Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Communications And Operations topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Midway staff weigh county-leased radios, cell‑phone stipends and operational tradeoffs

3169032 · April 30, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Midway City public works staff and council members discussed adopting county‑leased radios (about $10,000 per year, split across departments), how many cell phones to reimburse, and directed staff to analyze phone costs and plans.

Midway City council and public works staff discussed expanding radio communications through a Wasatch County leasing program and whether to continue reimbursing individual employee cell-phone costs.

The discussion focused on cost and operational differences between two systems: radios, leased through the county at a recurring cost, and employee cell phones, which are used for on-call coverage and public contacts. Staff explained the county program provides radios and licensing and that the city would not purchase hardware directly. The recurring cost was described during the meeting as about $10,000 per year, shared across four departments, with the radios provided as a leased service rather than a one-time purchase. The number of radios discussed was 12.

Council members pressed staff on whether radios alone would meet needs for public calls and on-call phone coverage. Staff said radios are intended primarily for intra‑department and interagency coordination (for example, dispatch and emergency coordination with Heber City and Wasatch County) while cell phones are used to receive incoming calls, texts and emails from the public and the city office. Council members expressed concern over paying multiple monthly cell‑phone stipends for employees and asked whether a group plan or fewer city‑issued phones would reduce costs.

There was no formal vote. The council asked staff to run a cost analysis comparing current stipend/reimbursement practices and potential group or municipal plans for cell phones, and to return with figures showing the city’s monthly and annual phone expenses and options for consolidation. The council also confirmed the radio leasing arrangement had been compared with an RFP for purchase and that the county price was substantially lower than the city’s own procurement price.

Council members asked for clarity on the billing structure (one-time purchase versus annual fee) and the split of the $10,000 cost among departments. Staff said parts and repairs would go through the county program and that annual recurring fees were expected. The council directed staff to produce the phone‑plan analysis and to return with exact counts and costs for radios and phones in a follow-up email.

The discussion did not produce a final procurement decision; it produced direction to staff to provide a detailed cost comparison and options for phone-plan consolidation and to clarify ongoing operating costs for the county‑leased radios.