Lincoln County considers cloud phone system from BTS; board asks for cost comparison

County IT staff and representatives from vendor BTS presented a proposal Dec. 15 to move Lincoln County’s phone system from aging, on‑premises equipment to a cloud‑based subscription that the vendor would host and maintain.

The proposal, led by David Tate and Bruce Mindenhall of BTS, would replace the county’s current phones and route calls through a cloud server. Mindenhall said the subscription model includes automatic phone replacement, routine upgrades and vendor support: “Any of your phones go bad they automatically send you out a new phone,” he said. County IT added the vendor offers mobile apps so deputies and other staff can receive calls routed to office numbers on their cell phones.

County IT framed the change as a security and continuity improvement, saying the on‑site system currently exposes an Internet port that “could be taken over” if not properly patched. The IT representative described the cloud approach as one way to reduce that attack surface and make remote continuity easier if offices need to operate offsite.

Commissioners pressed the presenters on specific risks and costs. One commissioner asked, “Have we ever been without Internet?” and board members sought assurance that a loss of Internet would not leave critical operations, such as the jail and dispatch, without a way to receive or place urgent calls. BTS said the system can forward calls to cell networks and that deputies would be able to use a mobile app if the courthouse Internet is interrupted.

On pricing, BTS provided preliminary monthly figures: $817 per month for the sheriff’s site and $2,375 per month for the courthouse site, and estimated roughly $18 per phone per month based on the county’s approximately 176 phones. BTS said phones are stocked at vendor warehouses and that the vendor anticipated a price increase early next year that the county could avoid by acting sooner.

Board members requested a clearer comparison with current costs and a breakdown of one‑time infrastructure needs (for example, power‑over‑Ethernet and switch upgrades) versus recurring subscription fees. Commissioners also asked for documented warranty and service terms; BTS representatives said support and onsite tech visits for phone issues are included while network problems would remain the county’s responsibility.

Rather than decide at the Dec. 15 meeting, the board voted to continue the item and asked staff to return next Monday with a cost comparison showing current monthly and annual expenditures and the projected transition costs, so members can weigh security, continuity and budget impacts before any procurement decision.

The item will return to the board agenda the following week for further deliberation and a possible vote.