Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the It Services topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commission hears two finalists for county IT contract; decision set for July 1

Yankton County Commission · June 18, 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

CSI and Workplace by Direct presented managed-service proposals for Yankton County IT support, each describing onboarding timelines and security services; commissioners asked about costs, references and potential grant funding and set a decision for the July 1 meeting.

Yankton County commissioners on June 17 heard competing IT managed-service proposals from CSI (Computer Service Innovation) and Workplace by Direct (Workplace IT), two vendors shortlisted from the county’s RFP process.

Ray Thomas and colleagues from CSI presented their South Dakota–based IT managed-services offering, remote monitoring capabilities and a proposed July 1 start date; the vendor estimated an onboarding period of about two weeks if the outgoing provider cooperates. CSI emphasized 24/7 monitoring, help-desk support and experience with healthcare and public-sector customers.

Workplace by Direct representatives said their flat-rate, all-inclusive model includes security monitoring, multifactor authentication, cloud backup and a structured onboarding process. Workplace said it can have help-desk readiness within a business day of on-site onboarding and described a predictable monthly fee that covers hardware procurement, cybersecurity and ongoing user training.

Commissioners discussed cost expectations (county’s current annual IT spend estimated between $30,000 and $60,000 but likely to at least double under a more comprehensive contract), availability of cybersecurity infrastructure grants (Secure South Dakota) and requested references from each vendor. The board scheduled a decision on vendor selection for the July 1 meeting; no final contract was signed June 17.