Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the School Safety topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Myrtle Point board approves Systec contract to add cameras, fencing and PA upgrades using SIA funds

Myrtle Point SD 41 Board of Directors · March 11, 2025
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

Trustees voted to approve a Systec contract to install cabling and additional cameras across the high school, extend fencing and improve PA coverage; administrators said the work will be funded with Student Investment Account (SIA) safety dollars and footage will be retrievable but not monitored 24/7.

The Myrtle Point SD 41 board approved a services contract with Systec to install cabling, cameras and related safety improvements at the high school and other campus areas.

Administrators said the project is funded with Student Investment Account (SIA) safety dollars and will include additional cameras, fencing around the track area and PA/ speaker upgrades in outdoor breezeways. "This is SIA money, for safety, going along with it," the administrator said when describing the scope and funding source.

Board members asked how many cameras would be installed and where they would be located; administrators said principals and the district IT staff will have access to all cameras and that footage can be reviewed after incidents but is not monitored continuously. One administrator described plans to put cameras in the metal shop and to add coverage as other work (such as greenhouse power) is completed.

A board member moved to approve the Systec services contract "as presented," a second was recorded, and the motion passed by voice vote.

What happens next: the district will proceed with planning and installation under the contract, with IT and building principals able to access recorded footage for incident review. The motion did not include detailed per-camera counts in the motion language; administrators indicated some placement decisions are still being finalized.