Ferndale council tables five-year Axon ALPR contract after hours of public comment and detailed Q&A
Loading...
Summary
After extensive public comment and technical questioning about data ownership, retention and third‑party access, Ferndale City Council voted 4–1 to table a proposed five‑year, roughly $110,168 Axon automated license plate reader (ALPR) agreement so staff can negotiate contract guardrails and hold a neutral public engagement session.
Ferndale City Council voted 4–1 to table consideration of a proposed five‑year agreement with Axon for automated license plate readers, saying more public engagement and explicit contract guardrails are needed before the city commits to a long‑term ALPR system.
The decision followed a presentation from the police chief and representatives from Axon, more than two hours of public comment that included both victims and civil‑liberties advocates, and a lengthy council question‑and‑answer period about data hosting, retention, vendor access and audit rights. The tabling motion was approved by roll call: Johnson, Mikulski, Kelly and Mayor Leaksmay voted to table; Polica voted no.
The police chief told the council the department had ended a pilot with Flock Safety after discovering data‑sharing problems and sought a provider that would allow the city to own cameras and control access. "ALPR is shown to be an effective force multiplier for patrol and investigations," the chief said during the presentation, adding the department recommended reducing the system from 15 to 9 cameras and funding it from drug forfeiture funds.
Residents at the meeting gave sharply divided views. Andrea Popovich, who described herself as a longtime participant in community policing programs, urged the council to slow the process: "We ended Flock only weeks ago, and in about a month the department has vetted four new vendors, selected one and is now asking for approval of a five‑year contract," she said. Community members and advocacy groups urged delay so an independent civil‑liberties expert could review the proposed contract and a neutral facilitator could lead public discussion.
Council members pressed Axon representatives and city staff for clarifications. Key questions included where evidence and ALPR data would be hosted, whether Axon could access or use de‑identified data for product improvement or machine‑learning training, whether the cameras could be reconfigured for full‑frame video or live streaming, and what contractual notice would be required for any change in terms. An Axon representative said evidence.com would be used for evidence storage and that Axon would not access ALPR data without municipal authorization; the representative also acknowledged the product could support additional features but said the city would have the ability to disable them.
Several council members asked the city manager and attorney to negotiate a contract addendum spelling out specific guardrails. Councilmember (name on record: Mikulski) said she would not be comfortable approving the agreement without clearer assurances on de‑identified data usage and third‑party access. One councilmember proposed conditional approval dependent on the city manager and city attorney securing final contractual commitments; instead the body elected to table the item to the second regular December meeting to allow time for a community engagement session and further negotiation.
The chief and Axon representatives said installation would not occur before spring and that contractual language could be amended prior to deployment. The council directed staff to work with Axon's legal team, consult with ACLU contacts and consider a neutral moderator for the public session. The item will return to council after those steps are complete.
Next steps: staff will prepare a public education and feedback session, bring a suggested contract addendum to council for review and report back before the council reconvenes the item.
