Board reviews on‑premises vs. cloud hosting after data breaches; staff says cloud remains more secure and on‑premises transition could cost over $1M

IT staff presented a review of the district’s cloud‑hosted applications and a high‑level comparison of moving those services to on‑premises servers. The presentation listed current cloud services used for administrative and instructional purposes and noted state‑required hosted systems that cannot be self‑hosted.

Staff outlined three broad steps to move to local hosting — identify solutions, supply infrastructure, and staff/operate the systems — and provided a sample cost estimate. One example estimated the one‑time cost to move Google, Microsoft and backup storage on‑site (including 15% growth) at about $214,500; staff also said the district would need additional network monitoring and at least three new IT positions (one network engineer and two cybersecurity specialists), with combined fully‑loaded first‑year costs in the low six‑figures. Staff estimated broader transition costs could exceed $1 million when infrastructure, increased power, UPS, rack space, and licenses were included.

When asked about security, IT staff said major cloud providers and hosted platform vendors maintain highly robust security measures and global redundancy; the presentation stated that moving everything on‑site would require substantial new monitoring and could, in some cases, make the district a standalone target if protections were not equivalent to large cloud vendors. Board members asked whether some systems with the most personally identifiable information (PII) could be selectively hosted or segregated and whether Infinite Campus offered an on‑site hosting option; staff said many state‑provided systems are required to run in state instances and that any migration would require careful analysis of individual vendors’ hosting models.

The board did not vote on any change; members asked for additional follow‑up and suggested that individual board members meet with IT staff for deeper review. Several board members expressed relief that the district already isolates its instance of hosted services but asked staff to continue exploring contractual and technical protections with state and vendor partners. One board member said the price tag for a full shift to local hosting would mean significant tradeoffs for local budget priorities.

IT staff recommended continuing to use cloud providers for many services while hardening contracts and monitoring, and the board directed staff to return with more detailed options for specific high‑sensitivity systems and to meet with state IT officials about protections and potential on‑site options where feasible.