02 The city was billed for a camera the state refused to allow

One camera (the “51st,” elsewhere “#50/#51”) required a Caltrans encroachment permit to sit in state right-of-way. Caltrans denied it — but the billing had already started.

From: Wendy Stratton-Monahan, Benicia PD — September 26, 2024 (to Flock): “I received our annual bill for FLOCK cameras, and am wondering why we are being charged for service for the camera that has yet to be installed?”

Flock’s explanation was that billing is triggered by the first camera, not each camera:

From: Graham Carter, Flock Safety — September 26, 2024: “The contract is actually set up for the first camera to be validated and was a 5 year Co-term merging all the contracts together. This means once the first camera goes in the ground, the billing starts.”

The city pushed back, citing the state’s denial:

From: Wendy Stratton-Monahan — September 26, 2024: “This camera has been in permitting for quite some time. The permitting was via CalTrans, and at last notice, they had denied installation, so we continue to be without the 51st camera in operation… perhaps we can adjust the current (and past) billing for this camera to reflect as a credit, and then not charge until it is operational. I think otherwise, it is going to be difficult to calculate the ‘free time’ we are due.”

Why it matters: A “5-year co-term merging all the contracts” means the city pays for the full camera count from day one — including hardware the state has refused to permit — and must affirmatively fight to claw back credit for equipment it never received.

Source: Re_ FW_ Permit Application 0424-NSV-0053… (20)-Redacted.txt (PR-2025-159).