The cameras, which were purchased during the board's February meeting, still have not arrived.
This item is available in full to subscribers.
We have recently launched a new and improved website. To continue reading, you will need to either log into your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a digital subscriber with an active subscription, or you are a print subscriber who had access to our previous wesbite, then you already have an account here. Just reset your password if you have not yet logged in to your account on this new site.
If you are a current print subscriber and did not have a user account on our previous website, you can set up a free website account by clicking here.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
As previously reported by the Record, the board approved the purchase of security cameras for City Park, Rusche Park and City Hall during their February meeting. Alderman Chris DeVore brought up the purchase during the June meeting as the cameras had not yet been delivered.
He said he had heard some frustration from constituents about the bathrooms remaining locked at City Park. They had previously been locked due to incidents of vandalism in the park bathrooms and are now opened when the park hosts events with keys provided to event organizers.
In total the city approved a contract for 16 cameras, four at City Park and Rusche Park each and eight at City Hall with Ra-Comm Securities in Washington according to previous Record reporting. That contract was for $11,215.94 and the cost was not to exceed $1,000 more than the contract amount.
Alderman DeVore said that the city had previously had issues with cameras being vandalized as well as the bathrooms themselves.
“We need to make sure to make a point out of putting those cameras in a position hopefully where somebody can’t get to them,” DeVore said. “You can’t keep somebody from throwing rocks or waving around a broomstick but it's the best that we can do.”
Alderman Gary Dixon also posited that they should look into protective covers for the cameras to prevent them from being vandalized or destroyed once they are installed. While the board agreed that protective lenses and covers were an option, they should avoid the additional expense until it became a necessity.
“I would say it’s just better to put them out of the way first and we can deal with it later,” Dixon said.
DeVore said the next steps were to reach back out to the contractor to see when they would be available to install the cameras. He said the contractor had been busy recently and that had caused some delays in the cameras’ installation.
“It’d be nice to get those cameras if we can contact that guy again, last time about two months ago he said he was kind of busy but we need to reach back out to him,” DeVore said.
While there was not a specific timeline for the cameras’ installation at the meeting the board is taking steps to move the process along.
