Latest updates
Fee itemization and inspection scheduling · Fort Mohave / Mohave Valley, Arizona
Mohave County supplies a $114.60 invoice and begins arranging inspection.
The Sheriff’s Office supplied a five-page fee packet on October 22. Its invoice counts 1,116 pages: 92 for agreements, purchase orders and emails; 520 for data sharing; 388 for data hotlist; 108 for data receiving; and 8 for data hotlist receiving. It charges $5 for the first 20 pages plus $109.60 for 1,096 additional pages at $0.10 each, totaling $114.60 before any card convenience fee. The reply says gathering, preparation and redaction time are not charged. The Office is arranging inspection at the Kingman Sheriff’s Office and expects to send more information the following week; no appointment is confirmed.
The invoice does not reconcile the earlier $114.50 and $144.50 quotes or explain why emailing existing Excel files requires a per-page charge. The supplied 2018 police-report fee row lists the same rate under “Current” but says it was not established by the Board of Supervisors and Finance did not review it. An accompanying action form is marked approved April 16, 2018; this packet does not explain how that approval applies to the Excel charge. Free digital delivery, free inspection and self-copying are not confirmed. Only fee-support papers accompanied this reply; the underlying ALPR records remain unreviewed. No fee has been authorized.
Agency response · unexplained fee difference · Fort Mohave and Mohave Valley, Arizona
Mohave County’s new email quotes $144.50; the $30 difference is unexplained.
The Mohave County Sheriff’s Office wrote October 15 that it has most of the requested information, including four Excel spreadsheets about sharing and receiving data with other agencies. The email offers to send the documentation after payment of $144.50 plus a credit-card convenience fee. That figure is $30 above the $114.50 quoted September 29 and October 13; the email does not explain the difference.
No records accompanied the reply. It gives no itemized calculation or legal basis for the charge, does not explain why emailing existing Excel files requires payment, and does not address free inspection and self-copying. Whether $144.50 is a revised fee or an error remains unconfirmed. The remaining records and coverage of non-Flock systems and third-party access are still unclear. No fee has been authorized.
Further notice · conditional availability estimate · Laughlin, Nevada
LVMPD gives November 13 as the earliest anticipated records availability.
LVMPD wrote October 15 that it could not make records available that day and was still researching and consulting the relevant units to identify responsive records. The notice gives close of business November 13, 2026 as the earliest point after which the department reasonably expects records, if any, to be available.
This is a conditional estimate, not a guaranteed date for first or complete production. The notice supplies no records, fee or request for clarification, and does not confirm which responsive records exist. The October 15 status-update watch is resolved by this notice.
Ombudsman staff guidance · Mohave County, Arizona
Ombudsman recommends a separate fee-breakdown request for Mohave records.
The Arizona Ombudsman–Citizens’ Aide replied October 14 with a case reference and staff guidance on the Mohave County records dispute. The reply recommends a standalone request for the fee breakdown and requests for specific existing records where questions remain unanswered. Staff said the $114.50 quote did not seem unreasonable, but expressly described that assessment as a rough estimate without an itemization.
The reply does not directly address emailing the existing Excel files without charge or free inspection and self-copying. It provides no fee calculation, records or response date, and does not resolve coverage of non-Flock systems. The office says it does not enforce public-records law. The case reference and guidance do not establish a formal investigation or a ruling on the fee. No fee has been authorized.
Fee dispute and access request sent · Fort Mohave and Mohave Valley, Arizona
Mohave County’s $114.50 fee disputed; free digital access or inspection requested.
On October 13, Needles / Flock disputed Mohave County’s $114.50 charge and asked for an itemized calculation and legal basis. The project requested existing electronic records, including the Excel files, by email or download link without charge, or an explanation of reproduction costs. If the Office continues to require payment for electronic delivery, the project requested free inspection and self-copying with a camera or portable scanner, subject to reasonable supervision.
Sending was verified; the County has not yet agreed to free delivery or inspection. The October 22 invoice supplies a page-count calculation; its application to electronic files, access arrangements and underlying records remain pending. No fee has been authorized. The request remains open and retains all ALPR vendors and third-party access within its original scope. The requested five-business-day reply window is not a statutory deadline or an agency promise. This summary reports the project’s request, not a ruling that the fee is unlawful.
Ombudsman assistance requested · Mohave County, Arizona
Ombudsman assistance requested over Mohave County’s copying fee and records scope.
Needles / Flock asked the Arizona Ombudsman–Citizens’ Aide for help assessing Mohave County’s $114.50 copying charge and resolving access to existing ALPR records. The message asks whether any further internal review step is appropriate. The original request and complete County email correspondence were supplied privately.
Sending and the attachments were verified. Ombudsman staff guidance and a case reference arrived October 14. The submission and subsequent guidance do not establish that a formal investigation has opened or that the office has made a ruling on the County’s fee. No fee has been authorized. The original correspondence is not published here.
Agency response · fee requested · Fort Mohave and Mohave Valley, Arizona
Mohave County identifies records in its $114.50 offer; fee calculation remains unanswered.
The Mohave County Sheriff’s Office says the records compiled for the request include the canceled Flock contract, available invoices and Excel spreadsheets concerning data sharing and receiving. The Office quotes $114.50 for those records, requires advance payment and says a card convenience fee applies only to card payments; in-person cash avoids that surcharge. The Office also offers to consider a narrower request to reduce the price.
No records accompanied the reply. It provides no itemized fee calculation, record date ranges or express confirmation that all four previously identified spreadsheet groups are included. Coverage of non-Flock systems, third-party access, policies and County Procurement records remains unclear. This is the Office’s account of records available, not a reviewed production or a finding about whether the fee is lawful. No fee has been authorized.
Follow-up sent · Needles, California
Needles follow-up asks for the agreement, contract dates and renewal deadline.
An October 9 follow-up asks the City Clerk for the status of the eight narrowed records and prioritizes the executed Flock agreement, activation and term dates, and renewal or nonrenewal deadlines. It resumes the other ALPR items held September 18 after those priorities, keeps the earlier-reader request separate and extends only Flock renewal decisions and notices through the reply date.
Sending is verified; receipt and any answer remain unconfirmed. The message does not establish contract dates, a renewal deadline or current camera settings. No fee is authorized.
Follow-up sent · Needles, California
San Bernardino Sheriff follow-up prioritizes Flock contract timing and all ALPR vendors.
An October 9 follow-up in request 26-26645 asks for status and an estimated first production, with Flock’s executed agreement, activation, term and renewal-notice dates first. It retains all ALPR vendors, outside-system access, earlier equipment and the September 10 accuracy clarification, and extends only Flock renewal decisions and notices through the reply date.
Sending and inclusion in the request timeline are verified. No agency acknowledgment, answer or records accompanied the send. The request was open with zero listed documents before sending; the actual contract dates and notice deadline remain unresolved. No fee is authorized.
Follow-up sent · Fort Mohave and Mohave Valley, Arizona
Mohave follow-up asks which records the fee covers and requests existing electronic files.
An October 9 follow-up asks about the September 29 all-vendor clarification, records ready for release, date ranges and existing formats, and categories still being searched or lacking records. It asks whether $114.50 covers all four sharing and receiving spreadsheet groups, contracts, policies and records supporting the end of Flock access, requests itemized charges and no-fee electronic records, and preserves the fee refusal.
Sending is verified. The October 13 reply addresses this follow-up but supplies no records or itemized fee calculation; other-vendor use remains unverified. The October 9 message declined the quoted fee and authorized no chargeable work.
Agency response · fee requested · Fort Mohave and Mohave Valley, Arizona
Mohave County offers emailed records for $114.50 plus a convenience fee.
The Mohave County Sheriff’s Office says the requested information is complete and offers to email the documents and a receipt after payment of $114.50 plus a convenience fee.
The September 29 reply contained no attached records, itemized calculation, list of records covered or amount for the convenience fee. The October 15 reply identifies four sharing/receiving spreadsheets but does not name all four spreadsheet groups or their date ranges. No fee has been authorized and the records have not been reviewed.
Follow-up sent · Fort Mohave and Mohave Valley, Arizona
Mohave County asked to provide records digitally or arrange supervised copying.
A follow-up in the existing request asks Mohave County to identify the records available from the four spreadsheet groups and their date ranges, provide electronic copies where available, and send a fee estimate before any chargeable work. If digital production is unavailable, it offers pickup or an appointment for supervised inspection, copying, or scanning.
Sending is verified. The September 29 and October 13 replies quoted $114.50; the October 15 email quotes $144.50 without explaining the difference. The October 22 reply later supplied fee-support papers; the underlying ALPR records remain unreviewed. This outgoing message did not establish a particular file format or price. No fee was authorized, and the request does not seek motorist records or a new analysis.
Agency response · Fort Mohave and Mohave Valley, Arizona
Mohave County says its Flock access ended before the request; records may carry a fee.
On September 29, the Mohave County Sheriff’s Office said its access to Flock ended when the contract terminated, before the September 10 request. It said records staff would contact the project about payment and process documents it can provide. It also identified four approximate spreadsheet groups about data sharing, data hotlist sharing, data receiving and data hotlist receiving.
No records or fee estimate accompanied the response. The County did not provide a termination record, current access audit or the spreadsheets. The page counts are approximate and do not establish the time period, agencies, contents or cost. This does not independently verify that no other county office or agency holds related records.
Receipt and routing · Needles, California
Needles acknowledges the earlier-reader request; records have not been scanned yet.
The City Clerk acknowledged the separate request for records behind Needles's earlier plate-reader purchases. The City Clerk wrote that the resolutions are not destroyed and that resolutions not already in the public records folder have not been scanned. The City Clerk will begin working on the request after the City's Flock request is finished.
This is an acknowledgment and preservation statement, not a production date or a finding that every requested payment, contract or policy record exists. The City has not supplied the unscanned records or said which other records it holds. The Clerk's response says the earlier-reader request will follow the Flock request.
Status update · Needles, California
Needles says all eight requested records are still being searched for; next update by September 30.
On September 24 the City Clerk wrote, with the City Manager copied, that following the records already provided the City is continuing to search for and review records responsive to the remaining parts of the request, and listed all eight records from the September 18 narrowed list: the signed Flock agreement, purchase order 025069, the two invoices with their payment back-up, any renewal or cancellation terms and notices, the record of when the cameras went live, the Sheriff’s Department’s written COPS-fund requests, any City–Sheriff agreement on operation, retention and sharing, and the applicable usage and privacy policy. The Clerk wrote that records will continue on a rolling basis as they become available, that the City anticipates providing the next production or status update by September 30, and that the final response will address any remaining items, identify any for which no responsive records were located after a reasonable search and, if applicable, explain the legal basis for any withholding or redactions. The request remains open.
No records came with the message, and it does not say which of the eight exist or which will be released or withheld. The message gives the date as “Tuesday, September 30”; September 30, 2026 is a Wednesday, and the project does not resolve which day was meant. September 30 is the City’s estimate for its next production or status update, not a date for completing production and not a determination. The project does not assess whether the message meets the Public Records Act’s determination requirement.
Records request · Needles, California
New request to Needles for the purchase papers behind its 2010, 2016 and 2021 plate readers.
A separate Public Records Act request went to the City Clerk on September 24, with the City Manager copied, for the papers behind the plate-reader purchases the City’s own records show before Flock: Resolution 2010-7 and its staff report, the PIPS Technology mobile system listed in the City Clerk’s resolution log; the staff report, quotation and any order or terms for the 2016 Vigilant Solutions cameras at the North K Street bridge (Resolution 2016-43), and any record of what became of them; the purchase order, invoice and payment for the 2021 trailer (Resolutions 2020-73 and 2021-19), with its licensing and Sheriff’s maintenance invoices since April 2021; the purchase order, invoice, payment and signed order for the 2021 Vigilant reader (Resolution 2021-56), and whether its five-year hosting is still active; and any usage and privacy policy for those readers. It asks the City to set these records aside while the request is open, because the City’s recent destruction resolutions reach payment back-up about five years old, and it offers to inspect and photograph paper files at City Hall, an offer that also covers the eight records in the Flock request. It asks the City to keep those eight first in line.
The City acknowledged the request September 24 and said work would follow Flock. Records remain pending. This separate request runs on its own clock, sets no deadline and authorizes no fees. Asking for a record does not establish that it exists.
Follow-up sent · Bullhead City, Arizona
Bullhead City asked which office holds the request and when records might come.
A reply in the September 10 request thread went to the City’s public records address, with the Police Department’s records address copied. It notes that the only response so far is the Police Records automatic acknowledgment of September 10 and asks three things: which office is handling the request and any reference number; whether the City Clerk’s office also has it, since part of it covers contracts and payments; and a rough date for the first records or for a cost estimate. It suggests starting with the current contract and the camera inventory, says the rest can follow in batches, invites a one-line answer if the City has no plate readers and no access to anyone else’s, and offers to narrow the request.
Sending is verified; receipt is unconfirmed. Arizona’s public records law asks custodians to furnish records promptly and sets no fixed day count; the message cites that and sets no deadline. Silence so far is not a refusal, and the automatic acknowledgment does not show which office is handling the request.
Receipt and routing · Needles, California
Needles formally acknowledges the request: received September 8, records to come in batches.
In a formal acknowledgment sent the evening of September 18, the City Clerk wrote that the City received the request on September 8, 2026 and that September 18 was day 10. The Clerk wrote that the City is reviewing the request to identify responsive records and decide whether any are exempt, has begun sending records, anticipates sending more the following week and will produce records on a rolling basis. In a separate note the same evening, the Clerk wrote that many City records are still on paper and are being converted as time permits.
The acknowledgment does not say which requested records exist, which will be released or withheld, or when the rest will arrive. It does not respond to the narrowed list of eight records sent that afternoon. The only record produced so far is the signed Resolution 2024-41. Paper files explain why the City’s shared folder is incomplete; absence from that folder does not show a record does not exist. The project does not assess whether the message meets the Public Records Act’s determination requirement.
First records · Needles, California
Needles sends the signed resolution; most records are still outstanding.
The Needles City Clerk wrote on September 18 that the office is working on the request and anticipates a response the following week. Minutes later the City sent its first record: an eight-page scan with the signed Resolution 2024-41. It shows the October 22, 2024 roll-call vote (five ayes, one absent), the Mayor’s signature, the Clerk’s attestation and the City Attorney’s approval as to form. The other seven pages are the Flock quote, a sole-source letter and a photo that were already in the public agenda packet.
The City has not sent a signed agreement or order form, a purchase order, invoices, renewal or cancellation terms, camera locations, or retention and sharing policies. It has not said which records exist, which it will release or when. A formal acknowledgment later the same evening gives September 8 as the City’s receipt date. The quote in the file calls itself a non-binding proposal and shows an expiration date of October 17, 2024, five days before the vote.
Follow-up sent · Needles, California
City request narrowed to eight specific records.
A message to the City Clerk, copied to the City Manager and the City Attorney contact listed on the City’s website, narrows the September 8 request to eight records: the signed Flock agreement for quote Q-101100; purchase order 025069; the invoices behind checks 23301 and 26270; any renewal or cancellation terms and notices; the record of when the cameras went live; the Sheriff’s Department’s written request to spend COPS funds; any City–Sheriff agreement on who operates the cameras and decides retention and sharing; and the usage and privacy policy that applies. It lists what the project has already reviewed, including the City’s shared records folder, and says none of the eight is there.
Sending is verified; the City’s answer has not arrived, and asking for a record does not establish that it exists. The message offers to treat the list as the whole request for now and holds the rest of the September 8 request; it does not withdraw it. It asks again for a written determination, asks the City to keep its 2024 correspondence about the cameras, and sets no deadline. The folder review rests on file names, text search and OCR, and the City called its portal new, so absence from the folder does not prove a record does not exist. The message’s statement that the term may end in early 2027 is an inference from the first payment date.
Follow-up sent · Needles, California
City asked for the Flock agreement, purchase order and invoices.
A reply to the City Clerk, copied to the City Manager, thanks the City for the signed resolution and notes that the rest of the file was already public. It asks first for the signed agreement or order form with its terms; purchase order 025069 and the invoices behind the City’s two recorded payments to Flock; any renewal or cancellation terms; and the Sheriff’s written request to use COPS funds, citing Government Code section 30061(c)(2). It asks the City to say in writing if the resolution and quote are its only contract documents, and to give its determination for each part of the request.
Sending is verified; the City’s answer has not arrived. Asking for a record does not establish that it exists. The full September 8 request remains open.
Extension notice · Needles, California
Sheriff’s Department says it will give a status update in 14 days.
The San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department wrote on September 18 that it is in receipt of request 26-26645. Citing Government Code § 7922.535, it said it will make contact in 14 days with an updated status. Counted from the notice, 14 days is October 2, 2026.
The notice gives no reason for the added time and no date for a determination. It does not say whether responsive records exist, and it does not mention the September 10 accuracy clarification. No records, fee estimate or clarification request accompanied it. October 2 is the project’s count, not a date the notice states, and it is not a records-production date.
Routing answer · Needles, California
City Clerk says the Council next meets Tuesday, September 22.
Answering two routing questions sent September 15, the City Clerk wrote that the next City Council meeting is Tuesday, September 22, 2026. The Clerk also supplied a contact for each of the two mayoral and five Council candidates and pointed to the City’s election-information page.
The reply does not say how a resident can ask for a public report on camera costs, data access, retention and results. The City’s agenda portal did not show a September 22 Council meeting or agenda when checked the afternoon of September 18; the City’s Council page says regular meetings are held the second and fourth Tuesday of the month at 6 p.m. The candidate contacts arrived in correspondence and are not published here. No candidate invitation has been sent.
Receipt and routing · Needles, California
Needles City Manager confirms receipt of a records request.
City Manager Patrick Martinez replied on September 18 that the City has received the public records request, copied the City Clerk and said the City will process it. It is the first reply from the City to any of the project’s emails.
The reply does not say when the City received the September 8 request, who is handling it beyond copying the Clerk, or when the City will decide what it can release. No records accompanied it. It arrived in the thread of the project’s September 15 questions to the Mayor, so it does not say which request it means, and it does not answer those questions.
Follow-up sent · Needles, California
City asked for its receipt date and decision timetable.
A reply to the City Manager, copied to the City Clerk, identifies the request as the one sent September 8 about Resolution 2024-41 and the City’s Flock procurement. It asks when the City counts the request as received, who is handling it, and when the City will make its determination and estimate when records will be available, citing Government Code section 7922.535(a). It asks for the signed agreement, the date the cameras went live and the renewal and cancellation terms first, and notes that the questions sent to the Mayor and Council members are separate.
Sending is verified; the City’s answers have not arrived. This update does not establish a missed legal deadline or a contract renewal date. The full September 8 request remains open.
Follow-up sent · Fort Mohave and Mohave Valley, Arizona
Mohave County Sheriff’s Office asked about countywide plate-reader agreements.
A reply to the Mohave County Sheriff’s Office, sent after its September 17 no-records answer, asks two questions within the original September 10 request. Does the office hold any countywide ALPR contract, policy or access agreement, including one that lets deputies search plate-reader data collected by another agency or a private party? And was County Procurement checked for the purchasing records?
Sending is verified; subsequent County replies are recorded below. The questions do not establish that such an agreement exists or that any plate reader operates in these communities. This is a follow-up within the September 10 request, not a new request.
Records response · Fort Mohave and Mohave Valley, Arizona
Mohave County Sheriff’s Office reports no responsive records.
The Mohave County Sheriff’s Office replied that it has no responsive documents for January 1, 2024 through September 10, 2026. It gave as its reason that there were no automated license plate readers (ALPRs) in Fort Mohave or Mohave Valley. Staff said they wanted to be sure they were looking for all responsive documents and offered further help.
This is the Sheriff’s Office’s account, not an independently verified inventory. No supporting records accompanied the reply. It does not mention County Procurement, plate readers run by other agencies or private parties that the Sheriff can search, or countywide contracts and policies. It does not identify who operates the community-mapped reader in the Fort Mohave area or locate the six Flock readers that EFF’s Atlas lists for the Sheriff’s Office.
Extension notice · Laughlin, Nevada
LVMPD extends its review of the Laughlin request.
The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) said increased request volume and workload mean it cannot complete its review of request X017028-091026 within the initial five-day response period. Its notice says additional time is required to determine what records, if any, are responsive, and that a status update can be expected by October 15, 2026.
October 15 is LVMPD’s date for a status update, not a promise to release records by then. The notice does not say whether responsive records exist. No records, fee estimate or clarification request accompanied it.
Follow-up sent · Needles, California
City asked to clarify the records timetable.
A follow-up to the Needles City Clerk, copied to the City Manager, asks for confirmation of the September 8 request’s receipt date, the disclosure determination and production timetable, and clarification of conflicting response guidance. It prioritizes the signed Flock agreement, activation date and renewal or cancellation-notice terms so residents can review them before contract decisions and the November election.
Sending is verified. On September 18 the City confirmed receipt and then stated that it received the request September 8; it promised rolling production without a timetable. This update does not establish a missed legal deadline or a contract renewal date. The full September 8 request remains open.
Receipt and routing · Needles agriculture station, California
CDFA acknowledges the station request.
The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) acknowledged request PID 17131 and forwarded it to the Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services Division to collect records. It believes responsive records may exist but has not confirmed that. In its September 15 reply, CDFA estimates collection, attorney review and production within the next three months if records exist.
No records accompanied the reply. This confirms receipt and routing, not the existence of responsive records, camera ownership or current settings. The three-month estimate is conditional; CDFA did not give a fixed calendar production date.
Questions sent · Needles, California
The mayor and Council were asked for a public camera report.
The same three questions were sent separately to the current Needles mayor and all six Council members: will they request a public camera report before the next contract decision, what can the City change or end, and what evidence would support continuing, changing or ending the program? A separate follow-up to the City Clerk copied City Manager Patrick Martinez and prioritized the signed agreement, activation and renewal or cancellation-notice dates.
Sending is verified. On September 18 the City Manager replied in the thread of the message sent to the Mayor to acknowledge a public records request; the reply did not answer the three questions, and no officeholder has replied. These are questions about current public offices, not campaign invitations. No official’s position, Council action or contract deadline is established.
Search clarification · I-40 near Needles, California
Caltrans says its I-40 traffic cameras do not record.
Caltrans says its encroachment-permits staff handled the original search and found no camera permits or agreements. It describes cameras in its I-40 right-of-way as Caltrans-owned, used for live traffic monitoring and not recording.
This is Caltrans’s account, not a site-by-site inventory or a verified right-of-way boundary. No supporting records accompanied the reply. It does not identify equipment at the agriculture station or on nearby property.
Follow-ups sent · Needles agriculture station and I-40, California
Station records requested; Caltrans asked to clarify its search.
A records request went to CDFA for cameras at the Needles agriculture station, including ownership, costs, retention and sharing rules. A separate reply in the existing Caltrans case asks how it searched for I-40 permits, sharing agreements and construction files.
These messages establish what was requested. They do not establish camera ownership, operating settings or records production.
Records request · I-40 near Needles, California
Caltrans reports no records and points to CDFA.
Caltrans directs the I-40 records request to CDFA, the state agriculture department. It says Caltrans worked on the station building but has no role in its maintenance or infrastructure after construction.
No records were supplied. The reply leaves the search for wider I-40 permits, sharing agreements and construction files unclear.
Records request · Fort Mohave and Mohave Valley, Arizona
Mohave County Sheriff received the request.
Sheriff staff acknowledged the ALPR records request and said it would go to their attorney to determine which office should handle it.
No records or response date accompanied this acknowledgment. It did not confirm which office would handle the request.
Research outreach · Needles and the tri-state area
DeFlock acknowledged a research inquiry.
An automated reply confirmed receipt of the inquiry about connecting with ALPR researchers around Needles and Laughlin. DeFlock said its volunteer support team would review it.
This is an automated receipt, not a research finding, endorsement or partnership. No substantive answer or response date was supplied.
Who has been contacted?
The current Needles mayor and all six Council members were sent the same oversight questions separately on September 15. None has answered yet. On September 18 the City Manager replied in the Mayor’s thread to acknowledge a records request, without answering the questions. The City Clerk supplied candidate contacts on September 18; no campaign invitation has been sent.
Needles staff clarification
Staff questions were sent September 8, with follow-ups September 15 and 16. The City’s September 18 replies confirmed the request, supplied the signed Resolution 2024-41 and candidate contacts, but left the staff questions unanswered. The Clerk described September 22 as the next meeting then; the current City listing is October 13 at 6:00 p.m.
Needles campaign-contact inquiry
The Clerk supplied all seven candidate contacts September 18 and corrected two that evening. They remain private; invitations have not been sent.
What was sent · Current official directory
Seven current officeholders · sending status
Janet Jernigan
Mayor · Sent Sep 15, 2026
Also a listed candidate. This was an inquiry about the current office; no campaign invitation has been sent.
Ellen Campbell
Vice Mayor · Sent Sep 15, 2026
Henry Longbrake
Council Member · Sent Sep 15, 2026
Also a listed candidate. This was an inquiry about the current office; no campaign invitation has been sent.
Jamie McCorkle
Council Member · Sent Sep 15, 2026
Also a listed candidate. This was an inquiry about the current office; no campaign invitation has been sent.
JoAnne Pogue
Council Member · Sent Sep 15, 2026
Tona Belt
Council Member · Sent Sep 15, 2026
Larry Ford
Council Member · Sent Sep 15, 2026
Ask for a public report
Needles candidates and official election links