On the agenda: Spring Lake Park minutes — Flock Safety (Sep 21)

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regularly scheduled meeting of the Spring Lake Park City
Council Work Session was held on September 21, 2026 at the Spring Lake Park City Hall, 1301 81st
Ave NE, at 5:30 PM.
1.

CALL TO ORDER

Mayor Nelson called the meeting to order at 5:30 PM.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Councilmember Ken Wendling
Councilmember Barbara Goodboe-Bisschoff
Councilmember April Moran
Mayor Robert Nelson
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Councilmember Lisa Dircks
STAFF PRESENT:
Public Works Director George Linngren, Police Chief Josh Antoine, Administrator,
Clerk/Treasurer Daniel Buchholtz
OTHERS PRESENT:
Brad Wise
Hannah Wind
Kristi Cobbs
Perry Korzenowski
Eric Julien
Halyn Roth
Abi Stark
Karl Stark
2.

Anoka County Sheriff
Flock Safety
8085 Jefferson Street NE
8420 Laddie Road NE
700 Holland Lane NE
7914 Able Street NE
609 Manor Drive NE
609 Manor Drive NE

Spring Lake Park
Spring Lake Park
Spring Lake Park
Spring Lake Park
Spring Lake Park
Spring Lake Park

DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Flock Safety ALPR Program – Donation Resolution and Council Direction
City Administrator Buchholtz introduced the item, noting that the City Council had
referred consideration of a donation supporting the City's Flock Safety automated
license plate reader system to a work session for additional discussion.
Police Chief Antoine reviewed the City's use of Flock Safety cameras, noting that the
City has operated two cameras since October 2024 and that the Council had
previously approved the program. He stated that the current donation represents the
third year of support from the donor.

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

PAGE 2

September 21, 2026

Sheriff Wise provided an overview of automated license plate reader technology and
Anoka County's one-year Safe County Pilot Project involving ALPR technology and
drone-assisted response. He explained that law enforcement agencies throughout
Anoka County have used license plate reader technology for many years and that the
pilot project is intended to evaluate a coordinated countywide approach.
Sheriff Wise reviewed applicable Minnesota law governing ALPR technology, including
restrictions on the collection, retention, access, and use of data. He explained that
ALPR cameras photograph vehicles traveling on public roadways and record limited
information, including the vehicle image, license plate, date, time, and location. The
technology does not provide continuous vehicle tracking or facial recognition.
Sheriff Wise stated that law enforcement generally uses ALPR information in two
ways: to identify vehicles appearing on authorized "hot lists," such as stolen vehicles
and Amber Alerts, and as an investigative tool when law enforcement is attempting to
identify a vehicle associated with a reported crime. Searches are logged and subject to
audit, and searches involving a particular identified suspect may require a search
warrant under Minnesota law.
Chief Antoine reported that the Spring Lake Park Police Department has reduced its
ALPR data-retention period to seven days. He also noted that certain search terms,
including those associated with immigration and reproductive health matters, are
restricted. The Department continues to audit use of the system and is subject to
regular compliance reviews.
Councilmember Wendling asked about the system's ability to identify distinguishing
characteristics of vehicles, including bumper stickers. Sheriff Wise explained that the
system can recognize vehicle characteristics that may assist investigators in narrowing
a search, such as vehicle color, body damage, or other distinguishing features. Such
information would be used in connection with an authorized law-enforcement
purpose and remains subject to applicable legal restrictions.
Chief Antoine provided examples of cases in which ALPR information assisted Spring
Lake Park investigations, including a federal bribery investigation and a burglary
investigation involving a local business.
The Council discussed privacy protections, accountability, public-safety benefits, and
the importance of maintaining appropriate safeguards governing the technology.
Several Councilmembers expressed comfort with the City's existing safeguards and the
statutory restrictions governing ALPR use.
The Council also discussed the cost of the program. Chief Antoine stated that the City's
current cost for its two cameras is approximately $6,000 for the year and that the
proposed donation would offset approximately one-half of that expense.

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

PAGE 3

September 21, 2026

Sheriff Wise explained that any permanent countywide program following completion
of the pilot project would require additional consideration and approval. Potential
funding mechanisms could include a countywide public-safety levy or bond, or
allocation of costs among participating agencies through the Anoka County Joint Law
Enforcement Council. Any future funding proposal affecting Spring Lake Park would
return to the appropriate governing bodies for consideration.
Following discussion, the Council indicated that the resolution accepting the donation
could return to the regular City Council agenda under Unfinished Business.
B. Discussion from the Floor – Review of Agenda Placement and Procedures (GoodboeBisschoff)
Councilmember Goodboe-Bisschoff introduced a discussion regarding the City's
"Discussion from the Floor" portion of regular City Council meetings. She stated that
public-comment procedures had been discussed at the League of Minnesota Cities
Annual Conference and by the North Metro Telecommunications Commission.
Councilmember Goodboe-Bisschoff described recently approved changes to the North
Metro Telecommunications Commission's rules of decorum. Those changes reduced
individual public-comment time, established an overall time limit, and limited
comments to matters germane to the Commission and to residents of member
communities or individuals having a direct interest in Commission business.
Administrator Buchholtz explained that Minnesota's Open Meeting Law generally
requires meetings to be open to the public but does not require a governing body to
provide an opportunity for public comment. He noted that city councils may establish
reasonable rules governing public-comment periods.
The Council discussed whether changes should be made to Spring Lake Park's current
procedures. Options discussed included retaining public comment near the beginning
of the meeting, reducing the existing three-minute individual speaking limit,
establishing an overall time limit, limiting comments to matters relevant to City
business, and determining who should be eligible to speak.
Councilmembers expressed differing views regarding restrictions on public comment.
Some members expressed concern that additional requirements could create
unnecessary barriers for residents seeking to address their elected officials. There was
general support for continuing to provide an opportunity for public comment while
considering reasonable rules to help meetings remain orderly and efficient.
Because not all Councilmembers were present, no final decision was made. The
Council directed staff to prepare draft public-comment rules for consideration at a
future meeting. The draft will provide the Council with an opportunity to further

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

PAGE 4

September 21, 2026

discuss potential time limits, eligibility standards, subject-matter limitations, and other
procedural requirements before taking formal action.
3.

REPORT
A. City Council and Staff Reports – None.

4.

ADJOURN

Mayor Nelson adjourned the meeting at 6:28 pm.

Robert Nelson, Mayor
Attest:
Daniel R. Buchholtz, Administrator, Clerk/Treasurer