October 4, 2006 Minutes
- Thomas Wasco, Veterans' Affairs Director
- Report on Veterans Issues
- Mark Stewart, Esq., Wolf Block
- Presentation of a Tax Settlement Agreement
- Amendment to Purchase Agreement for Spring Creek (***A VOTE IS REQUESTED ON BOTH ITEMS 10/04/06)
- Approval of an Amendment to the FY06/07 Weatherization Contract granting an increase of $264,121 to the LIHEAP portion of the contract. (***A VOTE IS REQUESTED 10/04/06)
- Approval for Health and Welfare Consulting Services by Conrad Siegel Actuaries. (***A VOTE IS REQUESTED 10/04/06)
DAUPHIN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WORKSHOP MEETING
October 4, 2006 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 E. Rebuck, Controller; Robert F. Dick, Treasurer, Gary Serhan, Deputy Controller; Randy Baratucci, Director of Purchasing; William Tully, Esq., Solicitor; Bruce Foreman, Esq., Solicitor's Office; Guy Beneventano, Esq., Solicitor's Office; Tom Wasco, Director of Veterans' Affairs; Tom Guenther, Director of IT; Faye Fisher, Director of Personnel; Dan Robinson, Director of Community & Economic Development; Kay Sinner, Personnel; Elke Moyer, Human Services Director's Office; Leila McAdoo, Solicitor's Office; Diane McNaughton, Commissioners' Office; Dave Schreiber, Personnel; Greg Schneider, Budget & Finance; Sharon Chatman, Human Services; Jena Wolgemuth, Commissioners' Office; Lena Martinez-Fure, Commissioners' Office; Julia Nace, Assistant Chief Clerk and Richie-Ann Martz, Commissioners' Office
GUESTS PRESENT
Garry Lenton, Patriot-News; Mark Stewart, Esq., Wolf Block
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Mr. Haste, Chairman of the Board, called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m.
MOMENT OF SILENCE
Everyone observed a moment of silence.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Everyone stood for the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Haste: We have two sets of meeting Minutes that will be considered at next week's meeting.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Mr. Haste: We are at the point in time in the meeting for public participation. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address the Board? (There was none.)
DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS/GUESTS
Mr. Haste: I understand Mr. Stewart is on his way. He was waiting for some information.
Mr. Wasco: I was asked by Mr. Saylor to give a report/overview of Veterans' Affairs. The Veterans' Affairs Department works on claims of veterans and their spouses and children of veterans whether that is for compensation or a pension. I received a lot of calls this year for aid and attendance. I have sent out over 75 applications, last year it was 25. Aid and attendance is to help the families with the cost of nursing homes and assisted living. The VA assists with monthly payments if they show financial need. That has definitely gone up in Dauphin County. It is getting costly for nursing homes and this is for the spouses also. According to the State Adjutant General's Office Report, from June 2005 to June 2006, I alone brought in over a quarter of a million dollars into Dauphin County's economy.
I am also working with MH/MR on getting a pamphlet together to explain what is available to Dauphin County families of returning troops that may have issues. I also work with the Area Agency on Aging on briefing the caseworkers on getting help for their clients who need aid and attendance or if they are eligible for VA health care.
I have been asked to speak five different times to assisted living facilities and Pinnacle Health caseworkers in keeping them aware of any assistance I can be to their clients and to explain to their staff on how and what the VA is looking for to file a claim. I'm available anytime to discuss issues that they may have about the VA. I make many house visits throughout the County as possible. It is easier and faster for me to find a parking space rather than having them come downtown. I have been going all over the County. Are there any questions?
Mr. Haste: You said that you bring in a quarter of a million dollars into the economy.
Mr. Wasco: According to my claims from the Adjutant General, our Association started working with the Adjutant General's Office to monitor our claims, what we put in every month and what comes in monetarily, because it helps the State, but it also helps us. My last year report was $262,000. That is my claims that they keep an eye on.
Mr. Haste: These are benefits that you brought to your clients, healthcare benefits primarily?
Mr. Wasco: Healthcare benefits will apply once the compensation takes effect. Now the veterans take care of the compensation through the VA money wise and also health wise. Now the VA must take care of that veteran's needs on his compensation. That is a service connected disability. It is up to the Federal government to provide medication as long as that gentleman has the symptoms he has. Sometimes the symptoms get better and they are taken off the medication. Most of the time, they are on the medication for a lifetime. When the veterans or spouses get older, especially the veterans, your increase goes higher. You may start at 20% and I keep telling my veterans you start feeling worse due to maybe a hip problem or leg problem, everything else comes into detail, because your back is starting to hurt because of your leg. If they start having more problems with their disability they should contact me to increase their disability. That is strictly what the State says that I brought in.
Mr. DiFrancesco: One of the challenges that we are constantly up against, especially in this area is the fact that getting information out to people is so difficult, making sure that we are getting in touch with the families in need. Tom does a great job doing that reaching out everyway he can identify through the service clubs, our agencies and so forth. There are always going to be people who slip through the cracks and we just don't identify them. The other thing that becomes a real challenge to the Department of Veterans' Affairs is the returning troops when they come back to Pennsylvania, after serving overseas primarily through the National Guard and Reserve. The information that we get from the Department of Pennsylvania, through the Adjutant General's Department, doesn't really identify to us those troops that are returning. The troops are given a briefing that these services are available and that they can come and access the services through their county. There is not really an effective means where we can proactively reach out to them when they return. I know Tom and his organization has worked on this for quite some time trying to get that. It doesn't seem like it would be very difficult to identify those people and yet it is a constant struggle for them. One of the challenges within the Department of Veterans' Affairs is the services are there, these people are eligible for the benefits through their service related, be it injuries or whatever it might be, we need to constantly find ways to get information out to them and we need to access every means available. One of the things that I had asked Tom to do for his budget presentation to us in a couple weeks is to include some dollars for general marketing where maybe he can run some ads in the paper as he goes out and about. That is something to consider during the budget cycle. We need to do a little more public advertising. I think he does a pretty good job and again the organizations that are most obvious, the Legions, VFWs and things of that nature. When it comes to really an outreach to the general public, it is tough because there is not a lot of articles or attention paid to the Department because there are really no stories to bring more attention to what we offer through Tom's Office. This would be a good thing for Dauphin County, because we don't want our veterans out there struggling when they could get assistance.
Mr. Wasco: When the troops come back, most of them are Reserve Component or National Guard Component, we have asked the TAG to let us make sure we are there for their briefing or debriefing, while we have been pretty much ignored. For the simple reason they said that the VA is there. TAG has three service officers that they tell them what is available. Then again you have VA telling them what may be available, but the problem is in our Association I would say 90% of our members are accredited. Accreditation means that I can go in front of the Board of Appeals and argue a case for that veteran. It is like going to Court and representing yourself as your own attorney. You don't fare well, because you don't know which way to go. I think getting the word out more, I have been doing this job for nine years and I still get people calling me saying I never knew you existed. I have done articles periodically throughout the years. I also lay fault to TAG for not letting them know that we are available and what we offer. I agree in getting some word out to the veterans. We are getting a lot of troops back and they try to go on their own.
Mr. Hartwick: My Dad is a Vietnam Vet and I know he lost his health insurance when Bethlehem Steel closed. He is in a position where he goes to the VA for all of his medication that he needs for his diabetes, heart disease and you mentioned something related to nursing home care for veterans and that the VA, depending upon your status, I guess your socio and economic guidelines, may provide funding for nursing home care. Could you just explain that to me a little bit more?
Mr. Wasco: I have a packet that I put together with the gentleman from Cumberland County that does my job.
Mr. Hartwick: Not suggesting that my dad is going to the nursing home anytime soon.
Mr. Wasco: It is always nice to be aware of this, because you never know when that time comes. You hope it never does. I deal with an 82 year old mother. The money is there as the need shows. When I hand the packet out, of course the Federal government is going to look at all your taxes, property tax, what investments you have, whether it be 401's or stocks, etc. At the same token they also look at the little nest egg that you put aside. We argue just because the gentleman paid his taxes to society, did his thing and put a little money aside now he is being hindered from using the VA. I did a claim for a lady who had maybe $60,000. That is not bad, but the VA does look at how much each month that assistance is going to pay. They take that into account whether it is for the veteran or the spouse. You put it down, but they keep calculating it is basically $5,000 a month to keep someone in a nursing home. You deduct medicines.
Mr. Hartwick: What you are saying is if you are a veteran the same sort of medical assistance rules apply for somebody based upon your assets, your income or whatever source you have. There are certain guidelines you need to meet in order to be eligible for the VA to step in. If you are above those the VA is not able to help.
Mr. Wasco: The VA will tell you that you are declined due to your monetary monthly income.
Mr. Hartwick: Could you get to me what those guidelines are?
Mr. Wasco: Sure. They look at it. That is why I tell everyone. Someone may say my parents have $100,000 I understand that, but put the claim in now and if they deny you it is only one piece of paper that you have to fill out saying that I would like to reopen my claim due to the deterioration of my financial situation and now the VA will look at it and say you had that much and it is no longer there anymore.
Mr. Hartwick: What preferential treatment would the VA provide over somebody who may be in the same position as medical assistance or would it be the same?
Mr. Wasco: Pardon me.
Mr. Hartwick: Medical assistance when you are out of having any assets you don't have monthly income or very limited monthly income, which they may take all towards the nursing home, does the VA provide any additional benefits than Medical Assistance would provide?
Mr. Wasco: The VA would take into account let's say that it may be the spouse. I'll use my mother as an example. God forbid if I ever have to put my mother in a nursing home. She started working in her mid 40's so her social security check is not a lot of money. I have never put in for any assistance for her yet, because I look out for the welfare of my mother with her Medicare, Medicaid, the PACE program and her drugs. I don't want the State to come along and say well now she is getting VA because it is going to be taxed. VA compensation money coming in makes her higher than the $16,000 for the PACE program is, so now she loses all her medications. The VA is not going to pick up that medication. They will help pay her monthly payment. They look at that. When I get a claim in for people that are right on the line, I will explain to them let's watch out for PACE, because you don't want to lose your drug prescription with the State, because the VA will not pay for your drugs, they will give you money.
Mr. Hartwick: Do you have a summary of just what the benefits that are provided through the VA are that are very easy to read to give us the ability to distinguish and determine what the benefits with the VA are versus what the traditional Medicare and Medicaid and Medical Assistance programs provide?
Mr. Wasco: I can give you a book that tells you all the benefits that the VA has. I do not have the Medicare and Medicaid. I usually have questions on that and I will go to the Area Agency on Aging and ask them about that. I keep telling people in our Commonwealth that there are five nursing homes for veterans and their spouses, strictly run by the State. Yes, it is much cheaper to take them to a Hollidaysburg, Scranton, Spring City, Philadelphia or Pittsburgh for their care because the State is not going to take every penny and dime you have. They will leave you with some dignity. The problem is here in Central Pennsylvania, we do not have one. The closest we have would be Spring City, which is still an hour and a half away. The families don't want to put their mother or father into a home where they can't go and visit. That is the point that I explain to them first. There are State homes that are cheaper and better living. They are very well taken care of, just like any other nursing home. Especially for the veterans he is among his buddies. I can get a person in Hollidaysburg in two days, but who wants to go to Hollidaysburg. So, where else do they have to go to is a private nursing home facility and that is why I try to assist. I don't recommend anything, I just tell them you find the home and you send me the bills and I will send them to the VA and they will determine. I let the Federal government say yes or no.
Mr. Hartwick: Could you just provide a short summary of the actual services that are provided?
Mr. Wasco: Yes.
Mr. DiFrancesco: Tom, you raised a point and if the opportunity ever presents itself where we can make a presentation to try to bring a home to Dauphin County, Central Pennsylvania, I think we would be very interested in making that pitch. We would love to have one here locally that the veterans could access.
Mr. Wasco: There is a lot of legislation out there. For some reason we have always asked if the Governor could give us the okay to start looking for property in years ahead, but we have not gotten the okay from the Governor to have the War Council look at that. That is what we want to do is start looking for sites. You have the State Hospital that is closing. Until the Governor gives us the okay to look for a place to start having a site committee, we are pretty much in limbo.
Mr. DiFrancesco: Please keep your eyes open. Whatever they do when they site those homes, let us know because it would be well worth our while to make a presentation. It would serve our veterans locally very well.
Mr. Haste: I'm going to skip around on the Agenda because we are waiting for Mark Stewart and he is in his office waiting for a phone call. We are going to go through some items and there is a very good possibility I will recess this meeting and we will come back at a given time once I have an idea of what that time will be.
PERSONNEL
Ms. Sinner: I have one Salary Board item. Are there any questions on that item? (There were none.)
Are there any questions on the Personnel Packet?
Mr. Haste: No changes?
Ms. Sinner: I am requesting a vote for some Spring Creek items. The items are under Vacancy Listings #1 and #2; five New Hires, which are Items #9, #10, #11, #12, and #13 and then two transfers in Personnel Changes Items #19 and #20.
We are waiting for the Union to finalize the rate for #19.
Mr. Haste: Are there any questions? (There were none.)
It was moved by Mr. DiFrancesco and seconded by Mr. Hartwick that the Board approve Items #1 and #2 under Vacancy Listings; #9, #10, #11, #12 and #13 under New Hires and #19 and #20 under Personnel Changes; motion carried.
PURCHASE ORDERS
Mr. Baratucci: You should have all received your Purchase Order Packet yesterday. As usual there are some budget issues that will be resolved between now and next week. Does anyone have any questions on the Packet itself? (There were none.)
In addition to that, two weeks ago I had given you information on a bid that we opened for Prison Renovations. We did not take any action on it last week, but I think the time is here to do that this week. The recommendation is attached to the information I gave you from Norm Benfer of Crabtree Rohrbaugh & Associates. His recommendation is to go with the low bids on each of the three contracts, which would be East Coast Contracting for General Construction - $247,000; Shannon A. Smith, Inc. for Plumbing - $39,738; Leer Electric, Inc. for Electrical - $11,950. The total package is $298,688. Again, Norm gave a little narrative for his explanation of his recommendations. If you don't have any questions, we could act on an Intent to Award and then let Crabtree Rohrbaugh work on getting the contracts back to you for execution.
Mr. Haste: I know this answer, but for the record, did the Solicitor's Office review it?
Mr. Tully: Yes, not the actual contracts, which will come later.
It was moved by Mr. DiFrancesco and seconded by Mr. Hartwick that the Board approve the Intent to Award the bids for the Prison Renovations to East Coast Contracting (General) - $247,000; Shannon A. Smith, Inc. (Plumbing) - $39,738 and Leer Electric, Inc. (Electrical) - $11,950; motion carried.
Mr. Hartwick: Could I just get a copy of Page #16 and to hear exactly what that is about?
Mr. Baratucci: Yes, I'm not really sure either other than this is the ongoing work that they have been doing with our bank reconciliations. We had done a contract with them for as needed work and my understanding was it is continuing as long as we are still running the show. I can ask Mr. Burford to give you some more detail.
TRAINING PACKET
Mr. Saylor: I do need a request for approval on Item #5 of the Training Packet.
It was moved by Mr. Hartwick and seconded by Mr. DiFrancesco that the Board approve Item #5 on the Training Packet which is for Helen Spence and Demora Wallace of the Children and Youth Agency to attend a Parent Summit in Kansas on October 25-28, 2006, at a cost of approximately $2,880; motion carried.
RECESS
Mr. Haste: We are waiting for Mr. Stewart. We will recess now and will reconvene at 11:15 a.m. Please get a hold of Mr. Stewart to see if that works.
RECONVENE
Mr. Haste: We will reconvene the Commissioners' Meeting at 11:15 a.m. Mr. Stewart is here.
Mr. Stewart: A couple items on the transaction involving Spring Creek. For your review and quick update, as of I believe Monday we received the Department of Health's approval of the change of ownership for the new buyer to be licensed. That is one more step towards the finish line. The process is generally progressing pretty well. It has been a complicated transaction. We obviously have to take care of the residents, there is a large number of employees and we have some building and environmental issues out there. It has been moving forward. The main thing is that the new buyer has to be prepared, starting day one obviously, to take care of the residents and be ready for the Department of Health to come in and do a survey and everything else. They have been moving forward. I would say their due diligence is about two-thirds complete. There are a couple larger items that still remain regarding the underground storage tanks that we have out there, but the finish line is definitely in sight.
What you have before you today, the first item is called a Tax Settlement Agreement. Essentially what it does is it phases in the assessed value of the property over a six year period. As you know the property was newly subdivided, so it had no assessed value. This specific parcel that is being sold previously, this is somewhat of a housekeeping matter, it was approved by you as part of the votes on June 28th in terms of the actual spreadsheet that you will find on the last page and it is formalized in a formal document now. The Agreement has been approved by the buyer, as well as Swatara Township and the Central Dauphin School District. So, essentially it is the formalization of what we did back in June, which is a contingency of the sale.
The second document that has been provided was synopsized to you I guess yesterday or Monday and being provided in final form is an Amendment to the Sale Agreement. The Amendment does a couple things. It extends the due diligence and financing contingency date that had been set. They had previously been October 1, 2006 and October 21, 2006. They will now both expire on October 27, 2006. It does not extend the closing date so the ultimate finish line is still the same, but some benchmarks along the way are being adjusted. Essentially a couple of things came up. One was just the scheduling of the environmental consultants. You all know what it is like doing development and trying to get even contractors for your home and what not to get going, the scheduling can be difficult. The other had to do with unanticipated technology issues at the facility. As you may know the County has a local area network where all the brains of the computer system and the telecommunications systems are down here or off-site from the nursing home and they basically have to sever the nursing home from the County-wide system and recreate all the switches and the computer servers out at the facility. That has lead to some unanticipated delays in the due diligence review. It has also led to some unanticipated expenses for the buyer, which is the second aspect of the Amendment. They are asking to use $100,000 of the deposit for improvements. It is noteworthy that they have already invested $170,000 in the building in terms of technology, installing patient care tracker systems, new computer systems to track patient care, their timekeeping system, as I mentioned before, their commitment to the facility is pretty clear, they have moved their employees from Arizona and other places and purchased their homes here and what not. Essentially it doesn't alter the purchase price, but they are looking to borrow against their deposit. In exchange for these changes, the remaining deposit is non-refundable and will be released to the County in three installments as we move closer to the closing date with the first payment of $50,000 having become non-refundable already on October 1st and it should be wired to the County this morning.
The final aspect of the Amendment is unrelated to these other issues. It deals with the rearranging of the purchase price. Basically as you know Tax Exempt Bonds were used to fund this facility and the IRS has certain rules regarding Tax Exempt Bonds and what can be done with the proceeds when the property that the bonds were used to finance is sold. One of those rules is that you cannot have an installment sale when you sell the property. The reason behind that is essentially they don't want public entities using tax exempt bonds as a way to help finance or provide some tax exempt bond benefit to a private developer. Obviously the facts of the situation here do not match up with the reason for the rule. The Home was clearly not built and financed with the intent of selling it and sought an exemption from the IRS to this rule, but they said no as the IRS is typical of doing. As you know, the Agreement that you approved involved a second payment $2.5 million. We need to change that so it would be all upfront money that is additional financing costs to the buyer and essentially a different deal. They actually approached it fairly and said we want to try to have the change as neutral as possible and basically said we are looking for a discount in the purchase price to cover the cost of capital for having to pay all the money upfront and actually they ended up eating about $25,000 of their increased cost of capital. The new sale price would be $14,350,000 under the Amendment. We explored other ways to try and resolve this issue. None of them were as cost effective as this. That pretty much synopsizes the Amendment and the other Agreement before you.
Mr. Hartwick: The first question relates to taking a look at the other options to adjust the $600,000 variance in the actual sale price. I asked someone earlier today to take a look at what other options were considered and what those costs were versus with just going and changing the actual sale price. I wanted them to take a look. Knowing not everything there is to know about public finance, but I was just trying to figure out within that $600,000 variance what fees and what changes would have towered up to that amount if we had to do a reissuance versus lower the sale price.
Mr. Stewart: I'm not sure if Chad has provided that to you yet. It was prepared by PFM and was reviewed by Bond Counsel as well. Basically if the installment is there what has to happen is the full $23 million in outstanding bonds have to be paid off immediately as opposed to just a portion of them equal to the sale price. To issue new bonds, including the cost of issuance, essentially over the 18 year life of the new bonds, the County would have paid an additional roughly $1.1 to $1.3 million. That would have been the cost to the County if we issued new bonds.
Mr. Hartwick: If we issued new bonds would we only have to pay on the $8 million that we would have to pay an additional $1.2 over what we currently.
Mr. Stewart: Right, over the 18 years. You would have to pay an additional $1.3 million over the 18 years, which is more than $650,000 in a discount.
Mr. Hartwick: I just wanted to take a look at what scenarios were run prior to that conclusion. First of all my first instinct I know there are costs of issuance, I wanted to see what the professional service fees would be on that amount of borrowing just for my own information to see if it was going to come any where near the $600,000. But what you are saying is with the current interest rates the pay back for the $8 million would have been considerably more than $650,000. That is enough of an explanation for me.
Mr. Haste: I actually talked to Mike Yohe, because it looked like we were getting a lemon, but when Mike actually looked at it cash wise, we are better off. This is actually a better deal for the County than the initially structured deal which on the surface doesn't seem to make sense, but when you look at the cash it's a better cash deal for the County.
Mr. Hartwick: I wouldn't disagree after I saw that. I just didn't know what the numbers were and what the interest rates were.
Mr. Stewart: The bonds that would be issued would have to be taxable.
Mr. Hartwick: Because it is a for-profit company you can't do it for tax-exempt.
I just want to figure out the idea of the County-wide assessment and the phasing assessment. Just for my own knowledge and exactly what those numbers are going to mean. I'm having trouble with what is called an abatement phased in assessment. Could you educate me? I'm trying to understand the whole economic development aspect of that and whether it is an incentive that we could use for another business.
Mr. Haste: We have used it.
Mr. Hartwick: Tax increment financing I know to try to freeze something at its current assessed value and any improvements that are placed on that facility are something that are not taxed to a further year, but I have never seen this particular structure.
Mr. Stewart: As I mentioned this is about we are not changing the tax rate or really giving them an abatement on the rate.
Mr. Hartwick: It is all positive to the County, school district and the municipality, because currently it doesn't pay taxes out there. They are going to receive more than they did. I just want to understand the actual philosophy behind this particular phase.
Mr. Stewart: Rather than focus on tax rates and reducing or abating the rate, this focuses on the assessed value and it basically is agreeing to that. It has been utilized before with the Polyclinic aspect. Essentially what you are doing is settling threatening litigation over the assessed value. This is a new parcel. It doesn't have an assessed value now. The Director of Assessment has indicated what the assessed value might be.
Mr. Hartwick: He said $10.5 million.
Mr. Stewart: That assessed value could obviously be appealed and litigation would ensue in order to avoid that litigation and preempt it the parties all come together and enter into a settlement agreement as to what the assessed value should be for the period of the agreement. That is the mechanism that is being used.
Mr. Hartwick: That probably reflects the common level ratio and probably agreeing to because we are below that right now. Whatever that would bring them to at this point if they were to come in front of the tax assessment appeal board. The thing that I'm concerned about is how it is locked in for future years and how that is going to affect any kind of valuation of that facility in a County-wide reassessment in the future. That is the part that I'm having trouble understanding.
Mr. Stewart: Carl Wass and Steve Howe worked with us to develop formulas that will adjust the assessed value upward to provide essentially the same ratio of savings that they would be realizing prior to the County-wide reassessment. So, the assessed value will in fact increase if there is a County-wide assessment, because it has to offset the potential that the County can increase the taxes. The County can't lose out. It is going to have to reduce the millage for revenue neutrality purposes and it can't reduce the millage, but they get to keep the pre County-wide reassessment assessed value. So, they developed a formula whereby the assessed value in the Agreement will increase.
Mr. Hartwick: No more than $222,000 based upon whatever millage rate is set.
Mr. Haste: For every year it comes in it increases incrementally.
Mr. Stewart: The Agreement throughout states that this is only about assessed value and any tax increases will go into affect. So, what that language says is that no more than $220,000 plus any millage rate increases that may occur during the term.
Mr. Hartwick: It sets the maximum of what any future assessment could be, but in affect on total taxable payments that they are going to have to make to the County and the school district. So, they set a cap to not go above that in a reassessment, but any future tax increases from the local municipality, school district or county will apply. I just needed to understand.
Mr. Haste: It deals with the assessed value.
Mr. Hartwick: For economic development purposes I needed to understand that.
Mr. Stewart: The County, the City and the Harrisburg School District entered into an Agreement for this for Penn Center.
Mr. Hartwick: Thanks for answering the questions.
Mr. Haste: Do you need action from us?
Mr. Stewart: I need a motion on both the First Amendment and the Tax Agreement.
It was moved by Mr. DiFrancesco and seconded by Mr. Hartwick that the Board approve and execute a Tax Settlement Agreement; motion carried.
It was moved by Mr. DiFrancesco and seconded by Mr. Hartwick that the Board approve and execute an Amendment to Purchase Agreement for Spring Creek; motion carried.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
Mr. Haste: We have Items A and B that need approval. Item B should be worded as an approval to have the Solicitor's Office negotiate a contract with Conrad Siegel Actuaries for services for our medical coverage. Is there any discussion on those two items?
Mr. Hartwick: I worked with Mr. Williard to get a plan together in order to try to find the highest and best use in spending the additional money given by the State including some equipment costs and trying to take a look at even bringing in some temporary part-time employees to do additional jobs that don't take us away from our utility work, which brings money in that also allows us to service more people with the weatherization dollars including some additional tools and trucks. They also had a computer from 1990 that needed to be upgraded.
Mr. Haste: Actually now is the time to get this work done if we can.
Mr. Hartwick: We actually just got a new vehicle as well.
Mr. Haste: Anything else?
Mr. DiFrancesco: I know that, I guess George is talking with Firm Foundation, but if there is an opportunity there it would be great to get them involved.
Mr. Hartwick: We have traditionally, at least in the past several years, have not been contracting any work out for weatherization. I would be more than willing to talk to him about the potential of doing that again. There were some concerns with contracting out that Craig had expressed. It doesn't mean that we can't have those conversations.
Mr. DiFrancesco: The only thing I liked about it is that we would actually be spending money to further support a really good community program that is going on. It is kind of like getting a double bang for the buck. If it works great, and if it doesn't that is okay too.
Mr. Hartwick: He had indicated to me that the only thing they currently contract out is specialty furnace work, which requires special expertise. For general weatherization there are training requirements and a whole set of things that Firm Foundation would have to do with the employees to allow them to be qualified to do the weatherization work. If they do that and if we get additional money, I don't see why that couldn't occur.
Mr. DiFrancesco: Good deal.
It was moved by Mr. DiFrancesco and seconded by Mr. Hartwick that the Board approve Items A and B listed above under Items for Discussion, noting that Item B the approval is for the Solicitor's Office to negotiate a contract with Conrad Siegel Actuaries for services for our medical coverage; motion carried.
SOLICITOR'S REPORT - GUY BENEVENTANO, ESQ.
Mr. Beneventano: No report, but will take any questions. (There were none.)
CHIEF CLERK'S REPORT - CHAD SAYLOR
Mr. Saylor: I have nothing to bring up.
COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS
Mr. Haste: Any additional comments by the Board?
Mr. DiFrancesco: First of all I would like to take this opportunity in the public forum to welcome the new Target that cut ribbon last night. I'll jump the gun on the new JC Penney and welcome them back to Dauphin County. It has been several years since they have been here. I know I was a regular in the store at the mall and when they left I was really disappointed. I had to find some place new to shop. I'm glad to have them back. I just wanted to give them a public welcome to Target, their second store in Dauphin County and Penney's welcome back to Dauphin County.
The other thing that I would like to mention, it is sort of a different twist on what we have been talking about for the last two or three days. What happened in Lancaster County obviously was traumatic for all of us. I think I would be pretty shocked if there is not a parent any where in the country right now that literally doesn't come to tears when they think about what happened two days ago. What I think is amazing is coming out of the Amish community right now is basically their faith dictates forgiveness. Every interview you see when you talk to someone speaking on behalf of the Amish community, maybe even some of them themselves, when they say what their focus will be now it is on forgiveness. I sort of raise that issue because of some of the things that this Board has been working on so much. We have gun violence on the increase, just society getting nastier and nastier every day and you look at what has happened and it is really hard to focus on that message. Here is a community event that brings everybody together, hearts are broken everywhere, prayers are being poured out for the families that were directly involved, the community that suffered such a tremendous loss to be able to transition that into your daily life and bring that sentiment of forgiveness to people and caring for your neighbor is an amazing thing. I would ask not only that people continue to pray for the families involved, but also to take a look at what has happened and take something positive away from it. We have got to get back to a place in America where we care about our neighbors, where a turn signal doesn't mean speed up and cut someone off, it means to actually give them the courtesy of letting them in a lane. I don't care how you interpret it, but this event is extremely significant, it is a sad event, but there is a strong message there as well. I didn't want to miss the opportunity to share that and again call for continued prayers and support for the community.
Mr. Haste: Three of those victims are in Dauphin County facilities.
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? (There was none.)
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, it was moved by Mr. DiFrancesco and seconded by Mr. Hartwick that the Board adjourn.
