Colleen Maring, Chief People Officer at Northern Arizona Healthcare addressed Council about plans for a new hospital in Flagstaff, emphasizing the need for a modern facility to meet community needs without disrupting current services. NAH was considering several Flagstaff sites for a new hospital, though rebuilding on the current FMC site would be highly disruptive. The new facility was intended to reduce wait times, improve access to care, and ensure 24/7 emergency services.

Housing Intern Aidan Rutledge addressed Council to share details about an upcoming homebuyer resource and education event in partnership with Housing Solutions of Northern Arizona and the Northern Arizona Association of Realtors. The expanded Community Home Buyer Assistance Program now offers up to $50,000 in support for first-time buyers, funded by the 2022 housing bond. Eligibility had been raised to households earning up to 150% of the area median income. The event would guide residents on accessing the program, preparing for homeownership, and connecting with housing professionals.

Sustainability Outreach and Communications VISTA Kenzie Marino addressed Council and announced the opening of the Flagstaff sustainability grant, which offered up to $7,500 for local projects that promote sustainability and resilience. Eligible projects could focus on energy, food, transportation, waste, or community health and resilience. Applications would be accepted through September 30, 2025 with grant materials, support hours, past project examples, and contact information available on the city's website.

Alan Winninger addressed Council with concerns about school safety and advocated for a permanent on-duty school resource officer at Flagstaff High School. He referenced recent safety incidents at Flagstaff High School, including a weapon-related lockdown. He praised the Flagstaff police, but emphasized the need for more resources and suggested three officers instead of one to better protect students and staff. 

Mayor reordered the agenda to move Item 11B to the Public Hearing agenda after Item 10A. 

Mayor Daggett read and presented the proclamation.

Celia Barotz addressed Council and highlighted the importance of genetic screening for detection of ovarian cancer and breast cancer. She urged people to talk to their healthcare providers out genetic testing.

Mayor Daggett read and presented the proclamation.

Councilmembers House reported that she attended the Housing Commission meeting, where they reviewed the 2024 – 2025 10-year housing plan annual report and discussed city-owned land for housing. The Commission on Diversity Awareness meeting covered the Hispanic Heritage Month proclamation and heard from the Townsite Community Land Trust. She also participated in the third quarter Coconino County Crisis System meeting, which brought together healthcare, justice, and crisis intervention partners to strengthen the countywide crisis system, including Flagstaff. 

Vice Mayor Sweet noted that the MetroPlan meeting was coming up.

Councilmember Matthews reported that she attended a Mountain Line meeting and will provide a report at the next week’s meeting. 

Moved by Mayor Becky Daggett, seconded by Councilmember Khara House to appoint Jennifer Vargas to a Low Income Housing Expert position on the Housing Commission.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Councilmember Khara House, seconded by Councilmember David Spence to appoint Sarah Miles to a Low Income Housing Expert position on the Housing Commission.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Councilmember Anthony Garcia, seconded by Vice Mayor Miranda Sweet to appoint Jacqueline Kellogg to a Builders and Real Estate Professional - Realtor position on the Housing Commission.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Vice Mayor Sweet requested to pull Item 8B for discussion.

Moved by Councilmember David Spence, seconded by Councilmember Khara House to approve the Consent Agenda as presented with the exception of Item 8B.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Vice Mayor Sweet thanked staff and Eagle Mountain Construction for advancing the project. The Wildcat interceptor upsizing was one of the most important infrastructure investments to ensure Flagstaff was prepared for future growth. She expressed her support for the contract.

Moved by Vice Mayor Miranda Sweet, seconded by Councilmember Khara House to approve the First Amendment to the CMAR Construction Phase Services Agreement with Eagle Mountain Construction, Inc. (EMC) in an amount of $4,555,128 to add Phase 1 - GMP 2 for the Wildcat Interceptor Sewer Upsizing Project (Project), approve an Owner's Contingency of $100,000, which is approximately 3% of Phase 1 - GMP 2, and authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary documents.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Councilmember Khara House, seconded by Vice Mayor Miranda Sweet to read Ordinance No. 2025-15 by title only for the final time.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Councilmember Khara House, seconded by Vice Mayor Miranda Sweet to adopt Ordinance No. 2025-15.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Councilmember Khara House, seconded by Vice Mayor Miranda Sweet to read Ordinance No. 2025-15 by title only for the final time.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Councilmember Khara House, seconded by Vice Mayor Miranda Sweet to adopt Ordinance No. 2025-15.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Councilmember David Spence, seconded by Councilmember Khara House to read Ordinance No. 2025-14 by title only for the final time.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Vice Mayor Miranda Sweet, seconded by Councilmember David Spence to adopt Ordinance No. 2025-14.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Capital Improvements Engineer Trevor Henry provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following:

SPRUCE WASH CEDAR CROSSING GMP 4 CO NO. 1
SPRUCE WASH – CEDAR CROSSING
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
CHANE ORDER NO. 1 INCLUDES
PUBLIC OUTREACH AND COORDINATION EFFORTS
FOURTH-CEDAR ROUNDABOUT

City Manager Clifton and City Council offered gratitude to staff for their time and effort to move the project forward and minimize the impacts to residents and businesses. To see the project from start to finish in a three-year time frame was remarkable. 

Moved by Councilmember Austin Aslan, seconded by Councilmember Anthony Garcia to approve Change Order No. 1 for Cedar Crossing in an amount of $1,990,330 and authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary documents.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Current Planning Manager Alax Pucciarelli provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following:

CANYON DEL RIO PHASE 2 PRELIMINARY BLOCK PLAT
CANYON DEL RIO
CANYON DEL RIO AREA MAP
PRELIMINARY BLOCK PLAT
PRELIMINARY PLAT RENDERING
FINDING #1: ZONING CODE
EXISTING ZONING REGULATIONS
NATURAL RESOURCES
PARKS, OPEN SPACE, PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES
FINDING #2: SUBDIVISION STANDARDS
MEETS SUBDIVISION AND LAND SPLIT REGULATIONS (CHAPTER 11-20)
FINDING #3: ENGINEERING STANDARDS
MEETS ENGINEERING STANDARDS
ACCESS AND TRAFFIC
WATER AND WASTEWATER
STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Councilmember House asked if Finding #1 with the conditions included the proposed FUTS trail alignments. Ms. Pucciarelli indicated that it was substantially in conformance meaning that they were primarily focused on where people were coming from, where they were going, and develop the best route. Councilmember Aslan asked if there was any impact to the Arizona Trail. Ms. Pucciarelli clarified that the Arizona Trail was not aligned to go through the area, it was just city FUTS.

to approve the Preliminary Plat, in accordance with the findings presented in this report and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation of approval (7-0 on August 13, 2025) with the following conditions:

1. The final plats for each phase shall be in substantial conformance with the preliminary plat including the phasing plan and map (sheets PH01 and PH02) of the preliminary Block Plat of Canyon del Rio Phase 2. Each phase and parcel of the Canyon del Rio plat must meet all requirements independently.
2. The Final Plat for Canyon del Rio Phase 2 must meet the conditions of approval in the IDS approval comment letter dated June 5, 2025, as well as the conditions in the Traffic Impact Analysis Approval Memo dated July 10, 2025 (staff and the applicant are continuing to discuss the proportional share contribution for improvements at the Whetstone and Fourth Street Intersection, as well as responsibility for payment of that proportional share; the conditions related to improvements at the Whetstone and Fourth Street Intersection may be revised or removed depending on the outcome of those discussions).

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Mayor Daggett opened the public hearing.

Senior Planner Ben Mejia explained that the public hearing needed to be postponed to September 16, 2025.

Moved by Councilmember Khara House, seconded by Vice Mayor Miranda Sweet to postpone the public hearing to a date certain of September 16, 2025.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Housing Planning Manager Jennifer Mikelson provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following:

PROP 442- APPROVED NOV. 2022
PURPOSE OF FUNDING
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
PRIORITIES FOR THIS PROGRAM
PASS/FAIL EVALUATIVE CRITERIA
PROJECT DETAILS
APPLICATION PROCESS
LOAN TERMS
NEXT STEPS

Councilmember Matthew voiced concern that the money might be directed toward transitional housing rather than solely permanent units. Transitional housing was important in the overall continuum, but the purpose of the bond was to address the permanent housing shortage.

Assistant Housing Director Justyna Costa clarified that the bond pamphlet language was broad and allowed for either transitional or permanent rental units, depending on developer proposals, though transitional projects usually relied on additional outside funding. The policy could be amended if council wished to restrict eligibility. A majority of Council supported to keep transitional housing eligible because it played a vital role in moving people out of homelessness and reflected the Housing Commission’s unanimous approval of the draft policy.

There were questions about how the 30-year affordability requirement would be enforced. Ms. Mikelson explained that compliance would be tracked through biannual reporting, loan agreements, and new software tools. 

Nadine Hart addressed Council in opposition to allowing bond funds to be used for transitional housing. The city already had a large transient hotel and multiple shelters, what was missing was permanent homes for residents. 

Moved by Councilmember Khara House, seconded by Councilmember Austin Aslan to read Resolution No. 2025-44 by title only.

Councilmember House stated that many of the people who were in need of transitional housing were not simply transient, they were members of the community. Many people could be considered one life event away from experiencing that sort of need. It was part of moving people from experiencing homelessness into that continuum of permanent housing.

Vote: 6 - 1

NAY:

Councilmember Lori Matthews

Moved by Councilmember Khara House, seconded by Councilmember David Spence to adopt Resolution No. 2025-44.

Vote: 6 - 1

NAY:

Councilmember Lori Matthews

Mayor Daggett opened the public hearing.

Zoning Code Manager Tiffany Antol provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following:

PZ-25-00041: SINGLE USE RESIDENTIAL & ADAPTIVE REUSE INCENTIVES
SINGLE USE RESIDENTIAL & ADAPTIVE REUSE
WHY IS THIS AMENDMENT HAPPENING?
BACKGROUND
WHAT DOES THE AMENDMENT INCLUDE?
NEW DEFINITIONS
NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVE
ADAPTIVE REUSE APPLICABILITIY
ADAPTIVE REUSE INCENTIVES
NON-RESIDENTIAL ADAPTIVE REUSE PARKING REDUCTIONS
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
FLAGSTAFF REGIONAL PLAN 2030
10-YEAR HOUSING PLAN
CARBON NEUTRALITY PLAN
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, CONVENIENCE, OR WELFARE OF THE CITY
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS INTERNALLY CONSISTENT WITH OTHER APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THIS ZONING CODE
RECOMMENDATION

Councilmember House asked how Finding 1 considered the upcoming new regional plan. Ms. Antol stated that they look to the future plan along with the existing plan.

There being no public comment Mayor Daggett closed the public hearing.

Moved by Councilmember Lori Matthews, seconded by Councilmember Austin Aslan to read Resolution No. 2025-42 by title only.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Councilmember Lori Matthews, seconded by Councilmember Khara House to read Ordinance No. 2025-16 by title only for the first time.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Police Chief Sean Connelly and Deputy Chief Collin Seay provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following:

AUTOMATED LICENSE PLATE READER (ALPR) DISCUSSION WITH THE FLAGSTAFF CITY COUNCIL FOR THE FLAGSTAFF POLICE DEPARTMENT

Chief Connolly introduced Trevor Chandler with Flock Safety to talk about the Flock system.

Mr. Chandler stated that Flagstaff retained complete ownership of its own data from the license plate reader system. Flock cannot sell or share information, and only the city or its police department could decide whether to share data with other agencies. Private businesses that use Flock’s technology did not have any access to government data, and all data that was not downloaded for evidentiary purposes was automatically deleted after 30 days. The system captured only images of vehicles and license plates and did not collect any personally identifiable information.

To protect the information that was gathered, Flock encrypted all images and treated them with the same level of security as the most sensitive government data. They were certified under federal and industry standards such as FBI CJIS, SOC 2, HIPAA, FERPA, and ISO 27001. New safeguards had also been added, including filters to block searches that would violate sanctuary city laws, clearer labeling of federal agencies requesting access, and restrictions on the scope of federal use. Every search conducted in the system required a user ID, a reason, and in some cases a case number. All searches were permanently logged to allow for full audits. If Flagstaff determined its data was being misused, it could revoke access immediately.

Mr. Chandler highlighted the public safety benefits of the technology. He noted endorsements from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which oversaw the Amber Alert program, and Mothers Against Drunk Driving. The system had been used to recover abducted children, identify hit-and-run drivers, and build unbiased evidence for prosecutions. By focusing only on vehicles already flagged as suspicious, the system avoided the subjectivity of officer judgment and supported precision policing rather than mass surveillance.

Courts at both state and federal levels had consistently found the use of license plate readers constitutional under the Fourth Amendment, with one ongoing case in Norfolk, Virginia standing as an exception. Mr. Chandler stressed that the cameras did not track people’s movements or private activities. Instead, they provided snapshots at fixed points in time, giving law enforcement objective evidence to help solve crimes while maintaining a balance between public safety and community values.

Councilmember Garcia noted that the system looked at the exterior of a vehicle, he asked at what point there could be concerns with the Fourth Amendment. 

Mr. Chandler explained that The Supreme Court had ruled that the exterior of a vehicle, when visible on a public road, was not protected under the Fourth Amendment. It had been established that vehicle exteriors were considered public information. Under constitutional case law, continuous tracking of a vehicle, such as attaching a GPS device without a warrant, would violate the Fourth Amendment. However, fixed cameras that captured license plates at specific locations did not constitute ongoing surveillance. Because license plates are government-issued documents meant for public display, courts had consistently found that capturing images of them at a set point in time did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Vice Mayor Sweet asked the difference between a typical license plate reader and the Flock system.

Mr. Chandler stated that Flock had expanded the traditional use of license plate readers by allowing agencies to share information with one another if they chose. In the past, license plate readers were limited to a single agency, either through squad car computers or dash-mounted cameras, meaning only that agency would be notified if a flagged vehicle appeared. With Flock’s system, agencies such as Flagstaff and Phoenix could voluntarily enter into sharing agreements so that if a vehicle linked to a case was detected in another jurisdiction, both agencies received the alert. The ability to collaborate across jurisdictions was one reason the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children had strongly endorsed the technology. He emphasized that sharing was entirely optional and under the sole control of each agency; the company did not monetize or automatically share data. All information was stored securely and encrypted until an agency decided how and with whom to share it. Additionally, the cameras were limited to capturing vehicles and license plates only, they did not have facial recognition technology and databases could not be searched based on human characteristics.

Councilmember House shared that a regular question that Council received was about the potential for sharing information with federal agencies particularly in relation to immigration. She asked what the current status of sharing information for that purpose was and where it stood with communities if they chose not to share the information. She asked if Flock still had the ability to share the city’s data.

Mr. Chandler explained that Flock had previously ran short pilot projects with Homeland Security Investigations and Customs and Border Protection to test the system’s effectiveness in combating human trafficking and fentanyl trafficking. Those pilots have since ended, and neither agency currently had access to the system. If federal agencies were to seek access in the future, they would not be able to use state or national lookups but only connect with agencies that had chosen to share directly with them. Any request from a federal agency would be clearly labeled as such so that local communities could decide whether to allow sharing based on their own values. The data always belonged to the local agency, and it would never be shared without explicit consent.

Police Detective Jared Wotasik continued the presentation.

CITY OF FLAGSTAFF ALPR DISCUSSION
THE FLAGSTAFF POLICE DEPARTMENT’S COMMITMENT
HISTORY OF FLAGSTAFF POLICE DEPARTMENT ALPR PROGRAM
INFORMATION ABOUT ALPR TECHNOLOGY
CASE EXAMPLES THAT HIGHLIGHTED THE NEED FOR ALPRS
WHAT IS AN ALPR
COMPETITORS ON THE MARKET
OUR POLICY
QUALITY CONTROL AND AUDITING
OUR FLOCK CAMERA DEPLOYMENT
AGENCY DATA SHARING
VICTIM SUCCESS STORIES
CONTRACT AMENDMENT

Mayor Daggett opened the discussion on the citizen petition. 

The following individuals spoke in opposition of the use of ALPR cameras and in support of advancing the petition to a future agenda:

• Brenden Trachsel
• Kai Kelly
• McCallister Banks
• Tristian Ugalde
• Jill Stephensen
• Elizabeth Deere
• Debra Block
• Richard Kozac
• Marcus Ford
• Robert Breunig
• Gary Pearlmutter
• Michael Caulkins
• Desiree Perez
• Kevin McCoy
• Travis Smith
• Celia Barotz
• Oksana Dresler
• Charlie Silver

The following comments were received:

• End the contract immediately.
• They store vehicle information including stickers, damage, etc.
• Data is shared statewide.
• Mass surveillance gives government more power.
• Information is available without probable cause.
• Has been used inappropriately in the past.
• False positives.
• Breach of privacy.
• Cities are abandoning their policies and equipment.
• Typically, you need a warrant for a police tail.
• No one is saying we do not want justice for victims but what is the cost of that?
• I do not want to live in a surveillance state.
• We are putting all our trust in artificial intelligence.
• There is a lack of trust, and this was pushed through without discussion a year ago.
• We are now being tracked as we travel around the state and country.
• Crimes are being committed with no plates or fake plates.
• The capabilities of these cameras are more advance than anyone can imagine.
• There was no notice to the community about installations around the country.
• Data is constantly stored and analyzed by Flock’s AI tools.
• There is no where I can travel where I can avoid these.
• Flock existence is suffocating our rights.
• They have the ability to take photos of drivers, passengers, and the inside of our vehicles.
• A Kansas police officer arrested for stalking and unauthorized acts for using Flock cameras to track his ex-wife.
• A woman was hunted down by Texas law enforcement for seeking reproductive care.
• How does this keep our community safer?
• This erodes our privacy, rights, and democracy.
• Consider the environmental impacts from AI technology.
• Flock cameras are incompatible with the values of Flagstaff and Americans.
• Council should protect their constituents from the all-seeing eye.
• Terminate all current and future contracts with Flock.
• Appreciate the help to police that these cameras provide but constitutional freedoms are being undermined.
• Concerned about the hacking of these systems.
• What if the federal government demands that we share information with them, specifically with ICE?
• All citizens will report crimes that they see, and we all become active members of our community.
• Citizens have no desire to be tracked by their government since the Revolutionary War.
• Flock cameras go against community policing policies by removing the human element of policing.
• A better use of funds is to train police.
• Constitutional rights are under attack at all levels.
• You are asking the community to accept a tool of mass surveillance.
• Data collection and analysis occurs without consent.
• I am more concerned with mass surveillance than being a victim of crime.
• Some Arizona law enforcement agencies have assisted ICE and provided access to Flock.
• This is the wrong direction for Flagstaff.
• The concern is how easily this technology can grow beyond its intentions.
• How many times will we fall for the lies and bait and switch for a better world.
• Identifying a car is the same as following a person, it is identifying the person driving the vehicle.
• Crime has been dropping for 33 years, well before Flock came along.
• Police say that these cameras will make their job easier and our lives safer but this comes at a cost to our freedom.
• Our safety is important but so is our liberty.
• The disadvantages far outweigh the advantages.
• Your job is to protect our political freedoms.
• Installation of devices such as Flock cameras without adequate public conversation puts us on a slippery slope and on a path to a surveillance state.
• This is an invasion of my privacy rights. 
• Council approved the original contract on the Consent Agenda, there was no discussion on the guardrails, you have an opportunity to do that now.
• An individual travelling in an automobile does not necessarily mean that you give up all rights to privacy.
• There needs to be more discussion about civil liberties and rights within the context of these contracts.
• Search criteria having to be approved by supervisors gives no sense of comfort.
• Flock spent $460,000 in lobbying efforts.
• Austin and Sedona have cancelled their contracts because of the jeopardies that it poses to our human rights.
• The city might be opening itself up to multiple lawsuits.
• Where does big data end?
• All companies get hacked, how is this different?
• This data should not be so freely available.
• The federal government will have access to this data whenever they want.
• Make available to the public all policies and MOUs of all agencies we partner with.

The following individuals submitted written comments in opposition of the use of ALPR cameras and in support of advancing the petition to a future agenda:

• Desiree Perez
• Debra Block
• Luis Fernandez
• Casey Rucker
• Ira Allen
• Stephanie Kohnen
• Kevin White
• Jonas Noomah

The following individuals spoke in support of the use of ALPR cameras:

• Nadine Hart

The following comments were received:

• It is hypocritical when everyone here is using a cell phone and computer and don’t mind being surveilled when they are shopping online.
• Follow the rules, if you are not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about.
• This is about keeping our public safe.
• Surveillance is everywhere.
• We need to align ourselves with the federal government and share resources.
• We care about terrorists, threats to our schools, missing children.
• If left to their own devices people will commit crimes and try to get away with it.
• Please consider adding more cameras to keep our community safer.
• This is protecting us all.
• The following individuals submitted written comments in support of the use of ALPR cameras:
• Brad Mihalik
• Bernice and Ray Carver

Councilmember Garcia asked whether the contract had auto renewed. Purchasing Director Patrick Brown clarified that while the underlying cooperative contract ran through 2027, renewals only occurred if both the city and Flock agreed each year. The current amendment under consideration was what would authorize the next year of service, it had not automatically renewed.

Councilmember Garcia also asked about the concerns around the federal government extracting local data. Chief Connolly emphasized that the data belonged to Flagstaff, not Flock or any federal agency. He emphasized that he had no intention of sharing data with the federal government. He noted this as both an ethical and professional commitment.

Councilmember Garcia offered that the use of Flock cameras could actually enhance community policing by reducing the need for officers to sit and wait for vehicles. It could free up more time to engage with residents. He felt that further discussion between the community, Council, and the Police Department was needed before taking action on the citizen petition.

Councilmember House stated that during the presentation Chief Connolly had stated that he would be willing to have a tech advisory board, she asked him to expand on that willingness. Chief Connolly stated that he strongly supported the idea, and felt that it was important to foster trust, transparency, and community involvement in shaping policy. He had prioritized creating processes that ensured policies were developed with community input, and he saw a tech advisory board as a natural extension of that approach. He explained that as technology became more integrated into law enforcement, it was essential to have thoughtful, community-based conversations about how it should be used. He shared the evolution of community policing, and noted past failures when police departments imposed broad, heavy-handed tactics that strained trust. He stressed that with tools like license plate readers, the goal was precision policing, where investigations were targeted and evidence-based rather than casting wide nets that unfairly impacted entire communities. In his view, involving the community through an advisory board would help ensure safety strategies reflected both public values and effective policing practices.

Councilmember Matthews noted that there were misconceptions in the community about what Flock cameras did and what risks they posed. She referred to comments that expressed concerns about potential Fourth Amendment violations, targeting individuals rather than scanning license plates, the presence of cameras at Home Depot, and questions about what the city’s contract allowed to be shared. Much of the community concern was rooted in fear and a lack of clear information. She asked staff to address those specific concerns to provide transparency, clarify misunderstandings, and help the community distinguish between legitimate concerns and speculation.

Chief Connolly clarified that the city did not have cameras at Home Depot. There were corporations that were seeking video security measures due to crime on their properties, but the city was not involved in those efforts. The was no planned expansion of the city’s 32 cameras, it was just sustaining what currently existed.

Senior Assistant City Attorney Marianne Sullivan acknowledged that several comments raised Fourth Amendment concerns and explained that, while she could not provide specific legal advice, existing case law addressed privacy rights related to tracking people’s movements and the use of automatic license plate reader technology. She noted that no court case had determined that license plate reader systems violated privacy rights or required a warrant, which reflected the current legal position on the issue.

Councilmember Matthews also referenced concerns about future governments mandating that information be shared. She asked what options the city had in that sort of situation. Ms. Sullivan stated that the data collected currently belonged to the city and it was the city’s choice who to share it with. The city did not share the information with federal agencies and city policies specifically stated that the technology was not to be used for immigration investigations or enforcement. She further explained that if there were to be a change in the federal government demanding access to the city’s data, there was a provision within the contract that would allow the city to cancel with proper notice at any time and end the program if needed.

Vice Mayor Sweet asked about false positives or misidentifications within the system. Deputy Chief Seay stated that errors could occur; for example if another agency failed to remove a vehicle from the stolen list after it had been recovered or when a plate was not clearly read such as a two being interpreted as a seven. When a Flock or ALPR alert was received, officers must verify the information before taking enforcement action, since camera misreads were possible. If a mistake occurred, such as stopping the wrong vehicle, it must be documented in a police report and stored in department records. 

Vice Mayor Sweet also asked about issues with the system being hacked. Mr. Chandler stated that the system had not been hacked and that the contract required immediate notification to customers if a breach ever occurred. He explained that the system used encryption and cloud security equal to or stronger than what most municipal governments employed. Although the data collected contained no personally identifiable information, the company continued to enhance its security measures and encryption standards to maintain strong protection and prevent potential breaches.

Councilmember Aslan thanked the police chief, department staff, and community members for their engagement. He emphasized the city’s duty to protect vulnerable residents while following state and federal law. Although expressing strong trust in the Flagstaff Police Department’s integrity and intentions, he voiced concern about expanding surveillance technology like Flock cameras amid growing national misuse of such tools. He questioned conflicting claims about whether the city must comply with outside data requests, and argued it was safer to assume compliance would be required. While noting that community fear stems from higher levels of government rather than local policing, he warned that surveillance technology could easily be abused and that it was not the right time to expand it. Despite the department’s good intentions, the risks to privacy outweighed the benefits and he planned to vote against the contract amendment while encouraging continued transparent discussion.

Councilmember House emphasized that trust and transparency were core community values and that many residents’ questions about Flock and license plate readers stemmed from those principles. She trusted the Police Department’s intentions and recognized the program’s usefulness but noted that concerns about surveillance were part of a broader state and national conversation driven by actions beyond local control. She argued that, before amending the contract, the city must fully examine the implications to avoid becoming a “mass surveillance state.” While not necessarily calling for cancellation of the contract, she supported continuing the discussion and moving the issue forward for further consideration.

Councilmember Matthews reiterated the widespread confusion and misinformation about Flock and license-plate readers. It was important for the city to be transparent and educate the public with factual answers. She noted that Sedona had paused their contract for similar reasons, and acknowledged documented misuse of surveillance could occur but could be limited with proper procedures and guardrails. She questioned how plate-scanning meaningfully differed from other data collection like facial recognition on cell phones, social media, or phone tracking. She also stressed the need to avoid decisions that would hamper solving serious crimes and called the citizen petition flawed. Although she had seen no major violations since Flagstaff’s contract began last June, she urged a more robust conversation and recommended pausing to address community concerns before moving forward.

Mayor Daggett and Councilmembers Spence and Garcia indicated their support for advancing the petition to a future agenda for discussion.

Moved by Councilmember Khara House, seconded by Councilmember Lori Matthews to postpone the contract amendment until after the citizen petition discussion.

Councilmember Spence shared that he would vote against the motion because he favored extending the contract with the firm understanding that the city could cancel the contract at any future time if needed.

Vote: 6 - 1

NAY:

Councilmember David Spence

Nadine Hart addressed Council and described being hit by a truck while biking through the Forest and Beaver intersection despite having a green light. The driver ran the red light, did not stop. There were frequent accidents caused by short or inconsistent light cycles, and many people, including students and visitors, regularly used the intersection. She urged the Council to review and improve the traffic light timing and safety measures at Forest and Beaver to better protect cyclists, pedestrians, and drivers.

Councilmember Garcia expressed interest in learning more about Flagstaff’s historic preservation efforts. He suggested a work session to review how historic preservation was managed, including the inventory of historic buildings, staff roles, strategies for adding to that inventory, and how the Historical Preservation Commission functioned independently from City Council. 

Councilmember Aslan shared that he was excited about the virtual power purchase agreement that staff had presented at the prior Council meeting. He was looking forward to the partnerships that would come from the program. He also asked about the possibility of contributing to the Lenchito Vargas family Go Fund me for funeral expenses.

Vice Mayor Sweet thanked staff and the public for their participation in the difficult discussion that night. She shared personal experiences where cameras had helped solve incidents and reinforced her support for the technology while acknowledging the importance of continued conversation about transparency, trust, and community well-being. She expressed regret for not addressing the issue earlier but appreciated the opportunity to engage further and emphasized her trust in the police department and belief in the community’s ability to have an honest, productive discussion.

The Regular Meeting of the Flagstaff City Council held September 2, 2025, adjourned at 7:57 p.m.