Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Catoosa County board moves to adopt Raptor Technologies to meet House Bill 268 safety requirements
Summary
A district safety update recommended adopting Raptor Technologies to comply with Georgia House Bill 268, including wearable panic badges integrated with 911 and behavior-threat assessment tools; board members questioned how badges report location and identity.
Catoosa County officials told the board they plan to partner with Raptor Technologies to meet school-safety requirements established in Georgia House Bill 268, recommending the vendor for panic-button wearables, 911 integration, digital campus mapping and behavioral threat-assessment tools.
Director Chris Loski presented the safety update and said the district chose Raptor after reviewing vendors for a holistic approach that covers prevention, preparation, response and recovery. “We feel like it’s the best solution,” Loski said, describing modules for wearable panic devices, 911 integration, digital campus maps and threat-assessment procedures.
Board members asked how the wearable panic badge functions in practice. Loski explained the badge is roughly the size of a credit card and supports a two-tiered function: a short press or sequence for in-house administrative assistance, and continuous presses for emergency events. He said notifications would go to school administration, county office personnel, 911 and the sheriff’s office and that the system reports the location where the badge was pressed, not the identity of the wearer.
Loski and other administrators said funding opportunities at the state level and existing safety grants may help offset costs and that district staff are monitoring state-level funding discussions tied to the bill. Board members and directors said they will continue to track legislative changes and funding availability as they finalize vendor contracting decisions.
No formal procurement action was recorded in the meeting minutes; presenters characterized the item as a recommendation and part of an ongoing implementation process tied to state requirements.
