Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Technology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fallon County weighs cloud camera system with face‑alerts against on‑prem NVR upgrade
Summary
County commissioners heard DIS Technologies and a Verkada representative outline tradeoffs between expanding the on‑prem Alibi system and moving to a cloud‑based Verkada solution; discussion focused on license costs, warranty differences, jail‑camera privacy and wiring costs that apply regardless of platform.
Commissioners and staff at a Fallon County work session heard a detailed presentation from DIS Technologies and a Verkada representative on replacing and expanding courthouse and county cameras.
Keith from DIS Technologies described two options: upgrade the existing on‑prem network‑video recorder (NVR) and add cameras to the county’s current system, or adopt a cloud‑based Verkada platform that replaces onsite recording with cloud licensing and management. "My name is Keith. I'm with DIS Technologies," he said during the presentation, explaining the on‑prem option would require a larger 32‑port PoE NVR to consolidate cameras and provide additional storage.
Verkada’s representative emphasized cloud benefits and long warranties: "Some of that was honestly inspired by the recent events that happened, over in Fallon County," she said while explaining person‑of‑interest (face detection) alerts and 10‑year hardware warranties. She described features that include 30‑day retention for searchable footage, optional archival of incident clips, and panic‑button integration that can push live video to dispatch.
Commissioners and staff raised three recurring concerns. First, cost: the group discussed licensing fees and long‑term subscription models that recur every licensing period. During the discussion staff mentioned a licensing figure for illustration: "It's $925 per license, and that's per camera," and noted a 5‑year licensing cadence was being discussed. Second, privacy and access: the sheriff’s office representative warned that some jail cameras should not be externally accessible, and commissioners sought clarification that any vendor monitoring would not have access to jail cell cameras unless specifically configured. Verkada's representative said vendor agents would have access only under a panic‑button workflow and that administrators could limit access to designated cameras. Third, infrastructure: technical staff reminded the group that replacing or adding cameras will require new cabling and switch capacity regardless of vendor, so some upfront wiring expense is unavoidable.
No procurement decision was made. Commissioners asked staff to further evaluate quotes, wiring needs, which cameras must be upgraded first (particularly analog cameras in the jail), and to return with a recommended path. The vendors said they would be available for follow‑up and that the county could phase replacements to spread costs over multiple budget years.
Next steps: staff will review the quotes and wiring costs, check how many existing cameras are Hikvision vs. Alibi, and bring a recommendation to a future work session or special meeting for a formal procurement decision.
