City of Austin Council Message Board

Colleagues,

I’m grateful to MPT Vela and his subquorum for their work on Item 61, which relates to a comprehensive surveillance policy for the City. Current and future councils and staff will benefit from a clear framework for evaluating surveillance-related technology and tools, and I believe it provides us a solid basis to have a thoughtful conversation around sensible rules. I heard many requests for a conversation like this during today’s work session.

Having said that, this item has only been available on the agenda addendum since Friday evening, and our first opportunity for public discussion will be this Thursday's council meeting. This is a lengthy and complex draft, and some of the concern we have heard since yesterday involves the review of existing legacy technology, such as:
- How departments will develop Use Policies and have them reviewed within 180 days, and what city resources may be needed to administrate this
- How specific technologies that may lack exceptions could fall under 6(b) such as drones with IR cameras trying to locate vulnerable residents in greenbelts during cold weather, AFD drones used for structure fires, AE drones for power line inspection, Pano AI, sonar/LiDAR for detecting hydrilla in lakes, and so on.
- If/How partner organizations and contractors using certain technologies will comply

These are just a handful of the issues and questions we have already identified that we could use additional clarity on. As we move forward, I believe giving departments time to review the proposal and incorporating their input will be helpful. If our goal is to approve an ordinance in less than two months then clear and precise direction will be valuable.

That’s why I respectfully ask that we consider postponing this item and devoting an upcoming council work session to the matter. Doing so would allow us to engage city staff and gather input from the public, commission members, and others. I believe this request is in line with the spirit of the resolution itself, which proposes a two-week period of time for council members to consider surveillance-related matters before any votes.

I welcome the input of my colleagues and look forward to discussing this important issue further.

-Marc

Thank you, Council Member Duchen, for your thoughtful comments and sharing your concerns.

My staff began work on this resolution with our subquorum back in early fall 2025. Some items concerning surveillance technology were coming before Council for consideration at that time. Those items ended up withdrawn in part because there was not enough information available to allow for appropriate due diligence before a Council vote. This highlighted the need for a transparent, consistent process to provide accurate, thorough information in advance of making critical decisions impacting civil liberties, public safety, and privacy.

Our subquorum staff conducted extensive research of how peer cities approach this issue and based the resolution on consensus best practices. City staff have been deeply involved in developing the language from early in the process and through dozens of draft versions over the past three months, including city management, public safety leadership, the data security and privacy offices, department heads, and the City Attorney's office. We have also consulted and incorporated input from numerous community stakeholders, including prominent privacy and civil liberties advocates. Individuals with many years of experience implementing and overseeing such laws in other jurisdictions have also kindly provided their expertise.

Mindful of the concerns over administrative workload, in consultation with staff, we have revised the period for departments to develop policies for existing surveillance technologies from 180 to 270 days. That section already provides for a simpler administrative process and allows for additional time for exigent circumstances. The time for staff to return with draft ordinance language has also been extended to the April 23, 2026; please note that this is a deadline for a draft, not for Council to vote to approve the amendments. Regarding the exemption process for no/low risk technologies like the examples you provided, we have also restructured the risk evaluation process based on Chief Data Security Officer Dr. Brian Gardner's recommendations, which he alluded to in yesterday's Work Session.

A version 2 of the resolution reflecting the above has been submitted and approved. It will be posted on the agenda around 3 PM today.

Given staff support and the likelihood that we will be asked to approve additional surveillance technology in the near future, I encourage us to proceed with passing the resolution tomorrow so we can begin the process ASAP to develop the final code changes. Council will have additional opportunities to consider and offer amendments when Law returns with draft language in April. We greatly appreciate the extensive work from staff, the community, and CMs Siegel, Fuentes, Velasquez, and Laine's offices to bring this item to fruition. Thank you to all my colleagues for your thoughtful consideration!

Saludos,
Chito

Thank you, MPT Vela, for your thoughtful response and accommodating some of my concerns, especially the timeframes for both the ordinance and for reviewing all legacy technologies.

I recognize and appreciate that you and others have put many hours of work into developing this policy. Part of my concern was the dissonance between wanting to ensure people trust this process and some members of the council and public not having much daylight on this policy. I think the changes you’ve made help address some of the core concerns that I’ve heard this week and I look forward to the discussion tomorrow. We will make sure we are ready to discuss the latest version, work through concerns and suggestions, and try to move this forward.

-Marc

MPT Vela and CM Duchen-

Thank you for posting your thoughts on this item. I agree that we do need to provide input on guidance regarding the use of cameras and appreciate the work the subquorum has done. I would make good use of a 2-week postponement to do more due diligence on my end. We have been hearing from folks since the item has been posted, and I want to be fully confident that we are all in step together once we take a vote.

See you tomorrow,
Paige Ellis

MPT Vela,

I am grateful that you are bringing this item forward and I am proud to sponsor it. This resolution was drafted with careful and constant consultation with our law department.

I am looking forward to our discussion today and encourage our colleagues to move this policy forward today.

a sus ordenes,

CMJV