This afternoon, Santa Barbara City Council is asked to tell the City Administrator whether to sign a contract for twelve Verkada license-plate cameras. The item is direction, not a purchase ordinance. An agenda is a proposal until the body acts.
The Police Department's Flock Safety cameras are already off the books as a City contract. Staff's September 15 report, prepared and submitted by City Administrator Kelly McAdoo, says the Administrator "has already terminated the City's agreement with Flock." Three weeks earlier, on August 25, a Police Department report told Council that the Flock agreement was ending August 23 and that, in July, the Administrator had given Flock notice of nonrenewal.
Those twelve Flock cameras had been in use since late 2023, the August 25 report says, as an investigative tool for stolen vehicles, suspect vehicles, and other crimes. The same report named Verkada as staff's recommended replacement: twelve fixed Verkada CB53 cameras at "authorized locations within the city." The locations are not listed.
Staff's case for Verkada is about who holds the data. The August 25 report, prepared by Sgt. Bruno Peterson, submitted by Police Chief Kelly Gordon, and approved by McAdoo, says Verkada would be a closed, City-owned system. License-plate detections would sit inside the Department's Verkada Command environment and "would not be contributed to, or searchable through, a public, regional, or multi-agency license plate database." Flock, in staff's telling, was the system Council had directed staff to leave in order "to better protect personal data and prevent sharing of information across police agencies."
The cameras, staff write, capture plate images and vehicle characteristics. Authorized users could search historical detections and set alerts. The system "is not used as the sole basis for enforcement action." Data would be kept at least 30 days, then purged unless it is believed to be evidence or the law requires keeping it, consistent with Police Department Policy 415. That policy, the September 15 report says, was last reviewed and updated by Council in January 2024.
The money is small by City standards and, staff say, already in the Police budget. Taking the Flock cameras down would cost $500 each, $6,000 in all. Buying Verkada for five years would cost $56,810.09: $35,991 for the twelve cameras, $9,891 for twelve five-year licenses, $204 shipping, $4,244.09 tax, and $6,480 labor. Quotes from Axon and Motorola were considered; staff judged them higher-cost with more limited privacy controls.
What Council is being asked today is not whether those numbers add up. It is whether the Administrator should sign. Under Charter Section 607, McAdoo's report says, the Verkada agreement falls inside the Administrator's delegated contracting authority. Staff still brought it back because automated license-plate readers are not a routine purchase. California Civil Code sections 1798.90.5 through 1798.90.55 require an operator to post a usage and privacy policy covering authorized uses, retention, access, sharing, security, and accountability. Staff's sentence on the politics is unusually plain: "A majority of the City Council has expressed interest in directing the City Administrator not to enter into the Verkada agreement until the Council has had an opportunity to conduct a comprehensive review of the Police Department's ALPR policy." That is staff's characterization of interest, not a recorded vote.
The packet offers three alternatives.
Option 1 would tell the Administrator not to sign until Council finishes a comprehensive review of the citywide and Police Department ALPR policies. The benefit, staff write, is that the policy would be current before Verkada goes live. The cost is a gap. With Flock already ended, the City "could be without an ALPR investigative and public-safety tool for an extended period." Staff estimate that review at up to a year or longer, given other priorities.
Option 2 would tell the Administrator to sign under the 2024 policies, start the same comprehensive review, and send quarterly public updates to the Police and Fire Commission on implementation, use, and the status of the review. The proposed agreement, staff write, can be ended by the City on 30 days' written notice, so signing now would not lock the policy in place.
Option 3 is "such other direction as the City Council determines appropriate."
One caution sits in the packet's own type. Item 15's subject line points to input from the August 25, 2026 meeting. The recommendation line in the same item points to August 26. The August 25 Police report is the document on disk. Treat the 25/26 split as a packet inconsistency, not as two meetings proved.
Nothing on this page is an action. Council is at 2 p.m. at 735 Anacapa Street. Minutes or video are what settle what Council told the Administrator to do.
August 25 Police Department report on ending the Flock contract
Sources: City of Santa Barbara, Council Agenda Report, "Nonrenewal of Flock Contract," August 25, 2026, Police Department; Council Agenda Report, "Consideration and Direction Regarding Contracting for an Alternative Automated License Plate Reader Camera System, Verkada," September 15, 2026, City Administrator's Office, Item 15 in the September 15 Council packet.