Conroe Council Seeks Vote on License Plate Cameras

Two Conroe City Council members plan to revive a proposal that could give voters a say in the city’s use of Flock Safety automated license plate recognition cameras, less than a week after the council unanimously shelved the issue.

Council members David Hairel and Shana Arthur said they intend to return to the matter at the council’s Aug. 13 meeting, according to the Houston Chronicle. That would leave four days before an Aug. 17 deadline to place a measure on the Nov. 3 ballot. The council’s July 23 votes did not terminate, suspend or otherwise change the city’s agreement with Flock Safety.

The reversal extends a debate involving public safety, privacy, data governance and oversight of a camera network that Conroe police say has assisted investigations involving stolen vehicles, wanted suspects, missing people, burglaries and violent crimes.

Conroe began using the cameras in 2020, according to the petition seeking cancellation of the agreement. During a June 11 council presentation, Police Chief Jon Buckholtz described the equipment as collecting vehicle and license plate information rather than identifying occupants or conducting facial recognition.

The department reported during the presentation that Flock information has helped its Crime Reduction Unit make 84 arrests since August 2025. Police also reported alerts involving 553 warrants, 166 stolen vehicles and 38 missing people from Jan. 1 through June 10. During one 30-day period, the system recorded 14.4 million vehicle detections while police conducted 1,733 searches.

Questions about the system led four council members to place two proposals on the July 23 agenda. One concerned the creation of a temporary citizens advisory committee to study the city’s use of automated license plate recognition technology. The other concerned directing the city attorney to examine whether the issue could be submitted to Conroe voters.

The committee would have reviewed the program’s public safety benefits, privacy and civil liberty concerns, retention policies, access controls, contractual obligations and options to modify or discontinue the program.

Council member Kristin Hoisington, who co-sponsored the committee proposal with Mayor Pro Tem John Sellars, moved to postpone it indefinitely. She said she initially supported the committee because she had questions about the contract and believed governments needed clearer direction when negotiating software-as-a-service agreements.

“We do need to establish clear directive on when we negotiate these types of contracts where we’re dealing with software as a service,” Hoisington said.

Hoisington said she withdrew her support because residents who might serve on the committee could be exposed to hostility. She also defended the technology as a law enforcement resource.

“The Flock ALPR technology is a critical proven force multiplier for our police department,” Hoisington said. “It protects our neighbors, tracks fleeing felons and helps locate missing individuals.”

Sellars said the committee was intended to consider possible safeguards rather than serve as a mechanism to cancel the contract or endorse it without review.

“The rapid advancement of surveillance technology raises legitimate questions about privacy, transparency, data governance and the role government should play as these tools become more capable,” Sellars said.

Sellars said some residents who initially expressed an interest in serving later withdrew because they feared intimidation directed at themselves or their families. The council postponed the committee proposal indefinitely without recorded opposition.

Arthur and Hairel brought forward the possible ballot measure. Arthur said she supported technology that improves public safety but wanted residents to understand who could access collected information, how long it was retained and what consequences existed for misuse.

“Safety and liberty are not opposing values, and we have a responsibility to protect both,” Arthur said.

The council approved the motion without recorded opposition. Mayor Duke Coon, who said the city charter did not give him a vote, expressed support for the camera program and said he would continue supporting it unless the police chief advised otherwise.

Hairel and Arthur later apologized for shelving the proposal and said they would seek another council discussion before the ballot deadline. Hairel said he had placed council unity ahead of the public’s opportunity to vote, while Arthur said opposition to the cameras should not be treated as opposition to law enforcement.

The council’s deliberations followed public opposition led in part by resident James Fletes, who submitted a records request seeking contracts, policies, city communications, camera locations and information about searches conducted through the system. The Texas Attorney General’s Office later directed the city to release some information it had sought to withhold while allowing other records to remain confidential.

Fletes also created a petition calling for the city to cancel its agreement with Flock Safety, disclose the contract and hold a public forum on the system. The petition has received more than 1,625 verified signatures at the time of this writing.

During the July 23 meeting, Fletes argued that a committee or election would delay a decision while the cameras remained active. Other speakers raised concerns about cybersecurity, government surveillance, access to vehicle-location information and the contract. Several asked the council to stop funding the agreement rather than conduct further study.

The proposed November measure has not been drafted and the council has not determined whether any vote would be binding. The Aug. 13 discussion will determine whether the city attorney is directed to proceed before the Aug. 17 deadline.