Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Equipment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves application to Missouri Blue Shield grant to partially fund body-worn cameras
Summary
The commission voted to give staff permission to apply for a $50,000 no‑match Missouri Blue Shield grant; county officials discussed projected equipment and contract costs for body-worn camera programs during debate.
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Equipment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
St. Francois County Commissioners voted to give staff permission to apply for a Missouri Department of Public Safety Blue Shield grant worth $50,000 with no local match required.
During discussion, a county presenter described the grant as one of several opportunities available to counties that participate in the state's Blue Shield program and said the award would not by itself fund a full five‑year body-camera contract.
"This is a $50,000 no match," the presenter said. He and the sheriff explained the money could cover slightly more than a year of a multi-year contract, depending on the vendor and contract terms. The presenter cited a five-year quote for one popular vendor, Axon, at roughly $175,000 to $200,000 for the contract term; the commission discussed deploying about 45 cameras, which the presenter estimated at roughly $3,500 per camera when including system costs.
Commissioners and the sheriff discussed officer acceptance and training; the sheriff said officers who initially doubted cameras later reported feeling safer wearing them. The sheriff also noted the county had recently sent deputies to no-cost tactical medical and drug-detection trainings.
Commissioners first motioned to give permission to apply for the Blue Shield grant; the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote.
The presenter cautioned that Blue Shield eligibility does not automatically guarantee a grant award and that applications are reviewed before awards are made. Commissioners asked whether the program will continue in future years; the presenter said there was no certainty and that the county would apply again if funding continued to be available.
No procurement contract was awarded at the meeting; the vote authorized only an application for grant funds.

