Davidson County officials, school board debate AI-powered school-safety pilot and vendor terms

Davidson County commissioners and school board officials spent more than two hours debating a state-funded AI school-safety pilot on Jan. 27, pressing for clearer vendor oversight, long-term cost estimates and public engagement before any final approvals.

The dispute centers on a pilot program in state legislation that would provide $2,000,000 to Davidson County schools and $3,000,000 to New Hanover County for a “school safety solution” using camera-based AI and related equipment. Vice Chairman Heather Yates said the school board asked to move the item to a January 21 meeting for discussion rather than an immediate vote; she told commissioners the January action was “not for vote. It was for discussion along with the calendar.”

Commissioners and residents questioned language in the bill that requires participating public school units to contract with the same vendor, with the vendor to be determined by the first unit that enters into a contract. Commissioner Nick Jarvis and others said the state recommended Evident after a limited RFQ process; several speakers said that requirement effectively limits local choice. Sheriff Ritchie Simmons and Senator Steve Jarvis—both cited in public comment—have supported the pilot at the state level, the board heard.

Proponents and opponents stressed different priorities. Richard Fosman, a local resident, urged the commission to send a formal resolution asking the Davidson County School Board to delay a final approval until the General Assembly establishes statutory “guardrails” for the pilot: “I would ask that this commission take a stand by passing a strong resolution, urging the Davidson County School Board not to vote on approval of the AI security pilot project until either the short term legislation or the long term legislation ... has been put into place,” Fosman said.

Several parents and residents urged caution or rejection. Dawn Hash said the technology is not ready and called the proposed program a move toward a “police state,” citing limits on the system’s stated capabilities and concerns about surveillance. John Cox, a vendor representing an alternate approach called 3d Response System, told the board his company emphasizes physical-protection tactics—cover, concealment and communications—rather than automated AI detection.

Evident’s technical lead, Sean Hall, joined the meeting by phone to answer questions about how the system would operate. Hall said the pilot would use on-site “edge” servers installed at pilot schools, not cloud storage, and that those local servers would act as communication nodes rather than long-term repositories: “There’s no storage of anything on the servers that they’re putting in,” Hall said. He added his company trains the detection rules (weapons, perimeter intrusion, smoke/fire, person down) and that alerts are routed to predefined local contacts to reduce false positives.

Commissioners pressed for more specifics: what cameras and counts are needed, where server or hardware upgrades might be required, what the district’s recurring maintenance bill would be after the two-year pilot and whether the state would pay ongoing costs. On cost, Hall estimated an approximate maintenance/support cost on the order of $100,000 per year for the district after the initial two-year support window; he described that as a districtwide number, not per school.

Several commissioners and members of the public said they prefer a wider review. Commissioner Kester and others proposed forming a joint working group with representatives from Davidson County Schools, the two city school systems in the county and law enforcement to evaluate options (AI, metal detection, adding SROs, or hybrid approaches). Multiple speakers urged on-site visits to other installations and pilot sites before a multi-million-dollar decision.

No final vote on the pilot was taken by the commission. The board discussed an MOU draft intended to clarify that the local school board would not require county funds if state support ceases; commissioners asked school attorneys and staff for additional detail before accepting an MOU. A separate motion asking the county’s legislative delegation to redirect appropriated grant money to the Board of Commissioners was moved and seconded during the meeting but was withdrawn after discussion.

Votes at a glance - Consent agenda (multiple routine items): approved by voice vote during the consent portion of the meeting (no roll-call tally recorded). - Appointment of Rebecca Moser to the aging/appointment committee: motion passed by voice vote (no roll-call tally recorded). - Motion to enter closed session for economic development/personnel: approved by voice vote. - Motion to adjourn: approved by voice vote.

What it means: The county will not commit county operating funds to a district-wide implementation at this meeting. Commissioners asked for more data from Evident and for a joint review with school officials, law enforcement and other stakeholders before any binding local commitment. The school board is the formal decisionmaker for school contracts, and the county’s role is primarily fiscal where local funds would be required.

Provenance: topic introduced when the commissioners’ agenda moved to “Davidson County School Pilot Program” and continued through the public comment period and vendor Q&A. See transcript excerpts cited below for the first and last related remarks.

Ending: Commissioners left the matter open for further work with the school board, legal counsel and the county’s legislative delegation. The board asked staff to schedule follow-up sessions, pursue clarification of the MOU language and gather more cost and site-specific data before any final county-level budget or policy commitment.