Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Franklin City Council voted 6-0-1 on Monday, April 14, to amend the city’s 2025 operating budget by moving $25,000 from the unassigned fund balance to carry out a third year of the city’s relationship with the Flock Safety camera system.

Ward 3 Councilman Gregory McLemore abstained from voting on the matter.

On its website, Flock Safety states the following reason for why communities trust it and its network of cameras: “We exist to eliminate crime and keep your community safe. Our holistic public safety platform is comprehensive and intelligent — that means you have the actionable evidence you need to solve, deter and reduce crime across neighborhoods, schools, businesses and entire cities.”

City of Franklin Police Department Interim Chief Robert Porti also indicated that by being partnered with Flock, his department has access to its camera network outside the city and even across the nation, if needed.

Franklin City Manager Rosylen Oglesby said that when the city’s contract with Flock was first put in place, it was during the time when the city had American Rescue Plan Act funds.

“Since those funds are done with, now we need to pay for the annual contract,” she said. “It was not budgeted in the ’25 budget. It is budgeted I guess in the upcoming ’26 budget, but we need to move money out of the unassigned fund balance to cover that contract renewal for this year.”

Ward 1 Councilman Mark R. Kitchen made a motion to do this, and Ward 2 Councilman Richard Grizzard seconded it.

When Franklin Mayor Paul Kaplan asked if there was any discussion, McLemore asked what the $25,000 was for, specifically wondering if it was for the purchase of cameras.

“This is the maintenance contract related to those Flock cameras,” Oglesby said.

“And that’s annually $25,000 a year?” he asked.

“Yes,” Oglesby said.

McLemore said, “What maintenance is required for the cameras?”

Oglesby provided some basic details, referencing software for the cameras, but Porti was present at the meeting, and she called him forward to provide some more information.

“Under the Flock contract, we’re not owners of that equipment,” he said. “It’s a lease and a maintenance contract where it’s paying for 10 cameras at $2,500 apiece, as well as the connections for cellular. 

“Anything goes wrong with the camera, they don’t try to repair it,” he continued. “They just replace it. All the maintenance that’s involved in them coming out and doing that, it’s all covered within the contract.”

Kaplan said the contract “also gives us the access to cameras all over the area by being part of their network?”

“Around the Hampton Roads area and, if we wanted to, across the country,” Porti said.

McLemore said, “How much would it cost us if we had our own cameras?”

“(Flock) was chosen for a couple reasons,” Porti said. “No. 1 is the data maintenance issue is more streamlined when we don’t own the equipment and they do. To purchase the cameras that we looked at, the license-plate reader cameras, in year’s past they were around $3,500 to $4,000 apiece, whereas this company will lease you them, where they maintain the official ownership, for $2,500.”

Oglesby also indicated that choosing a non-Flock option would mean the FPD would not have access to Flock’s extensive camera network, and Kaplan indicated that he thought one of the most important features Flock offers is the access to its regional and national database.

“Absolutely,” Porti said. “For example, we had a parental abduction at the elementary school. We were able to follow that vehicle on Flock as it left the city, went into Suffolk, and actually to the street that they went into in Suffolk.”

Kaplan asked if he understood correctly that being partnered with Flock allows the FPD to be tied into cameras at certain businesses in the city as well.

Porti said, “All Lowe’s stores across the country are members of it, as well as Home Depot, to fight retail theft rings.”