Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Digital Records topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County staff warn of added annual costs as Axon changes API access during Carpel rollout
Summary
County staff told commissioners that Axon has limited a promised API linking body-camera evidence to the county's new Carpel case-management system, prompting temporary leniency this year but raising the prospect of roughly $20,000–$23,000 in annual costs and operational changes.
County central services and prosecutor’s-office staff briefed commissioners on a technical and contractual problem tied to the county’s move from JustWork to Carpel case-management software: Axon, the vendor that hosts body-worn and in-car camera video, has altered how it offers programmatic access (APIs) and is shifting parts of its functionality to a paid module.
Karen Beatty, director of central services, summarized the issue: the county expected an interface so Carpel could ingest links to evidence rather than requiring full downloads, but “Axon said, nope… they’re gonna start making them pay for the API,” and some clients have had the interface turned off if they did not purchase new services. Staff said that, without link-based access, agencies must download the full video files, driving storage and backup demands. Beatty described the county’s current storage pressure: “currently, they are around 13 terabytes of data [for the prosecutor’s office]; I think in the whole county, we’ve got 45.”
Staff estimated the additional recurring cost for the prosecutor-focused module and search/redaction functions at roughly $20,000–$23,000 per year in recurring charges and explained the county had pushed Axon for leniency to avoid immediate billing while it evaluates options. “Right now, they are not charging us for the absorbent amount of data we are storing in their system, which was going to be $500 per terabyte a year,” Beatty said. County officials said they are exploring negotiating a reduction from Carpel for the promised functionality, evaluating whether an in‑house API or alternative transfer approach could be developed, and preparing training if a new platform is adopted; staff noted a go‑live window of June 1 if contract terms are finalized.
Commissioners pressed staff on search, redaction and tagging workflows and whether third‑party file transfer (e.g., Dropbox) would be compliant; staff said Dropbox would not meet compliance standards. Commissioners and the auditor’s office flagged the broader fiscal implications for long‑term data growth and county budget pressures for public-safety systems. No formal budget action was taken at the meeting; staff will continue negotiations and return with options and cost details.
