Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Security Cameras topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wichita County OKs $8,235 camera install for Trustee Building; fiber and cabling work tabled
Summary
Commissioners approved a $8,235.43 purchase for three Bosch cameras and related installation at the Trustee Building tied into the county—s existing Cornerstone system; related fiber and in‑building cabling projects were tabled for further review.
Wichita County Commissioners on Tuesday approved $8,235.43 to add three Bosch security cameras to the Trustee Building and tie them into the county—s existing Cornerstone surveillance system, but the court tabled related fiber and cabling work to revisit costs and vendor options.
The action matters because the cameras will connect the Trustee Building to the Law Enforcement Center—s (LEC) existing video and door-access system, allowing images to appear in the county—s central security network rather than a separate, stand‑alone setup.
Commissioner Beauchamp moved to approve Cornerstone estimate number 07102025-CR01 for $8,235.43; the motion was seconded and passed unanimously. The cameras were described during discussion as Bosch-brand devices that would integrate with the current LEC footprint. County staff said the system itself is vendor‑agnostic but Cornerstone is the installer and current support contractor; the court heard that Cornerstone call‑outs can be expensive, and staff are exploring alternate maintenance contractors.
County staff and commissioners discussed system capacity and tradeoffs. Brendan, a county staff member, said the county—s current system can accept roughly 20 more cameras before requiring network/bandwidth upgrades; retention storage meets legal requirements, but additional cameras could create bandwidth constraints that would require equipment upgrades (for example, moving from 1 Gb to 10 Gb networking) and additional expense. Brendan also explained the installer must program and configure the new cameras on-site because this is a new installation rather than a simple add-on.
Related work was moved off the agenda. A $5,032.50 quote to pull fiber from the county gun range to the Trustee Building garage and a $2,164.90 quote to drop cabling into a wall‑mounted rack were both tabled for a later meeting after commissioners questioned the estimates and asked staff to solicit additional opinions and clarify scope.
Discussion vs. decision: the court made a formal purchase decision on the camera quote (approved) but did not decide on the fiber pull or interior cabling (both tabled for further review). Staff were directed to seek additional vendor input and to return the fiber and cabling items at a future meeting with clarified scope and cost comparisons.
Costs and procurement: the camera purchase will be paid from department 511 with final line items to be determined by the county auditor. The fiber and interior cabling items were not approved and remain under review.
The court did not provide statutory citations for procurement exceptions; decisions were framed as routine capital/service purchases and budgeted from the law enforcement department. Expect the fiber and rack quotes to return to the court agenda after staff solicits additional estimates and clarifies whether pulling new fiber uses existing conduit and who will bear potential repair risk if existing conduit and fibers are damaged during pulls.
