The Kent City Council on Sept. 17 voted to remove the October deadline for a decision on whether the city will continue with Flock Security cameras, keeping the issue on the council’s pending list for further consideration. The motion was made by Council member Melissa (name shown in the transcript only) and seconded in council; the motion passed by council vote and the item will remain on the pending list for future placement on a committee agenda.

Council members said the basic technical presentation from police remains the same but that new lawsuits and actions by other cities have changed the context. “There’s new information, new lawsuits that have been levied against Flock Security,” a council member said during debate, noting recent reports that some large cities have decided to stop working with the company. Another member said the concern is not the local police leadership: “This has nothing to do, at least from my perspective, with my trusted chief or the team. My issue is that this is a private company with funding from very, strange and unusual organizations involved in security at a broad national level.”

Several members urged a timely decision so residents are not left uncertain; others argued for more time to manage meeting agendas and to report on the most recent lawsuits and city decisions. Councilors discussed logistics for how the topic would return — as a committee item with a public hearing before any vote on legislation. Council staff said the technology and local implementation details presented earlier have not changed, but that additional external developments (lawsuits, policy shifts in other cities) could be summarized for council before a final vote.

The motion to remove the October deadline does not eliminate the item; it stays on the pending list and can be scheduled for committee discussion or placed on a future council agenda when members determine the timing is right. Councilors who plan to participate in the committee discussion said they expect focused presentations and that the police chief can answer operational questions when the item returns.

Councilors repeatedly separated three types of matters: operational logistics presented by police, questions about the vendor and its national network, and the council’s policy decision about whether to authorize the technology. Several members requested that staff and council coordinate to present recent developments and any new court filings before the next substantive hearing.

The council’s action was procedural: it extended the timeline for formal consideration rather than approving or rejecting the technology. The item will be scheduled from the pending list for a committee meeting and public discussion before any final legislative vote.