[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6494573,"mediaKeyId","5808650-8a4f3ea8fe524f0727e176d647f2b130","parentId",5808650,"title","Board approves courthouse security cameras; staff and clerks ask for compatibility and privacy limits","audioSeconds",184,"startMs",1042000,"endMs",1226000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5808650-8a4f3ea8fe524f0727e176d647f2b130&start=1042&end=1226","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5808650-8a4f3ea8fe524f0727e176d647f2b130/thumbnail_1042000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6494573/Harrison-County/Mississippi/Board-approves-courthouse-security-cameras-staff-and-clerks-ask-for-compatibility-and-privacy-limits","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6494573-7ca1a2834c1ae96e10fee1826aa0fe09/orig.mp4?Expires=1770437238&Signature=PGvaJ3Cfit8T25pIaN2SkXonsRJ5joEdy0mE-3jYa~NtIwZGeHWc7c6UL0LAWzksR2N7JYMCwEQBm27tLeVH6CB76srmUHntPfSm~X0m1KBAozMMJvexkNYX3-EwAjLNaycFEX6z9ACjKA~MuX1~-xeQrUVmcTgnH6Xi4yaDgdG9HurhpTH4coRM1cjQSVENMg9xewo0ptcG~QoYhUY7rSml8ROWcfyrjrn8J7jsvpD9p9SOvw8RDTpsjl0PUGL3t3EAuy-MaIpcRlGqxP6P3jcRt5imnKKTvy~AHOlouk8akOdWfjszD6ccQ03iXnfG0~ZpJo6LgFj0ujHHgkRQBg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Harrison County","date","2025-09-22T13:36:06Z","article","Harrison County supervisors voted to accept a quote from AllSafe Technologies to install a 16-channel security camera system for county offices in the courthouse at a cost of $19,654.94.

During discussion county staff and clerks raised operational and privacy questions. Staff member Crystal told the board the vendor offered a lower-priced option that matched the county’s existing, limited system and a higher-priced platform that would provide better image fidelity. She said the recommended system is currently in use at the Seaway location and allows ‘‘fish-eye’’ viewing that can zoom into multiple stations — similar to casino surveillance — enabling staff to review cash-handling incidents at higher resolution.

Clerks asked that the courthouse installation integrate with a broader courthouse camera platform currently being priced by another staff member so the county would be on a single system. They also emphasized that some camera views must omit personally sensitive data: one clerk said license-plate numbers (car tags) and other protected information should not be visible to users of the system. Crystal said the courthouse system will be configured so the front-lobby cameras cannot read tags and that the camera used in the clerk’s area will be oriented to show entrances and exits and (on a separate backside camera) currency handling where needed.

The board asked about video retention and storage. Staff said the proposed system doubles current capacity to 20 terabytes (compared with 10 terabytes now) and will support longer cloud retention — staff estimated six to eight months of stored footage in the recommended configuration, considerably longer than the existing 30‑day window.

A motion to accept the AllSafe Technologies quote passed with an aye vote recorded from the board’s members present.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","September 22nd, 2025 - Harrison County Board of Supervisor's Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","Harrison County supervisors approved a $19,654.94 purchase from AllSafe Technologies to install a 16-channel security camera system for county courthouse offices, while staff and clerks urged configuration to protect privacy and align with a future courthouse-wide system.","taxTitle","Harrison County, Mississippi","taxId",24960,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6494579,"Harrison County supervisors debate lease-purchase terms for beach tractors",943,80000,1023000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5808650-8a4f3ea8fe524f0727e176d647f2b130&start=80&end=1023","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5808650-8a4f3ea8fe524f0727e176d647f2b130/thumbnail_80000.jpg","/articles/6494579/Harrison-County/Mississippi/Harrison-County-supervisors-debate-lease-purchase-terms-for-beach-tractors","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6494579-4680a308d53e358633c5be1b1ef9fa96/orig.mp4?Expires=1770437239&Signature=FVGDCq0MtTOwIikN8dajnvh9YuOmGHtwuOHebi9S5sMBQjgXj6YYZNQAt6v4eJhqYLRczuLUtk1Bv1M9Mrwa8fK3EqM5ECQ4N2UEtcoJayaexFVkdF6pEtZW~biE3rBWXVsOuedAFbEcuScenOYoaYjxoJnlqDc1NCi9HMp-VP~nrQcb4tQB7RpuaYcnMi0etM9mBP9iGyGXg3FsSYckPcn7T8L9HtKD7gQ0OwjY8t4qTmlhgmFNNTWJvW6h2a~3XS~gjB6f1QAVTw~SKeSLXyD1oEJ-XaXMIC4a2AaWqJm5du-97R-i9Ti~QuDLTd7nz94mfVJpg2yldTdrs88qzQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Harrison County officials discussed switching a planned lease-return agreement for two tractors used on county beaches to a lease-purchase option that would let the county buy the machines at the end of the term.

County staff member Sandy McKnight told the Board of Supervisors the original plan was a short-term “turn-in” lease; Kubota Finance, which reviewed the paperwork, raised questions about placing the tractors on the beach. As a result, staff now recommends a lease-purchase arrangement that includes a nominal purchase option at the end of the contract and avoids potential post-return inspection charges and overage fees.

The change shifts the county’s exposure from an outright capital outlay up front to a financing-like payment stream. McKnight said the lease calls for 1,500 hours of use per year; exceeding that limit would trigger per-hour overage charges. He told the board the annual lease cost is $46,196 for two tractors (about $23,098 per tractor) and that the purchase option would result in a per-tractor cost of roughly $92,000 if exercised at the end of the lease. McKnight said buying the tractors outright today would be about $85,600 per tractor.

Supervisors asked staff to clarify several financial points before approving anything. Board members pressed for: (1) a clearer estimate of realistic annual hours per tractor (one estimate in the meeting placed likely usage “right at 1,600” hours per year); (2) the cost impact if hours are exceeded (the transcript noted an example overage rate of $19.25 per hour); and (3) a side‑by‑side comparison of (a) purchasing the tractors outright now, (b) financing a purchase over four years through a third party, and (c) the lease-purchase terms offered by Kubota Finance.

Several supervisors argued that if the county has the cash available, buying outright could be the best option because beach use is corrosive and may shorten equipment life. Others said spreading the cost would preserve investment income on county funds and reduce year‑to‑year budget pressure. No final vote on the lease-purchase was recorded at the meeting.

The board did reach informal agreement to have staff return with financing comparisons, documented hourly‑usage assumptions, and the final written terms (including the exact purchase-option language) before making a decision.

Details recorded in the meeting: the lease term discussed was four years; the agreement as described includes a 1,500‑hour annual usage allowance; the stated annual lease cost for both tractors was $46,196; and staff described a nominal end‑of‑term purchase option (described in the meeting as approximately $101). Supervisors asked staff to confirm exact contractual language and to present outside financing quotes for comparison.

The topic was discussed during agenda item 3 and was left open for a future decision after staff provides the additional financial information requested by the board.

","County staff presented a change from a lease-turn-in to a lease-purchase for two beach tractors, prompting questions about hours limits, end-of-lease inspections, total cost and whether the county should buy outright. Supervisors requested a financing comparison before deciding.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6494571,"Supervisors approve payment to Harrison County Development Commission for awarded grant matches after appraisal debate",281,1725000,2006000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5808650-8a4f3ea8fe524f0727e176d647f2b130&start=1725&end=2006","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5808650-8a4f3ea8fe524f0727e176d647f2b130/thumbnail_1725000.jpg","/articles/6494571/Harrison-County/Mississippi/Supervisors-approve-payment-to-Harrison-County-Development-Commission-for-awarded-grant-matches-after-appraisal-debate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6494571-13cc012558103bacf26eaab191c7d4bd/orig.mp4?Expires=1770437239&Signature=fu5g94U5kAyonAduDm2X5WXJeHuXrtdMywVMn3VlyQF~VJg3vMoa4450beCU6qkO2RmGurOWCCMP9qH8dzxBL1eCiDVGzNvKJ0v8YIIlfFlqmtbXpxFkEHkTvGeQwjuHHBVSgVFiLya7UpgDSRbalidsnByRmuSqb2iiSYCLRJ2~jkZaaXnFePAzcVpv9wyCwouXOt8f0aOCoYMCxVnX3ExvFmOfgJNr9LvSw1RIgRmtpt0vVDxIzNM4p4oFB0b6NHK87UdLgqWcfn5OdIwIJgRBQXWc55UBmOzfkP2nTOulEKfCFPkopPfM09S~5MwYuAgBUNmLqYKNj5dtNmccqw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Harrison County supervisors approved payment of invoice 4099 to the Harrison County Development Commission to satisfy match requirements for several already-awarded grants, but the vote followed extended discussion about appraisal validity, lease terms and guardrails on expenditure.

Staff said the payment addressed the match documentation for four grants that had already been awarded; the amount discussed in the meeting was described variously as about $3.1 million or $3.6 million. County officials clarified that the Development Commission has applied for additional grants with a larger total match requirement (described in the meeting as roughly $6.3 million in the aggregate) but the board said it would only provide the match now for grants that have been awarded.

Board members raised questions about an appraisal the commission submitted. One supervisor said the commission’s appraisal appeared to rely on values before a lease was in effect and that, for grant-making entities, ownership or clearer conveyance language can matter when grants are administered. Staff said they had asked the commission’s appraiser for clarifications and that a revised appraisal was expected.

Some supervisors suggested sending a formal letter to the Development Commission documenting the board’s decision and the basis for the match payment. One supervisor said the county should attach ‘‘guardrails’’ to the funds so there is a clear record of how match dollars must be used; others said the money is specific to the four awarded grants and will not be disbursed for other purposes.

After discussion, the board approved the invoice and the motion carried. Supervisors said they would prepare a resolution and a letter to accompany the match payment and said staff would continue to work with the commission to resolve appraisal questions.

","The board approved payment to the Harrison County Development Commission to satisfy grant-match requirements for multiple awarded grants after discussion over appraisals, lease language and safeguards; supervisors asked for a formal resolution and clearer documentation to accompany the payment.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board approves courthouse security cameras; staff and clerks ask for compatibility and privacy limits

Harrison County supervisors debate lease-purchase terms for beach tractors

Supervisors approve payment to Harrison County Development Commission for awarded grant matches after appraisal debate