Oak Point customer signature
Police Chief Douglas Tatu signed the Flock order form for Oak Point DPS.
04_flock_order_form_and_implementation_guide.pdf, page 6The public record
Start with what the documents establish
A contract, permit, invoice, email, installation, payment, and Council vote are different events. This page keeps them separate and labels what the available records do not answer.
Documented timeline
Events tied to a source
Permit for two ALPR installations
The City issued right-of-way permit 20250391 for work at McCormick Road and FM 720 and at Naylor Road and Martop Road.
03_right_of_way_permit.pdf, page 1$50,000 invoice issued
Flock sent invoice INV-75091, due October 24, 2025. The record establishes billing, not payment.
02_oak_point_public_information_part_2.pdf, pages 68-69Transparency portal process underway
Flock correspondence says City officials wanted to begin an LPR transparency portal.
02_oak_point_public_information_part_2.pdf, page 20Portal changes requested
The Police Chief asked Flock to hide four public portal tabs and questioned blank search reasons.
02_oak_point_public_information_part_2.pdf, page 19Council considered three separate actions
Council approved a 180-day ALPR policy, two additional ALPRs for a total of four, and a starting transparency-portal policy.
Official meeting recording; official agenda packet, PDF pages 3 and 21-23Important timing gap
The reviewed records do not establish a single verified start date for every product, the first validated hardware installation date, or the resulting renewal deadline.
Equipment and services
Ordered does not necessarily mean installed
The 2025 order shows what was ordered. It is not, by itself, a current installed-device inventory.
| Product or service | Quantity | What current records establish | What remains unknown |
|---|---|---|---|
| Falcon automated license plate reader cameras | 4 | A permit and deployment plan disclose two locations. Council later approved two additional ALPRs for a stated total of four. | Which four devices are installed and active, and which agreement implemented the July action. |
| Condor LTE pan-tilt-zoom video cameras | 2 | Listed in the order. The Police Chief said the July 22 Flock items concerned ALPRs, not Condor cameras. | Whether these devices were installed, activated, retained, returned, or separately authorized. |
| Solar Condor pan-tilt-zoom video cameras | 5 | Listed in the order. | Whether these devices were installed, activated, retained, returned, or separately authorized. |
| FlockOS Starter | 1 | Listed in the order. | Current activation, configuration, and use. |
| Enhanced LPR | 1 | Listed in the order. Onboarding correspondence describes advanced search permissions. | Current activation, configuration, and use. |
| Traffic Analytics | 1 | Listed in the order. Onboarding correspondence describes traffic-analytics reporting permissions. | Current activation, configuration, and use. |
| Data retention | 30 days | The order states a 30-day retention period. | Whether every current City configuration matches that term. |
Seven sourced findings
What the records show
Each finding includes the material limitation needed to avoid claiming more than the source establishes.
The order covered more than two license plate readers
The order lists a $50,000 annual recurring amount, four Flock license plate reader cameras, two LTE pan-tilt-zoom cameras, five solar pan-tilt-zoom cameras, FlockOS Starter, Enhanced LPR, and Traffic Analytics. It states 30-day retention and 12-month initial and renewal terms.
What this shows
The equipment and services listed in Oak Point's order.
What this does not show
Whether every listed camera or service was installed, activated, or retained.
City records identify two disclosed ALPR locations
A City right-of-way permit identifies installations at McCormick Road and FM 720 and at Naylor Road and Martop Road. The deployment plan describes the McCormick camera as westbound and the Naylor camera as southbound.
What this shows
The locations and directions shown in the permit and deployment plan.
What this does not show
The location or operating status of every device listed in the order.
Public transparency fields were configurable
Flock told Oak Point that an agency could choose whether a public search-audit export displayed Search Reason, Case Number, Offense Type, and User ID. The correspondence also said a portal could be removed temporarily or permanently.
In a February 10, 2026 email, the Police Chief asked Flock to hide tabs showing organizations granted access to Oak Point data, organizations sharing data with Oak Point, the Public Search Audit, and unique vehicles detected during the prior 30 days. He also wrote that there were many blank search reasons.
What this shows
The portal's public display was configurable and City officials requested specific changes.
What this does not show
The current portal configuration or that underlying audit records were deleted.
Oak Point administrators received advanced search features
An onboarding email says administrator permissions were updated to include visual search, multi-geographic-area search, convoy search, and traffic-analytics reporting. The sergeant role also received advanced search features. The email says sharing preferences and requests were updated for all roles.
What this shows
Features and permissions described in the onboarding record.
What this does not show
How often those features were used, the results of a search, or that any use violated policy.
Oak Point's account displayed 1,052 shared cameras
During a support exchange, the Police Chief wrote that the account displayed 1,052 cameras shared with him and that he randomly selected cameras from other agencies while troubleshooting. Flock replied that video-management access was disabled for the relevant shared networks, so Oak Point could not view, download, or control those shared video feeds at that time.
What this shows
The number displayed in the account and the access limitation described by Flock.
What this does not show
That Oak Point viewed 1,052 live video streams.
Flock sent a $50,000 invoice
A Flock billing email identifies invoice INV-75091, dated September 24, 2025, for $50,000 and states an October 24, 2025 due date.
What this shows
An invoice was issued and delivered.
What this does not show
Whether, when, or from which City fund the invoice was paid.
A Flock email mentioned drone information and a contract
In a May 16, 2025 email to the Police Chief, a Flock account executive wrote, “Getting drone info and contract for you asap.”
What this shows
A Flock representative said drone information and a contract would be provided to the Police Chief.
What this does not show
That the City approved, acquired, contracted for, or operated a drone. The records reviewed for this site do not include the referenced drone information or contract.
Disclosed locations
Two intersections identified in City records
These coordinates describe the two ALPR locations in the permit and deployment plan. They do not establish where every device listed in the order is located today.
Westbound
McCormick Road at FM 720 / Oak Grove Parkway
33.186698385088405, -96.97751073380306
Southbound
Naylor Road at Martop Road
33.19694243704325, -96.99157397659899
Publication rule
Location evidence without private details
Public exhibits may retain intersections, travel directions, coordinates, and approved aerial imagery while removing nearby residence numbers and unrelated parcel details.
Searches and sharing
Public display and underlying records are not the same thing
The records show that the public transparency portal could be configured to show or hide particular fields and could be removed temporarily or permanently. That affects what the public sees. It does not by itself establish that the underlying search and audit records were erased.
Flock later explained that its standardized Offense Type field could provide context for a search and that a separate additional search-reason entry was no longer required.
The records reviewed so far do not answer whether Oak Point's written policy requires a case number for every search. That question should be answered using the adopted policy and an actual audit export, not assumptions.