Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Security topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Vendor proposes cloud‑based cameras and alarms; commissioners ask for lower‑cost options
Summary
A security vendor presented a hybrid cloud camera and alarm proposal to Treasure County commissioners, showing full‑coverage options priced at about $43,000 (cameras) plus an optional $10,000 alarm package and recurring licensing. Commissioners asked the vendor to return with scaled and financeable options for the Oct. 7 meeting.
A vendor that identified itself on the record as Mercado showed Treasure County commissioners a hybrid cloud surveillance and alarm system on Sept. 16 and offered options ranging from an interior‑only package to a full exterior/interior system. The vendor said the full camera package on the slide was roughly $43,000 and an optional alarm/panic‑button package about $10,000 after a 30% discount and included a 10‑year hardware warranty.
The vendor emphasized remote support for rural counties, saying the hybrid cloud design reduces on‑site maintenance trips and can allow sheriff’s staff to view footage from mobile devices. “The numbers that you see here, the 43,000 and the 10,000, that is with full installation. That is with all cameras, all licensing,” the presenter said during the slide review.
Commissioners said the system looked technically strong but raised two budgetary concerns: the upfront cost and ongoing licensing and travel fees. One commissioner noted the county’s budget had already been set for the fiscal year and “this is a big number to try to work into the budget now.” Commissioners also flagged a vendor distance fee the presenter listed in the $5,400–$5,900 range for travel and installation as an added cost for the county’s remote location.
The board asked the vendor to reconfigure options and return with lower‑cost alternatives and financing scenarios. The presenter offered to redraw plans that focused on interior cameras for the immediate year and defer exterior coverage to a later budget year; the county agreed to schedule a follow‑up presentation for Oct. 7 and to provide a rough budget range in advance.
The county did not take any procurement action at the Sept. 16 meeting. Commissioners said they would review the sheriff’s existing footage and the current panic‑button coverage before deciding whether to pursue a phased replacement or to solicit competing bids. The vendor left contact information and agreed to provide revised quotes and clarified ongoing annual costs ahead of the next meeting.
