Flock is out, but Santa Barbara City Council tables implementing Verkada cameras

Flock is out. But Verkada isn’t in. Not yet.

The 12 Flock cameras in Santa Barbara are turned off and the police department no longer has access to the system.

Per the contract with Flock, the cameras are scheduled to be removed by Flock in the next couple of weeks.

The transfer to a new license plate reader system powered by Verkada cameras hit the brakes as the City Council discussed delaying the approval of the new contract.

So for now, the future fate of license plate readers in Santa Barbara has been tabled. 

“I thought when we heard this [the cancellation] about Flock, that it was to consider other options,” said Councilmember Kristen Sneddon. The Santa Barbara Police Department has already settled on a company and presented the replacement for Flock cameras: Verkada CB53 cameras. 

Following dozens of public comments and inquiries about the system from council members, the council decided to revisit the Verkada contract at a later day. With the potential to even rework the city’s policy regarding automatic license plate readers all together.

City Administrator Kelly McAdoo informed the council that the discussion was not an action item, and any motions would have to wait for a later meeting.

The likely scenario is that the issue all together gets pushed down the line until it is up to the next City Council to decide what to do about license plate readers.

“You’re really pushing this off to a new council in the new year,” Councilmember Mike Jordan said. He said that it is unlikely that the issue will be discussed before late November or early December.

“It is something that the next council is going to decide,” Councilmember Eric Friedmann agreed.

Yet the council was mostly in unison regarding the delay of approving Verkada cameras. However, Mayor Randy Rowse encouraged everyone to trust the police department and their intentions. 

‘They really care about keeping you safe, that’s number one, and it’s a very sincere effort,” Rowse said. “They’re not to surveil you, they’re not to oppress you, they’re not to try to control anybody, they’re there to serve and protect you 100%.”

Sentiment among public comment was also unified, with zero comments expressing support for the cameras. Many speakers called for more public inclusion in the discussion about these cameras. 

“We’re asking for time, and community forum,” said Primitiva Hernandez, executive director of 805UndocuFund. 

Many wanted a public hearing that allowed for more input than 60 seconds of public comment.

City Attorney John Doimas addressed those concerns and said that the discussion today doesn’t legally merit a public hearing process. He said that since the ALPR policy isn’t being expanded or changed, no hearing is required.

“Just because we’re not required to have a public hearing doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t or that we can’t,” Councilmember Wendy Santamaria said.

What about…no Verkada?

Councilmember Oscar Gutierrez also raised the idea of the police department implementing its own surveillance system. Police Chief Kelly Gordon said that the city would still require outside software and would have to buy a camera from a third-party company. 

“We don’t have the expertise within the city to create that sort of program,” Gordon said. “It was something we evaluated, but the expense of that is greater and that the ability to do that would be very, very challenging.”

To repeal the automatic license plate readers all together, would be a process. License plate cameras are used in waterfront and downtown parking lots, not just in law enforcement contexts. 

But Sneddon thinks it might be time to explore that option

“When we adopted this policy, it was a different world,” Sneddon said. 

Chief Gordon warned the council about the consequences of delaying action. She said that these cameras are a very useful tool to the department, and with no approval of the contract, they would be without one of their most useful tools. 

“I understand the privacy concerns,” Gordon said. “But I also have a duty as a chief of police sitting here before you. My duty is to your community’s public safety, and so am I passionate about this? Yes.” 

Gordon presented multiple solutions to building trust with the system, including quarterly reports to the fire and police commission.

“Discpline matters, and accountability matters, and I understand that,” Gordon said.

Verkada concerns

Sgt. Bruno Peterson presented more information about Verkada cameras, addressing a lot of the concerns that community members have.

He recognized that there is a “need for greater control of data” than the city had while using Flock.

He emphasized that with Verkada the city owns the data.

“Verkada could not access data without permission,” Peterson said. If they did need to access the system, they would be given a timed login key and their use of the system would be monitored.

Gordon also addressed one of the biggest concerns, the camera’s ability for facial recognition. 

She said that the way the camera is programmed upon purchase dictates what it can capture, which was the same with Flock. If the camera is programmed to only capture license plate data, it can not then be reprogrammed.

Gordon said that a Flock camera had been stolen in Santa Barbara and they tried to use the face-tracking systems to determine who stole it and were unable to. 

The main distinction between Flock cameras and Verkada cameras is that Verkada is not part of a national network.

This is something that Councilmember Meagan Harmon saw as an improvement. 

“I think we are taking steps in the right direction,” Harmon said.

Though Harmon also thinks that the retention time is too long. 

“There are real consequences,” Harmon said. “I personally have serious Fourth Amendment concerns in general.”

By the numbers, Flock cameras are much more expensive than Verkada cameras. Flock cameras are a subscription service, one that was costing the city about $40,000 a year. 

Verkada cameras are a one-time purchase price and then a 5-year license totaling $56,810.09—saving the city hundreds of thousands of dollars. 

That is money that could then be placed in the reserves, a critical need as the city faces a budget crisis, officials said.

There also have been recorded benefits to having the cameras. License plate readers were used in 80% of 120 hit-and-run cases, and since implementation there has been an increase of 9% in the clearance rates of those cases. 

Peterson presented three cases including the 2025 arrest of a serial jewelry robber and a 2025 downtown stabbing where license plate readers played a key role in solving the case.

The conversation at the meeting evolved from concerns over privacy into a test of how much the public trusts law enforcement with the data they are capturing.

‘Trust is critically important,” said Ian Paige, one of the leaders of Indivisible Santa Barbara. 

“The problem with surveillance technology, no matter how good of intentions we have, is when it gets into the wrong hands,” Amanda Green said during public comment. 

This was echoed by members of the City Council.

“At the end of the day, I don’t think it’s the cameras that are invasive, it’s the people that have the ability to use them,” Councilmember Jordan said.