Lynchburg City Council Rejects Flock Camera Resolution
The council voted 3-4 against a measure seeking details on contract termination and data deletion.
Updated on Oct. 29, 2026 in City Hall
Live Poll
Should your city council avoid revisiting previously settled contract decisions?
Lynchburg City Council members voted 3-4 to reject a proposed resolution requiring Flock to provide information on refunds, removal fees, and data deletion. The city continues its policy of keeping the surveillance cameras deactivated until the current agreement officially ends.
Why it matters
The decision reflects the city’s strategy to avoid incurring additional removal costs by allowing the existing contract to conclude naturally. Officials are prioritizing fiscal caution by waiting out the remaining term rather than pursuing early termination terms.
The council rejected the resolution in a 3-4 vote among the 7 seated members. Officials maintain the policy of keeping Flock cameras deactivated until the contract expires.
The players
Lynchburg City Council
This is the governing legislative body for the city of Lynchburg, responsible for setting local policy and managing municipal contracts.
Flock
Flock is a technology vendor that provides automated license plate recognition and surveillance camera systems to municipalities.
The details
The rejected resolution sought a written breakdown from the vendor regarding refund structures, removal fees, and data management timelines. By declining to mandate this report now, the council maintains its current path of keeping the camera systems inactive until the contract concludes.
Timeline
The city voted to end its contract with Flock in September 2026.
City Council debated and rejected the new resolution in October 2026.
The contract is scheduled for expiration at the end of April 2027.
Political Context
The council's vote follows a pattern set by the Lynchburg city procurement and contract termination regulations. Opposition members may argue that demanding immediate vendor accountability is necessary to protect public data security regardless of removal costs.
Residents will not see immediate changes to the status of local surveillance as the cameras remain deactivated under current policy. Taxpayers remain protected from potential early-exit removal fees until the contract formally expires next spring.
The takeaway
Local governments often choose to let contracts lapse rather than force early termination to preserve budget funds. Residents interested in public spending should monitor city procurement agendas as upcoming expiration dates approach.
Further reading
For more information on local government decisions, visit City Hall.
Source note: This article includes information reported by WSET.
Live Poll
Should your city council avoid revisiting previously settled contract decisions?
