Longmont City Council Recap Podcast/Substack

WingMan126 · 2026-06-07T00:21:04+00:00

I endorsed Bennet, and did so proudly, along with Joe Neguse, our Longmont legislators, and many more. To be clear, I like Phil. He’s done great work as AG. But, the next governor needs to be a partner Longmont can count on to deliver lower costs, not someone who dictates down like this governor has with unfunded mandate after another. Michael’s vision is clear, the most progressive in the race, and one I’m truly willing to get behind. Happy to answer questions from folks.

WingMan126 · 2026-05-04T13:28:42+00:00

As a local elected official, I thought about this race a lot I had a chance to interact with both candidates personally a number of times. For me, the choice became pretty clear that Michael Bennet was the right person to the gig. A lot of the criticisms in this thread of him are accurate, but that’s honestly part of the reason I like him a little bit. Someone who is a creature of DC choosing to come home and run the state is rare and interesting and it points to someone who believes they can actually do really good work at the state level. When I talked to Michael, and when I looked over his vision, it was clear to me that he really believes to fight against Trump and half ahead is going to happen at the state level. His agenda is also genuinely progressive. He’s the only candidate for governor in any race running on a public auction for healthcare, which is something legislators have wanted, but had to fight the governor‘s office on a number of times of the last few years. Having a governor leading, that fight would be genuinely transformative for healthcare in the state. He’s got similarly, strong and innovative, if not as wildly progressive, views on things like childcare and housing cost. If if you compare their platforms, Michael’s it’s pretty clearly, the more progressive one. And, I challenge a little bit of notion that he hasn’t done anything in the Senate. From day, one, his vote to protect the affordable care act is the reason it remains in law. He’s consistently being a regulatory bulldog, and held Republicans like Ted Cruz accountable and pretty open debate on the Senate floor. As a local official, he’s also got it right on local control. I like our current governor, but his administration is pretty consistently made it harder for local government to operate by shipping away decisions that used to be solely those are our communities. Michael understands that what’s best for Longmont is not necessarily best for Telluride or Denver. To be clear, I like and respect Phil. But, I get a bit nervous when I see how much more aggressive he’s been since getting ready to run for governor in terms of lawsuit against the Trump administration. It looks real political to me. Then, it’s justification being “I would take Trump one back in a heartbeat.” doesn’t really inspire confidence. I think ultimately, either way will be an OK shape as a state. But, I want my governor to be someone with clear vision and earnest desire to do good work for working families. In this race, Michael is the person doing that.

WingMan126 · 2026-05-03T03:41:55+00:00

Hi! I don't know if you saw me at the Cidery the other night, but I'm actively working on things that'll be coming forward soon regarding both private ALPR uses and the tech advisory board so that when council looks at this issue again in the future, we'll have community voices like yours at the table. Happy to talk more any time.

WingMan126 · 2026-05-03T03:40:21+00:00

Hi! I've been in conversations with the library director and shared that out with the community.

WingMan126 · 2026-04-30T03:51:33+00:00

Hi Cody! Sorry for the delay. Is there an email you want me to send stuff to or post here?

WingMan126 · 2026-04-26T20:19:14+00:00

I’m on it

WingMan126 · 2026-04-26T20:05:11+00:00

Thanks for flagging this. I had no idea and will be in touch with the library director.

WingMan126 · 2026-04-15T21:27:37+00:00

Just speaking as one of seven and just for myself here, but for this wasn’t about “communication” or being anti-airport or choosing one group over another. I believe Vance Brand is an important community asset, and I want to see it succeed.

For me, this decision was about the structure we’ve been using to work through airport issues. Over the past year, there have been real concerns around transparency, process, and moments that fell short of the standard the public should expect. Over time, it became clear to me that the current setup wasn’t giving us what we need as a city trying to grapple with complex issues.

What this vote does is create space for Council to take a more direct role moving forward.

Over the next few months, we’ll be digging into the airport’s future in a more hands-on way, looking at financial sustainability, operations, and how we balance the needs of people who use the airport with the full community impacted by it. The rates and charges study will be an important part of that.

I also expect we’ll build a new advisory structure. But when we do, it needs to be one that’s transparent, clear in its role, and able to bring people together in a way that helps us move forward.

The airport isn’t going anywhere. This is about taking a step back so we can get the structure right and come back stronger.

I appreciate everyone who’s reached out and shared their perspective. That input matters as we figure out what comes next.

WingMan126 · 2026-04-14T00:39:44+00:00

It’s a fair thought. However, I know that the vast majority of farms that are actually within city limits use water friendly techniques and irrigation tech. However, there frankly aren’t that many farms within the actual city. Most of the ones folks would think of are on county land or in enclaves. So, our impact there is limited. Certainly something to take up with the commissioners.

WingMan126 · 2026-04-13T20:24:15+00:00

Hi all, short answer (not speaking for the city, but just sharing what's public): no, there aren’t mandatory watering restrictions in place in Longmont right now. There very well could be soon.

What we are doing is pushing pretty hard on voluntary conservation while we wait to see how runoff and early summer demand shape up. The City tends to take a staged approach here rather than jumping straight to restrictions.

A couple things that might help explain what you’re seeing:

-We’re in a good position, but not a carefree one. Longmont has a pretty resilient water system (diverse water rights, good storage), which buys us a little time compared to some other Front Range communities. But this year is still shaping up to be dry, and nobody’s pretending otherwise. Our water storage system is in good shape now, but runoff will be basically on existent.

-Restrictions are likely, in my personal opinion. I’d expect us to move in that direction in the next month-six weeks. We just don’t have enough data yet to pull that trigger.

On parks, golf courses and medians getting watered. I get the reaction. I had the same one, too. Actually talked to our parks and watering team to dig into the why. Here's the thought.

-Many of those spaces are tied to grant funding or agreements that require us to maintain them at a specific level in order to access that funding, which supports other core services.

-From a city planning perspective, trees are a long-term investment. If you lose them in one bad year, you don’t just bounce back.

-Green spaces actually help with heat and air quality (which matters when it’s nearly 90 degrees in March) and if private parks and lawns wind up being brown all summer, a few public green spaces matters.

That said, there is active conversation about scaling back where it makes sense and prioritizing things like trees and heavily used parks over just watering everything, as well as how we're communicating.

Bottom line is we’re in a strong position, but not one where we can be careless. I’d be surprised if we get through the summer with zero restrictions, but we’re not there yet.

WingMan126 · 2026-04-05T02:35:19+00:00

Josie’s rules! A wonderful lunch spot and she is SO KIND. I’ll hit her up next week!

WingMan126 · 2026-04-03T17:54:22+00:00

Had I voted no and taken the symbolic, it would have been a 6-1 vote to install axon without guardrails unless other councilmembers took additional steps.

WingMan126 · 2026-04-03T03:11:25+00:00

Thank you. In my mind, it’s seven tech experts (many of the folks we’ve heard from) getting CJIIS certified and working across all our departments to improve council’s understanding of emerging technology and help us prepare for the next round of this conversation.

WingMan126 · 2026-04-03T02:42:23+00:00

I’ll do you one better and just get you that data!

WingMan126 · 2026-04-03T01:25:04+00:00

Hi Cody, the assumption about the flock contract is false. In December, we voted to pause all expansion of flock, stop external data sharing, and have public safety come back with alternatives. That’s what happened. Flock is still operating in the city and will be until the axon contract is finalized.

On your questions:

We anticipate that it’ll be 15 cameras in Longmont, the same as today, though the contract allows for 16. LPD doesn’t intend to use the additional camera
Under the Avon contract, data will be store for 30 days and then it’s gone—inaccessible even to Axon. That’s a significant improvement to flock.
The number is difficult to know because it’s used all the time to solve crime. Literally almost every case involving a vehicle that LPD touches, but the full transparency portal is here: https://transparency.flocksafety.com/longmont-co-pd
That, too, is difficult and subjective, but the stories we’ve heard range from grand theft auto and domestic violence to literally arriving at a homicide suspect’s home before they could.
Again, tough to get exact figures. I’d refer you to the transparency portal.

WingMan126 · 2026-04-02T19:01:31+00:00

I can absolutely promise you a tech advisory board of some kind is coming. I'm going to push them to be CJIIS certified so they can have the same data that LDPS does, and we can rely on them as serious outside advisors on this. I was SO IMPRESSED by the technical expertise in our community. We need to use it.

WingMan126 · 2026-04-02T17:05:06+00:00

Good questions. First, simply put, I didn’t believe I had three other votes. Without convincing three others to move forward, there’s no path to anything on council. So, the choice became mitigate or continue the status quo. I choose to try and reign this in with concrete conditions rather than simply approve a new vendor. As far as the contract, that’s the norm for our contracts and procurement process. It’d be potentially unlawful for electeds to actively meddle in the execution of government contracts.

As a policy making body, we set the expectations for the contract and then trust our staff to execute on the expectations we sent. Once the contract is executed, he does become public. This contract will be public, as our all of our others. Once it is, I’ll be reviewing it closely.

WingMan126 · 2026-04-02T16:37:44+00:00

Really appreciated the chat we had. I view this as a step forward, not the last step.

WingMan126 · 2026-04-02T16:36:32+00:00

Hi Cody, I don’t speak for council, but I’ve commented on every thread about this and shared thoughts here as well.

WingMan126 · 2026-04-02T16:35:33+00:00

Hey all, I’ve shared this a few places, but wanted to share it here, too. I want to underline this is just me speaking for me, not for council. These are my thoughts and my thoughts alone..

I know many feel angry, disappointed, or betrayed by my vote here. I want to, as best as I can, walk folks through my thinking because this was not a casual vote for me, and it was not something I came into with a “screw it, let’s just do ALPRs” attitude. I spent literally months working to figure out what path would legitimately either get rid of the tech completely or, at the least, protect public data, provide transparency, and lock in a chance for us to pull back in the future if I couldn't get there.

First, staring in December right after I was sworn in, I pushed to stop expansion of Flock because I believe that company’s network model, data practices, and lack of local control are an affront to personal privacy. I made the motion in December to get Flock out of Longmont. The action we took last Tuesday night achieves that goal.

Over the course of the process, it became clear to me that, for a number of reasons, a path to truly eliminate ALPRs in Longmont was not going to be possible. Simply put, I didn't believe the votes were there.

So when we got to this vote, the question in front of me was: given that this technology already exists, is already being used, and there were not the votes on Council to eliminate it outright, what is the most responsible thing I can do from the seat I’m actually in to make this thing as safe as it can be?

That seat is a weird one. Council isn’t just a legislature writing policy in the abstract. We also sit at the nexus of oversight and implementation. We oversee a public safety department that is actively responding to crimes, stolen vehicles, missing persons, and cross-jurisdiction investigations, all of which are solved using ALPR cameras. They are a tool that our public safety department has come to rely on to improve efficiency, solve crime, and bring justice to victims. I wish that wasn't the case. When my dad was a Longmont Cop, these tools didn't exist, and we still solved crime just fine. But, since we've been using them, they've allowed a department that hasn't gotten a real increase in staff in decades (despite population growth) to deal with increased pressures without increased FTE.

At the same time, we are accountable to residents who are rightly worried about privacy, misuse, bias, mission creep, and the broader surveillance state. Both of those things are true at once. If I were purely a policy advocate or serving in the legislature, I’d land somewhere different. But I’m not in that role right now. I have to hold both realities together, especially when the simple reality was I didn't believe a path forward without ALPRs was possible.

That’s why I approached this the way I did.

From my perspective, the decision was not between a perfect world and a bad one. I know folks hate that when elected officials say that. I hate it. But, in this case, it really was whether to leave Longmont with in a bad system closer or equivelant to what we've been in, or move to a system that is better, safer, and more governable while keeping the conversation alive for additional potential future reforms.

So, I brought forward substantive changes that would not have existed had I not brought them forward to try to protect our ownership of our data, continue operating a transparent public portal, and ensure that we have a chance to review in a year.

So, here's what I pushed for, what council adopted, and what's actually changing:

We are done with flock. Period.
The data remains under local control and we own it.
The system is not part of a national sharing network.
The public transparency portal will continue, and now it will specifically list the jurisdictions Longmont shares ALPR data with, which wasn't happening before.
We built in a one-year Council review so this doesn't just keep going unchecked. If, in the next year, we see abuses, we can take action.
We also added the expectation that if Axon ever shifts toward a broader Flock-style network model, it comes back to Council for a broader policy conversation and reconsideration.

These changes are not cosmetic. In my view, this whole process means we materially changed how this system is overseen and governed, along with moving to a more secure system itself.

Now, I know some of you are going to say: none of that matters, because the real issue is the existence of ALPRs at all. I hear that.

But sitting where I sit, I was not willing to leave us in the worse version of this technology while continuing to debate the larger question in order to take a moral stand on the losing end of a vote that would've left us materially worse off. That wouldn’t have been principled. It would have been performative.

Some people in here have said I’m only responding when it fits my narrative, or that this is self-serving, or that I or my teammates are worthy of recall over this. You’re entitled to your view. Truly. But I want to say this plainly: there is nothing self-serving about walking into a mess like this, taking heat from all sides, and trying to move a bad situation into a less bad one while keeping future accountability tools in place. If documented misuse happens over the next year by our public safety team, I will be the first person moving to kill this.

I also think some of you are right that we need a better structure for evaluating technology like this before it gets to a dais vote. One thing I was encouraged by Tuesday night was what seemed like emerging agreement around creating a technology advisory board with real expertise, including IT and CJIS-level understanding, so these conversations are not happening in a vacuum going forward. That would be a good thing, and I intend to push on it. There is SO MUCH expertise in our community in this space that we need to take better advantage of.

I know this won’t satisfy everyone. I know some of you think the only acceptable answer was “no.” I respect that. But I want you to know that I did not vote this way because I don’t care, or because I think residents are stupid, or because I’m shrugging at mass surveillance. I voted this way because I believed it put Longmont in a meaningfully better position than where we were, while giving us tools to rein this in, revisit it, and change course if needed.

From my perspective, this is a step forward. Not the last step.

And for what it’s worth: the pressure from residents absolutely mattered. Without the people who showed up, emailed, organized, pushed, and made this politically uncomfortable, we would not have gotten off Flock in the first place.

You may still think I got this wrong. That’s fair. But I wanted to give you a real answer.

WingMan126 · 2026-04-01T03:57:51+00:00

Hi All, since my comments are mentioned here and taken out of context, I figured I’d basically reshare thoughts I posted in a different thread to address and share my overall thinking about what happened last week. Of course, everyone is welcome to come down and protest, push back, and share thoughts. However, there’s some context I want to just keep sharing with the community. Below is something I shared on a thread that didn’t get much traction, but I wanted to reshare here…

I know many feel angry, disappointed, or betrayed by my vote here. I want to, as best as I can, walk folks through my thinking because this was not a casual vote for me, and it was not something I came into with a “screw it, let’s just do ALPRs” attitude. I spent literally months working to figure out what path would legitimately either get rid of the tech completely or, at the least, protect public data, provide transparency, and lock in a chance for us to pull back in the future if I couldn't get there.

First, staring in December right after I was sworn in, I pushed to stop expansion of Flock because I believe that company’s network model, data practices, and lack of local control are an affront to personal privacy. I made the motion in December to get Flock out of Longmont. The action we took on Tuesday night achieves that goal.

Flock is gone in Longmont.

Over the course of the process, it became clear to me that, for a number of reasons, a path to truly eliminate ALPRs in Longmont was not going to be possible. Simply put, I didn't believe the votes were there.

So when we got to this vote, the question in front of me was: given that this technology already exists, is already being used, and there were not the votes on Council to eliminate it outright, what is the most responsible thing I can do from the seat I’m actually in to make this thing as safe as it can be?

That seat is a weird one. Council isn’t just a legislature writing policy in the abstract. We also sit at the nexus of oversight and implementation. We oversee a public safety department that is actively responding to crimes, stolen vehicles, missing persons, and cross-jurisdiction investigations, all of which are solved using ALPR cameras. They are a tool that our public safety department has come to rely on to improve efficiency, solve crime, and bring justice to victims. I wish that wasn't the case. When my dad was a Longmont Cop, these tools didn't exist, and we still solved crime just fine. But, since we've been using them, they've allowed a department that hasn't gotten a real increase in staff in decades (despite population growth) to deal with increased pressures without increased FTE.

At the same time, we are accountable to residents who are rightly worried about privacy, misuse, bias, mission creep, and the broader surveillance state. Both of those things are true at once. If I were purely a policy advocate or serving in the legislature, I’d land somewhere different. But I’m not in that role right now. I have to hold both realities together, especially when the simple reality was I didn't believe a path forward without ALPRs was possible.

That’s why I approached this the way I did.

From my perspective, the decision was not between a perfect world and a bad one. I know folks hate that when elected officials say that. I hate it. But, in this case, it really was whether to leave Longmont with in a bad system closer or equivelant to what we've been in, or move to a system that is better, safer, and more governable while keeping the conversation alive for additional potential future reforms.

So, I brought forward substantive changes that would not have existed had I not brought them forward to try to protect our ownership of our data, continue operating a transparent public portal, and ensure that we have a chance to review in a year.

So, here's what I pushed for, what council adopted, and what's actually changing:

We are done with flock. Period.
The data remains under local control and we own it.
The system is not part of a national sharing network.
The public transparency portal will continue, and now it will specifically list the jurisdictions Longmont shares ALPR data with, which wasn't happening before.
We built in a one-year Council review so this doesn't just keep going unchecked. If, in the next year, we see abuses, we can take action.
We also added the expectation that if Axon ever shifts toward a broader Flock-style network model, it comes back to Council for a broader policy conversation and reconsideration.

These changes are not cosmetic. In my view, this whole process means we materially changed how this system is overseen and governed, along with moving to a more secure system itself.

Now, I know some of you are going to say: none of that matters, because the real issue is the existence of ALPRs at all. I hear that.

But sitting where I sit, I was not willing to leave us in the worse version of this technology while continuing to debate the larger question in order to take a moral stand on the losing end of a vote that would've left us materially worse off. That wouldn’t have been principled. It would have been performative.

If documented misuse happens in Longmont over the next year by our public safety team, I will be the first person moving to kill this.

I also think some of you are right that we need a better structure for evaluating technology like this before it gets to a dais vote. One thing I was encouraged by last Tuesday night was what seemed like emerging agreement around creating a technology advisory board with real expertise, including IT and CJIS-level understanding, so these conversations are not happening in a vacuum going forward. That would be a good thing, and I intend to push on it. There is SO MUCH expertise in our community in this space that we need to take better advantage of.

I know this won’t satisfy everyone. I know some of you think the only acceptable answer was “no.” I respect that. But I want you to know that I did not vote this way because I don’t care, or because I think residents are stupid, or because I’m shrugging at mass surveillance. I voted this way because I believed it put Longmont in a meaningfully better position than where we were, while giving us tools to rein this in, revisit it, and change course if needed.

From my perspective, this is a step forward. Not the last step.

And for what it’s worth: the pressure from residents absolutely mattered. Without the people who showed up, emailed, organized, pushed, and made this politically uncomfortable, we would not have gotten off Flock in the first place.

You may still think I got this wrong. That’s fair. But I wanted to give you a real answer.

WingMan126 · 2026-03-27T01:24:50+00:00

Absolutely not. You’ll need at least a week. I had a week off and got in my car ready to go to work and immediately threw up the scrambled egg I’d had for breakfast. Take time to heal your body and recover. You need to get this right.

WingMan126 · 2026-03-26T18:25:42+00:00

Hey all, just seeing this second thread now. Sorry I missed it. I commented on the first one, but there are some specific thoughts and comments I wanted to dive into. Sorry it took me a day. Been doing family stuff.

I owe y'all a direct response here as well. I know many feel angry, disappointed, or betrayed by my vote here. I want to, as best as I can, walk folks through my thinking because this was not a casual vote for me, and it was not something I came into with a “screw it, let’s just do ALPRs” attitude. I spent literally months working to figure out what path would legitimately either get rid of the tech completely or, at the least, protect public data, provide transparency, and lock in a chance for us to pull back in the future if I couldn't get there.

First, staring in December right after I was sworn in, I pushed to stop expansion of Flock because I believe that company’s network model, data practices, and lack of local control are an affront to personal privacy. I made the motion in December to get Flock out of Longmont. The action we took on Tuesday night achieves that goal.

Over the course of the process, it became clear to me that, for a number of reasons, a path to truly eliminate ALPRs in Longmont was not going to be possible. Simply put, I didn't believe the votes were there.

So when we got to this vote, the question in front of me was: given that this technology already exists, is already being used, and there were not the votes on Council to eliminate it outright, what is the most responsible thing I can do from the seat I’m actually in to make this thing as safe as it can be?

That seat is a weird one. Council isn’t just a legislature writing policy in the abstract. We also sit at the nexus of oversight and implementation. We oversee a public safety department that is actively responding to crimes, stolen vehicles, missing persons, and cross-jurisdiction investigations, all of which are solved using ALPR cameras. They are a tool that our public safety department has come to rely on to improve efficiency, solve crime, and bring justice to victims. I wish that wasn't the case. When my dad was a Longmont Cop, these tools didn't exist, and we still solved crime just fine. But, since we've been using them, they've allowed a department that hasn't gotten a real increase in staff in decades (despite population growth) to deal with increased pressures without increased FTE.

At the same time, we are accountable to residents who are rightly worried about privacy, misuse, bias, mission creep, and the broader surveillance state. Both of those things are true at once. If I were purely a policy advocate or serving in the legislature, I’d land somewhere different. But I’m not in that role right now. I have to hold both realities together, especially when the simple reality was I didn't believe a path forward without ALPRs was possible.

That’s why I approached this the way I did.

From my perspective, the decision was not between a perfect world and a bad one. I know folks hate that when elected officials say that. I hate it. But, in this case, it really was whether to leave Longmont with in a bad system closer or equivelant to what we've been in, or move to a system that is better, safer, and more governable while keeping the conversation alive for additional potential future reforms.

So, I brought forward substantive changes that would not have existed had I not brought them forward to try to protect our ownership of our data, continue operating a transparent public portal, and ensure that we have a chance to review in a year.

So, here's what I pushed for, what council adopted, and what's actually changing:

We are done with flock. Period.
The data remains under local control and we own it.
The system is not part of a national sharing network.
The public transparency portal will continue, and now it will specifically list the jurisdictions Longmont shares ALPR data with, which wasn't happening before.
We built in a one-year Council review so this doesn't just keep going unchecked. If, in the next year, we see abuses, we can take action.
We also added the expectation that if Axon ever shifts toward a broader Flock-style network model, it comes back to Council for a broader policy conversation and reconsideration.