Based on my experience, they'll immediately initiate a review of things. They might plug a couple of small holes if there is anything obvious. Then the process

Based on my experience, they'll immediately initiate a review of things. They might plug a couple of small holes if there is anything obvious. Then the process will drag on, and the sense of urgency and concern will start to get diluted as other newer issues come up in day to day operations. They might finally get some recommendations, and if those recommendations are huge, there won't be a budget. So it'll get put into next years budget request, reviewed in a few months, and then there is a 50/50 chance they get funding approval to do anything major. During this, it will become apparent that this was an inside job, and the attackers had knowledge of the system, and thus most common hardening or mitigation procedures would be less effective against an informed attacker. Because of that, the feeling of a need to install the most robust systems with offsite backups will drop to near zero. The article doesn't even state that the video system was in fact disabled, or that they were using wifi cameras at all. Obviously, the police are not disclosing many details, it is possible that they have video from the robbery and are simply not saying it.