Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Courthouse Security topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners ask council to approve $113,912 for courthouse exterior cameras
Summary
Vigo County commissioners requested $113,912 from the LIT special purpose fund to buy exterior and replacement cameras, citing integration with existing jail systems and a five-year warranty from vendor ICS.
Get email alerts on the Courthouse Security topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mark Clinkenbeard, a Vigo County commissioner, asked the council to approve an additional appropriation of $113,912 from the LIT special purpose fund to purchase courthouse exterior and replacement security cameras.
Clinkenbeard said the county solicited two initial quotes and preferred the bid from ICS (the county—9s existing video vendor) because it included an additional camera plus a PC and TV for the security station and would integrate with systems already used at the jail and 9-1-1 center. He said ICS—9s proposal included allowances for directional boring to minimize sidewalk disruption and itemized equipment and installation costs the county found appropriate.
"One of the main reasons that we have chosen ICS as our preferred provider is because this is the system that is currently in use at the Vigo County Jail and other places throughout the county," Clinkenbeard said, and he read a letter of support signed by Sheriff Derek Fell and an IT specialist from the sheriff—9s office.
Tom Little, the county—9s director of security, said ICS included a five-year warranty covering labor and equipment. He also said other firms had declined or delayed quoting; two other companies were expected to submit estimates later in April.
Council members asked whether on-site support and warranty labor are included; Clinkenbeard and Little replied the warranty covers those services and that local support was a key reason to choose ICS rather than cheaper online camera purchases.
Clinkenbeard presented three package options in the council packet: about $38,151 (original), $97,108, and $113,912 (preferred). He said the board chose the higher option so the council could scale back if necessary.
No formal appropriation vote was recorded in this meeting; the item was presented for council consideration.

