Hi neighbors,

When the City Council voted 5-2 to enter into a contract with Flock on June 5, I, like many of you, felt the process was rushed and that the concerns of residents were dismissed. This motivated me to put in a Public Records Request.

The City released hundreds of pages of emails, internal documents, meeting notes, and staff materials. I've reviewed the nearly 2,000 pages and produced a report summarizing what the record shows about our city’s process that ultimately led to the contract with Flock. I believe residents deserve access to the same information that’s helped shape my understanding of the process. It was important to me to present this report without inserting my own opinions or editorializing.

This is not light reading. Discussions, meetings, and deliberations can, do, and should take place outside the written record. Phone calls, in-person discussions, and executive sessions with council members all would not be represented here. So it’s not the full story. But it’s the full story as indicated by the records, as best I could piece it together—and I hope it contributes to a more informed and thoughtful discussion about oversight, transparency, and how decisions like this are made in the future.

A note about the redactions: The materials provided by the City had a single redacted email. It was an email from our contracted city attorney in response to a request from Commander King to review the draft Flock contract. I presume unintentionally, the City also sent me an unredacted version of this email. For now, I am redacting the contents of the email in my report.

The key points regarding the redacted document are:

I want to be clear about my intentions here.

My goal is not to find someone to blame for a decision that I thought went the wrong way or what many perceived as a broken process. Instead, I believe we're facing increasingly frequent and difficult decisions about civil liberties, constitutional rights, and protections for the most vulnerable in our community. I want our community to be able to approach these challenges with shared trust among city staff, city council, and the public. If the Flock process had been approached with more transparency and a clear feedback loop, the resulting vote may have been the same. But it would have been done in a way that everyone involved, even those opposed, understood the risks and why we were proceeding despite them.

For those reading this in email, click below for the web version of this newsletter which includes the full report. I’ve also put together a PDF but it’s not the best format to read on a mobile device.

This report presents findings from a comprehensive review of public records related to the City of Mountlake Terrace's consideration and approval of a contract with Flock Safety for an Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) system. The review found the following consistent issues documented in the public record:

Despite concerns raised by City legal counsel, executive staff, and the public, the contract was approved on June 5, 2025, with no substantive changes.

This report summarizes a comprehensive review of public records released by the City of Mountlake Terrace in response to a public records request filed in June 2025. The request sought internal communications, staff materials, draft contracts, meeting notes, and community correspondence related to the City's consideration and ultimate approval of a contract with Flock Safety for an ALPR system. This review is based solely on the written public records provided by the City. While conversations and deliberations can occur outside documented records, and some information may be withheld due to legal exemptions like attorney-client privilege, the released documents offer a clear narrative. The initial request was broad, covering Flock-related documents from January 1, 2023, to June 2025, but was later narrowed to exclude law enforcement investigative records, focusing instead on communications regarding the system's evaluation, policy implications, and public feedback.

The earliest communication in these records indicating interest in Flock Safety came on January 26, 2023, when Flock representative Mack Larkin emailed Commander Scott King. Larkin introduced himself as Mountlake Terrace's local representative, noting he had received a notification that King was interested in learning more about Flock's services. This email suggests active interest from MLTPD more than two years before the system was discussed publicly. In early 2024, Police Detective Sergeant Megan Sheets also submitted grant research inquiries for Flock-related funding opportunities. The grant search identified "Flock Safety - License Plate Readers" as a project title. This early staff activity confirms that City staff were exploring Flock's system internally well in advance of any formal public presentation or Council engagement.

By early 2024, Mountlake Terrace staff were in conversation with Flock about potential system deployment. In a February email, Flock sales representative Garret Thomson offered a 90-day trial of six cameras and stressed that other cities had used similar trials to secure funding and move forward. Commander Scott King responded that the Chief and City Manager supported the program in concept but were waiting on the 2025 budget cycle. King expressed eagerness to move forward and noted that the department liked the six-camera option. This exchange shows that by Q1 2024, the City was actively strategizing on deployment timing and cost absorption.

After several weeks of communication in early 2024, the Mountlake Terrace Police Department appears to have gone silent with Flock Safety for nearly a full year. On February 5, 2025, Commander Scott King emailed Flock representative Garret Thomson to resume the conversation, stating:

This message, sent more than eleven months after the last documented correspondence, confirms that the City had not only maintained interest but had expanded its ambitions. The shift from a six- to eight-camera deployment, without documentation of additional vendor comparisons, public engagement, or legal reviews, underscores how decisional momentum resumed abruptly and internally.

In February 2025, the City of Lynnwood requested permission to install a Flock camera in Mountlake Terrace at the corner of 216th St SW and 66th Ave W. This prompted internal review and emails between staff and Council.

Traffic Engineer John Marek flagged that the camera would be mounted on a Mountlake Terrace signal pole and would capture license plates entering or exiting MLT. He wrote, “While I feel it would be good to support their effort, I have concerns that with the placement of the camera it would be recording data for vehicles in Mountlake Terrace as they are just entering/leaving Lynnwood, so I wanted to get your thoughts,” and asked if Council approval was needed.

On February 7, City Manager Jeff Niten emailed the full Council to ask: “What are your thoughts on the City of Lynnwood request to install FLOCK cameras?”

Several councilmembers responded, including Councilmember Erin Murray, who raised strong objections. She wrote:

Other Councilmembers raised procedural or operational questions. Councilmember Laura Sonmore asked about the City’s process for handling surveillance requests from neighbors. Councilmember Woodard responded, “If just the one pole of ours to their 24, it seems reasonable to support them.”

City Manager Jeff Niten followed up with Councilmember Rick Ryan’s request for more information, recommendations, and time to consider on February 13, writing: “Chief Caw would like to install some in our city too. I’m in favor of them.” Niten also responded to Councilmember Erin Murray’s email writing: “Purchasing these and installing them here is something Chief Caw would like to do as well. We’ll be discussing that with Council in the near future.”

Murray responded, “While I want to be a good neighbor to our surrounding cities whenever possible, I wouldn't be comfortable committing to host Lynnwood's camera in Mountlake Terrace without a public review and opportunity for our residents to weigh in.”

The public record shows that on February 7, the City Manager asked for Council's thoughts on Lynnwood's request to install a camera within city limits. A few days later, he introduced the idea of Mountlake Terrace operating its own system.

The public record reveals a critical timeline surrounding the legal review of the Flock Safety Master Services Agreement (MSA), culminating in the approval of a contract with serious unaddressed liabilities.

February 20, 2025: Commander Scott King initiated the legal review process, emailing City Attorney Hillary Evans (of Kenyon Disend) and copied Chief Pete Caw to request a review of the Flock Safety MSA and accompanying quote. An out-of-office reply directed inquiries to Hillary’s colleague, Antoinette Mattox, to whom Commander King then forwarded the request. Mattox subsequently included attorney Robert Zeinemann in the correspondence.

February 24, 2025: Explicit Legal Warnings. Attorney Robert Zeinemann, representing the City’s legal team, replied to Scott King (copying Antoinette Mattox and Hillary Evans) with detailed concerns about the contract. His assessment flagged critical vulnerabilities:

In short, Zeinemann's core concerns were clear:

Commander Scott King forwarded Robert’s response solely to Chief Pete Caw with no additional commentary on February 24, a critical point in the limited dissemination of these warnings.

February 28, 2025: Flock representative Garret Thomson followed up with Commander Scott King to see if a project was cleared and to discuss a council presentation.

March 3, 2025: Scott King informed Garret Thomson that the "Chief has cleared the project" and it's with the city attorney.

March 4, 2025: Scott King asked Garret Thomson to set up a presentation for the March 27th council meeting. Garret Thomson subsequently sent an invite to Scott King and Kristen MacLeod (Flock representative) for a meeting titled “Flock Community Affairs Meeting - Scott King” scheduled for March 12 at 4pm. Scott King accepts the invitation. Later that day, Garret Thomson forwards the meeting invite again to Scott King and Kristen MacLeod, but this time copying Detective Sergeant Megan Sheets. Megan Sheets emails Scott King asking if she is approved to charge overtime for the meeting. Scott King confirms. Megan Sheets accepts the invitation.

March 5, 2025: Hillary Evans emails Commander Scott King and Chief Pete Caw, confirming an upcoming meeting with Flock: “Meeting with Flock Monday [March 10]. I’ll keep you posted.”

March 10, 2025: A Vague "Agreement." Following that meeting, Evans informed Commander Scott King: “I think we’ve reached an agreement on the contract…” No follow-up notes, redlines, or emails documenting what was actually 'agreed to' were recorded or provided. 

On the very same day, Flock representative Garret Thomson emailed Commander King, suggesting Mountlake Terrace could simply adopt the identical MSA being finalized by the City of Sultan, noting they shared the "same legal team." 

March 11, 2025: Garret Thomson forwards the meeting invite for a "Flock Community Affairs Meeting" to Hillary Evans, scheduled for the following day, March 12, involving Scott King, Garret Thomson, Kristen MacLeod, and Megan Sheets.

March 12, 2025: Presumably Garret Thomson and Kristen MacLEod from Flock meet with Commander Scott King, Sergeant Megan Sheets, and contract city attorney Hillary Evans. 

June 5, 2025: Contract Approved, Unchanged. The City Council voted to approve the contract. Despite the explicit legal warnings from February 24, the version signed was substantively identical to the original February 20 draft.

The public record reveals an absence of meaningful follow-up on the legal concerns raised about the Flock contract. Instead of a collaborative review process, the evidence points to a pattern of siloing and a lack of transparency. It's once again important to note that this review is based solely on the written public records provided by the City. 

Beyond legal review, other internal concerns raised by Councilmembers and staff were similarly left unresolved.

February 21, 2025, two weeks after the Lynnwood request: City Manager Jeff Niten emailed the Mayor and Councilmembers: “What are your thoughts on flock cameras in Mountlake Terrace? As mentioned, they are not red light or speed cameras [Niten made this distinction in several replies to councilmembers regarding the previous Lynnwood request two weeks earlier], they are license plate readers that can only be accessed if the police has probable cause.”

Several councilmembers responded briefly in support of bringing the topic forward, including Councilmember Steve Woodard (“Please proceed with the request for readers”), Councilmember Rick Ryan (“This sounds fine”), and Councilmember Laura Sonmore (“This would be a topic to bring into a work session”). But Councilmember Erin Murray offered a more in-depth reply on February 25, raising early concerns about surveillance, privacy, and the need for public engagement. She wrote:

Deputy City Manager Carolyn Hope was copied on this email—an important detail, as she would echo these concerns in her own internal comments later in March.

March 27, 2025: At the Council work session, Murray raised detailed questions on issues including third-party access, vendor competition, audit mechanisms, and the contract’s legal language. She flagged the contradiction between Flock’s marketing promises and the legal terms in the Master Services Agreement (MSA). Councilmember William Paige asked questions about data sharing and transparency, especially in light of past concerns around how ALPR data could be reconstructed to trace someone’s movements, referencing an example from Virginia. This was brought up again more forcefully at the May 15 meeting.

May 15, 2025: Murray reiterated her previous concerns publicly and more forcefully. She read aloud from Section 5.3 of the MSA and asked for clarification about how the contract allowed data to be shared. She also asked about Flock Nova [a more comprehensive product from Flock that connects many Flock and non-Flock systems into one platform] and its potential to aggregate surveillance data. Councilmember William Paige also raised serious concerns on May 15, referencing the same Virginia case where a journalist had successfully reconstructed their driving history using ALPR data obtained via FOIA. Chief Caw acknowledged the case and said such a release was an error.

June 5, 2025: The Council voted 5–2 to approve the contract. Murray and Woodard voted no. Murray reiterated that her core questions remained unanswered:

A review of the public record reveals that serious internal and external concerns were raised about the Flock contract, but the official staff reports presented to the Council failed to substantively address them.

March 19, 2025: A very brief draft staff report was created in advance of the March 27 Council Work Session. Under “Subject Summary” the report simply states “Review of the Flock Camera and Service Agreement.”

March 21, 2025: Deputy City Manager Carolyn Hope emailed staff with specific direction to revise and expand the staff report, writing:

Hope’s message identified several gaps. She also asked if a legal review had taken place, indicating she was apparently unaware of the review that had occurred a month earlier, during which legal concerns were raised.

March 27, 2025: The Report is Expanded, But Critical Gaps Remain. The staff report for the March 27 meeting was expanded in response to Hope's direction, adding a paragraph with a more detailed description of the program. It clarified that the cameras are a "video system that captures the license plate number, make and color of the vehicle," that data is stored in a "secure cloud-based environment," and that the department "must request access from the vendor...for a specific event." It also noted the contract was "sole-source." However, this expanded report included no mention of the legal team’s review of the Master Services Agreement or the significant legal concerns raised on February 24.

May 15, 2025: The Staff Report and the Master Services Agreement provided to the Council for the May 15 remained substantively unchanged from the March 27 version. 

June 5, 2025: The Staff Report was omitted from the meeting materials available online on August 1, 2025. After a request, staff provided a document that seemed to have reverted the expanded March 27 report back to a simple statement under the Subject Summary: “Review of the Flock Service Agreement”.

The revised staff report for March 27 was a limited response to Deputy City Manager Hope's request, but the final vote was held without documentation of the resolution of the core issues identified months earlier.

Public records show that staff and elected officials in Mountlake Terrace were included in a steady stream of emails from nearby cities—Edmonds, Mukilteo, Everett, Monroe, and others—encouraging one another to adopt Flock Safety’s surveillance system. These communications often emphasized regional alignment and used Flock’s own branding language. In one case, one city administrator relayed that their chief had described the system as a “force multiplier,” a term Flock uses frequently in its marketing materials.

On February 10, 2024, Mountlake Terrace Mayor Pro Tem Bryan Wahl forwarded an email from Edmonds City Councilmember Vivian Olson to City Manager Jeff Niten and Mayor Kyoko Matsumoto Wright. Olson had written to regional colleagues that Edmonds had approved a Flock contract 6–1 and encouraged others to follow suit. “When they stop coming to Edmonds because we have them and they are more likely to get caught,” she wrote, “I don’t want them going to your towns because you don’t!” Wahl clarified that he wasn’t necessarily suggesting Mountlake Terrace adopt Flock cameras, but wanted colleagues to be aware that nearby cities—including Edmonds, Lynnwood, and Mukilteo—were advancing similar initiatives.

Other emails from Mukilteo and Monroe reinforced the sense that Flock was becoming the regional norm—and that declining to participate might be perceived as falling behind.

Between February and March 2025, both Councilmember Bryan Wahl and Mayor Matsumoto-Wright received repeated marketing emails from Flock Safety. These messages were sent on February 18, February 25, March 4, March 11, March 18, and March 25. Each email promoted Flock’s technology, highlighted national news stories, and reinforced Flock’s branding as a tool for public safety and crime prevention. It is unclear whether these emails were unsolicited or if either official had previously signed up for communications from Flock. However, the timing and frequency are notable. The outreach began before the City Council’s first public work session on the system and continued throughout the period leading up to the vote.

On April 5, 2025,  William Paige, who would not be sworn in to Council for another 5 days, reached out to journalist Jeff Schwaner (author of an investigative article about Flock Safety published by Cardinal News) via Facebook Messenger. Paige expressed concern about contradictions between what the Mountlake Terrace Council had been told by Flock and what Schwaner had uncovered in his reporting. Paige asked for more information ahead of the Council's upcoming discussion on April 10 [he may have meant May 15].

After a delayed response, Schwaner replied on May 28, sharing further reporting from Media 404. He warned that “even though a locality owns its footage, they may unwillingly participate in behaviors that are against their own local policy… because there is apparently no real control of what other agencies can do or not do when accessing your data.” He also noted that while there are public safety benefits, Flock’s audit trail could be easily circumvented by bad actors entering vague or false justifications for data access.

Paige responded with appreciation and noted that the Council had postponed the vote until June 5 to allow for public comment. He expressed interest in speaking by phone, and the two arranged a time to connect.

On May 21, 2025—just six days after the Council tabled its initial vote and two weeks before final approval—State Representative Lauren Davis spoke at the City of Mountlake Terrace’s State of the City event. Davis spent approximately 25% of her remarks publicly endorsing the Flock Safety system. She praised its effectiveness in reducing crime and encouraged Mountlake Terrace to follow the lead of nearby communities like Edmonds and Everett. While her remarks were not formally included in the Council’s meeting materials, they occurred at a pivotal moment in the public deliberation timeline.

Two days later, on May 23, local resident Michelle Senechal messaged Councilmember Erin Murray to express strong support for the system. In that message, Senechal referenced conversations she personally had with Representative Davis, and cited Everett’s use of Flock to help solve a homicide case. 

As early as March 2024, internal staff emails show that Mountlake Terrace Police were already thinking about other emerging policing technologies, including the idea of deploying “drones as first responders.” In one message, Commander Brian Moss wrote, “I know it’s a pipe dream but this city is perfectly set up for it,” suggesting the technology would improve response times and citing specific examples like shoplifters at shift change. Notably, Flock Safety has begun marketing its own DFR (Drone as First Responder) platform to agencies in Washington, including in emails to Mountlake Terrace officials throughout 2024 and 2025. 

The public comments submitted in the lead-up to the Council’s June 5 vote provide a signal of public sentiment and a clear pattern of concern.

Most supportive comments were brief, informal, and expressed general trust in the police department. Many cited rising property crime or personal safety concerns, while a few mentioned neighboring cities that already use Flock systems. Almost none of the supportive comments referenced the contract, system functionality, oversight mechanisms, or legal concerns.

The comments in opposition were generally longer, more specific, and focused on legal, ethical, or procedural issues. Themes included:

Despite a 2-to-1 ratio of public comments opposing the system, and their consistent alignment with internally raised concerns, the public records do not contain evidence that these issues were addressed in the final contract or staff report. The final vote proceeded without a documented resolution of that feedback.

This review reveals that concerns about legality, oversight, process, and community impact were raised internally at every level—by legal counsel, executive staff, and the public. However, the public records do not contain evidence that these concerns were addressed in the final materials presented to Council. The staff reports do not acknowledge the risks raised, and the records do not show how public feedback was addressed.

The contract and staff report presented on June 5 were nearly identical to earlier drafts, and the contract was approved without changes.