Resident raises surveillance and transparency concerns as Flock Safety contracts and ERep funding discussed

A local resident used the commissioners’ public comment period Sept. 10 to raise multiple concerns about county surveillance, economic-development spending and public-records access. Ken Colbert, who identified himself as a county resident and business owner, called recent Flock Safety camera installations "perceived as unlawful surveillance," asked whether a court order authorized their use and said he would file Freedom of Information Act requests to track legacy payments distributed to local nonprofits.

County staff responded that Flock Safety cameras are fixed-location photographic tools and not synchronized tracking devices, saying they function like a citizen taking a photograph in public. “Those aren't synced and...they're simply taking a picture at a fixed location. No different than if some citizen were standing out in public and took a picture of you driving by,” a staff member said. The clerk’s office and other staff pointed Colbert to earlier presentations and noted that expenditures are public record and subject to audit processes.

Colbert also asked about a $300,000 allocation to an entity referred to as ERep and asked what the county would receive in return; staff said ERep had presented to the board previously and that records and minutes from that presentation are available on the county website and to county council. On questions about "legacy payments" tied to a state change in local public-health oversight, Colbert said he planned to FOIA the health department for details; the health department and judge who spoke at the meeting directed him to prior materials and records.