HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-08-19 Commissioner MinutesWEDNESDAY, August 19, 2026
The Franklin County Commissioners met on Wednesday, August 1 9, 2026, with the
following members present: Dean A. Horst and John T. Flannery. Commissioner Horst presided
over the meeting, first stat ing that Commissioner Ziobrowski was out of town and unable to
atte nd tonight. He then called the meeting to order. After a Moment of Silence, and the Pledge
of Allegiance, he proceeded with the business of the day.
County Administrator Carrie Gray asked to amend the agenda that for the Flock Camera
discussion. She requested that Sheriff Sites and D istric t A ttorney Brink be moved to 5.01
followed by public comment. On a motion by John T. Flannery; Seconded by Dean A. Horst; the
Board unanimously approved to adopt the a mended a genda as presented.
There was public comment from Valerie Jordan who appeared before the Board and
presented her tax bill. She reiterated her previous concerns. She noted that corrective action
should have taken place years earlier and acknowledged that the Board had long been
approached about this issue, leaving them in a challenging position. Ms. Jordan reported that
she reviewed the 2025 budget and stated tha t numbers did not lie. She clarified that she was
not representing any political party. She observed that the Sheriff, who took office on January 2,
frustration with claims that only Democrats defunded law enforcement, asserting that
Republican-led departments als o reduced funding. Ms. Jordan added that she would have
willingly funded the amount herself, as it would have amounted to only pennies on her tax bill.
She had not yet reviewed the 2026 budget, noting that it had been structured differently.Ms.
J ail all needed additional staff. She stated that she and her
husband were willing to support increased funding and asked the Board to determine a solution
as they continued working on the budget with Ms. Teresa Beckner.
Commissioner Flannery responded that the Board did not cut budgets and consistently
decrease in a particular year, it might have been due to capital expenses, such as the purchase
of vehicles, that were n ecessary in one budget year but not required the following year.
Commissioner Flannery emphasized that such year-to-year variations in expenses influenced
the overall budget. Commissioner F lannery continued that the Board worked collaboratively with
all elected officials and department managers during the budgeting process and did not
unilaterally cut departmental budgets.
John Jordan stated that the Board planned to use $6,000 in block grant funds to install
automatic doors at the new aging center location, which he believed were urgently needed. He
expressed concern that the County was not paying for the improvement directly and sugge sted
that more research should have been done before relocating the center. Mr. Jordan noted that
the rent at the previous location had increased significantly, but several seniors he spoke with
were unhappy with the new site because it was farther from town. He questioned whether the
move had been a good decision, emphasizing that grant money now being spent on building
improvements could have been used for other aging related needs.
On a motion by John T. Flannery; Seconded by Dean A. Horst; the Board unanimously
approved to adopt the consent agenda to include:
Minutes from August 12, 2026.
Vouchers in the amount of $176,674.09.
Quote between the County of Franklin and Susquehanna Door Service for automatic
swing door buttons (outside and inside) for the new Aging location. This will provide seniors with
the ease of accessing the Aging building. The total of the proposal covers su pplies and labor to
install these buttons. The total proposed cost is $6,075.00 with work to be completed within two
to three weeks after proposal approval. Proposal is good for 90 days. This will be paid by the
Aging Block Grant. There is no cost to the County.
Children and Youth Quarterly contract listing for April 1, 2026 through June 30, 2026.
Agreement between the County of Franklin and PA Department of Human Services for
the Child Welfare Information System (CWIS) d ata s haring which establishes the terms and
conditions in which CWIS will disclose and exchange certain information to the County Children
& Youth Agency via one of the six approved case management systems utilized by the 67
CCYA's. This is in accordance with t he Child Welfare Act of 1980, the Child Abuse Prevention
and Treatment Act, and the Child Protective Services Law. There is no cost to the County.
Agreement between the County of Franklin and Waste Connections for a dumpster for
client use at a cost of $312.90. This will be paid for by the Housing Grant with 15% General
Fund County match.
Agreement between the County of Franklin and Aliff Counseling Services, LLC to
provide trauma-informed services to support Good Wolf Treatment Court participants and to
advance our goal of offering comprehensive recovery support. By expanding beyond substance
use treatment to include mental health, physical health, financial guidance, and resource
navigati on, we help participants access the services needed for successful recovery and
program engagement at a cost of $10,000.00. This will be paid by the Good Wolf Treatment
Court Grant.
Grant agreement between the County of Franklin and the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, acting through the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA), for
the SFY26-27 Hazardous Materials Response Fund (HMRF) Grant in the amount of
$19,932.00. The grant performance period is July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027. Funds are to
be used to develop, update, exercise and purchase equipment for response to hazardous
material releases.
Grant award between the County of Franklin and the Pennsylvania Commission on
Crime and Delinquency in the amount of $232,545.00. Franklin County Adult Probation has
been awarded Justice Reinvestment Initiative funding (JRI2) to improve supervision practic es
and programs effectiveness. There is no cost to the County.
Renewal of the agreement between the County of Franklin and Juvenile Court Judges
Commission to receive Grant In Aid Funds in the amount of $134,221.00 for the period of July 1,
2026 through June 30, 2027. This funding is utilized to meet state mandated initiatives to further
Juvenile Justice Systems Enhancements Strategies.
The Board reviewed regular agenda items. Ms. Gray provided a high-level overview of
each of the actions.
Ms. Gray introduced Michelle Baranowske, Regional Executive Director, Special
Olympics Pennsylvania, who thanked the Board for hosting the organization and reported that
the Franklin County athletes had an excellent experience at the USA Games in Minnesota. She
stated that Pennsylvania sent approximately 92 athletes, including participants from Franklin
Count y in volleyball, unified golf, and unified bocce. Ms. Baranowske introduced the volleyball
team and unified golf athletes who were present and noted that additional unified bocce
athletes, Chris and Lee, were unable to attend. She also recognized coach Chris Rowland, who
demonstrated strong teamwork, determination, sportsmanship, and a positive spirit, serving as
outstanding representatives of Franklin County. She reported that the volleyball team earned a
bronze medal and that the unified golf team also placed third. She emphasized t he critical role
of coaches, describing their extensive time commitment, leadership, and support, which helped
prepare athletes for competition and contributed meaningfully to their lives and experiences.
sacrifices, and ongoing support. Ms. Baranowske noted that several families traveled together,
creating memorable experiences and allowing them to cheer collecti vely for the athletes. She
stated that the USA Games were a celebration of inclusion, friendship, perseverance, and
teamwork, and affirmed that Franklin County could be proud of how its athletes, coaches, and
families represented the community. Ms. Baranowske concluded by congratulating the Franklin
County team and commended them for demonstrating excellence, heart, and pride. She
thanked them for showing the strength that comes from working together.
Commissioner Horst thanked Ms. Baranowske for her presentation and expressed
appreciation to the athletes seated in the front who had received awards. He stated that the
Board was very proud of how the athletes represented Franklin County during their trip to
Minnesota. Commissioner Horst also thanked the parents and the staff who contributed to the
Commissioner Flannery expressed pride in the athletes for representing Franklin County
so well. He thanked them for their efforts and reiterated appreciation for their accomplishments.
Commissioner Horst stated that the Board was fortunate to have Sheriff Sites and
District Attorney Brink present to discuss the matter of Flock cameras before the
Commissioners. H e explained that public comment would follow their discussion and clarified
that the comment period was not intended to be a debate, but rather an opportunity for
individuals to express their opinions without extended back and forth dialogue. He noted that
members of the public could also submit concerns by email, which the Board could address
separately. Commissioner Flannery stated that the Commissioners, as a group, had not taken a
formal position on the matter under discussion. He emphasized that the Board did not have the
level of control some members of the public might assume, noting that the Sheriff was an
independently electe d official. He praised Sheriff Ben S ites and referenced recent radio
comments, explaining that those comments reflected an undecided position and shared
concerns similar to those raised by residents opposed to the Flock system. He noted personal
reser vations regarding government overreach but also acknowledged the operational
challenges faced by the Sheriff and District Attorney and the potential benefits the technology
could provide. He stated that hearing from the public, the Sheriff, and the Distric t Attorney was
an important part of gaining additional understanding. Commissioner Flannery explained that
that the Sheriff had other avenues to pursue the initiative if needed. He reiterated that the Board
worked collaboratively with the Sheriff and expected that relationship to continue. Commissioner
Flannery asked attendees to keep in mind that the Commissioners had limited control over the
matter and affirmed again being personally undecided but looking forward to learning more
during the meeting.
District Attorney Ian Brink thanked the Commissioners and explained that his
responsibility was to follow the law as written until either legislative or judicial changes occurred.
He reported that, in response to concerns raised about the Flock system, he conducted legal
re search and prepared a memo summarizing relevant case law. He stated that his position
reflected established law rather than personal opinion. DA Brink outlined that both federal and
Pennsylvania courts had consistently held that individuals traveling on public roads had no
reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the visibility of their license plates or their
movement from one location to another. He referenced decisions from the United States Court
of Appeals, the Pennsylvania Superior Court (including Commonwealth v. Watkins), and courts
in Virginia and South C arolina, all of which concluded that license plate readers did not
constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment or analogous state constitutional provisions.
DA Brink explained that courts found license plate reader data to be equivalent to information
observable in plain view by any member of the public or law enforcement. He clarified the
distinction between vehicles and cell phones, noting that privacy analyses related to digital
devices involved different standards and typically required warrants, whereas vehicles on public
roadways did not carry the same protections. DA Brink reported that his office had previously
denied an open records request seeking Flock data intended to track an individual, explaining
that such use was not legitimate and was unrelated to any criminal investigation. He stated that
all requests his of fice had received for license plate reader information were linked to active
criminal cases, including homicide investigations, sexual assault cases, and other violent
incidents. DA Brink emphasized that neither his office nor local law enforcement had the time or
intention to use the technology to broadly monitor the public, and that its use remained strictly
case specific. He concluded by noting that Flock data provided results primarily in locating
suspects and vehicles associated with serious offenses. Commissioner Flannery asked DA
Brink a clarifying question regarding the Flock system. He noted that DA Brink had stated earlier
investigate infractions outside of active cases. He then asked whether, despite that practical
limitation, could he, DA Brink, technically ha ve the ability to access the system if he chose to do
so. DA Brink stated that he cannot get on the system. Sheriff Sites responded to Commissioner
system. He stated that the system did not generate alerts for custom hot lists and could not be
used for minor traffic enforcement or individualized tracking. He explained that all activity in the
system required an assigned case number and a documented purpose. He noted that he would
later provide additional details about why he selected the Flock system. He acknowledged that
the question was a good one.
Next Sheriff Sites took the podium and thanked those in attendance and congratulated
the Special Olympics athletes, noting that his office was proud to support the upcoming torch
run in October, which would be the first time the office had participated. He then responded to a
comment made earlier in the meeting, stating that his office consistently sought to save money
for the county and had eliminated positions he believed were unnecessary. He addressed
concerns raised about the Flock license plate reader system and stated that oppo sition groups
had circulated misinformation and disinformation about the technology. He added that these
groups coordinated efforts to disable cameras and had encouraged acts of vandalism. He
explained that the public often became concerned only when law e nforcement accessed the
system, even though the data was used exclusively by sworn officers in active investigations.
He ffice had received an unusually high number of Right-to-Know
requests connected to the cameras, which he believed were part of a coordinated policy change
effort. He stressed that while public disagreement was expected and protected under the First
Amendment, criminal actions, such as vandalism, were not. He reported that there had been
approximately nine incidents of criminal damage to cameras and noted that cameras had
produced significant public safety benefits, including alerts related to stolen vehicles and
missing persons. He stated that the concerns raised by advocacy groups did not reflect the
operational realities of the system, and he reiterated that access was limited to legitimate law
enforcement purposes. He emphasized that the technology had directly supported numerous
investigations. He then highlighted several successful uses of the system, including
apprehensions related to violent crimes, weapons offenses, drug trafficking, stolen vehicles, and
awful
operation within Franklin County. He noted that other states retained license plate reader data
cted
Flock because it provided greater control over data and had existing cameras already integrated
into the system. He highlighted an example from Delaware in which cameras helped notify
schools when registered sex offenders arrived on campus. He affirmed his commitment to using
technology responsibly and stated that misuse of the system would result in administrative and
advanced than those of other systems. He underscor ed that he sought to balance privacy with
public safety and intended always to act transparently. He explained that law enforcement
officers were under strain, working overtime and intensive operations, and described a recent
pursuit that required officers to search wooded areas for an individual attempting to evade
arrest. He stressed that the challenges facing his department reinforced his belief in utilizing
tools that aided public safety. He stated that he welc omed questions and noted he would remain
available as long as needed. He reiterated his dedication to his mission, values, and service to
the community. He stated that he viewed his role as a matter of personal calling and added that
if the public chose different leadership in the future, he would respect that decision. Sheriff Sites
invited one member of the audience to participate in a ride-along to better understand the daily
and stating that his passion for the subject stemmed from his direct experience with victims and
the burdens placed on law enforcement personnel.
Commissioner Horst thanked Sheriff Sites for the information he provided and stated
that he had no questions. He said that both the Sheriff and the District Attorney had done an
excellent job addressing the request made of them and expressed app reciation for their
willingness to attend the meeting and present their information. Commissioner Flannery stated
he had one question for clarification. He explained that, as someone still learning about the
Flock system, his primary concern involved claims circulating publicly that the technology
that law enforcement could monitor wher e he traveled or what he was doing, for any reason,
including personal d islike, and requested clarification regarding any repercussions for such
misuse. Sheriff Sites responded by confirming that the Flock system did maintain a database.
He explained that th e cameras collected static images, including license plate information and
basic ph ysical descriptions of vehicles. He stated th at this information was stored in a siloed
governed by the terms and conditions outlined in the
He emphasized that the data was controlled locally and was
accessible only to authorized law enforcement personnel. Commissioner Flannery asked if there
was third party access to the data.Sheriff Sites stated no. He explained that only individuals
who were Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) compliant were permitted access to the
Flock system. He noted that, as with any law enforcement technology, personnel who serviced
computers or systems were subject to strict criminal justice security standards, background
vetting, and testing requirements. These standards informed all users of the potential
repercussions for misuse or abuse of the system. He confirmed that the Flock system did create
a database consisting of static images of license plates and vehicle characteristics, originally
retained for 30 days and soon to move to a seven-day r etention period. He said the database
was stored on a secure, encrypted platform and could be searched or queried only against high
level alert categories such as NCIC entries. He emphasized that the system was similar to many
other law enforcement databas es but was distinguished by its automatic audit notification
feature, which alerted administrators to unusual or suspicious activity. Sheriff Sites stated that
all system use required a valid reason and a case number, and that any misuse would be
handled like any other violation involving secure law enforcement databases. Depending on
severity, incidents would be reported to the S
any criminal investigation. He added that one of the reasons he selected Flock was that its
cameras were easily recognizable, serving as a crime deterrent. Finally, he reiterated that the
system produced alerts only for significant law enforcement matters. He stressed that Flock did
not access PennDOT records or identify individuals directly; rather, officers reviewed static
images and conducted lawful checks through existing criminal justice databases to determine
whether further action was justified. Commissioner Flannery asked to clarify that if his vehicle is
stated there cannot be an automatic
alert in th e Flock system. Commissioner Falnnery asked if the technology all ow ed that to
happen in the future. Sheriff Sites stated that the S tate of Pennsylvania would have to enter into
an agreemen t with Flock. Commissioner Flannery asked if it would have to go to the legislature.
.
There are other current systems in this state being used that do that. He reiterated that this was
one of the reasons he chose Flock. Commissioner Horst
ha s a Flock camera installed on its property, had access to the system and whether
purchased its own cameras. Sherif f Sites responded
could purchase and operate Flock cameras as part of a private/public partnership structure. He
focus was public safety and l aw enforcement, businesses such
purposes. He noted that data captured by privately owned cameras was stored separately from
la w enforcement data and remained the property of the business. He further explained that
private entities could choose whether to share their captured data with law enforcement, and
that any sharing occurred only through an audited request process. He emphasized t hat private
users could not access NCIC information or any law enforcement hot l i sts, and that officers
could query only their own law enforcement data against the images captured by private
camer as. He noted that he could not speak to how private entities used their own data, as they
were not boun d by the same la w s,regulations, and restrictions that govern law enforcement
access. Sheriff Sites concluded that sharing be tween private entities and law enforcement
occurred only when requested and granted and emphasized that such cooperation was
intended to support public safety in a responsible manner.
Commissioner Horst r equested that Communications Coordinator Sheena Baker provide
the email responses the County had received on the subject prior to moving into the public
comment portion of the meeting. Ms. Baker stated that over the preceding three weeks, the
C o unty had received three public comments from three individuals regarding the Flock system.
She stated that all comments were overwhelmingly opposed to the technology. The concerns
raised included alle g e d violations of the Fourth Amendment, privacy and surveillance issues,
potential misuse of collected information, and the possibility of the system being hacked.
The following spoke against Flock Cameras and voiced widespread concerns about
mass surveillance, data retention, potential misuse, and effectiveness of the system, citing
examples of false alerts, privacy risks, and the need for independent audits; qu estions were
asked about who has access to the data, how long it is retained, and how many crimes have
been solved using the system. Several commenters discussed the effectiveness of the system
and asked for transparency about false aler t s, error rates and the number of crimes solved
using the cameras. There w ere several comments asking for the county to ensure transparency,
evaluate future consequences of surveillance infrastructure and determine whether such
technology should be used even if it is available.
Robert Clayton
John Patterson, Greene Township
Tim Bentley
Kim Hines, Mercersburg
Austin McDannel l, Antrim Township
Tammy Chilcot e, Antrim Township
Ken Sho a p, Lurgan Township
There was a five minute recess at 8:17 p.m.
Commissioner Horst called the meeting back to order at 8:24 p.m.
Molly, Chambersburg
Harm Meyerfoff, Shippensburg
Valerie Jordan, Fayetteville
A ndrea Frey, Mercersburg
Issac F ahnestock, Antrim Township
Nick Fredrickson
The following spoke i n favor for Flock Cameras and voiced appreciation stating that WiFi
enabled devices, phones, and digital assistants already captured and transmitted information in
daily life and emphasized the importance of managing it responsibly day to day:
Dave Secor, Greene Township
Durning New Business Commissioner Flannery thanked the District Attorney and the
Franklin County Sheriff for attending the meeting and presenting information. He also expressed
appreciation to all residents who spoke, noting that he valued hearing their perspectives and
constituents and consider their concerns. He explained that h e remained undecided on the
m atter and intended to reflect further on the comments shared. He spoke about balancing
personal privacy with public safety and stated that, in a situation such as the kidnapping of a
grandchild, he would hope the Flock system was available to assist law enforcement. He
remarked that saving even one life influenced his perspective. He noted that continued
discussion among the Commissioners would be needed and again thanked everyone for
attending and participating in the meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. o n a motion by John T. F l annery; Seconded by
Dean A. Horst.
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