Davis County Information Systems seeks funds for wireless mapping, server replacement and expanded video storage

Jeff Hassett, representing Information Systems, told the Davis County Budget Committee on Oct. 4 that the department’s budget request focuses on core services — network, software development, third‑party application support, GIS, physical security and cybersecurity — and a short list of capital needs to stabilize infrastructure.

Hassett said the IS team is proposing a wireless testing and mapping tool (Ekahau or similar) to produce accurate coverage maps and eliminate unnecessary access points. He said a targeted diagnostic approach priced at about $31,000 would be more economical than a larger $65,000 effort and could reduce daily Wi‑Fi complaints by identifying misconfigured radios and poor channel planning.

Among larger infrastructure requests, staff proposed proactive network switch upgrades and replacement of the county’s oldest Nutanix server nodes, which Hassett said have a typical 5–6 year lifespan. He noted the Nutanix replacement is necessary to maintain server reliability and that the proposal includes three years of maintenance and support.

A major budget driver, Hassett warned, is the rapid growth of recorded video and evidence storage. "Our public defenders are being the attorneys for 80% of our cases," Hassett said, and both prosecutors and defenders are storing evidence on county systems. He estimated current growth could exhaust county storage by roughly February 2026 and said a cloud‑only option would be costly — roughly $350,000 per year by his estimate — making an on‑prem replacement a more cost‑effective option for now.

Other capital requests consolidated under IS included overhead paging and telephone updates (to integrate paging with SIP phones), projector and AV installations for some library auditoriums, speaker upgrades at county golf courses, door access and camera infrastructure replacement, and a new fingerprinting station for the ankle‑monitor area at the sheriff’s office.

Hassett emphasized that many county functions run on custom‑built software and said the rapid, compressed budgeting timeline (requests submitted July 31 with about four weeks to finalize) limits the department’s ability to fully scope development needs or evaluate third‑party alternatives. He urged that process assessments and a solutions review begin earlier in the calendar year so the county can weigh custom development against existing market solutions.

The committee discussed fund balance targets for the IS fund, noting a projected 2024 year‑end balance in the $1.2–1.4 million range and asking whether a target near $400,000 or closer to a full year of operating costs was appropriate. No formal vote or motion on the IS budget or specific capital items was recorded in the transcript; the discussion closed after committee members asked follow‑up questions about prioritization and timing.

Looking ahead, Hassett said the department will prioritize consolidation where feasible (for example, using a single cashiering module rather than supporting multiple cashiering applications) and will include one new security analyst position in the payroll projections. The committee did not take formal action during the session; the budget and capital requests remain subject to later committee decisions and formal appropriation.