Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-07-22 Commissioner MinutesWEDNESDAY, July 22, 2026 The Franklin County Commissioners met on Wednesday, July 22, 2026, with the following members present: Dean A. Horst, John T. Flannery and Robert G. Ziobrowski. Commissioner Horst presided and after calling the meeting to order, a Moment of Silence, and th e Pledge of Allegiance, proceeded with the business of the day. County Administrator Carrie Gray asked that the a greement between the County of Franklin and the County of Fulton for the Franklin Clerk of Court office to provide training and technical support services to the Fulton County Clerk of Courts office be postponed until January. On a motion by John T. Flannery; Seconded by Robert G. Ziobrowski; the Board unanimously approved to adopt the amended agenda. There was public comment from Kim Wertz who stated that r abbittransit was talked about last week, and she explained several problems riders and drivers had been experiencing with the newly installed AI-based scheduling system. She reported that many of the drivers tablets had gone black, leaving them without routing information. Dispatch also lost visibility of vehicle locations when all tablets went dark. She shared that IT ultimatel y ordered a complete shutdown of all tablets late in th e day and after the restart, the tablets appeared to resume normal function and drivers reported t hat the system was working again. She noted that although the outage caused confusion, since ne ither drivers nor dispatch knew where buses were supposed to go, everything seemed to function properly once systems came back online. S h e expressed hope th a t this fix resolved the issue moving forward. On a motion by John T. Flannery; Seconded by Robert G. Ziobrowski; the Board unanimously approved to adopt the consent agenda to include: Review and Approval of Minutes from July 1 5, 2026. Vouchers in the amount of $715,153.71 Agreement between the County of Franklin and Cumberland County Special Hazards Operations Team (SHOT) for a hazardous materials response team that is trained and equipped in accordance with the Hazardous Materials Emergency Planning and Response Act 165. The team will be on-call 24 hours a day, 365 days per year; to mitigate and contain hazardous materials and decontaminate personnel and equipment within the capabilities of the team. Franklin County will attempt to identify responsible parties and obtain reimbursement. The contracted amount is $12,000.00 per year with a $250.00 discount for each county staff member trained to the Hazmat Technician level and an additional $1,000.00 discount for providing communic ations equipment. This will be paid by the Hazardous Materials Response Fund Grant. Agreement between the County of Franklin and Commonwealth of PA, Bureau of Financial Operations to revise to the Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Early Intervention Annual Report of Income and Expenditures. Total Fiscal Year 2024-2025 State and Federal Revenue was $1,508,666.00 and expenditures were $1,686,990.00. County Share, paid with General Funds, was $178,324.00. Unspent revenue of $23,516.00 will be returned to the State when the report is reconciled and certified. Agreement between the County of Franklin and SHI International Corp. In 2025 we purchased our Microsoft licensing via a CCAP contract. In that contract CCAP named CDW as the purchasing agent. CCAP recently changed their purchasing agent to SHI which is also a COSTARS provider. This paperwork simply allows us to transfer the purchasing power fr om CDW to SHI. Approval to exonerate taxes for the mobile home that was previously being taxed as a separate parcel from the land that it sits on. Since the taxes are now being paid in Metal Township there is no need for the sale. The Board reviewed regular agenda items. Ms. Gra y provided a high-level overview of each of the actions. Soli c itor Elliott Sulcove stated that before the Board this morning was an engagement letter from RKL, LLP, an accounting firm with an office in Chambersburg and a d ditional locations elsewhere. He explained that the letter outlined the details of a forensic investigation to be conducted regarding the office of the Washington Township Tax Collector. He clarified that, at this stage, the investigation involved only the Washington Township Tax Co llector. On a motion by John T. Flannery; Seconded by Robert G. Ziobrowski; the Board unanimously approved the engagement letter from RKL, LLP for forensic investigation services involving the Washington Township Tax Collector. The fee for this professional service is not to exceed $30,000.00. This will be paid from the General Fund. Commissioner Flannery wanted to clarify that the tax collectors are not under the authority of Franklin County. Mr. Sulcove stated that taxing authorities themselves. He stated that tax collectors were independently elected and functioned independently from counties, townships, and school districts. He emphasized that this structure was unusual compared to how other state s managed tax collection. Mr. Sulcove noted that although the system might see m unfamiliar to people from outside Pennsylvan ia, it had been in place since the founding of the Commonwealth, and this separation was the reason the County handled th is matter this way. Commissioner Flannery asked if the taxes collected by the tax collector were paid to the c ounty or to each taxing authority from the tax collector. Mr. Sulcove stated that we receive the county taxes and the school and township taxes are paid to those taxing authorities. Commissioner Horst asked what the timeline was. Mr. Sulcove stated that time period involved Janu ary 2021 through present or roughly five years. He continued that the scope of the RKL engagement could be expanded or reduced depending on what the investigation uncovered. He explained that documents possession would allow portions of the review to proceed quickly. However, he emphasized that the investigation would require reliance on documents outside of c ounty control, and obtaining and reviewing those materials would take longer. He noted that because the c ounty, school district, the township, and the independently elected tax collector were completely separate from one another, many members of the public might assume that each taxing authority held all relevant records. H e clarified that this was not the case. As a result, a dditional time would be necessary to collect materials from multiple external sources. Commissioner Flannery asked about the not to exceed amount and if we anticipated it going that high. Mr. Sulcove stated at this point we did not. Emphasizing that the Coun t y was at the very beginning of the forensic investigation. He stated that the length and scope of the engagement could vary d epending on what the review uncovered. If the investigation revealed no significant issues, the work could require far less time. Conversely, if additional concerns emerged that required deeper examination, the project could extend to the full anticipated amount, and pot outcome. approached to exceed" threshold of the agreement, the consultant would remain in communication with him and he would bring any such update back before the Board, e ither with a proposed amendment to the existing engagement or with a different agreement altogether if an expanded scope became necessary. Ms. Gray introduced C h ief I nformation Officer Sean Creager to explain the next three contracts. Mr. Crager presented a request technology environment: backups, recovery systems, and storage. He explained that the modern cybersecurity threats, particularly ransomware. He described how ransomware attacks encrypt an organization's data and hold it hostage, of ten with no guarantee that the attackers delete the stolen d ata even if payment is made. He stated that t production systems too closely with backup systems, creating vulnerability. The new approach, an air-gap solution, wou ld physically separate backups from the main environment and make them immutable, unable to be altered or accessed by external actors, even in the event of a significantly due to digitization and ongoing paperless initiatives. He noted that staff were also working to reduce unnecessary stored data by following county retention policies. He explained that this solution would shift storage procurement from a traditional capital expense model to an operational expanse model, using what he described as an Evergreen solution. Instead of purchasing large, un used s torage upfront, the County would buy only what was needed and add capacity gradually as required. He reported t hat the cost would be spread over four years and that storage prices were currently high due to global increases in demand and data center expansion. He stated that the proposed solution avoided overspending in the present and gave the County flex ibility to scale upward as needed. He concluded by noting that the technology team had thoroughly evaluated multiple options and selected a solution that balanced fiscal responsibility, technical performance, and se curity needs, stressing that modern storage capabilities were essential as the County continued to increase its digital operations. Commissioner Z iobrowski commented t hat he appreciated the concept of purchasing only th e storage the C o unty truly needed, comparing it to having a large basement that inevitably fills with unnecessary it e ms. He then asked whether, given the Ever green s olution and the increasing global demand for data storage capacity, the County had any guarantee that additional storage would always remain available when needed, regardless of market pressures. Mr. Crager responded that it would be difficult to guarantee storage availability under every circumstance. He explained that a major disaster, such as supply-chain disruptions like those seen during COVID-19, could affect produ ction and availability. How e ver, he noted that the County did have guaranteed price lock-in for the duration of t he agreement, w hich provided stability even in a fluctuating market. He stated that, barring an extreme event that halted production, he di d storage availability would be an issue. He added that the price l o ck-in allowed the County to plan its storage costs over the next four years despite v ariations in the market conditions. Commissioner Ziobrowski acknowledged the rapid pace of change in the digital environment, noting that technology once required updates every 18 months d u e to such fast development. He then asked whether storage capacity itself was increasing alongside demand, specifically, whether storage suppliers were able to keep up with the rising need for data storage resources. Mr. Crager responded that at times the dem a nd for data storage equipment could outpace the production capabilities of manufacturers. He noted that global market dynamics influenced availability, but manufacturers were actively increasi ng their production capacity because demand for storage had grown substantially. He stated that although he could not speak to production levels across all manufacturers, the County had observed increases in output and more companies expanding their ability to produce storage solutions to meet current needs. Commissioner Ziobrowski stated that data centers obviously used data, and he asked whether data centers themselves had storage capacity or whether storage was an entirely separate entity. Mr. Crager clarified that data centers inherently included storage, noting that storage was a core function of such facilities. He added that, as Commissioner Flannery had previously stated, the Commissioners were not in favor of locating data centers in Franklin County unless a site could be found where no residents would be negatively affected, which he described as highly unlikely. Mr. Crager addressed concerns about national or regional opposition to data centers and whether such opposition could lead to shortages in storage capacity. He explained that while limitations on data center development in some states could impact overall supp ly, storage itself existed in numerous forms and devices beyond large data center environments. He emphasized that demand for storage was not decreasing in any respect. He noted that data centers continued to be built globally, and that concerns often arose from AI focused facilities, which required significant electricity and cooling despite trends toward smaller physical footprints with greater computing and storage den sity. He stated that he had operated many data centers throughout his career and did not expect the development of data center infrastructure to stop. Finally, Mr. Crager explained that the impact of data center growth varied by region and municipality. Each area would handle public concerns and development pressures differently, and there was no uniform way to predict how the landscape would evolve, as outcomes depended o n regional decision making. Commissioner Flannery asked if this project was within the 2026 budget. Ms. Gray explained that the cost of the technology proposal was actually slightly lower due to smoothing the expenses across multiple years. She stated that the expenditure would shift from appearing as a capital expense d uring the supplemental funding cycle to being incorporated into the operating budget during target-based budgeting process. She emphasized that it was important to show the full multi-year obligation up front, noting that this was why those prices were reflected in the documents presented to the Board. Commissioner Horst stated that he saw the purchases was for two servers and asked if any other servers were left on site or going to the cloud. Mr. Crager explained that most County technology infrastructure remained on site, with nearly all hardware located within Franklin County facilities. He noted that while services such as email operated in the cloud, the County continued to rely primarily on on premi ses systems because this approach allowed greater control over sensitive data. He emphasized that maintaining this level of control made the planned air gap solution especially important. The air gap system would create a secure separation between operational systems and backup at ransomware attacks had affected organizations ranging from small governments to offices a t high level as the Pennsylvania Attorney General. He stressed that even when ransomware victims paid to regain access to encrypted data, there was no guarantee that attackers had deleted their copies, noting the possibility of data being sold on the black market. Because of these risks, he stated that preventing such incidents through strong security practices was essential. Voting as a block o n a motion by John T. Flannery; Seconded by Robert G. Ziobrowski; the Board unanimously approved the q uote between the County of Franklin and CDW to replace out of date and unsupported computer storage for the next five years at a cost of $104,933.68 for the first year and years two through five at $114,042.00 each. The maximum encumbrance is $561,101.68. This runs through July 31, 2030. This will be paid by an allocation across all County departments. About 65% is estimated to be paid by the General Fund. Quote between the County of Franklin and Splashwire Inc, as a Value Added Reseller of Axcient, a Connectwise company, to provide Disaster Recovery and Backup services software. This will allow us to encrypt our backups, store them in the cloud, air gap them (i.e. off our network, and make them immutable) at a maximum cost of $212,760.00. For the l ast five months of 2026, $750.00; 2027,$30,350.00; 2028 and 2029 $70,320.00; and $41,020 for the first seven months of 2030. This runs through July 31, 2030. This will be paid by an allocation across all County departments. About 65% is estimated to be paid by the General Fund. Quote between the County of Franklin and Dell for two servers needed in conjunction with the proposed new backup solution from Splashwire Inc and Axcient. One will reside at each data center providing short term recovery options and interface with the cloud solution at a cost of $48,216.94. This will be paid by an allocation across all County departments. About 65% is estimated to be paid by the General Fund. During Press Time, Pat Ryan of 103.7 FM today but asked whether the Commissioners could share how things went during the recent community and the extra operational hours that had been provided. He said he would be interested in seeing whether any trends were emerging. Commissioner Horst stated we would get the information to him. Mr. Ryan noted that while one of his earlier questions had already been addressed by Mr. Sulcove, he had an additional inquiry related to tax collectors. He explained that the district within standard County employee records, but tax to know processes, as tax collectors were independent individuals who received payments from various funding pools. Because of this independence and the dispersed nature of the revenue streams, he said he would likely need to file right to know requests with multiple entities in order to learn what each tax collector truly earned. He asked the Commissioners to confirm whether that understanding was correct. Mr. Sulcove explained that, like most matters involving tax collectors, the compensation process was unusual. He stated that tax collectors were paid based on the number of tax bills they handled. He noted that they were, in a sense, paid by the taxing au thorities, yet not directly paid by them in the way typical county employees were. He further explained that he was not sure whether the County possessed all the necessary records to determine exact payments. He offered to obtain information regarding the per bill compensation rate, which forms the basis of how tax collectors are paid. M s. Gray stated that she could provide the per bill compensation rate for tax collectors, noting that the rate was established by resolution and that she had access to that information. She stated she would obtain the exact figure after the meeting. She added that, depending on the township, or in some cases the school district, there could be additional compensation associated with the tax collection software used in that jurisdiction. She clarified that any such software reimbursement would be an ar rangement between the individual tax collector and the specific taxing entity. She also noted that she did not know whether Washington Township offered additional compensation of this kind. Mr. Ryan observed that determining the actual earnings of tax collectors would require a separate right to know request for each township. He noted that because tax collectors were independent individuals and compensation flowed from multiple sources, gathering accurate salary information would be a lengthy and complicated process. Commissioner Flannery explained that the County paid tax collectors a per b ill rate for county tax bills, estimating the rate at approximately four dollars per bill and noting that it might be around $4.10. He clarified that tax collectors also billed the school district for the tax bills they processed, meaning that they collected fees from every taxing authority for which they handled billing. He a sked for confirmation that this understanding was accurate.Ms. Gray stated that was correct. Commissioner Horst stated there is just a fee per parcel bill. Ms. Gray stated they are paid when the bill comes in, w h not a salary in addition. Mr. Ryan asked how many tax collectors there are in the county. Commissioner Ziobrowski stated 21. He noted that Franklin County had 15 townships and six boroughs and explained that in one small district of approximately 250 residents, taxes were collected by the County Treasurer because no one there wished to serve as tax collector. He stated that he believed all other municipalities handled their own tax collection. He added that determining a number of parcels in the taxing district, information available from the assessment office or online, and multiplying it by the per bill rate. He emphasized th at this method was a straightforward mathematical calculation. Ms. Gray added that there may also be reimbursement for software. The meeting was adjourned at 10:33 a.m. on a motion by John T. Flannery; Seconded by Robert G. Ziobrowski. Carrie E. Gray County Administrator/Chief Clerk FRANKLIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ____________________________________ Dean A. Horst, Chairman ____________________________________ John T. Flannery ___________________________________ Robert G. Ziobrowski *May be assisted by Copilot