Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Lpr topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears pitch for license-plate cameras from Flock Safety; price quoted at $15,000 a year for five cameras
Summary
Pleasant Valley officials heard a presentation from Flock Safety on automated license-plate readers, including privacy features, cross-jurisdictional sharing, and a quoted recurring cost of $15,000 for five cameras; councilors asked about data retention, user controls and long-term costs and deferred procurement questions pending budget review.
Pleasant Valley aldermen heard a presentation from Flock Safety on Jan. 21 about installing automated license-plate–reading cameras at key entry points to the city.
Chris Futrell, who identified himself as territory sales manager for Flock Safety, said the company's cameras capture rear-vehicle snapshots and read license plates; the system can be queried by plate number or by vehicle description to generate suspect lists across a shared network of participating agencies. "We work within 90% of the departments in the Kansas City Metro Area," Futrell said during the presentation. Jonathan Buffs, identified as the company's presenter to city officials, told the board the data are stored by the vendor in an encrypted government cloud and that searches require a documented search reason and leave an audit trail.
Buffs said the system is designed with privacy controls and a public-facing transparency portal: "The data is yours. We can't sell it," he said, adding that retention is configurable and the default window discussed for this proposal was about 30 days. He also described use cases the company has reported to other agencies, including locating missing people and helping to identify vehicles connected with violent crimes.
When council members asked about live monitoring and pedestrian imaging, Buffs said the cameras proposed for Pleasant Valley are not live-video cameras but capture snapshots of vehicle rears triggered by a laser sensor; he said the product is optimized to supply objective vehicle data rather than continuous video of public spaces. On cross-jurisdictional sharing, Futrell confirmed the vendor can enable automatic sharing with neighboring agencies; that feature means a search in Pleasant Valley would return hits from other participating jurisdictions if enabled.
A city official asked about cost. Futrell quoted $15,000 annual recurring cost for five cameras, including cellular service, installation, permitting, ongoing maintenance and software updates. Buffs said the vendor could lock the fee for a five-year term if the city preferred price certainty.
Councilors pressed for more contract detail before any decision, asking for the vendor's full terms and conditions, policies on individual logins and audits, and explicit answers on storage limits and additional storage fees. The board did not take formal action at the meeting and directed staff to include the item in future budget discussions once year-end financial statements are reconciled.
The presentation lasted through public questions; the vendor left contact and policy materials for staff review. The board indicated cost and budget timing would determine whether the city seeks to include the system in the current year or consider it during capital planning.
