Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the It Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Custer County commissioners approve PDS IT contract after wider debate over costs, cybersecurity
Summary
After a weeks‑long request‑for‑proposals review, the Custer County Board of Commissioners voted to contract with PDS IT Solutions for co‑managed IT services. Commissioners cited included services and risk reduction despite higher upfront costs; the county finance director said the change would increase next year’s IT budget by roughly $46,000.
The Custer County Board of Commissioners voted to award a co‑managed information technology services contract to PDS IT Solutions following a workshop and presentations at the Aug. 27 meeting.
The board’s action came after staff presented four proposals and identified two finalists: Envision IT Solutions and PDS IT Solutions. Vernon (county director of finance) and the county’s IT coordinator briefed commissioners on cost differences, service inclusions and anticipated budget impacts.
Vernon told the board that Envision’s quoted annual fee was about $18,800 based on 80 users while PDS’s proposal would be roughly $118,000 per year, but that PDS included project work, on‑site support and after‑hours coverage that Envision proposed as add‑ons. “Envision IT has a per‑gigabyte backup fee, whereas PDS has it for free,” Vernon said during the discussion, adding that some items were “apples to oranges” in the proposals.
Commissioners focused on what services would be included and how hidden IT costs — including insurance increases tied to cybersecurity exposure and one‑time project work such as major migrations — would affect the county’s finances. Vernon estimated an additional budget hit of about $22,000 in the first year and roughly $46,000 in the 2026 fiscal year if the county adopted the managed service model; he said some ongoing monitoring software could cost about $30,000 per year and that hiring a single cybersecurity specialist could cost more than $100,000 annually.
Commissioner Lucas argued that including projects in a single fixed fee was a financial advantage: “If all of a sudden we have a project that pops up, it’s unbudgeted… projects were included because we have a limited budget,” he said. County staff and commissioners referenced cybersecurity incidents in other counties as evidence that the county lacks the in‑house resources to respond effectively and that comprehensive vendor services could reduce insurance and incident costs.
During public comment, Trevor Gerber of Amnet Computer Networks — a local firm that currently provides firewall services for the county — said his company submitted a proposal and felt excluded from further consideration. “We were less expensive… I came from No. Colorado Springs this morning on Vernon’s invitation,” Gerber said, adding he was “caught off guard” to see his firm not among the two finalists. Vernon replied that the commissioners had narrowed proposals in a prior workshop and that the two finalists were the products of that review.
After brief discussion the board voted to approve the contract with PDS IT Solutions. Commissioners recorded their votes in favor during a roll call; the board instructed staff to budget the new costs for the next fiscal cycle and to look for ways to distribute IT charges across departmental funds.
Why it matters: County leaders said the move is intended to upgrade the county’s cybersecurity posture, provide after‑hours and project coverage the county lacks, and reduce the operational risk of ransomware or other incidents that could cause larger, unplanned expenses.
What happens next: The commissioners directed staff to include the contract costs in the 2026 budget process, and staff said they would return to the board with implementation details and a proposed cost allocation across county departments.
