As they worked on next year’s city budget Monday night, Auburn city councilors agreed to consider $24,000 for continued use of Flock cameras in the city.

Two councilors on the seven-seat council, Ward 1 ‘s Rachel Randall and Ward 3’s Mathieu Duvall, voted against the funding. Use of the cameras has drawn some public backlash nationwide.

The larger Auburn populace just recently learned the police department has been using seven license-plate-reading Flock cameras affixed to poles in certain areas of the city and one movable video camera since the summer of 2025 after the department received a grant from the federal Department of Homeland Security.

That funding is ending this year and police department leaders are seeking city funding to continue using them.

Monday night’s vote was only to consider the funding as the council shapes next year’s budget, not to approve the funding.

Randall opposed the funding request, saying she feels the proposed city budget is tight enough without it, she said.

“I won’t even consider funding this,” she said. “We have way too strict of a budget to deal with and I’m not interested in voting to put this on the budget.”

Other councilors did not state an opinion on the merit of the funding or the use of the cameras, but felt it was appropriate to consider the request further and have a robust debate in future budget discussions about the ethical concerns raised by members of the public.

During public comment, Auburn state Rep. Laurel Libby, a Republican, chastised the city for using the cameras without telling the public. In her comments to the council she raised privacy and transparency concerns around the use of the cameras.

“The people of Auburn should not learn that their city has been surveilling them for years, or at least a year, because the bill is now coming due,” she said. “To the members of this council, you all owe the people of Auburn more than that. You owe them transparency, you owe them the opportunity to weigh in before the government tracks their movements, not after.

“And the fact that a federal grant made this possible without your vote does not make it acceptable, if anything it makes it worse. It means a decision of this magnitude was made without any elected official in this city being accountable for it.”

Mayor Jeff Harmon said he has heard from members of the public about their concerns over the use of the cameras and much of it stems from misinformation.

“I’ve received numerous calls, I’ve received emails, I’ve had people come up and talk to me, send me social media, almost everything they’ve sent is either inaccurate, incomplete or taken out of context,” he said.

He said that Monday night’s meeting was not the time to have a deeper discussion over the use of the cameras and he urged councilors to save that for a future meeting if they decide to move forward with the proposed funding.

The police department has had automatic license plate readers since 2015, according to City Manager Phillip Crowell Jr. Before using the Flock cameras, the city used earlier-generation license plate readers mounted on some police vehicles. The previous cameras were paid for through the city’s Capital Improvement Fund.

Flock cameras automatically alert police when a license plate flagged in its system is spotted, such as when a vehicle is reported stolen or believed to be related to a crime, according to the city’s camera use policy.

Before stopping a flagged vehicle, officers will look for more detailed information about why the vehicle was flagged and confirm the match, according to the policy. 

Only officers trained to use the camera’s software can use it, according to the policy. A “Hot List,” which is a list of vehicles flagged by the system, and all images and data collected by the system may only be accessed, used, released or disseminated for official and legitimate law enforcement purposes, according to the policy.

It also states that all traffic stops stemming from the cameras must be constitutionally valid. Any violations or misuse of the cameras must be referred to the deputy chief, under the policy.

It is unclear when more discussion on the issue will be taken up during the council’s budgeting process.