By Bill Short
The Millington Board of Mayor and Aldermen has adopted a resolution to accept a company’s proposal to provide body cameras for the city’s police officers.
Board members took the action during their July 13 regular monthly meeting on a motion offered by Alderman Thomas McGhee and seconded by Alderman Don Lowry.
The motion was passed by six affirmative votes, with Alderman Al Bell absent.
Pileum Corp. submitted a $178,500 proposal to provide body cameras for 28 officers who are certified by the Police Officer Standards and Training Commission.
The resolution states that, after “multiple months of review,” the city issued a Request for Proposals that established the “variables” most important to the Millington Police Department.
The RFP was designed to cover all costs associated with the use of the cameras, including related storage for a five-year period.
On May 15, the city received proposals from four companies.
The resolution states that the Pileum proposal was considered the “best fit” for Millington, because it addressed the most variables identified in the RFP.
In May 2019, the board voted to accept a 50-50 matching grant awarded by the U.S. Department of Justice that the police department sought for the acquisition of body cameras. The grant allows for $100,000 worth of expenditures.
The resolution states that the city’s DEA Drug Fund, which consists of seized drug proceeds, has adequate dollars in the 2021 fiscal year budget to fund the balance of the project.
During discussion shortly before the vote, City Finance Director John Trusty said no General Fund dollars will be spent for this project during the first five years.
He noted that the police department has established policies and procedures related to the operation, retention and release of videos taken. Those have been reviewed and approved by the Justice Department and the Shelby County District Attorney General.
The company’s initial proposal was $196,000, which was “negotiated down” to $178,500.
Trusty said that was partly a “price concession” for the manufacturer of the equipment to be provided, and partly because the city determined that it “did not actually need” some of the things the company quoted in its proposal.
