There isn't much information to go on here, so it will be difficult for people to provide suggestions or thoughts. Licensing gets pretty messy pretty quickly, so it would probably be worth having conversations with both your Esri and MS account managers or sale representatives to work through your situation.
A couple high-level comments. SQL Server Standard is licensed either per core or per CAL, not both, for a given install. It is unclear whether your IT staff are saying you have to license both cores and CALs (the answer is no), whether you have two separate SQL Server deployments, or some other setup.
I recommend not having public-facing services connecting to the same operational layers your internal users are creating and maintaining. Even setting IT security concerns aside, there is a practical dimension where you gauging external demand is difficult, but high external demand can impact the performance of the data sources for internal use.
Thank you for your response.
I want to emphasize that we already have SQL Server Standard set up and integrated with many of our services, including Computer Arts and Proval and the programs that multiple departments use and depend on. We already have many licenses for those that need it.
My question is very specific to how the licensing changes once you integrate ArcGIS Server Standard, Enterprise Portal into the mix - has anyone experienced charges to SQL licensing once they integrate ArcGIS Server from their SQL server? Especially when it comes to streaming data from ArcGIS Server into AGOL for public-facing maps? This is where the concern is - my IT thinks we would be charged 14,000 dollars to be able to use SQL Server Standard with ArcGIS Server and publish online maps to the public. is this true? has anyone else experienced this? There are so many organizations that are using SQL Server Standard AND publishing data to their ArcGIS Online Public maps and all I need is to know how they are doing that with SQl licensing.
As a side note, Josh, I manage all of our data, features, layers, etc. and when the staff edits or updates the data it is through a controlled map application system that lets them edit in very specific ways that I have set up. I reconcile their data with them. We are a small rural shop and only a few folks are actually editing or updating their own data at this point.
If your existing SQL Server licensing is per core, than it doesn't matter which applications or how many users are connecting to it. The only way that adding ArcGIS Server into the mix would increase your per-core licensing costs is if your existing SQL Server databases need to get additional resources (CPU, RAM, etc..) to cope with the load.
Setting the public-facing GIS services aside for a moment, depending on how many new CALs you need to support ArcGIS users internally, it may make sense for your IT shop to consider switching from CAL to core licensing.
Am I correct in thinking that you have a single server set up for ArcGIS Server/SQL Server? If so, I know you are limited to the number of users connecting to your standard license; however, you do not need a separate SQL serve license for your SDE DB. Your IT can give you a separate instance within their SQL environment for you to add your SDE DB or DB's. I have 5 SDE DB's in the same SQL server instance, that is in a centralized SQL server bank, we used one SQL server license on a separate SQL Server, to serve out all of our SQL server DB's. You do not need a separate SQL server license for each portal. Our portal user and Enterprise user hit the same SQL DB. The IT group could have separate SQL licenses for a DMZ versus internal organization SQL server environment. I hope this helps.