Loading...
CC 10-01-2024 Item No. 12. City-Owned Automated License Plate Reader ALPR Program_Supplemental Report1 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT SUPPLEMENTAL 1 Meeting: October 1, 2024 Agenda Item # 12 Subject City-Owned Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) Program and award of a contract for the lease of ALPR cameras to Flock Safety for an amount not to exceed $300,000 Recommended Action 1. Adopt Resolution No. 24-094 establishing the City of Cupertino ALPR Policy 2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the County of Santa Clara and the City of Cupertino regarding the use of ALPRs, 3. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and approve an agreement with Flock Safety to lease ALPR cameras not to exceed $185,000 for three years, with the option for two additional years and a maximum total compensation of $300,000 (approximately $60,000 annually) Background: Staff’s responses to questions received from Councilmembers are shown in italics. Staff received the following questions regarding Item #12 via email on October 1, 2024: Q1: The staff report states "Staff identified the following best practices from multiple jurisdictions, including the City of Saratoga and the Town of Los Altos Hills." Q1A: What other jurisdictions were included in the policy review? Could you please include their policies for reference? (Chao) Staff response: Staff reviewed policies from the Town of Los Altos Hills, the Town of Los Gatos, the City of Palo Alto, the City of San Jose, and the City of Saratoga . Q1B: A comparison chart between the policies studied by the staff would be nice if available. (Chao) Staff response: Staff integrated best practices in policy and through informative interviews with representatives of the appropriate agencies. A single comparison chart was not developed. Q1C: I understand that our policy needs to be in line with Saratoga and Los Alto's policy 2 since we are covered by the same Sheriff station. I would like to know what policies that are in San Jose or Palo Alto that we might consider for potential improvement, provided Saratoga and Los Altos also supports them. (Chao) Staff response: Staff integrated best practices in policy and through informative interviews with representatives of the appropriate agencies. In January 2024, the County of Santa Clara and the Sheriff's Office adjusted their ALPR Surveillance policy, permitting data exchanges across policing agencies. Staff applied the best practices and lessons learned to the proposed policy. Q2: In the past, such a new policy item would include a comparison chart between the cities. Then, a few issues were pointed out for the City Council to decide between a few options where they differ between cities. This ensures that the Council, the decision maker, is not presented with one, and only one, option on policy matters, although the staff could make a recommendation on the best option. Could please provide a few issues where the staff weighed between options? (Chao) Staff response: Most policies regarding ALPR systems in other jurisdictions are very similar. The proposed City of Cupertino ALPR policy differs a few ways: 1. The City of San Jose uses ALPR technology for parking enforcement. The proposed City of Cupertino ALPR policy does not explicitly allow for parking enforcement. 2. The Town of Los Altos Hills amended a local ordinance to levy a $1,000 fine per instance of any violation of the Town’s ALPR policy. This item does not contain proposed ordinance changes. 3. Upon recommendation from end users, the City also proactively added an Installation and Maintenance Section. Q3-1: It seems the staff recommendation is to lease the system from Flock Safety, who will own the cameras, to e placed on public properties? I did not find any discussion between leasing and owning the equipment? Staff response: The vendor will retain ownership over the devices. The City will lease the ALPR cameras,which will allow the vendor to maintain, service, and update the devices without adding to staff responsibilities. Additionally, the lease of devices allows the City to adopt new technologies if warranted. Q3-2: It is unclear whether other jurisdictions mentioned, such as Saratoga, Los Altos Hills, Palo Alto, San Jose own or lease the camera system? (Chao) Staff response: The Cities of Palo Alto, San Jose, and Saratoga, as well as the Towns of Los Altos Hills and Los Gatos, all lease the ALPR systems. Q4-1: The staff report mentioned that Los Altos Hills installed 40 ALPR cameras. Saratoga installed 7 cameras plus 51 cameras through the property -tax assessment. And the report mentioned "the City of Cupertino has significantly more access points than either Saratoga or Los Altos Hills. ...staff proposes 15 camera locations to serve as entry points into the City or on major arterial roads to maximize the effectiveness of the ALPR system." Where are the 15 locations? (Chao) Staff response: The proposed ALPR locations can be found in Attachment D from the published 3 agenda. Q4-2: Cupertino is bigger and with more access points. It seems 15 cameras for Cupertino is a lot less than the 40 cameras in Los Altos and the 7+51 cameras in Saratoga? Was there any consideration for more cameras? (Chao) Staff response: The proposed 15 cameras maximize the current budget for the ALPR Program. Additional camera locations will be evaluated annually. Q5-1: Does the recommended policy allow neighborhood to install their own cameras on the public right of way or street light? Will the neighborhod be able to lease the camera from Flock Safety too? (Chao) Staff response: The proposed policy is for City-owned devices and does not allow privately held cameras to be installed in the public right of way. Private residents may contract with the vendor. Q5-2: For the city, the cost per camera per year is $3,000. Would the cost be about the same for a neighborhood who would be interested? (Chao) Staff response: Private residents should contact the vendor for specific pricing information . Q5-3: Would more cameras bring the cost per camera down? (Chao) Staff response: The vendor quoted costs by camera regardless of the total number. Q6-1: The staff report mentioned Saratoga "allows neighborhoods to use the City's Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District (LLAD) framework to fund the addition of Flock ALPR cameras". Could you explain a bit more how this kind of framework works? (Chao) Staff response: In September 2022, the Saratoga City Council adopted a change that allows neighborhoods to use the City’s Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District framework as a way to both fund the addition of Flock ALPR cameras in their neighborhood and allow placement of cameras in the right-of-way at the entrance to a neighborhood. Cameras funded through this process are paid for through property tax assessments on homes in the assessment district. More information can be found here: https://www.saratoga.ca.us/521/Automated-License-Plate- Reader-ALPR-Prog Q6-2: What's the cost per camera for Saratoga's 51 cameras using the assessment district framework? (Chao) Staff response: The cost per camera per year under the City of Saratoga’s agreement is $2,500. The City of Saratoga established their agreement in 2022. Q7: .The staff report states "The City will review the annual report and provide feedback to the Sheriff's Office as needed. The City will also post a summary of the annual report on the City's website for public information." Could we get an example of wh at the annual report would look like? Maybe a copy from Saratoga or Los Altos Hills? (Chao) Staff response: The County of Santa Clara produces an annual surveillance use report from the Office of the County Executive with a summary of all requests for the Board of Supervisors’ 4 approval. Additionally, the Sheriff’s Office maintains an ALPR Transparency Portal at https://transparency.flocksafety.com/santa-clara-county-ca-so Q8: "The FY 2023-2024 CWP allocated $60,000.00 for this item. The total cost for the program's first year, including 15 ALPR devices, installation, testing, and maintenance, is estimated at $62,250.00. The annual recurring cost for subsequent years is $59,000.00, which covers the devices' lease, warranty, and software updates." Why does the recurring cost almost as high as the first year, which includeded installation? What is the breakdown of the reoccurring cost? (Chao) I found this quote table in Attachment C, but it did not answer my question. Staff response: The added costs for the first year are solely related to installation costs. Existing infrastructure fees indicate the costs for installation on existing infrstructure. Standard implementation fees indicate potential new poles in the public right of way that are needed for installation. The recurring cost is limited to $3,000 per camera per year.