Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Security Cameras topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County staff and commissioners raise problems with courthouse security cameras and maintenance
Summary
County staff told the Horace County commissioners about recurring problems with courthouse and courtroom security cameras, limited on-device storage, technician inconsistency and maintenance costs. Staff and commissioners discussed contractors and potential needs to upgrade hardware.
County staff and commissioners reported recurring problems with courthouse and courtroom security cameras during public comment at the Jan. 5 Horace County meeting.
A staff member said the county's cameras (commercial-brand Eufy systems) primarily store short motion-triggered clips and retain them for about 30 days, and that viewing longer footage generally requires manually accessing the app. "It only stores that 30 second clip or whatever it is unless you go in and look at the camera from the motion detection," the staff member said. The staff member added that the system runs on an app shared with staff but that administrative access is centralized.
Speakers said maintenance has been inconsistent. One staff member said a local technician, Keith Nichols, has visited multiple times and "does something different, and then he leaves before I can get back," adding that each service call has cost "over a $100". The county reported an existing maintenance/monitoring relationship with Alpine Security and a separate maintenance contract with AMC Construction. "We are contracted with them for our fire alarm numbers," one speaker said when describing the contract arrangements; another speaker characterized Alpine Security as having a limited local market presence.
Participants described technical limitations that impair footage storage and monitoring: the camera controller computer reportedly has 8 gigabytes of RAM while speakers said a larger-capacity machine (about 32 GB) would better support 32 cameras covering upstairs areas, the evidence room and the courtroom. The staff member described the cameras as cost-effective to buy but noted trade-offs in storage and management that affect evidence retention and routine monitoring. No formal board action on cameras or contracts is recorded in the provided transcript; speakers requested follow-up with facilities staff.
The board did not take a recorded vote or issue a directive related to cameras during the excerpted discussion; staff said they would follow up as needed.
