Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Alfalfa County commissioners discuss replacing courthouse camera server after repeated failures
Summary
County officials weighed options to replace a failing server that stores courthouse security camera footage, discussed storage retention needs, grant timing and soliciting multiple quotes instead of an immediate $23,000 purchase.
A county official reported that the server storing the courthouse security camera footage has begun failing and that the county received a vendor quote of nearly $23,000 to replace it. The official said the current system sometimes reboots the cameras for an hour or two and then shuts down, and said the county’s existing unit has already outlived its expected five-year lifespan.
The discussion centered on how much video the county needs to retain and how long. One commissioner suggested keeping footage for three months; others said one month might be sufficient in many cases, and some said it depends on how quickly lawsuits or tort claims are filed. The official said the current system can store about three months of footage but that the larger quoted server would hold more.
The official said the vendor’s proposal included a long-term server priced at almost $23,000 and a smaller option priced at about $15,000 but did not state how long each option would retain footage. The official said the vendor offered to take the county’s existing unit, leave a loaner and then expect the county to buy the loaner if the old unit could not be fixed. The official said the vendor had not provided a separate cost to attempt repairs.
Commissioners and staff discussed options to reduce cost, including buying a smaller-capacity server, seeking other quotes and asking a local IT contractor to install a new unit if the county bought only the server hardware. One commissioner recommended getting multiple written quotes and attaching them to the purchase file, noting procurement thresholds around technology purchases and the need to show market comparisons.
The official noted there is money in the courthouse security account to cover a purchase and estimated the security account balance at almost $28,000 before the roughly $3,000 transfer discussed elsewhere in the meeting. The official also said an equipment grant for 9-1-1 equipment is expected to open later this month but that grant awards would not take effect until next year.
The discussion ended with direction to collect more written quotes, confirm storage retention durations tied to each quote, and inquire whether local IT contractors could install and service equipment so the county would avoid excessive vendor travel charges. No purchase motion was made during the discussion.
The county official emphasized that cameras were not reliably recording while the server problem continued and urged quick collection of quotes and options so the board could consider purchasing or repairs at a later meeting.
