Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cohoes board begins vendor review after site visit to district using walk‑through metal detectors
Summary
Board members discussed school security options after staff visited Waterville High School to observe branded walk‑through metal detectors; staff proposed comparing three vendors, updating code‑of‑conduct language with counsel, and holding parent outreach before any deployment.
District safety staff told the Cohoes City School District Board of Education on Nov. 19 that they visited Waterville High School to observe branded, walk‑through metal‑detection units and are beginning vendor research to determine whether similar devices are appropriate for Cohoes.
Matt Lombard, identified in the meeting as the district safety team leader, and other staff described the Waterville installation as minimally intrusive — two slim columns students pass between — and suitable for daily entry or large events. Staff said the columns are weatherproof, battery‑powered and can be moved outdoors for events such as homecoming, and that sensitivity can be adjusted via a vendor app.
Safety presenters warned that options and costs vary across vendors and districts. In the meeting staff referenced Waterville’s configuration and said a similarly configured two‑by‑two column setup could work for Cohoes (the Waterville district’s vendor configuration was described during the visit). At different points in the discussion staff cited different cost figures: one figure reported for a Waterville‑like setup was $2,525,000 (as stated in the meeting when district representatives summarized Waterville’s procurement), and another speaker said they believed comparable units could cost around $25,000 per unit; staff said they will confirm pricing when vendors provide specifics.
Board members and staff discussed equity concerns (avoiding isolation of particular students), medical‑accommodation protocols for students with implants or medical notes, and the logistics of single‑point entry at district buildings. Staff said they do not believe a separate policy is required because the district’s existing code of conduct provides leeway, but recommended consulting attorneys to tighten language if detectors are adopted.
Next steps agreed by staff: identify and compare three vendors, invite vendor demonstrations and site visits, review code‑of‑conduct language with legal counsel, and hold a parent outreach meeting similar to the vendor meeting used by Waterville. Staff also noted that School Resource Officers and local police may remain involved when confiscations or law‑enforcement responses are necessary.
District leaders emphasized the work is at an exploratory stage; no procurement decision or budget appropriation was made at the Nov. 19 meeting.
