# Hot Springs P1977 Countersigned Permits and Execution Chain The five-file ARDOT response supplies the executed authorization record missing from Hot Springs's municipal production. The new permit copies and correspondence establish signature, District approval, bond receipt, and delivery of the approved instruments. They do not establish physical completion or operation. ## Review and issuance sequence 1. On 2026-04-09, Flock permitting manager [[Eric Breun]] submitted the plan and wrote that HSPD was looking to install ten `"new live view ALPR cameras"` on three existing traffic-signal poles and seven Flock breakaway poles (`Hot_Springs_PD_-_ALPR_Submission_-_10_Locations_-_Flock_01391793.pdf`, pp. 2-3). 2. TSMO engineer [[Josh C. Saulsbury]] asked District 6 to verify corrected log miles on sheets A.02, A.03, A.04, and A.07; [[Kelsey R. Kumpe]] replied, `"I concur with your corrections"` on 2026-04-15 (same file, pp. 1-2). 3. Saulsbury transmitted P1977 on 2026-04-16 and asked Kumpe to obtain the City Manager's signature and forward the District special permit (same file, p. 1). 4. The countersigned TCD page shows [[Joseph D. Hawkins]]'s Department signature dated 2026-04-16 and [[Bill Burrough]]'s applicant signature dated 2026-04-17 (`Signed_P1977_10_ALPR_D6_Garland_Co_Hot_Springs_Hwy_70-270-7__4-15-26__1___003_.pdf`, p. 2). 5. Kumpe routed the special permit for City and Flock signatures on April 20. Its signature page records City acknowledgment on April 21, Flock acknowledgment on April 23, and Kumpe's approval on April 23 (`SP-06-2026-0020.pdf`, p. 3). 6. At 1:32 p.m. on April 23, Kumpe sent Breun the `"approved Special Permit and TCD Permit"` (`Hot_Springs_PD_-_ALPR_Submission_-_10_Locations_-_Flock_01391793_-_D6_Response.pdf`, p. 1). ## Special-permit conditions and bond Special Permit `SP-06-2026-0020` grants the request subject to its listed conditions and requires coordination with the District 6 permit officer (`SP-06-2026-0020.pdf`, pp. 1-2). It states: > `A $10,000.00 Bond is required and has been received from Flock Safety. The bond will be retained until all work has been completed according to the attached details that have been submitted and approved.` (`SP-06-2026-0020.pdf`, p. 3.) Bond receipt is evidence of the permit condition and security instrument. The sentence itself distinguishes receipt from the later completion it secures. ## What the executed permits establish - Both parties signed the TCD Permit and Agreement required by its work-authorization sentence (`Signed_P1977...pdf`, p. 2, `"when both parties sign this Permit & Agreement"`). - ARDOT's District special permit was acknowledged by the City and Flock and approved by District 6 (`SP-06-2026-0020.pdf`, p. 3). - ARDOT sent the approved instruments to Flock on 2026-04-23 (`..._D6_Response.pdf`, p. 1). - The approved plan remains the ten-location `LPR + Video` engineering plan already compiled from the municipal copy. ## What the response does not establish No produced record documents a preconstruction conference, work order, construction, completion return, as-built coordinate, inspection, final acceptance, activation, relocation, removal, or current inventory. The executed permits authorize and condition work; they do not certify that work occurred or that any camera was operating. ## Resolution boundary The countersigned permit resolves [[T019 - Hot Springs P1977 Signed Label vs Incomplete Permit and Deployment Record]] as to signature state. The remaining lifecycle gap is tracked separately at [[T054 - Hot Springs P1977 Executed Authorization vs Missing Closeout and Operational Proof]].