the uh the public testimony? Uh, I just wanted to thank the community members that got up and spoke. Um, you know, I've had the opportunity to speak with several of them and uh, respect and understand their concerns and that's why I made the comments that I am uh, obviously committed to continuing to work through those concerns. Uh, I still do believe that ALPR technology is a benefit to the city of Springfield and I hope that some way we can work uh, to make sure that we have that tool

1:25:29 available while still addressing the concerns that we heard tonight. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh, did anybody have more questions from earlier? Are you guys or is are people ready to sort of get to a point where we're going to give some sort of direction because I think we really have like probably three options here. One of them is uh, you know, give the city manager a head nod that we are okay turning them on. Uh, or that we'd like them taken down or frankly we could ask for more information or give some sort of other direction. Nancy, is that kind of the way you see it? >> That is what I would anticipate from council. Yes. Thank you. Okay. So, now is the part where we try to figure out what do we want to do here. Oh man, don't everybody jump in. Jump in here first. Go ahead.

1:26:14 >> If they're not taken down, they'll be tempted later to use them and we won't know that. >> I think I'll make a broader comment for uh before we get deeper into this. One of the things we live in a world where a lot of technology is sort of coming at us um pretty pretty quickly and one of the things I keep noting is is just the need to what whatever we decide tonight is just to have a broad keep having a broader conversation with our community about where people's comfort level is with with different technologies so that we can kind of do some of this initial work and give you know the police really clear direction on how we how we want to be policed as a community because there's once we get past flaw cameras,

1:27:00 there is a lot of other technologies that are out there and just having that conversation and getting on the same page would be important. All right. So, does anybody have a sense of what they what they'd like to do? Go ahead. >> I'll go. I support taking them down. >> Go ahead. And I don't I don't know if I'm exactly ready to make a decision. I I'm I feel a pause um on this topic where I need to be to get more maybe more information on it or if they were left up um some certain parameters. I guess I I'm looking for more uh assurance in the

1:27:45 system itself. Again, typically I would I would never say no to, you know, a tool, a mechanism, a something that's going to help our police department do do their jobs uh more efficiently and more effectively and keep our community safe. Um, but I'm kind of weighing this riskreward with the community um that has has spoke to us so much and and sent emails and face to face and I feel like that concern has been kind of across the board, too. It's like nonpartisan issue. So, I feel like it's coming from all different realms. And again, when someone, you know, really speaks up like that or multiple people speak up, it makes me pause. So, that's where I'm at. >> We uh I tend to line up on those comments from Counselor Blackwell. I'm not ready

1:28:30 to take them down. I do value the the the tools um intention and the PD's intention to use those to protect our community. And there are some very very clear uh intentions and I've heard them and I trust RPD to stand by those those um intentions. So, I'm not ready to take them down, but I do hear the concerns of the community and I and I hear me now do really appreciate that and I I can tell you Chief Rush does too and our entire police force. Um, again, I'm not ready to take them down, but I am ready to to have further conversation and hopefully find a place where we can maybe balance

1:29:15 this between public safety and the concerns that are coming from um from the opposition. I I think where where I'm kind of thinking about it is a couple of fronts. One of this is I think this community thinks very highly of its police department. And when when they describe, you know, needing a, you know, needing a tool or our starting point is really to sort of say yes and kind of go along with them. And I think the balance when I've listened to this conversation the last couple of weeks, there's a couple of there's a couple of threads that are sort of outside the RPD and like is a deep distrust about Flock as a company and I appreciate you guys coming down,

1:30:00 but that is a very consistent uh consistent theme that I've heard and that we're not really on the shared set of facts that we need to make big decisions, right? because we're saying that data is not getting sold, but then, you know, we consistently hear, you know, collectively that everybody thinks it's getting sold. And that is a big deal to me, right? Is trying to make sure that we're on the same page in in that regard uh in in that regard as well. And then I think lastly, the thing I'm thinking about and then I'll get to the point where what I think we should do here is really understanding that that when you talk about Amber Alerts and finding vehicles and some of those stories, those are really compelling stories that I that I've heard about how effective this uh how effective this

1:30:46 technology is. and then trying to balance that with the fact that 99.9% of all vehicles that go through that gateway intersection probably have done nothing wrong. Right? And us trying to figure out a way to kind of work our way through those components is really what's kind of on my mind at that point. The testimony has been very compelling uh the last couple of weeks. I thought everybody's done a very good job. Um my suggestion I think I don't think I'm I'm ready to take them down yet. I think the question um I think the thing we should do is simply ask PD um to just come back to us with with a place where the smallest step that we can take that yields the highest value

1:31:33 from a law enforcement perspective if that makes sense. Right? because I've heard some conversations about, you know, um limiting it potentially um to to county law enforcement agencies, adding case numbers associated to it to kind of address some of the some of the additional issues. I don't know that that's gonna would get us to yes here, but I think I think that's that's realistically the scoping between right we either have to just be honest we want to take them down or try to find a way um to like to sort of get to the just core most useful part of the tool and try to get as limited as we potentially could to sort of address what these broader privacy concerns are.

1:32:18 So go ahead councelor Stone. So I'm a bit of a complicated one in this case. I uh I'm a very strong privacy advocate and you know primmaaccia I would say uh license plate reading technology is fine as long as there's solid proof that they cannot in mine information or share with anyone else and that we have a very tight policy on exactly what we are mining ourselves. That said, those those are the concerns that continue to come to mind um before I could really give a full affirmation to yes to this technology. I'm going to go back in our council discussions where I remember giving my head nod to a camerabased technology that was there to improve safety at key intersections where we see

1:33:06 a lot of police response to them. This seems even though I I I I admire and respect the decision-making process that both the city manager and the chief police went in doing this, it see this is two steps further. I'm also going to just bring up that originally there was a separate grant that was previously applied for and actually modified and resubmitted by the uh Springfield Police Department. I'm very interested to know if a similar resubmission might be acceptable on this case. Um, I'm only going to support flock cameras if the data stays exclusively within the Springfield Police Department, not even Lane County or Eugene, without explicit um accountability to the chief or her deputy. Um, that's my direction.

1:33:57 >> All right. So, we now have to kind of get that into some sort of uh cohesive, you know, direction for for a staff. Like I think Corey, councelor Rodley's ready to take him down. Councelor Moe's sort of ready to take them down. Um I think there's some interest in maybe some more information. Um but we're kind they're folks are kind of if we can narrow it down a little bit, I think it would probably help. Go ahead. >> Another quick question. Um there's a mention in the packet about three that were damaged or destroyed. Um what happens in that case? Are they does the grant money replace that or are they just no longer in service? Um and is that a concern if they were, you know, left up? >> They would be replaced by flock if we continue to use them. It's not a cost

1:34:42 us. So, um I think are people comfortable with more information? I hear distinctly people are not ready to pull them down. um a little bit like continuing to refine this conversation. Um I think we've engaged very productively with the people that are interested in this. Um please keep showing up because I think we've had a re really constructive dialogue with you. Nancy, do you have questions about direction here? >> Thank you, mayor. Uh one, I just wanted to uh thank uh mayor and council for engaging in a very thorough and comprehensive uh public policy discussion. Um, the gnarly stuff is kind

1:35:30 of the stuff that excites me because then I know that we're all coming together and doing the real work of governance. And I know that sounds weird, but it's true. Uh, thank you also to uh our chief and uh our entire department um for their commitment to our our community and making Springfield a safe place to live. think that's of mutual interest of everyone is that we all want to feel safe in our city and we all want to uh feel like uh that whatever data is collected it will be used in a trustworthy and responsible way. So, what I'm hearing here is um really myself and the chief having some conversations about what what kind of safeguards or or guard rails could be put in place uh in this respect. And you

1:36:16 know, we do have the benefit of this being a fairly limited duration um I I hate to use the word pilot project, but it kind of is in the sense that it sort it really could only potentially go until uh uh 2027 uh as we currently have it. So there are some opportunities I think here to perhaps pivot. Um but I I don't want to speculate on what on how that might look until I have a a a deeper conversation with uh the chief. But um I really do appreciate also the people that uh came to testify. I know it's not easy to get up and talk in front of other people and be recorded and talk to elected officials. So uh thank you for being courteous and for giving your opinion tonight. Uh thank

1:37:01 you. So that would be uh from from the staff perspective you would take away take this away work on what a potentially more limited scope would be for lack of a better word and then we we'd talk about it at that point. I would say at that point we really have to make a decision if we're going to do this or we're not going to do this because everybody involved like we got to get to an answer here. Public policy can go on forever if we if we would let it. I guess a question. Would you prefer this on a regular session? I'm assuming you would want that so we could we could have that and then public comment and then rather than having an interruption >> from work session. Okay. Just want to confirm. Yeah. Thank you. >> I think you were reading our mind. Okay. Do you guys have any other questions for

1:37:46 us? >> Uh no, not at this time, but thank you all. >> All right. Thank you. Uh next item, please. >> Next item is business from the city council. >> Yes. Thank you. Um I just wanted to share with my colleagues and folks that we had um a human services commission meeting today. It was a it was a particularly hard and painful meeting um over the last few human services commission meetings. We've been sort of trying to keep up with what's changing on the federal landscape and um you know grants that have been cancelled and different um parameters that are being put on on you know what's happening with the funding including CDBG funding which is something that we use what we have. So,

1:38:32 I just want to give you all a heads up and the the ripple effect into the community because a lot of that fund we we pull that funding as part of the human services commission and then it goes to providers to help provide human services which you know we don't do as a city but we are part of a a consortium of folks who do and it's just going to be some really challenging times and it's being felt by these providers who provide services for those who are most vulnerable. Um, and it's it's going to be a bumpy ride. Thank you. Any other council business? >> All right. Next item, please. >> Any business from the city manager? >> No further business. Thank you. >> And we have business from the city attorney. And that would be one item. Uh interim ward 5 counselor deliberation

1:39:17 and appointment. And Mary Bridget Smith is here for this item. >> Good evening, mayor and council. I'm before you in regular session, excuse me, to continue um the conversation and deliberation about the W five vacancy. In uh work session, um you conducted an interview with applicant Andrew Buck. And so now is the opportunity to deliberate and then potentially move towards a motion to appoint or we can talk other options as well. >> Does anybody have deliberations? Are they ready for a potential for a potential motion? I don't think we are going to have a lot of deliberations for we could try straw pulling it if we if we need to. >> I don't even know if I could figure that out with a straw pull with one person. So anyway,

1:40:08 >> I move to appoint Andrew Buck to serve as interim wise city councelor to fulfill the term ending December 31st, 2026. >> I will second that. Call >> a vote, please. >> Yes. Councelor Weber. >> Yes. Councelor Mo, >> yes. >> Councelor Rodley, >> yes. >> Councelor Blackwell, >> yes. >> And Councelor Stout, >> yes. Thank you. Motion passes. Five yeses, zero nos. So hopefully he'll accept. >> Okay. Um you are tenatively scheduled to um be sworn in next Monday depending on his schedule, but that is on your calendar and we can check in with him and see. >> Thank you so much. >> Any other business from the city attorney? >> No other business, but I think the mayors are behind. That's sorry. >> All right, we'll end on a low note. Thank you everybody. Have a good night.

1:40:53 We're ajourned.