The Sterling City Council has decided to review the city’s use of Flock Safety cameras and whether the city should look to another company to provide automated license plate readers.

“I think we have a decent amount of consensus that we have some action for [City Manager] Scott [Shumard] to take,” Sterling Mayor Diana Merdian said.

After hearing concerns about Flock Safety as a company, the deployment of their cameras and data-gathering policies and practices, city council members, who said they supported the cameras, also voiced support for looking elsewhere for automated license plate reader cameras and systems.

“I heard two things here that were very prominent,” Jim Wise, alderman at large, said at the end of the meeting. “One is that the cameras provide safety and security for the purpose of tracking people in need, and two, that there is a great disregard for the organization from which we have obtained these cameras, Flock Safety.”

Wise endorsed the idea of seeking elsewhere for the automated license plate readers.

Wise said he believes people aren’t as concerned that the cameras are out as they are about possible data breaches and potential inappropriate transfer of information.

“I welcome the opportunity for you to begin to gather the facts when necessary, especially during budget time, so that we can entertain the idea that perhaps we go a different route,” Wise said.

After a lengthy study session in which council members discussed and questioned Sterling Police Chief Pat Bartel on the Flock Safety cameras, their deployment, use and capabilities, the council also heard from seven residents regarding concerns about Flock Safety and its products and practices.

Bartel said the city’s contract with Flock Safety will automatically renew on May 1, 2027, if the city does not cancel the contract by March 30, 2027.

Bartel told the council the city agreed to purchase 12 cameras from Flock Safety in its initial contract. Those cameras included 10 automated license plate readers and two Push to Zoom, or PTZ, cameras.

“These PTZ cameras were going to be placed in the business district, one in the downtown business district and one in the eastern business corridor, near East Lincolnway and 43rd Avenue,” Bartel said.

Because no workable location could be found to place a PTZ camera in the downtown area, the order for that camera was changed to an ALPR camera, meaning the city currently has 11 ALPRs and one PTZ camera. The PTZ camera, designated for the eastern business corridor, has not yet been installed, Bartel said.

Bartel also outlined who can access the data.

John Pickens-Green, who identified himself as an information technology professional who works on network security, told the council that the data in the cameras isn’t the only valuable component.

“There now currently is a rash of the cameras being cut down and taken, and they get sold for parts. There are more valuable, recyclable metals inside a Flock camera than there are in a catalytic converter,” Pickens-Green said.

He said there are two pounds of copper and two ounces of gold in each Flock camera.

“They can log into DeFlock.com, and they are going to take the camera, take it to a shady junkyard and make some money,” Pickens-Green said.

He also questioned whether the city is liable, under the terms of the contract with Flock Safety, to reimburse Flock Safety for any damage or theft of the cameras.

Earlier in the meeting, in answer to a question from the council about whether the department had checked into cost comparisons of ALPR providers, Bartel said Flock Safety was significantly less expensive than other companies, like Motorola.

Resident Dale Goodall questioned how the company could sell its product at that much lower cost.

“You have to question why that is. Why can they offer this so much cheaper than these other companies? How are they making up the difference? If a company is giving you something for free or at a significant discount compared with their competitors, you aren’t the customer, you are the product, your data is the product,” Goodall said.

Jeff Gale, who has been bringing his concerns about the Flock Safety cameras to the council, spoke to the council for a third time.

Gale admitted he tried to find a workable solution to keep the Flock Safety contract.

“I looked hard for a way, for a set of safe settings that would allow us to keep this contract because I believe in safety, I believe in cameras. But there isn’t a way for these settings to hold,” Gale said.

Gale also questioned the claim that the cameras prevent crime by their presence alone.

“If the cameras stop crime just by existing, why did we not tell the public about these cameras before now? Why was there no discussion here? If we are using that to deter crime, based on the fact of cameras alone, we should have known about them,” Gale said.