Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears proposal to map campuses so 911 and staff 'speak the same language'
Summary
Board members heard a presentation about a vendor service that creates detailed campus maps linked to the district's Raptor emergency system and local 911 centers; initial one-time mapping was estimated around $4,000 with an optional $500 annual update service. The board asked the vendor to present at a future meeting.
The board reviewed a proposal to have a private vendor map campus buildings and integrate those maps with the district's Raptor emergency-management system and local 911 dispatch centers so first responders and school staff use the same location references.
Chair introduced the item and asked Mr. Sims to describe the product after Mr. Sims attended a state school resource officer conference. Mr. Sims said the company produces detailed, layer-by-layer campus maps that correct outdated imagery, annotate utilities and shut-offs, and overlay a "battleship grid" so an emergency at "Room 201" can be identified with a single grid code in communications with responders. He said the vendor can upload maps to both Raptor and 911 call centers and coordinate with local police, fire and EMS to ensure stakeholders are using the same map.
Mr. Sims and the Chair said the vendor model offers either a one-time mapping delivery (an estimated one-time cost the presenters discussed in the ballpark of $4,000) or a service agreement (quoted in the discussion as roughly $500 per year) to keep maps current and resubmit updates to local agencies. The presenter said the vendor had worked with other nearby districts (Solanco was cited) and that the product is intended to reduce response time and improve on-campus directing when emergency crews arrive.
Board members asked for references and for a demonstration. The Chair and several members said they were interested in a live presentation; the board discussed scheduling a company demonstration for a future caucus meeting. The board did not take formal action at this meeting; the item will be scheduled for a vendor presentation for further consideration.
The presentation identified the vendor by name in materials shared with the board (referred to as Critical Response Group in the discussion). Funding options were discussed informally; the Chair mentioned possible coverage via PCCD funds that have been used for similar safety work, but no formal funding decision or contract authorization was made.
Next steps: the board asked administration to schedule a formal presentation by the vendor (possible September/October) and to return with cost estimates and funding options if the board wishes to proceed.
