Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Security Systems topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Vendor pitches cloud-based camera and alarm system; county asks for follow-up and lower-cost options
Summary
A security vendor demonstrated a cloud-hybrid camera and alarm system for Treasure County's courthouse and community center, quoting a full-installation option of roughly $43,000 and smaller alternatives. Commissioners praised the technology but said current budgets cannot absorb the cost and asked the vendor to rework interior-focused, lower-cost quotes for an Oct. 7 follow-up.
A cloud-based security system vendor presented a proposal to Treasure County commissioners on Sept. 16 that would replace the county's aging coax camera and alarm infrastructure with a hybrid cloud system and integrated panic/alarm monitoring. The presenter, a representative of Mercado, said the company offers a 10-year warranty on hardware and remote engineering support intended to reduce expensive on-site service calls.
"So the goal for today was to go over the building plans that we have for the security proposal," the Mercado presenter said, explaining the system would cover the sheriff's office, community center and ambulance bay and add panic-button integration and motion alerts. Mercado provided two price scenarios on-screen and described the higher-end package as approximately $43,000 with a lower-scope option near $10,000, both including installation and licensing.
Commissioners and staff pressed for detail on ongoing costs and deployment logistics. One commissioner noted the county's current alarm subscription costs about $50 per month and said, "This is a big number to try [to] work into the budget now." The board also asked whether the existing panic-button service (currently monitored through Mountain Alarm) could be consolidated and whether interior cameras could be prioritized to lower up-front cost.
The vendor said the system's cloud design reduces on-site travel charges because engineers can remote into systems; the proposal included distance/travel fees for installation that the board flagged as material (one line item in the quote review was about $5,400 to $5,900 for travel/fees). The presenter offered to redraw plans to focus on interior, sensitive areas and to provide revised quotes for the board to consider as it finalizes next year's budget.
Commissioners agreed not to decide that day. The vendor will submit revised, lower-cost options emphasizing interior coverage; the board scheduled a follow-up presentation for Oct. 7 at 11:15 a.m. to review updated quotes and financing options. The vendor also suggested grant opportunities and financing arrangements for staged purchases.
The presentation and follow-up planning leave open three near-term decisions for the board: whether to finance a phased installation (interior first, exterior later), whether to consolidate alarm monitoring under a single provider, and whether grant or other outside funding can cover a portion of hardware and installation costs.
Next step: Mercado will email revised quotes and the commissioners will review those estimates before the Oct. 7 meeting.
