A grant created to fight vehicle crime and catalytic converter theft has morphed into a five-year aerial surveillance program — while taxpayers are still dealing with the fallout from the county’s last surveillance contract.

GRANBURY, TX — Hood County taxpayers are already involved in one expensive fight with a surveillance company.

Now county records show officials have signed taxpayers into another major surveillance program — this time involving a remotely operated police drone.

Hood County terminated its Flock Safety camera agreement after commissioners cited performance problems and demanded approximately $126,000 back for taxpayers. According to the latest public reporting, Flock offered the county a credit rather than the refund commissioners sought, and the county rejected it.

While that money remains an issue, Hood County has moved forward with a Motorola/BRINC Drone as First Responder program carrying a five-year price schedule of $432,994.

And the way the program began deserves just as much attention as the price.

IT STARTED AS A CATALYTIC CONVERTER GRANT

The state grant used to help launch the drone wasn’t originally described as a general-purpose aerial surveillance program.

Its official program name is the “Hood County MVCPA Task Force Program To Reduce Vehicle Crimes and Catalytic Converter Theft.”

After commissioners voted April 1 to discontinue Hood County’s participation in the Flock Camera Program, county officials requested permission to change the grant’s scope from Flock cameras to Motorola’s First Responder Drone program.

The county moved $113,000 into equipment.

Motorola’s first-year drone package?

$112,998.

Two dollars less.

What began as funding aimed at vehicle crimes and catalytic-converter theft had effectively become the startup money for a sophisticated law-enforcement drone system.

And this drone isn’t limited to chasing stolen catalytic converters.

The Sheriff’s Office policy allows it to assist with calls for service, suspect searches, barricaded individuals, fires, hazardous-material incidents, explosives, search and rescue, disasters and other law-enforcement and emergency operations.

THIS IS A $432,994 PROGRAM

Motorola’s proposal spells out the financial commitment.

Year 1: $112,998

That includes a $79,999 station-based Drone as First Responder subscription and a $32,999 operations package.

Then:

Year 2: $79,999

Year 3: $79,999

Year 4: $79,999

Year 5: $79,999

Five-year total: $432,994.

And there is no question county officials knew what was being signed.

The agreement bears the signature of Hood County Judge Ron Massingill dated May 26, 2026.

A later $79,999 Motorola invoice bears Sheriff Roger Deeds’ signature.

Records also include thousands of dollars in concrete, fencing and gate work associated with preparing the site for the program.

The drone reportedly has not yet entered regular operational service, but taxpayers are already paying to build the system around it.

DID WE LEARN ANYTHING FROM FLOCK?

This is where Hood County residents should be asking some very uncomfortable questions.

The county paid Flock significant public money.

The relationship fell apart.

Commissioners terminated the agreement.

Then the county had to fight to recover approximately $126,000, with Flock reportedly proposing a credit rather than simply returning the money commissioners demanded.

Now Hood County has entered another major technology relationship with another corporation, this time involving a five-year drone program costing more than $430,000.

So what happens if this program fails?

What happens if Hood County decides two years from now that residents don’t want a government drone flying over their neighborhoods?

What happens if the equipment doesn’t perform as promised?

How much money can Hood County actually get back?

The records produced to the Hood County Express do not plainly show taxpayers a guaranteed cash-refund mechanism protecting the county if officials terminate the drone program early.

After what is already happening with Flock, that should concern every taxpayer in Hood County.

Government should not repeatedly write large checks to surveillance vendors and then figure out afterward how difficult it is to get the public’s money back.

AND THIS CAMERA CAN FLY

The BRINC system is dramatically more capable than the three stationary Flock cameras Hood County just shut down.

Motorola advertises the aircraft with 40x zoom, thermal imaging, live video, two-way audio, remote operation, automatic launch and return, and beyond-visual-line-of-sight capabilities under FAA authorization.

Hood County’s own policy also recognizes the constitutional problem created by those capabilities.

The policy requires warrants for certain surveillance activity, but it also describes circumstances involving intentional “plain view” surveillance that can occur without first obtaining a search warrant, with authorization coming from a sworn division captain or higher-ranking officer.

To be clear, there is no evidence yet that Hood County has violated anyone’s Fourth Amendment rights with this drone because the program apparently is not yet operational.

That’s precisely why the public should demand answers now.

Once the aircraft is routinely in the sky, the debate becomes much harder.

THE COUNTY NEEDS TO ANSWER THIS BEFORE TAKEOFF

Hood County residents already fought one surveillance system.

They were told Flock was being terminated.

But the very grant program associated with those cameras was then redirected into an aerial system capable of doing far more.

And taxpayers are still dealing with the financial consequences of the Flock contract.

Before this drone becomes operational, county officials should tell residents:

Who is paying the remaining $319,996 after Year 1?

What happens to taxpayers’ money if Hood County cancels this contract?

What contractual guarantee requires Motorola or BRINC to return unused money?

Exactly when can the Sheriff use the drone without a warrant?

How long will video be stored, and who gets access to it?

And why did a program funded through a grant to reduce vehicle crime and catalytic-converter theft become a nearly half-million-dollar aerial surveillance program?

Those aren’t radical questions.

They’re the questions taxpayers should have been asking before anyone signed the contract.

Hood County just learned an expensive lesson with Flock not to mention two pending large lawsuits against the county that have already cost hundreds of thousands with much more on the horizon resulting in county insurance policy being doubled.

We shouldn’t have to learn the same lesson again — this time with a camera flying over our heads.