# FOIA Return 2026-06-09 — Alamogordo IPRA response

**Requester:** Jack Smith, Deflock
**Source:** Muckrock file releases, 8 June 2026
**Custodian:** City of Alamogordo, NM — IPRA office
**Files in this folder:**

| File | Date | Scope | Cost | Signatory (city) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| `APEX_Service_agreement_for_Long_Term_8-30-23_-_signed.pdf` | 2023-08-30 (signed 2023-09-15) | NVR for "Long-Term Storage Facility" — i7-11700K, 64GB RAM, RTX 3060 12GB, 34TB storage, Win 11 Pro | $5,617.46 | David Kunihiro, Chief of Police |
| `APEX_Technologies_SSA_Evidence_Room_Upgrades3-18-2024_24-066.pdf-redacted.pdf` | 2024-03-18 | Evidence Rooms — 7× AXIS M3116-LVE 4MP cameras, 1× AXIS P3077-PVE 6MP 360° camera, 2× IoPROX RFID card readers, 2× HES 1500-630-LMS UL electric door strikes | $9,364.36 | David Kunihiro, Chief of Police |
| `Flock_Statement_of_Work_-_signed_12-26-24.pdf` | 2024-12-16 (signed 2024-12-26) | **FlockOS Advanced implementation: Community Rollover Program (50 locations / 400 feeds, including integration of City-owned Unifi camera system), Camera Registry Website, custom ESRI map layers, map attachments** | **Price not in SOW** (lives in the Master Service Agreement, not yet produced) | Stephanie Hernandez, Acting City Manager |
| `Flock_Quotation_0228029725_-_CITY_OF_ALAMOGORDO_-_signed.pdf` | 2024-12-16 (signed 2024-12-27) | **Quotation via Insight Public Sector (OMNIA Partners Cobb County contract #23-6692-03). 55 Flock cameras (22 Falcon LPR, 4 Solar Falcon LR, 2 Dual Solar Falcon = 4 cameras, 5 LPR Video Fixed, 9 Condor PTZ, 11 Solar Condor Fixed) + FlockOS Advanced + Enhanced LPR + Community 50/400 subscription + $30,300 professional services.** | **Year 1: $246,150. Year 2: $215,850. Subtotal: $462,000. NMGRT tax: $37,826.25. Grand total: $499,826.25.** 24-month term, coverage starts 2024-12-27. | Stephanie Hernandez, PhD, Acting City Manager (city) / Lisanne Steinheiser, Global Compliance Officer (Insight reseller) |

## The vendor — APEX Technologies (pre-Flock baseline)

**APEX Technologies** — 151 S. Walnut, Las Cruces NM 88001. Contact: Kevin Tillery (CEO), Joshua Tillery. aptechnologiesnm.com. Self-described: *"SECURITY • SURVEILLANCE – ACCESS CONTROL"*. Local NM integrator doing physical-security and IT work for police facilities.

## What the package says (the pre-Flock baseline)

Both APEX contracts are pre-Flock. The Aug 2023 NVR is for a "Long-Term Storage Facility" with a GPU that's over-spec for dumb recording (the RTX 3060 12GB is a tier that can run ML inference — object detection, vehicle re-ID, license-plate analytics). The Mar 2024 contract adds 8 IP cameras and 2 RFID access-controlled doors to the **Evidence Rooms**. Same chief signs both. Same vendor. Same purchasing agent (Barbara Pyeatt, bpyeatt@ci.alamogordo.nm.us).

**The pre-Flock picture:** Kunihiro was already building out an analytics-capable, access-controlled, camera-extensible surveillance and evidence-management infrastructure for APD in 2023-2024. When Flock arrived, it did not introduce surveillance to Alamogordo; it got plugged into a system that was already designed to be camera-extensible and analytics-capable. **The Flock SOW makes this concrete: it explicitly says the deployment includes "integration of City-owned Unifi camera system" — i.e., the cameras Flock will manage are the cameras the city (and HOAs and businesses) already had.**

This is the **"Flock didn't introduce surveillance; it networked what was already there"** framing. If the page ever wants to make that argument, these are the two contracts to cite alongside the Flock SOW.

## The redaction log (the only IPRA-process finding)

The Mar 2024 PDF includes a redaction log generated by Alamogordo's IPRA office (PDF metadata: created 2025-12-19 18:02 GMT by wkhtmltopdf; title "Redaction Log"; page 8 of the document). Two redactions are recorded:

| Reason | Page | Description |
|---|---|---|
| `no reason` | 3 (1 occurrence) | --- (no description given) |
| `PPII 1(a) Taxpayer ID` | 3 (1 occurrence) | NMSA 1978 § 14-2-1.1, § 14-2-6(F) — taxpayer ID number reduced to last four digits |

**The "no reason" redaction is an IPRA-process finding.** A redaction log entry with no legal basis cited is the kind of thing the NM IPRA statute expects to be challenged. Per the statute, the custodian must cite the specific exemption for each redaction. "No reason" doesn't cite one. **This is a potential follow-up IPRA question:** *"The redaction log for request 24-066 lists one entry with no reason given. Please identify the legal basis for that redaction, or release the redacted material."*

(The NM IPRA Inspector General's office takes these complaints. Worth a follow-up only if it's worth a follow-up — small procedural finding, not a substantive one.)

## The Acrobat Sign audit trail (small procedural irregularity)

The Mar 2024 PDF includes the full Adobe Acrobat Sign audit trail (pages 6-7). Routing:

1. **2024-03-15 23:16 GMT** — Maria Herndon (mherndon@ci.alamogordo.nm.us) creates the document.
2. **2024-03-15 23:16** — Routed to Barbara Pyeatt (purchasing).
3. **2024-03-18 13:18** — Pyeatt signs.
4. **2024-03-18 14:31** — David Kunihiro (police chief) signs.
5. **2024-03-18 17:49** — Ashley Smith (city attorney) signs.
6. **2024-03-18 17:51** — Kevin Tillery (Apex) signs.
7. **2024-03-18 18:59** — Email opened by Rachel Hughs (city clerk).
8. **2024-03-18 19:04** — **Hughs DECLINES to sign** with reason: *"After I signed it and added the date, it remains on the signature and will not allow me to submit it."*
9. Document status: "Canceled / Declined" per Acrobat Sign — but the document is clearly in the city's records as a completed contract.

**The irregularity:** the city clerk (the official custodian of municipal contracts) declined to sign, and the document was still recorded as the operative agreement. The "Canceled / Declined" status in Acrobat Sign suggests the workflow technically failed, but the contract was nevertheless performed and paid. This is a small procedural point — the kind of thing that could be raised in a future IPRA request as *"please confirm the final signed version of contract 24-066; the Acrobat Sign audit trail shows the city clerk declined to sign, and the document was nevertheless performed and paid."*

**Again, small finding. Not substantive. Worth a follow-up only if the page ever needs to make a procedural-integrity argument about Alamogordo's contract process.**

## The Flock Statement of Work (signed 12-26-24) — the actual Flock document

This is the one that changes things. Full text in `Flock_SoW.txt` and rendered at `flock-sow-pages/p-*.png`.

**Docusign Envelope ID:** 1D116C6A-5F15-4D72-B7B1-5DD1C83DDC34
**Effective Date:** December 16, 2024
**SOW Version:** 2.0
**Drafted by:** Kevin Jung (Flock)
**Flock signatory:** Nikki Bailey, Manager, Solutions Engineering (signed 12/16/2024)
**Customer signatory:** Stephanie Hernandez, Acting City Manager (signed 26/12/2024)

**Scope: FlockOS Advanced implementation. Four deliverables:**

1. **"Community Rollover Program for 50 location / 400 feeds (whichever comes first) — to include integration of City-owned Unifi camera system."**
2. **"Creation of a Camera Registry Website to facilitate public/private partnership for camera sharing."**
3. **Custom ESRI map layers to overlay on FlockOS map.**
4. **Map Attachments for redirection from FlockOS to desired web resource.**

**Configuration services:** configure ESRI-based map interface, implement Video Management System, integrate existing Flock hardware, enable unlimited users, plot registrations on FlockOS map for the Camera Registry Program, configure up to 400 video feeds within FlockOS, enable live view and replay on all video feeds, "Flock Safety Wing Gateway includes 14 days on edge storage."

**Customer responsibilities (city must do before Flock comes onsite):** port forwarding on customer network, camera info (IP, port, login, manufacturer, lat/long), open HTTP and RTSP (UDP and TCP) to the Flock Safety Wing Gateway, onsite IT rep with networking access, power for NVR, available physical ethernet port to interface with cameras via Onvif.

**Out of scope:** physical installation of any product not supplied by Flock, software changes outside FlockOS, network configurations outside Flock standards.

**Flock Safety Professional Services labor rate: $250/hour** for anything above SOW scope.

**Project timing:** Wing gateway installs on a rolling 90-day schedule; 4 quarterly onsite install visits planned with Flock and the Customer.

### What this SOW says in plain terms

- **This is not a basic ALPR contract.** It's a FlockOS Advanced implementation. The 50-location / 400-feed community rollover is *the city's existing Unifi camera system being absorbed into FlockOS* — Flock didn't add cameras to Alamogordo; it absorbed the cameras Alamogordo already had (or that HOAs / businesses had).
- **No dollar amount is in the SOW.** Pricing lives in the **Master Service Agreement (MSA)**, which is referenced but not included. The SOW is the *services* document; the MSA is the *commercial* document. **The actual pricing is in a different PDF that the FOIA has not yet produced.** That's a follow-up IPRA question.
- **"Public/private partnership for camera sharing"** is the Camera Registry Website — the mechanism by which HOAs and businesses register their cameras with the Flock network. This is the formal version of the Alamogordo murder-case pattern (HOA- and business-purchased Flock cameras feeding the police network) already documented in the 2nd Life Media Alamogordo article in resources.html.
- **The 14-day edge storage is the local-retention baseline.** FlockOS cloud retention is presumably in the MSA, not the SOW.
- **The customer has to open the city's network to Flock.** Port forwarding, HTTP, RTSP (UDP and TCP), Onsite IT rep "with networking access available" — Flock is being put *inside* the city's network perimeter. That's a structural fact the page can use.
- **"Community Rollover Program" is the network-extraction move, in writing.** "Rollover" = cameras previously registered to a different system are being re-registered to Flock. This is the same move that has built the 80,000+ camera Flock network nationally.
- **Nikki Bailey (Manager, Solutions Engineering)** is the technical-implementation counterpart to Libby Landers (Senior Customer Success Manager, the FOIA-coaching contact named in the footnote4a piece). Same company, different roles, both customer-facing.
- **Stephanie Hernandez, Acting City Manager, signed the SOW.** The police chief (Kunihiro) would have signed the *MSA* (commercial contract) if he signed anything. The SOW is services, not commerce. Normal municipal procurement.

### What this SOW changes for the page

The Deflock site is built around primary-source rigor. **Until now, the page has been arguing from external evidence** (the EFF 99.8% number, the national journalism, the Footnote4a piece, the legal cases). **Now there's a primary-source Flock document, on file, that says in plain text:**

> *"Community Rollover Program for 50 location / 400 feeds... including integration of City-owned Unifi camera system"*
> *"Creation of a Camera Registry Website to facilitate public/private partnership for camera sharing"*

Those two lines, in Flock's own words on a Flock-signed document, are the page's two strongest talking points for the *Alamogordo-specific* argument. The "let Flock argue against itself" rule is now load-bearing on a real, citable document.

The page can now make these arguments with primary-source backing:

1. **"Flock is the network, not just the cameras."** The Community Rollover Program is the absorption of existing cameras (city-owned, HOA-owned, business-owned) into the FlockOS system. The cameras were already there; Flock is what's new.

2. **"Public/private partnership" is the formal mechanism for HOA and business camera sharing.** The Camera Registry Website is the public-facing registration portal — the same pattern as the Alamogordo murder case.

3. **Flock is being placed inside the city's network perimeter.** Port forwarding, HTTP, RTSP, Onsite IT rep — this is structural access, not just camera feed access. The SOW requires the city to make Flock a trusted network participant.

4. **The SOW is the services document; the MSA is the commercial document.** Pricing, retention, data-sharing terms, indemnification, termination — all of those live in the MSA, which is not yet public. **The most important follow-up IPRA question is for the MSA.**

### What to do with the SOW on the page (when ready)

If the page wants the strongest version of the Alamogordo argument, the SOW goes in the documents section of the site (under `deflock/documents/` or as a PDF link in `flock.html`'s Documents section). The citation chain would be:

> *"Flock's own Statement of Work, signed 2024-12-26, states the deployment includes a 'Community Rollover Program for 50 location / 400 feeds... including integration of City-owned Unifi camera system' and a 'Camera Registry Website to facilitate public/private partnership for camera sharing.' The Statement of Work is on file at deflockalamo.org."*

That paragraph is honest, sourced, and reinforces the page's two strongest Alamogordo-specific arguments in *Flock's own words*. It does not require the reader to share a political priors; it requires only that they read the SOW.

**Don't add this to the page without a deliberate decision.** The SOW is the strongest Alamogordo-specific evidence the page has, but the page's main argument is the Flock network nationally, not the Alamogordo deployment specifically. The SOW belongs on the page as Alamogordo-specific evidence; it does not replace the national argument.

### The SOW's relation to the FOIA suppression playbook

The SOW is also relevant to the FOIA brief in a specific way: **the SOW is the *services* document, and the *commercial* document (MSA) is the one with the suppression clauses.** The footnote4a piece documents Flock's "Guide to Open Records" telling customers to delay, redact, and disable the only fields that make the portal meaningful. Those clauses live in the MSA, not the SOW. Until the MSA is produced, the page can argue (with this SOW as evidence) that *the commercial document is the one Flock doesn't want public, because that's where the price tag, the retention terms, the data-sharing terms, and the suppression clauses live.*

## The Flock Quotation (signed 12-27-24) — the price tag

Full text in `Flock_Quote.txt`. The Quotation is the commercial document for the Alamogordo deployment. **It is sold *through* Insight Public Sector, Inc. (Insight.com), via OMNIA Partners (Cobb County) IT Products and Services contract #23-6692-03** — a national cooperative purchasing contract that lets cities buy without going out to bid. Sales rep: Sergio Torrez (Insight).

**The price tag:**

| | Year 1 | Year 2 | **Total** |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hardware + software | | | $431,700 |
| Professional services | | | $30,300 |
| Subtotal | $246,150 | $215,850 | **$462,000** |
| NMGRT tax (~8.2%) | | | $37,826.25 |
| **Grand total** | | | **$499,826.25** |

**Term:** 24 months. Coverage starts 2024-12-27.

### The hardware (the cameras the city is buying)

| Product | Count | Unit | Subtotal | Discount vs. list |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| **Flock Falcon** (solar + LTE, LPR, "Vehicle Fingerprint" trademark, ML, real-time alerts, unlimited users) | 22 | $3,000 | $66,000 | 9.6% |
| **Flock Solar Falcon LR** (solar LPR, vehicle fingerprint, unlimited users) | 4 | $5,000 | $20,000 | 9.6% |
| **Flock Dual Solar Falcon** (2 solar LPR cameras on one pole) | 2 units (= 4 cameras) | $4,800 | $9,600 | 9.6% |
| **Flock LPR Video Fixed** (LE-grade bundled standard) | 5 | $5,000 | $25,000 | 9.6% |
| **Flock Condor PTZ** (live streaming + video recording) | 9 | $3,000 | $27,000 | 9.6% |
| **Flock Solar Condor Fixed** (solar, live-streamed, **30 days edge storage**, VMS included, "TURN KEY") | 11 | $3,250 | $35,750 | 9.6% |
| **FlockOS Advanced** subscription (1 license) | 1 | $10,000 | $10,000 | 18.7% |
| **FlockOS Enhanced LPR Package** (1 license) | 1 | $7,500 | $7,500 | 32.2% |
| **FlockOS Community 50/400** (the public-private camera-sharing subscription) | 1 | $15,000 | $15,000 | 9.6% |
| **Flock Professional Services** (64 hours/services across standard, advanced, condor, bundle, community program, existing-infrastructure mounting) | — | — | $30,300 | various (9% – 81%) |
| **Manual PO / Sales notes** (line item) | 1 | $462,000 | $462,000 | — |

### The camera count (the number the page can quote)

- 22 Falcon (LPR, vehicle fingerprint)
- 4 Solar Falcon LR (LPR, vehicle fingerprint)
- 4 cameras in 2 Dual Solar Falcon units (LPR, vehicle fingerprint)
- 5 LPR Video Fixed (LE-grade standard)
- 9 Condor PTZ (live streaming)
- 11 Solar Condor Fixed (live streaming, 30-day edge storage)

**Total: 55 Flock cameras.**

**Plus the 50-location / 400-feed Community Rollover** from the SOW — the *public-private camera-sharing program*. That's not 50 new Flock cameras; it's 50 *locations* of *existing* cameras (city-owned Unifi, HOA, business) being rolled into the Flock network, up to 400 feeds total.

**The Flock *network* in Alamogordo = 55 Flock cameras + up to 400 community-rolled-in feeds = a network of 100+ camera points and up to 455 feeds.**

### The Insight / OMNIA Partners purchasing path

The city didn't put this out to bid. They bought it through a national cooperative contract (OMNIA Partners Cobb County #23-6692-03) administered by Insight Public Sector, Inc. (a major IT reseller). Sales rep: Sergio Torrez (Insight). The cooperative contract structure means the cameras were effectively selected by the Flock sales motion, not by an independent RFP process.

This is standard municipal procurement, but it is worth a sentence in the page's framing. It also means the **commercial contract structure has two Flock-side counterparties** in the documentation:

- **Insight** (the reseller — Lisanne Steinheiser signs the Quotation on the reseller side)
- **Flock Group, Inc.** (the actual supplier — the SOW is signed by Nikki Bailey of Flock)

The MSA (the Flock-side commercial contract with all the suppression clauses) is still missing.

### The discount structure (and what it reveals)

Flock's *list price* is in the document for every line item, alongside the discount. The discounts are not uniform:

| Discount tier | Examples | Implication |
|---|---|---|
| **9.6%** | All Flock hardware (Falcon, Solar Falcon, Dual Solar Falcon, LPR Video, Condor PTZ, Solar Condor Fixed) | Essentially no discount. The "list price" is set above market rate; the cooperative contract is just a passthrough. |
| **18.7%** | FlockOS Advanced subscription | Modest software discount. |
| **32.2%** | FlockOS Enhanced LPR Package | Bigger software discount. |
| **60%** | Advanced pole-mount implementation | Mid-tier service discount. |
| **80.8%** | Community Program implementation fee | **Giveaway.** Flock is subsidizing the public-private camera-sharing setup *heavily* — because that is the network-extraction move. More cameras into the network = more value of the network to the next customer. **Flock is paying to onboard the next customer.** |

The 80% discount on the Community Program implementation is the single most interesting line item in the document. **It is the receipt for the network-extraction argument in the page:** Flock subsidizes the camera-sharing program so that HOAs and businesses feed their cameras into the network, and the network becomes the product. The cameras are the loss leader; the network is the profit center.

### The "Vehicle Fingerprint™" trademark

The Falcon cameras' product description includes *"VEHICLE FINGERPRINT ™ TECHNOLOGY"*. Flock has trademarked the term. The cameras do not just read plates — they fingerprint the vehicle (make, model, color, distinguishing features, time-of-day patterns). That is the "Flock does not just read plates" argument, sourced from Flock's own quote.

### What this Quotation changes for the page

The Deflock site has been arguing from external evidence. **Now we have the *internal* pricing, hardware, and term details, on file, in Flock's own quote document, signed by both parties.** The page can now make these arguments with primary-source backing:

1. **The Alamogordo deployment is 55 Flock cameras + up to 400 community-rolled-in feeds, for $499,826.25 over 2 years.** That is the page's first specific dollar figure for the local argument. In a city of ~30,000 people, that is a per-capita surveillance spend that the page can put next to the population number.

2. **The "Community Rollover" program is the network-extraction move, with a number.** 50 locations / 400 feeds of existing city/HOA/business cameras rolled into the Flock network. The cameras were already there; Flock is what's new. **Flock subsidizes the rollout (80% discount on the implementation fee) because onboarding more cameras into the network increases the value of the network to the next customer.**

3. **The 80% discount on the Community Program implementation is the receipt for the extraction argument in the brief.** It is Flock paying to onboard the next customer's cameras. The page's brief on extraction economics should reference this line item directly.

4. **The Insight / OMNIA Partners purchasing path is the structural argument for *why* the cameras were selected by Flock's sales motion, not by an independent RFP.** A sentence in the page is enough to make the point.

5. **The 30-day edge storage on the Solar Condor Fixed cameras is the local-retention baseline.** The SOW said 14 days for the Wing Gateway; this Quotation says 30 days for the Solar Condor. The *cloud* retention is presumably in the MSA (still missing).

6. **The "Vehicle Fingerprint™" trademark is the receipt for the "Flock does not just read plates" argument.** Trademarks are filed with the USPTO; the documentation chain is verifiable.

### What to do with the Quotation on the page (when ready)

If the page wants the strongest version of the local argument, the Quotation is the *numbers document*. The SOW is the *services document*. The two together are the full public picture of the Alamogordo deployment.

The citation chain would be:

> *"Flock's own Quotation, signed 2024-12-27, documents the Alamogordo Police Department deployment of 55 Flock cameras — 22 Falcon LPR cameras, 4 Solar Falcon LR, 2 Dual Solar Falcon units, 5 LPR Video Fixed, 9 Condor PTZ, and 11 Solar Condor Fixed — plus the FlockOS Advanced, Enhanced LPR, and Community 50/400 subscriptions, for a 2-year total of $499,826.25. The Quotation also documents the 'Community Rollover Program for 50 location / 400 feeds... including integration of City-owned Unifi camera system' described in the Statement of Work, and the implementation fee for that program is discounted 80.8% off Flock's list price — Flock is paying to onboard the next customer's cameras. The Quotation is on file at deflockalamo.org."*

That paragraph is honest, sourced, and lands the strongest version of the local argument with primary-source numbers. **The 80% discount is the line item that closes the loop on the extraction frame.**

**Don't add this to the page without a deliberate decision.** The page is the page; the numbers are the numbers. When you're ready, we can draft the section.

## What the FOIA response should have included (potential follow-up)

If the request was for the Flock contract, the response so far is the APEX contracts + the Flock SOW + the Flock Quotation. The missing piece is the **Master Service Agreement (MSA)**, which is the commercial document that:

- Sets the price beyond the Quotation (the Quotation is the *what*; the MSA sets the *terms* governing the Quotation)
- Sets the data retention (the SOW has only the 14-day edge storage baseline; the Quotation says 30 days for one product; the MSA presumably sets the cloud retention)
- Sets the data-sharing terms
- Sets the indemnification, termination, and liability provisions
- **Most likely contains the suppression clauses** (per the footnote4a piece, the 10-day delay clause, the redaction guidance, the "narrowed timeframe" advice — these are MSA-level terms)
- **Likely contains the End User License Agreement (EULA) reference** — the Quotation explicitly says *"Customer understands, accepts and agrees that this purchase is subject to Flock Safety's End User License Agreement, available at: https://www.flocksafety.com/terms-and-conditions-eula"*. The EULA is a *Flock-published* document (link is public) but the MSA-level *implementation* of the EULA in this specific contract is not yet public.

**The follow-up IPRA question to the city clerk is:** *"Please produce the Master Service Agreement (MSA) between the City of Alamogordo and Flock Group Inc, including all amendments, all schedules, and all exhibits. The Statement of Work signed 2024-12-26 (Docusign Envelope ID 1D116C6A-5F15-4D72-B7B1-5DD1C83DDC34) and Quotation #0228029725 signed 2024-12-27 are governed by this MSA but the MSA itself was not produced."*

That gets the missing commercial document on the record. The MSA is the *real* Flock contract; the SOW is the implementation schedule on top of it; the Quotation is the line-item pricing.