TECHNOLOGY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Wednesday – September 10th, 2025 – 6:30PM City Hall – Boards and Commissions Room – Room 1101 301 W 2nd St., Austin, TX 78701 Some members of the BOARD/COMMISSION may be participating by videoconference. The meeting may be viewed online at: http://www.austintexas.gov/page/watch-atxn-live Public comment will be allowed in-person or remotely via telephone. Speakers may only register to speak on an item once either in-person or remotely and will be allowed up to three minutes to provide their comments. Registration no later than noon the day before the meeting is required for remote participation by telephone. To register to speak remotely, email Dan Martinez at dan.martinez@austintexas.gov. CURRENT BOARD MEMBERS/COMMISSIONERS: Steven Apodaca, Chair Keith Pena-Villa Suzanne Heritage Rachel Frock Nicholas Eastwood Milena Pribic Carina Alderete, Vice Chair Brian AM Williams Thomas Rice Benjamin Combee Ibiye Anga AGENDA CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL The first ten speakers who register to speak no later than noon the day before the meeting will be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the Technology Commission meeting on August 13th, 2025. DISCUSSION ITEMS 2. Hold a public hearing to solicit feedback from the public and community stakeholders regarding the usefulness and relevance of the Technology Commission stated purposes and duties and its success in fulfilling those purpose and duties. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS 3. Further discussion and updates to approved responses for the evaluation of the recommendations made and other actions taken by the Technology Commission throughout the year and how these reflected or achieved the commission’s directives, identify any overlaps in the role and work of the commission with other boards or commissions, identify policies or City needs that no current board or commission appears to address, evaluate the level of members’ and the community’s engagement, and identify potential bylaw amendments to improve or address any of the foregoing. 4. Approval of the artificial intelligence working group’s recommendation for establishing community input and technology commission review for sensitive technology contracts WORKING GROUP UPDATES 5. Public Surveillance working group updates on continued conversations with stakeholders and possible revaluation of group’s status (Keith Pena-Villa, Mayor’s Appointee, Technology Commission) 6. Artificial Intelligence Working Group updates on AI legislation at the municipal level and the status of the group’s recommendation (Brian AM Williams, District 1 Appointee, Technology Commission) 7. …
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TECHNOLOGY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION NUMBER: TBD Regarding: Recommendation for Establishing Community Input and Technology Commission Review for Sensitive Technology Contracts WHEREAS, the City of Austin has entered into contracts for technologies involving surveillance and artificial intelligence (AI), including but not limited to mobile security cameras and automated license plate readers, with significant implications for civil liberties, data privacy, and public trust; and WHEREAS, past contracts, such as the Parks and Recreation Department’s mobile surveillance trailer expansion and the Austin Police Department’s Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) agreement with Flock Safety, have revealed risks including unclear data retention practices, insufficient contract safeguards against unauthorized data sharing, and gaps in transparency and accountability; and WHEREAS, community stakeholders have expressed concerns that sensitive technology contracts have been approved without sufficient public engagement, proactive input from relevant commissions, or rigorous independent review of privacy, security, and ethical considerations; and WHEREAS, the Technology Commission is charged with advising City Council on issues of technology access, equity, and the ethical use of emerging technologies, including AI and surveillance systems; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Technology Commission recommends that the Austin City Council adopt a formal process to require: 1. Early Notification & Transparency – Public posting and notification to relevant commissions prior to Council consideration of any proposed contract involving surveillance technology, automated decision-making systems, artificial intelligence, or other sensitive data-driven technologies. 2. Commission Review & Recommendation – Formal referral of such proposed contracts to the Technology Commission (and, where appropriate, the Public Safety Commission or other relevant bodies) for review and recommendations to provide input to Council action. 3. Community Engagement – At least one public forum, listening session, or opportunity for stakeholder input before Council approval of sensitive technology contracts. 4. Contract Safeguards – Inclusion of clear provisions in contracts to ensure: ○ Clear, auditable, and reportable safety mechanisms to protect citizen data and metadata while in vendor custody, tools, systems, or storage, including vendor service providers / cloud providers ○ strict limitations on data retention and sharing, consistent with Council policy, ○ clear definitions of personally identifiable information (PII), ○ independent audit and reporting requirements, and ○ mechanisms for community oversight ○ ability to register complaints and misuse of AI technology ○ remuneration in the event of a breach, data loss, ransomware attack, or other circumstances of compromised data or security as related to citizen data or city data ○ …
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TECHNOLOGY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION NUMBER: 20250910-004 Regarding: Recommendation for Establishing Community Input and Technology Commission Review for Sensitive Technology Contracts WHEREAS, the City of Austin has entered into contracts for technologies involving surveillance and artificial intelligence (AI), including but not limited to mobile security cameras and automated license plate readers, with significant implications for civil liberties, data privacy, and public trust; and WHEREAS, past contracts, such as the Parks and Recreation Department’s mobile surveillance trailer expansion and the Austin Police Department’s Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) agreement with Flock Safety, have revealed risks including unclear data retention practices, insufficient contract safeguards against unauthorized data sharing, and gaps in transparency and accountability; and WHEREAS, community stakeholders have expressed concerns that sensitive technology contracts have been approved without sufficient public engagement, proactive input from relevant commissions, or rigorous independent review of privacy, security, and ethical considerations; and WHEREAS, the Technology Commission is charged with advising City Council on issues of technology access, equity, and the ethical use of emerging technologies, including AI and surveillance systems; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Technology Commission recommends that the Austin City Council adopt a formal process to require: 1. Early Notification & Transparency – Public posting and notification to relevant commissions prior to Council consideration of any proposed contract involving surveillance technology, automated decision-making systems, artificial intelligence, or other sensitive data-driven technologies. 2. Commission Review & Recommendation – Formal referral of such proposed contracts to the Technology Commission (and, where appropriate, the Public Safety Commission or other relevant bodies) for review and recommendations to provide input to Council action. 3. Community Engagement – At least one public forum, listening session, or opportunity for stakeholder input before Council approval of sensitive technology contracts. 4. Contract Safeguards – Inclusion of clear provisions in contracts to ensure: ○ Clear, auditable, and reportable safety mechanisms to protect citizen data and metadata while in vendor custody, tools, systems, or storage, including vendor service providers / cloud providers ○ strict limitations on data retention and sharing, consistent with Council policy, ○ clear definitions of personally identifiable information (PII), ○ independent audit and reporting requirements, and ○ mechanisms for community oversight ○ ability to register complaints and misuse of AI technology ○ remuneration in the event of a breach, data loss, ransomware attack, or other circumstances of compromised data or security as related to citizen data or city data ○ …
