Remove Flock from Apex.

The Apex order form lists 5 Flock Safety Falcon cameras and 5 Flock Safety Falcon Flex cameras, with FlockOS included and Advanced Search added. The initial term is 24 months with a 24-month renewal. Year one cost is $36,750; annual recurring cost is $35,000. Total contract value before tax: $71,750.

Retention is set at 30 days. Flock hardware remains Flock's exclusive property. Apex is not permitted to remove, reposition, or take possession of the cameras unless the agreement allows it. This is a subscription to vendor-controlled infrastructure, not a town-owned system.

The contract also grants Flock a non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free right to use and distribute anonymized data derived from Apex's cameras to improve services, train machine-learning algorithms, and support development. "Anonymized" does not always mean risk-free in mobility datasets.

Flock describes its platform as a "public safety operating system" connecting neighborhoods, schools, businesses, and law enforcement. The platform includes LPR, live video capability, audio detection, AVL/CAD integrations, and other situational tools.

Flock's "Simplified Search" allows users to search activity tied to a single vehicle across publicly and privately owned cameras using filters including make, body type, color, plates, partial tags, missing tags, temporary tags, decals, bumper stickers, back racks, and roof racks. This is structured, searchable movement intelligence.

Users can access "1B+ additional plate reads each month" through sharing networks, including one-to-one, national, and statewide search networks, with connections to NCIC, Amber Alerts, FBI, and other external databases.

The Chief described Flock as a searchable database with plate records, real-time alerting, vehicle-based investigative value, AI-assisted identification features, and retention-based search utility. The town's own public defense establishes this is not passive observation.

The Chief cited several investigative "wins," including an ATM jackpotting case, a stolen-vehicle/burglary-ring case, and a motor-vehicle break-in series. However, the jackpotting claim remains unverified in produced records: no incident number, no produced case file tying Apex Flock to the case, and no independent public corroboration.

The Chief said Apex has 10 cameras across 26 square miles, placed to maximize plate reads at major ingress/egress and high-traffic points, with no cameras inside residential neighborhoods. The siting logic is broad traffic capture, not targeted surveillance of specific known criminal locations.

The system had been live approximately 90 days at the time of the working session. Apex was making strong operational claims very early in the system's lifecycle.

Outside agencies must request permission, approval is controlled by the captain over the Flock program, and Apex requires agencies to agree to data-sharing terms. But the Chief also said: the compliance framework may lack meaningful consequences if an agency doesn't comply.

The control mechanism appears partly trust-based. This is a major governance weakness in a system designed for cross-jurisdictional sharing.

In the working session, the Chief described private Flock cameras as separate from the town system. But a July 2024 letter to Lowe's requested regional access to Lowe's-owned Flock and/or LiveView for investigative use, which appears broader than simple stolen-vehicle alerts.

No Lowe's response, final agreement, access terms, retention terms, or limit document has been produced. It remains unknown whether access was granted, whether it was alert-only or broader search access, and whether other private entities have similar arrangements.

A separate concern involves private Flock cameras at sensitive sites such as hospitals. The issue is not simply whether a private site has a camera. It is whether police have alerts or search access, and whether those sites are part of a police-accessible surveillance network that could track visits to medical facilities, schools, or religious institutions.

Records show a 2023 Flock agreement was approved, signed, and followed by procurement activity, but that earlier deal appears to have stalled or not been implemented. The current deployment came through a revived or replacement path.

The push appears to have originated through Apex Police, not through a council-led civic technology policy process. The origin point is law-enforcement operational preference, not a neutral public policy process.

The contract says Flock may access, use, preserve, and disclose footage to law enforcement, government officials, or third parties if legally required or if Flock has a good-faith belief disclosure is necessary. Apex does not have absolute practical control over every scenario involving its footage.

Flock's proposal also says it supports agencies in educating stakeholders, including city councils, and can help share crimes solved in local media through its PR team. Public narratives around "wins" may be vendor-supported. Success stories should be independently verified.

1. "It is limited" vs. the platform is built to network. Apex emphasizes 30-day retention, no facial recognition, and local controls. Flock's own materials describe a platform designed for public/private camera search, national sharing, live video, audio detection, and broad integrations.

2. "We can verify safeguards" vs. records are missing. The working session relied on assurances: auditing, controls, approvals, limited sharing. The town has not produced the records necessary to independently verify use, outcomes, audits, or enforcement of safeguards.

3. "Private cameras are separate" vs. the Lowe's letter. The Chief described private systems as separate, but the Lowe's letter requested broader regional investigative access to private Flock/LiveView infrastructure.

4. "Crime-solving wins" vs. unverified claims. The Chief cited vivid examples, but the produced records do not yet let the public validate those claims independently.

5. "We control sharing" vs. "not a lot of teeth." The Chief said Apex controls outside access but acknowledged the compliance framework may lack meaningful consequences.