Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council questions Flock camera invoice, seeks legal review of reimbursement and invoice dispute
Summary
Council members raised concerns that a Flock Safety invoice for about $17,000 detailed nine cameras while the grant application described four; members asked the city attorney to pursue reimbursement or dispute options after reporting that MVC reimbursement requires fully operational equipment.
Council spent substantial time on a contested invoice from Flock Safety for license-plate-reader cameras and related video equipment. Members said the grant application and earlier public discussion referenced four cameras on four poles, but the invoice and installation scope reflected nine cameras and paired devices, leading to questions about whether the scope changed without council approval. One council member summarized: "The grant application specifically states 4 cameras, 4 poles... so I'm like, Debbie, I'm concerned as to why this didn't come back."
Staff explained the grant came through the Motor Vehicle Crime Prevention Authority and that reimbursement requires installed equipment to be 100% operational; members reported at least one unit had been vandalized before validation. After discussion about whether invoices had been properly returned to council for approval and whether the city could dispute payment within statutory timelines, the council moved and voted to direct the city attorney to write letters and explore reimbursement or dispute options with Flock and the grant administrator. Staff also said they had emailed Flock seeking refunds and had asked the grant authority whether reimbursement would be possible; the grant administrator reportedly said they would not reimburse because installations were not 100% operational.
