Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Technology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council authorizes Motorola/Spillman GIS contract to support new CAD system
Summary
Sanford authorized a contract with Motorola (Spillman) to provide GIS services tied to a countywide Spillman CAD conversion. The total contract presented was $125,006.93 over five years; the city’s proportional share was described as $5,637 per year and $23,002.62 over five years. Council approved the authorization by voice vote.
The Sanford City Council on Jan. 20 authorized the city manager to enter a contract with Motorola for GIS services needed to implement a new Spillman CAD (computer-aided dispatch) system being deployed across York County.
City Manager Steve Buck said a York County procurement selected Motorola/Spillman for CAD and that the GIS contract before the council would allow the countywide data to tie to the new CAD system. He said the overall contract amount is $125,006.93 to be paid over five years and presented the city's proportional cost as an annualized $5,637 and a cumulative $23,002.62 over five years.
"The city's proportional share of that, for dispatch ... would be annualized at $5,637," Buck said. He noted the contract is intended to set up the GIS service that will support all partner agencies while the county transitions to the new CAD.
Councilor Nate moved approval of the contract and Anne Mundell seconded; the motion passed by voice vote. Council members praised the interlocal cooperation that led multiple communities to select a single CAD platform for dispatch.
Numbers and next steps: the manager and dispatch staff said the CAD conversion timeline is expected in the fall (September–October window referenced) and that Motorola/Spillman would begin GIS setup as soon as the contract is executed. The contract will be administered by the city’s IT/dispatch teams working with regional partners.
Note on arithmetic in council materials: the manager presented both an annualized city share ($5,637) and a five-year total ($23,002.62). Those two figures do not multiply to the stated five-year total (5,637 × 5 = 28,185), so the council records contain an internal inconsistency in the presented arithmetic; the motion and authorization proceeded with the figures as presented.
