Mar. 7—Norman residents will again be asked to decide a water rate increase and could see high-tech cameras pop up in the community, after City Council members discussed the items during Tuesday night’s study session.
The council agreed to set the water rate increase election for June 13 if members approve the ordinance April 11.
Water customers will be asked to increase the base rate — a flat user fee — from $6 to $10.90, the city’s utilities presentation showed.
While the fee will jump by $4.90, the water rates will change little.
The rate for those who use up to 5,000 gallons will increase from $3.35 to $3.46. For those using 15,000 gallons, the most common user category, the rate will rise from $4.10 to $4.50. Customers who use up to 20,000 gallons will pay $6.75 instead of the current rate, which is $5.20.
Voters declined a water rate increase in April 2022 by a 54% margin.
The revenue would have helped the city obtain $15 million in bonds to install water meter upgrades and $17 million to combine groundwater and surface water to better maintain residual chlorine levels.
Utilities Director Chris Mattingly said voter approval to increase the base rate fee will help stabilize the water fund with predictable income and make it easier to qualify for revenue bonds.
Council members unanimously agreed with Mattingly and pointed out that water customers can still save money by conserving usage.
Mattingly said the city offers a reduced water rate for those on limited incomes in line with guidelines for those on subsidized housing programs.
‘Flock’ cams
The council also discussed a contract with Flock Vehicle, a company that provides enhanced camera imaging for residents and law enforcement agencies to help solve and prevent crime. The company is also used by homeowner associations, a presentation indicated.
If the council agrees to approve the contract, 13 solar-powered cameras would be installed in Norman along city right-of-ways. The cameras, which stand between 10- and 12-feet high, use motion detection to photograph vehicles.
The software sends an alert to law enforcement for cars reported as stolen. Law enforcement agencies can review the footage, available for 30 days, for any vehicles that fit the description for a criminal complaint, said Hector Soliman-Valdez, Flock’s community engagement manager.
Some councilors raised concerns about privacy and government having too much information about its citizens.
Councilor Austin Ball, who represents Ward 1, said he was not a “big fan” of surveillance that benefits government use over privacy rights.
“Do we put any kind of warnings to our public that that this is an area of our city that is monitored by Flock?” he asked.
City Attorney Kathryn Walker said the cameras would be used on publicly accessed streets where there is no legal expectation of privacy.
Councilor Stephen Holman, who represents Ward 7, said he was concerned the technology has a “big brother feeling,” but added the ability to solve more crimes was attractive.
Valdez addressed the privacy concerns and clarified the technology has a limited use.
Flock cameras do not capture images of people with “facial recognition technology” but is designed to capture the vehicle’s identifiers like license plates, make and model. He also added that it is not used for traffic enforcement.
“There are no PII’s,” Valdez said. “No personal identifiable information. What does that mean in practice? That means that Flock is not providing to the police department, ‘hey this is John Smith in this vehicle.’ There are no DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles) records. What we are telling them is, ‘this vehicle matches the one you’re looking for.'”
Norman police Major Jamie Shattuck said the department would access the technology database if it is related to criminal complaints.
Valdez said when an officer uses the database, a reference number or case number is required.
Ward 4’s Helen Grant asked if a technological error could mean officers stop the wrong vehicle and if there was an error rate for the software.
“It actually will tell the police officer, this is 98% probability that this is the correct vehicle,” Valdez said.
Valdez did not have an error rate to provide, but Shattuck said stopping a car by mistake is a human input error such as when a recovered vehicle remains listed as stolen.
Shattuck also said alerts from the camera system would be verified by the officer.
“If we were to get an alert from the camera system, what we would have to do is call in and verify with dispatch that is actually the tag that has been reported stolen,” he said. “We can’t use only the notification from Flock.”
The information on the database is limited to law enforcement and other law enforcement agencies on the Flock system, Valdez said. He added that stored information is never sold.
If the council approves a contract before April 1, the cost would be $2,500 per camera per year and a one-time installation fee up to $350 per camera. After the deadline, the price will increase to $3,000 per camera, said Jim Fink, Flock’s territory manager.
Shattuck told the council he was excited about the technology because he believed it would help the department solve crimes that often go unsolved, like porch pirates.
“It’s usually a few people who commit most of the crimes,” he said. “We have a huge amount of cases we have to close because we don’t have identifiable information that we can get a lead from.”
Mindy Wood covers City and County government news and notable lawsuits for The Transcript. Reach her at mwood@normantranscript.com or 405-416-4420.
