[A. CALL TO ORDER - MAYOR] [00:00:03] >> ALL RIGHT, WE'RE GOING TO GET STARTED. TODAY'S TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2026. THE TIME IS 7:15. AND THIS WILL START OUR SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING. AND I'LL CALL THE ORDER. >> >> AND WE HAVE A QUORUM. THIS WILL TAKE US TO OUR INVOCATION. >> THANK YOU. >> IF EVERYBODY CAN PLEASE STAND. >> FATHER, WE JUST COME BEFORE YOU AND WE THANK YOU, LORD, FOR YOUR WISDOM, FOR YOUR GUIDANCE. LORD, WE JUST PRAY OVER THIS COUNCIL, OVER THIS CITY, FATHER. FATHER, WE JUST PRAY THAT YOUR HAND BE UPON IT, LORD. LORD, YOUR HAND BE UPON EVERY COUNCIL MEMBER. FATHER, WE PRAY THAT YOU WOULD PROTECT THEM, PROTECT THIS CITY, GOD. GOD, HELP US. HELP US TO BE A CITY THAT BRINGS YOU GLORY. WE GIVE YOU THANKS FOR JUST EVERYTHING THAT YOU'VE DONE SO FAR. BUT LORD, WE JUST ASK FOR CONTINUED WISDOM AND STRENGTH FOR THE FUTURE. GOD, WE JUST GIVE YOU THANKS FOR IT. IN JESUS NAME, AMEN. [F. PUBLIC APPEARANCE] >> THIS WILL TAKE US TO ITEM F, MS. STALIN. >> PUBLIC APPEARANCE. THIS PORTION OF THE MEETING IS SET ASIDE FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON ANY ITEM OF BUSINESS THAT IS NOT FORMALLY SCHEDULED ON THE AGENDA AS A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC SHOULD COMPLETE A PUBLIC MEETING APPEARANCE CARD PRIOR TO THE MEETING AND PRESENT IT TO THE CITY SECRETARY. SPEAKERS ARE ALLOWED UP TO FIVE MINUTES TO SPEAK. THE CITY COUNCIL IS UNABLE TO RESPOND OR DISCUSS ANY ISSUES THAT ARE BROUGHT UP DURING THIS PORTION THAT ARE NOT ON THE AGENDA OTHER THAN TO MAKE STATEMENTS OF SPECIFIC FACTUAL INFORMATION IN RESPONSE TO A SPEAKER'S INQUIRY OR TO RECITE EXISTING POLICY IN RESPONSE TO THE INQUIRY. ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK SHALL ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECTLY, NOT CITY STAFF OR OTHERWISE. BE COURTEOUS, RESPECTFUL AND CORDIAL AND REFRAIN FROM MAKING PERSONAL, DEMEANING, INSULTING, THREATENING AND ARE DISPARAGING REMARKS AS TO MAINTAIN DECORUM AND SUPPORT THE EFFICIENT AND ORDERLY FLOW OF THE MEETING. >> FIRST SPEAKER WOULD BE BRIAN HALL. >> HELLO. I WAS NOT PREPARED TO SPEAK FIRST, BUT I'LL GO AHEAD. GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. LET ME START OFF BY SAYING THAT WE NEED TO PUT AN END TO FLOCK IN ALL OTHER CAMERA SYSTEMS CAPABLE OF WARRANTLESS TRACKING OF AMERICAN CITIZENS. THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT GET FREE REIGN TO SIDESTEP THE CONSTITUTION SIMPLY BY USING A PRIVATE COMPANY AS AN INTERMEDIARY. THESE CAMERA SYSTEMS DO NOT BELONG IN A FREE SOCIETY AND NOW IS THE TIME TO STAND UP AGAINST ORWELLIAN TECHNOLOGY. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF AUTOMATED LICENSE PLATE READER DATA DOES OR DOES NOT HELP SOLVE CRIME. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT THESE CAMERAS RAISE SERIOUS PRIVACY AND FOURTH AMENDMENT CONCERNS. COME ELECTION TIME, CITIZENS OF PRINCIPAL, REMEMBER WHO STOOD UP FOR OUR RIGHTS. KEEP FLOCK AND ALL OTHER AUTOMATED LICENSE PLATE READERS OUT OF OUR CITY. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. JANICE MUSE. IF YOU CAN SEND YOUR MIC ON THE RIGHT SIDE SAYS ON. >> THERE YOU GO. >> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR ESCOBAR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS JANICE MUSE AND I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE FLOCK CAMERAS. I AM HERE TONIGHT TO VOICE A STRONG MY STRONG OPINION IN REGARDS TO THE FLOCK CAMERA AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CAMERA. WHILE WE ALL SHARE THE GOAL OF KEEPING THE SAFETY OF PRINCETON. UNCHECKED ROLLOUT OF AUTOMATED LICENSE PLATES READERS BRING SEVERE LONG TERM RISK TO THE PRIVACY AND SAFETY OF OUR RESIDENTS. FIRST, THIS TECHNOLOGY CREATES A MASSIVE DIGITAL MONITORS EVERYDAY CITIZENS WHO ARE NOT SUSPECTS OF ANY CRIME. MAYOR [00:05:05] ESTOBAR, CURRENTLY YOU POINTED OUT THAT YOU WANTED TO PUT A HOLE ON THE REGARDS OF THE FLOCK CAMERA. OKAY. AND ALSO AS FAR AS THE FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SSSI, RESIDENT SENSITIVITY, DAILY TRAVEL PATTERNS, THIS DATA IS HELD BY A PRIVATE CORPORATION, MEANING OUR PERSONAL INFORMATION IS VIOLATED TO DATA BREACHES, PASSWORD HACKS AND INTERNAL LAW ENFORCEMENT MISUSE. SECOND, WE ARE NOT ALONE IN THE CONCERNS. GOVERNOR ABBOTT HAS ALSO FROZEN STATE GRANT FUNDING OVER PRIVACY ISSUES. THE EXACT TYPE OF GRANT USED TO FUND OUR NEW CAMERAS. NEIGHBORING CITIES LIKE WALLY AND ANNA HAS ALSO REJECTED THE TECHNOLOGY BECAUSE THEY RECOGNIZE THAT MASS SURVEILLANCE DOES NOT EQUAL SAFETY. SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, YOU KNOW, I HAVE STRONG CONCERNS IN REGARDS TO THE FLOP CAMERAS. AND I THINK YOU KNOW, AS THE GOVERNOR, OUR MAYOR, OTHER CITIES SURROUNDING US HAS ALSO HAS CONCERNS IN REGARDS TO IT. SO I THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH FOR HAVING ME. >> THANK YOU. SAMBAL IS THAT. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. I JUST HAD A FEW COMMENTS. I FIRST WANTED TO START OFF WITH THE PUBLIC SAFETY ASPECT OF THE BUDGET PRESENTATION THAT WE JUST SAW. I ACTUALLY WANTED TO TALK ABOUT SOME CONCERNS THAT RESIDENTS HAD IN SOUTHRIDGE AND EAST RIDGE. I KNOW THAT THAT'S A LITTLE BIT FURTHER THAN OTHER PARTS OF PRINCETON, BUT IN THE PAST SIX MONTHS, COMMUNITY MEMBERS FEEL LIKE WE'VE SEEN AN UPTICK IN I SUPPOSE YOU COULD CALL PETTY CRIME, MORE BREAK INS, PEOPLE'S CARS GETTING STOLEN. AND WE DIDN'T SEE THIS SAY MAYBE A YEAR AGO OR A LITTLE BIT FURTHER BACK. SO WE WERE WANTING TO KNOW IF THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT'S HAPPENING ALL ACROSS PRINCETON OR IF IT WAS HAPPENING IN OUR PART OF PRINCETON. AND WHILE HE WAS WATCHING THE BUDGET PRESENTATION, I REALLY DO WANT, AND I THINK YOU GUYS ALREADY MENTIONED THIS, JUST EMPHASIZE THAT I WOULD ASSUME THAT IN ORDER TO DEAL WITH THIS, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR PUBLIC SAFETY, OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT IS WELL FUNDED. SO WHEN IT COMES TO THE BUDGET, PLEASE DO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE GETTING WHATEVER IT IS THAT THEY NEED. BECAUSE IT DOES SEEM LIKE THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT'S GOING TO CONTINUE TO POSSIBLY GET WORSE. AND THEN I WANTED TO JUST MAKE A COMMENT. I DID READ THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S MEMO ABOUT THE ALPR TECHNOLOGIES AND IT DID SEEM LIKE THERE IS AN ARGUMENT THAT IT ACTUALLY IS HELPFUL TO THE POLICE. AND I DO UNDERSTAND THAT. I UNDERSTAND THAT WE SEEMS LIKE WE HAVE MAYBE TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF TECHNOLOGIES. ONE BASICALLY WAS FUNDED BY A FEDERAL GRANT AND THE OTHER ONE IS COMING FROM THE STATE. I THINK THE STATE WAS THE FLOCK. SO WHILE I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS POSSIBLY BENEFIT, IT SEEMS THAT THE NATIONAL CONVERSATION IS BASICALLY STATING THAT WE DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT WHERE THESE SYSTEMS COULD BE USED. WHERE WE DO HAVE EXAMPLES OF THESE SYSTEMS BEING ABUSED RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE IN CONGRESS AND THE SENATE BIPARTISAN COMMITTEES THAT ARE LOOKING INTO THIS AND INVESTIGATING IT. SO I WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE THAT MAYBE IT'S A TOOL THAT WE DO END UP USING, BUT LET'S PROBABLY PUT A PAUSE ON IT UNTIL WE UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING A LITTLE BETTER. AND THEN I WANTED TO THANK COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON FOR THE PROPOSED UPDATED ON THE ORDINANCE ON BASICALLY RELATING TO SEXUAL OFFENDERS. I THINK THAT EVERYONE APPRECIATES THAT WE DO WHATEVER IT IS THAT WE'RE LEGALLY ALLOWED TO DO TO PROTECT OUR CHILDREN HERE IN PRINCETON. I KNOW THAT IT'S BEEN A LONG PROCESS AND YOU GUYS HAVE PUT A LOT OF THOUGHT INTO THIS. SO I'M GLAD TO HEAR THAT YOU GUYS HAVE HAD THAT ADDITIONAL LEGAL REVIEW. AND THANK YOU FOR PUTTING PUTTING THAT TOGETHER. THAT'S ALL. THANK [00:10:01] YOU. >> THANK YOU. FRANCINE RICHARDSON. >> HELLO ALL. MY NAME IS FRANCINE RICHARDSON. MAYOR ESCOBAR, I FOLLOW YOU ON TIK TOK AND I'D LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TRANSPARENCY AND INFORMING THE PUBLIC OF PRINCETON OF THE SPECIAL SESSION. AND THAT'S THE REASON WHY I'M HERE. I'VE BEEN A HOMEOWNER IN PRINCETON FOR FIVE YEARS THIS MONTH AND I HAVE NEVER FELT UNSAFE, EVEN WITH THE GROWTH OF THE CITY. I'VE NEVER SPOKEN AT A CITY COUNCIL MEETING BEFORE, BUT I AM A CONSISTENT VOTER AND I BELIEVE IN PROPER REPRESENTATION MATTERS, WHICH IS WHY I'M HERE TO EMPLOY TO THIS PANEL TO PLEASE RECONSIDER INSTALLATION OF THE FLAK CAMERAS AND TO REMOVE ANY EXISTING FLAK CAMERAS THAT ARE INSTALLED. FLAK CAMERAS HAVE BEEN PROVEN NOT TO BE RELIABLE IN SOME CASES AND ALSO IN SOME INSTANCES, DANGEROUS. IN THE STATES OF MINNESOTA AND GEORGIA, DRIVERS WERE MISIDENTIFIED AS SUSPECTS OF A CRIME BECAUSE THE FLAT CAMERA DATA WAS INCORRECT. IN ADDITION, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE FLAK CAMERAS CAN ALSO ACCESS YOUR PHONE DATA VIA THE BLUETOOTH. WE HAVE PLENTY OF OFFICERS PATROLLING CONSISTENTLY IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS AND IF WE INSTALL THE CAMERAS, WE NEED TO REDUCE THE FORCE BY 50% NOW THAT THE FLOCK CAMERA IS DOING THE OFFICERS JOBS BECAUSE THE CITIZENS OF PRINCETON SHOULD NOT BE PAYING FOR BOTH. AS A CITIZEN OF PRINCETON, A HOMEOWNER, I NEED TO MAKE A SOUND DECISION ON BUDGET IN MY HOME AND I PAY MY TAXES LIKE THE REST OF THE RESIDENTS. AND MY EXPECTATION IS THAT YOU ALL SPEND MY MONEY RESPONSIBLY. WE NEED AND IF AND WHEN IT COMES TO THE BUDGET, WE NEED TO BE FOCUSING ON OTHER DIFFERENT TYPE OF INFRASTRUCTURES WE CAN REALLY BENEFIT FROM. ON A MEDICAL CENTER RIGHT NOW. WE NEED JOBS THAT CAN PAY FOR MORTGAGES SO THAT HOMES RIGHT NOW WON'T FORECLOSE. WE NEED TO BE INVESTING IN INFRASTRUCTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S GOING TO GIVE BRING US REVENUE. I'M LISTENING TO THE BUDGET. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PENNIES. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PENNIES. WE NEED TO BE BRINGING IN JOBS. HAPPY TO HAVE THE RESTAURANTS, BUT THOSE RESTAURANT JOBS, MOST OF THEM DO NOT PAY MORTGAGES. AND THERE'S SO MANY HOUSES RIGHT NOW IN MY DEVELOPMENT THAT ARE UP FOR SALE. PEOPLE ARE LOSING HOUSES. SO WE NEED TO REALLY BE CONSCIENTIOUS ABOUT HOW YOUR DECISIONS IMPACT THE CITIZENS HERE. ALSO TO RING CAMERAS, EVERYONE HAVE A RING CAMERA JUST ABOUT IN THEIR HOMES. SO WE REALLY DON'T NEED THE FLOCK RESIDENTS ARE MORE THAN HAPPY TO SHARE IF THERE'S AN INCIDENT IN THEIR AREAS. WE ALSO HAVE COMMUNITY FACEBOOK PAGES AND GROUPS WHERE WE CHAT AND TALK ABOUT AND WE WATCH EACH OTHER'S HOMES AND WE SHARE WHEN THERE'S A SUSPECT OR INTERESTING PERSON IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO I THINK THAT FLY CAMERAS IS A. WHAT DO YOU CALL THAT? IT'S A FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY IN SOME WAYS BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO MAKE THE RESIDENTS DROP THEIR GUARDS. WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO BE A COMMUNITY COMMUNICATING WITH EACH OTHER. THE POLICE OFFICERS NEED TO CONTINUE TO COMMUNICATE WITH US, NOT RELY ON FLOCK CAMERAS AND SIT BACK AND SAY, OH, IT'S NOT RELIABLE AND AI AND IF THE OFFICERS DON'T KNOW FLOCK IS PART OF AI AND IT WILL TAKE YOUR JOB. SO YOU MAY NOT WANT TO REALLY JUMP ON THIS WHOLE FLAK CAMERAS. ALSO WHILE WE'RE HERE, I WOULD LIKE TO JUST GO AHEAD AND PUT THIS OUT HERE ON. FOR THE RECORD, WE DON'T NEED ANY DATA CENTERS EITHER. SO IF ANYBODY COME TALK ABOUT A DATA CENTER, WE DON'T NEED ONE IN PRINCETON EITHER. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. >> THANK YOU. SHERROD. >> MAYOR, COUNCIL, I'M SPEAKING TODAY REGARDING THE PROPOSED FISCAL 2027 BUDGET AND WATER WASTEWATER RATE STRATEGY. WHILE A HEADLINE RATE PAUSE FOR FISCAL 2027 MAY SOUND APPEALING, CRUCIAL TECHNICAL DETAILS ARE MISSING AND AN ARTIFICIAL PAUSE CREATES UNNECESSARY VOLATILITY FOR RESIDENTS. FIRST, THE PUBLIC NEEDS IMMEDIATE CLARITY ON WHAT A FLAT 4% ANNUAL INCREASE FROM FISCAL 2028 THROUGH FISCAL 2031 ACTUALLY MEANS. UTILITY RATES [00:15:03] ARE NOT A SINGLE FLAT LINE. THEY CONSIST OF BASE CHARGES AND VOLUMETRIC TIER RATES ACROSS BOTH WATER AND WASTEWATER. UNDER OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE 2024-0916, RATE ADJUSTMENTS ARE SPECIFICALLY STRUCTURED. WATER BASED CHARGES ADJUST BY 2% ANNUALLY WITH VOLUMETRIC TIER CHARGES MOVING ABOUT 1.7% YEAR OVER YEAR THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 2028. WASTEWATER BASED CHARGES ADJUST BY 13% IN FISCAL 2027 AND 12% IN FISCAL YEAR 2028, WHILE WASTEWATER TIER CHARGES ADJUST BY ABOUT 1.9% YEAR OVER YEAR THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 2028. WHEN THE PROPOSED BUDGET CALLS FOR A PAUSE IN FISCAL YEAR 2027 FOLLOWED BY A BLANKET 4% ANNUAL INCREASE, HOW IS THAT 4% APPLIED ACROSS BASE RATES VERSUS TIER RATES? RESIDENTS NEED THESE EXPLICIT BREAKDOWN BEFORE ANY STRATEGY IS APPROVED. SECOND, JUMPING STRAIGHT INTO A BLANKET INCREASE AFTER AN ARTIFICIAL PAUSE CREATES A RATE CLIFF. THE MOST LOGICAL AND FISCALLY SOUND APPROACH IS TO KEEP THE CURRENT AUDIENCE 2024091602 IN EFFECT THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 2028. DOING SO PROVIDES TWO MAJOR BENEFITS FOR RESIDENTS. IT MAINTAINS PREDICTABLE INCREMENTAL YEAR OVER YEAR ADJUSTMENTS RATHER THAN A SHARP RATE JUMP DOWN THE LINE. 2. FOR THE UTILITY DEPARTMENT, IT CAPTURES STEADY REVENUE IN FISCAL YEAR 2027, WHICH GIVES THE CITY FISCAL FLEXIBILITY TO MODERATE FUTURE RATE STRUCTURES BEYOND FISCAL YEAR 2028. FINALLY, PREDICTABILITY MUST BE PAIRED WITH ACCOUNTABILITY. WITH OUR UTILITY PROPRIETARY FUND BALANCE PROJECTED AT A HEALTHY $18.5 MILLION BY FISCAL YEAR 2027 YEAR END, AN 8.5% INCREASE. THE CITY HAS THE FINANCIAL CAPACITY TO ISSUE REFUNDS FOR INCORRECT FISCAL YEAR 2026 WASTEWATER BILLING, WHETHER UNDERCHARGES OR OVERCHARGES OCCURRED. RECTIFYING PAST ERRORS BUILDS CRITICAL PUBLIC TRUST AS THE CITY ANTICIPATES COMING TO VOTERS FOR A PROPERTY TAX INCREASE IN NOVEMBER 2028. DEMONSTRATING COMPLETE BILLING INTEGRITY TODAY IS ESSENTIAL. I URGE COUNCIL TO MAINTAIN OUR ESTABLISHED ORDINANCE SCHEDULE, PUBLISH FULL DETAILS ON ALL RATE COMPONENT CALCULATIONS, AND ISSUE THE NECESSARY WASTEWATER REFUNDS TO U.S. RESIDENTS. ONE OTHER THING, COUNCIL, NEXT WEEK, SEPTEMBER 16, WE HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE BUDGET. I WOULD PROPOSE THAT WE HAVE FIVE MINUTES FOR SPEAKING TIME FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING SIMILAR TO THE PUBLIC APPEARANCE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. LIAO CALANDRA. >> MAYOR, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, CITY OF PRINCETON AND ITS CITIZENS. FERNANDO LE ALCALANDRA WITH LA ALCALANDRA LEGAL OFFICE IN 123 WEST PRINCETON DRIVE AND PERSONALLY CALL PRINCETON MY HOME. A FEW MONTHS AGO, I COULD HAVE NOT TOLD ANYONE WHAT A FAULT CAMERA WAS. I STARTED READING BECAUSE PEOPLE AROUND ME WERE TALKING ABOUT IT. AND THE MORE I READ, THE LESS CERTAIN I GOT, WHICH IS NOT USUALLY HOW IT GOES. FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THESE CAMERAS FIND PEOPLE, MISSING KIDS AND STOLEN CARS, ALL SORTS OF GREAT THINGS. AND THAT'S GREAT BECAUSE THAT'S THE WHOLE REASON WHY ANYONE WANTED THEM TO BEGIN WITH, TO ASSIST AND HELP LAW ENFORCEMENT. BUT WHAT I KEPT GETTING STUCK ON IS A MUCH SMALLER POINT. AND I CAN'T FIND THE RULES ON THIS, IMPORTANT RULES LIKE HOW LONG OUR DATA IS KEPT, WHO OUTSIDE PRINCETON CAN LOOK AT IT, WHETHER AN OFFICER HAS TO WRITE DOWN WHY THEY RAN A PLATE, WHETHER ANYBODY READS THAT LIST AT THE END OF THE MONTH. I WENT LOOKING AND I COULDN'T FIND THOSE RULES. NOW IT'S ENTIRELY POSSIBLE THAT THEY EXIST, AND I JUST MISSED THEM. AND I WOULD BE GLAD TO BE CORRECTED TONIGHT. BUT NOW THIS NEXT PART IS THE ONE THING THAT I'M HERE TO ACTUALLY SPEAK ABOUT AND WHAT I KNOW ABOUT. SO I'LL KEEP IT WITHIN THE MAYONNAISE AND THE MUSTARD FOR A MINUTE. THE OLD RULE COMES FROM A 1983 CASE, USV KNOTS. DRIVING A PUBLIC ROAD IS NOT PRIVATE. ANYBODY CAN SEE YOUR PLATE, AN OFFICER CAN WRITE IT DOWN, AND NOBODY NEEDS A WARRANT. KNOTS IS WHY THESE CAMERAS ARE ILLEGAL TODAY. BUT THE COURT HAS BEEN CIRCLING AROUND SOMETHING FAR MORE IMPORTANT FOR LONGER THAN A DECADE. NOW, [00:20:02] IN 2012, USV JONES POLICE. IN USV JONES, THE COURT DECIDED THAT WHERE POLICE LEFT A GPS TRACKER IN A CAR FOR A MONTH AND THE CORPS CALLED THAT A SEARCH, WHAT MATTERED LONG TERM WAS TWO SEPARATE OPINIONS FROM JUSTICE ALITO AND JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR. WATCHING ONE CAR GO DOWN ONE STREET IS ONE THING. BUILDING A RECORD OF EVERYWHERE IT WENT FOR A MONTH IS A DIFFERENT THING. EVEN THOUGH EVERY TRIP HAPPENED OUT IN THE OPEN IN A PUBLIC ROAD. NOW, IN 2018, IN CARPENTER V. U.S. COURT SAID THAT IF YOU GATHER ENOUGH OF THIS LOCATION THAT OVER ENOUGH TIME, IT BECOMES A SEARCH, EVEN THOUGH THAT PIECE OF EVERY SEARCH WAS IN PUBLIC. AND THIS JUNE IN CHATEAURIVA, US, THE COURT SAID THAT SAME THING ABOUT GEOFENCE SEARCHES ON PHONE DATA. WHAT BOTHERED THEM, IN THEIR WORDS, WAS SURVEILLANCE. THAT IS RETROSPECTIVE AND INDISCRIMINATE. YOU GO BACKWARD IN TIME ON SOMEBODY WHO WAS NEVER SUSPECTED OF ANYTHING. ONE CAMERA ON ONE ROAD IS NOT THAT. A SYSTEM THAT CAN RECONSTRUCT WHERE A TRUCK WAS ON A TUESDAY THREE WEEKS AGO IS CLOSER TO A SEARCH THAN MOST PEOPLE REALIZE. NOW, LET ME CORRECT TWO THINGS GOING AROUND, INCLUDING FROM PEOPLE THAT AGREE WITH ME. THESE CAMERAS ARE NOT FACIAL RECOGNITION CAMERAS. THEY READ LICENSE PLATES AND WHAT A CAR LOOKS LIKE. AND THE SUPREME COURT HAS NOT RULED THEM UNCONSTITUTIONAL. IT HAS NOT TAKEN THE QUESTION UP. NOW, A FEDERAL JUDGE IN NORFOLK IN SCHMIDT V. CITY OF NORFOLK UPHELD 176 CAMERAS IN JANUARY. AND THAT IS OPEN ON APPEAL RIGHT NOW. NOBODY KNOWS YET. AND ANYONE TELLING YOU THE LAW IS SETTLED EITHER WAY IS AHEAD OF THE FACTS. WHEN PEOPLE WHO SHARE MY CONCERNS OVERSTATE THIS, IT MAKES THE WHOLE THING EASY TO DISMISS. AND THE ACTUAL PROBLEM DOES NOT NEED THAT HELP. THAT UNSETTLED PART IS THE ARGUMENT FOR WRITING OUR OWN RULES DOWN, NOT FOR WAITING. IF THE COURTS LAND SOMEWHERE DIFFERENT IN TWO YEARS AND PRINCETON HAS NOTHING ON PAPER, THAT IS OUR PROBLEM. THAT IS EVIDENCE THROWN OUT OF A CASE WE CARED ABOUT AND THIS CITY ON THE WRONG END OF A LAWSUIT. A POLICY IS CHEAPER THAN EITHER ONE. ONE MORE PIECE. A CAMERA HIT IS NOT PROBABLE CAUSE AND IT IS NOT REASONABLE SUSPICION ON ITS OWN. IT IS A DATABASE MATCH, AND A DATABASE GOES STALE. SOMEBODY SELLS A CAR AND REPORTS NEVER GET CLEARED, NEVER GET UPDATED. SO A PLATE GETS MISREAD BY ONE DIGIT. AND THAT CAN HAPPEN. AND WITHOUT A RULE THAT AN OFFICER CONFIRMS A HIT FIRST, SOONER OR LATER, SOMEBODY HERE GETS STOPPED AT GUNPOINT OVER THE SIMPLE CLERICAL ERROR THAT HAS HAPPENED IN OTHER CITIES AND IN ONE SENTENCE OF A POLICY PREVENTS THAT. AND THIS IS NOT REALLY ABOUT ONE COMPANY, BECAUSE IF WE DROP FLOCK TONIGHT AND SIGN WITH SOMEONE ELSE IN SIX MONTHS, THEN THE SAME BLANK PAGE BEHIND IT, WITHOUT RULES OR POLICIES, ALL WE'VE DONE IS CHANGE THE LOGO. SO I'M NOT HERE TO TELL YOU HOW TO VOTE. I'M ASKING WHETHER PRINCETON HAS THIS IN WRITING. AND IF IT DOES, GREAT. IF IT DOESN'T, THAT SEEMS TO BE THE FIRST THING THAT WE NEED TO FOCUS ON. NOW, I KNOW NONE OF THIS IS SIMPLE AND YOU'RE WORKING BEFORE AND THROUGH THIS IN PUBLIC, WHICH IS NOT AN EASY THING TO WORK THROUGH. ANYTHING, REALLY. BUT WHATEVER YOU DECIDE, I HOPE THAT IT ENDS UP WRITTEN DOWN SOMEWHERE A RESIDENT CAN ACTUALLY READ IT. AND THAT'S THE WHOLE THING THAT I WANTED TO SAY. SO THANK YOU. >> OKAY. THANK YOU, KENNETH. >> ALL RIGHT. MY NAME IS KENNETH FAGANS. I'M HERE REPRESENTING D. FLOCK, DFW. FIRST, I MUST ADDRESS A GLARING OMISSION IN SERGEANT CRAWFORD'S MEMO. IT PRESENTS THE UNITED STATES VERSUS PORTER AS LEGAL GUIDANCE, BUT FAILS TO INFORM COUNCIL THAT THE FIFTH SOLAR CIRCUIT ALPR HOLDING IS PRESENTLY BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT ON A PETITION CHALLENGING THAT RULING. ONE QUESTION PRESENTED DIRECTLY ASKS WHETHER ACCESSING AN ALPR DATABASE CONSTITUTES A FOURTH AMENDMENT SEARCH. THE PETITION ARGUES THAT PORTER CONFLICTS WITH THE SUPREME COURT'S RECENT DECISION IN CHATRI AND ASKS THE COURT TO HEAR THE ALPR QUESTION OR VACATE AND REMAND IN LIGHT OF CHATRI. THIS PETITION WAS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC RECORD. IF YOU CHOOSE TO GO LOOK AT IT. MORE CONCERNING CHATRY, THE SUPREME COURT'S MOST RECENT GUIDANCE ON GOVERNMENT ACQUISITION OF TECHNOLOGICALLY GENERATED LOCATION DATA IS NOT MENTIONED AT ALL. THERE, THE COURT RECOGNIZED THAT EVEN SHORT TERM MONITORING CAN REVEAL FAMILIAL, POLITICAL, PROFESSIONAL, RELIGIOUS AND OTHER SENSITIVE ASSOCIATIONS. I ASKED COUNCIL TO REVIEW [00:25:01] KNOTT'S, JONES, CARPENTER AND CHATRI WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY BEFORE ACCEPTING PORTER AS THE FINAL WORD ON THIS TECHNOLOGY. THE FOURTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT BECOME WEAKER SIMPLY BECAUSE SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY BECOMES CHEAPER, FASTER AND EASIER TO DEPLOY. THE PROBLEM IS NOT ONE PHOTOGRAPH AT ONE MOMENT. IT IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THOSE SCANS ARE AGGRAVATE AGGREGATED INTO SEARCHABLE HISTORY OF WHERE PEOPLE GO, WHO THEY ASSOCIATE WITH, WHERE THEY WORSHIP, AND WHAT CAN BE INFERRED FROM THOSE PATTERNS. AND THIS ISN'T HYPOTHETICAL. DURING COVID KENTUCKY STATE POLICE RECORDED LICENSE PLATES AT PROHIBITED IN PERSON EASTER GATHERINGS, SO PEOPLE ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE VEHICLES COULD BE IDENTIFIED AND SUBJECTED TO QUARANTINE ORDERS. ONE PHOTOGRAPH MAY REVEAL VERY LITTLE, BUT ITS LOCATION, TIME AND CONTEXT CAN REVEAL RELIGIOUS ASSOCIATION EXACTLY THE SENSITIVE INFORMATION THE SUPREME COURT HAS WARNED LOCATION SURVEILLANCE CAN EXPOSE. SO WHEN THIS PRESENTATION CALLS THESE MERELY ISOLATED PHOTOGRAPHS, IT MISSES THE CONCERN. AS A DATA SCIENTIST, I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE SURVEILLANCE CAPABILITY IS IN THE DATABASE, THE AGGREGATION, THE RETENTION, THE SEARCHABILITY OF THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS AND THE DATA DERIVED FROM THEM. I'VE ALSO DRAFTED PROPOSED STATE LEGISLATION ADDRESSING THESE ALPR CONCERNS. NOW, MOVING BEYOND THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION, LET'S CONSIDER STAFF'S ARGUMENTS. STAFF CALLS ALPRS A FORCE MULTIPLIER AND SAYS THAT THEY HAVE PRODUCED POSITIVE OUTCOMES. MAYBE. BUT HAS COUNCIL BEEN GIVEN THAT DATA TO INDEPENDENTLY EVALUATE HOW MANY INVESTIGATIONS, RECOVERIES, ARRESTS, ERRONEOUS HITS, AND HOW MANY TOTAL PLATE READS DURING THAT SAME PERIOD? COUNCIL NEEDS THAT BEFORE THEY CAN WEIGH PUBLIC SAFETY AGAINST PRIVACY. THE MEMO PRAISES VIGILANT AND FLOCK FOR LEVERAGING TWO OF THE LARGEST ALPR NETWORKS IN THE NATION, WHILE EMPHASIZING PRINCETON'S ABILITY TO RESTRICT ITS PARTICIPATION IN VIGILANT. THE QUESTION ISN'T WHAT VIGILANT CAN RESTRICT, IT'S IT'S WHAT PRINCETON WILL ENABLE. THE ARCHITECTURE DOESN'T APPEAR FUNCTIONALLY DIFFERENT FROM FLOCK RAISING THE SAME CONCERN. WHAT PRINCETON CAN SEARCH AND WHO CAN SEARCH PRINCETON. FINALLY, LOGGING IS NOT AUDITING. WHO REVIEWS THESE LOGS, HOW OFTEN AND AGAINST WHAT STANDARD? WILL COUNCIL RECEIVE REGULAR REPORTS ON SEARCHES, VIOLATIONS AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS? COUNCIL IS BEING ASKED TO PROCEED. YET THE PACKET LACKS THE COMPLETE ALPR POLICY, RETENTION SCHEDULE, SHARING AGREEMENTS, AUDIT PROCEDURES AND VENDOR AGREEMENTS NEEDED TO INDEPENDENTLY EVALUATE THESE SAFEGUARDS. THE PACKET ITSELF LISTS NO SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION. I ASK COUNCIL NOT TO SOLVE THE CONCERNS RAISED ABOUT FAULK BY SIMPLY CHOOSING A DIFFERENT ALPR VENDOR, ADDRESS THE UNDERLYING SURVEILLANCE CAPABILITY AND END PRINCETON'S USE OF THESE SYSTEMS. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> POINT OF INFORMATION. THE DOCUMENT THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED TO US BY THE RESIDENT, WILL THAT BE UPLOADED ALONG WITH THE AGENDA ONLINE FOR ANYONE, OR WILL RESIDENTS HAVE TO DO A PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUEST TO OBTAIN THAT? >> IT'S GOING TO BE UPLOADED ONLINE. >> THANK YOU, >> ALLISON. >> ALLISON GUERRERO, ARCADIA FARMS FIRST, I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THE AUDIT THAT WAS MENTIONED FOR THE FINANCIAL DISCUSSION. SO I DO SUPPORT THE TAX RAISE. I COME TO MOST OF THE MEETINGS, SO I KNOW FINANCIALLY WHY WE NEED IT. BUT I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE RESIDENTS THAT AREN'T AS EDUCATED TO UNDERSTAND KIND OF HOW FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE THE GOVERNMENT IS HERE THE CITY. AND THERE ARE A LOT OF QUESTIONS AND I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE WANT A FISCAL AUDIT, AND I THINK THAT THIS WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT COULD BE ALTERNATIVE THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE WOULD APPRECIATE AND THEY'VE BEEN ASKING FOR FOR A LONG TIME. I KNOW WE DID SAY, OR IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS AN AUDIT DONE, A FORENSIC AUDIT. THAT'S WHAT I MEANT, A FORENSIC AUDIT DONE. BUT THAT WAS JUST OF ONE BUILDING. AND SO OBVIOUSLY THAT WOULD NOT BE ANYTHING COMPARABLE TO AN AUDIT OF THE FULL CITY. SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE PEOPLE OF PRINCETON, IF YOU'RE ASKING FOR HIGHER TAXES. THE SECOND [00:30:02] THING IS RECENTLY YOU GUYS WENT OVER DECORUM AND CONDUCT IN A MEETING AND I KNOW YOU'RE GOING OVER BOARD APPOINTMENTS. I DO KNOW THAT THERE'S BEEN SOME TROUBLE GETTING PEOPLE TO JOIN BOARDS. AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT AFTER GOING OVER DECORUM AND CONDUCT MEETING, I WAS AT THAT THERE WAS PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT TEXT MESSAGING WITH PEOPLE ON THE PHONE. THEY MENTIONED TALKING TO SOMEBODY ON THE PHONE AND HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH THEM AND EVEN QUOTING MESSAGES THAT THEY WERE WITH LIKE THE PNZ, OLD PNZ PERSON THAT USED TO BE IN CHARGE AND TALKING ABOUT THE CONVERSATIONS THEY WERE HAVING WHILE AT THE PODIUM OR THE UP THERE. AND THEN ALSO I NOTICED THAT THAT ONE OF THE MEMBERS DURING A DISCUSSION ACTUALLY LEFT THE DAIS AND CAME INTO THE CROWD AND WAS TALKING TO SOMEBODY IN THE CROWD DURING A DISCUSSION WHEN SOMEONE WAS DOING A PRESENTATION. SO I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT YOU GUYS MIGHT NOT NOTICE PEOPLE WATCHING YOU, BUT WE ARE WATCHING. AND YOU DO HAVE TO HAVE A HIGH STANDARD, ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE WANTING OTHER PEOPLE TO JOIN BOARDS AND SEE, YOU KNOW, SETTING AN EXAMPLE. THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO MENTION WAS THE ARCADIA FARMS. I KNOW IT'S BEEN TALKED ABOUT MANY TIMES, THE ARCADIA FARMS FIELDS, AND I HAVEN'T SAID ANYTHING ABOUT IT PREVIOUSLY, BUT IT DID BOTHER ME THAT THERE WAS SOME FALSE INFORMATION THAT WAS GIVEN AT THE LAST PRESENTATION, THAT THERE WAS THE SOCCER FIELDS THAT WERE MAINTAINED, WHICH I KNOW THAT THEY WERE NOT, THAT THEY WERE RECEDED, THAT THEY WERE FERTILIZED. WHEN WE HAVE RECEIPTS FROM OUR HOA THAT WE PAID FOR ANOTHER VENDOR TO DO THAT FOR US. AND IT DOES BRING INTO QUESTION, ESPECIALLY MAYBE WITH AN AUDIT, FOR YOU GUYS TO LOOK AT THOSE KIND OF THINGS. IF THEY'RE SAYING THAT THEY DID THAT FOR OUR FIELD, HOW ARE YOU GUYS ACCOUNTING FOR THAT WITH OTHER FIELDS? AND IT MIGHT NOT BE THE DEPARTMENT ITSELF, BUT I KNOW THERE IS A LARGE CONTRACT SERVICES CONTRACT THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR MORE MONEY THIS YEAR THAN THEY HAVE IN PREVIOUS YEARS. AND MAYBE THEIR CONTRACT SERVICES ARE SAYING THEY'RE DOING THESE THINGS WHEN THEY'RE NOT, BECAUSE I CAN GUARANTEE THAT THEY DID NOT DO THAT FOR OUR FIELD. AND SO THAT MAYBE IS SOMEWHERE WHERE YOU WOULD WANT TO LOOK FOR AN AUDIT, BECAUSE IF THEY'RE SAYING THEY'RE DOING THAT FOR OUR FIELD, AND I CAN GUARANTEE THAT THEY DID NOT, THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO LOOK INTO. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. MAXINE LE. >> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, COUNCIL. ALLISON, THANK YOU. SO TO TAG ON TO WHAT ALLISON SAID ABOUT ARCADIA FARMS, FIRST, I HAVE TO MAKE A POINT OF ORDER. COUNCILMEMBER DEFFIBAUGH, AT NO POINT DID ARCADIA FARM EVER SAY WE DID NOT WANT TO BE IN AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY, AS YOU QUOTED LAST WEEK OR TWO WEEKS AGO. WE NEVER SAID WE DID NOT WANT THE CITY THERE AS POINT. SO JUST INFORMATION. WE DO HAVE OUR LAWN SERVICE THAT WE CONTRACT WITH THAT HAS, AS ANOTHER POINT OF INFORMATION, THAT DID MOW THE SOCCER FIELDS, MAINTAIN THE FERTILIZATION, MAINTAIN THE IRRIGATION. WE HAVE HOMEOWNERS THAT WITNESSED IT. NOT JUST ME, BUT WE HAVE HOMEOWNERS. WE HAVE PEOPLE WALK THEIR DOGS ALL THE TIME. AND WE ARE WORKING ON INVOICING OF POSSIBLY BACK CHARGING THE CITY. IF YOU'RE. IF PARKS DID THAT AND WE PAID OUR TEAM TO DO IT AS WELL, THEN THERE SHOULD BE SOME SORT OF COMPENSATION BECAUSE WE HAVE PEOPLE SAYING IT WAS JUST THE SOFTBALL FIELD. BUT THAT'S NOT THE MAIN REASON I'M HERE TO TALK BUDGET. YOU GUYS ARE UP HERE FOR US AND WE EXPECT YOU TO DO YOUR DUE DILIGENCE DOING THE AUDIT. $168,000. YOU KNOW WHAT? THAT'S PENNIES. THAT IS PENNIES FOR THE AUDIT THAT IS NEEDED. OKAY. CONTRACT SERVICES FOR MOWING. OKAY. ORIGINALLY ON AUGUST 10TH, IT WAS $560,000. WELL, WHY DO WE [00:35:01] NEED A BIG BUILDING WITH EQUIPMENT IF WE CAN'T, IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO MOW OURSELVES, WHY DO WE HAVE SOMEBODY CONTRACTED? BUT WAIT, THE SEPTEMBER 8TH BUDGET NOW SAYS CONTRACT SERVICES IS NOW $932,500, AN INCREASE OF 166%. AGAIN, WE NEED MONEY. WE HAVE EMPLOYEES. LET THEM PUSH A LAWNMOWER. OKAY, AUGUST 10TH, AT THE MEETING HERE, I BROUGHT UP THE FACT THAT ITEM C22026188, THE PRESENTATION CC PRESENTATION-COUNCIL BUDGET WORKSHOP-08.10.2026 PPTX WOULD NOT OPEN GAVE A GENESIS ERROR COMMENT WAS MADE THAT WAS GOING TO BE FIXED. TODAY IS SEPTEMBER 8TH. IT IS STILL NOT FIXED. >> WHAT'S THAT ITEM NUMBER AGAIN? >> ITEM C2 OR C220-26188 IS STILL. AND THIS ISN'T THE FIRST TIME, AND WE TALKED ABOUT THAT ON AUGUST 10, I MENTIONED THIS ISN'T THE FIRST TIME THAT ITEMS COME UP WITH THAT GENESIS ERROR. AND YOU HAVE TO LOG IN. YOU CAN'T LOG IN. OKAY. WE REALLY TRULY NEED TO LOOK AT EVERY SINGLE DEPARTMENT BECAUSE CONTRACTING SERVICES AND THIRD PARTY ISN'T ALWAYS THE BEST WAY TO GO TO CONTRACT. AND I'M A CONTRACTOR. YOU ALL KNOW THAT. I'VE SAID IT MANY TIMES. I'M A CONTRACTOR. BUT CONTRACTING ISN'T ALWAYS THE BEST WAY TO GO, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU NEED MONEY. SO Y'ALL NEED TO TAKE A REALLY GOOD LOOK AT THIS NEW PROPOSED BUDGET BECAUSE THINGS INCREASED. I MEAN, I KNOW WE SAW A DECREASE, BUT THERE'S OTHER AREAS THAT INCREASED. SO I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT YOU ALL DO THAT. AND CHIEF, THANK YOU FOR MENTIONING EARLIER DURING THE SPECIAL MEETING ABOUT FLOCK CAMERA CONTRACT BEING CANCELED. SO THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. THIS WILL END OUR PUBLIC COMMENTS [G. CONSENT AGENDA] AND THIS WILL TAKE US TO OUR CONSENT AGENDA. ITEM G, MS. FALLEN. >> CONSENT AGENDA. ALL CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS LISTED ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS UNLESS A COUNCIL MEMBER STILL REQUESTS, IN WHICH EVENT THE ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERED IN THE NORMAL SEQUENCE ON THE AGENDA. WE HAVE ITEMS G1 THROUGH G3. >> THIS COUNCIL HAVE ANY ITEMS TO REMOVE FROM CONSENT. IF NOT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION AT THIS TIME. >> I WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE ITEM G2 AND G3. >> DOES COUNCIL HAVE ANY OTHER ITEMS? I HEARD G2 AND G3. IF THAT'S ALL, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION AT THIS TIME. >> A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH THE REMOVAL OF ITEMS G2 AND G3. >> SECOND. >> MR. JOHNSON, SECOND. TAKE A VOTE. ITEM PASSES 6-0. I WILL BE MOVING EXECUTIVE SESSION TO THE END OF THE [G2. 2026-206 Consider the submission of the 2026 No-New-Revenue Tax Rate of $0.445102 per $100 taxable value and the Voter-Approval Tax Rate of $0.472959 per $100 taxable value; and take appropriate action.] MEETING. AND THIS WILL TAKE US TO ITEM J OF SPECIAL AGENDA. AND WE WILL START WITH THE FIRST ITEM THAT WAS REMOVED FROM G2. MS. ALLEN, >> ITEM G2, 2026-206. CONSIDER THE SUBMISSION OF THE 2026 NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE OF 0.445102 CENTS PER 100 TAXABLE VALUE AND THE VOTER APPROVAL TAX RATE OF 0.472959 PER $100 TAXABLE VALUE AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. >> KELLY WILSON, CFO, HERE TO ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS. THIS ITEM IS JUST A STANDARD SUBMISSION OF THE CALCULATED NO NEW REVENUE RATE AND THE CALCULATED VOCAL VOTER APPROVAL RATE. >> I THINK, MR. GRAVES, YOU [00:40:01] PULLED THIS ITEM. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? >> NOT SO MUCH A QUESTION, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FOR US TO ADOPT TO THE VOTER APPROVAL TAX RATE 0.472959 FOR 100 TAXABLE VALUE. >> WELL, THIS IS. I'M SORRY, I MEAN. I MEAN YOU'RE SPEAKING. IT'S A SECOND, BUT GO AHEAD. OH, YOU KNOW. YES. WE DON'T HAVE A SECOND, SO THAT MOTION FAILS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THIS. ALL THIS IS IS CLARIFYING WHAT THE BASE IS AND THEN THE CEILING. THAT'S ALL THIS IS, IS CORRECT? >> YES. IT'S ASKING FOR COUNCIL TO ACCEPT THE SUBMISSION OF THE CALCULATED TAX RATES. J1 WILL BE AN ACTION ITEM FOR THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE. IT'S A RESOLUTION THAT WE WILL TAKE ACTION ON. FOR J1. THESE ARE ACTION ITEMS. THEY WERE JUST ACCEPTING THE SUBMISSION OF THE RATES. >> AND THIS WOULD TAKE US TO J1 WOULD BE THE ACTUAL SETTING THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO APPROVING G2 OR G3 IS NOT APPROVING NECESSARILY THE RATES, JUST APPROVING THE PUBLIC HEARING. WHERE THEN WE WILL APPROVE THE RATE AT THAT POINT IN TIME. >> CORRECT? >> OKAY, IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTION, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION AT THIS TIME. >> YOUR HONOR. I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE G2 2026-206. >> I'LL SECOND THAT. >> MR. WASHINGTON, SECOND. MOTION PASSES 4-2. THIS [G3. 2026-207 Consider scheduling a public hearing on the City of Princeton’s FY2026-2027 Proposed Budget and proposed property tax rate on Wednesday, September 16, 2026, at 6:30 p.m. at the Princeton Municipal Center, 2000 E. Princeton Drive, Princeton, Texas 75407; and take appropriate action.] WILL TAKE US TO ITEM G3. >> G3, 2026-207. CONSIDER SCHEDULING A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CITY OF PRINCETON'S FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027 PROPOSED BUDGET AND PROPOSED PROPERTY TAX RATE ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2026 AT 6:30PM AT THE PRINCETON MUNICIPAL CENTER, 2000 EAST PRINCETON DRIVE, PRINCETON, TX 75407. AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. >> IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS? I THINK THERE'S ANOTHER ITEM, MS. TODD, YOU PULLED. ANY QUESTIONS? >> ANYTHING THAT GOES ON THE CONSENT AGENDA WHEN IT COMES TO THINGS LIKE THIS THAT IMPACT RESIDENTS, I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE THERE. FIRST OF ALL, I THINK ANYTHING IN THIS REGARD SHOULD BE ON THE REGULAR AGENDA TO BEGIN WITH. SECOND, MY QUESTION HERE. SO THIS IS TO PUT IN PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING. BUT YOU WERE JUST EXPLAINING FOR ITEM G2 THAT WE WOULD BE CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON WITH A LATER ITEM ON G1. SO WHY WOULD WE BE HAVING TWO ITEMS ON THE AGENDA REGARDING THE CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING? AND WHY WOULD ONE GO ONTO A CONSENT AGENDA AND ONE ONTO THE REGULAR AGENDA? >> WE ARE DOING THIS TO COMPLY WITH CHAPTER 102 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE AS WELL AS SECTION 26.05D OF THE TEXAS TAX CODE. INPUTTING THESE ITEMS SEPARATE AS A PUBLIC HEARING. THEN YOU WILL TAKE ACTION THEN ON THE RESOLUTION AND THE PROPOSED TAX RATE ON THE OTHER AGENDA ITEM. >> SO SAY G3 AND G1 ARE APPROVED OR WHATNOT. SO WE WOULD HAVE TWO SEPARATE PUBLIC HEARINGS REGARDING THE TAXES AT THE NEXT MEETING. OR WOULD THEY BE COMBINED INTO ONE SINGLE PUBLIC HEARING? >> WE ARE GOING TO BE COMBINING ONE SINGLE PUBLIC HEARING. THERE WILL BE THE BUDGET AS WELL AS THE TAX RATE ON THE 16TH. >> SO WE WILL MAKE ONE ACTION TO APPROVE BOTH ITEMS, THE BUDGET AND THE TAX RATE. >> NO, JUST TO HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING. THEN THERE WILL BE AN ACTION ITEM TO ACCEPT THE BUDGET. THEN THERE WILL BE AN ACTION SEPARATE. >> OKAY. >> YES. >> OKAY. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I'M MAKING SURE. OKAY. THERE'S NO FURTHER QUESTION. NOT TO TAIN THE MOTION AT THIS TIME, YOUR HONOR. >> I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM G3. >> I'LL SECOND. >> MR. DEFFIBAUGH, SECOND. [J1. 2026-09-08-R Consider Resolution No. 2026-09-08-R, proposing a Fiscal Year 2026-2027 property tax rate of $0.472959 per $100 valuation and setting September 16, 2026, at 6:30 p.m. as the date and time for the public hearing on the proposed property tax rate; and take appropriate action.] MOTION PASSES 6-0. THIS WILL TAKE US TO OUR REGULAR, WELL, SPECIAL AGENDA. ITEM J1, MS. HOLLAND. >> J1, 202060908R. CONSIDER RESOLUTION NUMBER 202600908R. PROPOSING A FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027 PROPERTY TAX RATE OF $0.472959 PER $100 VALUATION AND SETTING [00:45:05] SEPTEMBER 16, 2026 AT 6:30PM AS THE DATE AND TIME FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED PROPERTY TAX RATE AND TAKE UP APPROPRIATE ACTION. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. KELLY WILSON, CFO TONIGHT, YOU DO HAVE A RESOLUTION NUMBER 260908R FOR THE PROPOSED TAX RATE. THIS IS SETTING THE CEILING, THE HIGHEST TAX RATE THAT COUNCIL CAN APPROVE WITHOUT THE VOTE OF THE RESIDENTS AT 4729.59. THAT'S THE PROPOSED TAX RATE THAT WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT IN THE BUDGET WORK SESSION TO SET THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SEPTEMBER 16TH. THE NOTICE OF THE PROPOSED TAX RATE WILL BE IN THE PRINCETON HERALD FOR THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, AND THIS WILL REQUIRE AN INDIVIDUAL RECORD VOTE. AGAIN, THE NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE AT 44.51.02 AND THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE AS WELL AS THE PROPOSED TAX RATE MATCH AT 472959. THIS IS THE GREATER OF THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE. SO THEREFORE, WE ARE REQUIRED TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING BECAUSE IT EXCEEDS THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE. WE'RE MEETING ALL STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS WITH THIS. WE TALKED ABOUT THE VARIOUS THINGS DURING THE STRATEGIC PLANNING IN JULY. AUGUST 10TH, WE DID WALK THROUGH A BUDGET WORK SESSION WITH THE INITIAL RATE DISCUSSION. AUGUST 17TH, WE TALKED ABOUT THE DEBT TAX TAX RATE AND ACTION WAS TAKEN THAT NIGHT. TONIGHT, AGAIN, THE ACTION ITEM IS TO SET THE TAX RATE AND THEN THE HEARING ON THE 16TH. WE ARE REQUIRED, AS I STATED, TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING. SO HERE'S THE MOTION THAT WE RECOMMEND BE READ AND THEN RECORD VOTE, PLEASE. INDIVIDUAL RECORD VOTE. >> IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL? >> YOU'RE ALL RIGHT, I CAN MAKE THE MOTION? >> ALL RIGHT. >> I MOVE TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 20260908R PROPOSING A FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027 PROPERTY TAX RATE OF 0.472959 PER $100. VALID VALUATION. VALID VALUATION AND SAID IN SEPTEMBER 16, 16TH, 2026 AT 6:30PM IS THE DATE AND TIME FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED PROPERTY TAX RATE. >> I SECOND. >> ALL RIGHT. MS. DAVID GRAY, SECOND. >> WE HAVE TO DO INDIVIDUAL VOTES, CORRECT? >> INDIVIDUAL. >> OKAY, SO I'LL DO A ROLL CALL VOTE. >> >> ALL RIGHT, SO A MOTION PASSES 4-2. DO I VOTE ON THIS, KELLY, FOR THIS? >> NO, YOU WON'T VOTE UNLESS IT'S A TIE. [J6. 2026-213 Consider the City's current, planned, and proposed use of Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) technologies and related systems, including Flock Safety, Vigilant, Axon, and similar technologies; review of associated contracts, purchases, receipt, installation, policies, data collection, data retention, data access, auditing, sharing practices, existing and proposed installations, contractual arrangements, governance controls, and consideration of direction regarding current or future deployment, implementation, or installation of such systems and take appropriate action.] >> OKAY. MOTION PASSES. 4-2. I'M GOING TO GO OUT OF ORDER AND JUMP TO J6. THIS WILL BE REGARDING THE LICENSE PLATE. >> BEFORE WE DO THAT, LENAR HOLMES WAS HERE TONIGHT AND IN REGARDS TO ITEM J5, THEY WERE VERY UNDERSTANDING TO THE ORDER AND PROCESS FOR THE NOTICE BEING DONE PROPERLY ON THE AGENDA. AND SO I WAS GOING TO ASK, OUT OF RESPECT FOR THEIR TIME AND APPRECIATION FOR THEIR PATIENCE, IF WE GO AHEAD AND MOVE THEM UP. >> YEAH, I'M WITH THEM. AFTER J6, THEY'LL BE NEXT. ALL RIGHT, MS. STALLON, WE'LL GO TO J6. >> ITEM J6. CONSIDER THE CITY'S CURRENT PLAN AND PROPOSED USE OF AUTOMATED LICENSE PLATE READER TECHNOLOGIES AND RELATED SYSTEMS, INCLUDING FLOCK SYSTEM, VIGILANCE ACTION AND SIMILAR TECHNOLOGIES REVIEW OF ASSOCIATED CONTRACTS, PURCHASES, RECEIPTS, INSTALLATION POLICIES, DATA COLLECTION, DATA RETENTION, DATA ACCESS, AUDITING, SHARING PRACTICES, EXISTING AND PROPOSED INSTALLATIONS, CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENTS GOVERNING CONTROLS AND CONSIDER THE DIRECTION REGARDING CURRENT OR FUTURE DEPLOYMENT, IMPLEMENTATION, OR INSTALLATION OF SUCH SYSTEMS AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. >> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. CAROLYN CRAWFORD. I'M THE SERGEANT WITH THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION FOR THE PRINCETON POLICE [00:50:01] DEPARTMENT. TONIGHT I'M HERE TO PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF THE PRINCETON POLICE DEPARTMENT'S AUTOMATED LICENSE PLATE READER, OR LPR, PROGRAM AND TO PROVIDE COUNSEL WITH INFORMATION NEEDED TO GIVE US DIRECTION ON HOW YOU WOULD LIKE THE PROGRAM TO MOVE FORWARD. THE POLICE DEPARTMENT CURRENTLY HAS TWO LPR PROJECTS INVOLVING TWO SYSTEMS, FLOCK SAFETY AND VIGILANT, WHICH IS MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS PRODUCT. BEFORE I GET INTO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO SYSTEMS AND WHERE EACH PROJECT CURRENTLY STANDS, I WANT TO BRIEFLY EXPLAIN WHY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT USES THIS TECHNOLOGY. LPR TECHNOLOGY IS AN INVESTIGATIVE TOOL THAT ASSISTS OUR OFFICERS AND DETECTIVES WITH CRIME PREVENTION, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS, STOLEN VEHICLE RECOVERY, LOCATING VEHICLES ASSOCIATED WITH WANTED PERSONS, AND RESPONDING TO ALERTS SUCH AS AMBER ALERTS. FOR OUR DEPARTMENT SPECIFICALLY, ONE OF THE BIGGEST BENEFITS IS THAT THIS TECHNOLOGY ACTS AS A FORCE MULTIPLIER. LIKE MANY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, WE HAVE LIMITED PERSONNEL AND INVESTIGATIVE RESOURCES. WE CANNOT PLACE OFFICERS AT EVERY MAJOR ROADWAY CONTINUOUSLY LOOKING FOR A PARTICULAR VEHICLE. AN LPR SYSTEM CAN MONITOR THOSE ROADWAYS AND NOTIFY OFFICERS WHEN A LICENSE PLATE ASSOCIATED WITH A LEGITIMATE LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSE IS DETECTED. THAT ALLOWS OUR OFFICERS TO CONTINUE HANDLING CALLS FOR SERVICE WHILE GIVING DETECTIVES ANOTHER TOOL TO DEVELOP INVESTIGATIVE LEADS. WE HAVE ALREADY UTILIZED LPR TECHNOLOGY MULTIPLE TIMES DURING OUR INVESTIGATIONS WITH POSITIVE OUTCOMES. THE FIRST SYSTEM I WANT TO DISCUSS IS FLOCK SAFETY. IN JUNE 2025, THE CITY WAS AWARDED FUNDING THROUGH THE TEXAS MOTOR VEHICLE CRIME PREVENTION AUTHORITY, OR THE NVC CPA, FOR SIX FLOCK LPR CAMERAS AND ACCESS TO THE FLOCK DATABASE. INSTALLATION OF THE PERMANENT CAMERAS HAD BEEN DELAYED, WAITING ON TXDOT APPROVAL. WHILE THOSE APPROVALS WERE PENDING, FLOCK PROVIDED SIX TEMPORARY CAMERAS WHICH ARRIVED ON AUGUST 26. THESE CAMERAS HAVE NOT BEEN INSTALLED AT THIS TIME UNTIL WE HAD A CHANCE TO SPEAK WITH COUNCIL ABOUT WHAT DIRECTION THEY WOULD LIKE TO MOVE IN. ONE IMPORTANT DISTINCTION WITH FLOCK IS THAT IT OPERATES AS A PART OF A COLLABORATIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT NETWORK. THAT NETWORK CAN PROVIDE SIGNIFICANT INVESTIGATIVE VALUE BECAUSE PARTICIPATING AGENCIES CAN ACCESS INFORMATION ACROSS JURISDICTIONS. CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT STOP AT THE PRINCETON CITY LIMITS, SO HAVING ACCESS TO INFORMATION FROM SURROUNDING JURISDICTION JURISDICTIONS CAN HELP INVESTIGATORS LOCATE SUSPECT VEHICLES AND DEVELOP LEGAL. THE NEXT ONE I WANT TO TALK ABOUT IS VIGILANT, WHICH IS THE MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS. WE DO HAVE KYLE PIERCE HERE FROM MOTOROLA AS WELL. COUNCIL APPROVED THIS PROJECT IN AUGUST OF 2024 USING THE ARPA FUNDING. THAT PROJECT INCLUDED SIX FIXED LPR CAMERAS AND THREE PORTABLE DETACH AND DEPLOY CAMERAS. THE SIX FIXED CAMERA CAMERAS ARE CURRENTLY BEING INSTALLED AT THREE INTERSECTIONS WITHIN THE CITY AND ARE EXPECTED TO BE ACTIVE BY THE END OF SEPTEMBER. WITH VIGILANT, PRINCETON POLICE DEPARTMENT CAN RESTRICT ACCESS TO AUTHORIZED DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL. PRINCETON RETAINS OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF ITS LPR DATA AND SHARING WITH OTHER AGENCIES REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT TO MAKE THAT DECISION AND UTILIZE AN MOU. THE SYSTEM ALSO MAINTAINS AUDIT INFORMATION CONCERN CONCERNING SEARCHES, EXPORTS AND ACCESS, INCLUDING THE USER TIMESTAMP AND OPERATIONAL REASON. THOSE CONTROLS PROVIDE THE CITY WITH THE ABILITY TO DETERMINE HOW BROAD AND RESTRICTIVE WE WANT OUR LPR PROGRAM TO BE. OUR CURRENT POLICY REQUIRES LPR INFORMATION BE USED FOR OFFICIAL LAW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIVE PURPOSES AND TREATED AS CONFIDENTIAL. OUR POLICY ALSO ADDRESSES RETENTION AND AND REQUIRES DATA TO BE MANAGED IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR ADOPTED RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULE AND APPLICABLE LAWS. ACCESS CONTROLS AND AUDITING ARE ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE THEY ALLOW US TO ESTABLISH NOT ONLY WHO CAN. POLICY ALSO ADDRESSES RETENTION AND REQUIRES DATA TO BE MANAGED IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR ADOPTED RECORDS RETENTION AND SCHEDULE AND APPLICABLE LAWS. ACCESS CONTROLS AND AUDITING ARE ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE THEY ALLOW US TO ESTABLISH NOT ONLY WHO CAN ACCESS THE SYSTEM BUT ALSO ACCOUNTABILITY FOR WHY THE SYSTEM WAS ACCESSED. SO THERE IS A LOT OF MYTHS OUT THERE, SO I WANTED TO GO OVER A FEW OF THE MYTHS VERSUS FACTS. OPR IS NOT TRADITIONAL SURVEILLANCE SURVEILLANCE CAMERA RECORDING CONTINUOUS VIDEO OF SOMEONE'S ACTIVITIES. IT CAPTURES AN IMAGE OF A LICENSE PLATE THAT IS VISIBLE FROM A PUBLIC ROADWAY AT A PARTICULAR LOCATION AT END POINT IN TIME. IT IS NOT A GPS TRACKING SYSTEM. THE SYSTEM DOES NOT PLACE A TRACKING DEVICE ON A VEHICLE AND CONTINUOUSLY FOLLOWS THAT VEHICLE'S MOVEMENT. IT DOES [00:55:02] NOT RECORD AUDIO INSIDE OR AROUND ANY OF THE VEHICLES AND THESE CAMERAS DO NOT AUTOMATICALLY ISSUE ANY TRACK TRAFFIC CITATIONS. THEY ARE INVESTIGATIVE TOOLS THAT CAN GENERATE AN ALERT WHEN A VEHICLE MATCHES INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH A LEGITIMATE LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSE. THERE HAS BEEN RECENT LITIGATION INVOLVING THIS TECHNOLOGY. IN UNITED STATES VS. PORTER, THE FIFTH CIRCUIT ADDRESSED THE USE OF ALPR INFORMATION REFLECTING VEHICLE LOCATIONS ON PUBLIC ROADWAYS. AS OUTLINED IN THE COUNCIL MEMBER, THE CORPORATE COURT DETERMINED THAT THIS TYPE OF LPR INFORMATION DID NOT BY ITSELF CONSTITUTE A FOURTH AMENDMENT SEARCH REQUIRING A WARRANT AND DISTINGUISHED AN LPR HIT AT A PARTICULAR PUBLIC LOCATION TIME FROM CONTINUOUS LOCATION TRACKING. THE CITY'S EXISTING LPR PROJECTS HAVE PRIMARILY BEEN SUPPORTED THROUGH OUTSIDE FUNDING. THE VIGILANT EQUIPMENT WAS PURCHASED USING THE ARPA FUNDING AND THE FLOCK PROJECT WAS SUPPORTED THROUGH THE NVCPA GRANT FUNDING. APPROXIMATELY $20,000, WITH CITIES MATCH BEING ONLY $3,333. GOING FORWARD, ANY ADDITIONAL CAMERA SUBSCRIPTION COST, MAINTENANCE, REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT, LICENSING OR EXPANSION WOULD NEED TO BE EVALUATED THROUGH THE CITY'S NORMAL BUDGET AND GRANT PROCESSES. ULTIMATELY, THE PURPOSE OF TONIGHT'S PRESENTATION IS NOT SIMPLY TO ADVOCATE FOR MORE CAMERA CAMERAS. IT IS TO MAKE SURE COUNCIL UNDERSTANDS WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE, WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN IMPROVED, AND WHAT IS PENDING, AND HOW THE TWO SYSTEMS DIFFER AND WHAT SAFEGUARDS ARE AVAILABLE. FROM A LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSPECTIVE, LPR TECHNOLOGY IS VALUABLE. IT GIVES OUR OFFICERS AND DETECTIVES ANOTHER INVESTIGATIVE RESOURCE AND ALLOWS US TO ACCOMPLISH TASKS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE REQUIRE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE PERSONNEL. AT THE SAME TIME, WE RECOGNIZE COUNCIL'S RESPONSIBILITY TO ESTABLISH POLICIES POLICY AND ASSURE THAT TECHNOLOGY USED BY THE CITY REFLECTS THE EXPECTATIONS OF THE COMMUNITY. THAT IS WHY WE ARE BRINGING THIS FORWARD TONIGHT. WE'RE ASKING COUNCIL TO PROVIDE DIRECTION REGARDING THE CONTINUED IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CITY'S LPR PROGRAM, INCLUDING WHETHER YOU WOULD LIKE US TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE EXISTING PROJECTS, PAUSE ANY PENDING INSTALLATIONS AND ESTABLISH ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS OR MAKE ANY CHANGES REGARDING HOW THESE SYSTEMS ARE USED. WHATEVER DIRECTION COUNCIL PROVIDES, OUR GOAL IS TO ENSURE THAT THE PROGRAM IS EFFECTIVE, ACCOUNTABLE, TRANSPARENT, AND USED SOLELY FOR LEGITIMATE LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES. ANY QUESTIONS? >> OUT OF ALL THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT YOU GUYS HAVE DONE HERE, HOW MANY WERE USED? HOW MANY HAS FLOCKED OR VIGILANT BEEN USED TO SOLVE? DID YOU HAVE THOSE NUMBERS? >> I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT TOTALS, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT ANYTIME THERE'S ANY SORT OF A VEHICLE THAT'S INVOLVED OR WE HAVE A LICENSE PLATE AND WE'RE LOOKING FOR A SUSPECT. THE DETECTIVES I KNOW FOR SURE USE THE FLOCK AND THE LPR TO ATTEMPT TO LOCATE THE SUSPECT VEHICLE. >> BUT YOU DON'T HAVE A NUMBER ON JUST HOW MANY WAS ACTUALLY SOLVED USING THE TECH. >> NOT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I DO NOT. >> OKAY. BECAUSE I KNOW THAT I'VE LOOKED INTO OTHER AGENCIES AND WHAT THEY'VE USED. SO I KNOW THAT DALLAS, FOR INSTANCE, HAD. THEY HAD, LET'S JUST SAY, 151 CASES THAT THEY'VE ONLY BEEN ABLE TO SOLVE 15 OF THEM. SO THE COST OF IT, TO ME WASN'T NECESSARILY HELPING. THEM SOLVE CRIMES FASTER. IT DIDN'T REALLY HELP DRASTICALLY REDUCE IT EITHER. AND THESE ARE COMING IN AFTER THE FACT, SO THEY DON'T PREVENT CRIME EITHER. BUT I JUST WANTED. AND THEN ALSO, WHO DO WE HAVE MOUS WITH ALREADY NOW, DO YOU KNOW WHETHER IS IT OTHER CITIES, THE STATE OF TEXAS? WHO DO WE CURRENTLY HOLD MOUS WITH THAT CAN ACCESS OUR CAMERAS NOW? >> RIGHT NOW ALL OF OUR CAMERAS ARE LOCKED DOWN, SO NOBODY OUTSIDE OF PRINCETON CAN USE THEM. ONCE ALL OF THIS CAME UP, WE'VE LOCKED EVERYTHING DOWN. >> OKAY. AND THAT'S JUST THE MOTOROLA CAMERAS BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY FLAWED CAMERAS WITHIN THE CITY THAT WE OWN, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> OKAY. >> AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY MOTOROLA CAMERAS UP RIGHT NOW EITHER. >> OKAY. >> THERE'S NO CAMERAS ASSOCIATED WITH PRINCETON THAT ARE UP. >> OKAY. >> MR. WASHINGTON. >> YOU SAID THEY'VE BEEN LOCKED DOWN. HOW MANY CAMERAS DO WE CURRENTLY HAVE UP? >> RIGHT NOW WE HAVE ZERO CAMERAS UP. >> ZERO. HOW MANY VIGILANT CAMERAS? IT WAS SIX VIGILANT CAMERAS, I BELIEVE. >> YES. >> THEY WERE NINE. I'M SORRY, THERE'S SIX FIXED. AND THERE'S THREE DETACH AND DEPLOY. WE CURRENTLY ARE ONLY IN POSSESSION OF TWO DETACH AND DEPLOY. WE HAD ONE UP ON MONTE CARLO AND IT WAS STOLEN. >> OKAY. >> SO WE ARE AT A LOSS OF ONE. WE HAVE TWO IN OUR POSSESSION, BUT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN INSTALLED. [01:00:01] >> OKAY, AND THE VIGILANT CAMERAS WOULD. THE ONLY USERS OF THE VIGILANT CAMERAS WOULD BE THE PRINCETON POLICE DEPARTMENT, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> OKAY. >> JUST TO VERIFY THE DATA THAT WAS COLLECTED, IT REMAINS WITH PRINCETON. IT DOES NOT GO INTO LIKE A NATIONAL DATABASE AND IT'S USED THERE. UNLESS WE NEED TO RUN THAT AGAINST THE NATIONAL, THE LOCALLY COLLECTED DATA AGAINST THE NATIONAL DATABASE FOR A PARTICULAR REASON. >> CORRECT. >> YES, WITH VIGILANT. SO KIND OF THE WAY THAT IT WORKS, IF I HAVE A CAMERA UP IN FRONT OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND I SHARE ACCESS WITH, LET'S SAY MCKINNEY AND THEY'RE SEARCHING FOR A VEHICLE AND THAT VEHICLE HAS PASSED THROUGH THIS CAMERA, IT'S GOING TO SHOW THAT IT HIT THIS CAMERA. IF I DON'T SHARE MY CAMERA WITH MCKINNEY OR ANNA OR ANYBODY, IT'S NOT GOING TO POP UP SAYING THAT IT WAS IN THAT AREA. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? >> NO. WE HAD A CASE IN PRINCETON WITH A MURDER THAT WAS COMMITTED AND WE FOUND THE PERSON GOING TOWARDS MISSOURI OR SOMETHING SOMEWHERE IS. THE CAMERAS WERE USED TO HELP SOLVE THAT. THERE WAS A MIXTURE OF FLOCK AND I BELIEVE VIGILANT AS WELL. >> OKAY. >> BUT WE WERE ABLE TO TRACK THEM ALL THE WAY FROM HERE ALL THE WAY UP THROUGH TO MISSOURI. >> AND WE HAVE A VISION REPAIR, CORRECT? >> YES, SIR. >> CAN YOU COME UP, PLEASE? >> YOUR HONOR, BEFORE HE SPEAKS, CAN I MAKE A FEW COMMENTS? >> YEAH. >> OKAY. >> YOU KNOW, JUST RECENTLY IN SHERMAN, THERE WAS A MAN THAT HAD DEMENTIA AND ACTUALLY GOT A FIREARM AND WAS HEADED TOWARD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. AND THROUGH THE USE OF THE AUTOMATIC LICENSE PLATE READERS, THEY WAS ABLE TO LOCATE HIM AND INVERT SOMETHING THAT COULD HAVE BEEN VERY TRAGIC. BUT I NOTICED A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT CAME UP HERE AND SPOKE MAINLY AGAINST FLOCK CAMERAS. THEY WERE READING FROM THEIR SMARTPHONE. LET ME TELL YOU, THIS SMARTPHONE. OH, GOT A LIGHT ON THERE. IT'S TRACKING YOU EVERYWHERE YOU GO. IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. YOU THINK, WELL, NO ONE'S SHARING THAT. WELL, YOU ARE. IT'S BEING SHARED. EVERYONE THAT USES A SMARTPHONE, PEOPLE KNOW WHERE YOU'RE AT. IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. I MEAN, YOU PASS BY A STORE SOMEWHERE AND SAYS, HEY, ACADEMY SPORTS, GOT THIS CELL ON IT. POPS UP THERE, YOU KNOW, AND IF A POLICE OFFICER, AND I'VE USED IT SEVERAL TIMES, IF YOU HAVE A SUSPECT AND YOU KNOW THEIR TELEPHONE NUMBER, YOU CAN ACTUALLY RECEIVE A. DO AN EVIDENTIARY SEARCH WARRANT AND GET THE LOCATION WHERE THEY'VE BEEN AT IT, WHERE IT PINGS THAT. THE DIFFERENCE IS, THOUGH, IF YOU GET AN EVIDENCE OR SEARCH WARRANT PHONE LIKE THAT, THEY HAVE TO. THE PHONE COMPANY WON'T NOTIFY THE PEOPLE, BUT THEY DO NOTIFY THEM, I THINK, WITHIN 10 DAYS THAT A SEARCH WARRANT WAS OBTAINED FOR THEIR PHONE RECORDS. SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S TECHNOLOGY THAT ASSISTS POLICE OFFICERS, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE LOTS OF TIMES I KNOW EVERYONE OUT HERE, AND I'VE DONE IT TOO. YOU KNOW, YOU SEE SOMETHING HAPPEN, YOU SAY, WHERE'S THE POLICE OFFICER? WHENEVER YOU NEED IT, WHENEVER YOU NEED ONE. WELL, YOU KNOW, THIS JUST IS MORE TECHNOLOGY. IT'S KIND OF LIKE DNA. YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD DNA. WE'VE ALL HAD DNA FOR. SINCE WE WERE BORN. RIGHT? BUT THE TECHNOLOGY FINALLY CAME ALONG THAT YOU WERE ABLE TO GET DNA SAMPLES FROM PEOPLE. I MEAN, EVERY TIME YOU TOUCH SOMETHING, YOU'RE LEAVING SOME SAMPLES. YOU KNOW, YOU'RE LEAVING SOMETHING. AND KNOWN CRIMES. YOU KNOW, A CRIMINAL ALWAYS LEAVES SOMETHING, ALWAYS TAKES SOMETHING. THAT'S BASIC RULES OF CRIME SCENES. AND IF I'D HAD DNA, I'D HAVE SOLVED CASES A LOT QUICKER BACK IN THE DAY, WHENEVER I WAS DOING THAT. SO THE TECHNOLOGY. AND I APPRECIATE THE TECHNOLOGY WE HAVE, AND IT'S AS FAR AS COMING FORWARD LIKE THIS. NOW, CAN PEOPLE ABUSE IT? SURE. PEOPLE CAN ABUSE ANYTHING THAT THEY GET. AND THIS CAN BE ABUSED ALSO, UNLESS YOU HAVE GOOD RESTRICTIONS. IT'S LIKE RUNNING, USING THE TCIC AND NCIC. YOU KNOW, YOU CAN RUN A CHECK ON ANYONE, BUT THERE'S GUIDELINES THERE. IF YOU ABUSE IT, WHAT HAPPENS? YOU LOSE YOUR LICENSE TO BE ABLE TO RUN A T LETS. SO YOU REALLY HAVE RESTRICTIONS ON WHAT YOU DO. I MEAN, AT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, WE HAD TLETS WE COULD DO ALL THAT STUFF, BUT WHENEVER I WAS THERE, BUT WE HAD TO LOG EVERYTHING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WAS DOING IT WAS ALL LEGITIMATE. AND THAT'S JUST SAFEGUARDS. [01:05:01] SO IF WE HAVE GOOD POLICIES IN PLACE, I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE THING TO HAVE. I THINK IT'S REALLY GOOD, YOU KNOW, AND I THINK IT WOULD ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WANT TO BE. THEY TALK ABOUT BEING SAFE AND SAFER. IT JUST DOES NOTHING BUT MAKE IT SAFER, MAKES A SAFER COMMUNITY. YOU KNOW, MAYBE IF THE CRIMINALS KNOW THAT, HEY, THERE'S BLOCK CAMERAS AROUND HERE. THEY WON'T COME HERE TO DO ANYTHING. HEY, THEY'RE GOING TO GET CAUGHT, YOU KNOW, AND THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT FOR THAT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. >> THANK YOU. I DO WANT TO ASK HIM A QUESTION REAL QUICK BEFORE YOU GO. CAN YOU COME UP PLEASE? AND I'M SURE THAT YOU'VE SEEN EVERYTHING NATIONALLY AND GOING ON AROUND WHAT MAKES YOUR PRODUCT DIFFERENT AND HOW DO YOU ADDRESS THE CONCERNS OF THE RESIDENTS? BECAUSE I THINK THAT THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS SIMILAR AND IT CAN BE USED AND ABUSED. HOW ARE YOU PROTECTING THE RESIDENTS? >> YEP. SO FROM A MOTOROLA A VIGILANT STANDPOINT, WE HAVE NO OWNERSHIP OF THE DATA THAT IS SOLELY FOR THE CUSTOMER CITY OF PRINCETON. THEY HAVE 100% OWNERSHIP OF IT. WE ARE TOOTH VENT AUTHENTICATION SECURED, CJ SECURED AND COMPLIANT LIKE COUNCIL MEMBER DIF HAD MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, WE USED THROUGH THE NCIC THROUGH THAT LIST TO BE ABLE TO CROSSROADS THE DATABASE. THAT'S LESS THAN ANYTHING THAT WE CONTROL FROM OUR SIDE OF IT NOW. >> DO YOU HAVE ANY SYSTEMS IN PLACE? BECAUSE IT'S NOT LIKE FLOCK CORPORATE IS ABUSING IT. IT'S THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE ACCESS TO IT. IT'S THE OFFICERS, IT'S THE OTHER AGENCIES. SO ON THAT SIDE OF IT, HOW ARE YOU PROTECTING THE RESIDENTS FROM AN AGE FROM AN AGENCY ABUSING IT? >> SO WITHIN THE MOTOROLA DATABASE, WHEN YOU GO IN AND YOU SEARCH, YOU HAVE TO PUT A CASE NUMBER AND A REASON BEFORE YOU CAN DO ANYTHING WITHIN THE SEARCH OF THE DATABASE. AND ALL OF THAT GETS LOGGED. AND SO WHEN YOU RUN AN AUDIT IT SHOWS EVERY OFFICER THAT SEARCHED SOMETHING AND ALSO SHOWS THE CASE NUMBER, THE REASON FOR IT, IN A LIST. >> SO THERE'S A CASE ALREADY OPEN BEFORE YOU ACTUALLY SEARCH? >> YES. SO IT HAS TO BE BASED UPON A CALL FOR SERVICE THAT WE'RE ACTIVELY WORKING TO BE ABLE TO RUN ANYTHING WITHIN THE VIGILANT DATABASE. >> ALL RIGHT. MS. TODD. >> FIRST, I WANT TO SAY THAT OUR OFFICERS, THEY USE THE TOOLS THEY'RE GIVEN AND I KNOW WE'VE HAD RESULTS WITH THEM. SO MY CONCERN IS NOT WITH OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT. HOWEVER, INTENT AND OUTCOME ARE NOT THE SAME. SO WHILE WE MAY HAVE GOOD INTENTIONS, THE OUTCOME IS UNCONTROLLABLE WITHOUT HAVING THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES IN PLACE TO PROTECT THOSE THINGS. OUR OWN DOCUMENTS IN THE AGENDA HAVE STATED THAT, YOU KNOW, THE PROMISE THAT COUNCIL IS GOING TO BE REVIEWING THE CONTRACTS, THE POLICIES, THE DATA RETENTION ACCESS AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS, BUT NONE OF THAT INFORMATION WAS ACTUALLY ATTACHED INTO THE AGENDA FOR EVEN THE RESIDENTS TO SEE WHAT THOSE THINGS ARE. THERE'S NO INDICATION OF AN ORDINANCE CURRENTLY EXISTING. I COULDN'T FIND ONE WHEN LOOKING THROUGH THE ORDINANCES. AND SO I THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT, AS MR. PEEKING HAD SAID, LIKE LOOKING AT WHERE WE ARE, WHAT POLICIES WE HAVE IN PLACE, WHAT WE NEED TO PUT IN PLACE. IF IT'S NOT THERE BEFORE WE START LOOKING AT THE MASS DATA COLLECTION, WHAT IS THE RETENTION? FOR HOW LONG ARE WE GOING TO HAVE TO RETAIN THAT INFORMATION? I KNOW THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS CERTAIN REGULATIONS ON DATA. WHAT IS THE ACCESSIBILITY TO THAT INFORMATION AS A WHOLE? YOU KNOW, ARE THEY SUBJECT TO THE PIR REQUEST? WHAT ALL GOES INTO THAT? THOSE ARE QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE DISCUSSED. THAT'S A TRANSPARENCY FOR THE PEOPLE. BUT AN ADDITIONAL CONCERN I HAVE ABOUT THIS ITEM ISN'T NECESSARILY LIKE MY THOUGHTS ON THE ITEM ITSELF. IT'S RATHER. THE CAMERAS ARRIVED ON THE 26TH AND BY THE 31ST, THE GRANT AUTHORITY HAD BEEN CONTACTED ALREADY ABOUT RETURNING THEM. THAT WAS A DECISION THAT WAS MADE WITHOUT THIS BODY, WITHOUT A PUBLIC DISCUSSION WITH THE RESIDENTS. YOU DON'T HAVE THAT AUTHORITY. >> POINT OF ORDER. THAT'S ACTUALLY NOT WHAT HAPPENED. WHAT HAPPENED WAS WHEN WE RECEIVED THEM, THEY WANTED IT TO GO UP THE SAME WEEK AND IT WAS STILL IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO GET UP THE WEEK. SO IT KIND OF FELL IN LINE. BUT THEY WENT UP BY THAT FRIDAY AND THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. AND THAT'S THE [01:10:01] REASON WHY THE GRANT DID I GO THROUGH. IT WASN'T A DECISION THAT WAS MADE, BUT IT WAS JUST THE TIMELINE AND EVERYTHING AND IT JUST. IT ALL FELL IN LINE. BUT THAT'S IT. >> THAT'S NOT HOW IT WAS PORTRAYED ON SOCIAL MEDIA. >> YEAH, THAT'S WHY IT'S IMPORTANT TO ASK QUESTIONS. GO AHEAD. >> I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM MOTOROLA. JUST NEED YOU TO CONFIRM FOR US THAT MOTOROLA DOES NOT USE THE DATA COLLECTED IN PRINCETON IN ANY OTHER WAY OTHER THAN TO HOST AND JUST HOLD IT UNTIL PRINCETON AND POLICE DEPARTMENT USES THAT DATA. IT'S NOT SOLD TO ANY MARKETER. AND THEN WHAT ABOUT YOUR SYSTEM? WHAT DO YOU HAVE IN PLACE TO ENSURE THAT SOMEONE DON'T HACK. DOESN'T HACK INTO IT AND JUST GIVE US SOME TYPE OF ASSURANCE THAT THIS IS THAT OUR DATA IS SECURE? >> YEP. SO FOR THE FIRST PART OF YOUR QUESTION, YOU'RE CORRECT. LIKE I SAID, PRINCETON 100% OWNS THE DATA. WE HAVE NO WAY FROM OUR END TO ACCESS IT THE ONLY WAY WE CAN. IN THE CASE OF A IT SUPPORT TICKET, WE HAVE TO HAVE PRINCETON MANUALLY ALLOW US ACCESSING THE SYSTEM SO WE HAVE NO CONTROL, NO OWNERSHIP OF IT. AS FAR AS, FROM A SECURITY STANDPOINT, WE'RE FULL CJIS COMPLIANCE, FIPS140, LEVEL 3-3 LEVEL 1 COMPLIANT FOR ALL OF OUR HARDWARE AND SECURITY FOR IT, AS WELL AS ALSO CJIS COMPLIANT FROM THE LATEST AND THE HARDEST STANDARDS IN TERMS OF SECURITY AS FAR AS FOR THE DATA. >> OKAY, BREAK. I KNOW HE SPOKE ENGLISH, BUT I DID NOT UNDERSTAND IT. SO I NEED YOUR HELP. >> SO REAL QUICK, COUNCILMAN, WHENEVER THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT CS COMPLIANCE, SO THERE ARE QUALIFICATIONS THAT POLICE OFFICERS AND EVEN CERTAIN COUNCIL MEMBERS, ANYBODY WHO HAS ACCESS EITHER TO PD INFORMATION, ANYTHING LIKE THAT, HAS TO GET CJIS AS WELL. ONE, SO CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM. AND SO THERE'S DIFFERENT TIERS THAT YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH DEPENDING UPON THE INFORMATION THAT'S GOING TO BE OUT THERE. ANY TYPE OF CONTRACTUAL AGENCY OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT HAS TO GO THROUGH A LEVEL OF CGS, AS RICK HAS TO, BECAUSE HE'S OUR IT PERSON. HE HAS TO GO THROUGH THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF CJS COMPLIANCE THAT THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH SOME OF THESE OTHER NETWORKS. I DON'T WANT TO MENTION OUT MY NAME AND ALL THIS STUFF. THERE'S NO CGIS COMPLIANCE THAT'S OUT THERE. AND SO THAT IS PART OF THE REASON WHY WE ENDED UP TALKING WITH MONITOR AS WELL. >> RICK, I'LL LET YOU KIND OF GO IN HAND WITH THAT. >> ALL RIGHT. SO I CANNOT SPEAK DIRECTLY TO WHAT HE MENTIONED ABOUT HIS SECURITY, BUT EVERYTHING HE SAID MAKES REALLY GOOD SENSE AND IT HOLDS WEIGHT WITH ME BASED ON THE FACT THAT THEY SEEM TO HAVE ALL OF THEIR SECURITY IN PLACE AND THE SIEGES, LIKE CHIEF WATERS SAYS, IS IN PLACE TOO. IF YOU'RE COMPLETELY COMPLIANT WITH CJIS, THEN YOU'RE AT ONE OF THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF SECURITY COMPLIANCES YOU CAN HAVE. SO THAT'S MY ANSWER. >> THANK YOU. >> YOU'RE WELCOME. >> IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL. MR. LONG? >> YEAH, THIS IS KIND OF A QUESTION FOR THE MOTOROLA FELLA AND THEN ALSO KIND OF A STATEMENT, I GUESS, ABOUT THIS. IS YOUR COMPANY VIGILANT WORKING TO DO FACE SEARCH THROUGH THE LEARN SOFTWARE AND SIGNAL SCRAPE TRACKING? >> CAN YOU REPEAT THE FIRST PART OF THE QUESTION? >> SO IS MOTOROLA WORKING TOWARDS A SYSTEM CALLED FACE SEARCH THAT WOULD USE THE LEARN SOFTWARE TO HELP BRING THIS DATA TOGETHER, IF SOMEONE CHOOSES TO DO SO. AND THEN ALSO, ARE THEY ALSO WORKING ON SIGNAL SCRAPE TRACKING FOR ELECTRONIC DATA THAT IS GOING TO BE POTENTIALLY INTEGRATED TO THESE LPR CAMERAS? >> NO, SIR. >> SO MY BIG CONCERN IS THIS IS A STEP, AND EVERY STEP COMES WITH ANOTHER STEP. YOU KNOW IT. AND WHEN IT'S HARD TO BELIEVE ANYTHING, IT'S HARD, YOU KNOW, BELIEVE YOU OR THE INTERNET. BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THE INTERNET LIKES TO SAY THAT MOTOROLA IS WORKING, POSITIONING THEMSELVES TO SIGNAL SCRAPE TRACKING THAT CAN BE INTEGRATED INTO THESE CAMERAS IN THE FUTURE. AND THEN THEY ALSO HAVE A LEARN SOFTWARE, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT HELPS INTEGRATE THIS LPR CAMERA DATA WITH FACE RECOGNITION DATA. SO IF THAT'S THE COMPANY THAT'S PROVIDING THESE CAMERAS FOR OUR CITY, IF THAT'S THE STEPS THAT THEY'RE TAKING, THEN THAT MEANS THAT'S THE STEPS THAT THEY WANT TO FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THE CAMERAS THAT THEY'RE CREATING. SO I JUST THINK WITH EVERY STEP WE TAKE TOWARDS SURVEILLANCE, THERE'S ALWAYS ANOTHER STEP BEHIND IT. AND I TOTALLY GET THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE [01:15:02] RIGHTEOUS USE OF IT BECAUSE I TRULY BELIEVE THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE USE IT RIGHTEOUSLY AND PROPERLY, NOT VIOLATING ONE'S LIBERTIES. BUT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S STILL A LOT OF UNANSWERED QUESTIONS WITH, YOU KNOW, HAVING MORE INFORMATION. I THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA. A FELLOW POINTED OUT THAT WE SHOULD SHOULD HAVE OUR ATTORNEY WRITE UP A LEGAL OPINION ABOUT THESE COURT CASES THAT ARE STILL PENDING, ESPECIALLY THIS LATEST ONE WITH THE SUPREME COURT. SO I THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA THAT WE GET AN OFFICIAL OPINION ON THAT. AND THEN I'D ALSO LIKE TO JUST HAVE MORE TIME TO LOOK INTO EXACTLY WHAT THE NEXT STEPS ARE FOR THESE LPR CAMERAS, AND WHAT THE PROGRESSION OF THIS TECHNOLOGY IS INTENDING TO BRING OUR WAY, WHETHER WE'RE SEEKING IT NOW OR NOT. FIVE YEARS AGO, NONE OF US WERE REALLY SEEKING THIS FLAT CAMERA STUFF, BUT HERE WE ARE. AND THEN I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION ABOUT THAT CASE THAT WE FOUND THAT PERSON UP TOWARDS MISSOURI. SO DOES THIS MEAN WE HAVE AGREEMENTS WITH EVERY CAMERA BETWEEN HERE AND MISSOURI OR IS IT A GENERALIZED AGREEMENT THROUGH THE CAMERA SYSTEM AND COMPANY? HOW DOES THAT WORK AND VERSUS AN MOU? SO I JUST WANT TO GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THAT, IF YOU CAN FINISH WITH THAT. >> SURE. BUT THAT CASE SPECIFICALLY, WE HAD ASSISTANCE FROM OUTSIDE AGENCIES. THE RANGERS CAME IN AND HELPED US AND THEY USED TO SOME OF THEIR CONNECTIONS TO HELP US SEARCH THE FLOCKED INDIVIDUAL BECAUSE AT THAT TIME WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY OF IT. SO WE WERE DEPENDENT UPON OUTSIDE RESOURCES. >> ALL RIGHT, MR. JOHNSON, I'LL HAVE YOU GO NEXT, MR. DEFFIBAUGH. BUT MR. JOHNSON. >> ME FIRST. >> NO, MR. JOHNSON FIRST, AND THEN YOU. >> OKAY, SO NOT QUESTIONS. I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS. IT'S MORE OF A STATEMENT. I FEEL LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE THE WORLD'S PROBLEMS HERE IN PRINCETON. THIS IS A NATIONAL ISSUE. I THINK THIS ISSUE IS A LITTLE LARGER THAN US RESOLVING HERE IN PRINCETON OR ANY POLICY THAT WE CAN CREATE. AS WE KNOW THIS IS A NATIONAL. SOMETHING NATIONAL. THERE ARE ONGOING COURT CASES WITH THIS. THE STATE HAS PULLED BACK ON THIS. I THINK IT WILL BE WISE TO, YOU KNOW, FOR US TO TAKE A STEP BACK, SEE HOW THIS PLAYS OUT IN THE STATE, SEE WHAT, YOU KNOW, POLICY WHICH, AS WE HEARD EARLIER, WE ARE WOEFULLY UNDERSTAFFED. SO WE DON'T HAVE THE EXPERTS ON STAFF THAT COULD KIND OF HELP US THROUGH THIS NATIONAL ISSUE TO WHERE THE STATE HAS PLENTY OF PEOPLE THAT CAN DO THAT. SO I THINK THAT WE SHOULD TAKE OUR KEY VIEWS FROM A HIGHER LEGISLATION. AND THEN ONCE IT'S RESOLVED THERE, THEN WE BRING THIS BACK AND KIND OF DISSECT IT AT THAT POINT. BUT UNTIL IT IS RESOLVED NATIONALLY, I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD VENTURE ANY FURTHER WITH THIS ALPR ON OUR OWN. I THINK WE SHOULD LET THIS PLAY OUT AT THE STATE LEVEL. >> I WOULD IMAGINE, JUST THINKING ABOUT THIS CASE THAT WHERE THEY CAUGHT THE PERSON IN MISSOURI, THAT USING NCIC OR TCIC, IF IT'S STATEWIDE OR NCIC, THEY PUT OUT A BROADCAST, A BOLO, BUT A BOLO IS ACTUALLY A WESTERN NECKTIE, BUT BE ON THE LOOKOUT FOR. ANYWAY, THEY PUT OUT AN NCIC BROADCAST. AND ANYONE THAT HAS THESE CAMERA DATABASES OR THESE CAMERAS IN THEIR DEPARTMENT, THE DISPATCHER SEES THAT COME ACROSS THEIR COMPUTER SYSTEM, THEY SAID, OH, SO THEY GO OVER THERE AND THEY ENTER THAT, THAT LICENSE PLATE IN THERE TO SEE IF IT'S COME THROUGH THERE. AND I'M SURE THAT'S PROBABLY. I'M THINKING THAT'S PROBABLY THE WAY IT'S DONE, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO USE THAT BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, POLICE OFFICERS CAN'T BE EVERYWHERE. BUT THESE CAMERAS ACTUALLY TAKE THE PLACE OF THAT IN HELPING TRACK DOWN PEOPLE. >> SO WITH, WITH THIS CASE SPECIFICALLY, WE WERE ABLE TO PINPOINT IN WHICH AREA THE VEHICLE WAS IN. WE CONTACTED THE MISSOURI HIGHWAY PATROL WITH A BOLO AND THAT'S HOW THEY WERE ABLE TO LOCATE THE VEHICLE. >> IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL? ALL RIGHT, I'M GOING TO MAKE A STATEMENT BEFOREHAND. I THINK THAT IN MY OPINION IS AS ELECTED OFFICIALS, WE'RE ON BOTH SIDES. WE'RE ON THE RESIDENT SIDE AND WE'RE ALSO ON THE CITY SIDE AND IT PUTS US IN A VERY UNCOMFORTABLE SPOT. IT PUTS US IN A POSITION TO WHERE WE HAVE TO MAKE DECISIONS THAT ARE BEST FOR THE RESIDENTS. BUT IN THIS SITUATION HERE, I FEEL LIKE THAT WE HAVE AN ABUNDANCE AMOUNT [01:20:02] OF RESIDENTS WHO SAID NO FROM ONLINE, THEN EMAILS AND, AND JUST ON A NATIONAL LEVEL. AND IT'S FOR US AS ELECTED OFFICIALS TO LISTEN TO THIS. THE RESIDENTS, THAT THE RESIDENTS WILL COME FIRST. AND IF THEY'RE NOT. IF THEY'RE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THIS, THEN I THINK THAT IS FOR US TO LISTEN TO WHAT THEY WANT BECAUSE THEY VOTE US IN TO DO WHAT THEY WHAT. WHAT THEY WANT. AND THEN SO FOR ME, I'M AGAINST MOVING FORWARD WITH, WITH EITHER ONE OF THESE TECHNOLOGIES. ANY FIXED LPRS I'M NOT OKAY WITH. I'M OKAY WITH THE ONES THAT ARE ON YOUR CARS ALREADY. I THINK THOSE HAVE BEEN USED FOR THE PAST 20 YEARS OR SO. BUT ANYTHING THAT'S A FIXED LOCATION CAMERA, I THINK THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE COMFORTABLE FOR THE RESIDENTS. RESIDENTS ALREADY ARE CONCERNED. THEY'RE ALREADY SCARED OF IT AND THEY JUST THINK THAT WE'RE GOING TO PUT ANOTHER CAMERA SYSTEM IN PLACE THAT DOES THE SAME EXACT THING. SO I THINK THAT FOR US, IT'S JUST LIKE WHEN IT CAME DOWN TO THE TAX RATES, THEY WASN'T COMFORTABLE WITH US GOING TO A HIGHER TAX RATE. THAT'S WHY WE BROUGHT IT BACK DOWN FROM THE 10 CENTS. I THINK THIS IS ANOTHER SYSTEM THAT WHERE IF THE RESIDENTS ARE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH IT, I MEAN, THERE'S NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION OUT THERE YET. SO I THINK THAT IS FOR US TO PUT THE INFORMATION OUT THERE AND LET THE RESIDENTS COME BACK AND SPEAK ON IT AGAIN TO SEE IF. IF THEY WANT THIS. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT IS FOR US TO DECIDE WHAT THE RESIDENTS SHOULD HAVE IF EVERYONE IS AGAINST IT. SO I THINK THAT JUST AS ELECTED OFFICIALS, WE FORGET THAT AT TIMES BECAUSE WE SEE THE BAD SIDE OF THINGS. WE KNOW WHAT YOU GOT TO GO TO GO THROUGH. I KNEW WHAT YOU GUYS GO THROUGH. I SAT ON CALL. I'M CHIEF AND I'M A TECH GUY. I'M IN IT. I LOVE TECH, BUT I JUST, YOU KNOW, AT THE END OF THE DAY, I HAVE TO LISTEN TO WHAT THE RESIDENTS WANT, AND I'M GOING TO BE 100% AGAINST THE INSTALLATION UNTIL WE GET MORE INFORMATION. KIND OF LIKE WHAT MR. JOHNSON SAID, THAT WE JUST NEED TO SEE HOW THESE CASES TURN OUT BEFORE THE CITY OF PRINCETON CAN DECIDE ON WHICH DIRECTION TO GO IN AT THIS TIME. AND IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS, THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION AT THIS TIME. >> YOUR HONOR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO, TO APPROVE OR AT LEAST GO FORWARD TO WORK ON THE POLICIES, WORK ON THE TECHNOLOGY AND MAKE SURE WE HAVE IT TIED DOWN THAT FOR THE GOOD USE OF IT. I WOULD IMAGINE EVERY PERSON OUT HERE THAT SAYS THEY'RE AGAINST IT, IF THEY HAD A GRANDCHILD OR A CHILD THAT WAS KIDNAPPED AND THE PERSON WAS CAUGHT BY THAT TECHNOLOGY, THEN THEY'D BE ALL FOR IT. >> POINT OF ORDER. >> IS THAT A MOTION? >> YEAH, WELL, COMMENT, BUT THANK YOU. I'M SORRY. I DO MAKE A MOTION TO GO FORWARD, WHAT HAVE YOU. >> I GUESS THE QUESTION IS TO CONTINUE INSTALLING THESE LICENSE PLATE READERS IN THE CITY. I SAID THE QUESTION IS. BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THEY'RE WAITING FOR COUNCIL DIRECTION TO WHETHER TO MOVE FORWARD WITH INSTALLATION OR NOT. OR SO THE MOTION NEEDS TO ALSO ADDRESS THAT AS WELL. >> MY MOTION WOULD BE TO GO FORWARD EVEN WITH THE INSTALLATION AND THEN WORKING ON THE POLICIES, MAYBE NOT COME ONLINE UNTIL ALL THAT IS TAKEN CARE OF. >> WE HAVE A MOTION. THERE'S NO SECOND. THAT MOTION FAILS. ENTERTAINING A NEW MOTION AT THIS TIME. >> YOUR HONOR, I MAKE A MOTION TO SUNSET ANY OF THE ALPR TECHNOLOGIES. >> ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION. >> I'LL SECOND. >> CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT SUNSET MEANS? I'M SORRY? >> DECOMMISSION OR NOT, MOVE FORWARD OR CLOSE OUT. >> OKAY, MR. LONG, I KNOW YOU SECOND, BUT DO YOU WANT TO SECOND AGAIN? >> SECOND. >> ALL RIGHT, MR. LONG, SECOND. ALL RIGHT, MOTION PASSES. 5-1. THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> THANK YOU. [J5. 2026-205 Consider a Non-Standard Wastewater Service Agreement ("NSSA") between the City of Princeton, Texas (the "City"), and Lennar Homes of Texas Land and Construction, Ltd. (the "Developer") for the Acorn South Addition Phase 2; and take appropriate action.] >> THIS WILL TAKE US TO J5, MS. ALLEN. >> J5, 2026-205. CONSIDER A NON STANDARD WASTEWATER SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PRINCETON, TEXAS AND LENNAR HOMES OF TEXAS LAND AND CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED FOR THE ACORN SOUTH ADDITION PHASE 2. AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. >> MAYOR AND COUNCIL, SHARITA SWEET ODAME, INTERIM ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR PUBLIC WORKS. I AM BACK BEFORE YOU WITH CORRECTIVE POSTINGS AND ALSO WHAT I [01:25:01] WOULD HOPE ALLEVIATE SOME CONCERNS THAT COUNCIL HAD THAT WE SPOKE ABOUT BEFORE. I DO HAVE A LITTLE SYNOPSIS FROM THE ENGINEER TODD HENSLEY WHO WAS ON THE PROJECT FOR SOME CONCERNS THAT WERE VOICED LAST MEETING AND THEN ALSO SOME I WANTED TO POINT OUT SOME THINGS THAT ACTUALLY ARE IN THE CONTRACT NOW THAT WE TALKED ABOUT LAST MEETING. SO FROM TODD HE SAYS THAT IN 2020 THE CITY OF PRINCETON REQUIRED THE DEVELOPER LENNAR HOLMES TO STUDY THE ENTIRE PENINSULA TO PROVIDE A SEWER SOLUTION FOR THE ENTIRE BASIN THAT WAS LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY LIMITS AND ETJ BUT INSIDE OF THE CITY AND PURSUER. THE STUDY PROPOSED 10 MILLION GALLONS A DAY FOR THE LIFT STATION AND TWO FORCE MAINS THAT WOULD BE ROUTED THROUGH THE EASEMENTS TO THE GRAVITY SEWER LINE THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED BY THE CITY AND WAS SIZED FOR THE BASIN AS WELL. TO DATE THE DEVELOPER WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BUILDING THE FIRST HALF OF THE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING LARGE GRAVITY SEWER LINES DOWN TO THE LIFT STATION. ALL CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE AREA ARE UTILIZING LESS THAN THE CURRENT CAPACITY. ACORN SOUTH PHASE 2 EDITION IS LOCATED ALONG THE ROUTE OF THE EXISTING GRAVITY MAIN ACORN NORTH AND SOUTH DEVELOPMENT THAT IS APPROVED INFRASTRUCTURE AND IS ACCEPTED THAT IS APPROPRIATELY SIZED FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT AND DEVELOPMENTS AROUND THIS TRACKED AND WITH THEIR OWN NSSA. HE FURTHER TALKS ABOUT THE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT WHICH IS THE $8,000 WHICH WAS PROPOSED BY THE PREVIOUS CITY ATTORNEY. BUT HE UNDERSTANDS THAT IT WAS EXPLAINED TO HIM THAT IT WAS A CONSERVATIVE NUMBER BUT THAT IS WHAT WAS AGREED UPON WHEN THIS NSSA WAS FIRST APPROACHED. NOW FOR MY NOTES, THE AGREEMENT THAT'S ATTACHED IF YOU LOOK LOOK AT PAGE 9 SECTION 8 A AND B YOU WILL SEE THE PRE TERMINATION CLAUSES THAT WAS ASKED FROM COUNCIL DURING LAST MEETING. AND IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE 13 GOING INTO 14 UNDER ASSIGNMENTS YOU WILL ALSO SEE THE REQUIRED NOTIFICATION IF IN FACT THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT IS FOR A DATA CENTER. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> JUST WAITING TO BE RECOGNIZED. >> ALL RIGHT, MR. JOHNSON, I APOLOGIZE. >> ALL RIGHT, NO WORRIES. SO I LOOKED AT IT AND THANK YOU FOR GOING BACK YOU AND KELLY REVISING THE CONTRACT. I SAW HERE THE CONNECTION FEE PROVISION WAS UPDATED TO WHERE WE NOW THAT WE HAVE A $378,000 DIFFERENCE IN THAT FEE. SO THAT GIVES US A TON OF CUSHION ON THOSE CONNECTIONS. THE TERMINATION CLAUSE THAT WAS UPDATED TO WHERE THERE IS AN AVENUE TO WHERE WE COULD SUSPEND OR TERMINATE BASED ON ANY MATERIAL BILLS IN THERE AS WELL AS THE ASSIGNMENT RIGHTS. I SAW AND I HIGHLIGHTED IN THERE THAT IT HAD WE SAW THAT THE COUNCIL RETAINS APPROVAL SPECIFICALLY FOR DATA CENTER DEVELOPMENT. SO THOSE WILL BE NOTIFIED. THOSE WILL COME BACK IN TERMS OF. IF THEY DO TRY TO ASSIGN THOSE RIGHTS TO ANY DEVELOPER THAT IS A DATA CENTER. SO I FELT LIKE THAT WAS A HUGE PLUS. HAPPY MEDIUM FOR THE CITY AS WELL AS LENNAR. >> YES. >> ME, PERSONALLY, I'M EXTREMELY HAPPY WITH THE UPDATES IT MADE IN THIS AGREEMENT. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT DUE DILIGENCE. >> THANK YOU, SIR. >> IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS, I ENTERTAIN A MOTION AT THIS TIME. >> I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM J5. >> SECOND. >> MOTION PASSES 6-0. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. THIS WILL TAKE US TO. LET'S SEE. WE'RE GOING [J2. 2026-209 Consider appointments and/or reappointments to the Zoning Board of Adjustments (ZBA); and take appropriate action.] TO ACTUALLY PULL AND NOT GO INTO J7. SO THIS WOULD START OFF WITH J2. MS. ALLEN, >> ITEM J2, 2026-209. CONSIDER APPOINTMENTS AND OUR REAPPOINTMENTS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. >> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. OUR ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS MADE UP OF FIVE BOARD MEMBERS, REGULAR MEMBERS, AND FOUR ALTERNATES. CURRENTLY, WE DO NOT HAVE ANYONE ON THAT BOARD. TODAY, WE'VE GOT, OR RATHER THE PEOPLE THAT ARE THERE. THEIR TERMS EXPIRED JUNE OF 2026. SO TWO OUT OF THOSE THAT ARE ALREADY ON THE BOARD HAVE APPLIED TO SERVE [01:30:01] ON THE BOARD AGAIN, AND THEN WE HAVE FIVE OTHERS. SO YOU ALL HAVE SEVEN APPLICATIONS THAT WERE SENT TO YOU. WE WOULD APPRECIATE IF Y' ALL WOULD CHOOSE SOMEBODY FOR THE BOARD. WE DO HAVE A COUPLE OF VARIANCE CASES TO BE LISTENED TO. >> SO WE HAVE SEVEN OPEN SPOTS. >> WE HAVE NINE OPEN SPOTS, BUT ONLY SEVEN APPLICANTS. >> OKAY. AND WE'RE ONLY GOING TO NEED FIVE TO WORK QUORUM, CORRECT? TO GET THAT WORK. >> FIVE, AND THEN TWO. WELL, THERE'S FOUR ALTERNATES, SO IT'S YOUR PREROGATIVE HOW MANY YOU WANT TO POINT, WHAT PLACES YOU WANT TO POINT THEM FOR. >> MISS TODD. >> I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT OUR ALTERNATES. WE HAD SOME ALTERNATE APPLY FOR THE BOARD, AND I THINK THAT THEY SHOULD BE MOVED FROM AN ALTERNATE TO, LIKE, PLACE ONE OR ONE OF THE OPENINGS. >> SO I HAVE A LIST OF. I DON'T KNOW HOW WE WANT TO DO THIS, BECAUSE THERE. WE CAN JUST GO THROUGH ALL FIVE. >> YOU WANT TO. >> YEAH, I MEAN, YOU CAN. I MEAN, I THINK WE HAVE TO. TO VOTE FOR EACH PLACE. KELLY, DO WE HAVE TO VOTE FOR EACH PLACE, OR CAN WE VOTE WITH ONE MOTION TO PLACE ALL FIVE PLACES, PLUS THE TWO ALTERNATIVES? >> YOU CAN COME TO AN AGREEMENT AND VOTE ON ALL THE PLACES. >> OKAY. >> YEAH. >> SO IF YOU WANT TO. I MEAN, WE HAVE TO KIND OF TAKE EVERYBODY, SO. >> SO, WE'LL GO ONE PLACE AT A TIME. >> YOU CAN DO THEM ALL AND JUST SAY THIS PERSON FROM PLACE ONE, THIS PERSON. PLACE TWO, THIS PERSON, PLACE THREE, AND YOU. ONE MOTION CAN. IS THAT HOW THAT WILL WORK OR. >> IT IS. >> OKAY. >> OKAY. >> SO FOR PLACE ONE, I WOULD SAY JOSE BARRIOS. FOR PLACE TWO, SOHAL AMANAT. PLEASE FORGIVE ME IF I'M BUTCHERING THESE NAMES. PLACE THREE, JUSTIN PAUL. PLACE FOUR, ROSHIA HOLLAND. PLACE FIVE, NATHAN CARROLL. AN ALTERNATE, CAMMIE THOMAS. >> ALL RIGHT, SO THAT WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? MR. LONG. >> SORRY. WAS THAT A MOTION? >> SORRY. THAT WAS HIS SUGGESTION. OKAY. MR. LONG. >> SORRY. >> WELL, THEN I AGREE WITH THAT WITH MR. JOHNSON'S RECOMMENDATION. >> OKAY. NOW, WE NEED A MOTION. IF EVERYBODY IN AGREEMENTS WITH MR. JOHNSON, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO RESTATE THAT MOTION AGAIN WITH THE PLACE NUMBERS. YOU MISSED ONE. OKAY, GO AHEAD. I MEAN, BUT I MEAN, IN THE MOTION, YOU CAN MOVE. >> YEAH. >> WHILE WE'RE ON. I'M SORRY. >> NO, YOU'RE GOOD. >> WELL, WHILE WE'RE GETTING THE MOTION TOGETHER HERE, I DID HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT. I KNOW WE WERE PUTTING TOGETHER SOME TRAININGS FOR BOARDS AND THIS BOARD IN PARTICULAR. YOU KNOW, IN THE PAST, WE'VE HAD TROUBLE KEEPING MEMBERS ON THIS BOARD. I'M INTERESTED TO KNOW IF WE CAN HAVE SOME TYPE OF WORKSHOP OR SOMETHING, SOME TYPE OF TRAINING TO. BECAUSE THIS IS AN IMPORTANT BOARD, ESPECIALLY AS WE CONTINUE. CONTINUE TO HAVE MORE PROJECTS AND MORE THINGS. I DIDN'T KNOW IF WE HAD SOMETHING LIKE THAT IN THE WORKS OR NOT. >> I KNOW, WE'RE WORKING WITH LEGAL ABOUT GETTING EVERY BOARD INDIVIDUALLY TRAINED, SPECIFIC TO THEIR BOARD, AND NOT ONE MAJOR TRAINING. SO WE ARE GONNA. WE'RE LOOKING TO EXPLORE THAT WITH NICHOLAS AND JACKSON. >> ALL RIGHT. AT THIS TIME, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> ALL RIGHT, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPOINT. PLACE ONE, JOSE BARRIOS. PLACE TWO, SOHAL AMANAT. PLACE THREE, JUSTIN PAUL. PLACE FOUR, ROSHIA HOLLAND. PLACE FIVE, LESLIE JACKSON. ALTERNATE NUMBER ONE, CAMMIE THOMAS. ALTERNATE NUMBER TWO, NATHAN CARROLL. >> ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> I'LL SECOND. [01:35:02] >> I'M MISSING ONE VOTE. ALL [J3. 2026-210 Consider appointments and/or reappointments to the Planning and Zoning Commission; and take appropriate action.] RIGHT, MOTION PASSES 6-0. THIS WILL TAKE US TO ITEM J3. >> ITEM J3. 2026-210. CONSIDER APPOINTMENTS AND OUR REAPPEARANCE APPOINTMENTS TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. >> GOOD EVENING AGAIN, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. THIS ITEM WE HAVE A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THAT HAS SEVEN MEMBERS. CURRENTLY, THERE ARE TWO OPEN SEATS, AND WE HAVE FIVE APPLICATIONS FOR THIS THAT WERE FORWARDED TO YOU. >> I'M JUST GOING TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION. I'LL LET EVERYBODY ELSE GO FROM THERE, BUT I'M GOING TO RECOMMEND LARRY THOMPSON AND RASHAD FOR ONE OF THOSE TWO SEATS. >> YEAH, I WOULD ALSO RECOMMEND MR. THOMPSON AS WELL FOR ONE OF THESE PLACES. >> I WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND MR. AMARNI AND THOMPSON FOR. MR. THOMPSON PLACE 2 AND ROMANI PLACE 6. >> IN REVIEWING THESE, I THINK KIANA WATSON, WHO HAS A LEGAL BACKGROUND, WOULD BE EXTREMELY BENEFICIAL ON OUR PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD, WHICH IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT ENTITIES WHEN GOING THROUGH THE BUILDING PROCESS. SO I THINK KIANA WATSON AND SHARAD RAHMANI WOULD BE THE BEST CANDIDATES FOR PLANNING AND ZONING. >> AND I WILL SECOND CHRISTINA ON THAT. COUNCILWOMAN TODD, I'M SORRY. I WOULD URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO RECONSIDER CONSIDERING THE NEED ON THAT BOARD IN TERMS OF THE AMOUNT OF KNOWLEDGE THAT THE DATA THAT THEY'RE LOOKING INTO AND, YOU KNOW, LOOKING THROUGH THE INTERVIEWS, THE CANDIDATE YOU GUYS ARE SUGGESTING DID NOT ANSWER THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE PRESENTED IN THE VIDEOS. SO, THAT WAS ALSO KIND OF A POINT OF ME TO WHERE I WAS LIKE, I THINK THE KEANU WASHINGTON WOULD BE A BETTER CANDIDATE FOR P AND Z AT THIS. >> MR. LONG. >> I'M ABOUT TO BE READY. YOU GUYS HAVE ANY COMMENTS? IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN AT THIS TIME I ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPOINT SHARAD ROMANI TO SEAT TWO AND KIANA WATSON TO SEAT SIX. >> SECOND. >> MOTION FAILS 2-4. WELL, 4-2. SO AT THIS TIME, I ENTERTAIN A NEW MOTION. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPOINT SHROUD ROMANI TO PLACE TWO AND LARRY THOMPSON TO PLACE SIX. >> I SECOND. >> MOTION PASSES 4-2. >> WHEN INFORMATION. ONE OF OUR ORDINANCES STATES THAT PLANNING AND ZONING ALSO GETS ALTERNATE SEATS. CAN WE APPOINT ALTERNATES AT THIS TIME FOR PLANNING AND ZONING? SINCE WE'VE HAD MANY MEETINGS WHERE WE DID NOT MEET QUORUM. >> WE'LL BRING THAT TOPIC BACK. WE LOOK INTO IT. ALL RIGHT, THIS WILL TAKE US TO ITEM. >> BRING IT BACK NEXT MEETING. >> YEAH, YEAH. >> AND CAN WE RETAIN THESE APPLICATIONS FOR THAT POSITION? >> I THINK THE NEW POLICY WOULD, THEY'LL BE IN THERE FOR SIX MONTHS, I BELIEVE, AS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. RIGHT? >> CORRECT. >> THIS WILL TAKE US TO J4. [J4. 2026-212 Consider approving an appointment to the Community Development Corporation, and take appropriate action.] >> I LIKE THE 10 OUT HERE. >> THANK YOU. >> THERE YOU GO. >> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, COUNCIL. DAVID HALL. I'M SERVING AS YOUR INTERIM ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER. I'LL PRESENT THIS ITEM BEFORE YOU. THIS IS FOR YOUR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD DIRECTOR NED HAS RESIGNED IN PLACE TWO. SHE'S GOT AN UNEXPIRED TERM ENDING IN DECEMBER OF 2026. YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU, I BELIEVE, ONE APPLICANT FOR CONSIDERATION FOR THIS POSITION. >> ALL RIGHT. AT THIS TIME I ENTERTAIN A MOTION. [01:40:01] >> YOUR HONOR, I MAKE THE MOTION TO APPOINT LAKEISHA THOMPSON TO PLACE TWO. >> I SECOND. >> MOTION PASSES 6-0. I JUST WANT TO CONGRATULATE ALL OF OUR NEW APPOINT APPOINTEES. AND FOR J7 WE'RE GOING TO ACTUALLY BRING BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING. THERE'S SOME ERRORS IN SOME OF THE WORDING THAT WE NEED TO CORRECT BEFORE WE TAKE ACTION ON IT. SO WE PULL [H. EXECUTIVE SESSION] IN J7 AND WE'LL SEE THIS AT THE NEXT MEETING AND WE'LL GO INTO EXECUTIVE NOW. SO THE TIME IS 8:56. EXECUTIVE SESSION. YOU'VE TERMED THE CHAPTER 551 OF TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE. CITY COUNCIL MAY ENTER INTO A CLOSED SESSION OR EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS THE FOLLOWING SECTION 551071 OF TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE CONSULTATION WITH CITY ATTORNEY. THIS WILL BE FOR AGENDA ITEM 20260908R AND ALSO THE LAGUNA AZURE LLC VERSUS CITY OF PRINCETON. ONCE AGAIN, THE TIME IS 8:56. THIS WILL TAKE US INTO EXECUTIVE. ALL RIGHT, [I. ACTION PERTAINING TO EXECUTIVE SESSION] THE TIME IS 9:19. AND THIS WILL TAKE US OUT OF EXECUTIVE. THERE IS AN ACTION. DO WE DO IT HERE IN ACTION PERTAINING TO HIS EXECUTIVE FOR THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER. MS. KELLY. >> YOUR HONOR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO OPEN UP TWO ITEMS WE PREVIOUSLY HAD. ITEM G3 AND ITEM J1 FOR TO CONSIDER DIFFERENT DATES. >> ALL RIGHT. YOU HAVE TO PUT IT IN YOUR MOTION THE DATES. WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE J1 AND THEN G3 AS WELL. YOU HAVE TO TO MAKE THE FULL MOTION. >> DON'T WE HAVE TO OPEN UP THE MOTION PRESENTATION BECAUSE WE HAVE TO READ A MOTION THAT KELLY HAD FOR US AND CHANGE THE DATE. >> YES, YOU'LL HAVE TO OPEN IT UP. >> OKAY. SO THIS DATE HERE FROM THIS IS. IS THIS THE TAX ONE? >> THIS IS ITEM J1, I BELIEVE. >> LET'S SEE WHICH ITEM THIS ONE IS. >> SHE'S LOOKING FOR IT. >> SO THAT ONE WAS G3. SO G3 IS GOING TO BE ON THE 28TH? >> YES. >> JOHN, I DON'T THINK G3 HAD A PARTICULAR ITEM THAT WE HAD TO READ. JUST ITEM J1. IS THAT RIGHT, KELLY? >> J1 HAD PARTICULAR WORDING. G3 WAS A CONSENT ITEM. AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEPARATE THAT. JUST MAKE SURE THAT WE SAY THAT THE BUDGET HEARING WILL BE SEPTEMBER 21ST. WHICH IS G3 WAS A COMBINATION. SO LET'S SAY G3 BUDGET HEARING, 21ST. TAX HEARING, 28TH. >> OKAY. >> YOUR HONOR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON G3 TO SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CITY OF PRINCETON'S FY 2026-2027 PROPOSED BUDGET AND PROPOSED PROPERTY TAX RATE FOR THE 21ST OF SEPTEMBER. I DON'T KNOW WHAT DAY THAT FALLS ON. >> OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> I'LL SECOND THAT. >> MR. WASHINGTON, SECOND. MISSED IN ONE VOTE. ALL RIGHT, MOTION PASSES 5-1. THIS WILL TAKE US TO. AND YOU RECONSIDER J1 AS WELL. >> YOUR HONOR, ON ITEM J1, 20260908R. I MOVE TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION, 20260908R PROPOSING A FISCAL POINT FISCAL YEAR 2026 PROPERTY TAX RATE OF 0.472959 PER 100 EVALUATION AND SAID IN SEPTEMBER THE 28TH AT 6:30PM IS THE DATE AND TIME FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED PROPERTY TAX [01:45:01] RATE. >> I'LL SECOND. >> ALL RIGHT. MR. WASHINGTON, SECOND. >> OH, YEAH, I GOT A ROLL CALL THIS ONE. >> >> ALL RIGHT, MOTION PASSES 4-2. ALL RIGHT, THIS WILL TAKE US TO ITEM J8, 2026- [J8. 2026-211 Consider approving a request for items to be placed on a future agenda and NOT for discussion of these requests.] 211. CONSIDER APPROVING A REQUEST FOR ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA. NOT FOR DISCUSSION OF THESE REQUESTS. MR. GRACE? >> OH, I'M NOT SURE IF ON A FUTURE AGENDA, BUT I HAVE BEEN GETTING QUITE A NUMBER OF REQUESTS FROM INDIVIDUAL OUTSIDE OF THE CITY AS TO THE REASON THEY CANNOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF WINTER QUARTER AVERAGING. AND SO. SO I'M WONDERING IF MAYBE WE NEED TO PUT SOMETHING UP ON THE WEBSITE SO THEY'RE ABLE TO SEE SPECIFICALLY WHY I'VE BEEN SHARING THAT. BECAUSE THEY'RE OUTSIDE OF THE CITY'S LIMITS, THAT BENEFIT DOES NOT EXTEND TO THEM. BUT IT SEEMS AS IF THERE MIGHT NEED TO BE A MORE DETAILED EXPLANATION. AND SO I'M WONDERING IF WE CAN HAVE THAT DONE. >> OKAY. AND I KNOW BEN BROUGHT THAT UP TOO, SO. WE ARE WORKING ON IT. >> THAT WORKS. >> AND THEN ANYBODY ELSE? >> I HAVE A FEW. >> DEFINITELY GO FIRST. >> YOUR HONOR, I'D LIKE TO HAVE GREENFIELD ACRES PLACED ON THE AGENDA FOR THE PURPOSE OF LOOKING AT THEIR ROADWAYS AND POSSIBLE RECONSTRUCTION. PUTTING IT ON OUR LIST. IT'S ONE OF THE OLDER COMMUNITY PART OF THE DEVELOPMENTS IN IN CITY OF PRINCETON AND ALSO THE ABBOT EDITION ALSO. >> AND I KNOW GREENFIELD WILL BE ON THE NEXT ONE. I'LL LOOK IN AID AS WELL. >> THANK YOU. >> MISS TODD. >> I WOULD LIKE DEVELOPMENT FEES COLLECTION REPORT OF THE FEES ASSESSED, THE ONES THAT HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN COLLECTED AND ANYTHING THAT'S OUTSTANDING FOR THIS AN AGENDA ITEM OR. >> THIS SOUND LIKE A. I WOULD LIKE TO REVIEW IT FOR A RECORDS REQUEST. >> I WOULD LIKE US TO REVIEW THAT SINCE IT'S OUR FINANCES. >> YEAH, I THINK YOU HAVE TO PUT IN A REQUEST FOR THAT, BUT GO AHEAD. >> I'M GOING TO ASK AGAIN FOR US TO REVIEW THE PIR PROCESS. I'VE BROUGHT THIS UP MANY TIMES AND I KNOW THAT WE'VE RECEIVED SMALL EMAIL ABOUT THAT. I'M STILL WAITING ON SOME FINANCES THAT I'VE ASKED FOR. SO I THINK WE NEED TO REVIEW THE PROCESS TO UNDERSTAND HOW THAT GOES THROUGH. I'D ALSO LIKE TO REVIEW THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR LONG NECK 75, GOING FROM THE SICILY DEVELOPMENT ALL THE WAY DOWN TO COLLEGE AND THROUGH MONTE CARLO FROM FIRE STATION IS IT'S 2 ALL THE WAY UP TO 4TH STREET. I BELIEVE THAT COUNCIL NEEDS TO HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT OUR PLANS FOR THAT AREA AND THE DISCUSSIONS THAT ARE HAPPENING REGARDING THAT AREA. >> I'LL SECOND THAT. I LIKE TO GET SOME TYPE OF COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW ABOUT THAT PLAN DEVELOPMENT AS WELL. JUST FOR OUR OWN KNOWLEDGE. >> IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? >> MR. MAYOR, AND NO, THIS IS NOT AN AGENDA ITEM, BUT WOULD YOU PERMIT ME TO THANK THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND JUST ALL WHO WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR GETTING THE LIGHTS ON? OH, BOY. WHAT'S THE NAME OF THE STREET? NOT BEECHAM, NOT MONTE CARLO, IT'S BY FREDDY'S. >> OH, CYPRUS. >> YES. IT'S MUCH LIGHTER THERE. THE OTHER NIGHT I WAS DRIVING HOME AND THERE WAS SOMEONE WALKING. THEY WERE IN DARK CLOTHING AND HAD THOSE LIGHTS NOT BEEN ERECTED, I WOULD NOT HAVE SEEN THEM. I'D PROBABLY RUN THEM OVER. THEY CROSSED THE STREET. SO I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR DOING THAT. THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH. >> I THINK. MS. TODD, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD? >> YES. AGAIN, I'D LIKE TO REQUEST, I THINK FOR THE FIFTH TIME, I WANT THE DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT THAT WAS DONE AND INCLUDES THE [01:50:01] TIKI CREEK CORRIDOR. THERE'S A PRESENTATION ON OCTOBER 21, 2024 TO PLANNING AND ZONING THAT NEVER CAME TO COUNCIL. I WOULD LIKE AN UPDATED REVIEW ON THAT AREA WITH THE CONCERNS FOR THE [K. REPORT AGENDA] DRAINAGE AND INFRASTRUCTURE. >> SO THIS TAKES ITEM K REPORT AGENDA. NEXT SPECIAL PNZ MEETING WILL BE, IT WILL BE DATED. I THINK WE WE'RE CHANGING THE DATES ON THAT MEETING. NEXT REGULAR EDC MEETING WILL BE TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2026 AT 6:00PM THIS 16TH, WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THAT MEETING AT THIS POINT. OKAY. SO THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 16TH WILL BE CANCELED. OUR NEXT REGULAR CITY CDC MEETING WILL BE WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16TH, 2026 AT 6:00PM. NEXT SPECIAL LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD MEETING WILL BE THURSDAY, OCTOBER 22ND, 2026 AT 6:30PM AND AT THIS TIME, I ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN. >> YEAH, I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION TO ADJOURN. >> SECOND. >> ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE? ANY NAYS? THE TIME IS 9:28. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.