September 28, 2005 Minutes
- Edgar Cohen, Facility Maintenance Director
- Report of County Facilities
- Garry Esworthy, Risk Manager
- Workers' Comp Update
- Approval of a Telecommunications Service Agreement between Information Technology and Verizon. (***A VOTE IS REQUESTED 9/28/05)
- Adopt Resolution No. 29-2005 authorizing Dauphin County to submit an application for a Redevelopment Assistance Capital Grant in the amount of $2,300,000 to the State for the purpose of constructing Dauphin County Library System facilities. (***A VOTE IS REQUESTED 9/28/05)
- Approval of an Agreement between Dauphin County and the Dauphin County Library System, as sub-applicant, to a Redevelopment Assistance Capital Grant indicating their responsibility for reimbursement to the State for the County's share of any expenditures from the grant. (***A VOTE IS REQUESTED 9/28/05)
DAUPHIN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WORKSHOP MEETING
SEPTEMBER 28, 2005 10:00 A.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Jeff Haste, Chairman
Dominic D. DiFrancesco, II, Vice Chairman
George P. Hartwick, III, Secretary
STAFF PRESENT
Chad Saylor, Chief Clerk; Marie Rebuck, Controller; Robert Dick, Treasurer; Gary Serhan, Deputy Controller; Garry Esworthy, Risk Manager; Elke Moyer, Human Services; Heidi Doyle, Domestic Relations; Sheila Britt, Domestic Relations; Yvonne Fuhrman, Solid Waste; Kay Sinner, Personnel; David Schreiber, Personnel; Carolyn Thompson, Court Administrator; Tom Guenther, Director of IT; Randy Baratucci, Director of Purchasing; Edgar Cohen, Director of Facilities Maintenance; Melanie McCaffrey, Solicitor's Office; Lena Martinez, Commissioners' Office; August Memmi, Community & Economic Development; Jena Wolgemuth, Commissioners' Office; and Julia Nace, Commissioners' Office
GUESTS PRESENT
John C. Frye, II
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Mr. Haste, Chairman of the Board, called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m.
MOMENT OF SILENCE
Mr. Haste: If we could keep Ann Volcko's family in our thoughts and prayers.
Everyone observed a moment of silence.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Everyone stood for the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Haste: We have five sets of meeting Minutes that will be considered for approval at next week's meeting.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Mr. Haste: We are at the point in time for public participation. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address the Board? (There were none.)
DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS/GUESTS
Mr. Cohen: You should have in front of you a report on the facilities around the County. It does not include all of them, because some I have more direction than others. As you can see the maintenance staff has been busy throughout the different facilities repairing, fixing and doing special projects. I know that the Courthouse has been an ongoing item with the HVAC. Slowly, but surely, we are trying to rectify the problem. I got some more pricing on different controls. We just finished updating the controls in the Deliberation Room. We are installing a new sprinkler system in the Deliberation Room. The Veterans Memorial Building, we have been assisting with the renovations through the help of the IDA. Basically overall, it has been a busy month of August, but that is normal for our staff. We have two upcoming projects with the district justice area. We are still trying to work through the District Attorney's Office with Mr. Marsico. Apparently there are some questions about the cell phones. I know that Mr. Marsico was supposed to be talking to Mr. Guenther regarding other items that could be used. The main thing is that when we move them over there they need a phone system and there is no phone system in the Veterans Building. Basically the cell phones were the other option to eliminate the costs of having to have a phone system over there.
Mr. Haste: I thought we were doing the cell phones?
Mr. Guenther: We are doing the cell phones.
Mr. Cohen: The cell phones that I accumulated through the updating, the phones were not up to his speed. He was not happy with the cell phones. He was trying to look at some other alternative to having a phone system.
Mr. Haste: Meaning the District Attorney wasn't happy with them?
Mr. Cohen: Yes. They were small phones. They would work, according to our representative for Cingular.
Mr. Haste: I'll talk to Mr. Marsico.
Mr. Cohen: Spring Creek has been up and down with repairs. We are doing our monthly inspections that are required by law and the daily inspections.
Mr. Esworthy: I have been requested to give a brief update on the Worker's Comp status of the County up until the end of September. I passed out to each of you some spreadsheets and I'll go over them briefly. We are right on track to be under the target that we were setting for ourselves in all departments throughout the County, except for Spring Creek.
The first page you will see the comparison from last year to this year up to September 15th. You can see that in 2004, we had 147 claims and those claims are both lost time claims and medical only claims. Spring Creek, in 2004, had 67. Up until September 15th, they are at 39. The Prison had 29 in 2004 and is right now at 21. With the Prison, what really happens there is usually more than one individual involved. They may be responding to an inmate that is causing some problems, so you may have four individuals injured at the same time as opposed to Spring Creek where it is a single individual. The purpose of Worker's Comp is to provide those indemnity and medical payments to those individuals who were injured while working. My concern is really with Spring Creek.
If you look at the next spreadsheet, it says "2005 Spring Creek Employees' Claims through September 15, 2005". You will see that to this point in time there are 202 claims in Dauphin County. Thirty-nine are from Spring Creek, which is about 38% of all the injuries throughout the County. The thing that sticks out with me is that currently we paid out close to $429,000 in Worker's Comp Indemnity and Medical payments. $310,000 of that is attributed to Spring Creek, which accounts for 72.5% of the total cost. The County is self-insured on their Worker's Comp. This is not insurance money, it is tax dollars. For every single dollar that we spend is a tax dollar. More importantly, if you also look at the spreadsheet you will see that we have some overtime spent. Currently there is $205,000 in overtime being spent for Worker's Comp due to those injuries. When someone is injured we have to make it up, especially at Spring Creek where we have residents that are in need of care. In addition to those dollars being spent on Worker's Comp, we also have overtime, which is a substantial amount. What are we doing about that? I started noticing that we were having somewhat of a concern at Spring Creek so I had Donna Miller, who works for me as a Worker's Comp Administrator, go out to Spring Creek three days a week. She is out there to investigate those claims that are occurring and to speak to the employees about how they can be a little safer. We are finding out that basically it is carelessness. We have individuals out there who may be injured because they are working and lifting residents, which require sometimes two people to lift a resident. For whatever reason, one individual will try to attempt to lift a resident. That not only puts the employee at risk, but it puts the resident at risk also. When investigating these claims, we found out that there is a lot of trip hazard due to bed cords on the call button, which is associated with the residents' beds. We found out that we can attach that to the bed frame. Facilities Maintenance went through and attached all of them and low and behold somebody starting cutting them back off again, which created a trip hazard not only to the employee, but to the resident as well. We found out through investigation that this was deliberate. It was not something that just occurred.
Mr. Haste: What was deliberate?
Mr. Esworthy: The cutting of the bed cords. They were placed on the bed frame that you had to get underneath the bed to cut the cord off. We are taking an active stance in it, but I wanted to bring to your attention the cost of comp. We all look at it the same way. It is tax dollars. It is not some money that we go to an insurance company and pull out of a hat. It is money that could be used for other purposes. We are attempting, with Donna and she is doing a great job out there, along with the rest of the staff, Jeff in HR especially, working and trying to find ways to reduce or really eliminate the carelessness that is occurring out there.
The other information that I have is the Monthly Workers Compensation Claims Report. It just shows the claims that were filed, the work from last year to this year, the comparison figures, medical and legal paid, indemnity payments and days lost. The fourth sheet is the 2004 recap of those injuries that occurred out there and again overtime dollars spent for taking care of those individuals who were out. The last sheet is kind of interesting, because I was requested to provide the call offs. When you start looking at the number of call offs at Spring Creek, for instance in January, we had 978 call offs. In March we had 745, April 626 and July 450. What that means to me when we replace these individuals and we may have to replace them with individuals who already worked one shift, requiring overtime, and then the chances for them to be injured increases. They are working additional shifts or working more. I look at Spring Creek a little bit different than I look at the Prison, because typically nursing homes are the highest risk there is in the industry for injuries. When I do investigations I find it is carelessness. When I compare them to the Prison or law enforcement in general, you can see the numbers. They are just way out of line. I will take some responsibility for that so that is one of the reasons why we placed Donna out there. She put these figures together in a very quick fashion. She is doing a great job out there. I wanted to bring to your attention the dollars that are being spent and the percentage, which is way out of line. For the rest of the County it is positive news. We are seeing a decrease in the number of claims that are occurring. We find out those reasons and we talk to department heads, they work with us in attempting to reduce that. That is the recap for right now. Later in the year, Mr. Saylor has asked me to bring a risk management report to you, which will overview the entire insurance department cost for the County. Right now we are just focusing on Worker's Comp costs. Any questions?
Mr. Haste: Are the cords back on the beds now?
Mr. Esworthy: We placed them back on the beds. Part of Donna's duty is taking a tour of the facility. She is now the chair of the Safety Committee at Spring Creek. Part of her duties is to go through and double check those cords and make sure they are attached. Some days they are and some days they are not.
Mr. Haste: Do we know who is taking them off?
Mr. Esworthy: No, we don't. We are trying to narrow down that time frame of who is on duty and who is not on duty.
Mr. Haste: Was there an order put out that they are to be on?
Mr. Esworthy: Yes.
Mr. Hartwick: Get CID involved.
Mr. Haste: See if Donna can find out. You are right if she starts checking some beds and noting who is there you can start to narrow down who it is.
Mr. Esworthy: We are narrowing that portion down, time wise, when they were put on and when they were off.
Mr. Hartwick: They can put cameras in very small places.
One thing that stands out for me is the number of nursing call offs. The amount of people that call off for nursing in a month - 750 people call off in a month. What does that mean to the expenses and agency nurses? You are over the barrel. Why is January such a popular month to call off? Is that the holidays or what? This is just another reason why we need to take a look at the facility and understand all the monies that go out from taxpayers' expense including the amount of money from the General Fund and just continue to add it up to define whether or not we need to make a serious move. It just indicates that all options need to remain on the table for this facility, because those numbers are not moving in the right direction either.
PERSONNEL
Ms. Sinner: The first item in the Personnel Packet is the Salary Board requests. The first item is a position at Spring Creek. They have a Unit Secretary who is unable to work. This is not Worker's Comp. They need to replace her on a temporary basis so they are requesting permission to create a full-time Temporary Unit Secretary position, which would be abolished when the regular Unit Secretary is able to return to work. That will not be for several months. They are also eliminating a Skilled Maintenance Worker position and creating a full-time Refrigeration Mechanic position. They already have someone that is transferring into that position. That is in the Changes. The last item is a request from the Public Defender's Office to create a full-time Assistant Public Defender.
Mr. Haste: Any questions of Kay?
Mr. DiFrancesco: I guess the only question I have is, are we still looking at one full-time Public Defender?
Mr. Hartwick: For now. We are working on a plan to try to eliminate duties and responsibilities that the public defenders should not be taking on and working out a best plan in order to manage their time appropriately; and not necessarily just say we need new staff, but we need to figure out how we can organize that office. It may mean additional staff, but for right now it is only one public defender.
Ms. Sinner: In the Personnel Packet, I have an Addendum. There are two Correctional Officers at the Prison who are requesting permission to go on Disaster Relief Leave. They need to go through the Red Cross training. One is scheduled for October 4th and the other is October 7th. I forget the exact dates. The Red Cross really wants them to leave within 24 hours of training.
Mr. Haste: They go through the training and then it is 24 hours after they get a call. When they get the call they must leave within 24 hours.
Ms. Sinner: Mark was not sure of the effective date and that is why it isn't listed. He wanted to get approval and actually he was hoping to get approval today so he knew that was okay. The other item is a pay rate adjustment, which if we could approve that today also. In the regular transactions listing, I have a lot of vacancies, including the vacancy for Domestic Relations. They have another Conference Officer position that opened up. I have a New Hires Listing and Personnel Changes. Number 19 is just the transfer of a per-diem Nurse Aide at Spring Creek to a full-time position, which is effective September 26, 2005. If I could have approval on that today as well. I have the overtime reports and a request for overtime from the Prison.
Mr. Haste: Why didn't we have #19 last week?
Ms. Sinner: I'm not sure. Unfortunately, this person has flipped flopped around and Nursing has approved it and this is the last time this person is going to be able to transfer for a while. They made it effective September 26th I guess because they do want her to be able to work full-time hours and be eligible for benefits.
Mr. Haste: And they didn't know that last week?
Ms. Sinner: I really don't know when they became aware of it.
Mr. DiFrancesco: Honestly, I can't speak to this particular transaction.
Ms. Sinner: When they make a decision to transfer someone they go with the closest pay period and try to have it as soon as possible. They were in the habit of getting Spring Creek transactions approved at Workshop or Legislative Meetings just to facilitate hires for Spring Creek or the transfers.
Mr. Hartwick: But, they still should not be making these transactions prior to any Board approval.
Mr. Haste: The effective date was Monday. So, they didn't even know anything about this last Wednesday morning.
Ms. Sinner: They probably did know about it last Wednesday morning, but I didn't want to add an Addendum. I would rather put it through this meeting and get it approved. We were in the habit of getting things approved at Workshops for Spring Creek.
Mr. Haste: I think we should have gotten it approved prior to the action. If we knew about it last week we should have done the Addendum.
Ms. Sinner: Again, with transfers it has been common practice and even if it was just a couple days after. New hires we can't get approved retroactively, but transfers we were in the habit of getting approved retroactively just by a couple days like this. That is what I was told when I was out at Spring Creek.
Mr. Haste: That was a couple years ago and we have changed a lot since then.
Mr. Hartwick: It just amazes me that folks don't see these things. Obviously there has to be a game plan to transfer this individual.
Ms. Sinner: Per-diem to full-time CNA that is.
Mr. DiFrancesco: To me that is not an issue and that is an unfair statement. If you are taking somebody in class and taking them from a per-diem to full-time should they have told us prior to it happening, yes that I agree with. I think it is a very bad practice for any of these decisions to be made before they are officially run through a meeting and voted on. I'm sure there are going to be certain circumstances where we have to move more quickly than others.
Ms. Sinner: This seemed like nothing to create a stir about. Let me know if you want the procedure changed.
Mr. DiFrancesco: The issue was the fact that the decision was made before it was approved by the Board. That should not happen on a regular basis. There should be extenuating circumstances for that to happen.
Mr. Hartwick: What do you propose we do, Nick?
Mr. Haste: We need to do it.
Mr. Hartwick: Do we make it effective today or the transaction date that they requested?
Mr. Haste: She may have actually worked.
Ms. Sinner: As per-diem she can work 40 hours a week, 80 hours a pay too. She was actually getting more pay as a per-diem, but was not eligible for benefits as a per-diem.
Mr. Hartwick: She gets out of class.
Mr. Sinner: Her benefits would become effective October 1, 2005. If she transferred at a later date like October 10th, actually the contract reads her benefits would become effective the first of the month following her effective date of transfer, so it would be November 1, 2005. I don't know how critical the benefits issue is to her. She has moved around between per-diem and full-time.
It was moved by Mr. DiFrancesco to approve Item #19, the transfer from per-diem to full-time. (Mr. DiFrancesco made the following comment: It is a shame that this has to be done periodically, but every department must understand again, that the Board will not take action unless it is in by the appropriate time frame to get it on the appropriate report so we can have that vote prior to the change taking place.) The motion was seconded by Mr. Hartwick. Motion carried.
Ms. Sinner: What about items #1 through #3 on the Addendum?
Mr. Haste: Those were the trainings?
Ms. Sinner: The two training and an adjustment to the pay rate.
It was moved by Mr. DiFrancesco and seconded by Mr. Hartwick that Items #1, #2 and #3 on the Addendum be approved; motion carried.
TRAINING PACKET
Mr. Haste: On the Training Packet, it appears that there are four items that need to be acted on. Is that correct?
Mr. Saylor: That is not in my notes.
Mr. Haste: Again, we have events that happened yesterday, today or tomorrow.
Mr. Saylor: I see that. I don't know if those are the correct dates. I was not aware of anything that needed to be approved today.
I'll investigate it.
(After investigation)
It appears to be the first mistake that I ever made. Upon closer review it does appear that Items #1, #2, and #3 on the Training Packet need approval. I'm not sure why that occurred, but I will check into it. They may have just heard about the training. Item #4, the date on that is not the 2nd, but September 29th through October 2nd is when that training takes place.
Mr. Haste: So, we should take action on that Item as well.
Mr. Saylor: I think we should probably pull Item #13. That appears to be training that was already approved and now reimbursement is being submitted. Let's just pull Item #13 and I will investigate that. I believe that we did approve that in a timely fashion, but it is now being properly resubmitted.
It was moved by Mr. Hartwick and seconded by Mr. Haste that the Board approve Items #1, #2, #3, and #4 and to pull Item #13 from the Training Packet; motion carried.
PURCHASE ORDERS
Mr. Baratucci: The Purchase Order Packet was distributed yesterday. There are no items that have any budget issues. So, if you have any questions I would be happy to answer them. Otherwise, they are there for your review.
Mr. Hartwick: Page #5, the top one, what is that purchase?
Mr. Baratucci: That is something that was looked at about a year ago in the Courthouse Jury Assembly Room in the basement. They had a number of chairs that are in need of repair or refurbishing. I spoke to Carolyn about this yesterday, because I anticipated that you may have a question. They reviewed options to replace the chairs and this amounts to about $145 per chair and they felt that it was a better option to refurbish these than to go out and purchase new. Is that correct?
Ms. Thompson: This was part of the original renovation project when the Assembly Room was moved to the basement. Part of the project included a proposal to provide all new furnishings in the Assembly Room. When we ran through the project it was one of the first things that were scrapped in the budget. We were told to put the money, and this is with the prior Administration, of course, into the next year's budget and it would be funded. It wasn't. It was slashed again. Last year, after looking at that furniture, we think that furniture may be original to the Courthouse. I believe it is solid oak. The chairs are in great shape except for the padding. We asked for a proposal from Furniture Medic to get them refurbished. It amounts to about $125 a chair, along with some additional monies for possible re-gluing of legs as needed. It also includes $700 to get extra material for chairs in some of the deliberation rooms, because at some point depending on the size of juries and other gatherings, some of those chairs may end up being moved and we want them to be in the same die lot. The President Judge has authorized this.
Mr. Hartwick: Where does this come from in your current budget?
Ms. Thompson: Vacancy savings.
Mr. Hartwick: Is that something that Mr. Yohe is also aware of?
Ms. Thompson: Yes, he is.
Mr. Hartwick: In his calculations has he reduced that out of the overall vacancy savings?
Ms. Thompson: I have to be candid when we met with him on the Court budget a week or two ago, I had done this for him a while back. I don't recall whether I met with him and discussed it. When we were talking with Randy yesterday, I made a point today of letting him know that and he is going to go back and check. If it hasn't been taken into his calculations, it is going to be.
Mr. Hartwick: We just need to have an accurate reflection of where we are at and how that money is being spent to make sure that we don't send the message to other directors that if we are managing vacancies appropriately we can use it for other needs.
Ms. Thompson: I understand that, but that was also part of a discussion with our budget last year. We were going to be held to 2004 spending levels, but if we could find money by managing some vacancies we would be allowed to pursue some of these projects that have been put on hold for several years. That is what we are trying to do to get some of this done as a continual Courthouse upgrade program so that nothing hits the fan too big at once.
Mr. Hartwick: Let's just touch base to make sure everything is fine before next week.
Ms. Thompson: Touch base where?
Mr. Hartwick: With me just to make sure that we have a plan worked out and it is accurately reflected in Mr. Yohe's budget analysis.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
Mr. Haste: We have items for Discussion and Vote. Item A is actually a utility thing that Mr. Guenther brought to me yesterday. Item B and C are actually grant applications that we will be the pass through for the Library System.
It was moved by Mr. Hartwick and seconded by Mr. DiFrancesco that the Board approve Items A, B and C (listed below); motion carried.
SOLICITOR'S REPORT
Mr. Tully: Nothing to add to the report submitted, but would be happy to answer any questions you might have. (There were none.)
REPORT FROM CHIEF CLERK/CHIEF OF STAFF - CHAD SAYLOR
Mr. Saylor: I do have one item. It involves the establishment of a Parks & Recreation Advisory Board. Do you have copies of the Resolution? At the direction of Commissioner Haste we investigated the possibility of establishing an advisory board on the issue of parks and recreation. Solicitor Beneventano did some research and apparently we did, back in the 1970's, have a Dauphin County Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Based on that model back then and language that is stipulated in the County Code, we used those two sources and drafted a resolution that would establish a Parks and Recreation Advisory Board for the County. It would consist of a minimum of five persons, no more than nine, with staggered terms no longer than five years. As we approach the end of the year, it seems like an appropriate time that we should consider this. If you have no questions or objections, we will place this Resolution on the agenda next week.
COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS
Mr. Hartwick: I would just like to extend my public condolences to the family of Ann Volcko and to the staff of individuals who worked extremely close to Ann. She was a valued employee of Dauphin County for a number of years. She was a great spirit and was passionate about what she did here on her job as she was about her life, vacations and sailings. She was truly a great person and a great employee and will be sorely missed in this County.
Mr. Haste: We have Retirement Board today, following the Commissioners' Meeting.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Mr. Haste: We are again at the point in time for public participation. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address the Board?
Mr. Frye: My name is John Frye. I live in Swatara Township, Dauphin County. I am not really up on what is going on. I'm trying to bone up on it now. It just seems that it came to light one day when I was reading the paper about this new 911 radio project and the amount of money being spent. I read a couple articles where there was two entities that bid on it and that one was considerably higher. From reading the paper, it looks like it is going to the higher bidder than the lower. Maybe you can enlighten me and tell me if I am reading it right and why it might be going that way?
Mr. DiFrancesco: This project has been under review for a number of years. A lot has changed. It has gone through a lot of different phases over that period of time. When it first was brought to light in Dauphin County the only vendor that was at the table was the vendor that at the end was successful. Over a course of time, the second vendor, very late in the game, came into the discussion and presented an alternative product that we reviewed. We did an evaluation and more importantly we had some of the first responding community, we had the fire fighters, police and so forth come in and from their technical expertise do a review as well. We also had a consultant do a technical review for us and at the end of the day everybody came back on the same page that the better vendor for Dauphin County was the one that we selected. The proposal was approximately $3 million more, but in reality we have not settled on the final price yet. The vote we took last was simply to move forward with that vendor and really try to refine the numbers. We did take the more expensive proposal and there are a lot of technical reasons why we did that. Again, I don't know how much you want to get into.
Mr. Frye: I just assumed that if you put out a bid for proposals that both entities would have to meet technology specs, meet a full criteria. I didn't know that they came in later in the game. The thing that sparked my interest was spending almost $4 million more for this guy when this guy can do the same thing and guarantee me the same service. So, all of a sudden I have an interest in this.
Mr. DiFrancesco: We appreciated your letter as well.
Mr. Haste: It is not a bid in the way that you would think it would be. You are bidding technology and information, not just product. So, it is not comparing apples to apples. That is why we asked the folks who will be using the system to review it. There is a concern with coverage, in building coverage as well as just geographical coverage and how you accomplish those. Not only do we want to make sure that we have a good system that works, we want to make sure that it is the system that works in as many possible places, because we don't want a first responder or police officer responding some where and not having radio coverage. That is why we had the technical folks and the users take a look and it. I don't believe there was a single one that voted for the company that didn't receive the award. It is not a true bid. Each company has different technology and different ways of doing things.
Mr. Frye: When it came to light to me, $3 million is a lot of money. I started checking with surrounding counties and there was a reason why. Without spending a lot of time researching this I just assumed why is it good for these guys and not for us. I had an opportunity to come here today and ask a question. I'm not in for a great rebuttal, I was just concerned why this large amount of spending if you can get the same thing with the other guy who is doing it elsewhere.
Mr. DiFrancesco: At the end of the day it was a matter of technology and the frequencies that we had available helped to drive us in a certain way. This is one of the reasons why, for instance, Cumberland County went in a similar direction as the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is going and we could not go in that direction because we didn't have frequencies to go in the band that they were going in. It has been a very technical project. We tried to get as many eyes on it as we possibly could of people who are actually working with it or have the strong knowledge of the engineering and technology side. I have said all along, if I am trying to make a decision up here on my own on something that is very complicated, Dauphin County is in trouble. We brought in the experts and we let them look at it and at the end of the day I think we did make a good decision. Everybody that we talked to selected the same vendor.
Mr. Haste: They actually looked at it twice. They looked at it once before we came on board. They were ready to go with Motorola at that point in time, the technical folks. We asked them to take a look at the second company to make sure. When the second company comes in and says that they can do it for cheaper we wanted to take a look at it.
Mr. Hartwick: Competition is good.
Mr. Haste: They went and looked at it and they still came back and said it isn't the same.
Mr. Hartwick: One thing that we all struggled with the issue and we wanted to go for the best value, but I think trying to implement a radio system almost any where in the Commonwealth, every county that underwent the new radio system and upgrades has run into some problems. There are going to be kinks that are worked out. When you have recommendations from the chiefs of police, the firemen, the emergency management folks all recommending Motorola and we up here tell them that they are wrong and go with another system, what do you think is going to happen when the problems exist. They are going to say that you guys didn't go with our recommendation, you think you know our jobs better than we do and we told you Motorola was the company to go to and now when problems occur we are the ones to blame. Ultimately, they believe Motorola had the best technology. They are the experts and the users and we have to weigh heavily their recommendations.
Mr. Frye: I can understand that position that you have to do that, but as an end user and former fire chief and I have never tried the other side, I'm giving you a biased opinion on the equipment that I have been using.
Mr. DiFrancesco: Right towards the end when we were getting close to making a final decision, both companies reached back out and went to that provider community and basically said here use our equipment, this is what it can do.
Mr. Frye: I didn't know everything. I just saw millions of dollars and thought I should say something.
Commissioners: We appreciate you coming in and asking questions.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, it was moved by Mr. DiFrancesco and seconded by Mr. Hartwick that the Meeting adjourn.
