Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Graham County approves near-$930,000 contract for electronic‑lock inspection at jail

Graham County Board of Supervisors · January 27, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Graham County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a professional services agreement with WSW Security Solutions to perform annual inspections and maintenance of electronic locks at the county jail; Sheriff PJ Allred described the work as essential to safety and responsiveness from a local vendor.

Sheriff PJ Allred asked the board on Feb. 2 to approve a professional services agreement with WSW Security Solutions for annual inspection and maintenance of the electronic locks at the Graham County Jail. Allred told the board the contract "is about the contract gets, like, $929,500 dollars, something like that, is what it is for annual."

Allred emphasized the operational importance of the service and the benefit of a responsive, local contractor. A board member noted the equipment inventory and relative cost, saying the locks equate to about 120 units and "that's $80 a lock per year" when considering the contract scope. Members also discussed risk-transfer benefits of contracting maintenance rather than relying solely on in‑house staff.

Vice Chairman David moved to approve the contract; a second followed and the board voted in favor. The board did not discuss amendments to the contract terms during the meeting. The sheriff said the vendor has local roots and can respond to emergent needs, and that additional, as‑needed calls would likely increase costs but remain far below the higher figure mentioned by the sheriff for a different bidder.

The contract approval allows the vendor to begin annual inspections and scheduled maintenance. The board did not set additional reporting requirements in the motion; any follow-up or contract specifics (term, renewal, insurance limits) were not specified during the public discussion.