Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Resident presses DeKalb City Council for greater water-fund transparency, questions surveillance spending
Loading...
Summary
At a Nov. 24 public hearing on the proposed FY2026 budget, resident Miss Fazikas asked the council for detailed explanations of water-fund transfers to the general fund, questioned an added IT position, and urged caution on replacing license-plate readers with Flock cameras and other surveillance purchases.
Miss Fazikas, a DeKalb resident who spoke during the public hearing on the proposed FY2026 budget, read an extended list of questions and asked the council to make the city’s water-fund subsidies and related staffing allocations more transparent.
Fazikas said she had ‘‘almost literally 20 questions’’ for the council and pressed staff to explain why the budget adds an IT employee for 2026 and whether any existing IT staff are assigned primarily to police operations. She also asked how many city employees will be paid in whole or in part from the waterfront (water operations fund) in 2026 and why certain water-utility functions receive support from the general fund.
City manager (Nicholas) responded during the budget presentation that transfers from the water fund have long covered tasks such as water billing clerks, supervision, data entry and shared public-works activities, and that the total amount taken from the water fund has not increased in the past six years. "We're gonna pay the water billing clerks for the time that they spend every day talking to people, receiving payments on water bills," he said, describing the longstanding practice as covering staff time spent on water-specific work.
Fazikas also raised questions about public-safety technology planned in the budget. She asked why public‑safety cameras appear in the IT budget rather than the police budget and sought details about a $100,000 reserve line for investigative equipment, asking whether purchases would be additional cameras, surveillance hardware, or a cell-site simulator (commonly called a StingRay device). She urged the council to clarify whether the budgeted investigative purchases include such devices.
On surveillance camera replacements, Fazikas said she opposed replacing the city’s existing license-plate reader cameras with flat Flock cameras. She argued three points: that the current Genetec plate-reader system appears to be working; that Flock (a private vendor) has a record in some states of noncompliance with privacy laws; and that using reserves to buy more cameras could be deferred in favor of other needs such as streets or pensions.
Fazikas concluded by asking the city attorney to consider directing staff to make water-fund subsidies to the general fund more transparent, so residents can see precisely how funds are being allocated. Mayor Barnes closed the public hearing at 6:18 p.m. and said the budget would be brought back for council discussion on the agenda.
Why it matters: The questions raise transparency and oversight concerns about cross-fund transfers that affect ratepayers and taxpayers alike. Water utility customers fund the water operations fund, and residents asked the council to show how much support that fund provides to general‑fund services and which positions or services are subsidized.
What’s next: The council took the budget ordinance on first reading later in the meeting; council members and staff said more background materials and prior public meetings have informed the proposed budget. The item remains subject to further council consideration and any formal vote at a future meeting.
