Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kern County approves $96,000 sole‑source contract for automated license‑plate cameras
Summary
The Board of Supervisors approved a sole‑source agreement with Flock Group Inc. to install an automated license plate reader camera system in unincorporated areas of eastern Kern County; supervisors framed the system as a tool to aid law enforcement.
The Kern County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously Tuesday to approve a sole‑source agreement with Flock Group Inc. for an automated license plate reader (ALPR) camera system in an amount not to exceed $96,000.
The contract, listed on the agenda as Item 50, was pulled from the consent calendar for discussion by Supervisor David Parlier, who said the cameras will “help, be a force multiplier to, stop criminals, in a host of activities.” Parlier described the system as addressing public‑safety needs across roughly 1,500 square miles of his district.
Why it matters: Supervisors and county staff said the cameras will assist law enforcement in areas with limited patrol coverage by helping officers locate stolen vehicles, suspect vehicles and follow up on outstanding warrants. Parlier acknowledged the proposal as a safety investment for rural and unincorporated communities that lack dense policing resources.
What the board approved: The agreement was described by staff as a sole‑source procurement; the board voted to authorize the County Administrative Office to finalize the contract with Flock Group Inc. at a cost not to exceed $96,000. The motion was made by Supervisor Parlier and seconded; the board recorded an unanimous vote (five ayes: Peters, Parlier, Flores, Couch and Perez).
Board comments and context: Parlier thanked Sheriff Donny Youngblood and members of the sheriff’s staff for work in the district and said the cameras would serve as a “force multiplier.” Supervisor Jeff Flores and other board members framed the action as one tool among several in public‑safety efforts the county has been expanding.
Implementation: The contract was described as containing “nonstandard terms and conditions,” and staff will handle execution and deployment details. No deployment schedule, exact camera locations, or data‑retention policies were specified during the morning discussion.
Next steps: County staff will finalize the agreement and proceed with implementation. The board did not provide technical specifications, privacy safeguards, or a timeline in the public discussion; those details were not specified in the record.
Ending: The county’s action authorizes procurement and initial deployment under the contract; questions about camera siting, data access and retention, and community notice remain open and were not resolved at Tuesday’s meeting.
