Call to order the city council regular meeting city of Wyoming, Minnesota for June 17, 2025. Let the record reflect we do have a quorum. Member Lucer, member Anstad, member Joerger, and Mayor Ierson are present. Please stand for the pledge
of allegiance. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
Next item on our agenda is the open forum. The open forum is an opportunity for members of the public to address the city council on items that are not on the current agenda. Items requiring council action may be deferred to staff or boards and commissions for research and future council agendas if
appropriate. You will be limited to three minutes and we ask that you conduct yourself in a professional courteous manner and refrain from the use of profanity. Failure to abide by this policy may result in the loss of your privilege to speak. Do we have anybody here tonight that's for the open
forum? Seeing none, we'll move on to the approval of minutes number one to consider approving the minutes of the work session of the Wyoming Minnesota City Council for June 3rd, 2025. If there are no questions or comments, do we have a motion to approve? So moved.
We have a motion to approve by member Lucer, second by member Anstead. Um, all in favor? I opposed. So approved. Number two, consider approving the minutes of the regular meeting of the Wyoming Minnesota City Council for June 3rd,
2025. If there are no comments or questions, do we have a motion to approve? So move. Motion to approve by member Anstad. Do we have a second? Second. Second by member Lucer. All in favor? I opposed. So approved. Consent
agenda. Um items under the consent agenda will be adopted with one motion. However, council members may request individual items to be pulled from the consent agenda for discussion and action if they choose. Consent agenda number
three, four, five, six, 7, 8, 9, and 10. Does a council member wish to pull any of those items? Seeing none, we need a motion to approve consent agenda 3, four, five, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. Do we have a motion? So move.
We have a motion by member Anstad. Do we have a second? Second. Second by member Luger. All in favor? I opposed. So approved. Acknowledge receipts of reports of officer boards, commissions, and department heads number 11, 12, 13,
14, 15, and 16. Does anybody wish to um pull a report for further discussion? Seeing none, we'll move on to new business number 17 to consider resolution 25655, a resolution approving a variance for a
front property line setback at 269 to be determined forest boulevard. Applicant David Boyham, property ID number 21.00164.00. Mr. W, will you be starting us off? Mayor, council members with a question of variance.
front settlap. currently zone attached housing lot. Again, the various is required because there's 135 foot setback from the center line of the county road. Um, so he's requesting approval of an 80 foot setback from the center line of of
Forest Boulevard or County Road 30. The graphic kind of shows the house and then those overlapping setbacks. The staff in the planning commission recommended are recommending approval of
the variance with the seven findings of fact that are listed there. Um we're not requesting any um conditions of approval. It's up to the city council to make a determination whether or not back a couple of slides to the map where
the house is cited. No, not that one. Bingo. So that's the proposed house in there. Yes. Okay. So it has a I think it was a 1600 foot
house with a garage that it's normal size for the area. And actually in speaking to the applicant this morning, if the approved. You'll be applying for the building permit tomorrow. Okay. Right. Um, member Joerger, are there any other questions? No. Okay. Thank you.
Member Lucer, no questions. And member onstead? No questions. All right. I have none either. We need a motion to approve resolution 25655, a resolution approving a variance for a front property line setback. Do we have
a motion? So moved. Motion by member Luger. Do we have a second? Second. Second by member Onstead. All in favor? I opposed. So approved. Number 18 to consider resolution 25656, a resolution expressing support for the
proposed use of tax increment financing for an affordable housing product project by Reutder Walton Development LLC. Mr. Lynwin, you'll be taking this one. I will. Thank you, Mayor, members of council. I'm going to start us out. Um tonight we'll be reviewing um and we'll have a presentation from um
Michaela Hwitt from Baker Tilly regarding the two requests from both Ruter Walton and Duffy Development um for uh one for senior housing and one for workforce housing uh for two developments located on the Fairview uh near and on Fairview property uh just
across um one one the senior living one being located right next to the Meadows and then the other one being on the north uh northeast corner of the existing view property. They do have uh both have options on the land for purchase agreements. Uh and with that, I think I will turn over to Miss Huitt and
she can kind of walk the council through the request here. We do have two different agenda items and then another resolution to support um from Chicago County for the housing trust fund and I can explain that when we go to that resolution. Thank you, Rob. Um good evening, mayors, member of the council. Um I do have a a
short presentation, maybe not that short, but just an overview of tax increment financing. Um we this is a update from what was presented last year. Um based on revised applications by both of the proposed developers. Um here tonight to give you a short
overview of tax increment financing, how the the financing tool works, a little bit about the tax credit process, which is one of the sources of funding um for both projects and why we're here today. um how this um relates to the type of housing that's being um proposed for
both projects and what the um estimated tax increment financing amounts are um as the um gap closer for both of both of these projects. So again, similar to prior year's request for support, the city has received requests for financial support
from two different developers. Um, Reutder Walton is proposing a 72 unit multif family um, residential rental building and Duffy Development is proposing a 60 unit senior housing project. Um, both of those projects
include an application um, through the 2025 multif family consolidated RFP with the applications due July 10th. Um within those applications is a request to include local support by the city through tax increment financing.
Tax increment financing as I said is a tool that many communities use to close a financing gap related to a project. um it is a method of capturing the tax base growth that results from that new development and redirecting that captured taxes to finance um certain
costs related to that project that are the barrier for it um uh commencing. So the tax increment uh is really the revenues that are generated by that increased property value that is created when the property is um developed and the buildings are constructed. Here's
just an illustration showing you've got the existing land and building value. The taxes that are generated on the um existing land continue to go to the city, county, and school district. They are not captured within the district. And then once that building is constructed, the taxes are captured for
the term of the tax increment district again to finance certain improvements. There are several different types of tax increment financing districts and there's different criteria for which they can be established as well as different maximum terms of collection.
Uh we are focusing tonight on the fourth one down which is a housing district that is not based on the current condition of the property but what would be constructed on that site with um the idea of u facilitating the construction of low to moderate income housing. The maximum term is 25 years after receipt
of first increment for a total um maximum term of 26 years. There are certain costs that can be financed with tax increment dollars. Um generally what we look at are those costs that are prior to vertical development. So it can include acquisition, site improvement, site
development, um any um utilities or infrastructure improvements. Here's just a quick overview on how tax increment is calculated. And this follows the property tax system um for uh generation of taxes. Um the illustration here is we have a taxable
market value that's 13 million. You multiply that by the apartment or the classification rate for this these types of uh or for the proposed projects which is the uh 4D uh apartment classification of 0.25%. So the 13 million multiplied by the
0.25% equals taxable net tax capacity of 32,500. You take that taxable net tax capacity, multiply it by the combined local tax capacity rate for all um the city, county, school that equals the net tax
capacity based portion of property taxes. And using these numbers, the new taxes generated um based on the local tax capacity rate would be about 35,750. When we're looking at tax increment, we use the same methodology at the top. So the total market value of 13 million.
Again, tax capacity that's created of 32,500, total taxes of 35,750. The current value, the original market value of 200,000, same methodology generates original net tax capacity of $500. Uh multiply that by the same tax
capacity rate. So total taxes are $558. The increment again is based on the difference between the new value created and the existing value. So that increase in value is 12,800,000. The increase in the captured the increase in the net tax capacity or what
is captured by the tax increment district to finance the improvements is 32,000. That generates the tax increment revenues of 35,200. There are two ways that tax increment dollars can be provided um to projects. Uh one is pay as you go and the other is
upfront. Pay as you go financing is no risk to the city, meaning that the developer is financing all of the costs upfront through other funding sources. And uh once the project is constructed, the those tiff eligible expenses that I had on the previous slide are incurred. There is a tiff note that's issued by
the city to the developer and then the developer is reimbursed overtime to the extent they pay their taxes and there's available tax increment revenues. The other method is upfront in which the city is funding a portion of the cost and relying on the future revenues to repay um the obligations which can
either be an inter fund loan or um the issuance of bonds. For the projects that are being considered tonight, they are both pay as you go developer finance projects in which the um developer has request the developers have requested tax increment assistance as additional cash flow to support their um their uh
first mortgage um construction amounts. So when we ask the impact of tax increment um again the the the tiff is the district uh redirects the tax dollars that are generated by that project to meet a defined public purpose. Um in this case it's proposed
to um finance both the construction of a workforce and senior housing projects um with the the uh intent of the tax increment dollars to support the financial feasibility of both projects. Um the tax increment districts require um the but for finding being met that
but for the use of tax increment assistance the project would not occur. And lastly that once the project has been constructed um that the eligible costs have been financed the um higher tax base that was captured by the
district is now um included within the overall tax base of the the city. So it can be considered a long-term investment of growing your tax base. Here's an illustration um showing the the the um the the terms of tax
increment. We have the base tax value in the the jade or the teal area. Again, that's the base tax um values are frozen over the life of the district. Um they stay with the city county school. The incremental taxes generated by that new project is the gray shaded area. Once
the district has been descertified the last year, that new lime um color, that's the new tax and value that is now added to the tax base. So, we're looking at uh definition of affordable housing. Uh really what we're focusing on is that um households are
paying no more than 30% of their income on housing. So, as part of the uh the the funding sources being the tax credits and the the bonding um are uh our limitations on the maximum amount of income or maximum incomes for qualifying tenants as well as the maximum rents
that those tenants can pay to truly provide um affordable housing, meaning that they're not paying more than 30% of their incomes on um their housing. So, in order to qualify housing tax increment districts, there are statutory requirements um to for rental projects,
at least 20% of the units must be occupied by persons or families with incomes no greater than 50% of the area median income or at least 40% of the units are occupied by persons or families at 60% of the area median income. There's also a restriction on how much of the square footage of the
building can be for non-residential use. And the income limitations uh that allowed require uh establishment of the district must apply for the duration of the district and they generally also um apply for the duration of the um other funding sources uh provided by the
state. So, as I mentioned, the statutory findings to create a tax increment district, uh, one that it would qualify as the housing district being proposed. Um, that the development would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the re
reasonably foreseeable future. That's the butt for test. And lastly, that the tiff plan um is um consistent with the development needs of the city as a whole and conforms to the general plans. again the tax credit process why we're
here tonight the application um for the 2025 consolidated RFP um it is a competitive process um to Minnesota Housing Finance Agency the developers are preparing to submit applications um by July 10. The announcement of the awards of the tax credits which is the
major source of funding uh made in December and again the uh request tonight is to seek preliminary support from the city as part of the application process. There is no establishing of the tax increment districts at this point until um award uh there would be project funding awards. This is purely providing
uh resolutions of support. So on the two projects uh the first is a senior housing project. It is an approximate 60 unit um building. There are a mix of studio one and twobedroom units and the proposed um um income and
rent limitations for the occupants of that building range between 30 and 50% of the area median income and the average income test for all of the um 60 units is 49% with the u maximum is 60%. So they are below what the um the
minimum or the maximum amount could be. Here's a chart showing the breakdown of the different unit types. You'll see the unit type, the zero is studios, one and two bedrooms. Um the number of units for each of the unit types, the monthly
rents, um the annual rents, the and then the finally the the monthly gross rent. And you'll see on the far right what the rent and the income limits are for each of those different unit types. again ranging from 30 and 50% um for the the rent and the income limits which these
are the rents that are used to generate that 49% average for all 60 units. So again tax increment can only be used where it meets the but for test. Um the preliminary assistance estimate for this project is about 317,000.
That is based on the maximum 26-year term of the district and the um the amount that the projected revenues are the taxing revenues are expected to support. Um so again, as a pay as you go note, this would be 317,000 as principal
uh reimbured with 6% interest over the um maximum 26-year term of the district. And the estimated first year um annual increment amount is about $30,468. So it's roughly 30,000 plus inflationary growth over 26 years to support a
$317,000 pay as you go tiff note. The other project is a workforce housing um project. Similar structure, however, this is geared towards uh more multifamilies and so the unit mix is a little bit different with a range of one, two, three, and fourbedroom units.
So, you're really getting more of a mix for families with those three and fourbedroom um units. This one, similar structure with the income and and rent limitations uh ranging from 30 to 60% with the average income for all the units, the 46.81%. And here's a chart showing the unit type
again, the the one, two, three, and four bedrooms. um the number of units for each of that unit um type and then with the the monthly gross rent um third column or third row from the uh column from the right and then the rent and the income limitations for each of the
respective units. Um this one based on the estimated taxable value upon completion the preliminary est assistance estimate for this one is about 356,000. similar um assumptions as to the other project. The the projected annual
increment is about 34,254 plus in inflationary growth over the maximum 26 years would support a tiff note principal amount of 356,000 plus interest at 6%. These are preliminary estimates based on taxable values now
and based on the um the um proposed project. Um we would expect that there could be some refinement um should the projects be awarded the funding but these would be the the close to what the estimated um gap amounts would be. So the the tax increment assistance uh
again the 100% of the tax increment is generated um by that new building. Um the city is able to retain up to 10% for um actual administrative expenses related to the tax increment districts with the remaining uh 90% pledged to the developer to again support those um tiff
eligible costs and close the financing gap. So I believe that's the end of my um formal presentation. So I'd be happy to answer any questions or turn it back. Okay. We'll um start with council member Luger. Do you have questions um
regarding the presentation or the um we're discussing not at this time. No questions. Jerger, the only I have no questions on the presentation. The only questions I have on the projects is that these are substantially the same
projects that came before us last year and were not awarded housing tax credits. So, what is different this time that you think you're going to get housing tax credits with the same project? I know Jared's here. Who else? You guys want to up and just state your
name and I think that'll be the easiest to do together as long as they're kind of the same question. Just introduce yourself and project with. Nice to see you all again. Jared Aman representing Ryder Wall and Development um on the 72 unit or 72 unit
workforce housing project. Great question. Um and we talked at the EDA meeting. more of a refinement of our present our application from last year. Uh scoring was tweaked a little bit. MHFA changes the scoring a little bit every year. Um
we have a couple project new project partners and architect and potential general contractor which enhance our scoring. Um looked at other avenues of sustainability, some economic sustainability like green
energy stuff. So we enhancing the building footprint. um which gets us a couple extra points. So more fine tuning than anything um in hopes to this is the year. Thank you.
I'm Jefffeld with Duffy Development. Um same what he said um what he said. So um it is a competitive process. There's quite a few applications that are sent to the housing finance agency every year and about order get selected. Um I would
say they're on a we're we're actually um will be sort of seeking different funds uh from each other. He's um going to have a more traditional type of financing development. The senior housing requires a very particular
source of funds called the housing housing infrastructure bonds. Um and those were just approved by the legislature here with the upcoming or the past uh session. So um it is limited. We do as strong of an
application as we can you know especially after last year learning more about what they're looking for and we hope this one's stronger and more competitive and um we'll be selective. Any questions?
Okay, good. Thank you. I know that both of these projects are over on um the Fair View Hospital side. So, right next to the trail and it's just really a good project. Both of them are. So, we're hoping I think third year Jared
third or fourth something like that. Okay. And then two for the deputy project, right? Okay. This will be the year, right? I don't want to jinx it. So, okay. Okay, if there are no further questions, um we need a motion to approve resolution 25656, a resolution expressing support for the
proposed used of tax increment financing for an affordable housing project by Reutder Walton Development. Do we have a motion? So move. Um do we have a second? Second. All in favor? I opposed. Nay. So
approved. Number 19 to consider resolution 25657, a resolution regarding the support of a housing trust fund application in connection with Reutder Walter Walton Development LLC. Um, do we need to I'll just give some brief background on this.
This is just a the Chicago County Huh EDA is also um an advocate for this project and has um determined to grant uh Ruter Walton um a low interest loan of $200,000. I believe that's correct, Mr. Aman. um through the housing trust
fund. Uh and um as part of that application, they would um to grant that they are asking the HREDA is asking for just a resolution of support from the city council to show that they are supporting the project and the city is also in favor of this project. So essentially that is what this resolution
uh is stating. So okay, that would be up the council at this point. Any questions from council? If not, I'll make the motion to approve resolution 25657, a resolution regarding the support of housing trust fund application in connection with Reutder Walton
Development LLC. Is there a second? Second. Second by member Onstead. All in favor? I opposed. Name. So approved. Uh let's see. Number 20 to consider resolution 25658, a resolution expressing support for the proposed use
of tax increment f financing for an affordable housing project by Deputy Development Company, Inc. I'll make that motion. Do we have a second? Second. We have a second and a third. All in favor? I opposed. So approved. Number 21 to
consider resolution 25659, a resolution approving a one-year contract with Flock Safety for the installation of four automatic license plates recognition cameras in the amount of $12,000. I would like council to be aware that I am going to do a roll call
vote on um this particular resolution. Uh Chief Howard. Yes. Uh, Mayor Harvis and members of council, um, if you thought tax increment financing was fun, let's let's dive into this. I don't know. It was okay. Um,
thanks, Grant, for blowing this up. Uh, tonight we'll be looking I'll be presenting a proposed pilot project to installed um, automatic license automated license plate readers in key locations across the city of Wyoming. Um, this is a public safety initiative
designed to enhance investigative capabilities and also deter crime. Um, I will be reviewing a few things that I've already reviewed in uh the work sessions that we've had some prior discussion, but just in the interest of transparency, I want to make sure that there's good information out there about
the reality of what this uh proposal looks like. Um the technology essentially uses high resolution cameras to capture license plate ve and data that's available that you see on these vehicles. So the make of the vehicle, the model, the color,
any bumper stickers or other decals that might be on the vehicle. Um it does not use any kind of facial recognition. Um, it's ultimately primary goal is by supporting investigations and alerting law enforcement to stolen vehicles or
vehicles that are associated with felony warrants, Amber alerts, silver alerts, cops alerts, which are keeping our people safe and those type of alerts as well. They don't track uh track or monitor traffic violations such as speeding or running red lights. Um, they
also don't track expired license plate tabs and are not used for generalized surveillance. Um they offer data for investigative purposes that currently is not available um for us and it helps close cases that may not have been closed in the past um and allows us to
use that data more effectively. Important to mention that um the data this does not connect driver's license database or internal records management systems um that we maintain within the police department um that identify any name
identity uh other information about specific people unless an alert is created for a criminal investigation. When an officer does search the information that is available through Flock Safety cameras, um they are required to enter a search reason or a
case number for auditing purposes auditing purposes down the road. Um that allows us to have that audit trail that we're able to to confirm um that this was used for criminal investigation purposes. The agency does own the data, so we would own that data and the data
is encrypted in the cloud as well. Um just a quick review of what the proposed timeline would be. Um tonight I'm asking for approval of the lease agreement. The timeline is not ideal in full transparency. Okay. But I will explain
why it came to the fruition this way. Um in the interest of just understanding that there is a reason for it. Looking to do approval tonight. Um, and then June 18th through the 27th, there'll be a community engagement period that I'll outline and I believe
the next slide, if I remember correctly, coming back to council on July 1st to determine if the city would continue with the lease agreement or elect to opt out based on that community input period. So, the agreement that has been
proposed with flock safety included a 30-day opt out period that at that period of time, the next meeting, the council meeting, um July 1st, we would provide that community engagement input to council, you would be presented with
the option to either terminate the contract that would be approved tonight or continue on with that contract. Estimated timeline for installation is probably four to five months at this point. Um, so looking at installation this fall for a one-year trial period
that I've outlined at the work sessions before. In the fall of 26, that trial period ends and then I would return to council to determine whether or not um council would choose to elect for to renew that agreement or not renew that
agreement with Flock Safety. If council determines that they were not going to renew the agreement at that point after the one-year trial period, um they come, pull the equipment out of the ground, load it up in a truck, and take off. There's no cost to us at that point. So, there's no risk for us to do that at
that point. uh transparency, the timeline timeline that I was outlining, um the the agreement conditions from Flock Safety that needs to be signed by June 30th of this year in order to receive a $3,800
discount on the fees associated with the installation. Um went back and forth. This is not just a Wyoming thing. This was a companywide promotion that was offered. There was no flexibility on that date as of July 1st. We can anticipate that the costs will be
increased for that $3,800. Um, we went around and around for the last two weeks trying to determine how this could work to make sure that we're capitalizing on this $3,800 discount. Um, ultimately that fee, that $3,800
attributes $1,250 to the DOT rightway locations. There were two of them and there are two locations that are non DOT rightaway um locations. Essentially, they have a they have to install a different type of uh pole for those DOT locations. Um, in my memo, I incorrectly
had stated $4,800 was the discount. Uh, there was some discussion initially that it was about $1,200 per camera. Um, with further clarification, it's $3,800 total. Due to the council meeting schedule, um, we're looking for that approval tonight. They have added in that 30-day opt out
period, giving us the time that we are looking to do community engagement, get that information from our community on what uh what their feelings are on this. Um and again, on July 1st, we could opt out with a vote from council saying we no longer want to continue this contract
at no risk to to the city. Um, just to highlight a little bit of why this process came up and during and why we're in this time crunch. Initially, uh, flat cameras were not allowed on DOT rightway. That changed um, as of April 23rd. We got the
notification that DOT would allow us to install these on DOT rightway. Um, ultim ultimately we met with uh, council member Luger and presented information on what the practical application of what this looks like. Um, we met with
Flock then to discuss possible locations based on this DOT information or this allowing DOT uh, DOT allowing us to install on DOT rightway. Met with them to look at possible locations. um the following day got that
initial quote on May 9th. Uh worked on a draft policy to make to incorporate some uh concepts that had been discussed in uh prior meetings on this. Um we presented this to our multicultural
advisory committee. Um and then on June 3rd, information was presented to council for a work session with the desire for with some ask on information for from flock and also with the ask on getting student public engagement on this process.
On the 10th met with flock again to discuss feedback from the work sessions and possible next steps. Uh we worked a ton last week on trying to figure out the best way forward with this due to that 30 that uh June 30th deadline. Um and last Friday received the draft agreement and that was sent to council
on that day. Uh these proposed locations that we're looking at are Highway 61 at 240th Street just coming into the city of Wyoming from Forest Lake. Uh Wyoming Trail headed westbound near Pioneer. So just west of our uh current police
facility, East Viking Boulevard both east and westbound near 35. So essentially um as you're entering Wyoming from both locations um this allows us essentially to capture this data at main entrance points in the
city. And I'm sorry I was wrong. I looked at this too many times over the last week and I lost track of what slide was where. So um this is the two-pronged community engagement approach that we're looking to do. Um social media would be posted tomorrow morning. um essentially
inviting uh community members to participate in an online survey. Um it's ready to go. It's prepped. It's ready to hit send. Um online commenting, I just want to make this understood that online commenting is available, but because of the you know the Wyoming Police Facebook
page is has a much larger larger scope than just our community. um we don't have the ability to kind of curate that data based on what someone in Arkansas feels about uh flock safety versus our city. Um I don't know that that data is necessarily valuable for for us to
consider. Um and staff honestly is not going to take the time to determine who from what comment will is from our community and that just isn't possible. So that will not be provided to council as feedback. But we do have this survey. It's relatively brief. takes about three minutes to complete that community
members can complete and give their input um online. In addition, looking at hosting an openhouse information sess session on June 25th um scheduling a couple hours to do that, doing the formal presentation twice, um havingformational handouts available,
and then having comment cards for those that like to write or QR codes to get them to the online survey location that they could contribute. Um, obviously hoping that most people would opt for the online survey. Um, comments cards are, you know, a little more random and
gives people a little bit, it gives us a little better information, but they will be available for people that would like to do that as well. Um, the online survey does allow for people to enter their email address asking for if they do want to be contacted, I'm happy to do that if they'd like that. And there's also a text field at the end saying if
there's any other questions you'd like to answer, I'm happy to do that as well. Great. We'll start with council questions. We'll start with member on staff. Oh, I've got lots more. Oh, you have more. We're ready for it. Perfect. Um, just a couple things I wanted to highlight and
I'll keep I keep this brief um because it is getting hot in here and maybe it's just me. I know you. Yeah. Right. So, so uh a couple things that I want to highlight from the agreement is that uh you know essentially what this is highlighting is looking that in the
agreement that um you know essentially that flock does not own and shall not sell this data uh the consumer data that that is obtained. um they do have some rights to the data that is uh available
through the what's captured through the through the the cameras. Um and as I'm reading it says may be necessary for them to provide us services to the customer. So that's kind of my understanding of what that clause is and I just wanted to highlight that.
um they do allow in the agreement uh for capturing the data and using anonymized data for improving the system. For example, when license plates came out the black plates versus with the white lettering um the systems were the
reliability of the information was decreased significantly because the algorithms weren't accustomed to that type of license plate. You they were used to the white plate with blue lettering. um they use that data, pull in the anonymized plates, not the location information, nothing like that.
Use it to better their algorithm to provide more accuracy. Um the accuracy of the system continues to improve based on this data that's being fed into it. But again, they don't own it, they don't sell it. Um but that's just an understanding that that's what that data would be used for and it's just
anonymized in that fashion. Um so on this this slide just I want to highlight a couple things here. Um excuse me that they grant we we would be flock granting flock a non-exclusive right to use the data for providing
flock services to us. So again they they repeat this over and over again and I compared the these agreements to like Axon and other systems whether it's Profix and all these other systems. There's varying, you know, obviously I'm not a contract attorney. That's not my expertise. Um, no desire to do that. Um,
but as I looked at it, you know, if you pull up Axon camera system or systems, um, they have an incredible amount of data available to them as well. Um, you know, saying that they're similar. I don't want to necessarily get into that, but I I you know, I think these are there's there's consistencies among
these type of agreements in place. um during the time period that uh that the data is available. As I said, we're proposing for our retention period to be 30 days, which is consistent with best practice. Uh some departments extend it
to 60 days. We're looking at 30. um they would have they would be able to release that information if it's available during that 30 days to law enforcement authorities, government officials or third parties if legally required to do so. So that would be that they reserved
the court order whether it's subpoena or search warrant. um or if they have good faith belief that it would be uh essentially to comp comply with the legal process, enforce the agreement, detect or uh prevent or otherwise address security, privacy, fraud or
technical issues, emergency situations. I'll get to more clarification on that. Just bear with me here. Um these are the highlighted I when we ask clarification these are the reasons why they may provide that data in a limited scope uh to comply with legal requests enforce
the agreement uh including investigating violations detect or prevent or address security fraud technical issues and then finally protect the rights property or safety of FL users uh a third party the public as required or permitted by law including responding to an emergency
situation. They provide a significant clarification on that um as well. I'm not going to read all this. We've covered it in a in a work session as well. If there's more questions on it, we can come back to this. But I want to provide this. This was their response with f after the work session we had uh
asked for further clarification on when they may consider releasing it. Um this I will read. Uh it's worth pointing out. It's an extremely limited clause. They can only do this when the footage is still available within legally contractually allowed retention window. So that 30-day period of time that we have the data available to us. They
would be able to provide it to law enforcement governing officials to third parties when it's legally required and when it's for one enumerated region such as exit circumstances and I'll define that in a moment here. Um disclosure to law enforcement is conditioned on legal requirements or urgent highstakes
situations. Um not casual or volunteer sharing. Um again it's during that retention period and it either must be legally compelled through court order or they have a good faith reason good faith reasonable belief tied to very specific categories. So there's security, fraud,
emergencies. Um, you can see what that is. Uh, no language allowing flock to disclose footage for marketing analysis or profit. And a few examples are high stakes kidnappingers or active shooters. Those that type of situation is when they um have released this type of data when
there's not uh time to allow their general practice or their practice is if they get a request for data, they would forward it to the owner of that data. So if they get a request for Wyoming PD's data, they would forward that to us. We have that retention period of 30 days,
we review it. If we decide that we do not want to comply with that for whatever reason, whether whatever that basis is, I call Mr. Lunan and say, "Hey buddy, um we don't agree with this. This doesn't comply with our policy or we don't agree with why we would release this." Um we would then determine whether or not we want to fight that
legally. Um they may ask us to retain that data, you know, in that court order for a longer period of time. We'd have to figure that out how we could do that or not. Um, but essentially we have that 30-day window. If they if they submit that that request after that 30 days, what we don't have, we don't have it's gone. So, that is built into the system
as well. Ages and circumstances. Um, just a definition what this might look like. Circumstances that reasonable person believes that entry. So, violation of the fourth amendment essentially is what that says is that you know in understanding fourth amendment is police
just can't enter your house. equivalent is that I can't just enter your vehicle for no reason at no probable cause to do that. It um there essentially needs to be if to access this data it would be necessary to prevent physical harm to others officers or other persons the
destruction of evidence escape of the suspect which you know possibly could apply in a situation like this weekend or some other consequences improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts. So that's the legal definition of what exits and circumstances are just
to give you a better scope of this. Um I provided a draft policy in a work session. Uh it talks about access control and what we would be looking at. The policy is consistent with other agencies in law enforcement in partnership with Lexapole, our policy provider. Um we have some time to craft
that policy prior to installation. Um, if we're looking at this fall for installation, we do have a significant amount of time to work through that if there and I would, um, I think I get to it later, but essentially, uh, I would bring that policy for approval much like we did with the body warn camera policy because
there's I think there's a similar type of perception bodywn cameras. Um, those also have, you know, invasive nature to them, but we want to make sure that council's on board with that type of policy. Uh, annual lease for four cameras is $12,000. This is that's all inclusive. They pay for everything. Um
the only thing we would need to pay for is the audits and those are about $2,000 consistent with what we pay for body warn camera audits as well. Um paying for this with public safety aid funding the first year. If we decide to renew, we likely have cost to do another
two-year contract at that point at the end of 26 with public safety aid money. Again, not having any impact on the levy if we decide to renew the contract. looking to do a one-year pilot program providing quarterly updates to council on how things are going and any other feedback that we've received. Um
talked about that already. Uh again, this is a fully funded project with with public safety aid money that is available and ultimately looking for agreement uh to sign agreement for four ALPR cameras with a 30-day opt.
Um looking for any questions that council may have. Are we sure this time? That's it. Okay. I actually do have a lot more slides afterwards just in case. You did a good job. I feel like that's enough. All right, sounds good. Um, I'm going to start with my two very easy questions. I think you answered one of them. Do we
know if this was possibly used in the incident that happened over the weekend? Yeah, I reached out to um all the chiefs on the chief's association because we were in direct direct contact with the investigation even though we weren't I was not directly involved. Um and
Stillwater had used it for uh kind of one step away from the investigation looking at there was family members that had possibly been looking for this indiv or had been harboring the individual. Um they had a hit on that um and also used it as a for followup on a possible
sighting of the vehicle as well in Still Water that they saw a similar type of vehicle um that was being reported and um they were able to confirm that it was not it based on but it's on data as well. Okay. And I do believe I read a story maybe two or three weeks ago of a
city there was a car stolen with a child in it and they used this data for that. So I wish I could remember what city. But my other question would be again very simple. Um you referenced the multicultural advisory committee um and you presented the same data. I'm
assuming a brief version of it. Yes. Okay. And what was their thoughts on this? Uh the only question that I did get on it was whether or not it would impact the uh their taxes was one of the questions. Um which is a fair question and you know it's covered in that regard
but with the explanation um and honestly I've uh you know I've had significant discussions with with them as well on immigration and how things are changing along those lines and we talked about that and um so I did discuss all that with them. Yes. Okay. Perfect. Thank you. That's all my questions. We'll
start um with the creator. Okay. Um if these cam if these cameras would be were reprogrammed, could they also pick up traffic enforcement or be used for surveillance? If you reprogram the cameras,
if if you rep the cameras have a program to take, correct to read license plates. If you were to reprogram them, can they be reprogrammed to do facial res recognition and um traffic enforcement
and surveillance? I understand the question. Um do I have the capability of doing that? No. Are you asking if someone can Flock can flock reprogram them? Are the c do the cameras have the capability of being reprogrammed? It's a it's a standard camera. It it's there's
nothing specific about the camera. There's a program, a computer program behind that camera that's collecting all that data. Can that program be changed to include? Sure, it could be changed for anything, but that's not what our agreement is and that's not the intent
and that's not the purpose. And then according to the staff memo, the price of the cameras increased to 16,800 after July 1st. Correct. As I said, it I had an error. It would it would be uh 1,500 800 or 15 15,800 15,800. Yes. I
said one one comment. I think just important to note that the flock cameras do not have any current technology for facial recognition as they exist right now. It's a camera that somebody could program. They don't have any ability for facial recognition. So I don't know how you'd reprogram it because they unless it was a different camera. The existing
cameras don't have any ability for facial recognition. Okay, good to know. Um, all right. So then when it comes time to start taking this out of the budget, assuming you're your program
successful, how much uh more is this camera going to cost? We're not going to get it for 12 grand a year. That's correct. How the the the expected cost would be, if we did it this year, would be the 15,800, but that's the that's the with installation. Um, I don't know what
it will be next year. Um, Chicago County signed a three-year contract that locked in the uh $12,000 or the um $3,000 per camera. Um, that was my sense was not the desire that there would be we'd be
looking at a one-year pilot project with the city. Um, we do have the option, um, I don't know that I could get that accomplished by tomorrow, but, uh, to sign a three-year contract, um, that would lock in pricing, but that's I don't I can't predict what the cost would be at that point. And in in another year, um, I would bring that to
council, and that would be council determination whether or not they would fund that project at that point. So, Chicago County is also using flock cameras. Yes. Okay. Okay. Um, all right. I do have a couple of
concerns with this. Uh the one is on the conditions under which flock can do the can disclose the data. Some of their conditions I'm uncomfortable with and even if they cons disclose the data
under limited circumstances or whatever they defined as reasonably necessary, they're still gathering the data. I'm uncomfortable with u the price increase
and I really don't like um you know being presented with a contract to sign that I better sign it now before the price goes up in two weeks. I think there's I'm not sure if you're understanding the price increase only
has to do with the installation. It's a companywide promotion they're offering that right now it's the same as any other product or company that offers a a discount pri if you purchase prior to this date you get this discount and you you would receive that discount and
that's what we're trying to capitalize on right um and I also you know we talked about having a public forum I think the public forum should come before making this vote I mean my biggest concern concern.
I don't care for big brother watching me. I don't care to have cameras all over. Uh we start with four cameras, but as I asked at the work session, you can if the program is success, we
could get more cameras. And that doesn't work for me. Okay. If I want to, there are other cities I could live in if I want to be on camera all the time. So, I would say that Forest Lake um
currently has 17 cameras. Um if if you go to the BCA website and you type in ALPR, they do track what cities. Um I remove that just in the sense of interest of time. But if you have time later this evening, you'd like to look at what cities this is available, they
do track it. We do are mandated to report to them when we do have the LPR technology in place. Um and you could uh take a look and see what those cities might be. Okay, might do that. So, yeah, I do have some concerns about this.
Um, member, um, just real quickly, um, you said something about the, uh, the cameras being optimized after they had the black license plates that they're having a hard time. How is that with
like other states that have similar dissimilar? Has it been optimized for all states or is it kind of just Minnesota? Nope. It's it's a nationwide project. And I will say in um just to to clarify that when the officer
does receive a hit that confirmation comes back this is a stolen vehicle, it's an Amber, whatever that might be. Most importantly, if it's a a warrant or something like that or something like, you know, a we'll go down the criminal nature of this. So, if it's a stolen vehicle, that
hit comes back. The officer receives a image on their screen when they query it with uh a close-up of the plate. They do not take action on anything based on that information alone. They look at it, they confirm, yes, this is a match for
what that plate is. You know, is this actually an H? And somebody had a, you know, a plate cover around it that it actually now looks like an eight. So they confirm that um whether through their technology through in their squad or through dispatch they confirm that
that is still listed as a stolen vehicle because the data updates uh I believe if I remember correctly every six hours I'd have to double check that but the there's data that comes from the state or NCIC hits on how often that data gets published. So technically, if that
vehicle was stolen yesterday, it gets entered a stolen vehicle, a flock hit says, "Hey, a stolen vehicle is over at East Viking in 35." Um, the officer gets that hit. They get that confirmation. They look at it and say, "Oh, nope, that's actually not the plate." They're not going to take action. Or they look
and say, "Yes, that is the plate." They run it through their computer. It still shows up stolen. We also verbally, "Hey, can you confirm with the Noa County that this vehicle is stolen?" That's practice we do all the time. That's so the there even if it is
misreading, we have things in place that would confirm that this is actually the correct license plate and that it still is in effect before we would take action. What that does is help prevent um you know arresting the wrong person um calling someone out on on a like a
high-risisk stop where you know where we're taking those extra precautions. We want to make sure that um that we have the right information before we're taking action. Yeah. And then um um you just mentioned NCIS. Uh could you say what that is? I know what it is, but NC
it's an it's a database that essentially when a vehicle, a uh a firearm, um anything is stolen or a person's missing, all that information gets entered in through the BCA and it goes into a nationwide database that um that is accessible to law enforcement. And that's what the camera is triggering off
of that database so that it can reference connected to NCIC. Yes. Okay. And then uh you mentioned some of the surrounding cities. I was just saying you have Forest Lake. I didn't know County has them currently in place. North Branch I believe North Branch is
looking into it. Um Rush City just purchased eight for their city. Okay. Um getting down to the metro area. Um like I said there's a extensive list of where these are in place already. And the only other question Mayor Iris asked stole your thunder. Yep. She stole
your thunder. Yep, she did. About how the recent events Yeah, that's the only one I know of with I had a group of about 14 chiefs that I asked. But yes, but that's that's a big one. It's in recent history. So, right, that's all the questions I have. Member
Luger. Um I have a couple questions. Shocking. Um who we would cities are expected to do annual audits right of their I believe it's bianual yes similar to the body cameras yes and
that's conducted by an independent a third party who would that third party be do we know uh there are so u is a a group that I've had to contract with to do uh our sous audit preps um to prepare us for the technology changes for that's
a whole different pathway, but yes, that's a company that does it. Um, the current company that does our body warn camera audits does it. There's another one. There's there's they provide a list. Yeah, there's several. Um, there's a really extensively outlined feedback process. Um, in terms of of of community
input, uh, how are we reaching folks? How are in that short, it seems like a short window. Sure. Um, how are we reaching folks who maybe don't follow the city online? Sure. Um, right. Because like quarterly like if typically we'd put information in like the quarterly like newsletter. Yeah. Right.
Right. We don't have that option here. True. Again, it's it's not ideal. I wish we had more time to do it. It's it's balancing how can we maximize our social media reach and an opportunity to get this information out um uh in a quick
period of time to maximize our financial responsibility as well. you know, I I I have a hard time paying, you know, 3,800 more dollars. Um, if the in if we have this ability to do this in a in a in a 30-day period, um,
that was the balance that, you know, Mr. Ludman and I really worked through the last couple weeks was, can we make this work um in a way that allows us to get community input and have council relook at it based on that um, in in a in a relatively short period of time. Not
ideal. I'll give you that. Absolutely. Um, thank you. Uh, I I appreciate the presentation and I know, Chief, you've done just a ton of leg work answering my questions and and and meeting with me about my concerns about this. Um, so I'm going to preface my comments by
clarifying that I have no doubt in my mind um about the integrity with which Wyoming PD would use this in like an investigative capacity. Um, we have top-notch public safety. Um, I I also don't doubt that ALPR cameras can be used for solving crimes. One of my
concerns, and I know I've talked about this in in the work session and conversations, is Flock's own privacy policy and under what circumstances Flock will access that city that city um information. I have I'm having a really hard time getting past Flocks, the
consistent we we hear it, we don't own your data, we don't own your data, we don't own your data. And yet here's the privacy policy that tells us the legal reasons as well as the non-legal reasons that we're going to access your data if need be. And I understand and you've obviously put in a lot of leg work too
on clarifying that in the slides. I just there's some language there to me that just seems to open that door despite what Flock says. And I don't know that Flock itself would say, well, you know, we're going to we're going to abuse your your data. You know what I mean? Like Flax reviews in doing that. Yes. Right.
In addition to the privacy concerns, one thing that I've really w would would like to see um is independent reviews of Flock products. Um in the hours of reading I've done, I I have yet to see a whole lot of reviews by different um just different companies, different um I
guess agencies besides Flock praising Flock, right? Like if we look at like what the efficacy if I just Google like what is the efficacy of it it's it's a lot of flock saying how awesome it is which um different departments might concur with it just would be nice to
have like something some independent body that has this is what flock is this is what flock does here are the concerns here are the pros etc. Um, when that question was passed along to Flock, their answer as presented to council during the work session was that the independent review company I suggested
wasn't really independent, which to me isn't really an answer, right? Like I would like to have that that that independent review. Um, so those are my those are my concerns with Flock itself. um in this not being an ideal time frame, my other concern is the lack of
clarity um around that 30-day opt out and kind of it it sounds like the process we would use is we put it to the public, we get the data and then council has a conversation and we decide whether or not we want to continue on. Um and so to me it it seems to send a message that
we've already made this decision and maybe we'll consider the and and I have no doubt that this council would. It's the optics of it for me. it doesn't seem transparent and I feel like we as a as a city staff as well as council have worked really hard at really drilling
down on transparency and I I in my heart of hearts believe that we are more transparent now than we ever have been and that's due to everybody's uh everybody's efforts. Um I'm concerned that this will diminish trust with the public. Um even with thoseformational
open houses schedules putting it to to a vote before that sends sends a message that I'm not comfortable with. Um, and I don't know how we how we reach everybody, right? We we are reaching the people and and I get it like within this time frame, we can't you can't mail stuff out, right? That's that would make
it cost effective. Um, but those are folks who still might weigh in, right? Who might still have a really strong opinion. So, that's my big concern on this time frame. I'm also curious as long as we're like voting on this kind of what the final
policy would be, right? Because we know that things in our like we had the draft policy presented and and different pol and policies differ from city to city, right? Like I know like the state statute says that we it can be 60 days or less that we retain the data. Um some
states or some cities do 30 days which seems to be fairly common in Minnesota. Um other places in the country do it for far shorter time frames. Um it would be nice to know the rules by which Wyoming is going to be using flock before we before we actually vote on it. Um and so
you know I think like I and again I'll reiterate like I I appreciate all the time and effort that has taken to to answer my questions and talk with me about my concerns. Um, I I just it's I I ultimately can't support this until the community has a a better understanding
of what it actually is and how it actually works, has the information in front of them and and b has a chance to weigh in on it. Um, because I think understanding all of I Yeah, it's for me it's just it's it's a transparency thing and I would prefer
that the it go to the community before it comes for a vote. Sure. Understood. Um, I'm gonna just kind of make a statement on this. First of all, I always appreciate our council um and our staff for for getting in front of us and in
getting in front of our community and allowing us to answer or ask questions. I think to um uh Council Member Luger's point, we are very transparent. Um I would say my concern, my only concern is
this. We've held open houses on various different things, right? Whether it would be road projects to pick something and um I think I go to planning commission is probably the biggest one that's top of mind. We put a lot of energy and time into putting out
information to the public. A lot of time and a lot of energy and there's still people who are coming in saying they never got it and I can take the newsletter and show it. We can do all that kind of stuff, right? So, um, open houses are great, but it's only as good
as the people that are engaged in those open houses. Um, I will also state the fact that every single device in my house and in my car and on my phone and whatever device is following me wherever I go. I mean, it's the other day I was
having a conversation with my daughter and up popped a um an advertisement for what we were talking about. Very creepy, actually. Um, but it's just something to prove that we we're being even when we don't know it, if it's on a device, it's on a satellite. We're
always being monitor to where we're at. So, and I totally understand where you're coming from. So, um, I get that. I have over the last eight and a half years, almost nine years, learned that I am always about the safety of the
majority of people in our city. And if we do not, let's say we do not go forward with this, however the vote goes, we have a family that a car is stolen, a child is lost, um a senior citizen is in their car, they have
dementia, they get lost. I want to be able to have a way to be able to help find that person. That's safety to me. That's safety of our community. So that I'm looking at it overall. I also know that this is 30 days. So, I get that it
feels kind of icky that it's, you know, we're going to do this to save money, which we're always trying to be good stewards of that. Um, and we can terminate that in 30 days, right? That's what you're saying. So, we have 30 more days. Um, Chief Howard, do you think
that if this does go through, you would be able to come up with a policy in 30 days? because it's pretty much like the same as the body camera. Correct. Uh is that what you were mentioning? I I have a draft. It would be whether or not
um is our next council meeting on the 15th. Today is the 17th. Right. But we'd have I'm just saying within 30 days. I I have a draft. It would be whether or not council would like to uh if you have feedback on it.
Yeah. um whether there's time to do that. But I mean, if I have it ready to go, you've seen it. It's a matter of if there's changes you'd like to see, if there's specific things regarding um you know, immigration enforcement in there, and that's a whole different conversation I
could get into. But, you know, if there's things that you'd like to see in there, I could make that happen. Um it would, you know, I would have it ready for you the next council meeting. Okay. Mr. Dr. Lunan. Um, can we have a special special session if we need to call a special meeting if we
needed to to come? I'm trying to meet in the middle is really what I'm trying to do. Yeah, council could certainly call a special meeting if it deemed it necessary. You have the authority as mayor, two council members could call the meeting. So, at any point with proper notice, we can call a special meeting. That's no problem. Okay. Thank
you. All right. Um, so that's that's my statement on all of this. I'm just all about safety when it comes right down to it. So I am going to call roll call vote on this. Um so um number 21. Are there any other questions? I know this is a big issue. All right. To consider
resolution 25659, a resolution approving a one-year contract with flock safety for the installation of four automated license plate recognition cameras in the amount of $12,000. Member Anstead, your vote. I.
Member Luger. Nay. Member Joerger. Nay. Mayor Iverson is a yes. So what that means is that um this will not go forward in terms of um buying the cameras at the cost of 38 or the discounted rate of $3,800 which will
cost our taxpayers. Right. Okay. So that does that. All right. Uh council reports. We will start with council reports with member on because you have some you have a couple to report, don't you? Oh, yeah. Yeah. So, I attended the last night's joint sewer and water
commission meeting uh and the budget work session prior to this meeting. Okay. I think that's it. I think that's it. But you came to joint sewer. That was fun. Okay. Sounds good. Member Jagger. Oh, I went to Touch a Truck and I went to the
work session before this meeting. Perfect. All right. And thank you all for coming and thank you all for watching. Right. Member Lucer. Uh, I attended the work session prior to this meeting. Thanks for coming. Perfect. I also attended the work session, the
touch a truck, um, the planning commission and the joint sewer commission as well. So, it was kind of a busy couple of weeks. Um, I am going to call on Mr. McFarland because he's got a few updates on things coming up. Uh, yeah, former mayor and uh, members of
the city council. Um, some exciting news on Fireside Park is that it formerly or officially opened uh this last Friday, June 13th. Um, to commemorate the opening of that new park, we are going to be holding a ribbon cutting ceremony uh this Wednesday, June 18th at 5 out at Fireside. So, all members of the public
are welcome. The park advisory commissioners have been invited as well as our city council. So, we'd love to see you out there. Okay. Will that be on our new digital sign? It currently is. Yep. Fabulous. All right. That sounds great. Um, anything else coming up? We do have night to unite. Again, I just
want to stress that which is August August 5th. Yep. First Tuesday of August. August. Yep. That's the one. Yep. Yeah. Perfect. There's so many dates coming up in August that I have to kind of remember that. All right. Um I would also at this time um wish to
express our thoughts and prayers are with the Hortman family on the loss of Representative Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark. our thoughts and prayers are with um her children and also um with her parents and friends. Um also
would like to offer up prayers um for quick and speedy recovery which I know it's going to be a long time for Senator Hoffman and his wife as well. Um I would like to thank all the officers, all the um police force that was involved in
helping um apprehend this person. So, um, again, just our thoughts and prayers are with everybody. The city has worked with, um, Melissa Hortman and also with Senator Hoffman many times over the last three years. Um, and they have always been more than kind and generous with
their time to speak with us about our city needs. Um, so with that, I would like to thank everybody for being here tonight and um, we need a motion um, to adjurnn. So moved. We have a motion to adjurnn. Do we have a second? Second. Second. All in
favor? I opposed.