QuickTake:

While some citizens and half of the City Council said they lacked trust that the vendor of the technology would adequately safeguard data collected by the pole-mounted cameras, the town’s mayor cast a deciding vote to keep the technology in place.

The Florence City Council voted 3-2 Monday, Feb. 2, to keep six Flock Safety license-plate recognition cameras in use in the city.

The vote came after law enforcement leaders in Eugene, Springfield and Lane County made separate announcements in December that they would not move forward with Flock Safety cameras despite having entered into agreements with the company.

In the smaller, coastal town of Florence, residents spoke against using the technology at Monday’s meeting, as well as at a Jan. 5 public forum. Of more than 35 written comments submitted to the council ahead of Monday’s meeting, only four were in favor of continuing with Flock Safety.

Florence Chief of Police John Pitcher said only Oregon law enforcement agencies could access data collected by the cameras in Florence, but many in attendance expressed concerns about how other law enforcement agencies — including federal agencies — might use that access. 

Mayor Rob Ward broke a tie when four city councilors split their votes during a roll call.

City Councilor Robert Carp, who voted to keep the cameras on, said he saw value in “enhanced safety” for the community.

“We have checks and balances in place for this safety tool. That is what it is, simply a safety tool,” Carp said. “People can spin this in any direction they care to. That only divides and hurts our community.”

Funding from grants 

Florence’s first Flock Safety camera was installed in April 2024 near the intersection of U.S. Highway 101 and state Highway 126, according to materials from the city.

Last year, a grant from the Three Rivers Foundation funded five additional cameras and two years of Flock Safety services. The city says it has six cameras installed.

In seeking to cut ties with Atlanta-based Flock Safety, city Councilor Sally Wantz referred to the federal Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

“I trust our police department completely. No question,” Wantz said. “However, DHS and ICE are untrustworthy. I don’t want to give them any possibility of retrieving information from our cameras,” Wantz said, making the motion to end the contract.

Oregon’s sanctuary law generally prohibits the use of local and state resources to enforce immigration violations. In the same meeting Monday, the council voted 4-1 to pass a resolution to “reaffirm” that Florence police do not enforce immigration laws, with Carp voting no.

Carp, Ward and Mike Webb voted against the motion to end the Flock Safety agreement. Webb noted the public safety fee that citizens began paying last year to support police.

“Now, we’re talking about removing one of the most efficient tools they have to save manpower,” Webb said, adding that discussion about the cameras “has become way too political.”

In Eugene and Springfield, police and unelected city leaders moved to enter into Flock Safety agreements without publicly discussing it with elected city council members. 

But in Florence, the council formally voted in February 2025 to approve the grant application for the cameras, according to city materials. Last June, the council approved the use of $33,250 for five Flock Safety cameras and two years of service, according to meeting minutes.

City Councilor Jo Beaudreau, who opposed continuing with Flock Safety, spoke about those past council votes in remarks at the meeting.

“It sounded fantastic. It was a really great, candy-coated story. And now things have really changed around the country,” Beaudreau said.

Pitcher said that during a recent meeting with Oregon police leaders, Flock Safety representatives said, “Yeah, at first, we didn’t think about the different states, how different they are.”

Now, the company has made major changes, Pitcher said.

Nevertheless, Beaudreau said hearing how Flock Safety didn’t consider such differences “doesn’t make me trust them.”

“Flock is only as good as the network that it has, and many people have already abandoned this platform and this company,” Beaudreau said.

While citizens in Lane County’s largest cities expressed concerns about data from the cameras possibly being used to target vulnerable groups, Pitcher noted the decisions in Eugene and Springfield came about after the cities had cameras activated despite a pause in place on use of the technology. Pitcher said a technician reactivated the cameras without first checking with the cities.

Asked about Flock Safety cameras elsewhere, Pitcher said North Bend, a coastal community about 45 miles south of Florence, is looking to add the cameras. Council meeting minutes for North Bend show a unanimous vote last September to install four Flock Safety cameras.

Pitcher and the councilors who voted to continue with Flock Safety also referred to efforts in the Legislature to build support for a new law regulating companies providing license-plate readers.

“These are the main points,” Pitcher said of the possible state legislation, listing how the law could create “rules around who can access” camera data and require some encryption. The proposed law also requires vendors selling license-plate readers not be able to view camera images and establishes a “predetermined maximum data retention period,” Pitcher said.

In addition to keeping its deal with Flock Safety, the council voted to have current policies adjusted to match future state guidelines for license-plate readers.