Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Security topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Woodburn SD 103 officials outline plan to modernize high‑school security cameras, estimate $232,000 first phase
Summary
District technology staff told the school board they want to replace about 112 cameras at Woodburn High as a first phase and move the district to a cloud‑hosted platform; the high‑school phase is estimated at roughly $232,000 with district‑wide financing proposed over five years. No approval vote was taken tonight.
District technology leaders presented a proposal to replace aging security cameras, beginning with roughly 112 cameras at Woodburn High School, and to move the district to a cloud‑hosted video platform.
The presentation, led by the district’s technology director and Paul Dyke, the new technology supervisor, outlined vendor options including Avigilon Alta, Verkada and Milestone and said the current ExacqVision system is “very outdated.” "Our system is very outdated. It's very old," the technology director said, arguing that a managed cloud platform would improve searchability, retention and emergency response. Paul Dyke said the high‑school phase would replace about 112 cameras and cover licensing for five years for that site.
Why it matters: supporters said the upgrade would increase retention from roughly two weeks to 30 days or more, improve resolution and give administrators and first responders faster, centralized access during incidents. The technology team also emphasized open‑architecture options so cameras and access controls integrate across sites.
Costs and funding: presenters said the initial high‑school phase is estimated at about $232,000, paid from one‑time savings from a restructuring of the technology department; a district‑wide rollout would be financed over five years, with annual operational costs folded into future budgets. Director Bishop noted those funds were already set aside in the technology services line in the packet and appear as encumbered for internal planning.
Questions and concerns: board members pressed for examples of the existing system's failures. The technology director described investigations where brief outages or low‑quality footage prevented clear verification of an incident. One board member questioned the cost‑benefit tradeoff, saying the price “doesn’t pencil out” compared with some incidents like a theft. Board members also asked about camera resolution, retention time, and whether door cameras and parking‑lot cameras were included; presenters said the proposal covers all campus cameras and would expand coverage at entrances and vehicle approaches.
Next steps: the board did not take a vote on the project tonight. Staff said they would provide additional cost detail, life‑cycle plans for cameras across sites, and answers to outstanding questions about usage metrics and incident history before bringing purchasing requests or budget items back to the board.
Sources: presentation and Q&A with the district’s technology director and Paul Dyke, the district's technology supervisor; finance remarks from Director Bishop.
