Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Gregg County approves sheriff’s resolutions for rifle‑resistant armor and upgraded body‑worn cameras

Gregg County Commissioner's Court · January 20, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The court unanimously approved resolutions supporting grant applications to expand rifle‑resistant body armor for deputies and to upgrade body‑worn cameras to integrate with a Motorola Flex system; staff said implementation could cost $2.8–3 million, with about $1 million already available.

Gregg County commissioners on Jan. 20 approved resolutions supporting two sheriff’s office grant applications: one to expand rifle‑resistant body armor and a second to upgrade body‑worn cameras and related hardware to integrate with a Motorola Flex system.

Sheriff (identified in the meeting as the county sheriff) described rifle‑resistant armor as heavier protective plates carried in vehicles or worn over soft body armor as needed; the court approved a resolution to pursue grant funding for that equipment. For the body‑worn camera project, the sheriff said the county plans to transition to the Motorola Flex system to enable features such as livestreaming from officer video to a command post. Chief Russell (identified by name in the meeting) told commissioners full implementation would total between $2.8 million and $3 million and that the county already has "over $1,000,000" in hand toward the project.

Commissioners asked staffing and custody questions; the sheriff reported current vacancies (about eight open positions: six jailer positions and two deputies) and said grant funding has helped recruitment and payroll. The court approved the camera‑system resolution and the body armor resolution on motions recorded during the meeting.

Staff framed the camera upgrade as an 18‑month implementation effort that will require upgrades to handheld radios and other infrastructure. No contract values for the body armor grant were provided in the meeting; the implementation cost for the camera system was given as the $2.8–3 million range by Chief Russell.

The county will continue to work with the auditor’s office and purchasing on procurement and grant oversight if the grants are awarded.