Tucker Weighs Asking DeKalb County to Assume $37,500 Flock Camera Contract

The City of Tucker, Georgia, is considering whether to ask DeKalb County to assume its contract with Flock Safety for 15 automated license plate reader cameras used by the DeKalb County Police Department. The agreement costs $37,500 annually, plus contingency. Tucker’s City Council is scheduled to consider whether to submit the request to county officials; as of the reporting, the county had not received a formal request, and its decision remained unknown. The proposal is therefore a potential contract and responsibility transfer—not an approved award, amendment, or change in ownership.

The arrangement reflects the relationship between Tucker and the county police service. Tucker funds the cameras, while DeKalb County Police uses them. Mayor Anne Lerner explained the city’s rationale: “We don't use them. We put them in place for our police department, and DeKalb County is our police department, we have a contract with them to be our policing services. So we supplied those for them because they didn't have that tool and people were asking for it at the time.” Her statement frames the original purchase as a tool supplied to the department serving the city, rather than a system Tucker itself uses.

For procurement and finance teams, the central question is whether the county would assume only the financial obligation or also take responsibility for administering the agreement. The stated $37,500 is the annual contract cost, with contingency identified separately but not quantified in the available reporting. Any review should clarify the total potential commitment, the treatment of contingency, contract term and renewal provisions, and whether an assumption would require a contract amendment, assignment, or a new procurement action. The reporting does not specify those terms or establish a decision schedule.

System governance is another material consideration. Tucker policy restricts city employees’ access to the camera system, so a change in the entity paying for or administering the contract should be evaluated alongside existing access controls and operational responsibilities. County officials would need to determine who would manage the vendor relationship and define authorized users and administrative roles if the county takes over. The available information does not say that access rules would change, nor does it describe any proposed changes to data handling or system operation. Until the City Council acts and the county responds, the contract remains with Tucker and Flock Safety remains the incumbent contractor.

• The proposed arrangement covers 15 automated license plate reader cameras used by the DeKalb County Police Department.
• The reported contract cost is $37,500 annually, plus contingency; the contingency amount is not provided.
• Tucker’s City Council is scheduled to consider asking the county to assume the contract.
• DeKalb County Government had not received a formal request at the time of reporting, and its decision is unknown.
• No approved transfer, procurement timeline, contract amendment, or new solicitation is reported.
• The city’s stated rationale is that it supplied the cameras for the county police service, which serves Tucker.
• Mayor Anne Lerner said Tucker does not use the cameras and that the department lacked the tool when the city provided it.
• Tucker policy restricts city employees’ access; any contract transition should clarify access, administration, and oversight responsibilities.
• Procurement teams should distinguish the annual price from contingency and establish whether the county would assume financial responsibility, contract administration, or both.
• Flock Safety is the incumbent vendor; the available reporting does not indicate a vendor change or expanded camera deployment.