Minutes of the Regular Meeting held on May 21, 2026
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
172717 characters
Meeting Minutes
City Council Regular Meeting
May 21, 2026 | 6:00 p.m.
Chandler City Council Chambers
88 E. Chicago St., Chandler, AZ
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Kevin Hartke at 6:01 p.m.
Roll Call
Council Attendance
Appointee Attendance
Mayor Kevin Hartke
John Pombier, City Manager
Vice Mayor Angel Encinas
Kelly Schwab, City Attorney
Councilmember Jane Poston
Jennifer Ekblad, City Clerk
Councilmember Christine Ellis
Councilmember Matt Orlando
Councilmember OD Harris
Absent
Councilmember Hawkins – absent excused
Invocation
The invocation was given by Councilmember Ellis.
Pledge of Allegiance
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilmember Poston.
Consent Agenda and Discussion
Discussion was held on items 2, 13 and 16.
City Clerk
1.
Approval of Minutes
Move City Council approve the Council meeting minutes of the City Council Regular
Meeting held on May 4, 2026, and the City Council Study Session held on May 7, 2026.
Page 2 of 37
2.
Boards and Commissions Member Appointments
Move City Council approve the Board and Commission appointments as recommended.
MAYOR HARTKE recognized Board and Commission appointees in attendance.
City Magistrate
3.
Renewal of Public Defender Services
Move City Council approve Agreement No. CC4-961-4762, Amendment No. 2 with Jared
Allen, Law Office of Jared Allen, PLLC; Ursula H. Gordwin, Gordwin Law, PLLC; and
Christopher J. Palmisano, The Law Offices of Christopher J. Palmisano, PLC; and
Amendment No. 3, with Manny A. Jacobo, Jacobo Law Firm, PLLC, for public defender
services, in an amount not to exceed the total of $324,000, for the period of one year,
beginning July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2027.
City Manager
4.
Introduction and Tentative Adoption of Ordinance No. 5164, Amending the Code of the
City of Chandler, Chapter 13 Bicycles to Add Regulations Regarding the Use of Electric
Bicycles
Move City Council introduce and tentatively adopt Ordinance No. 5164, amending the
code of the City of Chandler, Chapter 13 Bicycles to add regulations regarding the use of
electric bicycles.
Development Services
5.
Rezoning, Preliminary Development Plan, Arizona Commerce Center Located at the
Southeast Corner of Arizona Avenue and Ryan Road - Request to Continue to the June 25,
2026 City Council Meeting
Move City Council continue PLH25-0037 Arizona Commerce Center, located at the
southeast corner of Arizona Avenue and Ryan Road, to the June 25, 2026 City Council
meeting as requested by the applicant.
6.
Historic Landmark Designation, Dobson Residence
Move City Council withdraw Historic Landmark Designation application PLH26-0001
Dobson Residence located at 2751 S Nebraska Street, generally located 1/4 mile north and
west of the northwest corner of Arizona Avenue and Queen Creek Road, as requested by
the applicant.
7.
Entertainment Use Permit, The Mexicano
Move City Council approve Entertainment Use Permit, The Mexicano PLH25-0042 to allow
live entertainment both indoor and outdoor patio, located at 3095 W Chandler Boulevard,
generally located at the southwest corner of Chandler Boulevard and Price Road, subject to
the conditions recommended by Planning and Zoning Commission.
Page 3 of 37
Management Services
8.
License Series 12, Restaurant Liquor License Application for Juanita Alicia Esparza, Agent,
Padeland Chandler, LLC, DBA Padeland
Move for recommendation to the State Department of Liquor Licenses and Control for
approval of the State Liquor Job No. 389991, a Series 12, Restaurant Liquor License, for
Juanita Alicia Esparza, Agent, Padeland Chandler, LLC, DBA Padeland, located at 1 W.
Chandler Boulevard, and approval of the City of Chandler, Series 12, Restaurant Liquor
License No. 311863.
9.
License Series 12, Restaurant Liquor License Application for Tweekiat Theeraattawet, Agent,
Copious Investment Group, LLC, DBA Grace Thai Restaurant
Move for recommendation to the State Department of Liquor Licenses and Control for
approval of the State Liquor Job No. 387599, a Series 12, Restaurant Liquor License, for
Tweekiat Theeraattawet, Agent, Copious Investment Group, LLC, DBA Grace Thai
Restaurant, located at 11 W. Boston Street, Suite 5, and approval of the City of Chandler,
Series 12, Restaurant Liquor License No. 311473.
10.
License Series 12, Restaurant Liquor License Application for Juanita Alicia Esparza, Agent,
Mi Abuela, LLC, DBA Mi Abuela
Move for recommendation to the State Department of Liquor Licenses and Control for
approval of the State Liquor Job No. 392621, a Series 12, Restaurant Liquor License, for
Juanita Alicia Esparza, Agent, Mi Abuela, LLC, DBA Mi Abuela, located at 241 S. Oregon Street,
and approval of the City of Chandler, Series 12, Restaurant Liquor License No. 311837.
11.
Purchase of Water Works Supplies
Move City Council approve Agreement No. WH3-890-4597, Amendment No. 3, with Core
and Main, LP, and Ferguson Enterprises, LLC, for waterworks supplies, in an amount not to
exceed $875,000, for the period of June 1, 2026, through May 31, 2027.
Mayor and Council
12.
Introduction and Tentative Adoption of Ordinance No. 5165, Amending Ordinance No. 5132
by Changing the Sunset Date of the City Charter Amendment Resident Advisory Committee
Move City Council introduce and tentatively adopt Ordinance No. 5165, amending No. 5132,
establishing the sunset date of the Charter Amendment Resident Advisory Committee.
Neighborhood Resources
13.
Introduction and Tentative Adoption of Ordinance No. 5154, Establishing Criteria for the
Keeping or Feeding of Non-Domesticated Birds
Move City Council introduce and tentatively adopt Ordinance No. 5154, amending Chapter
30-20 of the Chandler City Code by adding subsection O Prohibited Nuisance – Bird Keeping
or Feeding establishing specific criteria under which the keeping or feeding of non-
domesticated birds constitutes a prohibited nuisance.
Page 4 of 37
THAYNE MARTIN, 457 N. Newport St., Chandler, AZ stated there is a nuisance bird issue in his
neighborhood and encouraged Council to take action and vote on the proposed ordinance.
Police Department
14.
Renewal of Fixed Camera Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) Solution
Move City Council approve the renewal of fixed camera automated license plate reader
(ALPR) solutions, from Flock Group, Inc., utilizing the City of Tempe Contract No. T21-119-
01, in an amount not to exceed $153,400.
Item 14 was moved to Action Agenda.
Public Works and Utilities
15.
Final Adoption of Ordinance No. 5163 Authorizing the Abandonment of Two Temporary
Drainage Easements
Move City Council adopt Ordinance No. 5163 authorizing the abandonment of two
temporary drainage easements located at the southwest corner of Pecos and McQueen
roads, in Chandler, Arizona that are no longer needed for public use.
16.
Purchase of Water Maintenance Recoating and Rehabilitating Services for Piping,
Structures, and Equipment
Move City Council approve the purchase of water maintenance recoating and rehabilitating
services for piping, structures, and equipment, from Joseph Painting Company, Inc., dba
JPCI Services, utilizing Town of Gilbert Agreement No. 321000003, in an amount not to
exceed $379,401.
NOAH JAMES MARKHAM, Tempe, AZ shared support for Item 16.
Consent Agenda Motion and Vote
Councilmember Orlando moved to approve the Consent Agenda of the May 21, 2026, Regular City
Council Meeting with the exception of Item 14 which was moved to Action Agenda; Seconded by
Councilmember Ellis.
Motion carried unanimously (6-0) with Councilmember Hawkins absent excused.
Public Hearing Item 17
17.
Public Hearing for Annexation of 2 parcels totaling approximately 22.19 Net Acres at the
Northeast Corner of Ocotillo Road and the Union Pacific Railroad
1. Open Public Hearing
2. Staff Presentation
3. Council Discussion
4. Discussion from the Audience
5. Close Public Hearing
Page 5 of 37
Open Public Hearing
MAYOR HARTKE opened the public hearing at 6:10 p.m.
Staff Presentation
DARSY SMITH, Planner, presented the following presentation.
• Public Hearing – Annexation ANX26-0001
• Location: Northeast corner of Ocotillo Road and the Union Pacific Railroad
• Surrounding Land Uses:
o North: Vacant land in Maricopa County
o South: Ocotillo Road then Residential
o East: Vacant land for a light industrial park
o West: The Union Pacific Railroad
• Background
o Subject site is approximately 22.19 acres
o In 2022, Dominium purchased the site with intent to build affordable housing and
senior living
o In late 2022, due to opposition, Maricopa County indefinitely continued the
rezoning case to work with the City of Chandler on an acceptable proposal
• Background
o In 2025, Evergreen purchased site, and recorded a pre-annexation agreement
stating that the property will be zoned in the County, and annexed/ developed in
the City
o In November 2025, Maricopa approved rezoning of property to General Industrial
(IND-2) Zoning District with an IUPD overlay within Maricopa County
o Initial City Zoning will be Planned Industrial district (I-1)/ Planned Area Development
(PAD) restricting permitted uses for the two parcels
• Request
o Per the pre-annexation agreement, planning staff is reviewing plans for a light-
industrial development
o Per the agreement, after receiving plan approval and prior to construction the
property is to be annexed
• General Plan Designation of Employment
o Chandler Airpark Area Plan Designation of Industrial
o The City of Chandler will provide water and wastewater to the subject property
o The developer has been in contact with various City departments through the
review of the proposed industrial development
• Questions?
Council Discussion
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked if the City of Chandler will be responsible for the permitting
process.
Page 6 of 37
MS. SMITH said that is correct, the annexation will be reviewed concurrently with Maricopa County
and City of Chandler. The parties have been collaborating to ensure agreement and development
within the city.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked who will collect permit fees.
MS. SMITH said the City of Chandler will be collecting permit fees.
Discussion from the Audience
NOAH JAMES MARKHAM, Tempe, AZ, shared support for item 17.
Close Public Hearing
MAYOR HARTKE closed the public hearing at 6:14 p.m.
Public Hearing Item 18
18.
Public Hearing for Resolution No. 6000, Approving the Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Annual
Assessment for the City of Chandler, Arizona, Downtown Chandler Enhanced Municipal
Services District
1. Open Public Hearing
2. Staff Presentation
3. Council Discussion
4. Discussion from Audience
5. Close Public Hearing
Open Public Hearing
MAYOR HARTKE opened the public hearing at 6:14 p.m.
Staff Presentation
LAUREN PETERSEN, Downtown Redevelopment Program Manager, presented the following
presentation.
• Enhanced Municipal Services District
• Enhanced Municipal Services District (EMSD) Overview
o Created in 2005 –21st Year
o Covers 61.4 Acres & Over 1 million square feet of commercial space
o Formed to provide public services over and above typical public services elsewhere
in the City
o Services are provided by the Downtown Chandler Community Partnership (DCCP)
through an annual contract with the City
• EMSD Process & Next Steps
o Process
On March 26th Chandler City Council approved Resolution 5991 authorizing
modification of the assessment diagram, making a statement and estimate of
Page 7 of 37
expenses for the EMSD, Completing the assessment; setting the date for
hearing on the assessment; and ordering the giving of notice such hearing
100% of assessment proceeds paid to the District
City Council officially enables the District
District must be renewed each year
o Next Steps
Tonight also includes the approval of the contract between the City of
Chandler and DCCP to administer the EMSD, and the Annual Assessment for
2026-2027 and the voluntary contribution of $137,530.
JESS WALRATH, Downtown Chandler Community Partnership Executive Director, continued the
presentation.
• Downtown Chandler Community Partnership
• DCCP Mission Statement
o The Downtown Chandler Community Partnership (DCCP) is a 501(c)6 not-for-profit
corporation whose mission is to mobilize leadership and resources to advance the
development of Downtown Chandler as a regional destination for shopping, dining,
living, culture and the arts.
• 2026 DCCP Board of Directors
• DCCP Team
• 2026-2027 DCCP Services
o Management / Serves as a Downtown Liaison
Board and Stakeholder Engagement, Strategic Planning, Destination
Management,
Advocating
for
downtown
businesses
and
overall
improvements. Implement Strategic Plan.
o Events
Farmer’s Market, Wedding Walk, Small Business Saturday, Crawls including
Sippin’ Santas, Brunch Crawl, and hosted partnered events such as Fine Arts &
Wine Festival, BBQ Festival and Rocktoberfest with our partners at SanTan
Brewing. Micro Events: Run Club, Book Club, Vision Boards & Coffee, Yard
Games, Sunset Yoga, Vinyl Swap, Small Business Saturday
o Marketing
Promoting Downtown Chandler via social media, monthly newsletters, event
branding and stakeholder notifications. Creating a stay and play campaign
through Channel Your Chill to attract both residents and visitors to downtown
during the summer months. New addition: PR Contract to amplify the voice of
Downtown.
o Beautification & Placemaking
Placing American Flags for holidays, fall display, holiday lights and displays,
and roof top lighting. Providing the overall feel of a welcoming and inviting
downtown. Partnering with local businesses and community groups to build
community. New addition: Mural, Hearts for your Sweetheart, St. Patty’s, Cinco
de Mayo, Graduation activations.
Page 8 of 37
o Clean Team
Removes litter, graffiti, stickers, trash cans, and wipe down surfaces. New
addition: Service 7 day a week.
• DCCP Revenue
o City Voluntary Contribution | $137,530
o Assessment Income | $275,069
o DCCP Fundraising & Events | $289,368
• Stakeholder Outreach
o Bi-monthly Stakeholder Meetings
o Monthly Board Meetings
o Micro Event Partnerships
o PR Opportunities (Businesses Directly Benefit)
o 1 on 1 Business Connections
• Marketing Partnerships
o Visit Chandler
o Mouth by Southwest
o Evolve
o ktar.com
o Arizona Midday
o Good Morning Arizona
o Visit Phoenix
o Fox 10 Arizona Morning
o Phoenix New Times
o Chandler Independent
o SanTan Sun News
o AZ Central
o Yelp
o Arizona Republic
o 12 News
o Copper Courier
o ABC 15 Mornings
o Arizona’s Family News
o The Chandler Arizonan
o Arizona Foothills Magazine
o Chandler City Lifestyle
o AZ Big Media
o Your Life Arizona
o AOL.com
o Yahoo! News
o Fox 10 news
o Patch
o Daily Independent (valley wide)
• Marketing Win
Page 9 of 37
o Evolve
107 total media mentions from December 2025 through April 2026
42 broadcast hits (TV & radio)
62 print/online hits
3 social media hits from stations we’ve worked with
Total audience est. at 91,772,914 across all types of media
Total publicity value est. at $2,027,249
o Impact metrics
• Event Stats
o 25 Events
o 685 Local Vendors/Businesses
o 27,000 Event Attendees
o $154,000+ Income Generated
• Event Highlight: Third Thursday
o Third Thursday of Every Month | October – May
o Local vendors, Performers, Activations
o 30-50 Vendors | 300-500 People in Attendance
o Monthly Themes:
Labor of Love
Lucky to be Local
Vintage Market
Turn the Page
• Events
o July Summer Sips + Dips Pool Party
o DollarMania!
o Rocktoberfest
o October Third Thursday
o Chevys in the Park
o November Third Thursday
o Prancer's Pajama Party
o Tumbleweed Tree Lighting
o Sippin' Santas Pub Crawl
o December Third Thursday
o January Third Thursday
o Fine Art & Wine Festival
o February Third Thursday
o Wedding Walk
o BBQ Festival
o March Third Thursday
o You're Bacon Me Crazy Brunch Crawl
o April Third Thursday
o Pacific Islands Festival
o Annual Celebration
Page 10 of 37
o May Third Thursday
o Train Like a Main Character
o Thursday Dating at Aire by Puro
o June Summer Sips + Dips Pool Party
o Float for a Float
• Micro Events
o Book Clubs (2)
o Sunset Yoga (8)
o Stroller Mom Workouts (5)
o Run Club (76)
o Tea & Brie (1)
o Small Business Saturday (1)
o Pilates Pop Ups (2)
o Record Swap (5)
o Vision Boards + Coffee (1)
o Lucky Downtown Chandler (6)
o Run Club 1 Yr. Celebration (1)
o Board Games on Boston (22)
o Glow Yoga (1)
o Vintage Night (1)
• Event Partners
o Arizona Association for Pacific Island Culture
o Author Tana Miller
o AZCEND
o Bambinos Baseball club
o Bautista Martial Arts
o BlackSheep Wine Bar & Merchant
o Body Bar Chandler
o British Swim School
o Busy Bees South Chandler
o Cadence Running
o Chandler City Library
o Chandler Lacrosse Club
o City of Chandler
o Concert Truck
o Corvette Club of Arizona
o CUSD Orchestra
o desert grooves records
o East Valley Robotics
o Fit4Mom
o Flo Yoga
o FS8 Pilates chandler
o Funergy
Page 11 of 37
o Get raw
o Get Thursday
o Goddard School
o INked Penguin
o Isabel Carreno Content
o LoveIAM
o LuLu Lemon Chandler
o Luxe Drip
o Maceflics
o Maris Gold + 35 Young Entrepreneurs
o My Sisters Place
o Operation Thrive
o Pure Bare Pilates
o QuartHaus
o Reformed Pilates
o SanTan Brewing Co.
o Sun Village Quartet
o sundays book club
o The Cake Cart
o The mom walk co.
o The Uncommon
o Thunderbird Artists
o Tinted Salt
o Todd B Music
o Uncommon
o Yogas Arc
• Photos
• Farmers Market
o Average 800 guests in attendance
o Average weekly vendor gross sales $15,500
o Total vendor gross sales $496,000
o 66 Vendors
• Placemaking
• Beautification & Placemaking
o Lighting Project in Motion
• Beautification & Placemaking
o Hall Way
• Questions?
Council Discussion
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS asked if the city and the DCCP are in partnership for the event Culture
Music in the Park held in June.
Page 12 of 37
MS. WALRATH said yes.
Discussion from the Audience
NOAH JAMES MARKHAM, Tempe, AZ, shared support for item 18. He supported the collaboration
between the DCCP and Arizona Association for Pacific Island Culture to share joy and spread
information about Asian and Pacific Islander culture. He suggested an idea for a New Year’s Eve
event in Downtown Chandler.
Close Public Hearing
MAYOR HARTKE closed the public hearing at 6:24 p.m.
Action Agenda Item 19
19.
Resolution No. 6000, Approving the Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Annual Assessment for the City
of Chandler, Arizona, Downtown Chandler Enhanced Municipal Services District and
Authorizing the Downtown Chandler Community Partnership Agreement
Move City Council pass and adopt Resolution No. 6000 approving the Fiscal Year 2026-2027
Annual Assessment for the City of Chandler, Arizona, Downtown Chandler Enhanced
Municipal Services District, authorizing the Enhanced Municipal Services District (EMSD)
Agreement for Fiscal Year 2026-27 between the City of Chandler and the Downtown
Chandler Community Partnership, and authorizing the City's voluntary contribution to the
EMSD in the amount of $137,530.
Action Agenda Item 19 Motion and Vote
Councilmember Harris moved to pass and adopt Resolution No. 6000 approving the Fiscal Year
2026-2027 Annual Assessment for the City of Chandler, Arizona, Downtown Chandler Enhanced
Municipal Services District, authorizing the Enhanced Municipal Services District (EMSD)
Agreement for Fiscal Year 2026-27 between the City of Chandler and the Downtown Chandler
Community Partnership, and authorizing the City's voluntary contribution to the EMSD in the
amount of $137,530; Seconded by Councilmember Poston.
Motion carried unanimously (6-0), Councilmember Hawkins absent excused.
Action Agenda Item 20
20.
Resolution No. 6006, Adopting the Fiscal Year (FY) 2026-27 Tentative Budget and 2027-2036
Tentative Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and Giving Notice of the Dates and Times for
Hearing Taxpayers for Final Adoption of the Budget, and for Setting the Tax Levies and Tax
Rates
Move City Council pass and adopt Resolution No. 6006, adopting the FY 2026-27 Tentative
Budget and 2027-2036 Tentative CIP and giving notice of the dates and times for hearing
taxpayers for final adoption of the budget, and for setting the tax levies and tax rates.
Page 13 of 37
MAYOR HARTKE called for a presentation on item 20.
SYLVIA DLOTT, Budget & Research Administrator, presented the following presentation.
• Tentative Budget Adoption
• Statutory Budget Process
o A.R.S. 42-17101 to 17108
o Adopt a tentative budget that sets forth the different amounts that will be required
to meet the political subdivision’s public expense for the fiscal year
Enter into the minutes of the governing body
Prepare according to forms supplied by the auditor general
Publish on the website for public review
Once tentatively adopted, budget cannot increase
o After tentative adoption, a public hearing shall be had wherein any taxpayer may be
heard in favor of or against any proposed expenditure or tax levy (set for June 11,
2026)
o Hold Special meeting after public hearing to adopt the Budget (set for June 11, 2026)
o Adopt final tax rate on or before 14 days before taxes are levied, but after the public
hearing (set for June 25, 2026)
• FY 2026-27 Proposed Budget
o “Adding Sense to Dollars”
o Total Budget $1,869,056,483 | Total General Fund: $617,660,442
o Proposed Budget
Adheres to financial policies and is structurally balanced
• Ongoing for ongoing and one-time for one-time
Uses Council’s Strategic Framework to guide decisions
Provides for cost-effective, quality services
Maintains long-term financial sustainability
Reduces primary property tax rate
Resident engagement through input opportunities
• Kickoff, Resident Budget Survey & Three Workshops
• All-day Budget Briefing
• Tentative and Final Adoption in May/June
o 14.8% Increase overall all Funds
$792.3M operating (+1.2%)
$1.08B capital (+27.3%)
o +0.3% increase in General Fund
$452.5M operating (-2.3%)
$165.2M capital (+8.2%)
• Total Annual Proposed Budget
o All Funds (in Millions)
• Average Annual Residential Cost Comparison for Direct Services
o The average annual cost of services across the valley is: $2,634
• 2027-2036 CIP Highlights
Page 14 of 37
o 2027-2036 CIP total is $2,947,467,963
o ($329.7M more than the 2026-2035 CIP)
o Updated to reflect additional utility and general projects and updates project cost
estimates to current values
o Increased focus on aging infrastructure
o Includes projects utilizing new voter approved bond authorization
• Proposed FY 2026-27 CIP Appropriation (all funds)
o Capital Carryforward $602.2M
o New Funding and Reserves $474.7M
o $1.08B Total CIP Appropriation
• Key Budget Dates
• Questions?
o For your consideration: Resolution #6006 approves the FY 2026-27 Tentative
Budget and 2027-2036 Tentative CIP and gives notice of Public Hearing
o For more information visit chandleraz.gov/budget and view the Budget Spotlight
MAYOR HARTKE asked how much was budgeted for trap neuter return (TNR) support.
JOHN POMBIER, City Manager, replied that $30,000 of this next fiscal year’s budget was allocated
for trap neuter return support, which is the same as the current fiscal year.
MAYOR HARTKE asked if there were additional funds contributed to the allocation for this item in
the current year.
MR. POMBIER said yes, there were a few additional programs through the year contributing to a
total amount of $50,000 for the current fiscal year.
MAYOR HARTKE noted comment cards were received regarding this item and would be included
as part of the record.
.
MAYOR HARTKE invited speakers for item 20.
JENNIFER MCTIGHE, 1426 N. Comanche Dr., Chandler, AZ, shared that she is the director of a local
kitten rescue organization. In the past year she has trapped over 75 community cats with support
from Chandler’s trap, neuter, return program. There are an estimated 75-100 cats remaining in
the neighborhood that have not been neutered; without intervention the feral cat population
continues to grow. Neighbors are working together to address this issue through the TNR
program, but without continued financial support, the burden shifts from organizations to their
volunteers. She encouraged continued support for Chandler’s TNR funding.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked about the cost of the procedure.
MS. MCTIGHE said the current cost is $65 per procedure.
Page 15 of 37
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked if this cost has increased since the city’s initial funding
amount.
MS. MCTIGHE stated she did not have that information. She shared that without city funding; a
procedure would cost around $100.
COUNCILMEMBER ELLIS asked if education efforts are a part of the organization’s focus.
MS. MCTIGHE said yes, education includes how to deal with feral kittens, feral cat deterrents,
colony care, and involvement in the TNR program. Prevention is an important part of the program.
SUE HARRINGTON, 671 N. Madrid Ln., Chandler, AZ, shared that the TNR program is vital to the
Chandler community which is impacted by outdoor cats. She shared that the program was
created to control the overpopulation of feral cats, and estimates suggest that there are over
500,000 outdoor cats in Maricopa County. Continual funding is important to address the cycle of
feral cats. She requested Council consider an increase in funding the program.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked if Ms. Harrington is a volunteer.
MS. HARRINGTON said she is a volunteer.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked if funds go directly to TNR efforts, without compensation for
volunteers.
MS. HARRINGTON said that is correct. Volunteers often fund TNR efforts personally.
TIA HAYES, 881 N. Layman St., Chandler, AZ shared information about Maryland, Texas, and New
Jersey state legislature efforts to fund TNR programs. She shared that these laws establish a
uniform and humane framework for community cats and establishes a statewide TNR program
and policy with continual funding. She shared support for continuing TNR funding in Chandler.
MICHON JAVELOSA, 255 N. Colorado St., Chandler, AZ, shared she works with the organization
Saving One Life which is supported by Chandler funding for TNR. She shared that every instance
of TNR involves work from Chandler community members who care about helping cats and their
neighborhoods. Since January 1, 2026, the program has helped 600 cats. Many volunteers spend
their time and money to support the program. City funds make an impact on this program as the
value returned to the community exceeds the dollars invested. She invited Council to participate
in a TNR ride along for a firsthand experience of the program. She requested the city continue
and expand funding for TNR programs.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked about the costs of TNR currently compared to previous years.
Page 16 of 37
MS. JAVELOSA said the current cost is $65 per procedure, with costs up to $125 at walk in clinics.
The cost used to be around $25-$35 per procedure 10-15 years ago. Costs have increased over
time.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked if the availability of veterinary services is a challenge.
MS. JAVELOSA said yes.
VICE MAYOR ENCINAS asked if there is a specific geographic area in Chandler with feral cats.
MS. JAVELOSA explained that the concentration of feral cats tends to cluster around lower
socioeconomic regions, Downtown Chandler, trailer parks, apartment complexes, and high
density areas.
VICE MAYOR ENCINAS asked about communication with property management and owners.
MS. JAVELOSA shared that the organization works to combat myths and misinformation about
TNR. The organization works with HOA managers and property management to demonstrate
what community cat management can look like and how it can have a positive effect on nuisance
behaviors.
KATHRYN MARTINEZ, 3850 W. Whitten St., Chandler, AZ, shared that volunteers who work with
TNR programs also put in hours fostering cats and supporting the cause in other ways. She shared
that the TNR program grants residents relief providing answers on how to manage community
cats. Residents have shared the program has outlined a humane and organized path to care for
colonies and work towards solutions. This program has helped reduce neighborhood conflict due
to resident buy in and involvement. She requested Council continue and expand TNR funding.
CARRIE NEIDORF, Gilbert, AZ, shared she is the executive director of Saving One Life, the vendor
partner for the community cat program in Chandler. She expressed this program is not about
sterilization, but about community partnership to find a humane and responsible solution for feral
cats. Saving One Life provides education and outreach to residents about humane community cat
management. The organization helps build long-term solutions and addresses the root cause of
overpopulation. City funding is amplified by extensive volunteer labor and nonprofit support. The
city pays for direct services which include surgeries and traps, other costs are underwritten by
Saving One Life or by volunteers.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO shared that he planned to request funds in the amount of $20,000
additional dollars through the Council budget amendment process. He asked City Manager that
with Council approval tonight, an additional $20,000 could be allocated for this program. He stated
that the previous fiscal year, the total amount budgeted for the program was $68,000.
Page 17 of 37
MR. POMBIER stated that he believed the current fiscal year total allocation to this program is
$47,000.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO requested an additional $20,000 could be allocated for this program
in addition to his future budget amendment request for a total of $70,000. He shared that if not
addressed, feral cat populations can have a large impact on neighborhoods. He supported
funding this program to address cat populations. He inquired about federal grants to support
these programs.
COUNCILMEMBER ELLIS supported looking into federal funding to support these programs.
MAYOR HARTKE said he supports looking into more options beyond a budget amendment and
federal grants.
COUNCILMEMBER ELLIS asked if funding for this project is from ongoing dollars or grant funds.
LEAH POWELL, Deputy City Manager, explained that funding is ongoing general fund dollars. There
have not been any grant funds received to fund TNR programs at the city. The city used to use the
neighborhood grant program and neighborhood assistance program to fund TNR efforts in
particular neighborhoods. In that case, each neighborhood would apply for funds. In order to
streamline efforts, the city put out a request for proposal seeking a provider, which was granted
to Saving One Life. Saving One Life now administers that program rather than individual
neighborhoods through the neighborhood grant program.
COUNCILMEMBER ELLIS said she wished to find money through other resources rather than
making an amendment to Item 20 for the tentative budget adoption.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO clarified that his request would be to advocate for $20,000 in
additional funding through the budget amendment process. He asked if the city would then look
into federal funding for this program.
MS. POWELL explained that previously federal funds have not been used for TNR efforts in
Chandler. She shared that some federal funds such as Community Development Block Grant
funds cannot be used for this purpose. Staff can investigate other federal grant funding options.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO requested staff research federal grant fund opportunities for TNR.
MAYOR HARTKE requested staff follow up. Mayor Hartke thanked staff for their work on the FY
2026-27 Budget and 2027-2036 CIP.
Action Agenda Item 20 Motion and Vote
Page 18 of 37
Vice Mayor Encinas moved to pass and adopt Resolution No. 6006, adopting the FY 2026-27
Tentative Budget and 2027-2036 Tentative CIP and giving notice of the dates and times for hearing
taxpayers for final adoption of the budget, and for setting the tax levies and tax rates; Seconded
by Councilmember Ellis.
Motion carried unanimously (6-0), Councilmember Hawkins absent excused.
Action Agenda Item 14
14.
Renewal of Fixed Camera Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) Solution
Move City Council approve the renewal of fixed camera automated license plate reader
(ALPR) solutions, from Flock Group, Inc., utilizing the City of Tempe Contract No. T21-119-
01, in an amount not to exceed $153,400.
MAYOR HARTKE requested a presentation on Item 14.
BRYAN CHAPMAN, Police Chief, commented that the department shared a formal presentation
on Monday, May 18 at the City Council Study Session. Any follow up questions from that
presentation were answered and distributed to Council through the City Manager’s Office.
MAYOR HARTKE noted that a question brought up in previous discussion was regarding
automated license plate readers (ALPR) in an area around Galveston elementary school. He asked
about the policy of including these cameras in those areas.
CHIEF CHAPMAN explained that the automated license plate readers are not placed in
neighborhoods they are placed at intersections and thoroughfares. The readers do not track the
movement of people; they are focused on the movement of traffic.
MAYOR HARTKE shared that some comments received referenced Flock cameras placed in the
area close to Galveston elementary school. He asked for an explanation of the placement of the
cameras in that area.
CHIEF CHAPMAN stated that Council has been provided locations of all the cameras within the
city. He said he is not aware of any cameras at the Galveston elementary school specifically. That
would not align with the policy where cameras are placed specifically in high vehicle density traffic
and on major throughfares and intersections.
MAYOR HARTKE asked if any other staff could provide an answer regarding the location of
cameras placed around Galveston elementary school.
MICHELLE DENTON, Police Communications Technology Senior Manager, answered that the
closest cameras in that vicinity are located at McQueen and Arizona Avenue on the major
throughfares.
Page 19 of 37
MAYOR HARTKE stated that previously gunshot detection devices were also located in that vicinity.
He asked if there are any other items located in that area related to Flock cameras.
MS. DENTON explained that the gunshot detection devices have been removed, there are no other
items in that area.
MAYOR HARTKE asked to confirm there are no cameras at Galveston School or anywhere off of
Hamilton Street or in the vicinity related to the items being discussed tonight.
MS. DENTON confirmed.
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS asked where does collected data go.
CHIEF CHAPMAN answered that the Chandler Police Department owns all the information, it is
retained through the city. Flock does not retain the data. Flock is a vendor that provides cameras
for their technology. The department takes the information, houses it, and then purges it.
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS asked where does the data go when it leaves or gets here. He referred
to the cloud system in Flock.
KATIE DAUPHINAIS, Flock Safety, stated that Chandler owns 100% of their data. The data is
captured on the camera, encrypted, and then moved to encrypted cloud storage. All data is purged
after 30 days.
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS asked where the location of the cloud storage facility is.
MS. DAUPHINAIS said the cloud storage is an Amazon Web Services (AWS) cloud platform. The
AWS cloud services Flock uses are to the highest levels of compliance such as Criminal Justice
Information Services (CJIS), System and Organization Controls 2 (SOC2), and National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) certified. The cloud is typically where higher security clearance data is
stored in the AWS system.
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS asked about a hypothetical where an Attorney General were to request
information captured to Flock, would that information be made immediately available.
MS. DAUPHINAIS said any access to data captured by Flock would need to be requested through
the formal process through the courts. If there was a warrant served, Flock would notify the city
of the warrant.
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS asked how Flock protects the 4th Amendment rights of citizens.
Page 20 of 37
MS. DAUPHINAIS explained that numerous courts across the country have unanimously agreed
that ALPR technology does not violate 4th Amendment rights. The most recent case was located in
Richmond, Virginia where the court unanimously agreed that ALPR technology does not violate
the 4th Amendment. She said she could share additional information with Council regarding recent
court cases.
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS asked what kind of data is captured.
MS. DAUPHINAIS said ALPR technology takes a picture of a public license plate on a public roadway
at certain points in time. It does not track movement.
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS asked about Flock Safety data protections, to ensure that the data
collected is not used for financial gain.
MS. DAUPHINAIS said Flock does not own the data of the City of Chandler and Flock does not sell
the city’s data. This is written in Flock and Chandler’s contract.
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS asked if Flock Safety conducts studies or research on data collected
through Flock for any purpose.
MS. DAUPHINAIS clarified that Councilmember Harris was asking about improving the ability of
Flock cameras such as clearer photos.
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS said yes.
MS. DAUPHINAIS said yes, Flock Safety works to continuously improve their product to make sure
it is a more effective tool for law enforcement to use. Flock also emphasizes that this is a tool for
law enforcement to use, human judgement needs to be exercised in any use of the tool. She said
that she cannot share the specifics of how improvement of the products is conducted.
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS shared that he researched another product in Flock Safety, the Drone
as First Responder, which has 2,000 feet of zoom capability and it can cover 50 square miles. He
asked how that program works and if facial recognition is used in collecting this data.
MS. DAUPHINAIS explained that the Drone as First Responder (DFR) program is a forward-facing
camera that does not collect information en route to a scene. It does not use any facial recognition
technology. There must be a human drone operator to operate the system, it does not fly with AI
software.
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS shared concerns with the range and capabilities of Flock’s DFR
technology.
Page 21 of 37
MS. DAUPHINAIS said the City of Chandler does not use Flock Safety’s DFR products. She can share
more information about the technology, but it is not used in Chandler.
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS asked about who has oversight over Chandler’s ALPR program.
JOHN POMBIER, City Manager, said that City Council has oversight into city actions. If it is a policy
issue, Council sets the policy direction that is executed by the City Manager, and city staff follows.
The City Manager has the purview to set operating decisions, but City Council retains oversight
into the City Manager’s actions. The City Council is the oversight body for the organization.
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS spoke about the Flock company having a nationwide system containing
license plates and being scanned into a system. He stated that investigations by civil rights and
technology groups show agencies routinely running large numbers of broad open-ended
searches. He said that in some cities, federal agencies have used Flock data despite local promises
to limit that kind of cooperation. Once a resident’s movement is entered into the ecosystem and
it is difficult to maintain who can look at these records and for what purpose. He shared concerns
with the misuse and abuse of Flock in other cities which harms communities. He said his concern
is with community trust and local control, he shared support for tools that keep neighborhoods
safe, but powerful technology without strong guardrails affects marginalized communities. If
residents believe they are being tracked, it undermines trust in the Police Department and
Council. He requested to pause the renewal of the ALPR from Flock, consider how it is used
currently by using the audit tools, and survey how Chandler’s data is shared with other agencies.
He suggested developing a citywide surveillance and governance ordinance to set policy and
Council oversight over this subject. He proposed Council form a committee of residents and staff
to review any proposed acquisition, renewal, or expansion of surveillance tools and report out to
Council.
CHIEF CHAPMAN shared that the Police Department is guided by policy, training, and systems of
accountability. Any technology used by the city is vetted through the city’s IT Department, they
ensure there are appropriate safeguards and that the vendor meets stringent criteria for data
safety. He stated that he shares monthly reports with the City Manager’s Office regarding the
operation of the Real Time Operation Center, where Flock is utilized. He said this information could
be requested through a public record request for transparency and emphasized the importance
of transparency. Flock ALPR captures vehicle information, not information on people. The Police
Department is sensitive to the data collected and what it is used for. The department is consistent
with best practices in policing across the state and across the nation. There are internal safeguards
around misuse of the data and the systems. If it is misused, the employee would be terminated
because it is a violation of public trust and internal credibility. Flock is a technology vendor in the
City of Chandler where technology is being leveraged daily to improve efficiency and timeliness.
The City of Chandler has leveraged the ALPR software to fight crime successfully, while upholding
practices of accountability and transparency.
Page 22 of 37
MAYOR HARTKE asked in response to Councilmember Harris’ proposal to pause the renewal of
the contract with Flock, how would the Police Department be affected.
CHIEF CHAPMAN said the department is waiting on Council action to move forward with the
renewal of the contract. The Police Department is utilizing and operating Flock software under the
assumption of the previous contract.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked when Council first voted on the contract with Flock.
MS. DENTON said there are two contracts with Flock, this agenda item is to merge them. The first
contract expired in March 2026, the second one goes through March 2027.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked when did Council first approve the first contract.
MS. DENTON said Council unanimously approved the first contract for 14 Flock cameras in March
2023.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked when Council voted on the second contract.
MS. DENTON said the second contract for 26 Flock cameras was approved by Council unanimously
in May 2025.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO clarified that item 14 was in regard to renewing the first contract for
14 Flock cameras initially approved in March 2023, which expired in March 2026.
MS. DENTON said that was correct and item 14 would also merge the two contracts for
administrative purposes. The only one out of contract is the first 14 Flock cameras.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO clarified that if item 14 is not approved by Council, then there is still
an active Flock contract for 24 Flock cameras that will expire in March 2027.
MS. DENTON confirmed.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked what is Flock’s business model.
MS. DAUPHINAIS explained that Flock works with agencies and private companies and other
organizations to provide technology such as ALPR that cities use. Cities contract with Flock so that
Flock can monitor who has the data and work with them to facilitate the data. More specific
information can be provided through Flock’s business team.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked what kind of entities Flock has contracts with.
Page 23 of 37
MS. DAUPHINAIS said public entities such as cities, towns, counties. She said she is not aware of
any contracts that Flock has with the federal government. The city can determine what kind of
access other agencies, such as federal law enforcement agencies, have with Chandler’s data.
Federal agencies would not have any backdoor access to the city’s data if that is what the contract
contains. An agency requesting the city’s data would go through a secure process.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked to confirm that the only way another agency can get data
through Flock is through a secure request or to have that information provided to them.
MS. DAUPHINAIS said yes.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO noted that alleged data privacy violations in other municipalities
must have violated the municipalities’ privacy protocol. He gave a hypothetical statement and
noted that if an agency were to request data and that data was not allowed to be shared through
Flock, an independent actor within the city organization could choose to share that data with the
outside agency, but that person doing so would constitute a violation of the city’s protocol.
MS. DAUPHINAIS said yes and reaffirmed that Flock does not make decisions or share information
on who gets Chandler’s data. Chandler can determine who information is shared with
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO said there could potentially be breaches of data security through
independent data sharing of bad actors.
MS. DAUPHINAIS said Flock cannot guarantee 100% data security because of the possibility of
threats. Flock takes threats of data breaches seriously. Flock maintains the highest level of
government security clearances through CJIS and SOC2 compliance. Flock also works with
contractors such as Bishop Fox, a private offensive security firm that conducts penetrative testing
on Flock software to simulate real-world attacks and then work on prevention. Flock continuously
improves their product to ensure minimized threat to data security.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked who audits Flock systems to ensure that contract standards
and data security are upheld.
MS. DAUPHINAIS said in terms of maintaining the levels of security clearances, there is an annual
database audit to ensure the security is to the highest standard. In order to keep the certifications
to have the highest level security clearances, Flock must maintain that level of security to house
that data.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked if that is conducted internally or externally.
MS. DAUPHINAIS said she would follow up with that information.
Page 24 of 37
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO requested the follow-up information addressing trust and data
security, as many of the public’s concerns reflected security.
MS. DAUPHINAIS stated that Flock has never had a breach in their data and takes the threat very
seriously because of the types of information maintained. Flock continuously works to improve
their security measures and ensure they follow the highest standards.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked Chief Chapman about the audits within the Chandler Police
Department for data collected through Flock.
CHIEF CHAPMAN said the data is audited through internal mechanisms consisting of the
commanders, mangers, and internal affairs team.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked if there is an audit system.
CHIEF CHAPMAN said yes, every thirty days.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked if it is a robust system and what would occur if a breach were
found.
CHIEF CHAPMAN said there is a robust audit system, if there is a breach of information, specifically
if an individual were utilizing this information for personal gain or sharing it outside of the norms
of established city protocol, the discipline process would commence immediately, and their
employment would be terminated.
MAYOR HARTKE requested follow up information from a question asked at the Study Session
which was does the City of Chandler Police Department have any agreement with the U.S.
Marshals Service.
CHIEF CHAPMAN said the city does not have an agreement with the U.S. Marshals Service. There
are city detectives serving on a U.S. Marshals task force who have access to Chandler Flock data.
MAYOR HARTKE asked to confirm that those individuals are City of Chandler employees.
CHIEF CHAPMAN confirmed that those individuals are City of Chandler employees, not federal
employees. He shared that there are data sharing agreements with the Wickenburg, Arizona and
Tombstone, Arizona U.S. Marshals Offices, but not the federal U.S. Marshals Service. City of
Chandler detectives serve on a U.S. Marshals taskforce and have access to the City of Chandler
Flock data.
MAYOR HARTKE asked for information regarding what entities the city shares Flock data with.
Page 25 of 37
CHIEF CHAPMAN said the city does not have any sharing agreements with any federal entity. The
city only maintains sharing agreements with local and state entities in the state of Arizona.
MS. DENTON affirmed that was correct.
MAYOR HARTKE mentioned that a previous presentation shared that this data is only able to be
requested and accessed as part of an official investigation. The data is not able to be randomly
searched on its own.
CHIEF CHAPMAN said that is correct and consistent with Chandler’s criminal justice information
systems. Everything is trackable and able to be audited; there must be a law enforcement cause
to justify searching in the system.
MAYOR HARTKE commented that the City of Chandler owns the city’s Flock data, and federal
agencies including the U.S. Marshals Service, FBI, or any other do not have access to the data.
CHIEF CHAPMAN said that was correct. The exception is the City of Chandler detectives serving on
the U.S. Marshals task force who are able to view the City of Chandler data. If a federal request
for Chandler data was received, the request would go through the City Manager’s Office for review
before being granted to another agency. However, if a search warrant is served upon the premises
for that information, the department is required to comply with the court order. Upon those two
specific instances, data could be released to another agency.
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON requested an explanation of how an outside agency could search a
national database to then make a request for Chandler’s Flock data.
MS. DENTON said this is part of the agreements that Chandler has with state and local law
enforcement agencies. If they request access to Chandler data, it can be approved and then
released to them or denied. If a request is approved, then there is essentially an interagency
agreement saying that Chandler will share data with them so when they query the data, they can
see what is there.
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON asked when another state agency performs a query of Chandler data,
is it specific to the case or is it more general access.
MS. DENTON explained there are required query fields that must be completed by the other
agency to show the specific investigation being searched for.
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON asked if another agency in Arizona makes that request, they must
have an active case number for example and other required fields completed before they are
granted the information they are searching for.
MS. DENTON said that is correct.
Page 26 of 37
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON asked if typically, a search is done for one item at a time.
MS. DENTON said yes.
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON noted how many complaints regarding Flock have been submitted
during the active time of use since adoption in March 2023.
CHIEF CHAPMAN replied that he is not aware of any complaint about the misuse of lock technology
in the City of Chandler.
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON asked City Manager if any complaints regarding Flock have been
submitted during the active time of use since adoption in March 2023.
MR. POMBIER said he is not aware of any actual complaints made over the misuse of Flock data
in the last three years under the contract.
MAYOR HARTKE asked if there have been any cases of discipline issues or misuse of Flock
internally within the Chandler Police Department in the last three years.
CHIEF CHAPMAN said he is not aware of any instances of discipline issues or misuse of Flock
internally within the Chandler Police Department in the last three years. He will confirm and
provide that follow up to Council. Chief Chapman shared that when license plate data is collected
from Flock, the plate data is run through a different system called National Crime Information
Center (NCIC). This database then generates information such as the owner of the vehicle and any
other information collected. The owner’s information is not captured through Flock and never
passes through Flock. The NCIC information contains additional information. Flock only captures
license plate information and vehicle information; not driver data or owner data.
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS asked when the data leaves Chandler from the system it goes into
Flock’s data storage cloud system.
MS. DAUPHINAIS said that is correct. Data is stored through the AWS cloud service.
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS asked how does Chandler guarantee that the cloud storage is secure
and how is it audited.
MS. DAUPHINAIS said when the data leaves Chandler, it is still owned by Chandler.
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS clarified that he was asking about where the cloud was located and
how it was maintained.
Page 27 of 37
MS. DAUPHINAIS said it is an AWS cloud service. She is not able to share location information.
Data is encrypted through every transit process when it gets through there. The AWS service is at
the highest standard of cloud security through encryption. Engineers in the system monitor
sensitive data and continuously audit that sensitive data to ensure its compliance with security
standards.
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS asked if he would be able to personally audit the data center or AWS
cloud storage to ensure information security.
MS. DAUPHINAIS said she is unsure of the logistics of how that would happen, she can provide a
more technical answer with information from Flock’s Chief Security Officer.
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS shared concerns with the level of security of Flock data in AWS systems
as he is not able to provide oversight into that service. He stated he is concerned with residents’
privacy and wants to be accountable to public trust.
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON mentioned one of Councilmember Harris’ suggestions was to draft a
citywide surveillance and governance ordinance to set policy and Council oversight over this
subject and proposed Council form a committee of residents and staff to review any proposed
acquisition, renewal, or expansion of surveillance tools and report out to Council. She asked what
that would entail. She then asked about the auditing performed on AWS services, outside of the
once a year certification for privacy standards, are there other opportunities to audit that data
and perform third party oversight.
MS. DAUPHINAIS asked to clarify Councilmember Poston’s question.
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON said she understood that the city’s internal processes regarding
appropriate use of data were very strict. She asked if there is any similar regulation through Flock.
MS. DAUPHINAIS explained that once the encrypted data reached the AWS cloud service it is
automatically deleted after 30 days. She suggested that more specific information could be
provided from Flock’s Chief Information Officer.
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON said Chandler data is deleted every 30 days, and Chandler maintains
ongoing oversight of its data. She requested more information on assurances that Chandler’s data
is not accessed inappropriately or being breached elsewhere.
MS. DAUPHINAIS stated as part of the city’s contract with Flock, if any clause of the contract such
as data use is breached, then there is an option to terminate the contract.
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON asked during the yearly audit how information about any potential
misuse was found and collected.
Page 28 of 37
MS. DAUPHINAIS said if there is any misuse of data, everything is logged and able to be audited.
That information is able to be shared.
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON asked if sharing the Flock audit information could be a standard
practice for Chandler, such as receiving an audit report for certain intervals of time. This could
pair with Chandler’s internal audit report.
MS. DAUPHINAIS asked for clarification.
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON said Chandler’s retention policy for Flock data is 30 days, data is
deleted automatically after 30 days. There is also a policy where police staff review and ensure
data is accessed appropriately. She asked if there is a Flock policy to ensure data is accessed
appropriately that could be shared to address these privacy concerns.
MS. DAUPHINAIS said that information could be provided. If any changes were to be made to the
renewal contract, it would need to go through Flock and the city’s legal review.
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON said she was interested in hearing more about that process.
MS. DAUPHINAIS said she would follow up with that information.
MR. POMBIER explained that this contract is through a cooperative contract with the City of
Tempe. As part of the process, Tempe asks these questions of the contractors. He said there is a
quarterly third-party audit of Flock data. This information is sourced from the Tempe cooperative
contract.
COUNCILMEMBER ELLIS said her focus was on the safety of Chandler. She shared firsthand
experience how use of ALPR cameras can help solve cases and bring justice. She emphasized city
accountability for the use of Flock data, and stated Council will act to ensure responsibility and
accountability of its use.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked about the quarterly audit performed as part of the
cooperative contract and asked for information regarding what is audited, how is it audited, and
who is doing it, and how can Council receive information about audits.
MS. DAUPHINAIS shared that the quarterly review is conducted by managers and IT officials within
the Flock system who look at role-based authorization and MFA authorization to see who accesses
certain data that would be used for customer service or product improvement. This is directly with
an agency on a quarterly basis.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked if it was possible to have cities do those audits on a quarterly
basis.
Page 29 of 37
MS. DAUPHINAIS clarified if the question was to partner with Flock to conduct audits or have
access to the audits.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO said it could be a third-party audit paid for by both Flock and the
city.
MS. DAUPHINAIS said this could be further discussed with Flock legal team to manage contract
negotiations.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO said he believes Chandler’s police officers are doing the right job, he
wants to confirm with data that Flock is doing the right job. Service providers in Chandler are
audited or regulated to ensure that the service delivered to the city is of a certain quality or
security.
MS. DAUPHINAIS said Flock is committed to having its Chief Information and Security Officer work
with Council to accommodate questions.
MAYOR HARTKE asked Chief Chapman for any follow up.
CHIEF CHAPMAN suggested at the recommendation of Council, a City Council Executive Session
could be scheduled with Flock security experts to ensure everyone has a clear understanding of
questions asked.
MAYOR HARTKE agreed.
COUNCILMEMBER ELLIS asked what the next step of scheduling that meeting will be.
MAYOR HARTKE said he is willing to set an Executive Session to discuss further.
MAYOR HARTKE invited speakers to share public comments.
CADEN CARLSON, 160 W. Manor St., Chandler, AZ emphasized Chandler’s community values. He
shared that he had concerns with surveillance data without oversight and suggested investing
directly in the Chandler community would be a better use of the contract funds.
TRAVIS GUNVILLE, Chandler, AZ, shared concerns about how Flock data could be subpoenaed
after its retention of 30 days had been met. He supported public safety, but shared information
about mass data collection and surveillance. Mr. Gunville spoke about the possibility of misuse of
data and technology. He requested that the contract not be renewed to uphold privacy and civil
liberties.
HARRISON REDMOND, 741 S. Stanley Pl., Chandler, AZ, shared information that some other
Arizona cities such as Flagstaff, Sedona, and South Tucson, along with other localities have walked
Page 30 of 37
away from Flock. He referenced the ALPR system generated 3,508 alerts for critical issues as
referenced in the agenda item memo but noted that the memo did not include arrest or conviction
statistics. He spoke about investigations finding ICE accessed Flock systems or accessing Flock
data. He emphasized community safety is built on trust transparency and fiscal responsibility.
SANTINA HUITRON, 515 W. Knox Rd., Chandler, AZ, shared concerns about using cameras for
public safety, they infringe on the right to privacy in public spaces and when put in the wrong
hands can be used for harm. She shared concerns with the lack of information about Flock. She
requested funds be invested in the community, while making the community a safer place to live.
ALDO SOBERÓN, 4100 S. Pinelake Way, Chandler, AZ, requested Flock be removed from Chandler,
sharing concerns about surveillance and public trust.
MIGUEL ANDRE RUBIO, 1952 E. Canyon Way, Chandler, AZ, said renewing the contract is not a
public safety decision, but a concern of privacy, transparency, and taxpayer risk. He asked
questions about what Chandler employees can search in Flock data, outside agency access, and
case success. Mr. Rubio shared concerns about legal exposure by using the Flock system and risk
management. He requested the contract with Flock not continue.
CARLOS FERNANDEZ, 1519 W. 7th Pl., Mesa, AZ, emphasized the importance of investing in the
local community rather than supporting surveillance systems. He requested Council vote no.
LUTHER JOHNSON, 33 N. Comanche Dr. #20, Chandler, AZ, thanked Council for their questions
about the Flock contract and advocating for community concerns about safety and access to data.
He requested Council discontinue the contract.
ROHITH CHANDRASHAKER, 800 W. Oakland St., Chandler, AZ, shared concerns with Flock
statements and addressed issues brought up by communities across the country. He stated that
audit procedures could be obscured through incomplete query fields. He requested Council vote
no.
CASSIDY CROSSEN, 1413 E. Gail Dr., Chandler, AZ, spoke about privacy concerns and noted that
automated systems have an error rate and are not perfect due to camera errors or not editing the
database.
ABHIK CHWDHURY, 6160 W. Park Ave., Chandler, AZ, shared first-hand experience with building
AI camera systems and the importance of responsible data stewardship and autonomy and
control over software systems.
JASON BONDELLI, 635 S. Ellis Rd., Chandler, AZ, said that residents were not given a choice to opt
into the Flock data collection system. He requested that the contract renewal funds be used to
improve the lives of people in this community. He requested Council discontinue the contract.
Page 31 of 37
AMELIA NGUYEN, 200 W. Jasper Pl., Gilbert, AZ, shared concerns with Flock’s claims about the
efficacy of the ALPR product. She shared safety concerns with the presence of cameras on
Chandler streets, and requested Council vote no.
BRADEN PETERS, 11566 E. Sylvan Ave., Mesa, AZ, spoke against renewing the Flock contract due
to violation of privacy rights, and data control concerns. He supported using funds to invest in
community crime prevention with youth and school programs.
MICHAEL OEI, 1817 N. Dobson Rd. Apt 2035, Chandler, AZ, requested Council vote no on renewing
this contract. He shared concerns with Tempe’s original contract that Chandler is using for this
item.
BILL WINSBERG, 2370 W. Indigo Dr., Chandler, AZ, requested more information on statistics
provided by the Chandler Police Department regarding the use and efficacy of Flock.
SYDNEY PARKER, 10220 E. Olla Dr., Mesa, AZ, requested Council oppose the renewal contract with
Flock due to concerns about protecting children’s privacy.
DANA DURAN, 4023 W. San Miguel Ave., Phoenix, AZ, shared concerns about Flock and ICE.
MARK JIANG, 3404 E. Birchwood Pl., Phoenix, AZ, noted that high school students are more
concerned about education, substance use, mental health, water sustainability, or better school
facilities. He requested Council vote no on further funding to Flock.
ERIN RACZYNSKI, 1583 W. Chicago St., Chandler, AZ, thanked Council for the robust discussion of
this item. She shared that City Council is responsible for the oversight of this contract and data
sharing. She requested Council continue their research into related information.
MARK CAMARENA, 4023 W. San Miguel Ave., Phoenix, AZ, requested Council vote no on this item
due to privacy concerns.
ELISABETH NIMAN, 237 W. Alamosa Dr., Chandler, AZ, asked Council to end contracts with Flock
and remove all cameras.
ORION HOLLIN, 4023 W. San Migue Ave., Chandler, AZ, shared concerns with legal cases involving
Flock and the expansion of Flock sharing agreements. He requested Council vote no.
NATHAN TAYLORTAFT, 695 E. Sheffield Ave., Chandler, AZ pointed out locations of Flock cameras
in Chandler. He requested Council not renew the city’s contract with Flock.
JANE DANGEL, 4446 E. Longview Ave., Phoenix, AZ noted that cities nationwide are voting to end
their contract with Flock. She requested Council discontinue its contract with Flock as it poses a
threat to the safety of Chandler residents.
Page 32 of 37
NOAH JAMES MARKHAM, Tempe, AZ spoke in support of Flock cameras and shared success from
other Arizona cities.
ISABEL NEACATO, 7138 S. Poplar St., Tempe, AZ shared concerns with the surveillance of Flock
cameras. She requested Council vote against the renewal of the contract.
HAYDEN NGUYEN, 200 W. Jasper Dr., Gilbert, AZ, requested Council find public safety solutions
that preserve residents’ right to privacy, and to invest in the community.
NORBERT KAHLERT, 4505 E. Glenhaven Dr., Phoenix, AZ, shared opposition to the renewal of
Chandler’s ALPR contract with Flock.
KELSEY ANDERSON, 4561 E. Karsten Dr., Chandler, AZ, spoke against renewing the Flock contract
and requested funds be reinvested into the community for the benefit of Chandler residents.
ERIC SANDOVAL, 1595 E. University Dr., Tempe, AZ, urged Council to vote no on the renewal of the
Flock contract. He cited concerns with surveillance and affordability.
JANITA SESNIAK, Chandler, AZ, emphasized the importance of public safety for Chandler residents.
She shared concerns with Flock technology and requested Council vote no.
BEN ABERCROMBIE, 220 N. 12th St., Phoenix, AZ, shared concerns with claims Flock will bolster
crime prevention, sharing information about the error rate and false profiling. He requested
Council end the city’s contracts with Flock and dedicate the funds to community use.
MARGIE GOMEZ, 3161 S. Rosemary Dr., Chandler, AZ, requested Council vote no on renewing the
Flock contract due to privacy violations.
BRITTANY DENCHFIELD, 1717 S. Dorsey St., Tempe, AZ, shared concerns about Flock surveillance
and children at schools. She said investing this money into education, creative, and social outlets
in public community spaces is a proven way to reduce crime.
SHAYNE STRONG, 2396 E. Hawken Way, Chandler, AZ, supported public safety but shared issues
with Flock products violating privacy rights. He urged Council to vote no.
REID NIMMER, 1210 N. Tercera St., Chandler, AZ asked questions about where Flock data collected
in Chandler goes and its security. He urged Council to cancel any contracts with Flock.
JUDITH COBURN, representing Kai Newkirk, Democratic candidate for U.S. House representing
Arizona’s 4th Congressional District, requested Council vote no to renewing the Flock contract.
Page 33 of 37
REBECCA NICHOLS, 4540 W. Flint St., Chandler, AZ, asked questions about accessing Flock records
through public records requests, retention of cloud storage, and data integrity.
KRISTOPHER REIN, Chandler, AZ, shared concerns about the number of successful arrests made
as a result of Flock use and its effectiveness. He requested Council vote no on this item.
LATONDRA MADISON, Chandler, AZ, asked Council to consider if Chandler Police Department can
continue their work effectively without Flock.
MAYOR HARTKE asked if there are City of Chandler cameras in the center of the square mile or if
there are different cameras present in the Galveston Elementary School area. He asked for more
information.
CHIEF CHAPMAN said during the public comment period the searched through the logistics point
of contact and said there is a Flock camera on Galveston. This was one of the original 14 cameras
put in as a pilot program in the area to address ongoing crime in the Galveston neighborhood at
the previous direction of the City Manager’s Office. The camera has been on a list for a month for
it to be removed and repurposed. He reported that since the start of the meeting, the camera has
been removed from the area.
MAYOR HARTKE asked for a further explanation of what happens when there is an alert through
Flock.
MS. DENTON explained that there will be times when a vehicle passes multiple cameras, the Police
Department is not in contact with every vehicle that triggers an alert.
MAYOR HARTKE clarified that Flock alerts would not be separate incidents, they could be repeat
alerts for the same vehicle.
MS. DENTON said there are alerts in the system that do not hit a threshold to alert the operators.
Some alerts the department does not take action on.
MAYOR HARTKE asked for clarification on what happens to Flock data after 30 days when it hits
retention and is deleted.
MS. DAUPHINAIS confirmed with the Flock technical team and shared AWS hard deletes the data
which is under Flock’s retention policy with the AWS cloud software, vetted through Flock’s audits
and monitoring.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO said comments tonight mentioned that cities across the nation have
been moving away from using Flock and asked for thoughts on why communities are not using
Flock anymore.
Page 34 of 37
MS. DAUPHINAIS said Flock is committed to building public trust with cities and councils. Flock is
committed to showing that Flock is the most transparent and safest product for councils, agencies,
and cities to use.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked if Flock’s business competitors have similar processes.
MS. DAUPHINAIS said she does not have that information.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked about a recent report from the Police Department about 678
stolen license plates, and 8 were recovered. He asked for more information.
MS. DENTON answered that these are stolen license plates that register an alert. The Real Time
Operations Center will see the alert and direct officers to stop the vehicle and make an arrest if
needed.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO said the stolen license plate information did not have to be initiated
by Chandler Police.
MS. DENTON said that was correct, information about stolen license plates would be from the
national database. It could be a stolen license plate out of any city, because the alert would
compare Chandler’s database to the national CJIS database.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO said the Flock camera helped find eight stolen license plates out of
the alerts received.
MS. DENTON said yes.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked about stolen vehicles, there were 556 alerts and 16 recoveries
made.
MS. DENTON said when an alert comes in on a stolen vehicle, the operations center will locate the
vehicle on the camera, direct officers to the area and take action as needed.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO said that does not mean it started from Chandler.
MS. DENTON said that is correct.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked for information on the 94 arrest warrant alerts and eight
warrants cleared.
MS. DENTON explained that any law enforcement officer nationwide can enter a warrant into the
national database, if the warrant is attached to a vehicle, it will trigger an alert. The operations
center will verify the information and send officers as appropriate.
Page 35 of 37
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked about the 22 missing or endangered person alerts, with nine
recoveries.
MS. DENTON explained that the category included missing or endangered persons such as
children, the elderly, or people with dementia. They have met the criteria for a police report, and
it is entered into the national database. If they are affiliated with a vehicle, it will create an alert,
then the operations center will verify it and send officers as appropriate.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked about the data of 273 active investigative alerts and 39
arrests.
MS. DENTON said these are investigative leads or suspects that are in active investigations.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked to confirm the number of 39 arrests.
MS. DENTON confirmed 39 arrests were made.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked if the 273 active investigation alerts were initiated by Chandler
Police.
MS. DENTON said she would confirm the information but believed they were for Chandler Police
investigations.
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS asked if there is a current city ordinance that addresses these concerns.
MR. POMBIER said no.
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS asked for every camera to be deactivated until Council can reconvene
for further discussion.
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS made a motion to table discussion on item 14.
The motion failed for lack of a second.
COUNCILMEMBER ELLIS said she confirmed that the next step will be to schedule an executive
session about the subject.
Council recessed at 9:48 p.m.
Council reconvened at 9:54 p.m. with all members present except Councilmember Hawkins,
absent excused.
Page 36 of 37
MAYOR HARTKE said Council does not have all the information they need to make a decision on
this item. There will be an opportunity to do some more fact finding to get more information and
have a better understanding of where cameras are and data storage.
Action Agenda Item 14 Motion and Vote
Mayor Hartke moved to table 14 to the July 16 City Council Regular meeting; Seconded by Vice
Mayor Encinas.
Motion carried by majority (5-1), Councilmember Harris dissenting, Councilmember Hawkins
absent excused.
Unscheduled Public Appearances
NOAH JAMES MARKHAM, Tempe, AZ spoke about the history of World War 2 in Arizona involving
Navajo code talkers and Japanese internment camps.
Current Events
Mayor's Announcements
None.
Council's Announcements
VICE MAYOR ENCINAS thanked members of the public for attending the meeting and sharing
feedback with Council. He looked forward to continuing discussion to get answers to questions
raised tonight.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO thanked audience members and valued their input.
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS thanked community members, staff and Council for their robust
discussion tonight. There will be more work done on this subject for accountability.
City Manager's Announcements
None.
Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 10:08 p.m.
ATTEST: _______________________
______________________________
City Clerk
Mayor
Approval Date of Minutes: June 25, 2026
Page 37 of 37
Certification
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of Regular
Meeting of the City Council of Chandler, Arizona, held on the 21st day of May 2026. I further certify
that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present.
DATED this _______ day of June, 2026.
__________________________
City Clerk
thread::e8n1cn7fL9S905xsksGizC4::
From: Brandon <bcramirez777@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 9:02:56 AM (UTC-07:00) Arizona
To: Kevin Hartke <Kevin.Hartke@chandleraz.gov>
Subject: Opposition to the Flock Safety Contract Extension (May 21st Vote)
May 19, 2026 Subject: Opposition to the Flock Safety Contract Extension (May 21st Vote) Dear Mayor Hartke, I am writing as a resident of Chandler to urge you to vote NO on the proposed $153,400 contract extension for Flock Safety Automated License
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
May 19, 2026
Subject: Opposition to the Flock Safety Contract Extension (May 21st Vote)
Dear Mayor Hartke,
I am writing as a resident of Chandler to urge you to vote NO on the proposed $153,400 contract extension for Flock
Safety Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) during this Thursday's City Council meeting on May 21st.
While I fully support our local law enforcement and want to keep Chandler safe, expanding or renewing this mass
surveillance network poses severe risks to our community’s privacy, civil liberties, and financial oversight.
I urge you to consider the following concerns before casting your vote:
• Mass Surveillance Without Warrant: Flock cameras constantly capture, log, and track the movements of
thousands of law-abiding Chandler citizens who are not suspected of any crime. This constant tracking erodes the
fundamental right to privacy in our everyday commutes.
• Lack of Independent Oversight: There is a troubling absence of strict, independent third-party auditing to ensure
the collected data is not being misused, over-retained, or accessed outside of narrow criminal investigations.
• Data Security and Sharing Risks: The vast database created by these cameras creates a lucrative target for
hackers. Furthermore, centralized networks often allow out-of-state agencies access to the travel histories of
Arizona residents without sufficient local control.
• Financial Priority: Allocating up to $153,400 to a private surveillance corporation is an inefficient use of
municipal funds. These tax dollars would be far more effective if directed toward proven community policing
initiatives, mental health resources, or direct officer support.
Our city should prioritize safety solutions that do not require residents to surrender their privacy to a private, third-party
database. I ask that you vote against this contract on Thursday and instead push for a transparent, public evaluation of the
pilot program's actual efficacy and privacy impacts.
Thank you for your time, leadership, and dedication to protecting both the safety and the constitutional rights of Chandler
residents.
Sincerely,
Brandon Ramirez
Chandler Resident, Voter, and Taxpayer
--
Regards,
Brandon C. Ramirez, PLA
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
Outlook
Webform Submission From: City Council Meeting Public Comment
From City of Chandler <no-reply@chandleraz.gov>
Date Tue 5/19/2026 3:54 PM
To
CityClerksOffice <CityClerksOffice@chandleraz.gov>; Tera Scherer <Tera.Scherer@chandleraz.gov>
Submitted on Tue, 05/19/2026 - 03:54 PM
Submitted by: Anonymous
Submitted values are:
Name
Bruce Johnson
Address
6363 S. Adobe Dr
Chandler, Arizona. 85249
Agenda Item No.
Flock Cameras
Support/Oppose
Oppose
Comments
I am outraged that the city would even consider this invasive technology to spy on random citizens carrying out
their daily activities without a warrant or criminal act being committed. I hope that businesses and workers
affected by this misguided, paranoid, and unconstitutional program leave the city in droves! How dare you
make any person fearful to leave their homes, collect data on any unsuspecting person. Our family will stop
making any purchases in this city (and I was planning on replacing many outdated appliances and a vehicle)
and I WILL OPPOSE any school or city bond initiative going forward. OPPOSE FLOCK.
Website: https://www.chandleraz.gov
From: Monique Fullmer <jausten70@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 2:34:01 PM (UTC-07:00) Arizona
To: Mayor&Council <Mayor&Council@chandleraz.gov>
Subject: Flock camera contract
I recently read that the city council meeting this Thursday will include discussion on whether to continue the contract with Flock for surveillance cameras in the city of Chandler. I can’t find any mention of this on the city website page, but
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
I recently read that the city council meeting this Thursday will include
discussion on whether to continue the contract with Flock for surveillance
cameras in the city of Chandler.
I can’t find any mention of this on the city website page, but find it very odd that
this would be scheduled the same day as high school graduation.
I would like to express my dismay that these cameras were ever installed in our
city and voice my support for their removal.
Thank you,
Monique Fullmer
Sent from my iPhone
4439 S. Basha rd
Chandler 85248
Website: https://www.chandleraz.gov
From: Nathan Taylortaft <nathan.taylortaft@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 1:46:16 PM (UTC-07:00) Arizona
To: Kevin Hartke <Kevin.Hartke@chandleraz.gov>; Angel Encinas <Angel.Encinas@chandleraz.gov>; Christine Ellis
<Christine.Ellis@chandleraz.gov>; OD Harris <OD.Harris@chandleraz.gov>; Jennifer Hawkins
<Jennifer.Hawkins@chandleraz.gov>; Matt Orlando <Matt.Orlando@chandleraz.gov>; Jane Poston
<Jane.Poston@chandleraz.gov>
Subject: Opposition to Renewing Flock ALPR Contract
Dear Mayor and Council members, I am writing to express my opposition to Flock, and to urge you to not renew the city’s contract with the company. Flock and other Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) cameras take and analyze pictures of all
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Dear Mayor and Council members,
I am writing to express my opposition to Flock, and to urge you to not renew the city’s contract with the
company. Flock and other Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) cameras take and analyze pictures of all
passing vehicles, identifying a multitude of information that I would consider mass surveillance. This means
Flock documents millions of cars under the guise of fighting crime, without a warrant. A key part of my concern
is this mass surveillance of the public without consent. Flock also does not have good security. 404 Media has
reported that “a security researcher found Flock accounts for sale on a Russian cybercrime forum”. Additionally,
“using a commercial search engine” someone “very easily found the administration interfaces for dozens of
Flock Safety cameras… None of the data or video footage was encrypted. There was no username or password
required.” This is not a secure way for police to track crime. It’s a mass surveillance system that has been and
will be accessed by the wrong people.
Not only am I opposed to mass surveillance and security issues, but the locations of the cameras themselves
are problematic too. The city currently has forty Flock cameras. Nine of those are within one square mile, which
also happens to be the only area of Chandler where over 60% of the population is Hispanic, based on data from
census tracts. One of those is pointed directly at Galveston Elementary School, in the middle of a neighborhood.
On Monday night it was mentioned that the Flock cameras are not placed in residential areas, which is clearly
false, and that demographics do not play a role in placement, which doesn’t seem to be true. This means both
the placement of Flock cameras is an issue, and that those pushing this contract aren’t being fully honest, which
is extremely concerning when involving a powerful surveillance system such as this one.
I urge you to not renew the city’s contract with Flock.
Thank you for your consideration,
Nathan Taylortaft
Outlook
FW: Flock surveillance cameras in Chandler
From Jennifer Ekblad <Jennifer.Ekblad@chandleraz.gov>
Date Tue 5/19/2026 12:56 PM
To
Regina Guisto <Regina.Guisto@chandleraz.gov>
Cc
Steven Aguilar <Steven.Aguilar@chandleraz.gov>
Jennifer Ekblad, MMC, CPM, CRM
City Clerk
City of Chandler | City Clerk’s Office
480-782-2182 Direct
jennifer.ekblad@chandleraz.gov
From: Marie Andrews <Marie.Andrews@chandleraz.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 12:45
To: americanjazz@aol.com
Cc: Mayor&Council <Mayor&Council@chandleraz.gov>; Jennifer Ekblad <Jennifer.Ekblad@chandleraz.gov>
Subject: Flock surveillance cameras in Chandler
Ms. Cady,
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughtful feedback with our office. We’ve ensured that Mayor and each
Councilmember has received your concerns.
The Mayor and Councilmembers review all community input carefully, and they may reach out directly should they have any
follow-up questions regarding your specific concerns.
Additionally, I have copied the City Clerk on this email to ensure it is included in the official record.
We value your engagement with our community's governance. If you have any additional questions, comments, or require
further assistance on this or any other matter, please don't hesitate to reach out.
Best,
Marie Andrews
Executive Management Assistant
City of Chandler Mayor and Council Office
Phone: 480-782-2242
Website: https://www.chandleraz.gov
thread::9hhdeyocJs25d5gOHF2HSy4::
From: americanjazz@aol.com <americanjazz@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 2:18:12 AM (UTC-07:00) Arizona
To: Kevin Hartke <Kevin.Hartke@chandleraz.gov>
Cc: Steven.sarabia@azfamily.com <Steven.sarabia@azfamily.com>; programming@azfamily.com <programming@azfamily.com>
Subject: Flock surveillance cameras in Chandler
Flock Cameras in Chandler Dear Chandler City Mayor and Council Members, I saw Steven Sarabia’s story on AZ Family last night — “Chandler to make decision on Flock cameras contract” — and I was genuinely surprised to hear the Chief of the Chandler
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Flock Cameras in Chandler
Dear Chandler City Mayor and Council Members,
I saw Steven Sarabia’s story on AZ Family last night — “Chandler to make decision on Flock cameras contract” — and I was
genuinely surprised to hear the Chief of the Chandler Police Department say that these cameras are not much of a privacy
concern. As a resident, I strongly disagree, and I believe the Council deserves to hear from community members who see the
risks differently.
I am writing as a Chandler resident to express my strong support for removing — and fully discontinuing — the Flock Safety
license-plate reader cameras and any similar mass-surveillance systems. While I understand the intention behind these tools,
the privacy implications and the documented sharing of Flock-collected data far beyond our local community raise serious
concerns about civil liberties and resident safety.
Flock’s readers capture the movements of everyday residents who are not suspected of any wrongdoing. This creates a
detailed record of where we drive, when, and how often. Such information can reveal sensitive personal patterns — medical
visits, religious attendance, political activities, and family routines. This level of surveillance is incompatible with the
expectations of privacy that Americans expect and Chandler residents deserve.
It is also important to note that other Arizona cities have already reconsidered or ended their relationships with Flock. Tempe is
currently moving away from the system, and both Sedona and Flagstaff have ended their contracts. These decisions should
prompt Chandler to ask why neighboring cities — with similar public-safety goals — have determined that Flock’s risks
outweigh its benefits. Their actions suggest that concerns about privacy risks, cost effectiveness, and data-sharing are not
hypothetical; they are real enough for entire municipalities to walk away.
Another critical question is whether Flock cameras meaningfully solve crime in proportion to their financial cost. Residents
deserve transparency about how many cases these cameras actually help resolve — and whether those numbers justify the
ongoing expense. Even more importantly, we must consider the potential cost of a privacy breach or misuse of data. One
incident of improper access, targeting, or federal overreach could shatter a Chandler resident’s life. No budget line item can
quantify that kind of harm.
Flock’s system functions as a dragnet — collecting data on everyone, not just suspects. That is not what our country is
supposed to be about. We have individual rights, freedoms, and an inalienable expectation of what we can expect from our
government. If police need information about a specific vehicle connected to a specific crime, the proper method is the same
one required for any other search: a targeted, warrant-based request that respects constitutional protections. Mass
surveillance should never be the default. If a camera must be used, it should be tied to a specific, warrant-based request — not
a blanket collection of everyone’s movements.
Additionally, reports have shown that Flock data has already been accessed by federal agencies. Even if this sharing is
described as “optional,” the reality is that once the data exists, it can be requested, shared, or repurposed in ways residents
never consented to. This undermines local control and opens the door to surveillance practices that extend far beyond public
safety. The Chandler Police Department should be equally concerned about this threat to residents’ rights and the erosion of
trust it creates.
I respectfully urge the Council to prioritize the civil liberties of Chandler residents and discontinue the use of Flock cameras.
Public safety should never come at the cost of mass data collection on innocent people. Removing these cameras would
demonstrate a commitment to transparency, community trust, and the protection of our constitutional rights.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I hope you will take meaningful action to safeguard the privacy of the people you
represent.
Sincerely,
Patricia Cady
Sun Lakes, Arizona
Sent from AOL on Android
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
Outlook
Webform Submission From: City Council Meeting Public Comment
From City of Chandler <no-reply@chandleraz.gov>
Date Tue 5/19/2026 1:39 PM
To
CityClerksOffice <CityClerksOffice@chandleraz.gov>; Tera Scherer <Tera.Scherer@chandleraz.gov>
Submitted on Tue, 05/19/2026 - 01:39 PM
Submitted by: Anonymous
Submitted values are:
Name
Tyler Wilson
Address
1626 W Brooks St
Chandler, Arizona. 85224
Phone Number
(480) 993-5579
Support/Oppose
Oppose
Comments
Hello, thank you for taking the time to read my comment. I learned that the council is planning on voting to
extend the Flock contract with the city. I'm writing to state that I oppose this contract extension. I understand
that there is a need for these kinds of tools, if implemented correctly, they can be an asset. My issue with Flock
is two fold, first, I do not believe there was sufficient public notification that these surveillance systems are
being installed. I found it concerning that these cameras popped up right behind my house on Warner without
any notification. Second, reviewing the issues exposed with Flock's security tells me that this company was
more concerned with being first to market rather than being secure. We should not reward this behavior.
Separately, I do not believe taxpayers should be permenantly embeding ourselves with these private companies
without sufficient time for a competitive bidding system to take place. If my taxes are going to indefinitely go
to these companies, I want to make sure that we explored all alternatives. Another concern of mine is that these
cameras will eventually be found to violate the fourth amendement and the city will be stuck with the bill. There
needs to be more time for the technology to mature and higher courts to weigh in. Thank you for your time.
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
Outlook
Webform Submission From: City Council Meeting Public Comment
From City of Chandler <no-reply@chandleraz.gov>
Date Tue 5/19/2026 1:04 PM
To
CityClerksOffice <CityClerksOffice@chandleraz.gov>; Tera Scherer <Tera.Scherer@chandleraz.gov>
Submitted on Tue, 05/19/2026 - 01:04 PM
Submitted by: Anonymous
Submitted values are:
Name
Yegor Zenkov
Address
213 South Windstream Place
Chandler, Arizona. 85225
Agenda Item No.
14, May 18th Study session - 21st Regular meeting - Flock renewal
Support/Oppose
Oppose
Comments
The convenience of law enforcement should not override citizen's right to privacy, including under the 4th
amendment. In Carpenter v United States, the Supreme Court decided that warrantless cell phone tracking
created a trail of personal movements that were akin to constant surveillance. The government has bypassed
that decision by buying our location data from third party data brokers. Flock ALPRs further expand the
surveillance dragnet, while adding in additional data privacy, abuse, and slippery slope concerns. The security
on the devices is worse than nonexistent, journalists regularly do pieces to camera through them, and then
extract the footage to make a point. The data is shared with a menagerie of outside agencies, often in violation
of local law. Too many police officers have stalked exes using these databases. And Flock's collusion with police
departments indicates that Chandler will soon be on the hook for their street microphones, pedestrian trackers
and constantly hovering drones to look through windows (I wish that was a joke). If we wanted to actually
reduce crime while keeping privacy, we could make the process actually transparent and use modern
cryptographic techniques, like Google did during their pandemic-era contact tracing. But if Chandler is
considering expanding its partnership with a dishonest and controversial startup like Flock, they should open
information on the pilot program to the public and prompt actual community dialogue, instead of jamming it
with 20 other items. Without real transparency, I oppose.
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
Outlook
Webform Submission From: City Council Meeting Public Comment
From City of Chandler <no-reply@chandleraz.gov>
Date Wed 5/20/2026 11:06 AM
To
CityClerksOffice <CityClerksOffice@chandleraz.gov>; Tera Scherer <Tera.Scherer@chandleraz.gov>
Submitted on Wed, 05/20/2026 - 11:06 AM
Submitted by: Anonymous
Submitted values are:
Name
Grace Figueroa
Address
1210 N. Firehouse Ct.
Chandler, Arizona. 85224
Phone Number
(480) 323-5977
Agenda Item No.
14
Support/Oppose
Oppose
Comments
I do not want Flock in my city! The only flock I loved were the sheep Dobson. Echevarria, et al had here. My
family was a part of that era. Don't mess up our legacy by 'flocking it up' with invading our privacy and
citizenry. Use a better way to use our valuable resources. Thank you
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
Outlook
Webform Submission From: City Council Meeting Public Comment
From City of Chandler <no-reply@chandleraz.gov>
Date Wed 5/20/2026 7:40 PM
To
CityClerksOffice <CityClerksOffice@chandleraz.gov>; Tera Scherer <Tera.Scherer@chandleraz.gov>
Submitted on Wed, 05/20/2026 - 07:40 PM
Submitted by: Anonymous
Submitted values are:
Name
James Batke
Address
1333 W Parklane Blvd Apt 216
Chandler, Arizona. 85224
Agenda Item No.
14
Support/Oppose
Oppose
Comments
I am writing to oppose renewal of our city's contract with Flock's ALPR system. I am not in favor of
continuing to use our tax resources on technology that seems to be in clear violation of the 4th
amendment of our country's Constitution. Please do not give unchecked warrantless power to
officers, who around the country have been found to repeatedly violate privacy by spying on family
members and love interests. Please do not allow private, for-profit companies to aggregate user
travel data into a database with dubious security standards, that when breached, represent a safety
and security threat to all tracked individuals, leaving not only Flock, but our city government
susceptible to liability claims. Please do not let our city participate in the formation of a nationwide
dragnet whereby Flock can coordinate with Federal agencies to monitor movement and hunt
individuals based on the whims of unelected department heads appointed by autocrats to pursue
dictates that may circumvent state and local laws. The city councils of Flagstaff and Sedona have
already demonstrated sound leadership in cancelling their agreements with Flock - please heed
their example.
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
Outlook
Webform Submission From: City Council Meeting Public Comment
From City of Chandler <no-reply@chandleraz.gov>
Date Thu 5/21/2026 2:19 PM
To
CityClerksOffice <CityClerksOffice@chandleraz.gov>; Tera Scherer <Tera.Scherer@chandleraz.gov>
Submitted on Thu, 05/21/2026 - 02:18 PM
Submitted by: Anonymous
Submitted values are:
Name
Steven Hayes
Address
2578 E Desert Broom PL
Chandler, Arizona. 85286
Agenda Item No.
14
Support/Oppose
Oppose
Comments
My name is Steven Hayes, and I am a resident of Chandler. I urge you to vote no on Item 14, the
proposed renewal of the Flock fixed camera ALPR contract. The memorandum you received
highlights the value of this technology: 3,508 alerts, recovery of stolen vehicles, and realtime
support for officers. No one questions the importance of public safety. But the memorandum
paints a one-sided picture. It does not mention the mounting evidence that Flocks systems are
fundamentally insecure and that its data is being misused in ways that directly threaten the privacy
and civil rights of Chandler residents. -----The cameras are not secure. ------In December 2025,
independent researchers discovered that at least 60 of Flocks Condor cameras were left live-
streaming to the open internet, no password required. Anyone could watch the feeds, download 30
days of archived video, and even manipulate camera settings. ------ The data is being misused at
scale. Flock's own customers have used the system for purposes that go far beyond what was sold
to the public. ------ These systems are not benefiting residents of Chandler and violates the trust
and safety of everyone.
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
Outlook
Webform Submission From: City Council Meeting Public Comment
From City of Chandler <no-reply@chandleraz.gov>
Date Thu 5/21/2026 1:28 PM
To
CityClerksOffice <CityClerksOffice@chandleraz.gov>; Tera Scherer <Tera.Scherer@chandleraz.gov>
Submitted on Thu, 05/21/2026 - 01:28 PM
Submitted by: Anonymous
Submitted values are:
Name
Terra Hunsicker
Address
10 W Tonto Dr
Chandler, Arizona. 85248
Phone Number
(602) 507-2500
Agenda Item No.
14
Support/Oppose
Oppose
Comments
I respectfully urge the Chandler City Council to vote against expanding the Flock automated
surveillance camera system throughout our city. Many residents across the Valley are increasingly
concerned that major decisions affecting privacy, infrastructure, utilities, and quality of life are
continuing to move forward despite significant public opposition. Recent votes involving rising
utility costs and the approval of large-scale projects despite passionate resident concerns have left
many people feeling unheard and disconnected from local government decision-making.The
proposed expansion of automated surveillance cameras capable of tracking vehicles, movements,
patterns, and resident activity raises serious concerns regarding privacy, surveillance, government
overreach, and public trust. While public safety is important, Chandler residents should not have to
sacrifice their privacy and civil liberties in exchange for generalized surveillance technology that
monitors the movements of law-abiding citizens.Once systems like this are expanded, history
shows that oversight often weakens while surveillance capabilities continue to grow. Residents are
repeatedly told these systems will be limited, protected, and carefully monitored, yet over time the
scope expands and accountability becomes difficult to verify. Many people no longer trust vague
assurances when it comes to data collection and surveillance technology.Approving a citywide
automated surveillance network would require residents to simply trust that the system will never
be misused, expanded, shared improperly, or used beyond its original intent and many Chandler
residents are not comfortable giving local government or private companies that level of
unchecked access to their movements and personal data.Many residents are already concerned
about increasing surveillance, infrastructure strain, and decisions being made without meaningful
community input. Approving a citywide camera network at this moment risks further damaging
public trust between residents and local government.I encourage the council to prioritize
transparency, community engagement, and targeted public safety measures that do not involve
widespread monitoring of everyday residents.Thank you for your time and consideration.
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
Outlook
Webform Submission From: City Council Meeting Public Comment
From City of Chandler <no-reply@chandleraz.gov>
Date Fri 5/22/2026 3:21 PM
To
CityClerksOffice <CityClerksOffice@chandleraz.gov>; Tera Scherer <Tera.Scherer@chandleraz.gov>
Submitted on Fri, 05/22/2026 - 03:21 PM
Submitted by: Anonymous
Submitted values are:
Name
Courtney Catch
Address
4857 East Thunderbird Drive
Chandler, Arizona. 85249
Phone Number
(480) 261-0089
Support/Oppose
Oppose
Comments
It is a violation of our rights as citizens to be tracked using Flock license plate cameras or any other
brand of camera. We as citizens have the right to freely move within our cities, state, and country
without our movements being constantly monitored. You have no right to treat us like this. This is a
safety hazard in many capacities. Flock cameras are easily hacked, and accessed by people who
shouldnt have access. The data is unsecure, is not properly protected or disposed of. I am unable to
opt out of this form of tracking. It also violates the innocent until proven guilty, as it forces people
to have to prove their innocence against the data collected that could be misinterpreted or
collected incorrectly. We vote you into this office to protect and run our communities so we dont
have to fight these kinds of things cause you ARE supposed to do that for us.
thread::HwVI2hf3L9egYMsWoLaCUi4::
From: J T <jatheyt@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2026 7:44:24 AM (UTC-07:00) Arizona
To: Mayor&Council <Mayor&Council@chandleraz.gov>
Subject: Flock
Dear Mayor & Council members, It was odd to watch city council members and private citizens complain and worry about privacy concerns regarding FLOCK data, while the very reason we mandate license plates on vehicles goes largely unmentioned
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Dear Mayor & Council members,
It was odd to watch city council members and private citizens complain and worry about privacy concerns regarding FLOCK data, while the
very reason we mandate license plates on vehicles goes largely unmentioned - despite license plates being tied to far more personal data.
Yet here we are, worrying about a system that (more often than not) reports the location of vehicles tied to individuals who may be trying
to evade the consequences of their actions - information that is already linked to their license plate through state-mandated laws.
OD Harris’s “victim acting” for the audience is nothing more than an attempt to bolster his reasons for hiding his embarrassing
military history and to justify him and his wife pulling down signage he doesn’t agree with. I get it - we all do. Those most opposed to
FLOCK are likely people who have had negative interactions with police or the courts as a result of their own actions.
The recovery of stolen vehicles and the rescue of missing children benefit Chandler residents in ways many opponents either don’t wish to
admit or aren’t capable of realizing. These individuals often aren’t particularly community-minded, yet they expect their “bubble” of
privacy to follow them when they leave their property.
In the U.S. and most other jurisdictions, you generally have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public spaces. If you are in plain view -
on a sidewalk, in a park, driving on public streets, or inside an open store - anyone can legally observe or photograph you without your
permission.
Most people would agree this is reasonable. The disagreement usually begins when it comes to automated systems reading license plates
and connecting them to personal information. But if that’s the concern, then why require license plates in the first place? People who have
nothing to hide are generally comfortable with automated systems reading required public displays of personal information - and license
plates are exactly that.
Living in a community where law and order are actively enforced is far more desirable than the alternative. The City of Chandler should
renew the FLOCK contract to keep law-abiding citizens safe.
Many more citizens are watching this issue than those who showed up in person to speak against it. Unfortunately, the ones who do
appear are often anti-government conspiracists.
Supporting the continuation of the FLOCK contract will help keep Chandler safer and more prosperous by enabling quicker recovery of
stolen vehicles (which helps reduce insurance rates) and by confronting individuals who knowingly use incorrect plates to cheat other
taxpayers. The rescue of missing children and vulnerable persons should matter to all of us, not just those directly affected.
Nothing protects law enforcement officers more effectively than being notified in advance that a vehicle with a specific plate number is
associated with an individual who is armed and dangerous.
What goes unmentioned - or is simply unknown - by those opposing FLOCK is the fact that most of them carry a cell phone that
continuously gathers far more personal data (location, time, movements, etc.) which is held by private companies profiting from their data.
Where is the outrage over that?
Thank you to all concerned Chandler citizens who want/appreciate a safe and secure community.
Of course, I will not release my identity as a Chandler resident. The very people opposing FLOCK are the ones most likely to engage in
retribution. And no, OD Harris, I do not wish to meet for coffee to hear your contorted reasoning
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
Outlook
Webform Submission From: City Council Meeting Public Comment
From City of Chandler <no-reply@chandleraz.gov>
Date Fri 5/22/2026 2:09 PM
To
CityClerksOffice <CityClerksOffice@chandleraz.gov>; Tera Scherer <Tera.Scherer@chandleraz.gov>
Submitted on Fri, 05/22/2026 - 02:08 PM
Submitted by: Anonymous
Submitted values are:
Name
kate Forgach
Address
329 lobb ave
superior, Arizona. 85173
Phone Number
(970) 217-7444
Support/Oppose
Oppose
Comments
Re Flock contract renewal. My husband and i have previously visited Chandler to shop and dine.
After consideration of the council's willingness to aid and abet ICE in their illegal, immoral and
uncomstitutional attacks on the innocent, we will no longer even buy gas in Chandler. You should
be DEEPLY ashamed of yourselves
thread::P00FDukiJviwSjTGJCRd8y4::
From: Wendy Ricker <wndricker@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2026 10:02:25 AM (UTC-07:00) Arizona
To: Mayor&Council <Mayor&Council@chandleraz.gov>
Subject: Shut Down Flock!
I am wring to request that you reconsider your decision to connue the use of Flock cameras. I sat quietly last night in opposion to connuing the contract with Flock. When asked not to hold up signs, I put mine down. I do not condone
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
I am wring to request that you reconsider your decision to connue the use of Flock cameras.
I sat quietly last night in opposion to connuing the contract with Flock. When asked not to hold up signs, I put
mine down. I do not condone the behavior of those in the audience who began shoung at the beginning of
the meeng. I also don’t condone the behavior of the Councilmember Ellis who insulted the audience by
suggesng that most of us were not Chandler residents. I found it insulng and also inflammatory. I also found
it extremely disrespecul to accuse Councilmember Harris of strong arming the Council when he simply made a
moon to shut down the cameras and do more research before making a final decision about connuing the
use of Flock cameras.
I applaud Councilmember Harris for asking important quesons and his willingness to admit that he did not
understand much about the Tempe contract or the security issues when he originally voted to approve the use
of Flock cameras. It was clear from the quesons asked by the Council that none of the members understand
the technology, the contractual agreement, or the security issues around the use of Flock cameras. It was
shocking and inexcusable to learn that the Police Chief did not know there is a camera poinng at an
elementary school! No one knowing the camera was there is proof that there has not been enough oversight of
the system!
The representave from Flock was unable to give complete or sasfactory answers and it was clear the Council
connues to have many quesons. I respecully ask, why with so many quesons and concerns about security,
did you vote to connue the use of these cameras while you educate yourselves? I believe the quesons you
asked only touched the surface of what you must learn before making an informed decision. I’m not sure two
months is even enough!
Use this me to bring together experts in this technology, privacy and contracts to be sure that all relevant
quesons are answered before the July meeng and be sure to ask your fellow councilmembers in the cies
that have disconnued the use of Flock why they made that decision.
You connue to put me and the enre City at risk by connuing to use this technology without understanding
the multude of issues surrounding its use. It would have been prudent and easy to shut the cameras down for
two months. If the contract for 14 cameras has expired, at least shut down 14 cameras NOW!
Respecully,
Wendy Ricker (A proud Chandler resident since 1993!)
2560 W Park Ave.
thread::NT8FCi8XJNmS834dlR5zJi4::
From: Will_LD13 <Will.Bullock_LD13@proton.me>
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2026 7:37:22 AM (UTC-07:00) Arizona
To: Mayor&Council <Mayor&Council@chandleraz.gov>
Subject: Cameras
Please take note: https: //x. com/i/status/2057693933971345606 Regards, Will Bullock Sent from Proton Mail for Android.
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Please take note:
https://x.com/i/status/2057693933971345606
Regards,
Will Bullock
Sent from Proton Mail for Android.
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
From:
City of Chandler
To:
CityClerksOffice; Tera Scherer
Subject:
Webform Submission From: City Council Meeting Public Comment
Date:
Monday, May 25, 2026 3:02:20 PM
Submitted on Mon, 05/25/2026 - 03:02 PM
Submitted by: Anonymous
Submitted values are:
Name
Austin Dougless
Address
2347 W Orchid Ln
Chandler, Arizona. 85224
Agenda Item No.
14
Support/Oppose
Oppose
Comments
My name is Austin Dougless and I am writing in regards to Agenda Item 14: Renewal of
Fixed Camera Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) Solution, from the May 21st regular
meeting (moved to July 16th regular meeting). As an 11 year Chandler resident and young
working professional, I am writing to firmly oppose the adoption of Flock Security cameras in
our city. These systems conduct indiscriminate, continuous surveillance of law-abiding
residents tracking the movements of every driver who passes a camera, regardless of any
suspicion of wrongdoing. The Electronic Frontier Foundation documented that law
enforcement agencies used Flock's network to track protesters exercising their First
Amendment rights and to conduct discriminatory searches, demonstrating how easily this
technology is misused. My data security concerns are equally serious; U.S. Senators wrote to
the FTC in 2025 citing Flock's failure to require basic multi-factor authentication, which
allowed unauthorized federal agents to access local Flock accounts using shared passwords
our private location data deserves better protection than that. Cities like Cambridge, MA and
Charlottesville, VA have already abandoned Flock after discovering these exact problems
firsthand. I urge the council to reject this proposal and invest instead in public safety solutions
that don't treat every Chandler resident as a suspect.
From:
Marie Andrews
To:
bilb@cox.net
Cc:
Mayor&Council; Jennifer Ekblad
Subject:
Support for Automated License Reader Contract
Date:
Tuesday, May 26, 2026 1:18:46 PM
Hello,
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughtful feedback with our office. We’ve
ensured that Mayor and each Councilmember has received your concerns.
The City Council voted to table the discussion of the Flock contract extension and will
consider that item at a future meeting, tentatively scheduled for July 16. Chandler began
using Flock’s automated license plate readers as a pilot program in March 2024. Since
then, agreements have been reached with Flock to operate up to 40 automated license
plate readers in Chandler. This technology assists police identify and recover stolen
vehicles and stolen license plates, locate vehicles associated with missing and
endangered children and adults and locate vehicles associated with active warrants tied
to serious offenses.
We value your engagement with our community's governance. If you have any additional
questions or comments, please don't hesitate to reach out.
Best
Marie Andrews
Executive Management Assistant
City of Chandler Mayor and Council Office
Phone: 480-782-2242
Website: https://www.chandleraz.gov
thread::LJc5ofwNJleiKimeMJfoqC4::
From: bilb@cox.net <bilb@cox.net>
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2026 10:50:02 AM (UTC-07:00) Arizona
To: Mayor&Council <Mayor&Council@chandleraz.gov>
Subject: Support for Automated License Reader Contract
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers, I have lived in Chandler for 45 years and closely follow our public institutions. I believe we have a safe city that provides a great place to live and raise a family. As such I have supported bond elections and
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers, I have lived in Chandler for 45 years and closely
follow our public institutions. I believe we have a safe city that provides a great place to
live and raise a family. As such I have supported bond elections and annual budgets that
support our public safety departments. I believe that the license reader contract has
proven that it is a valuable tool to keep us safer here in Chandler. I do think it should be
monitored as we depend on the council to oversee all our contracts. Please don't let a
few people in attendance tonight let you think they represent most of your residents.
These systems are in place in many towns and cities across the country and polls show
they are quite popular. Thank you for supporting public safety and safety for our police
force. Bil Bruno
From:
Marie Andrews
To:
billp9435@gmail.com
Cc:
Mayor&Council; Jennifer Ekblad
Subject:
Flock Safety camera contract
Date:
Tuesday, May 26, 2026 3:14:42 PM
Mr. Peters,
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughtful feedback with our office. We’ve
ensured that Mayor and each Councilmember has received your concerns.
The City Council voted to table the discussion of the Flock contract extension and will
consider that item at a future meeting, tentatively scheduled for July 16. Chandler began
using Flock’s automated license plate readers as a pilot program in March 2024. Since
then, agreements have been reached with Flock to operate up to 40 automated license
plate readers in Chandler. This technology assists police identify and recover stolen
vehicles and stolen license plates, locate vehicles associated with missing and
endangered children and adults and locate vehicles associated with active warrants tied
to serious offenses.
We value your engagement with our community's governance. If you have any additional
questions or comments, please don't hesitate to reach out.
Best regards,
Marie Andrews
Executive Management Assistant
City of Chandler Mayor and Council Office
Phone: 480-782-2242
Website: https://www.chandleraz.gov
thread::rdP6WJdoKbuq7orYYqBV_y4::
From: Bill Peters <billp9435@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2026 7:58:48 AM (UTC-07:00) Arizona
To: Kevin Hartke <Kevin.Hartke@chandleraz.gov>
Subject: Flock Safety camera contract
May 23, 2026 Honorable Mayor Kevin Hartke, I am writing this email to express my support for the renewal of the Flock Safety camera contract for the City of Chandler. I am an Arizona native and have lived in Chandler since 2003. I have worked
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
May 23, 2026
Honorable Mayor Kevin Hartke,
I am writing this email to express my support for the renewal of the Flock Safety camera contract for
the City of Chandler.
I am an Arizona native and have lived in Chandler since 2003. I have worked for as a sworn member
of a nearby municipal law enforcement organization for 36 years. During that time, I have seen,
firsthand, how technology, in both my agency and the City of Chandler, has enhanced crime fighting
and helped create the safe environment we enjoy in the East Valley.
In recent years, Real Time Crime Centers (RTCC) and use of Flock Camera systems have been an
absolute game changer in our ability to rapidly locate crime suspects, missing people, and stolen
vehicles. While I have no part of our agency’s contact with Flock, I can tell you that daily, RTCC
locates wanted and missing people and stolen vehicles. That information is dispatched directly to
Patrol in real time movement and enables officers to quickly locate them. With the rapid location of
suspects, missing persons and stolen vehicles, it saves our agency countless hours of investigative
time, stops crime sprees, brings rapid justice to victims, and returns missing loved ones. When I say
Flock is a game changer, I mean it! The time of incident to arrest is dramatically reduced, creating a
safer community.
I understand the use of Flock cameras is provocative to some. I have seen similar concerns with
photo safety, license plate readers, helicopters, high altitude surveillance planes, and drones in the
past. None of the initial concerns with these systems developed. While I do not diminish the fear of
government oversite, I am confident that there are checks and balances to prevent abuse. In fact, I
have never seen these systems used for other than legitimate law enforcement business.
As a citizen of Chandler, I strongly urge you to support the renewal of the Flock Safety camera
contract. The benefit it provides to the overall safety and quality of life in Chandler far exceeds and
worry of abuse. Should the contract not be approved, Chandler would fall behind neighboring
municipalities in crime rates, which ultimately impact our families, housing values, and ability to
attract businesses.
Thank you for your service to the citizens of Chandler.
Bill Peters
2075 E. Grand Canyon Dr
Chandler, AZ 85249
480-201-9795
BillP9435@gmail.com
From:
Marie Andrews
To:
rjkavanaghlaw@gmail.com
Cc:
Mayor&Council; Jennifer Ekblad
Subject:
License Plate Readers
Date:
Tuesday, May 26, 2026 3:35:20 PM
Hello,
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughtful feedback with our office. We’ve
ensured that Mayor and each Councilmember has received your concerns.
The City Council voted to table the discussion of the Flock contract extension and will
consider that item at a future meeting, tentatively scheduled for July 16. Chandler began
using Flock’s automated license plate readers as a pilot program in March 2024. Since
then, agreements have been reached with Flock to operate up to 40 automated license
plate readers in Chandler. This technology assists police identify and recover stolen
vehicles and stolen license plates, locate vehicles associated with missing and
endangered children and adults and locate vehicles associated with active warrants tied
to serious offenses.
We value your engagement with our community's governance. If you have any additional
questions or comments, please don't hesitate to reach out.
Best,
Marie Andrews
Executive Management Assistant
City of Chandler Mayor and Council Office
Phone: 480-782-2242
Website: https://www.chandleraz.gov
thread::f_LbPCJyKleg9UlrHWmFni4::
From: Robert Kavanagh <rjkavanaghlaw@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2026 4:18:20 PM (UTC-07:00) Arizona
To: Kevin Hartke <Kevin.Hartke@chandleraz.gov>
Subject: License Plate Readers
Keep the license plate readers. They help locate crooks and recover stolen vehicles. Do not let the loud mouth minority scare the council into caving. But if the stats don’t show the LPR’s are effective, then scrap them for that reason and not
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Keep the license plate readers. They help locate crooks and recover stolen vehicles. Do
not let the loud mouth minority scare the council into caving. But if the stats don’t show
the LPR’s are effective, then scrap them for that reason and not because nut jobs
complain about some sort of privacy issue. The nuts need to throw away their cell phone
if they are worried about “surveillance.”
I am a retired law enforcement office and attorney. I am a long time Chandler resident.
Bob Kavanagh
602-618-7537 (cell)
From:
Marie Andrews
To:
danielcharlesricketts@gmail.com
Cc:
Mayor&Council; Jennifer Ekblad
Subject:
Flock Cameras
Date:
Tuesday, May 26, 2026 1:32:22 PM
Mr. Ricketts,
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughtful feedback with our office. We’ve
ensured that Mayor and each Councilmember has received your concerns.
The City Council voted to table the discussion of the Flock contract extension and will
consider that item at a future meeting, tentatively scheduled for July 16. Chandler began
using Flock’s automated license plate readers as a pilot program in March 2024. Since
then, agreements have been reached with Flock to operate up to 40 automated license
plate readers in Chandler. This technology assists police identify and recover stolen
vehicles and stolen license plates, locate vehicles associated with missing and
endangered children and adults and locate vehicles associated with active warrants tied
to serious offenses.
We value your engagement with our community's governance. If you have any additional
questions or comments, please don't hesitate to reach out.
Best regards,
Marie Andrews
Executive Management Assistant
City of Chandler Mayor and Council Office
Phone: 480-782-2242
Website: https://www.chandleraz.gov
thread::D_-5Bp06JYmBfKejH7fHhC4::
From: dan <danielcharlesricketts@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 9:34:59 AM (UTC-07:00) Arizona
To: Kevin Hartke <Kevin.Hartke@chandleraz.gov>; OD Harris <OD.Harris@chandleraz.gov>; Christine
Ellis <Christine.Ellis@chandleraz.gov>; Angel Encinas <Angel.Encinas@chandleraz.gov>; Jane Poston
<Jane.Poston@chandleraz.gov>; Jennifer Hawkins <Jennifer.Hawkins@chandleraz.gov>; Matt Orlando
<Matt.Orlando@chandleraz.gov>
Subject: Flock Cameras
Council Members, Hope all of you enjoyed your Memorial Day weekend. The recent postponement of the vote on the Flock cameras was a good choice. Attendees at the meetings on such votes always seem to lean towards being negative and emotional
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Council Members,
Hope all of you enjoyed your Memorial Day weekend.
The recent postponement of the vote on the Flock cameras was a good choice.
Attendees at the meetings on such votes always seem to lean towards being negative
and emotional without reason. Also seem to be a lot of non
Chandler residents. Like at the AI data center vote. Earlier this year.
My opinion is to keep these cameras active and in force. Chandler is an exceptional city
of reason and prudence. Let's keep it that way. We do things the right way. With reason,
backed by statistics and studies. Not irrational fear of what might happen or not happen.
These cameras are providing a tremendous amount of good to this city. They are not
being used to violate individual freedoms of invasion of privacy. Outside companies or
organizations are not accessing this data for nefarious uses. This is a fact. Don't
succumb to politics and personal fears of doing the right thing.
I appreciate your leadership. Be a leader again and vote yes to keep cameras intact.
Regards,
Dan Ricketts
602-460-9840
danielcharlesricketts@gmail.com
From:
Marie Andrews
To:
Jimmy Hillman
Cc:
Mayor&Council; Jennifer Ekblad
Subject:
No to Flock Mass Surveillance
Date:
Tuesday, May 26, 2026 3:23:14 PM
Mr. Hillman,
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughtful feedback with our office. We’ve
ensured that Mayor and each Councilmember has received your concerns.
The City Council voted to table the discussion of the Flock contract extension and will
consider that item at a future meeting, tentatively scheduled for July 16. Chandler began
using Flock’s automated license plate readers as a pilot program in March 2024. Since
then, agreements have been reached with Flock to operate up to 40 automated license
plate readers in Chandler. This technology assists police identify and recover stolen
vehicles and stolen license plates, locate vehicles associated with missing and
endangered children and adults and locate vehicles associated with active warrants tied
to serious offenses.
We value your engagement with our community's governance. If you have any additional
questions or comments, please don't hesitate to reach out.
Best,
Marie Andrews
Executive Management Assistant
City of Chandler Mayor and Council Office
Phone: 480-782-2242
Website: https://www.chandleraz.gov
thread::DuZpU78JIuycljf5HLnOJS4::
From: Jimmy Hillman <james.hillman@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2026 2:35:00 PM (UTC-07:00) Arizona
To: Kevin Hartke <Kevin.Hartke@chandleraz.gov>; Angel Encinas <Angel.Encinas@chandleraz.gov>;
Christine Ellis <Christine.Ellis@chandleraz.gov>; OD Harris <OD.Harris@chandleraz.gov>; Jennifer
Hawkins <Jennifer.Hawkins@chandleraz.gov>; Matt Orlando <Matt.Orlando@chandleraz.gov>; Jane
Poston <Jane.Poston@chandleraz.gov>
Cc: Mayor&Council <Mayor&Council@chandleraz.gov>
Subject: No to Flock Mass Surveillance
Dear Mayor Hartke and Members of the Chandler City Council, I am writing to formally state my opposition to the city's proposed contract extension with Flock. The overwhelming consensus of Chandler residents at the May 21 meeting was entirely
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Dear Mayor Hartke and Members of the Chandler City Council,
I am writing to formally state my opposition to the city's proposed contract extension
with Flock. The overwhelming consensus of Chandler residents at the May 21 meeting
was entirely clear: we, the citizens of Chandler, do not want Flock surveillance in our
city.
I want to commend Councilmember OD Harris for being the only member of that body
who actually listened to the room, demanded real oversight, and fought to turn these
cameras off while this decision is pending. Thank you, sir!
The fact that the rest of this council voted to keep these 40 invasive surveillance
cameras rolling through the summer without an active, approved contract is an insult to
Chandler residents.
We have valid, deep concerns about outsourcing public safety and surveillance to a
private, venture-backed corporation. Private tech companies answer to investors and
profit margins, not the Constitution or the citizens of Chandler. Neighboring cities like
Flagstaff had the wisdom to end their Flock contracts over private data handling, and
Tempe is actively exploring alternatives. These are warrant-less dragnets, and without a
strict and independent oversight framework, you have no business keeping this system
here.
Flock's Automated License Plate Readers are invasive, AI-driven surveillance cameras
that log a vehicle's location, time, and daily travel patterns. More than just reading a
plate, this system extracts physical traits, including the vehicle's make, model, and
color, to turn the car into a searchable database profile. These cameras continuously
scoop up data on thousands of Chandler drivers who are not suspected of any crime.
This week's vote to table this decision until mid-July was a transparent stalling tactic.
If you do not vote to terminate this contract and get Flock out of Chandler, we will be
holding the City Council accountable at the ballot box in the upcoming elections.
See you in July.
Sincerely,
Jimmy Hillman, Chandler resident
From:
Marie Andrews
To:
laurataylortaft@gmail.com
Cc:
Mayor&Council; Jennifer Ekblad
Subject:
DO NOT renew Flock contract
Date:
Tuesday, May 26, 2026 12:33:55 PM
Attachments:
Flock map.png
Ms. Taylortaft,
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughtful feedback with our office. We’ve
ensured that Mayor and each Councilmember has received your concerns.
The City Council voted to table the discussion of the Flock contract extension and will
consider that item at a future meeting, tentatively scheduled for July 16. Chandler began
using Flock’s automated license plate readers as a pilot program in March 2024. Since
then, agreements have been reached with Flock to operate up to 40 automated license
plate readers in Chandler. This technology assists police identify and recover stolen
vehicles and stolen license plates, locate vehicles associated with missing and
endangered children and adults and locate vehicles associated with active warrants tied
to serious offenses.
We value your engagement with our community's governance. If you have any additional
questions or comments, please don't hesitate to reach out.
Best regards,
Marie Andrews
Executive Management Assistant
City of Chandler Mayor and Council Office
Phone: 480-782-2242
Website: https://www.chandleraz.gov
thread::dOQp-4paJ0yiiKBG07f40i4::
From: Laura Taylortaft <laurataylortaft@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2026 8:09:11 AM (UTC-07:00) Arizona
To: Kevin Hartke <Kevin.Hartke@chandleraz.gov>; Angel Encinas <Angel.Encinas@chandleraz.gov>;
Christine Ellis <Christine.Ellis@chandleraz.gov>; OD Harris <OD.Harris@chandleraz.gov>; Jennifer
Hawkins <Jennifer.Hawkins@chandleraz.gov>; Matt Orlando <Matt.Orlando@chandleraz.gov>; Jane
Poston <Jane.Poston@chandleraz.gov>
Subject: Re: DO NOT renew Flock contract
My apologies for forgetting to include the map- Laura Taylortaft 695 E Sheffield Ave, Chandler, AZ 85225 cell 480. 248. 4536 On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 8: 07 AM Laura Taylortaft <laurataylortaft@ gmail. com> wrote: Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
My apologies for forgetting to include the map-
Laura Taylortaft
695 E Sheffield Ave, Chandler, AZ 85225
cell 480.248.4536
On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 8:07 AM Laura Taylortaft <laurataylortaft@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I am a Chandler resident and adamantly opposed to Chandler renewing their contract
with Flock. On Monday night at the study session, Michelle Denton, the Chandler
Police Department’s communications technology manager told you that demographic
information wasn't considered when placing the location for Flock cameras and that
they are not placed in residential neighborhoods. This information is not accurate. It is
extremely concerning that the information you are being provided, on which to base
your decision is not truthful. Of the 40 cameras that are in Chandler, 9 of them are
within 1 square mile of each other, which also happens to be the only area in Chandler
where over 60% of the population is Hispanic. Additionally, 4 of these 9 cameras are
facing inwards towards the neighborhood, including located at Hamilton/Galveston
which is facing Galveston Elementary School. I have attached some photos and a
graphic so that you can see where some of these cameras are located and the
direction they are facing.
The map I am including was created by a family member. Each point represents a
Flock camera. While all 40 locations have not been verified, the 9 in the red box have
been verified by me. I am including the entire map to convey the demographic
information. The red color on the map indicates where over 30% of the population is
Hispanic (based on census data). The darker red color that has 9 Flock cameras is an
area where over 60% of the population is Hispanic. (The blue color indicates
commercial areas). The fourth camera, of these 9, that is in the residential
neighborhood and not depicted in a photo, is located at Galveston near McQueen
road and is facing the the street adjacent to an apartment complex.
To be clear, I do not support the use of Flock cameras and do not wish for you to renew
this contract, regardless of where they are located. I think it's incredibly important for
you to have a better picture of what we (and the cameras) are looking at here.
Thank you for your time;.
Laura Taylortaft
695 E Sheffield Ave, Chandler, AZ 85225
cell 480.248.4536
From:
Marie Andrews
To:
stewart.micaa@gmail.com
Cc:
Mayor&Council; Jennifer Ekblad
Subject:
Flock Safety Concerns: Ethics & Vulnerabilities
Date:
Tuesday, May 26, 2026 11:27:23 AM
Hello,
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughtful feedback with our office. We’ve
ensured that Mayor and each Councilmember has received your concerns.
The City Council voted to table the discussion of the Flock contract extension and will
consider that item at a future meeting, tentatively scheduled for July 16. Chandler began
using Flock’s automated license plate readers as a pilot program in March 2024. Since
then, agreements have been reached with Flock to operate up to 40 automated license
plate readers in Chandler. This technology assists police identify and recover stolen
vehicles and stolen license plates, locate vehicles associated with missing and
endangered children and adults and locate vehicles associated with active warrants tied
to serious offenses.
We value your engagement with our community's governance. If you have any additional
questions or comments, please don't hesitate to reach out.
Best regards,
Marie Andrews
Executive Management Assistant
City of Chandler Mayor and Council Office
Phone: 480-782-2242
Website: https://www.chandleraz.gov
thread::dvVOl3sbJgK7apgPbZcGzS4::
From: Mica Stewart <stewart.micaa@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2026 10:58:50 AM (UTC-07:00) Arizona
To: Kevin Hartke <Kevin.Hartke@chandleraz.gov>
Cc: council@chandleraz.gov <council@chandleraz.gov>
Subject: Flock Safety Concerns: Ethics & Vulnerabilities
Dear Mayor Hartke and Chandler City Council, My name is Mica Stewart. I grew up in Chandler, attended ASU, and have lived in the East Valley for 19 years now. This community is my home in every meaningful sense. I'm writing to ask you and
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Dear Mayor Hartke and Chandler City Council,
My name is Mica Stewart. I grew up in Chandler, attended ASU, and have lived in the East
Valley for 19 years now. This community is my home in every meaningful sense. I'm
writing to ask you and the City Council to vote against renewing the contract with Flock
Safety.
I come to this issue from two perspectives that I believe are directly relevant. My
education and first career was as a software engineer, and I now serve as a social worker
and disability advocate. Both of those experiences give me serious cause for concern,
and I want to share them with you as plainly and respectfully as I can.
As a former software engineer, I have serious concerns with Flock's security and their
handling of previous security issues. Last year, an independent researcher and
technologist named Benn Jordan conducted a thorough, documented investigation into
Flock Safety's camera systems and published his findings publicly. He identified
significant security vulnerabilities in the Flock platform that could expose the data Flock
collects to unauthorized access by bad actors. These vulnerabilities were egregious;
even a mildly technical civilian could replicate the exploit that he used to gain root
access to Flock devices.
What was equally troubling was Flock's response. Instead of seriously addressing the
findings and committing to transparent action, Flock was dismissive. That is not the
behavior of a vendor a city should trust with a major surveillance network. As someone
who has spent time in software development, I know that security vulnerabilities
happen, but these particular vulnerabilities were severe, preventable, and minimized by
the responsible party. I believe this should be a red flag for any city considering a long-
term contractual relationship.
My deeper concern is ethical. As a disability advocate and social worker, I work regularly
with vulnerable populations who will be most affected by privacy violations.
The record on Flock and ICE is already documented and deeply troubling. According to
reporting tracked by the Immigration Policy Tracking Project, ICE agents were able to
access Flock camera data through local law enforcement partners, without a formal
contract with Flock, resulting in more than 4,000 immigration-related lookups
conducted on the federal government's behalf. When a local department conducts a
Flock search, they can access not just their own cameras, but those in other states or
across the country. This means that by contracting with Flock, Chandler would be
plugging its residents into a national surveillance network whose reach extends far
beyond what any local policy can control.
Flock's own CEO later acknowledged the company had conducted unofficial pilots with
DHS agencies including CBP and HSI. The company did pause those pilots in August
2025 after public backlash, but the fact remains that these pilots did take place and they
took place without the consent of the cities and citizens affected. Good intentions and
policy language are not sufficient safeguards when the underlying infrastructure can be
accessed through side channels that bypass local oversight entirely. In short, I may trust
you not to look up my every movement, but I cannot trust Flock or the third parties that
wish to use it.
The core of my concern is that surveillance technology does not stay within the
boundaries its original architects intended once deployed. It creates an infrastructure
for future surveillance and begs to be used and expanded. And the communities that
end up most exposed are always the most vulnerable ones: immigrants, people with
disabilities, the homeless, people who depend on the ability to travel and exist in public
without being tracked. I recognize that public safety is one of the most important
responsibilities your office carries. I'm not asking you to be indifferent to crime or to the
legitimate tools that help address it. I'm asking you to weigh those benefits against the
genuine and documented risk that a surveillance network operated by a third-party
vendor, connected to a national data-sharing infrastructure with known security gaps,
will eventually be used in ways that harm the very residents of Chandler it was meant to
protect.
Chandler has always been a community that takes pride in being innovative and forward-
thinking. I believe that same forward-thinking spirit should extend to how we approach
civil liberties and our digital infrastructure. The right decision here is to decline this
renewal and to invest instead in public safety approaches that don't require handing our
neighbors' data to a third party with demonstrated accountability problems.
Thank you sincerely for your time and for your service to this city.
With respect,
Mica Stewart
From:
Marie Andrews
To:
coloradocork@gmail.com
Cc:
Mayor&Council; Jennifer Ekblad
Subject:
Speed cameras
Date:
Tuesday, May 26, 2026 1:25:30 PM
Mr. Browning,
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughtful feedback with our office. We’ve
ensured that Mayor and each Councilmember has received your concerns.
The City Council voted to table the discussion of the Flock contract extension and will
consider that item at a future meeting, tentatively scheduled for July 16. Chandler began
using Flock’s automated license plate readers as a pilot program in March 2024. Since
then, agreements have been reached with Flock to operate up to 40 automated license
plate readers in Chandler. This technology assists police identify and recover stolen
vehicles and stolen license plates, locate vehicles associated with missing and
endangered children and adults and locate vehicles associated with active warrants tied
to serious offenses.
We value your engagement with our community's governance. If you have any additional
questions or comments, please don't hesitate to reach out.
Best regards,
Marie Andrews
Executive Management Assistant
City of Chandler Mayor and Council Office
Phone: 480-782-2242
Website: https://www.chandleraz.gov
thread::bbL0GsxKJ-aHq6ckwe38wC4::
From: Steve Browning <coloradocork@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2026 12:10:19 PM (UTC-07:00) Arizona
To: Mayor&Council <Mayor&Council@chandleraz.gov>
Subject: Speed cameras
Please do not drop the speed cameras in the city. The freeways have become much more dangerous since cameras were eliminated, and I hate to see that happen in the city. Sent from my iPhone
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Please do not drop the speed cameras in the city. The freeways have become much
more dangerous since cameras were eliminated, and I hate to see that happen in the
city.
Sent from my iPhone
From:
Marie Andrews
To:
wndricker@gmail.com
Cc:
Mayor&Council; Jennifer Ekblad
Subject:
Flock Cameras
Date:
Tuesday, May 26, 2026 12:03:55 PM
Ms. Ricker,
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughtful feedback with our office. We’ve
ensured that Mayor and each Councilmember has received your concerns.
The City Council voted to table the discussion of the Flock contract extension and will
consider that item at a future meeting, tentatively scheduled for July 16. Chandler began
using Flock’s automated license plate readers as a pilot program in March 2024. Since
then, agreements have been reached with Flock to operate up to 40 automated license
plate readers in Chandler. This technology assists police identify and recover stolen
vehicles and stolen license plates, locate vehicles associated with missing and
endangered children and adults and locate vehicles associated with active warrants tied
to serious offenses.
We value your engagement with our community's governance. If you have any additional
questions or comments, please don't hesitate to reach out.
Best Regards,
Marie Andrews
Executive Management Assistant
City of Chandler Mayor and Council Office
Phone: 480-782-2242
Website: https://www.chandleraz.gov
thread::XFjPWmkaISinmdJbOtxYei4::
From: Wendy Ricker <wndricker@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2026 11:33:15 AM (UTC-07:00) Arizona
To: Mayor&Council <Mayor&Council@chandleraz.gov>
Subject: Flock Cameras
I am writing to let you know I oppose renewal of the city’s contract with Flock for Automated License Plate Readers. These ALPR’s take and analyze images without a warrant and many police departments share this data with ICE. Flock is known
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
I am writing to let you know I oppose renewal of the city’s contract with Flock for Automated
License Plate Readers. These ALPR’s take and analyze images without a warrant and many
police departments share this data with ICE. Flock is known to have poor security, so even if
the City does not give Flock permission to share data, it would not be hard for “bad actors” to
access this data putting residents of Chandler and those just passing through at danger.
Keep Chandler safe. Do not renew the contract with Flock!
Sincerely,
Wendy Ricker
2560 W Park Ave.
Chandler, AZ 85224
From:
Marie Andrews
To:
yzenkov@gmail.com
Cc:
Mayor&Council; Jennifer Ekblad
Subject:
False and misleading statements from Flock on 5/18/2026
Date:
Tuesday, May 26, 2026 11:16:40 AM
Hello,
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughtful feedback with our office. We’ve
ensured that Mayor and each Councilmember has received your concerns.
The City Council voted to table the discussion of the Flock contract extension and will
consider that item at a future meeting, tentatively scheduled for July 16. Chandler began
using Flock’s automated license plate readers as a pilot program in March 2024. Since
then, agreements have been reached with Flock to operate up to 40 automated license
plate readers in Chandler. This technology assists police identify and recover stolen
vehicles and stolen license plates, locate vehicles associated with missing and
endangered children and adults and locate vehicles associated with active warrants tied
to serious offenses.
We value your engagement with our community's governance. If you have any additional
questions or comments, please don't hesitate to reach out.
Best regards,
Marie Andrews
Executive Management Assistant
City of Chandler Mayor and Council Office
Phone: 480-782-2242
Website: https://www.chandleraz.gov
thread::QW8eEwzjLKq4YgJV4Bl5My4::
From: Yegor Zenkov <yzenkov@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2026 10:50:29 AM (UTC-07:00) Arizona
To: Mayor&Council <Mayor&Council@chandleraz.gov>
Subject: False and misleading statements from Flock on 5/18/2026
TLDR: Flock continues to provably and egregiously lie to local councils ahead of contract renewals. While ALPRs can ease some LEO operations, they are not essential, and are certainly not worth engaging with vendors that operate under awful
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
TLDR: Flock continues to provably and egregiously lie to local councils ahead of contract
renewals. While ALPRs can ease some LEO operations, they are not essential, and are
certainly not worth engaging with vendors that operate under awful business incentives
that lead to predictable leaks and abuse. The basic rights of residents degrade the more
coverage Flock and similar get across Chandler.
Hello Mayor and Council,
I sent in a public comment regarding the lack of transparency in Chandler's ALPR
expansion yesterday, that was before I had the chance to watch the study session. I
appreciate the questions that you asked Flock and the police. The issue is that these are
the wrong parties to ask, as they are incentivised to offer favorable answers and
assurances, even if they conflict with publicly known information. My rebuttals and
sources are below, and I would suggest that future inquiries of this kind involve third
party security experts.
Flock lied to the council when they said that Flock employees never accessed data or
video feeds. According to Jason Hunyar, in just the city of Dunwoody, Flock employees
have been caught watching live traffic feeds, restroom entrances, public pools, and
kid's gymnastics rooms in a Jewish community center.
https://jasonhunyar.substack.com/p/why-are-flock-employees-watching-720
Flock lied and Chandler police misled the council with claims that ICE cooperation is
limited and that federal agencies are siloed. In reality, post 9-11 security policy has
promoted mixing data pools as much as possible. 'Fusion centers' are shared cross-
agency, and they buy ALPR data. They then mix that with cell location, Palantir social
and web spying, and many other sources. Some are under audit for feeding information
to ICE. DHS/ICE has used ALPR data since 2017. ICE has also obtained Flock data
outside of law or contract by getting local law enforcement to search 'informally' in
their behalf. One of those same sources also shows that ALPRs were used to hunt down
women seeking abortion.
https://www.criminallegalnews.org/news/2024/mar/15/understanding-fusion-centers/
https://calmatters.org/economy/technology/2026/03/california-opens-fusion-center-
audit/
https://www.dhs.gov/publication/dhs-ice-pia-039-acquisition-and-use-license-plate-
reader-data-commercial-service
https://www.404media.co/ice-taps-into-nationwide-ai-enabled-camera-network-data-
shows/
https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/2025/10/21/leaving-the-door-wide-open/
Flock misled the council when they said they have never been breached or hacked. A
hack is not necessary when there is no security. According to Jon Gaines, Flock
hardware and software are riddled with negligent security failures, leaving footage out in
the open on remotely accessible ALPRs and through multiple exposed banks of video
feeds. These holes also allowed anyone to plant or delete evidence if desired. Several
required no technical skills to exploit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uB0gr7Fh6lY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU1-uiUlHTo
Flock misled the council with their assurances that Chandler owns its data and that city
policy could gate access to footage and information. According to CBS, Ventura county
ALPR was given to out of state agencies in direct violation of state law. Same for
Mountain View and Oxnard. Flock also gives ALPR images to Filipino workers for manual
annotation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlqaYbxE_lg
https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/privacy/2026/02/flock-cameras-shared-license-
plate-data-without-permission
https://www.oxnard.gov/pd-news/news-release-oxnard-police-department-suspends-
use-of-flock-safety-automated-license-plate-readers-02-27-26
https://www.404media.co/flock-uses-overseas-gig-workers-to-build-its-surveillance-ai/
Flock misled the council by saying that audits would keep people honest. After cops
were caught seaching on behalf of ICE, Flock replaced search reason fields with a drop
down with only 'acceptable' potential reasons. Police departments are also being
instructed to keep search trails 'as vague as possible'. With audits neutered, officers
that use ALPR for stalking (16 already) will evade discipline more easily. The public
records process is also a barrier, with stacks of hard copies and million dollar fees
getting in the way of resident visibility.
https://www.404media.co/police-told-to-be-as-vague-as-permissible-about-why-they-
use-flock/
https://ij.org/police-have-reportedly-used-license-plate-readers-to-stalk-romantic-
interests-at-least-14-times-in-recent-years/
Chandler is not the only city that has caught Flock in habitual false statements. Oshkosh
went from supporting to opposing Flock in a single day. Flock salespeople claimed
vehicles could not be tracked or mapped, but ALPR data was being used to generate a
'pattern of life' or 'heat map' on every license plate scanned. Our police chief even
repeated their 'vehicles not people' talking point yesterday.
https://footnote4a.org/news/pattern-of-life
Flock also disobeys city directives, sometimes with police help.
South Carolina, Illinois, Texas, and New York have caught hundreds of unpermitted
cameras and license violations. Flock responded by threatening to send police chiefs to
pressure city officials in at least one case. And in another finding by Jason Hunyar,
Dunwoody police used Flock Freeform to track people despite those capabilities not
being in the contract. They have also put back up cameras even after being kicked out
of Evanston.
https://qz.com/flock-ai-license-plate-surveillance-startup-cameras-per-1851294024
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/article/flock-camera-
investigation-22096147.php
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xujArBaEcbg
https://evanstonroundtable.com/2025/09/24/flock-safety-reinstalls-evanston-cameras/
https://www.syracuse.com/state/2026/05/upstate-ny-mayor-declares-emergency-to-
keep-ai-cameras-watching-residents.html
Even city staff admit that manual intervention is needed to validate Flock data. How will
human monitoring scale when the amount of cameras increase and Flock manages to
get their drones in the city as well? Colorado and Illinois show that when data flows
become too big to handle, innocent people are caught up in the net, disproportionately
those of color.
https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/rime-flock-cam-pulled-over/73-e3f65018-
32a5-4bb0-a4ac-26fb24dc9a15
https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/coloradan-stopped-by-police-data-errors-
flock-alerts/73-593a3772-f43d-46b1-8744-af888b9bd7f2
https://www.freedomtothriveop.com/blog/erroenous-flock-stops-in-oak-park
https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/flock-cameras-lead-colorado-police-wrong-
suspect/
End the Flock contract and apply the same level of scrutiny to similar vendors like Axon
by involving third-party security experts.
Thank you,
Yegor Zenkov
From:
Marie Andrews
To:
yzenkov@gmail.com
Cc:
Mayor&Council; Jennifer Ekblad
Subject:
Flock email excerpt: employees actually do look at live feeds
Date:
Tuesday, May 26, 2026 12:12:35 PM
Hello,
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughtful feedback with our office. We’ve
ensured that Mayor and each Councilmember has received your concerns.
The City Council voted to table the discussion of the Flock contract extension and will
consider that item at a future meeting, tentatively scheduled for July 16. Chandler began
using Flock’s automated license plate readers as a pilot program in March 2024. Since
then, agreements have been reached with Flock to operate up to 40 automated license
plate readers in Chandler. This technology assists police identify and recover stolen
vehicles and stolen license plates, locate vehicles associated with missing and
endangered children and adults and locate vehicles associated with active warrants tied
to serious offenses.
We value your engagement with our community's governance. If you have any additional
questions or comments, please don't hesitate to reach out.
Marie Andrews
Executive Management Assistant
City of Chandler Mayor and Council Office
Phone: 480-782-2242
Website: https://www.chandleraz.gov
thread::Fw5cWJ88IMubQVIVDQzfQy4::
From: Yegor Zenkov <yzenkov@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2026 3:22:50 PM (UTC-07:00) Arizona
To: Jane Poston <Jane.Poston@chandleraz.gov>
Subject: Flock email excerpt: employees actually do look at live feeds
Hi Councilmember Poston, After watching the 5/18 study session re: Flock contract renewal, I wanted to send you information that contradicts what Flock representatives said in answer to your question regarding employee access. They claimed Flock
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Hi Councilmember Poston,
After watching the 5/18 study session re: Flock contract renewal, I wanted to send you
information that contradicts what Flock representatives said in answer to your question
regarding employee access. They claimed Flock employees need security clearance and
a troubleshooting related reason to access sensitive data. This is not true.
Dunwoody, GA resident Jason Hunyar investigated the use of Flock systems by his city.
Even though the company had no LPR contract, they had managed to tie both the city's
traffic cameras and privately owned security cameras into one system. They, along with
local PD, looked inside gyms, pools, playgrounds, women's restroom entrances, and
kid's gymnastics rooms in a Jewish community center. These were not engineers or
security employees, but unidentified users, and salespeople.
In response to the instant controversy in Dunwoody, Flock argued that the live views
were initiated as part of sales presentations to customers, and that they would stop
picking on the town specifically as a marketing example. The fact that company
employees can pull up this range of diverse video streams for prospective customers on
demand ruins the assurances they gave you this Monday. And I do wonder why some of
the logs appear to show employees lingering on library, pool, and gymnastics cameras
for several hours. Residents were less charitable than either Jason or myself, calling the
employees "Little Epsteins".
Flock tries to spin this episode as a positive, saying that their access logs provided
necessary transparency. The reality is that the company has had a mountain of security
scandals and they always respond by removing or neutering the means that made past
embarrassments possible. The "sales demos" at the expense of regular people and
children no doubt continue, just without public knowledge.
I've sent the mayorandcouncil address a larger email on 7 other points, but I know those
take a few days to get forwarded over, so I wanted you to get specific info ahead of
Thursday's vote.
https://jasonhunyar.substack.com/p/why-are-flock-employees-watching-720
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xujArBaEcbg
From:
Marie Andrews
To:
wsj@asu.edu
Cc:
Angel Encinas; Jennifer Ekblad
Subject:
Flock Cameras
Date:
Wednesday, May 27, 2026 1:41:29 PM
Mr. Johnson,
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughtful feedback with our office. We’ve
ensured that Vice Mayor has received your concerns.
The City Council voted to table the discussion of the Flock contract extension and will
consider that item at a future meeting, tentatively scheduled for July 16. Chandler began
using Flock’s automated license plate readers as a pilot program in March 2024. Since
then, agreements have been reached with Flock to operate up to 40 automated license
plate readers in Chandler. This technology assists police identify and recover stolen
vehicles and stolen license plates, locate vehicles associated with missing and
endangered children and adults and locate vehicles associated with active warrants tied
to serious offenses.
We value your engagement with our community's governance. If you have any additional
questions or comments, please don't hesitate to reach out
Marie Andrews
Executive Management Assistant
City of Chandler Mayor and Council Office
Phone: 480-782-2242
Website: https://www.chandleraz.gov
thread::0m7WnfNtI-WlbB1wpDGhii4::
From: William Johnson <wsj@asu.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2026 4:58:08 PM (UTC) Coordinated Universal Time
To: Angel Encinas <Angel.Encinas@chandleraz.gov>
Subject: Flock Cameras
Angel, We strongly oppose the use of Flock cameras in the city. Bill and Marilee Johnson
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Angel,
We strongly oppose the use of Flock cameras in the city.
Bill and Marilee Johnson
From:
Marie Andrews
To:
fgilley13@gmail.com
Cc:
Mayor&Council; Jennifer Ekblad
Subject:
FW: Flock surveillance
Date:
Wednesday, May 27, 2026 1:48:36 PM
Hello,
I wanted to provide you with an update on your inquiry below regarding Flock.
The City Council voted to table the discussion of the Flock contract extension and will
consider that item at a future meeting, tentatively scheduled for July 16. Chandler began
using Flock’s automated license plate readers as a pilot program in March 2024. Since
then, agreements have been reached with Flock to operate up to 40 automated license
plate readers in Chandler. This technology assists police identify and recover stolen
vehicles and stolen license plates, locate vehicles associated with missing and
endangered children and adults and locate vehicles associated with active warrants tied
to serious offenses.
Additionally, you should be hearing from Chandler PD to address your concerns.
We value your engagement with our community's governance. If you have any additional
questions or comments, please don't hesitate to reach out.
Marie Andrews
Executive Management Assistant
City of Chandler Mayor and Council Office
Phone: 480-782-2242
Website: https://www.chandleraz.gov
thread::HBZXBrfUKNaBVjCbn8j62i4::
From: Marie Andrews
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 1:15 PM
To: fgilley13@gmail.com
Cc: Mayor&Council <Mayor&Council@chandleraz.gov>
Subject: Flock surveillance
Hello,
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughtful feedback with our office. We’ve
ensured that Mayor and each Councilmember has received your concerns.
Your inquiry has been forwarded to the appropriate department for review and response.
We value your engagement with our community's governance. If you have any additional
questions or comments, please don't hesitate to reach out.
Best regards,
Marie Andrews
Executive Management Assistant
City of Chandler Mayor and Council Office
Phone: 480-782-2242
Website: https://www.chandleraz.gov
thread::HBZXBrfUKNaBVjCbn8j62i4::
From: F G <fgilley13@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 12:29:34 PM (UTC-07:00) Arizona
To: Mayor&Council <Mayor&Council@chandleraz.gov>
Subject: Flock surveillance
Dear Council Members, I am writing as a concerned citizen to ask you to drop our contract with Flock. Surveillance is not safety. Automatic license plate readers have become a staple of policing across the US. They scan millions of plates daily,
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Dear Council Members,
I am writing as a concerned citizen to ask you to drop our contract with
Flock.
Surveillance is not safety. Automatic license plate readers have become
a staple of policing across the US. They scan millions of plates daily,
giving police enormous unchecked power that challenges our
constitutional rights.
Over the last year, thousands of people across the country have risen up
and said no to these private, profit-driven companies blanketing our
cities, towns, and communities.
Contracts are being canceled and we're dismantling the surveillance
infrastructure. I hope we in Chandler can join the movement and say
no to ALPRs.
Sincerely,
Felisa Gilley
2823 W Ivanhoe St Chandler, AZ 85224
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
Outlook
Webform Submission From: City Council Meeting Public Comment
From City of Chandler <no-reply@chandleraz.gov>
Date Tue 5/19/2026 7:08 PM
To
CityClerksOffice <CityClerksOffice@chandleraz.gov>; Tera Scherer <Tera.Scherer@chandleraz.gov>
Submitted on Tue, 05/19/2026 - 07:08 PM
Submitted by: Anonymous
Submitted values are:
Name
Lisa Hamilton
Address
1207 W Tulsa St
Chandler, Arizona. 85224
Phone Number
(480) 335-2587
Agenda Item No.
TNR cat program
Support/Oppose
Support
Comments
This program is very needed for Chandler. Personally it has helped me more than I can express! I support it
100%. Its the only program i found that has been so effective. Thank you!
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
Outlook
Webform Submission From: City Council Meeting Public Comment
From City of Chandler <no-reply@chandleraz.gov>
Date Thu 5/21/2026 5:41 PM
To
CityClerksOffice <CityClerksOffice@chandleraz.gov>; Tera Scherer <Tera.Scherer@chandleraz.gov>
Submitted on Thu, 05/21/2026 - 05:40 PM
Submitted by: Anonymous
Submitted values are:
Name
Alex Ladwig
Address
5848 w Ivanhoe St
Chandler, Arizona. 85226
Phone Number
(480) 410-5711
Support/Oppose
Oppose
Comments
I have adopted cats through saving one life, and then I started helping TNR and I even fostered two
cats in an emergency situation I am heart sick. See the number of cats out there they need help and
I know TNR is the best solution. Please do not decrease funding for TN.R.I am heart said goodbye.
See the number of cats out there they need help and I know TNR is the best solution. Please do not
decrease funding for TNR. It really makes an impact and we need more support to end the
suffering. I am a College Student and cant afford to do TNR without assistance. Thank you
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
Outlook
Webform Submission From: City Council Meeting Public Comment
From City of Chandler <no-reply@chandleraz.gov>
Date Thu 5/21/2026 11:52 AM
To
CityClerksOffice <CityClerksOffice@chandleraz.gov>; Tera Scherer <Tera.Scherer@chandleraz.gov>
Submitted on Thu, 05/21/2026 - 11:52 AM
Submitted by: Anonymous
Submitted values are:
Name
Clare Vasquez
Address
3805 South Windstream Place
Chandler, Arizona. 85286
Support/Oppose
Support
Comments
Hello! I wanted to send in a comment of support for the Chandler TNR program. I was personally
assisted by this program and I am so grateful. It allowed me to give proper care to several feral cats
I was unable to help on my own. Being able to TNR these cats so quickly and with help was such a
relief. It prevented unnecessary suffering of the animals. And it stopped an increase of feral cats
impacting the environment. With this program it really felt like I was able to directly make a change
in improving the environment around me in a humane and safe way. It had the added benefit of
connecting me to community members with similar goals and interests as well. This program is very
much needed and I know many family and friends who would benefit so much from assistance like
this. I know so many would be able to make a positive impact in their community if they had the
resources from this program.
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
Outlook
Webform Submission From: City Council Meeting Public Comment
From City of Chandler <no-reply@chandleraz.gov>
Date Thu 5/21/2026 4:21 PM
To
CityClerksOffice <CityClerksOffice@chandleraz.gov>; Tera Scherer <Tera.Scherer@chandleraz.gov>
Submitted on Thu, 05/21/2026 - 04:21 PM
Submitted by: Anonymous
Submitted values are:
Name
Deirdre Connon
Address
4027 S. White Drive
Chandler, Arizona. 85249
Phone Number
(571) 643-3644
Agenda Item No.
20
Support/Oppose
Oppose
Comments
Having worked with TNR in DC, Upstate NY and now in Chandler, I can say without hesitation that
TNR humanely and significantly helps control our unwanted, abandoned and feral cat populations.
100% of the Chandler TNR budget goes directly to the vets who perform the spay and and neuter;
without additional funding, these vulnerable animals will continue to multiply and many will be
abused or killed. Community volunteers shoulder the burden of emotionally and financially caring
for these cat colonies, including regular feeding and fresh water, as well as medical attention when
necessary. The ONLY cost to Chandler is the vet cost. Please allocate more funds to support this
very important program in our community.
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
Outlook
Webform Submission From: City Council Meeting Public Comment
From City of Chandler <no-reply@chandleraz.gov>
Date Thu 5/21/2026 12:23 AM
To
CityClerksOffice <CityClerksOffice@chandleraz.gov>; Tera Scherer <Tera.Scherer@chandleraz.gov>
Submitted on Thu, 05/21/2026 - 12:22 AM
Submitted by: Anonymous
Submitted values are:
Name
Evangelina Rodriguez
Address
2428 E Lantana Dr
2428 E Lantana Dr
Chandler, Arizona. 85286
Phone Number
(480) 290-0021
Support/Oppose
Support
Comments
I am writing in support of the TNR of feral cats in our community, it is imperative that Chandler
funds and supports these helpless animals that continue to breed and starve in our community,
especially when it gets hot. I have seen feral cats suffer in my neighborhood only to be neglected
and abused, this is not humane and fair to these innocent animals. I have seen these feral cats
suffer near Walgreens, Costco, Lowes and other areas, where they are clearly suffering from
starvation, disease, abuse and neglect. I have traveled to other countries like Spain where they set
up funding and legal postings to protect their feral cat communities with little houses to keep food
and water in their space.