Ferndale City Council Public Hearing on CIOGS Ordinance - February 2, 2026

The Ferndale City Council held a public hearing on Monday, February 2, 2026, at 6:07 PM to discuss a proposed ordinance titled "Community Input Over Government Surveillance" (CIOGS). The meeting included a Call to Audience period from 6:09 to 6:44 PM, followed by the public hearing from 6:49 PM onward. Council adopted alternative rules for the public hearing, allowing five minutes per speaker. No vote was taken; a second reading with proposed changes is scheduled for February 9, 2026.

Call to Audience (General Comments)

• Andrea Popovich (1445 Pinecrest Drive) urged the council to ensure the ordinance has "teeth" and is applied before surveillance technology is approved, not after. She stressed that cameras capture images of people and children, and that safety comes from trust, not more cameras.
• Simon (no last name given) asked several questions: what constitutes an exigent circumstance, who decides it, why a 30-day data retention period (calling it too long), how enforcement works, and what happens if a surveillance report is not submitted. He referenced past violations of civil liberties with Flock cameras and a lack of follow-through on racial impact assessments.
• Dan Masolia (851 Selman) echoed concerns about vague language in the ordinance's civil rights impacts section, the lack of specificity on how assessments will be conducted, and distrust due to past failures to deliver promised ACLU involvement.
• Angela LePard (East Brecken Ridge) spoke about process: she asked why there is a rush, urged accessibility in communications, and noted that trust in government is low, especially given experiences with the police and current federal government actions.
• An unnamed speaker (no name given) argued the ordinance reads like a "permission slip" not oversight, citing examples from Oakland, Berkeley, Seattle, and Nashville where similar ordinances failed to stop mass surveillance. He pointed out that the ordinance bans facial recognition but authorizes license plate readers, social media monitoring, gunshot detection, and drones. He highlighted the Robert Williams case in Detroit where faulty facial recognition led to a wrongful arrest. He urged council to reject the current ordinance and instead pass a ban.
• De Knoxall (954 West Marshall Street) questioned exigent circumstances, the 30-day retention period (noting ACLU calls it a worst practice), data sharing via hot lists, and due diligence before adding plates to hot lists. He recommended not collecting data at all.
• Prasad Venegopau (Ferndale resident for 20+ years) thanked council members Laura and Donnie for their work but argued the ordinance should not be voted on in its current form. He listed concerns: cell phones omitted from surveillance technology list, no enforcement penalties for abuse, lack of transparency in technology specification reports, and vague exigent circumstances. He urged postponing until a stronger ordinance can be developed, especially in the context of federal actions.
• Jonathan (Chevlin Street) argued that ALPR technology by its nature requires mass surveillance of movement, contradicting the ordinance's stated goal of protecting privacy. He opposed the technology, linking it to the rise of fascist violence.
• Another speaker (no name given) noted connections between ICE/DHS and Axon, criticized the lack of a clear cost-benefit analysis, and called language about not discriminating "weasel language" without a prior racial impact assessment.
• Savannah Camplin (2147 Chevlin Street) reiterated nervousness about ALPRs given recent events and asked council to vote no on the ordinance.
• Mike Williams (Nine Mile Road) raised several points: the decision on ALPRs will set the tone for future surveillance technologies; there should be penalties for ignored audits or reports; neighboring cities already have ALPRs covering entrances to Ferndale; and the crime solve rate before and after ALPRs should be known. He also questioned how many police interactions resulted from bad data.
• Alectra Petrucci (Nine Mile Road) asked who will decide potential adverse impacts on civil rights, calling the language "weasel language" that leaves room for interpretation.

Discussion Items

• City Manager Overview: The city manager explained the ordinance's purpose: to formalize procedures for future surveillance technology procurement, balancing civil liberties with operational needs. The draft was modeled on Detroit's ordinance. Key elements include defining surveillance technology, conditions for procurement, required reports (annual procurement and use reports, exigent circumstance reports), data retention limits, access/sharing limits, and prohibitions on certain technologies. A public comment period is open until noon on February 9, 2026. The second reading and possible vote is set for February 9.
• Council Discussion on Exigent Circumstances: During the public hearing, a council member (likely Councilperson Laura) responded to Simon's question, defining exigent circumstances as imminent threats to life or property (e.g., hostage situations, structure fires). She noted that the chief of police or fire chief would determine exigency in real time. Another council member proposed adding specific definitions and a requirement for written documentation within 40 hours, with review by an oversight board. The city manager cautioned against overly granular language that could dictate moment-to-moment actions, emphasizing that accountability lies with the chief. The council member also clarified that the ordinance already states exigent circumstances are limited to immediate threats to public welfare, health, and safety.

Key Outcomes

• The public hearing was held and closed at an unspecified time.
• No amendments or votes were taken on the ordinance itself.
• Council adopted alternative rules (motion and second) to allow five-minute speaking times during the public hearing.
• A second reading of the ordinance, incorporating proposed changes, is scheduled for the February 9, 2026, council meeting.
• The public comment period remains open until noon on February 9, 2026.