Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cheatham County approves five-year Axon/TASER contract and funds year‑one payment
Summary
The Cheatham County Legislative Body approved a five‑year contract with Axon for TASER 7 devices, virtual reality training and evidence licenses totaling $275,226, and authorized a $55,045.16 budget amendment to pay the first-year installment for the sheriff’s office.
Cheatham County commissioners on Dec. 19 approved a five‑year equipment, training and service agreement with Axon Enterprise for TASER 7 devices, virtual‑reality training and Evidence.com licenses, and recorded a budget transfer to cover the first annual payment.
The contract cited in the meeting materials lists a five‑year total of $275,226 and an annual payment schedule of roughly $55,045.16 due each January. County Mayor Kerry McCarver presented the contract for the mayor’s signature; the motion to approve the mayor’s signature was made by Diana Pike Lovell and seconded by Chris Gilmore and passed by roll‑call vote, 11–0 (one commissioner absent).
Earlier in the meeting the Director of Accounts, Sandrine Batts, presented a Budget Committee recommendation to move $55,045.16 to the Sheriff’s Department contract line to cover year‑one costs for the Axon agreement. That budget amendment was approved by roll call 11–0 (one absent). The vendor quote included in the meeting packet describes a 60‑device TASER 7 bundle with warranties, virtual reality headsets and simulator cartridges, Evidence.com access licenses and periodic hardware refreshes and warranties.
The county’s purchase documents in the packet show a payment plan with five annual invoices beginning Jan. 2023; the county’s vote authorizes the mayor to sign the contract pending the county attorney’s final review. The meeting record lists Axon’s quote and equipment schedule as attachments to the resolution.
No public opposition was recorded during the meeting’s presentation of the contract. The county did not discuss vendor‑selection alternatives on the record at the Dec. 19 session. The action was recorded as Resolution 13(D).
