Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Safety Technology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House bill would fund school panic‑alert systems, AI firearm detection in pilot grants; sponsors amend name and cut appropriation
Summary
Representatives King and Miller presented House Bill 106 (renamed the SOS Act) to create a DPS‑administered pilot grant program for school panic‑alert systems and AI firearm‑detection software; an adopted amendment reduced the requested appropriation from $25 million to $12 million.
Get email alerts on the School Safety Technology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Representatives King and Miller presented sponsor testimony on House Bill 106, renamed by amendment to the SOS Act (Secure Our Schools) to keep the bill vendor‑neutral and technology‑agnostic. The bill would establish a pilot grant program administered by the Ohio Department of Public Safety to allow public and charter schools to purchase panic‑alert systems and artificial‑intelligence firearm‑detection systems.
Chair Stewart made a motion at the sponsor's request to adopt amendment 136‑0357‑1; the committee heard the sponsors describe two changes in the amendment: renaming the bill from “Alyssa's Law” to “SOS Act” and reducing the requested appropriation from $25,000,000 to $12,000,000. The amendment was adopted without objection and became part of the bill during the hearing.
Sponsors described minimum criteria for eligible systems: the technology must be U.S.‑developed, already deployed successfully in other schools or state organizations, provide the ability to contact law enforcement, and be capable of initiating campus‑wide lockdown notifications. Sponsors emphasized the pilot is voluntary and districts would choose systems that best fit local needs. The Department of Public Safety would be required to distribute funds with attention to urban, suburban and rural parity and to submit a detailed report to the governor and the General Assembly including device‑use frequency and program participation.
Committee members asked no substantive questions during the hearing. Sponsors requested favorable consideration and offered to answer follow‑up questions outside the hearing. No vote on final passage occurred at this session.
