Title
COMMISSIONER SCHWARTZ - ITEM NO. 1: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING PRIVACY, USE, RETENTION, SHARING, OWNERSHIP, AND SECONDARY USE OF DATA COLLECTED THROUGH THE CITY’S AUTOMATED LICENSE PLATE RECOGNITION (ALPR/LPR) SYSTEM AND THE CITY’S AGREEMENTS WITH FLOCK GROUP, INC. D/B/A FLOCK SAFETY.
Summary Explanation and Background
SUMMARY EXPLANATION AND BACKGROUND:
Requested action:
1. Discussion and possible action to direct the City Attorney, with the cooperation of the City Manager, Chief of Police, and other appropriate city personnel, to conduct a comprehensive legal and contractual review of the city’s automated license plate recognition (alpr/lpr) program and agreements with Flock Group, Inc. D/b/a Flock Safety.
2. The review should include the collection, ownership, access, retention, sharing, disclosure, anonymization, secondary use, artificial intelligence and machine-learning use, commercial use, and disposition of information generated through the city’s LPR system.
3. The City Attorney should specifically review the city’s agreements and current practices for compliance with applicable Florida law, including sections 316.0777 and 316.0778, Florida statutes, applicable public-records and records-retention requirements, federal law where applicable, and current fdle/cjjis alpr standards and guidance.
3. Of particular concern, the review should address contractual provisions permitting Flock to anonymize data and thereafter use or distribute anonymized or derivative information for purposes including machine-learning training, product or service development, and other Flock offerings. The city attorney should determine whether such secondary uses are permissible under Florida law and whether additional contractual protections should be considered for identifiable, anonymized, de-identified, aggregated, or derivative information generated through the city’s LPR system.
4. The review should also address data sharing with other law-enforcement agencies; access by FLOCK and third parties; data-retention practices; downloaded or preserved information; authorized-user and audit controls; outside-agency access; data ownership; contract expiration and renewal; termination and non-renewal rights; and any financial consequences associated with those options.
5. Finally, the city attorney should provide recommendations concerning any contractual amendments, policies, procedures, audit requirements, reporting requirements, data-sharing restrictions, retention limitations, or other safeguards the city commission may wish to consider to protect the privacy of the public while preserving legitimate law-enforcement uses of LPR technology.
Proposed motion:
6. Motion to direct the city attorney, with the cooperation of the city manager, chief of police, and other appropriate city personnel, to conduct a comprehensive legal and contractual review of the city’s automated license plate recognition program and agreements with flock group, inc., including the collection, ownership, access, retention, sharing, disclosure, anonymization, secondary use, artificial intelligence or machine-learning use, commercial use, and disposition of information generated through the city’s LPR system, and to return to the city commission with a written legal opinion, findings, and recommendations for consideration and possible further action.
Agenda backup:
7. For purposes of the commission’s review and to ensure the contractual provisions at issue are part of the public agenda record, I am including with this item the city’s Flock agreement and the 64-camera Flock order form, including the incorporated terms and conditions, as agenda backup. Attached for backup are the city agreement with Flock and emails between me and the administration from August 2026.