Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Security Systems Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners consider ending proprietary camera licensing after $27,000 fee demand
Summary
County leaders said a proprietary vendor is charging about $27,000 to keep security cameras live; commissioners discussed replacing the vendor with an open‑architecture system the county owns to avoid recurring licensing fees and vendor lock‑in.
Franklin County commissioners told residents they are evaluating whether to stop paying a vendor’s recurring licensing fee for courthouse and facility security cameras after the vendor indicated a roughly $27,000 license renewal would be required to keep the cameras live.
Why it matters: The county’s current camera and access control systems use proprietary software and cloud licensing. Commissioners said the vendor charges a recurring license fee that limits the county’s ability to replace individual cameras or servers without engaging the vendor’s format and support. That recurring fee was described at the meeting as roughly $26,000–$27,000 annually for continued cloud/video‑service access.
Commissioners described a possible transition to an open‑architecture, county‑owned video management system and server hardware that would remove the cloud license and allow the county to purchase off‑the‑shelf cameras and maintain its own recordings. At the meeting commissioners compared vendor pricing: a brand‑new video server capable of supporting 128 cameras was quoted at about $3,000, while the vendor’s continuing cloud/license fees would total tens of thousands annually.
County IT and security staff told commissioners they are evaluating options that could combine camera video, door access and other facility security into one open system. Commissioners acknowledged there could be short downtime during any cutover, but IT staff and the sheriff’s security lieutenant said they expect to manage the transition to avoid critical gaps in security.
Procurement and budget impacts: Commissioners said the original procurement and equipment cost for cameras and door access was cited at roughly $225,000 when the project was first authorized. Commissioners said they will solicit alternatives, examine open systems, and may decline to pay the vendor’s license if an owned system is feasible and can be implemented without unacceptable service interruption.
Ending: The commission said staff will evaluate vendor alternatives and costs; county officials signaled the county’s intention to reduce recurring licensing expenses where possible while maintaining required security capabilities.
