Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Technology Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Central Services outlines rising IT costs: Microsoft licensing, phone systems and internet resiliency on the table
Summary
Central Services briefed commissioners on rising IT and telecommunications costs, pointing to higher Microsoft licensing bills, the upcoming end‑of‑life for the county’s Mitel phone platform and a need to invest in internet‑aggregation hardware and cloud telephony for resiliency.
Central Services staff led a multi‑hour budget and technology discussion that raised several near‑term and multi‑year cost questions for the county. Key topics included: escalating Microsoft licensing charges, an upcoming renewal cycle that can spike expenses every few years; a move off the county’s Mitel phone system as the vendor transitions to cloud services; the option to move phone extensions to a cloud app (which could provide app‑based calling but requires headsets or desk phones); and the need for internet aggregation (two or more ISPs with automatic failover) to avoid single‑point‑of‑failure outages.
Karen from Central Services reviewed current spend lines and explained that Microsoft billing is often allocated across departments and recovered via cost allocation. She described a recent multi‑year Microsoft bill in the six‑figures and said the county bills appropriate departments via cost allocation to avoid double counting in the central fund. She said SentinelOne endpoint protection costs on a three‑year cadence could be paid in part by earlier annual set‑asides; the current proposal is to budget $20,000 per year to amortize a larger third‑year bill.
IT staff cautioned the board the Mitel phone platform is moving to a managed cloud approach and some license types and hardware purchases will be required to migrate. They said Lumen, Spectrum, Starlink and other providers were being evaluated to add diversity for internet uplinks, and that resiliency hardware located on the county premises (Internet aggregator) would add monthly costs but increase uptime during provider outages.
Commissioners asked about Google Workspace as a lower‑cost alternative to Microsoft; staff said several jurisdictions use Google and conversion is technically feasible but has implementation and training costs. Commission and staff discussion focused on balancing the budgetary impact of licensing increases, cyber‑security, service resiliency and the annual cost to current users.
No final decisions were taken; staff will return with more detailed cost estimates, pricing comparisons (Microsoft vs Google), and an implementation plan for phone migration and internet aggregator options, including procurement cost estimates and funding sources.
