Are you five?

I'm gonna get this ad hoc started.

Uh this ad hoc uh officially starting at 6.05 p.m.

is the adoption of the privacy policy for the automated traffic enforcement safety devices.

My name is Frank Salvatore.

I'm the chair with me.

I have Cheryl Wallace Smith and Candace Faye, the two uh city council persons who are on the ad hoc.

We have uh Deputy Chief Sturdevant here.

We have Tot O'Brien from the mayor's office.

We have Robin Edwards and Caitlin Grace from the Corporation Council.

In the room, we also have ex officio members, uh President Peter Bazade and Paul Rotello and uh members of the community.

Did I miss anybody?

See if I don't have my glasses on, I don't I don't see.

So I don't miss anybody.

Okay.

So we're going to start off by asking corporation counsel to do a presentation because actually this uh ad hoc and the next ad hoc are kind of linked together.

But we wanted to do the privacy policy first because that's uh probably the easiest one to go through before we get to the ordinance for the cameras.

So ladies, you have the floor.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Salvatore.

Good evening, everyone.

And I just have a few opening comments, and then we're going to we have a PowerPoint presentation for you this evening that actually covers the privacy policy as well as the ordinance, and we'll walk you through a few slides until we get to the privacy policy, and then we can stop and answer any questions that you have.

But just by way of brief background information, this ad hoc is convened for the purposes of discussing the privacy policy.

And the privacy policy, as Mr.

Salvatore just pointed out, is to be adopted if an ordinance that provides for the use of automated traffic enforcement safety devices, ATE, SDs, as are known.

Um also people call them red light or speed cameras, is adopted by the city.

Um by way of very brief background information.

In 2023, the state of Connecticut enacted a public act, which is now codified, and it's enabling legislation that provides for allowing towns and cities to employ these devices.

Approximately 15 cities and towns throughout the state have adopted ordinances that provide for this at this time, and um which were actually approved by DOT.

There are five currently under consideration.

Adoption of such an ordinance represents a shift in traffic management.

You don't need to rely solely on police patrols.

Um the use of these devices provides for a more uniform oversight of high-risk areas.

The goal is to reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities by using these devices to monitor and enforce the running of red lights and speed in excess of 10 miles per hour over the posted speed limit.

And you know, it's to improve traffic in school zones, pedestrian zones, and other high areas where there are safety concerns.

So the process begins tonight with the adoption of an ordinance and the privacy policy, which is required to be adopted as part of that.

And that's what we'll focus on tonight.

So at this point, we can turn to our PowerPoint presentation, and Caitlin will run you through the first few slides.

Um we hope it will be informative for you.

Okay.

Public Act 23116, which was codified as Connecticut General Statute sections 14307B through 1430H, allows municipalities to use ATSD, which is automatic traffic enforcement safety devices at locations within school zones, pedestrian safety zones, and other locations in such municipality.

As long as they adopt four specific things.

So first, it's the adoption of an ordinance in accordance with the statute's requirements.

Second is the adoption of a model privacy policy in accordance with the statutes requirements.

There also needs to be an adoption of a comprehensive safety action plan, which is currently being drafted by our planning and zoning department.

And a plan drafted by the Danbury Police Department and the city traffic engineer, which has to be approved by the Connecticut Department of Transportation.

An automatic uh automatic traffic and enforcement safety device.

And if I will for the rest of the presentation be calling it an ATESD device.

Um, those are two things.

So they're either a red light camera or a speed camera, which are used interchangeably throughout the statutes.

And we're currently focusing this evening on the first two steps.

So what is an ATSD?

It's defined in Section 14307B1 of the state statute, which means a device designed to detect and collect evidence of alleged violations of an ordinance adopted under Section 14307C by recording images that capture the number, the license plate, date, time, and location of a motor vehicle that either exceeds the posted speed limit by 10 or more miles per hour, or fails to stop their vehicle when facing a steady red signal at a traffic control signal.

So disclosure of personally identifiable information.

So personally identifiable information, which is PII is defined under Section 14307B6 of the Connecticut General Statutes, and it's also defined in our ordinance definition section.

And this is information created or maintained by the city or a vendor that identifies or describes a motor vehicle owner.

This includes the owner's address, phone number, license plate, their photograph that was taken, bank account information, credit card number, debit card number, or the date, time, location, or direction of travel on a highway.

PII cannot be disclosed by the city or a vendor to any person or entity, including law enforcement units.

The only law enforcement officers who should have access to PII are trained operators if they are trained as an operator or a designated employee of the police department who is set up to review and approve the recorded images that are produced by the ATSD device vendor or operator.

No PII should be stored or retained by the city or a vendor unless such information is necessary for the charging collection and enforcement of the fines.

And the city or a vendor shall destroy all PII that identifies a motor vehicle and relates to a violation not later than 30 days after any fine is collected, or the resolution of a hearing conducted for the alleged commission of such violation, whichever is later.

As know that previously a municipality must destroy PII no later than 30 days after a fine is collected or a hearing is concluded, but there is one exception to this time window to destroy the PII, and that's for the limited purpose of determining whether or not a person committed a second or subsequent violation of the municipal ordinance.

This is referred to in ordinance section 4644.

So the municipality city or a vendor shall destroy the PIA not later than one year after the date of such person's most recent violation.

Pursuant to Connecticut General Statute 407, I mean 1430G at the minimum, the city is required to report annually the number of motor vehicles that were subject to one citation, two citations, three citations, or four or more citations.

If the city fails to report on the data, any ATSD location as required by 14307G, the state will decline to reauthorize the ATSD location once the plan has expired.

So without this data, the city will not be able to maintain the use of the ATSD devices because we would not meet the statutory requirements.

Additionally, any information or other data gathered from an ATSD device shall be subject to disclosure under FOIA as defined in CGS section 1200, except that no PII may do be disclosed.

What would you actually get?

Like what you can't get the time, date, location, what is it?

So you would get most likely the data of what we're collecting of how many citations are being given, but we can't give any information of who the citation was given to, anything that would identify the vehicle or that person.

Like the effectiveness of the camera or how many.

You can kind of get aggregate data.

Like so many people are stopped at this line.

Okay, which is all publicly available ultimately, anyways, through the state.

Yes, yes.

Okay.

That is so.

So that's the slide on the PII.

So that's what's before us tonight.

And so you have before you the personal privacy policy that was sent to you and was a part of our packet to the council.

It's been updated.

You know, we added some language to it.

So that's what uh the focus is on tonight.

So if you're inclined to adopt the ordinance, we would ask that you adopt this as well, hand in hand with it.

And this personal privacy policy, just so you know, this language comes directly from the state.

We're required to adopt a privacy policy that meets the state's requirements or is stricter than the state's policy, and it comes right out of their manual.

And a lot of it comes out of the statute.

They have a few other things they've added for additional protections, and that's that's really what's here.

So we're happy to answer any questions you might have.

It's fairly self-explanatory, I think.

I'm sorry, there's no public speaking here.

Sorry, can let me keep it at the table here first, please.

Um for purposes of this uh ad hoc.

Um, they did go over some topic stuff about the ATSD that isn't PII focused, but it's starting to lead into the next one.

So just on the PII only.

Um basically it's a policy, it's not an ordinance that we will approve a resolution to adopt the policy.

Yes.

It is taken directly from the not only the state statutes have a lot of this language that's in here, but it is also part of the the guidelines to start it, correct?

Yes, it's from the state policy manual.

That's where it comes from.

So we've copied we've copied the state's privacy information, so it's pretty stringent to begin with.

Yes, we've yes.

Okay.

All right.

I don't have any questions.

I'll open it up to my fellow council persons.

I I don't have any questions.

I did speak with corporation counsel yesterday, and it does appear to track very closely with what the state has instructed us to do.

So I don't think I don't have any questions either.

It seems like we pretty much copied what the state said.

So there's not really room to wiggle.

We took what they provided.

Right.

So I'm I'm pretty sure.

You agree with that?

Okay.

Mayor's office.

I'm sorry.

Uh ex officio members.

I I do have a question.

Um, so so going forward, assuming the original steps are all followed and we get to the point where we're gonna have a contract with a vendor.

Yes.

Uh these vendors are approved by the state already.

Is it is that how this works?

I think it's our plan is.

I don't know if they're approved by the state, but there are vendors okay.

And and this this part of this contract would include reference to the policy that you're asking that we're asking the council to adopt.

Absolutely.

Okay, yes.

I have no other questions.

Okay.

Any other ex officios?

Oh, you got anything?

You know, I do, but I don't I don't know if this is the proper venue, but I'll just put it out there anyway.

I I noticed that no PII can be held for more than a year, basically under those circumstances.

So it can be held up to a year, and obviously if there's another violation nine or ten months later, it can be held for another year after that.

So if you do a California stop a couple of times, you could wind up having your data held for several years.

And then the other issue is uh I'm not really worried about the state of Connecticut or the city of Anthro surveilling its own constituents, but I'm very worried about the federal government doing that, especially now.

It's getting worse.

There's nothing in here that would prevent the federal government, which trumps the state government from subpoenaing this data or taking it by other means.

Flock is doing that now.

Los Angeles just cancel all their contracts with Flock because Flock is giving their information without LA's permission to the Fed.

There's nothing here that would protect protect the data of our constituents from any intrusion by the federal government, as far as I can see.

We're not I don't think the state of Connecticut is really the city of Danbury is not prepared to stand up to Washington to prevent that.

So my guess is once it's collected, and if somebody else wants it who is more powerful than us, which is just about everybody, they can just get it.

I just want to make sure that that this data is not in a format that would prevent anybody else from getting it.

Basically, if the federal government wants it, they can get it.

So that just let me know if I'm I'm on the right track on that.

Thank you.

I know I mean, so one of my notes was you know, like they in the statute, there's no warrant exception.

However, everything's subject to a warrant search or a subpoena or anything like that.

So I don't I don't, even if the city wanted to, I don't know if there's any way to legislate around that.

And the only thing I would say is that these are maximums that the city can hold it, not minimums.

So this doesn't mean that we have to hold it for a year.

This is just by statute, the longest we can.

Our policy could go shorter if we wanted to.

I don't know that we need to do that tonight, but it's as we're considering these ordinances, we certainly could do less than what's required by the state statute in terms of destruction of evidence.

You could.

I think you'd have to work with it and see how it works.

Right.

Do we need that?

Right.

But yes, that's a point well taken.

Also, something that I do want to mention is the data that's being held for up to the maximum of one year.

That is only for the purposes of identifying if someone committed a subsequent offense.

And so it could be as simple as it's supposed to be for the limited purpose, it reads.

So that could be something as simple as someone's a license plate marker.

I mean, you they would have to have enough information to issue the citation for the So if Led Frank went through a red light, okay, and I got caught.

Yes.

And then I paid my fine, but the police department has no reasonable cause to suspect that I did something different as soon as I pay that fine, which would be through my bank account or my credit card.

So I see why that stuff's up there.

Um once I pay, though, 30 days later, that data's got to be scrubbed.

Except they have to keep some I some information to show that if you committed another offense within a year, it could be remarkably so it's only one year.

So they look at you in one year, right?

And um after that it's destroyed.

But that's the those are the guide rails is one year.

So if you do it, you know, 13 months later, the year starts over again.

Yeah, so yeah, but so that would be destroyed, you know, everything would be destroyed before that.

Okay, I I can think uh through the chair, of course, yeah.

I can think of instances where you would want law enforcement to get this information, right?

Suppose we have a tally and and the speed cameras caught it.

You would want the police department to able to execute a warrant to see what was happening, who was going that fast, right?

Who else was in the area, were there witnesses, any kind of information that a video footage would reveal.

Right.

In addition to that, if what's his name again?

Ledfoot.

Lead foot friend.

Led foot frame goes as Peter calls me.

Goes through a light doing 80 miles an hour by Connecticut state statute.

You're not allowed a police officer is not allowed to chase, correct?

Right.

But a camera can't catch that.

Catch that license plate going through that.

So it's yeah, yeah.

It right, they don't engage in pursuit, but they could still exactly so see the red car.

Lead foot Pete or whoever his name is.

You can change it to people.

That's fine.

Does that it also protects us that way as well, where we don't have to worry about a chase because this camera is gonna is gonna catch at least get a snapshot of it.

Okay, right, exactly.

Yeah.

So I think at this time we're probably good for a motion to uh recommend to the council to uh adopt the resolution which adopts the uh policy.

So moved.

The resolution as amended as amended as updating to next because we're gonna present this back this way, right?

To them.

So yeah.

Um motion to made a second to um ask the city council to approve the amended uh policy resolution, however.

And I would just say to adopt it simultaneously at the time the ordinance is adopted.

Understood without the ordinance, yeah.

We don't need the response.

Yeah, I will amend my motion to be ex uh acted on contemporaneously with you guys help Elisa with that when she's it's in the it's in the resolution.

It's in the resolution I take the resolution since uh whereas the adoption of city it adopts the ATESD privacy policy attached as exhibit A.

Um temporine have something right here.

Okay, yeah, you can do that.

So we're we're just redoing the motion.

I would withdraw my prior motion and I move to recommend the council approve the proposed privacy policy related to the use of ATESDs with addition of language to the last section regarding the retention of PPI as presented by corporation council said policy to be adopted concurrently with the ordinance uh that we're considering next.

Second.

Motion made second any remarks to that motion?

None all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, vote sowarded.

I'll entertain that motion to adjourn this ad hoc.

Next, maybe second all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Okay.