Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Shenandoah council approves camera system for water and wastewater facilities after reports of targeted thefts
Summary
After officials described repeated thefts of generator components at water sites, the council approved purchase of a Verkada camera system for water and wastewater facilities and authorized funding to proceed; the vote was 4–1.
Shenandoah’s City Council voted Jan. 23 to purchase a security‑camera system for the city’s water and wastewater facilities after staff described repeated, targeted thefts of generator components at several sites.
City staff and police described incidents in which thieves removed costly main fuses from on‑site generators; staff said those parts (quoted in the hearing as roughly a $7,000 part) were stolen on more than one occasion and that fences and gates were in place but sites lacked video or sensor systems. In presenting the proposal, staff invited a vendor and integrator to demonstrate a cloud‑based camera platform and explain options for analytics‑based alerts and video‑verification dispatch.
Max Verlanik of Verkada outlined hardware choices (PTZ, bullet, license‑plate‑recognition and multi‑sensor cameras), cellular gateway options for off‑network sites, and AI analytics (line‑crossing and loitering alerts). He described Verkada’s 24/7 device‑health monitoring and said verified video alerts would be handled by Verkada agents for video verification with police dispatch as appropriate. Council members asked whether Verkada’s monitoring agents are located onshore; the vendor stated the monitoring agents for government customers are Verkada employees and affirmed onshore handling when asked.
The vendor presented a base project total for hardware and installation of $84,004.68 and an optional alarm/dispatch license reported in the presentation as approximately $12,060; staff said the sewer fund would cover the capital cost and that recurring subscription costs would be a separate ongoing expense. The vendor and integrator estimated a 4–6 week deployment timeline if approved.
Councilman Robinson moved to acquire the system as presented by staff; Councilman Pollard seconded. The council considered an amendment to have staff return with any additional SIM/failover costs for approval as a project amendment. After discussion, the motion to proceed with the presented system (with a project‑amendment process for extra SIM costs) passed 4–1.
Council members asked staff to check vendor references and to provide more packet documentation for future procurements; one council member who opposed the motion expressed concern about moving to a vendor‑specific, cloud‑based platform without additional review. Staff said they would return with any final contract details and added options as needed.
