Issaquah committee hears presentation on Flock license-plate cameras, asks administration to develop plan

Issaquah’s Services, Safety and Parks Committee on Feb. 25 heard a presentation on Flock license-plate cameras and asked the city administration to prepare a plan, including cost estimates and a notification strategy, before any purchase is finalized.

Chief Schwann of the Issaquah Police Department described the cameras as automated license-plate readers that law enforcement can use to locate stolen vehicles and assist investigations, and repeatedly emphasized they are not facial-recognition systems. “It’s not facial recognition,” Schwann said, adding the cameras “do not collect biometric or sensitive information” and “we’re not gonna be tracking anybody.”

The presentation said 69 agencies in Washington use Flock systems and that Issaquah currently has access to data from four Flock systems; there are about 10 privately owned Flock cameras inside the city, four of which the department can access now. Schwann told the committee the vendor can provide a map showing how many cameras would be required to cover every ingress and egress to the city (19 cameras in the vendor’s estimate) and an alternate buildout that would add major intersections (an additional 23 cameras). He described two equipment/contract tiers discussed with the committee: a shorter-range unit with a recurring contract fee described in the presentation as about $3,000 per camera per year (plus an approximate $800 camera hardware cost or damage/theft replacement figure) and a longer-range unit with a recurring fee described as about $5,000 per camera per year.

Committee members asked about operational and staffing impacts. Chair Martz and others pressed whether the department could handle the volume of alerts if the city installed many cameras. Schwann said the system is not continuously monitored and that officers may only access footage when attached to a case number; audit logs track who accessed data and why. He told the committee that the department would prioritize responses and that “19 cameras, no, I don't think we're staffed for that” if all cameras generated simultaneous alerts.

Committee members also raised privacy and community-trust concerns. Council Member Barbara De Michelle urged extra outreach to communities that might be fearful of surveillance and to provide clear public education about what the cameras do and do not do. “We are not gonna be tracking anybody,” Schwann reiterated in response to questions about use of data for immigration enforcement. Several members suggested the administration be proactive in communications to avoid rumors and misinformation.

City staff described next steps as administrative. The city administrator told the committee the city would assemble a specific plan, identify financial impacts and determine whether the purchase would fall within the mayor’s purchasing authority; “There will be a financial impact to that,” the city administrator said. The administration said it would return with a plan and cost estimate and would notify committee members by email; committee leadership indicated notification rather than a full council presentation would generally be sufficient unless dollar amounts exceeded purchasing thresholds.

The chief also noted neighborhood and private-property uses: several homeowners associations and businesses already operate Flock cameras and some have granted the department access. Schwann said the vendor maintains a public transparency page that shows audits and access logs and recommended the committee review it.

Votes at a glance - Committee approved the Jan. 28, 2025 meeting minutes. Motion moved by the Deputy Council President and seconded by Chair Martz; vote passed 2–0.

Ending note: The committee signaled general support for continuing to explore Flock cameras as a law-enforcement tool while asking the administration to return with a formal plan that includes costs, staffing implications and a community outreach and transparency strategy before any purchasing action.