In the minutes: Reading 09-15-26 Council Minutes (Legislative), Flock camera (Sep 15)

CITY OF READING, OHIO
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES – LEGISLATIVE SESSION
SEPTEMBER 15, 2026 – 7:30 PM
For the full detail of this evening’s Council Meeting, please visit www.watchreadingohio.com.

CALL TO ORDER
President of Council, Mr. Mattscheck called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM.
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
President of Council, Mr. Mattscheck led those in attendance in a prayer and then the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Council Members Present: Mr. Powell, Mr. Bronner, Mr. Thamann, Mrs. Kroeger & Mrs. Eadicicco.
Motion to excuse Mark Bishop & Bob Boehner made by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mrs. Kroeger.
Motion carried by voice vote.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Motion to approve the September 1, 2026, Council Meeting Minutes made by Mr. Bronner,
seconded by Mrs. Kroeger. Motion carried by voice vote.
GUEST SPEAKERS: NONE
AUDIENCE ASKING PARTICIPATION:
(1) Bob Ashbrock (221 Walnut Street) – Addressed Council regarding the Flock cameras, a topic that had been
widely discussed at the previous meeting and on local social media.
At the conclusion of the previous meeting, Council determined that two separate committees would study the
matter and make recommendations. Ashbrock suggested that, rather than holding two separate committee
meetings, the entire Council should meet as a committee of the whole at a special meeting.
He said this approach would serve the public interest by allowing all Council members to hear the arguments for and
against retaining the Flock cameras in the city. It would also allow citizens to hear the entire discussion in one
common forum rather than attending two separate meetings.
Ashbrock strongly recommended that Council schedule and properly publicize a special committee-of-the-whole
meeting to discuss the Flock cameras so citizens could attend and have their voices heard. He noted that committeeof-the-whole meetings are generally less formal and could provide an opportunity for citizens to make initial
comments, listen to others, hear comments from Council, and then have a second opportunity to offer rebuttal or
clarification.
He concluded by asking Council to take his recommendation under advisement.
Council Response
Councilwoman Katie Eadicicco explained that her committee was one of those interested in reviewing the matter
because the city has a contract with Flock Safety. She wanted to examine the contract, applicable laws, and the
company itself before forming an opinion.
Mrs. Eadicicco said she had not yet scheduled a committee meeting because she was still in the research phase. She
had spoken with council members and trustees from outside Reading and contacted others to learn how their
communities were handling Flock cameras.
She had found both positive and negative information about Flock Safety but did not yet feel she had enough
information to form an opinion. She wanted to conduct a deeper review and discuss the matter with her committee
first. She was not opposed to a committee-of-the-whole meeting.

Councilwoman Eadicicco also said she had posted about the issue on her Council Facebook page to solicit public
opinions. Although the response represented only a small sample, she was surprised that more respondents
appeared to favor the cameras than oppose them. Her goal was to open the conversation and gather additional
information.
Council members also discussed the city's Flock contract and when it would expire. Mrs. Eadicicco believed the
contract was for two years but needed to verify the exact date.
Councilman Dave Powell said he would like to hear from the city's new police chief once one is appointed. He
wanted to know the new chief's position on the cameras and what policies they would establish regarding their use.
Mr. Powell emphasized the importance of considering all aspects of the issue rather than making a knee-jerk
decision in response to recent public scrutiny. He said Council should conduct sufficient research to make an
informed decision.
Mrs. Eadicicco noted that the City of Wyoming had established a Flock camera transparency page that allows the
public to download an Excel spreadsheet showing how often Flock was accessed, who accessed it, and the reason
for each search.
Councilwoman Shelly Kroeger clarified that the City of Reading has a similar transparency system. The information
can be accessed through the city's Police Department webpage. The page explains that the Reading Police
Department uses Flock Safety technology to enhance public safety while protecting individual privacy and states that
the technology is intended to capture objective evidence that assists investigators without compromising the privacy
of law-abiding citizens. The Reading Police Department's transparency portal includes a public search audit that
provides access to the relevant records.
Mayor Bo Bemmes also noted that he has conducted considerable research into the issue and intends to continue
doing so.
Councilwoman Shelly Kroger clarified that the City of Reading has held several council-of-the-whole meetings in the
past, although there had not been one recently. She also explained that the Flock cameras were originally brought
forward by members of the public during the tenure of former Chief Edens. At that time, a majority of the public
reportedly supported installing the cameras. Council subsequently investigated the technology and determined that
it could be beneficial to the city despite the expense involved.
Mrs. Kroeger said she’s continuing to research the issue in light of the concerns that have recently emerged. She also
emphasized that Council is listening to residents while conducting their due diligence, so that future committee
discussions would be based on informed decisions.
Mr. Powell reiterated that he was not opposed to holding a committee-of-the-whole meeting. However, he said he
did not yet believe Council had enough information to hold one productively. Once the research was complete, he
agreed that a public forum would be beneficial.
(2) Maggie - Addressed Council and said she had several questions that she wanted to ask publicly because the
answers would be relevant to the broader community. She stated that democracy requires public participation and
encouraged Council to do more to facilitate that participation rather than simply meeting the minimum legal
requirements.
Maggie asked:
•

What are the legal requirements for announcing Council and committee meetings?

•

How are these meetings typically announced?

•

Would Council members be willing to host or participate in a town hall to hear the community's perspective
on Flock cameras and other issues?

Page 2

09-15-2026 Reading Council Minutes

She said it would be more productive to have opportunities for meaningful dialogue rather than simply talking at
one another during Council meetings. She also said she was not interested in having private conversations with
individual Council members about issues affecting the entire community.
Maggie additionally referenced a request made two weeks earlier for crime statistics, saying that question still
needed to be answered. She acknowledged that gathering information takes time but requested that the city pause
the Flock matter until the necessary information and meetings could be provided.
Council Response:
Councilman Dave Powell explained that regular Council meetings are held on the first and third Tuesdays of each
month at 7:30 p.m. Committee meetings are typically announced during Council meetings, generally one or two
weeks in advance, with the time and location provided.
When Maggie clarified that she was requesting a pause on the Flock contract, Councilwoman Katie Eadicicco noted
that doing so would require research into the contract's terms, including whether it could be canceled immediately
and whether cancellation fees or other contractual conditions applied.
Mrs. Eadicicco stated that committee meetings are publicly announced during Council meetings and indicated that
the legal requirement for committee meetings is generally 24 hours' public notice; the same requirement applies to
special meetings.
Councilman Scott Thamann, Councilwoman Katie Eadicicco & Mayor Bo Bemmes expressed a willingness to
participate in informal gatherings and town halls. The Mayor noted that the city has previously held town halls and
that additional mayoral forums could resume. He emphasized that Council members communicate with residents in
many settings outside formal Council meetings, including church functions, athletic events, band activities, plays,
festivals, and other city gatherings. He said he regularly interacts with residents throughout the community,
including people who visit his office or city facilities, and emphasized that communication with residents is not
limited to formal Council meetings.
(3) Peggy Sutton - Addressed Council with three questions.
First, she asked about the payment period for the water meter equipment installed at her neighbor's property. Her
neighbor, who is unable to attend meetings, believed the equipment had been installed approximately six years
earlier and wanted to know how much longer payments would continue.
Bob Ashbrock said his recollection was that the equipment had a 10-year payoff period, although he was not certain.
If that was correct, approximately four years would remain.
Council members indicated that Patrick Ross would know the exact information. A message was sent to Ross, who
was attending a conference in Columbus, and Council expected to receive confirmation. Later in the meeting, Safety
Service Director Patrick Ross confirmed that the payoff period was 10 years and believed the payments would
continue through approximately 2029.
Second, Sutton complimented the city for allowing residents to rent park shelters. She had rented both the large
and small shelters twice at Koenig Park during the summer for family gatherings and said the ability to bring family
and friends together was very positive. However, she said visitors from outside the area had commented on the
cleanliness of the shelters. She felt the shelters and picnic tables appeared as though they had not been cleaned in a
long time. Sutton asked whether the city could pressure-wash the shelters and picnic tables once or twice a year.
She believed doing so would significantly improve their appearance.
Mayor Bo Bemmes explained that the city has experienced difficulty attracting enough young people to work in the
parks during the summer. The city has therefore been unable to complete all of the maintenance work it would like
to accomplish. The city said it would continue looking into the issue, including whether compensation for seasonal
park workers could be adjusted. A comparison was made to Blue Ash, which was reportedly experiencing similar
difficulties attracting young workers despite paying comparable wages.
Page 3

09-15-2026 Reading Council Minutes

Finally, Sutton also asked whether Reading's Flock cameras were currently operating, noting that she had heard the
Hamilton County Sheriff's Office had turned its cameras off. Council members clarified that Reading operates its
own Flock cameras independently of Hamilton County. The county's decision regarding cameras in other
jurisdictions or areas where the Sheriff's Office provides services does not affect Reading's system. Council
confirmed that Reading's Flock cameras were still operating.
(4) Sue Renderle - Said she agreed with the earlier comments from Bob Ashbrock and Maggie that a Flock town hall
would be beneficial. She said circumstances had changed significantly since the city approved the Flock cameras
under an emergency clause, with new information continuing to emerge. She believed the sooner a public meeting
could be held, the better.
Rinderle emphasized that a town hall would provide an opportunity for back-and-forth conversation. She suggested
scheduling one within the next 30 days, noting that many people on the community forum strongly oppose the
cameras and might attend a dedicated meeting to voice their opinions. She said residents may be less likely to
attend a regular Council meeting because it does not provide the same opportunity for direct discussion.
The discussion concluded with Council continuing to consider the appropriate timing and format for additional
public engagement regarding the Flock cameras.
READING OF COMMUNICATIONS: NONE
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
READING OF RESOLUTIONS: NONE
READING OF ORDINANCES:

(1) AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE SAFETY SERVICE DIRECTOR TO HIRE A CONTRACTOR TO
COMPLETE SPOT CURB WORK THROUGHOUT THE CITY FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$75,000 AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
Ordinance was declared a first reading only.

(2) AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE SAFETY SERVICE DIRECTOR TO BEGIN PAYING OUT
TODD BURWINKEL SICK TIME OF 1440 HOURS.
Ordinance was declared a first reading only.

(3) AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT CREATING
THE SYCAMORE TOWNSHIP – CITY OF READING JOINT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRIC
Ordinance was declared a first reading only.
Public Hearing scheduled for October 20, 2026 at 7:30 pm.

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
Bo Bemmes:
(1) Fall in Love Bridal even 5 pm -10pm Benson Street will be closed from Reading Road to Wachendorf on Thursday,
(2) “Septemberfest” will be held on September 18, 19 & 20th at the old St. Peter & Paul School Building Parking lot.
(3) Homecoming Parade will be held on Thursday, September 24th at 6:00 pm.
Starting at the old central school property. Jefferson Avenue will be briefly closed from Halker down to Benson.
(4) Public hearing scheduled for Tuesday, October 20 during the Council Meeting
(5) Historical Society Dinner being held on Saturday, October 10.
Honoring Andy Bronner, St. Peter & Paul School & Serendipity.

Page 4

09-15-2026 Reading Council Minutes

ADJOURNMENT

Motion to adjourn came from Mrs. Kroeger, and was seconded by Mrs. Eadicicco. Motion carried by voice vote.
There being no further business, the meeting was declared adjourned at 8:10 pm.
X______________________________________
Carla Bronner
Clerk of Council

Page 5

X______________________________________
Kevin Mattscheck
President of Council

09-15-2026 Reading Council Minutes

City of Reading

Monthly Statement of Cash
As Of: 8/31/2026
Funds: 1101 to 9999
Fund

Description

1101
1220
1801
1827
1835
2210
2215
2222
2223
2225
2230
2245
2260
2265
2275
2401
2501
3430
3432
4240
4242
4243
4340
4341
4343
4370
4380
5433
5605
5608
8825
9999

GENERAL FUND
CITY EARNINGS TAX
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
SEWER SERVICE FEE
ACCRUED SICK & VAC PAY
STREET MAINTENANCE
STATE HIGHWAY
MAYORS COURT COMPUTER
DUI ENFORCEMENT
EPA BROWNSFIELD GRANT
Streets & Curbs
DRUG ENFORCEMENT
MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSE
ALCOHOL EDUCATION
MUNICIPAL ROAD
FEMA
COVID RELIEF FUND
GENERAL SINKING
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
STADIUM
FIRE/EMS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
POLICE & FIRE COMMUNICATIONS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
STADIUM TRACK IMPROVEMENT
GROWTH FUND
READING ROAD DEV
OPWC SCIP
WATER NOTE
WATER
WATER TRUST
SEWAGE DISP TRUST
Payroll Clearing Fund

Include Inactive Accounts: No
Beginning Bal.

Grand Total:

9/11/2026 2:36 PM

Page 1 of 1

MTD Increases MTD Decreases

$197,318.97
$7,222,607.29
$11,621.13
$683,377.80
$149,700.95
$744,197.45
$197,903.27
$2,242.57
$14,217.70
$77,818.78
$605,582.64
$75,090.78
$331,848.55
$12,715.28
$11,653.63
$186,572.00
$0.00
$5,102.95
$384.72
$245,047.76
$793,983.50
$0.00
$970,756.06
$273.85
$676,356.41
$494.70
$2,306.02
$728.23
$334,968.42
$142,909.16
$1,463,850.69
$61,760.59

$2,168,996.52
$672,320.62
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$73,535.65
$5,962.35
$1,178.00
$40.00
$0.00
$0.00
$166.00
$7,577.25
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$37,091.14
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$218,282.29
$13.18
$255,833.79
$620,142.13

$15,223,391.85

$4,061,138.92

$816,594.23
$2,033,443.74
$0.00
$0.00
$84,571.20
$68,180.69
$0.00
$229.87
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,651.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,190.75
$0.00
$1,600.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$170,244.71
$6,017.68
$221,078.60
$625,966.18

Ending Bal.
$1,549,721.26
$5,861,484.17
$11,621.13
$683,377.80
$65,129.75
$749,552.41
$203,865.62
$3,190.70
$14,257.70
$77,818.78
$605,582.64
$72,605.78
$339,425.80
$12,715.28
$11,653.63
$186,572.00
$0.00
$5,102.95
$384.72
$245,047.76
$828,883.89
$0.00
$969,156.06
$273.85
$676,356.41
$494.70
$2,306.02
$728.23
$383,006.00
$136,904.66
$1,498,605.88
$55,936.54

$4,032,768.65 $15,251,762.12

V.3.5