The proposal for the ALPR camera contract dominated the meeting, with a portion of the council expressing apprehension regarding the potential for misuse of data collected by the cameras. The contract, valued at $12,000 for a year, was viewed by several council members as lacking in transparency, particularly concerning Flock’s privacy policy, which included language allowing access to collected data under certain circumstances. One council member articulated their concerns, noting a discrepancy between Flock’s assertion that they do not own the data and the reality of their policies suggesting otherwise.

The urgency of the proposed contract was another point of contention. The council was presented with a looming deadline to sign the agreement by June 30 to secure a $3,800 discount on installation fees, yet the timeline for community engagement was criticized as insufficient. A 30-day opt-out period was included in the contract, but several members felt this did not adequately address the need for public consultation before the initial vote.

In contrast, another member recognized the potential public safety benefits of the ALPR system, particularly in aiding law enforcement in resolving cases involving missing persons or stolen vehicles. They expressed support for the technology as a tool to enhance community security, yet acknowledged the importance of maintaining transparency and the option to terminate the contract if necessary.

The council’s debate on the ALPR contract highlighted a division among members, ultimately resulting in the rejection of the resolution, as the majority voted against the proposal.

In other matters, the council addressed resolutions related to affordable housing projects, with a focus on tax increment financing (TIF) aimed at supporting low to moderate-income housing developments. The proposals included a 72-unit multifamily rental building and a 60-unit senior housing project, both designed to address the city’s housing needs. The council heard from representatives of the development companies, who explained that the TIF would help close funding gaps by capturing taxes generated from increased property values and redirecting them to cover development costs.

Council members expressed curiosity about how these proposals differed from similar projects that did not receive tax credits the previous year. The development representatives responded by detailing refinements made to the applications, including new project partners and adjustments addressing past feedback, which they believed would improve their chances of receiving housing tax credits.

The discussion extended to the procedural aspects of the TIF applications, with council members showing interest in the proposed income limitations for the housing units, which ranged from 30% to 60% of the area median income.

The meeting concluded with customary reports from council members about their activities and involvement in community events, as well as expressions of condolences and well wishes for community members facing personal challenges.