Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves consent agenda; member highlights IT security contract savings
Summary
At its Jan. 22 meeting the Cottage Grove City Council approved the consent agenda and payments; Council Member Thiede said the city’s IT department will replace a security product that cost nearly $93,000 a year with a new service costing a little over $11,000, producing substantial savings.
Get email alerts on the Municipal Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Cottage Grove City Council on Jan. 22 approved its consent agenda and authorized disbursements, and Council Member Thiede told colleagues the city will replace an existing information-security product with a lower-cost service that staff say will save the city money while maintaining security.
Thiede said he had discussed the item with IT staff and that the replacement service will cost "a little over $11,000 a year," and that it replaces a product that had been costing "close to $93,000 a year." "Our IT department's doing a great job of looking at ways to save money for all of our residents and keep things more secure," Thiede said during the meeting.
Council members approved the consent calendar and subsequent payments by voice vote. The council recorded no roll-call tallies in the minutes; all council members present signified approval by saying "aye." Present at roll call were Council Members Claassen, Olson, Thiede, Garza and Mayor Bailey.
Votes at a glance: the council adopted the meeting agenda (motion by Council Member Thiede, second by Council Member Claassen; outcome: approved); approved the consent agenda (motion by Council Member Olson, second by Council Member Garza; outcome: approved); and approved payment of bills (motion by Council Member Garza, second by Council Member Thiede; outcome: approved).
Council discussion of the IT line item was informational; no separate vote on the purchase price was recorded beyond inclusion on the consent calendar. The council did not receive public comment during open forum at the start of the meeting.

