u/jonathan4pf — reddlx

A few months ago, I brought forward a resolution to put clearer guardrails, oversight, and transparency requirements around the city’s use of AI, facial recognition, surveillance cameras, and related technologies.

Council has not yet taken action on that proposal.

Instead, the next step is a Council “lunch and learn” this month (May), where staff will walk us through how the city currently uses AI. That was the Mayor’s suggested alternative to moving forward with my proposal at the time. I still think we need actual policies, not just a briefing, but I’ll see how that discussion goes and participate in good faith.

There are a few reasons I continue to believe this needs more urgency.

The city’s public “Safety Cameras” page is still out of date. It lists 28 ALPRs (which was true in 2022), even though the city now has close to 90 (as far as I’m aware, more than any other city in central Texas, including our much more populous neighbors). I requested a couple of months ago that staff update the page with the current map and device inventory; that has not happened.

The city also has several Flock video cameras in parks (Moose Park being the prime example). These are not ALPRs, but they are still AI-enabled video surveillance cameras made by Flock. As far as I can tell, the city website and transparency portal still do not clearly disclose their existence, nor is there any publicly posted policy or audit trail on their usage. As far as I'm aware, there are no written staff policies related to the video surveillance cameras, only the ALPRs.

More people have been showing up to Council meetings to speak during public comment, and more have emailed the mayor and full council about these issues than about anything else in recent memory.

There has been an expansion of surveillance technology

The city also uses Clearview AI, an identity-based facial recognition technology built on a large database of scraped online images (it basically pulls in millions of people's social media profiles to 'identify' suspects). That was not proactively disclosed to the public, or as far as I'm aware, to Council. It came up by accident during the Police Department’s recent annual report, when an officer mentioned that other agencies know we have that software and call to ask to run searches on it. It's unclear whether PfPd responds to those requests; they should not be doing so. However, unlike the Flock ALPRs, there is no evidence that we have a written staff policy regarding Clearview's use.

Recently, a resident filed a Public Information Act request asking for more information about Clearview AI and its use. City staff engaged outside counsel, who initially sent the request to the Attorney General, claiming that the requested data was confidential law enforcement information and therefore shouldn't be disclosed publicly. The resident reached out to me; I intervened, and the city ultimately provided the requested information and canceled the request to the state AG. In my view, that information should not have been withheld in the first place, and you’ll find no other public mentions of our PD using identity-based facial recognition AI.

The larger issue on that one is that residents should not have to file public records requests, catch a detail in an annual report, or ask a council member to intervene directly just to know what surveillance technology the city is using.

There is one positive recent development, though.

Sam Aly ( u/MooseContent8525), who ran against me in the election and now serves on the Charter Review Commission, spearheaded a separate proposal to require the city to adopt protections for AI and surveillance technology in our 'constitution'. The Commission approved it! I thank him for his support of this cause.

The proposed charter language reads:

“§ 2.03. Artificial Intelligence Protections.

The City Council shall adopt protections governing the collection, use, retention, and oversight of data, facial recognition, and surveillance technologies; establish transparent approval processes for such technologies; require a responsible AI framework; ensuring this information is used locally for legitimate basis laid down by law.”

Because the Charter Review Commission approved the proposal, I expect it will appear on this November’s ballot. My understanding from the City Attorney is that Council can “add” items to the Charter Commission’s approved amendments to our city’s constitution, but cannot “remove” items.

My preference is still for Council to act before then. We shouldn’t have to wait for a voter-approved charter amendment to force our hand to do the basic work of public transparency, approval processes, retention rules, oversight, and civil liberties protections.

But if the Council doesn’t act and voters approve the amendment in November, the Council will be required to implement it then.

I’ll keep pushing on this topic because AI and surveillance tools are already here. Our Police department should have access to modern, effective tools to keep us safe and solve crimes BUT those tools need to have rules, oversight, and not infringe on residents’ civil liberties.

-Councilmember Coffman

Last night’s meeting (which continued well past midnight) covered water, roads, EMS, economic development, and the next steps for our City Manager transition. Here's my take on the most important issues and work that was done.

—
Water Supply

The lake is rising, which is good news. The important part is that we can’t let up on conservation.

Staff’s message to Council and residents is that if residents and businesses continue conserving, we should be in a much better position for the planned two-week shutdown at the end of May. That shutdown is needed for the next major step in repairing and completing the raw water infrastructure work.

Council also approved a change order related to the raw water line work. One important detail: this is currently being paid for out of project savings because the larger project is under budget. That does not mean the failure is free or unimportant, but it does mean this action is not currently adding a new separate budget hit on top of the project. It also aligns with the City’s previous messaging that the recent waterline breaks are not expected to affect water rates, including those arising from any future claims or findings related to fault.

—
Immanuel Road Reconstruction

Council moved forward with the Immanuel Road project. This is an important road project, and it is also difficult. The corridor has challenging terrain and multiple bridges, which make construction more complicated and expensive than a more straightforward road widening, such as the recent East Pflugerville Parkway contract.

When completed, Immanuel will become a three-lane road. That should improve safety, traffic flow, and long-term mobility in an area that has long needed investment.

This is the kind of project where the City needs to be disciplined: keep the work moving, communicate construction impacts clearly, and watch change orders closely.

—
City Manager

Council also continued discussion related to the City Manager transition.

My view is straightforward: We need clear performance expectations, a proper evaluation process, and specific priorities that the Council and the public can track against. A couple of other Councilmembers and I are working through proposals for how we think this should work.

--
EMS

We also discussed Emergency Medical Services in executive session, in consultation with the City Attorney.

My main concern has been simple: when you call 911, you should have confidence that well-trained, high-quality medical help is on the way. Response times and performance dashboards are easy to poke at and discuss in the abstract, and we can and should expect them to be transparent and to support strong accountability. But for me, this conversation is more than a spreadsheet issue. If you or your loved one is waiting for help, the only thing that matters in that moment and the moments after is whether the system works when you need it.

I’m not ready to make a final public recommendation yet, but I am actively evaluating the current provider’s performance, the contract structure, and what changes may be needed to provide the reliability and quality care that all Pflugerville residents deserve.

—
Economic Development

We also had economic development items in executive session. I’ll be careful about confidential details, but I will say where I stand generally: I remain unimpressed with the quality of deals coming through PCDC.

Pflugerville needs economic development that produces measurable value for taxpayers. That means stronger rigor, clear return-on-investment analysis, reasonable payback periods, and better contractual guardrails. Deals with eight-plus-year taxpayer payback timelines should face serious scrutiny. If public dollars or public assets are involved, the benefit to residents needs to be clear, defensible, and enforceable.

For at least the past several years, we’ve needed economic development efforts that help diversify our tax base, bring jobs and amenities, and, over time, reduce pressure on residents. Activity is not the same thing as results.

As always, I’ll keep sharing the major items I’m working on and the questions I’m asking on behalf of y’all.