Mayor Esther E. Manheimer, Presiding; Vice-Mayor S. Antanette Mosley (via speaker phone); Councilman Bo Hess; Councilwoman Kim Roney; Councilwoman Sage Turner; Councilwoman Maggie Ullman; City Manager DK Wesley; City Attorney Brad Branham; and City Clerk Magdalen Burleson
City Council held an agenda briefing worksession to discuss the upcoming and future agenda items. In addition, City Council reviewed upcoming City Council committees that will be taking place during the next two weeks.
At 12:17 p.m., Councilman Hess moved to go into closed session for the following reasons: (1) To prevent disclosure of information that is privileged and confidential, pursuant to the laws of North Carolina, or not considered a public record within the meaning of Chapter 132 of the General Statutes. The statutory authorization is contained in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-318.11(a)(1). The laws that make the information privileged and confidential are N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-318.10(e); and (2) To consider the qualifications, competence, performance, character, fitness, conditions of appointment, or conditions of initial employment of an individual public officer or employee or prospective public officer or employee. The statutory authorization is contained in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-318.11(a)(6). This motion was seconded by Councilwoman Ullman and carried unanimously.
At 3:35 p..m., Councilwoman Turner moved to come out of closed session. This motion was seconded by Councilwoman Ullman carried unanimously..
At 3:35 p.m., Mayor Manheimer adjourned the agenda briefing worksession.
Mayor Esther E. Manheimer, Presiding; Vice-Mayor S. Antanette Mosley; Councilman Bo Hess; Councilwoman Kim Roney; Councilwoman Sheneika Smith; Councilwoman Sage Turner; Councilwoman Maggie Ullman; City Manager DK Wesley; City Attorney Brad Branham; and City Clerk Magdalen Burleson
Mayor Manheimer led City Council in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mayor Manheimer read a statement regarding Chamber decorum.
Mayor Manheimer read the proclamation proclaiming September, 2026, as "Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month " in the City of Asheville. She presented the proclamation to Debbie Robbins, 19-year ovarian cancer survivor and the Vice Chair of the National Ovarian Cancer Coalition, and others, who thanked City Council for this recognition.
C. Resolution Number 26-163 - Resolution authorizing the City Manager to renew an Event Support Grant Agreement with the Asheville Area Arts Council for calendar years 2027, 2028 and 2029, to reimburse cultural and arts-related non-profit events for certain fees and charges - Resolution Book No. 46 - Page 434
D. Resolution Number 26-164 - Resolution authorizing the City Manager to amend the contract with Fiserv (ByPass Mobile) for two additional years of license and software support at Harrah’s Cherokee Center - Asheville - Resolution Book No. 6 - Page 435
E. Resolution Number 26-165 - Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the 2026- 2027 Buncombe County Funding Agreement for the allocation of funds to support the City of Asheville Leadership Academy program - Resolution Book No. 46 - Page 436
F. Resolution Number 26-166 - Resolution authorizing the City Manager to accept the U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development Continuum of Care funding for Fiscal Year 2025 - Resolution Book No. 46 - Page 437
Resolution Number 26-167 - Resolution authorizing the City Manager to ratify the Youth Homelessness Systems Improvement application and accept any funds awarded - Resolution Book No. 46 - Page 438
Ordinance Number 5249- Budget Amendment for the Fiscal Year 2025 Continuum of Care Program - Ordinance Book No. 37 - Page 84
G. Resolution Number 26-168 - Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute Memorandums of Agreement for internal projects for Community Development Block Grant - Disaster Recovery planning and infrastructure funding. - Resolution Book No. 46 - Page 439
H. Ordinance Number 5250- Ordinance amending Sections 2-226 through 2-230 of the Code of Ordinances regarding the Grievance Procedure to align with NC Statute Section 8(b); and to adopt an administrative grievance policy & process that aligns with the ordinance and provides clear, easy-to-understand guidance to employees - Ordinance Book No. 37 - Page 85
J. Resolution Number 26-170 - Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute (1) a contract amendment for the annual payment to Buncombe County for the Public Safety Interoperability System local agreement; (2) a contract amendment for the annual payment to Buncombe County for the Centralized Data Entry interlocal agreement; and (3) a contract amendment for the annual payments to Buncombe County for the County Identification Bureau interlocal agreement. - Resolution Book No. 46 - Page 443
K. Resolution Number 26-171 - Resolution ratifying the agreement for automatic aid service with Reems Creek Fire Department - Resolution Book No. 46 - Page 444
L. Resolution Number 26-172 - Resolution adopting the Buncombe-Madison Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan - Resolution Book No. 46 - Page 445
M. Ordinance Number 5251- Budget amendment, in the amount of $15,000, from Duke Energy for the purchase of forest fire protection shelters - Ordinance Book No. 37 - Page 91
N. Resolution Number 26-173 - Resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into an agreement with the Town of Black Mountain wherein they support funding for Route 170 in Fiscal Year 2027- Resolution Book No. 46 - Page 447
O. Resolution Number 26-174 - Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a planning and conceptual design contract with HR&A for the Asheville Rides Transit Place Project at 50 Asheland Avenue - Resolution Book No. 46 - Page 448
P. Resolution Number 26-175 - Resolution authorizing the City Manager to amend the existing paratransit contract with Buncombe County to reflect an increase in funding for Fiscal Year 2026 and to sign all documents necessary to effect this amendment - Resolution Book No. 46 - Page 449
Q. Resolution Number 26-176 - Resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into a contract with Buncombe County for Americans with Disabilities Paratransit Services for Fiscal Year 2027 - Resolution Book No. 46 - Page 450
S. Resolution Number 26-177 - Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract amendment with Walker Consultants for additional professional services related to the capital repairs at the Harrah’s Cherokee Center Asheville and Biltmore Avenue parking garages - Resolution Book No. 46 - Page 451
T. Resolution Number 26-178 - Resolution authorizing the City Manager to accept the U.S. Dept. of Justice 2025 Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant and authorize the City Manager to execute all documents associated with the grant - Resolution Book No. 46 - Page 452
Ordinance Number 5253 - Budget amendment in the City’s Special Revenue Fund in the amount of $80,898 to accept U.S. Dept. of Justice 2025 Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant - Ordinance Book No. 37 - Page 93
U. Resolution Number 26-179 - Resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit an application for funding from the N.C. Dept. of Environmental Quality Division of Waste Management Debris Recovery & Disposal Grant Program; to accept said grant funds if awarded; and enter into any agreement documents necessary for such acceptance - Resolution Book No. 46 - Page 453
V. Monthly municipal property tax refunds or releases per North Carolina General Statute section 105-381
Mayor Manheimer asked for public comments on any item on the Consent Agenda, but received none.
Councilwoman Turner moved for the adoption of the Consent Agenda. This motion was seconded by Councilwoman Ullman and carried unanimously.
City Manager Wesley said that we are excited to announce that Alana York has joined the City of Asheville as a Lead for North Carolina (LFNC) Fellow through the UNC School of Government, with support from AmeriCorps! Lead for North Carolina is the largest university-based local government training, advisory, and research organization in the United States. The program recruits, trains, and places promising recent college graduates in paid local government fellowships to strengthen public institutions, support local communities, and cultivate a new generation of public service leaders. A graduate of UNC-Chapel Hill with a degree in Management and Society and a minor in Health and Society, Alana brings a deep passion for public service, community well-being, and positive local impact. Her work is guided by the core belief that every resident should feel a true sense of belonging and have equal access to the resources needed to thrive. During her yearlong fellowship with the City, Alana will lend her talents to several high-impact initiatives that shape Asheville’s future, including: The City’s 5-Year Strategic Plan; The annual municipal budget process; and Key planning and policy projects supporting our community.
On behalf of City Council, Mayor Manheimer welcomed Alana.
Manager’s Report - Azalea Parks & Infrastructure Project
Parks & Recreation Director D. Tyrell McGirt introduced Michael Miller, RLA, Partner - The Olin Studio. He said the project background is that Tropical Storm Helene caused significant damage across Asheville and to Recreation Park, Azalea Park, Azalea Road East, and the Gashes Creek Bridge in September 2024, flooding areas of the park and rendering many facilities unusable. In October 2025, City Council engaged OLIN, with a supporting team of design and engineering specialists, to identify design solutions for restoring Azalea and Recreation Parks, as well as Azalea Road and sections of the Swannanoa River. The work focuses on recovery and resiliency for these parks and infrastructure facilities and shaping concepts that align with Asheville’s needs and priorities. He then reviewed the current milestones, with public engagement in the fall of 2026. He described the public feedback priorities. He then went through an overview of concept alternatives.
The Azalea Parks and Infrastructure Recovery concept design focuses on the following priorities: (1) repositioning, restoring, and enhancing damaged facilities; (2) increasing connectivity; (3) strengthening nature and ecology as the site’s backbone; and (4) resiliency throughout. He then reviewed the available funding streams - Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP); Public Assistance Program (PA); state funding - N.C. Office of State Budget and Management; and (4) Community Development Block Grant - Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR). Other known funding is CDBG-R; and PARTF Grant.
He reviewed the overall site plan, along with precedent images, and concept drawings of Recreation Park, JBL Soccer Complex, Riverbend, and Azalea Pond
Mr. Miller then reviewed the Lake Craig Dam removal and rebuilding of Gashes Creek Bridge. He noted that the structure at Gashes Creek was constructed in 1924 to serve a dual purpose as both a hydroelectric dam and recreational lake and a bridge. In 1952, the hydroelectric operations were decommissioned, and the structure was modified to function purely as a pass-through weir supporting the bridge infrastructure. It did not serve a flood control purpose. He said that extensive hydrological modeling and data collection confirms that removing the structure will have no impact on Biltmore Village, and no impact to any downstream structures.
Regarding the benefits of the Lake Craig Dam removal, the existing Lake Craig Dam did not serve a flood control purpose. The structure did not protect the area from flood events and rebuilding it would offer zero functional benefit to the community. Extensive hydrological modeling and data collection confirm that removing this obsolete structure will not introduce flooding to any new properties, nor will its absence compromise community safety. Restoring the natural flow of the river also improves river safety for paddlers and water users, promotes natural mountain waterway ecology and aquatic life, and enhances accessibility and future recreation opportunities. The following will benefit from the removal of the Lake Craig dam (1) the environment (a) restoration of the river and its ecology; and (b) benefits aquatic life; (2) community and recreational users - enhanced river safety, accessibility, and recreation opportunities; (3) specific property owners - reduced potential flood potential for some upstream property owners; and (4) Asheville taxpayers and the City (a) elimination of long-term maintenance; and (b) lowers municipal safety liability.
He then provided the schedule of next steps, being the fall of 2026 of public engagement; October of 2026 with 45% design submission; and January of 2027 with 60% design submission.
Mr. Miller responded to various questions/comments from Council, some being, but are not limited to: need help to understand the benefits of wetlands and riparian buffers; confirmation that boating and tubing access points are being considered; and confirmation that the design does not include an indoor pool facility; however, if funds become available, the plan would be adaptable at this stage, but there will be parking demands that would have to be addressed.
A. Public hearing to rezone 23 Heritage Drive from RM-16 Residential Multi-Family High Density District to Highway Business District
Ordinance Number 5354- Ordinance to rezone 23 Heritage Drive from RM-16 Residential Multi-Family High Density District to Highway Business District - Ordinance Book No. 37 - Page 94
Planner Clay Mitchell said that this is the consideration of an ordinance to rezone 23 Heritage Drive from RM-16 Residential Multi-Family High Density District to Highway Business District. This public hearing was advertised on August 14 and 21, 2026.
From Staff Report:
Project Location and Contacts:
Living Asheville Comprehensive Plan (2018)
UDO District Comparison:
UDO Provision | Residential Multi-Family High Density (RM-16) - Existing | Highway Business (HB) - Proposed |
Allowed uses: |
|
|
Density: | 2 units for first 2,500 SF lot area and an additional unit for each additional 1,000 SF of lot area | None. |
Lot Size Minimum: | Min. 2,500 s.f. | None. |
Lot Width Minimum: | Min. 40’ | Min. 100’ |
Building Height: | Max. 40’ | Max. 60’ |
Building Setbacks: | Front: 15’, Side: 6’ min, Rear: 15’ min | Front: 35’, Side: 0’ min, Rear: 10’ min |
Landscape Buffer | None. | 20’-wide Type A buffer adjacent to Residential Multi-Family Zoning. |
Mr. Mitchell reviewed the existing and proposed zoning, the aerial imagery and the future land use map. He briefly reviewed the zoning district comparison chart.
He then explained how the project was consistent with the Living Asheville Comprehensive Plan. The Planning & Zoning Commission voted unanimously to approve the rezoning. He said that staff concurs with the Planning & Zoning Commission and recommends approval of the rezoning.
Mayor Manheimer opened the public hearing at 5:34 p.m., and when no one spoke, she closed the public hearing at 5:34 p.m.
Councilwoman Turner moved to approve the rezoning request for a portion of the property located at 23 Heritage Dr from from Residential Multi-Family High Density (RM-16) to Highway Business (HB) and find that the request is reasonable, is in the public interest, is consistent with the city’s comprehensive plan and meets the development needs of the community in that the request: 1) Ensures that new development has the appropriate infrastructure to support it; and, 2) Establishes accessible and well-connected commercial nodes consistent with strategies outlined in the plan’s growth areas. This motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Mosley and carried unanimously.
B. Public hearings to consider an amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance to permit duplexes as an allowed primary use in all residential and certain mixed-use zoning districts; increase the maximum allowed size of accessory dwelling units, and eliminate off-street parking requirements
All three public hearings were advertised on August 14 and 21, 2026.
Mayor Manheimer said that these three Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) amendments will be combined into one public hearing; however, a separate vote will be taken on each ordinance.
Ordinance Number 5255- Ordinance amending the Unified Development Ordinance to permit duplexes as an allowed primary use in all residential and certain mixed-use zoning districts - Ordinance Book No. 37 - Page 97
From staff report:
Living Asheville Comprehensive Plan (2018)
Missing Middle Housing Study (2023)
This proposal supports the following:
Ordinance Number 5256 - Ordinance amending the Unified Development Ordinance to increase the maximum allowed size of accessory dwelling units - Ordinance Book No. 37 - Page 106
From staff report:
Living Asheville Comprehensive Plan (2018)
This proposal supports the following:
Ordinance Number 5257- Ordinance amending the Unified Development Ordinance to eliminate off-street parking requirements - Ordinance Book No. 37 - Page 118
From staff report:
Living Asheville Comprehensive Plan (2018)
This proposal supports the following:
Interim Director of Planning & Urban Design Chris Collins said that his presentation will be on three housing focused text amendments: (1) Duplex Allowance Expansion - Allow duplexes in more districts, create ownership opportunities for some configurations; (2) Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) updates - Allow larger ADU’s, eliminate parking requirements; and (3) Minimum Parking Requirements Updates - Eliminate minimum requirements and retain yet simplify maximum requirements.
Regarding the duplex allowance expansion, he reviewed the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) definition, noting that this amendment would allow duplexes in all residential zoning districts and some mixed-use districts (such as those in the River Arts Form District) where they are not currently allowed. He explained the current zoning allowances, with the proposed zoning allowances, and the impacts of the amendment. He then explained the duplex ownership opportunities. The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval on a 6-1 vote. The Planning & Zoning Commission added (1) remove the existing provision restricting the maximum townhome cluster size to 4 units in the RM-6 zoning district; and (2) remove the existing provision requiring townhomes to provide parking to the rear of the building unless a garage is provided.
Regarding the ADU updates, he reviewed the UDO definition. The update would be to (1) increase the maximum allowed size of an ADU to 1,000 square feet; (2) change to requirement for the ADU to be a maximum of 70% of primary residence size to be simply smaller than the primary residence; (3) eliminate off-street parking requirements for ADU’s; and (4) allow one ADU on a lot containing a duplex. He then reviewed the chart of the current UDO requirement, the proposed UDO requirement, and the summary of change. The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval on a 6-1 vote. The Planning & Zoning Commission changed the proposed staff text restricting ADU’s to 90% of the primary residence size to “smaller than the primary residence.”
Regarding minimum parking standards, he said the UDO purpose is to provide for safe and adequate space for the temporary storage of vehicles. He said (1) recent state legislation has removed a local government’s ability to require a minimum number of parking spaces; (2) this amendment is required to bring the City’s regulations into compliance with state law; (3) Maximum parking allowances are maintained but simplified; and (4) Minimum bicycle parking standards remain in place. He then reviewed the chart of the current UDO requirement, the proposed UDO requirement, and the summary of change. He reviewed the parking standards update; the parking-tracking recent impacts; and the parking compliance with state standards. The Planning & Zoning Commission unanimously recommended approval, with no changes.
The main points of these housing focused amendments are (1) the three proposed amendments propose to add flexibility in housing types, size and site planning; (2) The three proposed amendments are all supported by the Comprehensive Plan, Missing Middle Housing Study and Affordable Housing Plan; and (3) Minimum Parking Provisions must be updated to comply with NC State Law.
Mr. Collins responded to various questions/comments from Council, some being, but are not limited to: what happens if the duplex amendment does not move forward; and can an ADU be a duplex.
Mayor Manheimer opened the combined public hearing at 6:01 p.m.
Seventeen individuals spoke in support of all three UDO amendments.
Mayor Manheimer closed the combined public hearing at 6:41 p.m.
Regarding the duplex amendment, Councilwoman Ullman moved to approve the proposed wording amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), Chapter 7 of the Asheville Code of Ordinances, and find that the proposed amendments are reasonable, are in the public interest, are consistent with the City's comprehensive plan and meet the development needs of the community in that the amendments will: 1) Promote zoning policies to encourage more housing; 2) Implement one of the suggested anti-displacement housing supply strategies identified in the Missing Middle Housing Study; and 3) Promote small-scale residential units on residential lots to encourage neighborhood compatibility and create flexibility within the planning, permitting, and construction process. This motion was seconded by Councilwoman Roney and carried unanimously.
Discussion occurred when Councilwoman Turner suggested that since the increase the maximum allowed size of an ADU is now 1,000 square feet (not 1,200 as staff recommended), she felt we should not have the hard cap of 25’ in height but to continue the current provision that the maximum height can increase by one foot for every additional foot of setback provided from the minimum.
Vice-Mayor Mosley felt that the current maximum allowed size of an ADU is 800 square feet and this amendment would increase it to 1,000 square feet. She felt that a person is getting more space without the ability to build as high. She was also concerned that black neighborhoods put their trust in us because we were serious about protection; and after we came to a middle ground with them (and part of that consideration had to do with height) we are now eroding their trust. She could not support Councilwoman Turner’s suggestion.
Councilwoman Smith agreed with Vice-Mayor Mosley and felt we can revisit this conversation at a later date.
Councilman Hess respected the community and hoped we can all support the ADU amendment as proposed by staff.
Regarding the ADU amendment, Councilwoman Roney moved to approve the proposed wording amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), Chapter 7 of the Asheville Code of Ordinances, and find that the proposed amendments are reasonable, are in the public interest, are consistent with the City's comprehensive plan and meet the development needs of the community in that the amendments will: 1) Promote zoning policies to encourage more housing; and 2) Promote small-scale residential units on residential lots with limits aimed at encouraging compatibility and creating flexibility within the planning, permitting, and construction process. This motion was seconded by Councilwoman Ullman and carried unanimously.
Regarding the parking amendment, Councilwoman Ullman moved to approve the proposed wording amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), Chapter 7 of the Asheville Code of Ordinances, and find that the proposed amendments are reasonable, are in the public interest, promote compliance with NC state statutes, and are consistent with the City's comprehensive plan in that the request: 1) promotes zoning policies to give more opportunities for housing, and 2) promotes flexibility for builders and developers to self-select the amount of land necessary for off-street parking. This motion was seconded by Councilwoman Turner and carried unanimously.
A. Resolution Number 26-180 - Resolution calling for the City of Asheville’s Manager to terminate the City’s contract with Flock - Resolution Book No. 46 - Page 454
Mayor Manheimer said that the City’s charter prohibits City Council directing the Asheville Police Department (APD) on how to do their job, but City Council appoints the City Manager and that is why the City Manager has been directed to terminate the Flock contract. The City has 11 Flock stationary automated licence plate readers (LPRs). This resolution calls for the termination of that contract. The City also has other technologies used by the APD and the Fire Department. Those include Axon dashcams in APD cars and body cameras. In addition, there are other entities, (i.e., Housing Authority, Buncombe County schools, Asheville City schools), and individuals that have LPRs and we don’t have the authority to do anything with them. We can only control our 11.
Mayor Manheimer then read the proposed resolution: “Resolution Calling For The City Of Asheville's Manager To Terminate The City’s Contract With Flock. Whereas, the City of Asheville operates eleven (11) automated license plate readers utilizing technology provided by Flock Safety ("Flock Technology") pursuant to a contract with Flock Safety; and Whereas, Flock Technology captures and stores information concerning vehicles
traveling on public roadways and may permit that information to be searched, analyzed, or shared for law-enforcement purposes; and Whereas, the Asheville City Council recognizes that technology can be an important tool for investigating serious crimes and protecting public safety, but also recognizes the legitimate concerns raised by residents regarding privacy, data retention, data sharing, government surveillance, and access to information collected by Flock Technology; and Whereas, City Council believes that the use of such technology should occur only pursuant to clear policies that appropriately balance legitimate public-safety needs with individual privacy and civil liberties and provide adequate transparency, oversight, and accountability; and Whereas, City Council desires additional opportunity to evaluate the City's use of Flock Technology, including the circumstances under which Flock Technology data may be collected, retained, searched, accessed, or shared with other governmental or law-enforcement agencies;
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Asheville that: Section 1. Flock Contract Termination. Effective immediately upon adoption of this Resolution, the City Council of the City of Asheville directs the City Manager to terminate the City’s contract with Flock Safety and pursuant to the contract terms, immediately request that Flock remove their hardware from the City of Asheville. Section 2. Suspension of Access and Data Sharing. Further, the City Manager shall ensure that City employees do not access, search, query, analyze, or share data collected through the City's Flock Technology. Section 3. Existing Data. Existing data shall be retained, preserved, or deleted in accordance with applicable law, City records-retention requirements, and any applicable legal preservation obligations. No existing data shall be affirmatively shared or queried. Section 4. Facial Recognition Prohibited. The City of Asheville does not utilize any facial recognition technology. And, no data collected through the City's Flock Technology shall be linked, matched, or cross-referenced with any facial recognition technology or database operated by any non-City organization. Section 5. Review. The City Manager is further directed to review the City's use of Flock Technology and provide City Council with information and policy recommendations concerning, at a minimum: (1) the categories of investigations for which Flock Technology may appropriately be
used in the future; (2) appropriate restrictions on searches and access to Flock collected data; (3) Flock data retention and deletion; (4) sharing of Flock data with federal, state, local, and out-of-state law-enforcement agencies or other third parties; (5) include an independent civil-liberties policy reviewer with relevant experience advising North Carolina municipalities; (6) auditing and documentation of searches and access; (7) protection of information relating to immigration enforcement, reproductive
healthcare, First Amendment-protected activity, and other sensitive activities to the
maximum extent permitted by law; (8) transparency and public reporting regarding the City's use of Flock Technology; (9) mechanisms for oversight and accountability, including consequences for unauthorized use; and (10) whether the City should resume use of Flock Technology and, if so, what policies and safeguards should be adopted before such use resumes. Section 6. No Expansion During Review. During the review described above, the City shall not purchase, lease, activate, or deploy Flock Technology or enter into a new agreement for Flock Technology. Section 7. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.”
Councilwoman Roney said that in her conversation with elected officials across North Carolina about why they have resisted Flock’s sales pitch or cancelled their contract, there was a common story about data vulnerability and the importance of maintaining public trust in their first responders and public safety services. “I have similar concerns after a second tour of the City’s Real Time Crime Center and Flock system today with law enforcement professionals and regional subject matter experts in surveillance system security. Thanks to Chief Stepp and staff for making time today. I have forwarded a report to staff and Council and urgently recommend review for potential breach of Flock’s contract, especially today’s support from subject matter experts was declined. I understand a representative from the ACLU will be part of future technology review processes for the City’s public safety services. That’s something I’ve requested and I’m grateful to see it promised. Transparency is an ingredient in the recipe for public trust. I appreciate contracts being uploaded to the new Technology dashboard and request to proactively add Axon’s detailed purchasing lists if other NC cities have also published.”
When Councilwoman Roney asked if staff has a plan to cover the Flock cameras while waiting for the company to retrieve them to prevent their continued use without our consent, City Manager Wesley said that we weren’t currently intending to, but that we will evaluate that as an option.
Councilwoman Roney requested on the record that Council get a follow up notice when all Flock data has been deleted in accordance with applicable law as noted in Section 3 of the resolution. City Manager Wesley responded that we have a records retention policy for the data to be deleted if it is not part of a case, at a certain time period, but we will notify Council when Section 3 has been deleted.
In response to Councilman Hess, Interim Chief Jackie Stepp said that we do have a records retention schedule and Flock is currently 21 days and anything beyond 21 days will be automatically purged. We can no longer access it. It is gone. Anything that is an active case investigation has been uploaded into evidence.com and is no longer stored in the Flock platform, but is now part of our evidence.com and falls on the records retention schedule which is based on statutory requirements.
Councilwoman Roney said that “cancelling the Flock contract is an important first step. I appreciate that my colleagues are now joining me in considering the outcry of our community to protect our Constitutional rights and safety. Automated license plate readers are designed for warrantless searches, are vulnerable to cybersecurity breaches, collect data that we can’t promise won’t be used by ICE or DHS, and are in a growing number of headlines about misuses including stalking. This resolution claims to terminate the contract with Flock, yet multiple times mentions returning to use of Flock in the future. Additionally, the people of Asheville are not confused: shifting from Flock to another for-profit surveillance system still carries the same fundamental concerns. At the same time, families in our city are mourning loved ones lost to gun violence and we talk about youth programming and violence interruption while our strategic partnership fund is still cut to zero. I know that we care about our youth more than $0 but our budget reads $0. Everyone in our community deserves to be safe. True safety is realized when communities invest in data-driven solutions and relational responses built on accountability and trust. I’ll continue to work with our Council and for our community to deliver real results. As part of that commitment: I move to adopt the resolution instructing the City manager to terminate the City’s contract with Flock.”
Councilwoman Turner seconded the motion made by Councilwoman Roney. She appreciated what Councilwoman Roney said, but there is part that she has conflict with. Councilwoman Roney said that we are now joining with her to cancel Flock. However, six of the Council already voted to terminate Flock and this is an additional movement to speed up the process.
Vice-Mayor Mosley said that Ella Santos, Chief Executive Officer of the Housing Authority of the City of Asheville emailed her and requested that she read a part of her email. “I want to make sure the voices of the Housing Authority’s residents are represented in the ongoing conversation around public safety, particularly because many of the residents most impacted by crime would not feel comfortable coming before City Council to speak publicly. Their absence at City Council meetings should not be mistaken for silence, and their silence should not be mistaken for a lack of support for stronger safety measures. What residents are telling us directly is clear: they want safer communities, they want cameras. They want more security, not less. They want police presence in their communities. They want criminal activity addressed, and they want law enforcement to have the technology and tools necessary to do their jobs effectively. Residents have shared that they are afraid of retaliation and, in some cases, afraid to report what they see happening around them. That fear also makes it difficult for some to stand publicly and advocate for the very protections they are asking us to put in place. We hear from residents who want to be able to sit outside without worrying about criminal activity around them. Parents want their children to be able to play outside safely. Seniors want to feel secure walking through their communities. Families want cameras and other security measures that can help deter crime and provide accountability when incidents occur.”
Twenty-four individuals spoke in support of terminating the City’s contract with Flock and
to pause all automated license plate reader use and equipment purchases - every
vendor, fixed and fleet-mounted cameras alike - while the City revisits, with genuine
public input, community-suggested independent experts, and balanced public hearings,
whether this technology is the right fit for our community.
Two individuals spoke in opposition of terminating the City’s contract with Flock
because it would eliminate a tool that can assist law enforcement in responding to public
safety challenges.
Vice-Mayor Mosley said : “I want to be clear that I have concerns about Flock. I
have concerns about privacy, data sharing, civil liberties, and accountability. Those
concerns are not new for me. Long before I served on this Council, I had the privilege of
representing Johnnie Rush alongside my friend and mentor, the late attorney James
Ferguson. I know why safeguards, transparency, and police accountability matter. I also
want to acknowledge the APD of today. I am grateful for the work our officers are doing,
particularly in their partnership with the Housing Authority and its residents. As Council's
liaison to the Housing Authority, I have a responsibility to listen to residents who may
never come to this microphone. Some are afraid to speak publicly because they fear
retaliation. Their absence from this room should not be mistaken for silence. And I need
to say something else plainly: this feels political to me. We are in the middle of an
election season, and I am uncomfortable making public policy, particularly public-safety
policy, in a way that feels driven by the politics of the moment. Civil liberties and public
safety are not competing values. Protecting people from government overreach and
protecting people from violence are both responsibilities of government. And good
governance should not be about who gets credit for taking the strongest or most visible
position. My job is not to participate in political theater. My job is to govern. I support
strong civil-liberties protections and meaningful oversight. I support carefully regulated
public-safety tools when they are effective, necessary, and accompanied by meaningful
safeguards and accountability. I can hold all of those positions at the same time. And to
be clear: this resolution may terminate a contract, but it does not resolve the larger issue
before us. The questions about ALPR technology, privacy, surveillance, and public safety
will still be here tomorrow. And because I believe this decision should be grounded in
principle rather than politics, I cannot support this resolution in its current form tonight.”
Councilwoman Smith said that she has been listening to this conversation for some time and she has heard a lot of different views from a lot of different people. So, when she read the language of the resolution, she feels the sentiment in the room. It seems to her that the language is only to cancel, remove, evaluate, and review. But what else? What do we do for people who feel vulnerable, who feel threatened, not about privacy, but about being attacked or whatever the criminal matter could be. She has not heard anyone come with the replacement. What do we do in the meantime? What do we do next? It seems like we're going home with the victory and feeling more. And thank you, Mr. Risner for your presentation. What she would like to know is what happens next. Do you all care what happens next when it comes to safety? Because tonight she has heard privacy over conviction, privacy over safety, and privacy over justice. So if the conversation was balanced, then she’d be able to support this. But she hasn’t really heard strong advocacy for public safety, even community-led safety. So she’ll be voting no.
Councilwoman Turner said that she will be supporting this tonight, but with some of what my colleagues are saying in mind because this exploration for her needs to cover that. It needs to cover the missing component. We talked about housing earlier. When we talk about housing, we often say we're trying to build housing for people not in the room. They don't have a voice yet. Everything we do, when it was transit, we're trying to get people on the bus that can't get to the bus. Right now it's similar. We're trying to protect people that are victims of crime that are not getting the solve rates and the response that they need. It's multiple layers. She needs solutions for crime. She needs support for our police department. We are working together better than ever and she appreciates them and she knows this is a very difficult situation for them. Everyone is trying to do the best they can to keep this city safe. She has great respect for privacy, civil rights, all of it. We have to figure this out together. It's not surprising to her that there's a big push back in the community. There's a lot of push back in a lot of communities because so many are trying to figure it out. It's moving fast. She really hopes this evaluation period comes back with not just detraction, but also solutions.
Councilman Hess said that his colleagues bring up a good point. “It is election season and this really does play into the tech billionaire's wishes for us to infight among progressives. But I think if what folks describe were accurate, I think we'd all be against this. But this isn't mass surveillance. We're not using artificial intelligence. If ICE comes into our community, how are we going to hold them accountable if we don't have cameras? I have heard from black, brown, trans, working class folks, not all of us are 6 foot 2 and 170 lbs and can afford to have violent attackers out there in the community be held unaccountable. Some of us are women, some of us are elderly, some of us are LGBTQ, some of us are part of these populations that you claim to speak for, which you don't. We're also not talking about ICE. We're not talking about the IDF. We're not talking about Georgia. We're not talking about Texas. We're talking about our Asheville Police Department in Asheville, North Carolina, that is accredited to the highest standards that I wish more people would actually take the time to get to learn their police department. Also, could you imagine going to some sort of sales pitch and saying, "I have 40% error rates." You know, we do have 5% error rates on these license plate readers, but our APD policy says that we have to double check, triple check. And that's why it's important to understand the facts and errors that are human errors when I did the comparison were much larger than these ALPRs. Public safety and civil liberties, as the Vice Mayor said, are not opposing values. And I also refuse to govern as though we must choose between them. I will support ending Asheville's contract with Flock Safety because I do believe legitimate concerns have been raised about this company's national network, its data sharing practices, and whether Asheville itself can maintain sufficient control over our community's information. However, ending one vendor's contract is not the same as rejecting responsible technology. And I will not personally allow this decision to become a backdoor to weakening or defunding the Asheville Police Department. That doesn't make any sense that we would tie the hands of our own local police department while everybody else, including criminals, have access to this. They serve legitimate public safety purposes. They can help locate stolen vehicles, find missing and endangered people, develop leads after shootings, as they have recently done. I'd like to remind my folks who apparently live in neighborhoods where they don't need police, and I would love to live in that neighborhood. Please let me know where that is. But we had a lady that was held hostage in a downtown store and then ran in a FedEx truck. Guess how we were able to track them within minutes. We had a lady that was attacked in Bent Creek and guess how we were able to track and identify that person and hold that person accountable. We had a mass shooting in downtown Asheville where innocent people were murdered and more people were injured. And guess how we developed leads by this technology? Yes. As you said, our job is to protect. Our number one job as local government is to protect the public and I plan on doing that and I plan on allowing our law enforcement to have every single tool at their disposal. Now these do require strong enforceable safeguards, restricted access, which we have, documented investigative purposes, which we have, short retention periods, which we have, controlled data sharing, which we have, and even tightened up more, regular audits, which we have, transparency, and real consequences for misconduct, which we have. And the public has been clear about that, and we support that. I support that. However, I'm also not going to accept the argument that our police, our law enforcement guys, the people who we are going to call if we're scared, who I have literally as a gay Mexican person who is an elected official have entrusted with literally my life. I'm not gonna sit here and accept that these are the only people in our society that we cannot trust with technology. Those who commit serious crimes, they adapt. The threats confronting our community, they evolve. And we cannot expect our officers to respond to modern dangers while leaving them in the dark ages and trying to put them back into the 1990s. Strong oversight protects our residents and I do support bringing back the uh police oversight commission. That commission goes directly to the public safety committee which I chair and I think the more citizen involvement is best. However, I trust Chief Stepp's leadership and I trust the professionalism of the Asheville Police Department and I trust them to confront danger every day on behalf of this city. We have worked too hard, as Council Member Turner said, to strengthen public safety through improved retention, training, professionalism, accreditation, and accountability. And we're not reversing those gains now. We can demand accountability without abandoning our public safety goals. We can embrace effective technology without surrendering our constitutional rights. The people of Asheville deserve both and I will continue fighting for that.”
Councilwoman Roney said that she will be “sharing a resource that has been shared by Ben Jordan, who's here today, called the efficacy of flock ALPR systems. It analyzes data over a five-year period. I'm talking with elected officials across North Carolina. I'm talking with elected officials across the south in big cities, in small cities, and counties, and I have concerns about false positive alerts, about the homicide count shift, and about the clearance benchmarks. It has not been shown to me that the clearance rates and justice have been realized by Flock cameras going up in Asheville. That doesn't match. And I also am concerned about operational reliability. I'm seeing across the country that when technology is used to send first responders on wild goose chases, there's a real concern that they're not answering actual phone calls when people call for help. That is more clear to me than the clearance rates in Asheville being connected to the Flock cameras because we do need liberty and justice for all and we've committed to working on that. I certainly do. I think we need to look at some more of the numbers. I think the citizens police advisory committee can help. So I do support bringing that back and I'm glad to hear their support for that now on Council. I think we need to look at some more real numbers to understand that we're using the right tools. And from what I understand, the technology actually helps - it's like a force multiplier. “
Councilman Hess understood Councilwoman Roney’s concern of “wanting our public safety to respond effectively and faster. So when they have this technology where they are able to zero in instead of having a bunch of false leads, they can get a lead, maybe a tip, they can go and check, okay, does this track with whatever the technology is saying, and then they can focus on the person or people who were there instead of kind of what you were saying going on that wild goosechase. And that's exactly why uh we need this technology that quite frankly is decades old. . We've used this for years. I'm glad you brought that up so that we could clarify. “
Councilwoman Turner thanked the Asheville Police Department for not being one of those scary statistics, for maintaining this software since 2021 while we had it under our purview safely.
Councilwoman Smith said she could “get with the long game and let’s cancel the contract so that we can safeguard folks' privacy. But unlike any other moratorium or pause for review, the time of pause is life-threatening in a lot of situations. And I'm still not hearing from the Council who are advocates for public safety. What do we do in the meantime? This is not a regular pause, right? Like every second counts when it comes to the protection of life. So I haven't heard any resolutions. I haven't heard about replacements. I haven't heard about ideas. What do we do?”
Mayor Manheimer said that “this resolution only calls for the removal of the Flock system. And our Flock system is 11 cameras, 11 stationary license plate readers. They are placed primarily, I believe, in downtown. But there are a couple, as we've heard, in the River Arts District, or at least one. That’s what this calls for. Now, we have a contract with Axon, as you've heard, and they have already been providing a lot of services to the City, including dash cams, body cams, and other functions. This contract would allow for stationary license plate readers made by Axon to be placed in the City. They're placed on light poles. They're a little different, but what the Manager has talked about is that she's going to take this over. They can't just come in under the cover of darkness and put up these cameras. We would have to tell them to go ahead and do it. And so this gives us an opportunity for her to look at that and complete this review, look at whether our current policies cover this well enough, whether we need enhanced policies to deal with it, and whether we want to move forward with that aspect of the contract or not. Those will be the decisions that she's looking at. I can only rely on what we're told by people that work on these systems. I can listen to you all and what you all have to say. I listen to people who work in our police department and tell us about these systems. As I understand, the reason why nationally Flock is the major focus of this effort nationally is because Flock has an integrated national system where the data does not appear to be secured in a way that any one community can have assurance that their data is not being shared. Now, our police department is working with Axon currently, and Axon has what's called a closed system or what I'm calling a closed system. And I know some people believe that if any image is ever captured on a camera, it is never safe. It is never secured. And I understand that. But we have not had any issues as far as I know with Axon to date. But you know, as I've said before, this is fast-moving technology. I think one of the reasons Flock became so controversial is their system grew so vast that now everyone has access to this platform and all this data. So, the Axon system functions differently. I think we need to take a look at that. We've never had stationary Axon LPRs before, so as far as I know. That's something new that we need to look at. But I think the Manager's heard the concerns and she will work with the Chief to look at this and come back to us with information about it.”
Councilwoman Roney said that she “met with the outgoing Chief of the Alcoholic Beverage Control system. He explained to me how their closed camera system works. That it's secured and that a subpoena is required. But obviously that's a different setup than automated license plate readers that are tracking people who are law-abiding citizens just because they happen to be moving in a direction. What I also understand is that they very intentionally purchase the same cameras for our ABC system that the Housing Authority also has access to. If the Housing Authority also had a secure closed loop system, they could also present evidence when there's issues. It doesn't. We are choosing to use for-profit ALPRs from data brokers. That is not the only choice for our community. But that conversation hasn't been had and needs to be. We have volunteers here who have offered to help us with.”
In response to Councilwoman Ullman, Mayor Manheimer said we have a contract with Axon. It covers a lot of things. We do not have stationary Axon license plate readers. We have a contract where Axon will provide them if we tell them we want them. We need to wait and let the Manager do the research.
City Manager Wesley said that we will not put up any stationery Axon LPR cameras until the community conversation happens.
Councilwoman Ullman said that she has “cameras at my house to keep me safe after I had violence at my house that helps me sleep at night. We have had hit and runs. One of our public employees was hit by an F-150 and that person who committed a felony was able to be found. There's also negative examples that we see in the news, but it's just so nuanced. And so I just wanted to speak my heart that like this is so black and white feels so it doesn't feel true to me. This is super complex. It's evolving rapidly right now. and to throw out all the tools. Body cameras, y'all, we fought really hard for those for a long time. They're surveillance. It depends on what that word means, right? So, in the public or in social media or when we're reading press headlines and I know we all read all the fine print, right? No, the public narrative is that surveillance is terrible. That's what I hear tonight. And I just think it's way more nuanced than that. I think our job is to get into the complexity of it as a policy maker being black and white. Everything's good, everything's bad. I don't think that does service to our public. I am glad that we're having this conversation tonight. I will support getting rid of these Flock cameras. I'm glad to hear the Manager lay it straight that we're going to have a conversation before any other action would happen.”
The motion made by Councilwoman Roney and seconded by Councilwoman Turner carried on a 5-2 vote, with Vice-Mayor Mosley and Councilwoman Smith voting “no.”
Councilwoman Roney said that to be really clear and to provide instruction on a moratorium on the future purchase of the Axon cameras because it's in the existing contract and the agreement with the federal government regarding the grant, she moved to have a moratorium on the purchase of new ALPRs even though I know the City Manager has let us know they're not going to go up but the contract already exists.
City Attorney Branham said that since Councilwoman Roney’s motion sounds like it would be sufficiently different from anything on the agenda, Council would need to make a motion to add this item to the agenda before considering the motion.
Councilwoman Roney moved to add to this agenda a moratorium on the future purchase of new Axon ALPRs. Said motion died for lack of a second.
Several individuals spoke to City Council about various matters, some being, but are not limited to: request to make the Axon’s detailed price list available to the public;; comments regarding the Asheville Rides Transit Comprehensive Operations Analysis; request to have 11 Collier Avenue be a priority for a preservation site; and concern that there is no budget for strategic partnerships.
Mayor Manheimer adjourned the meeting at 9:37 p.m.
____________________________________
Esther E. Manheimer, Mayor
____________________________________
Magdalen Burleson, City Clerk
8-25-26 Page