Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Cameras topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parks board seeks amended quote to expand cloud-based cameras across parks
Summary
Logansport parks staff outlined a proposal for new cloud-hosted cameras and asked the board to request the vendor amend a five-year lease to include five previously purchased cameras; board members signalled informal approval pending an updated price and financing plan.
Logansport parks staff described a vendor proposal to replace and expand park surveillance with cloud-hosted, multi‑sensor cameras and asked the parks board to ask the vendor to amend its contract to include five cameras the city already purchased.
The parks board heard from Kevin (staff member), who said the new system would move video storage and analytics to the vendor'hosted cloud rather than local servers. He told the board the vendor'offered equipment, licensing and installation in a packaged plan spread over five years and that the new units include automated analytics such as people‑counting, vehicle detection and keyword search of footage.
Board members pressed staff on cost and on whether the five cameras bought under last year's budget could be rolled into the package so the city would not pay twice. Kevin said the prior purchase was encumbered but has not yet been paid because installation has not been completed; he agreed to ask the vendor if last year's five cameras could be folded into the multi‑year lease and to return with a revised total and options for an initial down payment.
Kevin and others described limitations of the current system: older Artec cameras and a hospital‑hosted server that parks staff said is losing reliability as firewall settings and hardware age. He said line‑of‑sight links have failed in zones including Houston, Little Turtle and River Bluff Trail after tree work and utility projects, and that the cloud system would remove the need for local repeaters, a local server, or a VPN to view footage.
Board members discussed financing and budget timing. Kevin said the vendor proposed the package as an upfront provisioning with payments over five years; he described a 10‑year warranty on replacement equipment under the new plan. Board members noted the parks department had approximately $25,000 encumbered from previous camera funds and said staff should ask the vendor to incorporate the five previously purchased cameras into the new package and return with a revised quote that could fall near $30,000 for the first year if the vendor agreed (board discussion referenced "$30,000" as a target available in current line items).
No final contract was approved at the meeting. The board voted informally to direct staff to (1) ask the vendor whether the previously purchased cameras and warranties can be included in the five‑year package, (2) return with an updated price and proposed first‑year payment sources, and (3) proceed with installation scheduling only if the revised contract falls within the city's available funds or after additional appropriation. Kevin said the vendor (identified in the discussion as Mission MSP / Emission MSP / MSP in different exchanges) will start on an installation related to cameras already purchased within about a week, independent of the larger contract decision.
The board discussed disposition of older cameras; Kevin said older Artec units still have limited useful life and could be surplussed or sold but that the primary vendor does not accept trade‑ins for the older system. He advised the board the city could attempt to transfer or sell the legacy units to other users.
The parks board also discussed privacy and capability tradeoffs: the proposed system adds automated analytics including alerts for violent‑incident indicators, vehicle and person tracking, and keyword search of footage. Kevin said the system can flag events for review and provide 24/7 active monitoring by the vendor; board members asked for clarification on monitoring hours and data access for city staff.
Staff committed to return to the board with a revised contract that explicitly states which cameras are included, the vendor'hosted warranty terms, the first‑year cost and specific funding sources the department would use for any down payment. The board did not take a binding vote to enter a contract at the meeting.
Ending: The parks board deferred a final funding decision pending the vendor'amended proposal and recommended that staff pursue an amended quote that folds previously purchased cameras and warranties into the five‑year package if the vendor will consent.
