From: Reimagine Richmond
To: City Clerk Dept User; Eduardo Martinez
Subject: Agenda Item W.1 and W.7: Richmond Says NO to contracting with Axon Date: Tuesday, September 22, 2026 4:07:22 PM
Attachments: _City of Richmond Letter Agenda W.1 and W.7 - Axon Contract and EFF Presentation (1).pdf This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Dear Mayor and City Council,
We hope this email finds you well.
Reimagine Richmond would like to share our letter regarding Agenda Item W.1, the proposed contract with Axon Enterprises for automated license plate readers, and Agenda Item W.7, the proposed EFF presentation on the effectiveness of ALPRs.
We oppose W.1 and urge the City Council to vote no on both Axon and Flock, and we support W.7. Please see the attached letter for our full statement and recommendations.
Please see the attached letter for our full statement and recommendations.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
--
In Community,
RR Organizing Team
www.reimaginerichmond.org
Click here to follow us on Instagram
Eduardo Martinez, Mayor
Sue Wilson, Councilmember
Jamelia Brown, Councilmember
Doria Robinson, Councilmember
Cesar Zepeda, Councilmember
Claudia Jimenez, Councilmember
Soheila Bana, Councilmember
September 22nd, 2026
Dear Mayor and Members of the Richmond City Council,
We, the undersigned community organizations, are writing to express our opposition to Agenda Item W.1, which proposes contracting with Axon Enterprises in Richmond for automated license plate readers and surveillance technology in Richmond. We are also speaking in support of Agenda Item W.7, which will invite the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) to provide a presentation regarding the effectiveness of ALPRs.
We are calling on you to stand up against the mass surveillance systems that threaten our privacy and our livelihoods. In Richmond, ALPR cameras have been collecting and storing large amounts of location data about vehicles traveling through Richmond. This data can be accessed and shared with outside agencies, including law enforcement departments across the country and federal authorities. In Richmond, RPD has already shared data with 2,724 non-CA agencies, which is in violation of SB 34, which is a law that restricts the storage and sharing of ALPR data.
Richmond is a sanctuary city, and we cannot sit idly while corporations like Axon and Flock are used as back-end sources of surveillance for DHS and ICE agents who use ALPR data to target and arrest immigrants. At a time when immigrant communities are already experiencing increased immigration enforcement and fear, continuing to contract with Flock and Axon will only deepen this harm and erode community trust.
We do not want to see one surveillance corporation replacing another. Axon sells surveillance technology and weapons to foreign militaries like the IDF in their ongoing genocide in Palestine. Axon also contracts with ICE by supplying body-worn cameras, tasers, and software. Replacing Flock with Axon merely replaces the name of the company while maintaining many of the inherent security, data, and safety concerns.
With so many questions and concerns around surveillance, Richmond should bring in an expert like EFF, who can share reliable information regarding the effectiveness of ALPRs and share in more detail the risks that they present to communities. Our community deserves to understand the reality of ALPRs and how they are used in Black and Brown communities like Richmond to systematically violate our privacy and well-being.
Community safety should be rooted in investments that actually support community well-being, including youth programs, mental health services, violence prevention programs, housing stability, and community-led safety initiatives. Richmond deserves safety rooted in care, dignity, and trust, not expanded surveillance. We urge you to vote NO on Flock and NO on Axon.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
From: Kate Bolton-Schmukler
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Agenda Item W.1
Date: Tuesday, September 22, 2026 8:01:21 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Greetings Richmond City Council,
My name is Kate, and I live three blocks away from Richmond in El Cerrito. I'm demanding that you vote NO on W.1. I have to drive past your Flock cameras if I want to get to work every workday, and I'm really fed up with having my fourth amendment rights being violated.
I also know that many immigrants are afraid to leave their homes in Richmond because of ICE raids, and despite the work being done behind the scenes to help protect their families and livelihoods, I've witnessed ICE raids in Richmond too. Here's a thought: Instead of wasting millions of dollars fueling other mass surveillance programs like Axon and Assure (of which have been complicit in the genocide of Palelstinians in Gaza), why not spend that precious cash on actually helping the community stay safe, like social services, community gardens, after school programs, and increasing the salary of Richmond's super hard working public school teachers and paras? When poverty gets alleviated, so does violent crime.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Kate
From: Olga R
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: 9/23 City council mtg. comment against agenda items W.1 Contract Amendment with Axon Enterprise and Contract with Assure MSP, Inc. for Law Enforcement and City Facility Video Technology, Surveillance, and Support Services
Date: Tuesday, September 22, 2026 8:05:01 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
I'm emailing this, as the public comment icon was missing or inaccessible from this agenda item in today's agenda, even though it was available for other agenda items.
My name is Olga Reyes, and I am a Richmond resident. I urge the Council to reject the proposed Axon Inc. amendment to replace the existing LVPRs under the Flock contact. This contract amendment will cost the city $3.5M to replace one unfavorable system for another of the same and with the same potential of abuse and privacy violations of the current Flock system. I've read the contract amendments and the original RFP but didn't see an audit report on the existing contact to see what the failures the system produced, who accessed the data logs and if there were and potentials for abuse. Richmond residents deserve a clear audit report of the existing system before we move to a new system, with evidence showing:
How often did the technology produce accurate investigative leads; Its false-positive and error rates;
Whether it misidentified vehicles, locations, or individuals; Which agencies and outside entities had access to the data; Whether information was shared with federal, state, or out-of-area agencies; How long records were retained;
How residents can challenge inaccurate information.
LVPR systems simply create a surveillance state for the residents, and only serve to create detailed records of where people travel, when they travel, and potentially who they associate with. This information can reveal visits to medical providers, houses of worship, political meetings, shelters, and immigration-service organizations. It affects everyone—not only people suspected of a crime. These systems should never be the sole basis for a stop, search, arrest, or other enforcement action.
Public safety should not require creating a permanent record of Richmond residents’ movements. I respectfully ask the City Council to vote against the Axon contract amendment adding LVPRs.
Thank you.
From: RichmondPOA President
To: Eduardo Martinez; Doria Robinson; Claudia Jimenez; Sue Wilson; Soheila Bana; Cesar Zepeda; Jamelia Brown; Shannon Moore; City Clerk Dept User; Pamela Christian; Shasa Curl Subject: W.7 EFF RPOA Opposition
Date: Tuesday, September 22, 2026 9:24:17 AM
Attachments: RPOA_Letter_Item_W7_EFF_LPR Final.pdf
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Mayor and City Council,
Please see the attached letter from the RPOA regarding Council Agenda Item W.7. This has been forwarded to media outlets as well.
City Clerk Christian please add this to the public record for the item.
Respectfully,
Benjamin Therriault
President, Richmond Police Officers Association
RICHMOND POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
Richmond, California
September 21, 2026
Mayor Eduardo Martinez and Members of the City Council
City Manager
Chief of Police Timothy Simmons
City Clerk — for inclusion in the public record
City of Richmond, 440 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond, CA 94804 Re: Public Comment — Agenda Item W.7, September 22, 2026: Presentation from Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Data Analysis Regarding the Effectiveness of LPR Technology — OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED
Dear Mayor Martinez, Members of the Council, and City staff:
On behalf of the Richmond Police Officers Association, I write to oppose Item W.7 as drafted. The item tells Council it needs “objective, data-driven information” and “multiple perspectives.” It then proposes one perspective, from one organization, whose conclusion was published before it was ever invited to Richmond. This is not due diligence. It is an advocacy presentation carrying the label of evidence, and it arrives at a moment when delay itself will cost Richmond residents.
1. Item W.7 fails the standard it sets for everyone else.
The agenda report warns Council not to rely on “anecdotal examples,” “selective non-representative statistics,” or “generalized claims” from parties with a stake in the outcome. RPOA agrees. Applied honestly, that standard disqualifies the only presenter the item names.
EFF’s conclusion is already written. The report promises the presentation will “not predetermine the Council’s position.” EFF has already predetermined it. In its August 2026 policy statement, EFF declared that ALPR surveillance should not exist, that no configuration of an ALPR network eliminates its concerns, and that the technology is “irredeemably harmful.” An organization that has rejected this technology under every vendor, every policy, and every retention period is not offering evidence. It is offering a verdict.
EFF is running a campaign, not a study. The El Cerrito presentation that W.7 holds up as its model was delivered by EFF’s director of strategic campaigns. EFF’s coalition partner, the ACLU, lists the El Cerrito vote as an accomplishment of its “Get the Flock Out” campaign. Campaign staff promoting a campaign result is advocacy. Council may choose to hear it. It should not accept it as “evidence-based.” EFF is an active litigant on this exact issue. In November 2025, EFF and the ACLU of Northern California sued the City of San Jose, its police chief, and its mayor over ALPR searches. In August 2026, the court issued a tentative ruling siding with San Jose. Council is being asked to receive, as neutral guidance, the litigation theory of a party whose argument a California court has so far declined to adopt.
The El Cerrito precedent proves our point, not theirs. El Cerrito did not hear EFF alone. Its council heard a staff briefing, a presentation from its police chief on case outcomes, EFF, the vendor, and more RPOA — Item W.7 — Page 1
than forty public speakers, before voting on a live contract. That was a balanced hearing. W.7 cites El Cerrito and then removes every voice El Cerrito heard except EFF’s.
The report demands evidence and supplies none. W.7 lists “Documents Attached: None.” It lists “Previous Council Action: None,” when this Council approved the City’s ALPR contract in February 2023 and voted in March 2026 to extend it with added data protections. A report that omits the Council’s own record cannot claim to be building an objective one.
2. EFF’s core argument would end body cameras too.
EFF’s central warning in El Cerrito was that federal subpoenas and other compulsory process can reach vendor-hosted data regardless of local contract terms. That is true of every record the City stores with an outside provider, including the body-worn camera and drone footage RPD already maintains on Axon Evidence.com. If that risk alone disqualifies a technology, it disqualifies the body cameras that accountability advocates fought for and this Council funds. The real question is not whether a risk exists. It is whether contract terms, retention limits, and state law manage it. That is a vendor-and-policy question, and the proposal already before Council answers it.
3. The requested “analysis” is built to reach a conclusion.
W.7 directs “staff” to produce “objective statistical analysis” but identifies no evaluator, no methodology, no study period, and no peer review. It reports no financial impact while assigning significant analytical work to a department that remains well below its authorized sworn staffing.
It also selects a metric designed to fail: “arrests that lead to conviction.” Convictions are determined by the District Attorney, defense counsel, judges, and juries. Measuring a detection tool by downstream prosecutorial outcomes is not objective analysis. It builds the answer into the question.
Richmond already has its most telling data point. When the ALPR system was switched off, police data showed vehicle thefts rose 33 percent. Any honest study begins there.
4. The Police Department already fixed the problem Council raised.
Chief Simmons shut the Flock system down himself when he identified the data-access issue. He then brought Council a replacement that answers the concerns raised in March. Under the proposed Axon agreement, ALPR data would be retained no more than 30 days unless tied to an active case; it would not be shared outside RPD unless the Department authorizes it; it would be available to the Community Police Review Commission; the City would own its hardware outright; and a public transparency portal would report retention and usage totals.
Those protections sit on top of binding state law: the security, usage-policy, and access-logging requirements of Civil Code sections 1798.90.51 through 1798.90.53; the public-hearing requirement and the prohibition on sharing ALPR data with out-of-state and federal agencies under Civil Code section 1798.90.55; and the California Values Act, Government Code section 7284.6. The Department did what this Council asked. Item W.7 moves the goalposts.
5. Delay is a decision, and the timing speaks for itself.
The current Flock contract runs through December 31, 2026. If W.7 becomes a reason to postpone action on the Axon agreement, Richmond will reach January with no license plate reader system, no replacement, and no plan. That outcome would not come from a vote on the merits. It would come from process, and the cost would fall on residents who lost their cars, businesses that were burglarized, and families waiting on investigations.
An item framed as study, arriving weeks before an election and immediately after Council postponed the Axon vote, will be understood by residents for what it is. Council should not allow a study request to function as a shutdown by default.
RPOA — Item W.7 — Page 2
RPOA’s request
RPOA respectfully asks Council to reject Item W.7 as drafted, or to amend it as follows:
1. Replace the single-organization presentation with a balanced hearing, in one session with Council questions, that includes the Richmond Police Department, the California Department of Justice (see Information Bulletin 2023-DLE-06), and EFF;
2. Assign any statistical analysis to an independent evaluator with a published methodology, defined study period, and peer review, and remove conviction outcomes as a measure of a detection tool’s effectiveness; and
3. State expressly that Item W.7 does not delay Council’s consideration of the Axon agreement, which should proceed on its own schedule.
Richmond’s officers support transparency, oversight, and the CPRC’s role in reviewing this technology.
We do not support a process engineered to reach a predetermined result. Richmond residents deserve better than that, and so does this Council.
Respectfully,
Ben Therriault
President, Richmond Police Officers Association
RPOA — Item W.7 — Page 3
Portal Search...
Meeting Date Agenda Item Name Email Comment Position Status Attachment City Council
9/22/2026 4:30 PM Accept and Appropriate
$1,790,303 in Workforce
Development Grant Awards from
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Kaiser Permanente, and
the U.S. Department of Labor
L.Roberts Mayor and Councilmembers, I
urge you to postpone approval of
the $1,790,303 in Employment
and Training grant funds until the
Council has reviewed whether the
department can deliver the
services these grants promise.
Residents have posted complaints
on social media about their
experiences seeking services.
Staff have raised concerns about
a hostile work environment, and
there are concerns that program
performance has declined since
the new director and project
coordinator took their positions.
These concerns deserve a serious
review. I ask the Council to
commission an independent audit
comparing funding, staffing,
services offered, residents served,
and outcomes today with those
from six to ten years ago. The
audit should show where grant
funds have gone, whether
services have expanded or
declined, and how the
department handles resident
complaints. Staff should have a
confidential way to share
workplace concerns without fear
of retaliation. These grants could
create valuable opportunities for
Richmond residents. Before
approving additional funds, the
Council should establish whether
residents are receiving the
services they have been promised
and how the department will be
held accountable.
Against Approved -
9/22/2026 4:30 PM Accept and Appropriate
$1,790,303 in Workforce
Development Grant Awards from
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Kaiser Permanente, and
the U.S. Department of Labor
Taylor Morgan Mayor, Councilmembers, and City
Manager, Please look closely at
what makes up the $1,790,303
being presented as workforce
development grant awards. The
Kaiser grant is $25,000. Most of
the total is described as a
$1,265,303 WIOA allocation, and
one of its supporting documents
is a formula allocation sheet from
program year 2024–25. The EPA
award is $500,000 spread over a
five-year project period.
Presenting these amounts as one
large grant total without clearly
Against Approved -
9/23/26, 1:43 PM richmond.escribemeetings.com/Pages/ReportingPrintFriendly.aspx?reporting-reporttype=PublicComment https://richmond.escribemeetings.com/Pages/ReportingPrintFriendly.aspx?reporting-reporttype=PublicComment 1/4 explaining their different sources,
years, and uses risks confusing
the public. How much is actually
new funding? How much has
already been allocated? What
portion will pay for staffing and
administration, and what portion
will directly support training and
services for residents? If the
Council and City Manager are
paying attention to Employment
and Training, they should ask for
those answers before voting.
Richmond residents deserve a
clear accounting of the funding
and the services it will provide.
9/22/2026 4:30 PM Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer
(KBSS) Feasibility Study –
Presentation of Findings and
Alternatives Analysis, and
Direction on Recommended
Interim and Long-Term
Improvements
Don Mill donmillarchitect@g mail.comIn general the recommendations I believe reflect the best solution
for the entire KBSS community. At
the council meeting of Feb 18
2025 Cesar successfully promoted
attention to the rerouting idea
(Alternative 1) related to the
current moratorium and the
overall project. Since the study
recommends proceeding now
with this Alternative, the Moratorium should be lifted. The Golden Gate rerouting (according
to the study) would take a week,
could be done in house as a very
small part of the annual
Richmond sewer budget. Thank
you for your efforts Norm
Hantzsche and others.
For Approved -
9/22/2026 4:30 PM Presentation from Electronic
Frontier Foundation (EFF) and
conducting data analysis
regarding the effectiveness of LPR
technology
L Johnson Mayor Martinez and Council, Item
W.7 says the Council needs
objective, data-driven
information. It then names
exactly one presenter, whose
conclusion was published before
it was ever invited here. The
report itself warns you not to rely
on generalized claims from
parties with a stake in the
outcome. Applied honestly, that
standard disqualifies the only
organization the item names. And
consider who is asking. In her
own DSA endorsement
questionnaire, Councilmember
Claudia Jiménez — the sponsor of
this item — describes herself as a
founding member of Reimagine
Richmond, Steering Committee
Co-Chair of the Richmond
Progressive Alliance, and Council
Liaison to the Police Review
Commission. Marisol Cantú chairs
that commission. She sits on the
RPA steering committee with
Against Approved -
9/23/26, 1:43 PM richmond.escribemeetings.com/Pages/ReportingPrintFriendly.aspx?reporting-reporttype=PublicComment https://richmond.escribemeetings.com/Pages/ReportingPrintFriendly.aspx?reporting-reporttype=PublicComment 2/4 C
ouncilmember Jiménez, andshe is a lead organizer of Reimagine Richmond. The two organizations share an office. This month, that commission voted to review RPD's ALPR policy. And members electedonthe RPAslate holda
majorityofthisCouncil. Sothe
same organizationwritesthe item, picks the presenter, votes to
bringthatpresenter in, fillsthe
room, andreviewsthe policy
afterward. Andthe presenterthey
pickedhasalreadypublished its
verdictforthe worldtosee:no
ALPRsystem, underanyvendor, any policy, any retention period, can be made acceptable. That is not objective decision making. That is calling a witness whose verdict is already written, so this Council has cover for a vote it ha s
alreadydecided. Thatnetwork
alsoworkswithSecure Justice and
BrianHofer, whohassued
Oaklandtwice,Berkeleytwice,
andSanFranciscoonce — every
time overanordinance he helped
write,andthe citiespaidhisfees. EFF and the ACLU are suing San Jose rightnowover license plate
readersearches. Youare being
askedtotake anactive litigant's
theoryasneutral guidance.That is how a city ends up paying for both sides of its own lawsuit. No w look at the timing. Chief Simmons shut the Flock system down himself when he found the problem. He listened to this community, took the concerns raised seriously, and brought back an alternative vendor with tighter controls — in time for Richmond not to go dark when Flock expires December 31. That is good faith. W.7 answers it by restarting the conversation from zero, weeks before an election. Delay here is not caution. It is a vote by other means. If the intent here is honest, fix the item. Multiple presenters, not one — and not EFF, for the reasons I just gave. You do not invite the organization suing San Jose over this exact technology to advise you on it, and you do not hand the people drafting your future complaint a seat at the table. Assign the statistical analysis to an independent evaluator like Police Strategies, which this 9/23/26, 1:43PMrichmond.escribemeetings.com/Pages/ReportingPrintFriendly.aspx?reporting-reporttype=PublicComment https://richmond.escribemeetings.com/Pages/ReportingPrintFriendly.aspx?reporting-reporttype=PublicComment3/4 Council just unanimously
approved again for RPD's use-offorce data. And state plainly that W.7 does not delay tonight's vote
on W.1, so the contract can be
finalized and cameras installed
before Richmond goes dark.
Richmond deserves a proper
discussion, not a scripted one.
9/23/26, 1:43 PM richmond.escribemeetings.com/Pages/ReportingPrintFriendly.aspx?reporting-reporttype=PublicComment https://richmond.escribemeetings.com/Pages/ReportingPrintFriendly.aspx?reporting-reporttype=PublicComment 4/4