Sunset Valley City Council

I don’t believe we should continue to contract with Flock. We need a surveillance system available to our excellent police department that the proper use and safe guards And protect citizens’ rights, and information assiduously.

Regarding Flock: To council members, I wish to indicate to you on behalf of Sandra and myself, our strong recommendation that you deny the renewal of the Flock contract.

I am very skeptical of any financial benefit to the city of Sunset Valley, and I don't believe that it could be realistically demonstrated. More importantly I think it is a serious error in judgment on behalf of the council to adopt security cameras in Sunset Valley. I'm highly dubious of any attempt to explain by Flock that they will use the data only for certain purposes or that it is monitored or that is controlled in any reasonable way.

Moreover, Sunset Valley cannot responsibly enter this contract without a significant amount of oversight on behalf of the city. To my knowledge, this has not been done and is not contemplated. Of course, this would be an additional cost and would require the retention of qualified individuals and the appropriate technology.

We live in a complex world. We're in a small city. This program is not something that we need to enter into, and should not do. In my mind it is symbolic, in that it shows how we may let technology run completely amok and with the potential of interfering with our daily life in ways we did not contemplate. Why should Sunset Valley do this when there is no necessity for it? I do not get it, and I urge the council strongly to deny the renewal of the Flock contract.

Respectfully yours,
Glen and Sandra Wilkerson
27 Sunset Trail

Sorry- last comment (baby with the bathwater) is Will Moncrieff, 24 Reese. I'm a first time caller and didn't know that names were not automatically added.

There seems to be consensus that we trust and support our police department. There are concerns about Flock in particular and what THEY, not SVPD, would do with the data they record on the cameras. Surely there is a way to keep our police equipped with all the tools they want to stop/prosecute crime, including cameras, while also keeping the data out of the hands of people our community doesn't trust. I try to never suggest work for others, so I will volunteer to find such a solution if needed. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

There are enough qualified concerns about the Flock video surveillance system that Sunset Valley should cancel the contract. However, I would like the Sunset Valley Police Department to have many tools available to them to keep us safe, if there are guard rails that prevent distribution of the information beyond the city. Interestingly, one of the observations of the Austin internal auditor that led to them dropping the service was that they didn’t have enough internal guidelines to stop abuse of the information.




Myles Fox
Pillow Road

I’m a huge fan of our Sunset Valley police. I’ve had nothing but great experiences with them and am grateful for their protection, kindness and dedication. I don’t want to deprive them of the tools they need to do their job, but I oppose the use of Flock’s cameras and systems. I understand it’s no small job to analyze the other available options but I encourage Sunset Valley to do so. Perhaps by now a very viable alternative is available.

I respect and appreciate the Sunset Valley Police Department. SVPD is a model of community policing, and my opposition to Flock ALPR is not about distrust of our local officers.


It’s about the system itself.


Flock’s AI-driven cameras do far more than monitor traffic. They create a centralized surveillance network that records the movements of residents, visitors, and passersby—most of whom are not suspected of any crime—and stores that data in ways our city cannot fully control.


In today’s Texas political climate, that matters. These systems can be used to amplify harm, including vigilante-style enforcement around abortion care and expanded surveillance of immigrant communities. The people most exposed are not abstractions—they are our neighbors, friends, and families. Many of us have close ties to these communities. This is personal.


Flock has repeatedly shown weak safeguards and irresponsible data practices. Misuse is not hypothetical; it is inevitable when surveillance is this broad and oversight is this limited. Public safety should remain the responsibility of accountable public institutions, not private companies whose profits depend on expanding data collection.

The Supreme Court has recognized that privacy includes the totality of a person’s physical movements. Once we normalize systems that permanently log those movements, we lose something fundamental—and we do not get it back.

Neighbors tell me that Sunset Valley was safe before these cameras. We can be safe without them now. I urge the City to join the growing number of communities walking away from Flock and to stand up for civil liberties, community trust, and the values that make Sunset Valley feel like home.

Christine Allen
12 Reese Dr.

I'd also like to comment regarding agenda 11, the uplands. I think we should take option 3, the "wait and see" approach to parking. With so much AISD uncertainty, I'd hate to rush to design/build parking at any expense and then come to find out it's unnecessary. Let's be judicious and take a measured approach and take our time with the parking situation so we can leave as much of the uplands as wild and natural as possible.

I would like to comment regarding renewing the flock cameras. Please do renew the contract if the police department thinks they are a beneficial addition. I'd like to provide our department with any tools available to do their job best.

I am asking the council to vote against renewing the Flock license plate camera contract. I'm a Public Safety committee member and an engineer. I care about our privacy, and it's shocking to think that we would give law enforcement funds to a company that we now know repeatedly breaks laws and sells unfettered access to our data.

I can't usually sit through YouTube videos, but if you already know something of Flock, even the first 10 minutes of this one by a security researcher is educational: https://youtu.be/uB0gr7Fh6lY

The Flock system essentially contains an insecure 9-year-old Android phone that stores our data unencrypted, counter to the company's claims. The sloppy security makes it embarrassingly easy to get data remotely or directly from the physical cameras. Typical of growth-at-all-costs startup behavior. I build electronic products, and I wouldn't use something this insecure at home, let alone ship it to law enforcement customers.

I love our city's neighborliness. We look out for each other, and we're lucky to have such a responsive police chief and department. The problem with Flock cameras is that they're outside our city's control. They continuously record our cars' movements for a national surveillance company that doesn't protect our information and lies about what it does. That's not neighborly, and that doesn't make me feel safe.

John Kestner

Flock Safety Problems

Please do not renew Flock Safety contract

Flock technology works by capturing license plates and vehicle characteristics (make, model, color) as vehicles pass by fixed cameras. The software uses computer vision to log identifying data with time and location in a searchable database, comparing results with national and state police watchlists to instantly alert officers when stolen vehicles or wanted suspects are detected. However, the database is being used for much more. The concerns follow:

Violates our privacy every day.
Used by government to locate people who are immigrants—both citizens and non citizens.
Used for reproductive healthcare tracking in Texas to identify woman seeking abortions.
Used by more than 50 federal, state, and local agencies to track protest activity, in some cases specifically targeting known activist groups.
It can violate basic human privacy by pan-tilt-zoom cameras focusing on people walking dogs and children on playground swings. These livestreams have been left exposed to the open internet at times and others have gained access, potentially endangering those on the video tape.
Flock continued to continue surveillance data after their contract was terminated in some cases—even installed 2 new cameras in one City after termination.
More than two dozen cities in the US have terminated Flock services. The wave of contract terminations has been driven by concerns about federal data sharing, immigration enforcement, privacy violations, and security vulnerabilities in Flock's systems. Austin is one of them who terminated their contract with Flock; Sunset Valley should be another one.

The low volume crime fighting benefits of Flock for Sunset Valley (related to identifying car theft and people involved in store theft) do not outweigh ipotential and real problems.
In these times when privacy rights are being trampled, democracy is under siege, and citizens in the country are being killed while protesting, Sunset Valley should not be a partner with Flock. Please do not continue to make our community complicit in Flock mass surveillance.
.

Dear Mayor and Council,
I am supportive of our Excellent Police Department, but
I am opposed to the City renewing the contract with Flock Surveillance.
I encourage our City to follow the example of the Staunton Police Chief who also believes in community policing and disassociate our city from Flock surveillance. I encourage you to watch this YouTube video which talks about a lot of my concerns. Let's exercise our rights as citizens to have less surveillance in our lives.
https://youtu.be/hwbE5ks7dFg?si=UaKAQTMnOzznpqWQ

Thanks,
Melissa Gonzales
Former City Councilmember

I am strongly opposed to renewing the contract w flock cameras.

This is not out of any distrust of our local government or police or opposition to cameras in general, but the company and outside law enforcement agencies have been extremely irresponsible w data in the past. I don’t want our city funds facilitating civil rights violations.

Sunset valley was a safe place to live before the cameras and we can safely live without these cameras while we explore better options.

Subject - Flock Cameras - Contract Renewal

Mayor and Council,

We choose to live in Sunset Valley because it feels safe and open—not because we want to live under constant surveillance.

Flock cameras quietly collect and store location data on residents and visitors who are not suspected of any crime, with limited oversight and unclear safeguards on access and retention.

Without strict limits, transparency, and independent accountability, these systems risk eroding privacy, civil liberties, and trust in local government.

We can protect public safety in ways that are transparent, narrowly targeted, and consistent with the values that make Sunset Valley feel like home.
With all that is going on in our political environment, now, more than ever, they should be removed.

I appreciated all you do for the city!

Michael Francis
Former Mayor and Council Member
16 Lone Oak Trail

Subject: Continued parking concerns on Oakdale

Hi there. I am a resident of Oakdale Drive off Brodie Lane. I’m writing again to bring attention to the growing issue of overflow parking from Leona filling our residential streets, especially during evenings and weekends.

The core problem is simply that Leona does not have the parking capacity to support the volume of customers it attracts, and the spillover is pushed directly into our neighborhood. As a result:
• Cars routinely line both sides of Oakdale, creating a one-lane roadway that restricts flow and raises emergency-access concerns.
• Driveways and corners are frequently obstructed, making entering and exiting homes difficult and unsafe.
• Because our neighborhood has no sidewalks, any pedestrians present must walk in the roadway, further contributing to congestion.
• Overall, the street becomes clogged in a way it was never designed to handle, creating legitimate public-safety concerns for residents.

We want to be clear: this is not an anti-business request. We appreciate the vibrancy local restaurants bring to the area. But our small residential street cannot absorb their customer parking needs, and the current situation has become unsafe and unsustainable.

One simple, low-cost, and effective solution would be placing a bifold “No Restaurant Parking” sign at the entrance of Oakdale—similar to what is currently used on Country White Lane for Nomadic. This type of clear, temporary signage has already proven successful in nearby areas and would immediately help redirect visitors away from residential streets.
Thank you for your time and for your service to our community. I appreciate your consideration.
-Sarah Sampson

I am providing these comments for the Council’s consideration during the December 2nd City Council meeting regarding an emerging parking situation on Oakdale Drive. Since the Leona Café on Brodie Lane opened in November, we have seen a dramatic increase in public parking on Oakdale Drive. On many occasions, cars have been parked on both sides of Oakdale for a significant distance from the intersection, thereby prohibiting two way traffic flow and adequate access for emergency vehicles on our street.

This has become a dangerous situation because it is creating significantly more pedestrian traffic on our street at night, with limited visibility and no sidewalks, and two cars are unable to pass each other with parked cars on both sides of the street, because there is not adequate clearance from a width perspective on Oakdale Drive.

We encourage the Council to create a plan that introduces a public parking prohibition for the entire length of Oakdale Drive, as our street is not adequately suited to accommodate public parking of this nature.

We strongly support local businesses like Leona Cafe, and believe that there are reasonable alternatives to address this situation and to remedy the public safety concern that this new parking behavior is creating on our street.

Should you require any additional information, please feel free to contact me.

Martha (“Matti”) Henson
786 Oakdale Drive

Martha & Jay Webster
770 Oakdale

In reference to the special hearing regarding Leona and the parking issues on Oakdale, we experience it first hand. Our street cannot hold the number of cars that have been parking on Oakdale. Last Thursday night, our neighbors counted 48 cars and on most weekends, the numbers are the same all day long. They park on both sides of the street making it very! difficult to get in or out of our homes or to the light on Brodie. We're also worried about so many strangers now on our street as we've grown accustomed to a relatively quiet street.
The police have told me they are monitoring to make sure emergency fire trucks and/or ambulances can get down our street. On many occasions, I don't see that being possible. And, because we're a dead end street, when folks leave, they're turning around in all our driveways.
We would love for Leona to get a parking permit with Lowe's. Lowe's would benefit from charging for parking like the city of Austin's streets have. Also, folks would be better off parking across Brodie on Ben Garza where there are no residential homes and the street is wider.
The Websters hope council can come up with a solution and change the street parking requirements to either permit parking or No Parking signs for Oakdale. The only problem with No Parking signs is that it will force cars further down Oakdale. We enjoy Leona being our neighbor but we're not enjoying the crowds of cars and people on our street.
Thanks for your consideration

I am unable to attend the November 17th meeting; however, I appreciate the Council's reappointing me to the Board of Adjustments. Please note the the public notice of The City Council meeting for November 17 erroneously states the meeting is Monday, November 17.

Thank you, Susan Durso

I would like the council to reconsider the ROW mowing. I would like to see a map that clearly highlights what is private property, city owned property and Commercial properties and all ROW's. Then shows what the city will mow and not mow as well as what City staff currently maintains, and what the new landscaping will be responsible for mowing. I personally have a ditch that the city installed, and I am unable safely to mow it. I will not be paying the city anything to mow a hazard that they created.

I am against subdivision of property for any property in sunset valley. In current events on this topic I’m against subdivision of Dan Koregans old property on pillow road. Keep sunset valley rural feeling with big undivided properties.