The city’s 2 year contract with Flock expires in December 2026. So why did Stone James say it’s been extended to Q2 2027? If Flock continues to collect data after the contract formally expires, this puts the city into a risky legal position, where they may be unable to enforce any of the terms like data sharing, security, and access controls.
We already know Scott’s opinion: that the city should not discuss canceling the contract until it’s up for renewal. In other words — an excuse to do nothing and kick the can down the road for the next council to deal with.
Why is the city manager allowed to delay renewal by 6 months without any discussion or input from council?
I appreciate Ramirez’ motion to put a study session on a future agenda, and Scott’s second. But we have no idea when this might happen, and it could be delayed indefinitely, so the city needs more public pressure to prioritize this.
Leave a Reply