Sunset Valley City Council

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.

Regarding Utility Subsidies (U.S.) - I am against any reduction in the amount of subsidies for water, wastewater and solid waste service. I base my analysis on my understanding of the economics, i.e., revenue from sales taxes minus the operating expenses for the city being a positive number. I also understand that our savings have been increasing as a result of the excess revenue. I realize that the U.S. competes with expenditures for non-operating project expenditures (N.O.P.E.) , e.g., re-imagine Brodie and play center at City Hall. However, I would prefer that excess revenue continue to accrue as savings and that interest from said savings be used to fund N.O.P.E. projects, i.e., not reduce savings.

I am opposed to any effort to reduce the utility subsidies that benefit a large number of residents. In particular, I am opposed to the reduction of utility subsidies when those funds, which benefit many, are redirected to projects and activities that only benefit a small subset of residents. As a Sunset Valley resident, I request that the utility subsidies not be further reduced. The reductions to the utility subsidies previously enacted were detrimental to residents; there is no reason to further harm all residents, each of whom has an opportunity to benefit from the utility subsidies when the resident's water usage is reduced to the base amount. We should continue to encourage reduction in water usage, especially given that water availability will continue to decrease as water becomes more scarce.

I am opposed to reducing the utility subsidies. In fact, I would like to see the subsidies re-instated.

The city's license plate cameras are part of Flock's national surveillance network, which the state has used to search for a woman who had an abortion, and the federal government has used to raid communities and arrest immigrants at schools—not always with the consent of the camera's host city. I don't want to wait until that happens here. I've delivered a petition to City Council with 162 signatures from parents, teachers and other members of the Sunset Valley Elementary community who want to see the cameras removed.

Sunset Valley is a safe place to raise my children in no small part because of our police department, with or without Flock. I don't think the cameras are worth the external risks they expose our community to.

I am oppose to the current proposal for the development of 9 Reese, and request the variance to be denied

Veronica - 11 Sunset Trl

I am writing to oppose the request for the variance as written. Recent Texas flood experiences and deaths show us that we must excercise extreme caution in how we develop property in the vicinity of creeks, flood plains, and floodways, etc. Although we must be reasonalble in allowing property owners a just use of their property, we must maintain the strictest of allowances on property that can cause potental dangers to other citizens and their property. The amount of impervious cover requested is in excess of that permitted. Why someone would need two tennis courts that contributes to going over the limits in place is not defensible. This doesn't even address the impact of tree removal necessary to build the courts.

Because of the nature of flooding and how water backs up during storms, any development can contribute to crisis. This property is near a bridge that, if flooded, can prevent the escape of residents it was meant to protect. Any strtuctures that alter the flow of water can potentially cause harm to citizens and their property including the owners of 9 Reese. Although the proposal claims this will not happen, there is no way that development will not alter water flow.

I do not understand the need to even mention the need for off street parking. This makes me think the property may be used for other than just family occupancy. Excessive use of tennis courts other than for immediate family will be a noise disturbance to others in the area.

As we continue to try to develop as a dark sky city, the idea of lighted tennis courts does not seem in keeping with that.

I have many concerns about this request and ask the council not to approve it as requested.

Mickie Powers, 23 Sunset Trail--A resident that lives with Williamson Creek ON my property.