Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Ambulance Contracts topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Ambulance department presents new vehicle tracking and equipment option; cost details unclear in transcript

Giles County Commission · July 21, 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

Mr. Daughtry, representing the ambulance department, briefed the commission on cooperative pricing for ambulances and a new vehicle-tracking/gateway-device contract; he said the department previously paid $9,600 a year for tracking and that the quoted new system would provide broader coverage and asset tagging for expensive cardiac monitors, though the transcript's pricing fragments are unclear.

The Giles County ambulance department presented a recommendation for new vehicle-tracking hardware and ambulance pricing options during the commission meeting.

S2 introduced the presenter as "Mr. Daughtry with the ambulance department" and Daughtry described cooperative pricing quotes for new ambulances and telematics equipment. He said the department previously paid AceTech about $9,600 a year for vehicle tracking and that the new vendor's quotation would provide broader coverage and asset tagging to help manage expensive equipment such as cardiac monitors.

Daughtry told commissioners the quoted package includes device gateways that connect to ambulances and would improve tracking and equipment management; he characterized the quoted price as lower than the prior cost but the transcript contains a fragmentary numeric reference described as "down to about 23" that is not a clear dollar amount. He also noted a federal grant was involved in the procurement process.

Commission members asked clarifying questions about specifications, keys, and funding; Daughtry and others indicated additional contract language changes were made before final voting and that staff would incorporate the edits before implementation. The meeting record shows motions to combine related items and subsequent voice votes approving the contracts and related motions in the consent sequence.