District 1 Council Candidates Both Oppose Renewing Fresno’s $1.5 Million Flock Camera Contract

Rob Fuentes and Naindeep Singh, the two candidates facing off for Fresno City Council District 1 in the November 3 runoff, both say the city should not renew its roughly $1.5 million contract with Flock Safety when it expires in 2026.

The opposition comes as advocacy groups have organized protests and petitions urging the council to drop the contract over privacy concerns, while Fresno police have argued the roughly 70 cameras are useful investigative tools. The city funded the three-year contract through a state grant.

Fuentes, a former federal prosecutor and civil rights attorney now serving on the State Center Community College District Board of Trustees, told The Fresno Bee the system “creates a surveillance record of every single innocent person who drives through our neighborhoods.” He added that law enforcement needs effective tools but framed the issue as a constitutional question: “Building safe neighborhoods and respecting our constitutional rights is not a false choice: We can and must do both.”

Singh, executive director of the nonprofit Jakara Movement and a Central Unified school board trustee, said the city should not renew “without answers to basic questions.” He pointed to documented problems in other cities — “warrantless surveillance, misuse for stalking, immigration enforcement abuse, wrongful arrests based on flawed data” — and said Fresno should learn from those warning signs rather than ignoring them.

Singh told The Bee the city has had two years to show the data but it’s been “extremely limited and weak.” He asked: “How many crimes solved per hundred thousand records searched? What’s the actual hit rate? We’re paying for outcomes.”

He also raised transparency questions — who accesses footage, for how long, for what purposes, and whether commercial use or third-party data sales are permitted. “The fact that the city hasn’t answered these questions suggests they don’t want to,” he said.

Singh added that Flock as a company “has a track record of resisting oversight and sharing data beyond what cities authorized.” He concluded: “Renewal without ironclad protections isn’t cautious, it’s negligent.”

The two candidates also addressed other issues at forums and in written statements. Both support a stronger police presence in the Tower District nightlife scene but differ on approach: Fuentes backs preventative patrols and community policing, while Singh wants the city to execute the Tower District Specific Plan, including systematic code enforcement, deploying a federally funded Metro Bike Unit at peak hours, and investing in art, retail, walkable streets, and a public library. Singh said boarded buildings and disorder — not just crime data — are driving people away.

On LGBTQ+ support, Fuentes pledged to expand multilingual outreach, strengthen the Fresno EOC LGBTQ+ Resource Center, and back a housing-first approach for the unhoused. Singh said “budgets ultimately tell you your values” and promised investments in communities long “neglected and disinvested,” pointing to a new council majority to shift priorities.

At a May 19 forum at Big Red Church, Fuentes pointed to his work leading a State Center Community College District task force to “better protect and better serve” LGBTQ+ students, work he said he’d replicate at City Hall. Singh at that forum criticized Mayor Jerry Dyer’s budget proposal for leaving out funding specifically for the LGBTQ+ community. A city spokesperson responded the next day that funding has been added through negotiations between the mayor and Councilmember Annalisa Perea in past years and is anticipated for Fiscal Year 27 as well.

The Breakdown

• The Flock Safety contract expires in 2026 and cost roughly $1.5 million total, funded by a state grant. The system uses roughly 70 cameras.
• Both District 1 runoff candidates — Fuentes and Singh — oppose renewing the contract. Fuentes frames it as a constitutional concern over surveillance of innocent people; Singh wants data on hit rates, crimes solved, and access policies before any renewal.
• Advocacy groups have organized protests and petitions against renewal over privacy concerns. Fresno police argue the cameras are useful investigative tools.
• Singh cited documented abuses in other cities: warrantless surveillance, stalking, immigration enforcement misuse, and wrongful arrests based on flawed data.
• The District 1 race will be decided in the November 3 runoff.

What This Means for You

This November 3 runoff will decide who represents District 1 on the Fresno City Council — the seat currently held by Annalisa Perea, who is termed out.

Both candidates in the runoff oppose renewal, so your vote here will not determine whether the cameras stay or go — that opposition is shared ground. What your vote does determine is the reasoning and the standard each candidate would apply: Fuentes centers constitutional rights and the surveillance of innocent people, while Singh centers transparency, data on outcomes, and specific protections against the abuses other cities have documented.

If you care about police accountability, LGBTQ+ community support, or how the Tower District is policed, this race will also shape those policies — the candidates differ on approach even where they agree on goals.

What You Can Do

The November 3 runoff is approaching. Check your voter registration and ballot status at the Fresno County Clerk’s office website.

What to Watch

The city has had two years to release data on the Flock system’s effectiveness — crimes solved per records searched, hit rates, who accesses footage and for what purposes — but Singh said that data has been “extremely limited and weak.” If the city actually had strong outcome data, why hasn’t it been released to answer the basic value-for-money question voters and council candidates are asking? The absence of that data is itself a pattern worth watching: it suggests either the system isn’t delivering measurable results, or the city doesn’t want the results scrutinized before the contract comes up for renewal.

Singh also raised a legitimate question about Flock’s own track record: the company has resisted oversight and shared data beyond what cities authorized in other jurisdictions. Fresno’s contract — the access policies, the commercial-use terms, the third-party data-sharing limits — has not been publicly detailed in the material provided here. Who actually controls that footage once it’s captured, and what stops it from being used for purposes Fresno didn’t authorize? Those are real, documented risks in other cities, not hypothetical ones, and the city owes a clear answer before any renewal is considered.

The city spokesperson’s comment that LGBTQ+ funding “will happen” in Fiscal Year 27 through negotiations also raises a separate question: why does funding for a community the city says it supports require backroom negotiation year after year, rather than being built into the budget from the start? Singh’s framing — “budgets ultimately tell you your values” — is worth considering: a budget that leaves out a community until a councilmember extracts funding in closed-door talks is a budget that does not actually prioritize that community, no matter what the press statements say.

Related Coverage

• Planning Commission Rejects South Central Specific Plan for 5,567-Acre South Fresno Industrial Zone
• Fresno City Hall erupts as councilmember and city attorney threaten to investigate each other over botched candidate arrest
• Fresno Council Candidate Cleared After DUI Arrest Sparks Calls for Independent Investigations Into Police, City Attorney