Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety It topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clinton County council authorizes $230,000 to replace Spillman server; county to be reimbursed 50% by city
Summary
The council approved funding to buy two replacement Spillman servers, including a backup, to address an end‑of‑life critical records server. County will front $230,000 from public safety LIT and seek reimbursement from the city under an interlocal agreement.
Clinton County Council on Wednesday approved $230,000 to purchase two replacement Spillman servers and a backup to prevent a catastrophic outage of public-safety records and dispatch data.
Renee, a public‑safety Spillman administrator, told the council the current server is at end of life and that an outage would leave dispatch and records operations “dead in the water” until systems were restored. She said a prior Motorola quote for the hardware was roughly $326,000 while a local administrator, Tim, provided a lower quote of about $226,000 that includes a backup server and migration support.
Council members agreed the county and the city should share costs under an interlocal agreement. The agreement discussed at the meeting calls for a 50/50 split, with the county paying the vendor up front and the city reimbursing half. The council voted to appropriate $230,000 from the county’s public safety local income tax (LIT) account to place the order; a mover (Todd) and second (Joe) were recorded and the motion carried as announced during the meeting.
Renee said migration work by Motorola will cost roughly $10,000; she also noted a $5,000 GIS migration item had been avoided because Crossroads GIS maintenance was already in place. She said discussions remain about where to house the second server off‑site and that the interlocal agreement will be finalized once the host location is selected.
Council members and the presenter emphasized the operational risk of delaying the purchase: without a backup, a hardware failure would force dispatch into manual, paper‑based operations, increasing response risk and slowing evidence and records access.
The council’s action at the meeting was a consent to spend; the formal additional-appropriation advertisement and final appropriation will follow in February to complete the budgetary steps required for purchase and reimbursement.
Next steps: finish the interlocal agreement with the city, confirm server host location, place the order, and complete the advertised additional appropriation in February.
Quotes used in this article are drawn from the meeting transcript and attributed to named speakers listed in the council record.
