Sunset Valley City Council

For item #11 Uplands
I am wondering if we should choose #3 just because the AISD property is in flux, and the current parking issues we having with AISD? I would love to see designs and schematics, but am unsure if its prudent just due to the school closing, until we know a little more. Otherwise I support #2 option.
Thanks
scott crow
Reese Dr.

Concerning Agenda Item #10

We do not support the renewal of the contract with Flock. As many other residents have already commented, there are too many concerns when it comes to the company's lackluster data security. The discussion should be had, however, about how we can best equip the Sunset Valley police department to continue serving the community so admirably. Thanks for your consideration.

Travis Avery and Paige Harden
16 Reese

Hello Mayor, City Council members and officers of SVPD

My wife Ann and I are writing to oppose the Flock cameras. From our reading on them in the media they seem like a typical silicon valley start up, flaunting the gray area of laws to make as much money, and dominant the markets (in this case, town, cities and communities information) as fast as they can with no regard or respect for law enforcement, peoples privacy or individual cities own wishes. They will sell the information to anyone.
Due to these media reports (and there are a lot of them) we worry about the information being used unscrupulously by corporations and agencies without SVPD's, our city, or individuals consent or knowledge.

I think our city does a very good job of community policing - way before the cameras ever appeared.
Chief and staff have done a great job of mitigating the retail issues, and residence safety.

I would like to see us look for alternatives to corporate surveillance where we have control of our information.
Flocks own reports of their 'successes' are not impressive, and I think we should weigh the human and ethical costs / benefits of having them in addition to the economics. We should join other Texas cities like Austin, Lockhart, and Hays County, and others across the country, in saying no, or at least a moratorium on their contract until we can assess citizens personal safety

We love living here because of the trust and support from our neighbors, city staff and the actual face to face community policing. All rare things in this day.
Thanks for listening
Ann Harkness
scott crow
Reese Dr.

Concerning Agenda Item #10.

While cameras might prove helpful to Sunset Valley’s police force, I am opposed to using the company known as “Flock” to provide the service. Theirs is more of a surveillance approach than a safety approach and I sense a privacy impingement.

As a concerned resident, I urge City Council to consider a different company to satisfy this policing need.

Thank you.

Sunset Valley resident

To the Mayor and City Council,
Concerning agenda item 11. Please, follow the recommendation of staff and postpone construction decisions for The Uplands until further information from AISD can be obtained.

Burton Pierson

Concerning Agenda item 10.

To the Mayor and City Council. It’s not that cameras might be helpful to police, it’s that flock is the wrong company to operate the cameras for Sunset Valley. This fact is well explained here.

https://youtu.be/hwbE5ks7dFg?si=UaKAQTMnOzznpqWQ(External link)

- Burton

I have been a resident of Sunset Valley for 40 years. Along with many other citizens I strongly oppose the use of Flock surveillance in our city. While I appreciate our police department, Flock and similar products is an unnecessary invasion of the privacy of our citizens. Patricia Murphy

as pertains to Flock, i do not support the renewal of the contract . i encourage the city council to find other ways to provide Proper and Safe Surveilance of Sunset Valley

i encourage the city council to pursue option number 2 in terms of developing
the Uplands.

I encourage Council to choose option 2 in terms of Uplands planning, That is : to instruct staff and Mend to include parking in the construction documents.
Although I think we need to be mindful about planning given the various changes at AISD, we also need to proceed with our own planning for the Uplands And create a viable Set of alternatives via development of the Uplands.

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