13 Fifty of fifty-one camera sites are built — one is still stuck in permittingnew
The deployment is 98% complete, with a single location held in "permitting" — consistent with the unresolved Caltrans dispute.
Flock’s weekly location-activity notices give hard counts for the week of 2025-12-22 → 12-28:
51 Total Locations · 98% complete! · 0 PLANNING · 1 PERMITTING · 0 INSTALLING · 50 INSTALLED
That much was known from vendor email. The City’s own device report — released nine months earlier and only collected into this archive on 2026-07-26 — confirms it and names the pieces.
Flock Camera Locations_Redacted.pdf, produced under PR-2025-200 on 2025-10-02, is a
13-page per-device inventory covering cameras #01 through #51. Location names and serial
numbers are redacted throughout. For every camera the City released the device uptime, the
operational status, and the date of last service visit:
| Camera | Status |
|---|---|
| #50 | Permitting / Submitted — “No parent” |
| #49 | Decommissioned — Salesforce stage: Planning |
| #12 | Device offline, 5% uptime |
| #04, #13 | “Slow upload speed” |
| the rest | Device Operating Normally, 96–100% uptime |
Full table in PR-2025-200/camera-inventory.csv.
Why it matters. “51 cameras” was never 51 working cameras. One was decommissioned, one was never permitted, and at the time of the report one more was offline at 5% uptime. Service visits run from 2022-03-19 to 2025-08-23, so the fleet is maintained — but the headline number the public hears has always been the installed count, not the operating count.
Camera #50 is the Caltrans camera. This closes a loop. In September 2024 Wendy Stratton-Monahan wrote to Flock asking why Benicia was “being charged for service for the camera that has yet to be installed,” noting Caltrans “had denied installation, so we continue to be without the 51st camera in operation” (finding #2). The City’s device report shows that unit — #50 — still sitting in “Permitting / Submitted” a year later, and the December 2025 vendor notices still show 1 in permitting. The dispute over the encroachment permit (finding #5) has never been resolved, and the City has been billed throughout under the five-year co-term.
Also new: on 2026-01-22, “Escambia County FL SO has shared a Hot List with you!” — a Florida sheriff’s office pushing a hot list into Benicia’s system, another out-of-state thread alongside the NCRIC/WSIN question.
Evidence: PR-2025-200/pdf/Flock Camera Locations_Redacted.pdf (OCR’d),
PR-2025-200/camera-inventory.csv,
PR-2026-7/text/Flock Safety_ Location Activity for CA - Benicia PD.txt,
Escambia County FL SO has shared a Hot List with you!.txt
The documents behind this
Read them yourself — that is the point.
| Document | Request |
|---|---|
| Flock Safety_ Location Activity for CA - Benicia PD.pdf | PR-2026-7 |
| Escambia County FL SO has shared a Hot List with you!.pdf | PR-2026-7 |
| Flock Camera Locations_Redacted.pdf | PR-2025-200 |
| PR-2025-200/camera-inventory.csv — multiple documents in this request | PR-2025-200 |
Full write-up source: FINDINGS-2026-07-25.md in the records archive. Every
quotation is transcribed from a PDF the City produced under the California Public Records
Act. Redacted and image-only scans were run through OCR, so minor spacing artifacts may
remain; wording is unchanged.