DAUPHIN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
LEGISLATIVE MEETING
JUNE 11, 2008 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; J. Scott Burford, Deputy Chief Clerk; Gary Serhan, Deputy Controller; Diane McNaughton, Commissioners' Office; Amy Richards, Commissioners' Office; Dan Robinson, Director of Community & Economic Development; Mike Yohe, Director of Budget & Finance; Tom Guenther, Director of IT; Fred Lighty, Esq., Human Services Director's Office; Brooke Miller, Personnel; Leila McAdoo, Solicitor's Office; William Struemke, Solicitor's Office; David Feidt, Solicitor's Office; Randy Baratucci, Director of Purchasing; Dan Eisenhauer, Director of MH/MR; Hector Ortiz, Human Services Director's Office; Greg Schneider, Budget & Finance; Mike Potteiger, Director of Adult Probation; Edgar Cohen, Director of Facilities Maintenance; Jena Wolgemuth, Commissioners' Office; Brenda Hoffer, Commissioners' Office and Richie-Ann Martz, Assistant Chief Clerk

GUESTS PRESENT

Garry Lenton, Gary Lenker, Mark Moseley and Mike Musser

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

It was moved by Mr. Hartwick and seconded by Mr. DiFrancesco that the Board approve the May 21, 2008 Workshop Meeting Minutes and the May 28, 2008 Legislative Meeting Minutes; motion carried.

It was moved by Ms. Rebuck and seconded by Mr. Hartwick that the Board approve the May 28, 2008 Salary Board Meeting Minutes; motion carried.

EXECUTIVE SESSIONS HELD BETWEEN MEETINGS

Mr. Saylor: We met once in Executive Session on May 28, 2008 to discuss matters of litigation.

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 at this time? (There was none.)

DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS/GUESTS

1. Dan Robinson, Director of Community & Economic Development
   Gary Lenker, Chairman, Affordable Housing Trust Fund Board
   Mark Moseley, Executive Director, Tri-County HDC

Mr. Lenker: We are here to talk about the Affordable Housing Trust Fund Board in support of a project that the Board is recommending to the County Commissioners. Just to give you a bit of history, if I may. We came before you a number of years ago. The Trust Fund Board actually did a housing needs and assessment for Dauphin County. Out of that we determined that with the excess funds that we had building in the Affordable Housing Trust Fund that we would make available to first time home buyers down payment assistance program which we participated in for many years and has been very popular in assisting a number of people getting into housing in the County. There were other needs. Many other counties across the Commonwealth, I found with my experience serving on another Board, Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency, utilize these funds, Act 137, for other housing related functions. Out of the study, we determined that there was a need. We did an RFP and the Mount Pleasant Project was the one that we selected to assist. It is a homeownership program. Mr. Robinson can give his pitch as the Director from that shop.

Mr. Robinson: I think you have the cover letter that we sent to the Board back in July 2007, which was sent to Mark Moseley, the Executive Director of the Tri-County Housing Development Corporation. Today, we are here for the Mount Pleasant Homes Project. As Gary indicated, the Affordable Housing Trust Fund met, reviewed the request back in July 2007, and what they are asking for is from our Affordable Housing Trust Fund a $260,000 allocation over a three year period. This would go to support the City's Allison Hill neighborhood, which would make affordable housing available to those residents. Obviously one of your questions will probably be how is the fund doing? We have over $600,000 in the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. This would be approximately an $85,000 allocation each year for the next three years. The $600,000 that we have in there, we also have allocated $200,000 to the Board of Commissioners in our Block Grant and HOME Fund to supplement that $600,000 as well as subordinations that come in.

Mr. Hartwick: Through the Recorder of Deeds?

Mr. Robinson: Correct.

Mr. Haste: This is also the fund, where the homebuyer, when they repay the down payment goes back into, correct?

Mr. Hartwick: That was one of the initial questions I had coming into the project. I know that is a priority to the Board to make sure there is enough money in the Affordable Housing Trust Fund for people who do need help with closing costs in order to make sure that they are able to obtain that home. Clearly this is not going to prevent the individuals who are requesting money through the Affordable Housing Trust Fund in jeopardy. Where other counties have long waiting lists, we are able to serve almost all clients who come forward who are in need of those closing costs.

Mr. Lenker: If you look at the handout that Mr. Moseley prepared, you can see the committed funds and the County is one of many partners involved in this effort, particularly Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency, just shy of $1 million, City of Harrisburg HOME Funds, the State DCED/Elm Street Funds, and Federal Home Loan Bank $500,000. There are some very substantial partners here, which the County will also be an important part of.

Mr. Moseley: What I did on this handout is show you why our project is a little different than many that you see. We are a nonprofit agency. More or less what we do is funnel State, Federal and private funds to spur housing development. This particular project is 25 homes, which can be sold, depending on the home, up to 115% median income for the County. For a family of four, it is somewhere around $58,000/$60,000. I didn't look it up before I came here, but I'm going to say $38,000/$40,000. It is a pretty decent market that we have in there. Our request is $260,000. That is a little shy of 1/20th of the project is what it took to make the project work. We've effectively leveled every dollar that we are requesting from you with $19 of Federal, State and private funds. On the second page I sort of broke it down on what we expect to see for increased taxes. The majority, 95%, of these properties are lots that have been demolished by the Harrisburg Redevelopment Authority. They have been off the tax rolls for 20 years, some just six, but the majority of them 20 years. It is a large vacant lot at 16th & Swatara Streets, is where the bulk of those properties are. Although I don't have hard numbers to support the second set of figures there, just basically that is what we expect to be spent for the project. Some of them are pretty solid. The professional services, fees and improvement to the site, that includes, we have to put in a sewer line, sidewalks and poles. It will be 25 new housing starts. They are the first residential sites in that particular census track for 100 years. We did multi-family there, but this is the first time that we had new construction in that neighborhood for over 100 years.

Mr. Hartwick: In the initial discussions that we had, it is very important in urban areas to be able to stop urban sprawl in order to try to redirect individuals back into those areas to be able to provide adequate housing stock, infill housing in areas that were either Section 8 or are vacant and have been left off the tax rolls. I think this is the right kind of development, seeing that we are partners in this particular project with the City and State. We always talk about leveraging dollars in order to see the maximum amount of return and value for the investment. This is one that has a significant return. This will have a huge impact and hopefully an improved quality of life to the area, as well as bringing tax revenue into all three taxing authorities. It doesn't put the individuals who have gone after those dollars in the Affordable Housing Trust Fund for closing costs for their home. This does everything I think this Trust Fund is set up to do. It helps neighborhoods improve and revitalize. As one Commissioner I am fully in support of the project.

Mr. Haste: Is the site ready?

Mr. Robinson: Site ready meaning.

Mr. Haste: Is it ready for.

Mr. Moseley: We have site control for about 95% of the sites. We do another project there called "Capital Corridors." We have been picking up properties that are a little bit better suited than the sites we have. That is contiguous. We are planning to do this in two land development stages. We are getting approval right now for the first 12 units. Those sites are all clear and ready. The other ones we are switching back and forth as we go. We are trying to get four lots that are on the corner, that actually have structures on them. Three are abandoned and there is a person in one. We are trying to negotiate. It looks like we will pick up three of them, but the fourth one is in question. If we get the fourth one we will probably demo those properties and include them in this project and forget about some of the lots that are actually half a block away. If we only get three they will end up being part of our rehab project. It is not a clear answer. We have about 95% of the projects where they are vacant lots and are clear. We are working on site control for what would be your three.

Mr. Haste: What I was thinking about if it is doable, I wouldn't mind working with our Prison population and/or Adult Probation, if there was a need to clean up some of these areas to have people who should live in that neighborhood as opposed to living at DCP right now take ownership and responsibility for that community. You would hope that if someone puts some sweat equity into the neighborhood to help clean it up even though that's not their home they may have a different view of the neighborhood. If that is something that we could incorporate into this I wouldn't mind trying to do that.

Mr. Moseley: I haven't asked yet, but we are doing another project where basically one way streets come to the site. So, people have a one-way in and a one-way out. We are doing street improvements and we were going to ask for that kind of support from Adult Probation. We have had a lot of support from Adult Probation in the past. The neighborhood does about six clean-ups a year. Adult Probation is an active partner.

Mr. Haste: I would try to focus it on people from that neighborhood so that they start to feel some community pride.

Mr. Moseley: Yes, that would be wonderful.

Mr. DiFrancesco: One request and Dan you might be best suited to get this, could you get me a map that shows the parcels? I'm sure IT can get that.

Mr. Moseley: I actually wanted to bring that with today, but I left it back at the office. We have a nice PDF version.

Mr. DiFrancesco: That would be great if we could get a copy of the map just to really put the parcels into perspective. You mentioned the going rate for the houses would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $58,000 to $60,000?

Mr. Haste: That was the income limit.

Mr. Moseley: We are looking for $85,000. We will probably start lower and move forward. We were getting $65,000 for gut rehabs in that neighborhood. We are hoping to increase property values.

Mr. DiFrancesco: So $58,000 to $60,000 is the income. Explain that to me?

Mr. Moseley: The $58,000 is for a family of four is where the income limit will be.

Mr. DiFrancesco: They would qualify if they were under that?

Mr. Moseley: Yes.

Mr. Haste: The individual was in the $35,000/$38,000 area.

Mr. Moseley: 80% is $36,000. All these funding sources come with different restrictions. A couple houses have to be at 30% of median. A majority are in the 80% median. There are about a third that can be 115% of median.

Mr. DiFrancesco: Again, I'm going to echo George's comments, I think projects like this are critically important to our local economy. I've got Dan's office doing some research and doing some reports for me on just sort of the nature of the market and while it is very. I don't know how telling this is, but the median cost of a house right now, according to I guess HUD's statistics, is about $145,000. That's not real telling in Dauphin County, because there is so much above and below that that I don't know if the median value gives you a good accurate picture. I would have to say that finding affordable housing in good areas is very difficult. In general we are looking at about $40,000 plus in salary needed to fund that amount. Again this economy is so diverse. We just read statistics where we were 86th in the nation in terms of quality of economy or something and at the same time there are a lot of people out there struggling on lower salaries that can't afford to buy their own house. This is a great project. Just looking at your rough design, we really don't have a lot here telling us what the house is going to look like and I would like that information as well, but it looks like a very nice starter home putting several of these together with the front porches and everything else you can really have a nice community that bumps up around them and really good core development for further expansion of the neighborhood. Based on the information that we have in front of us today I think this looks like a great project.

Mr. Hartwick: Are there any contingencies on any of the other monies that have been committed?

Mr. Moseley: Contingencies as far as what?

Mr. Hartwick: If you don't complete a certain number of homes that you need to have accomplished in the first phase before you move onto the second phase?

Mr. Moseley: Always.

Mr. Hartwick: Could you do us a favor, as well and define what those contingencies are? Obviously as it relates to the County's position, we're obviously not going to move forward and do a 3-year deal, unless you meet those sort of benchmarks. It probably would be a good idea for us to put those benchmarks in place to make sure we are not committing $260,000 and then some people drop back because you didn't meet your goals. We probably should make sure that we have those same requirements and contingencies as it relates to the completion of the project as we move forward.

Mr. Moseley: We can probably also piggyback on both City and PFHA doing site inspections.

Mr. Hartwick: We should probably talk to the Solicitors and put those requirements and benchmarks on the dollars as a part of the action, if we are taking action today.

Mr. Saylor: I don't think we have anything to vote on today.

Mr. Haste: My understanding has always been for us is our nod to approve the project and you will get the documentation to us.

Mr. Hartwick: Do you also need a letter from us as a commitment of support?

Mr. Lenker: We provided a letter for Tri-County's package to PHFA and it clearly stated in the letter that it was a recommendation by the Housing Trust Fund Board contingent upon the County Commissioners' approval. We should have something in that regard.

Mr. Robinson: We can take, if we are getting the nodding of the heads, we can take from this meeting and work with Mr. Tully's Office to get a Resolution at the next appropriate meeting.

Mr. Haste: Does that meet your timeframe?

Mr. Moseley: We need a firm commitment before we close at PHFA. That is a good four months away.

Mr. Hartwick: I think you have a firm commitment as long as we agree on the contingencies.

All: It is a good project.

SALARY BOARD

A complete set of Salary Board Minutes is on file in the Commissioners' Office.

PERSONNEL

Ms. Miller: The Personnel Packet and Addendum is as stands. There are no changes.

Mr. Saylor: May I ask a question about the overtime report? Maybe Mr. Yohe can answer this one, I just perused that quickly and I noticed the overtime costs for the District Justice System are already over $6,700. We still have half a year to go. Are you aware of this? This is probably something I should take up directly with Carolyn.

Mr. Haste: Yes.

It was moved by Mr. Hartwick and seconded by Mr. DiFrancesco that the Board approve the Personnel Packet and Addendum; motion carried.

PURCHASE ORDERS

Mr. Baratucci: There was one item in the Packet that was still showing over budget, but it has since been resolved. The Packet is as presented with the addition of the one item that I just handed out. This is something that you had already approved last week. It is a new riding mower for Facilities Maintenance. They had done the purchase order to a local vendor, but found out later that the Purchase Order needed to be directly to John Deere. This is just a replacement that you already approved last week, but we needed to cancel and redo. I want to add that to the Packet, as well. Do you have any questions? (There was none.)

It was moved by Mr. DiFrancesco and seconded by Mr. Hartwick that the Board approve the Purchase Order Packet with the addition of the John Deere Purchase Order for Facilities Maintenance; motion carried.

REPORT FROM BUDGET & FINANCE - MIKE YOHE, BUDGET DIRECTOR

Mr. Yohe gave the following Report.

Report from the Office of Budget & Finance
June 11, 2008

• May 30, 2008 transferred $1,099,446.19 to the Payables account from the County's Concentration account for checks issued that week.
• June 6, 2008 transferred $8,268,929.52 to the Payables account and $1,858,552.25 to the Payroll account from the County's Concentration account for checks issued that week.
• Total Term Investments - N/A
• Balance today in INVEST account $169,352.36 rate 2.123%
• Balance today in Susquehanna Bank investment account $62,300,193.53 rate 3.000% (This rate equals the Susquehanna Bank 91-day T-Bill rate plus 113 basis points. It is fixed for the month)
• Balance today in Sovereign Bank investment account $1,024,296.61 rate 2.340% (This equals today's 1-month LIBOR rate of 2.460% minus 12 basis points)
• Balance today in Citizens Bank investment account $63,001,122.77 rate 3.000% (This rate is fixed through 6/30/08)
• Balance today in PNC Bank investment account $1,000.00 rate 1.850% (This equals today's Fed Funds rate of 2.000% minus 15 basis points)
• Balance today in Graystone Bank investment account $1,000.00 rate 1.800% (This equals today's Fed Funds rate of 2.000% minus 20 basis points)
• Balance today in Commerce Bank investment account $1,000.00 rate 1.600% (This equals today's 90-day T-Bill rate of 1.850% minus 25 basis points)

No T.R.A.N. Line of Credit required for 2008.

Mr. Yohe: As you know, Citizens is guaranteed at 3% through June 30th. That is good news to see that Susquehanna stepped up and gave us 3%. I'm hoping that we will maintain that 3% after June. Are there any questions? (There was none.)

REPORT FROM CHIEF CLERK/CHIEF OF STAFF - CHAD SAYLOR

Mr. Saylor: I have nothing to report.

SOLICITOR'S REPORT - BILL TULLY, ESQ., SOLICITOR

Mr. Tully: I have nothing to report unless you have any questions. (There was none.)

MATTERS REQUIRING BOARD ACTION

1. Training Packet.
2. Tax Refunds:
   1. Refund of 2007 & 2008 Real Estate Taxes, Parcels #65-034-084 and #65-032-062 - Metal Industries, Inc. - $10,540.08.
   2. Corrected Refund of 2007 & 2008 Real Estate Taxes, Parcels #65-034-019, #65-032-070 & #65-032-015 - Metal Industries Inc. - $10,697.28.
   3. Refund of 2007 & 2008 Real Estate Taxes, Parcels #27-007-036 & #27-007-058 - MI Windows & Doors, Inc. - $9,568.51.
   4. Refund of 2007 & 2008 Real Estate Taxes, Parcel #66-012-028 - Ritescreen Company - $4,430.17.
3. Area Agency on Aging 4-Year Plan, 2008-2012.
4. Satisfaction Agreements for:
   1. LaRya Straitiff for the property located at 909 Roberts Valley Road, Harrisburg, PA 17111 ($3,500.00).
   2. Lucinda Berry for property located at 161 Pleasant View Road, Hummelstown, PA 17036 ($3,500.00).
   3. Douglas Albright for property located at 908 S. Progress Avenue, Harrisburg, PA 17109 ($5,000.00).
5. Proposed Amendment to Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement of 2000 between Dauphin County and Lebanon County.
6. Modified Proposed Tax Assessment Appeal Settlement of Room One Corporation, Coco-Plex Cinema and Shopping Center. Tax Parcel Nos. 24-045-36, 56, 61 & 67.
7. Authorization for Chad Saylor to execute Assignment to Central PA Consortium, Litigation against Shipley Energy and Fidelity and Deposit Company (Bonding Company).
8. Purchase of Service Agreements between Adult Probation and:
   1. Test run (20 units) with Omnilink for its GPS tracking.
   2. SleepTime Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Monitors - 10 units for the start up of drug court in July 2008.
9. Purchase of Service Agreements between Children and Youth and:
   1. Southwood Psychiatric Hospital, Inc.
   2. New Beginnings Youth and Adult Services, Inc.
   3. UHS of Doylestown, LLC t/d/b/a Foundation Behavioral Health
   4. Berks County, Agreement PSA-3358-08
10. Adoption Assistance Agreements #2008-23 and #2008-24.
11. MH Purchase of Service Agreements between MH/MR and:
    1. Merle J. Crawford, M.S., OTR/L
    2. Cumberland/Perry Association for Retarded Citizens
    3. Masonic Village of Elizabethtown
12. MR Waiver Purchase of Service Agreements between MH/MR and:
    1. Bryon Schreck, SLP-CCC
    2. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc.
    3. Messiah Village
    4. Nancy McCorkle
    5. Cumberland/Perry Association for Retarded Citizens
13. ITF Medicaid Waiver Service Agreements between MH/MR and Merle J. Crawford, M.S., OTR/L.
14. Human Services Development Fund Agreement Amendments between Dauphin County and Children's Resource Center of Pinnaclehealth - Amendment #1.
15. Human Services Development Fund Agreement between Dauphin County and the Pennsylvania Association of Latino Organizations, Inc.
16. Lease Agreement between Dauphin County and Gaudenzia Foundation, Inc.
17. Emergency Management Performance Grant Agreement for FFY 2008 in the amount of $42,302.00 to support personnel for approved staff positions.
18. Purchase of Service Per Diem Rates for Children and Youth and:
    1. Berks County Youth Center
    2. New Beginnings Youth & Adult Services, Inc.
    3. Children's Home of York
19. State and Local Government Master Operating Lease Agreement Schedule. HP Lease 103108 #26 between Dauphin County and HP Financial Services for 51 PC's and 8 laptops for various County departments.
20. Resolution #13-2008 authorizing DCIDA to accept the $300,000 loan from PNC Bank, N.A.

Mr. Haste: We have Matters Requiring Board Action, listed above, Items A through T. I understand we need to vote T separately.

Mr. Tully: H also.

Mr. DiFrancesco: I'm going to request that H be pulled.

Mr. Haste: H is pulled.

Mr. Tully: Should I put it as a vote next week?

Mr. Haste: Whenever we get the appropriate paperwork.

Mr. DiFrancesco: It is my understanding that the Solicitor's Office has it for review. So that will be taken care of. The Purchasing Department doesn't have the paperwork and it is just a matter of getting it resolved and making sure everybody knows what is going on. It should be ready for next week.

Mr. Haste: My preference would be to have the two Departments using the same system if at all possible.

Mr. Tully: I think it makes a lot of sense, but.

Mr. DiFrancesco: One of the problems too from the Board's perspective I realize this is Court operations and the departments sort of do their thing as they see fit, but in reality I'm not comfortable with us spending so much money on these things, both the JPO side or the APO side, not knowing the companies, not knowing the procedures and not knowing the technology. I have made requests repeatedly and I have gotten some names, but where are these companies. BI is very active with the County Commissioners' Association. They advertise a lot and so forth. I know who they are, but a lot of these other companies, again, we are changing companies because the prior company's track record of being able to track the people on probation was not very good. So, again I'm not sure how these decisions are being made and that gives me cause for a little bit of concern. So, if we can get one vendor that is doing a good job I think that is the best way to do it.

Mr. Tully: If what Mike has recommended winds up proving to be a reality I think the pressure would be on JPO to come into conformity. If what they are talking about, better coverage, having dual technology, in other words, they have redundancy built in so we don't lose track of these people if that proves to be affective then it makes no sense for JPO to have.

Mr. DiFrancesco: I don't believe JPO is having problems with their system, but when Mike mentioned this morning I guess this Omnilink Technology is one step better than BI simply because BI has two separate components. The person has to wear the anklet plus what is equivalent to like a cell phone. This one has all that into one anklet. Maybe it is time for JPO. In any rate, I don't care which way it goes. I have no idea who the companies are.

Mr. Hartwick: Can I just make a suggestion? First of all we hear from our Adult and Juvenile Probation about how grateful they are that the Commissioners are investing in this technology, giving them tools to be able to track people, have less cost on the system, if we take a look at this technology why can't we have companies come in to us as well and have them provide a presentation to the Board of Commissioners about current technology. We are the ones who are able to define whether or not we think it is the newest and best technology and that budget process is one way for us to be able to manage that in a most efficient and cost effective way for taxpayers. I think we should figure out a way to bring the companies in front of us to talk about the new technologies. I don't want to push any relationships to get in the way of doing what is in the best interest of the taxpayers, not suggesting that is occurring, but we should also be aware of the technology and be involved in the decision-making process.

Mr. DiFrancesco: Really taking that one step further. In my mind I view this completely differently than what paper vendor we use simply because this type of technology is actually really in the broader policy issues of how we handle criminal justice in Dauphin County. It is how we keep people out of Prison. For us to be up on this technology, in particular as the policy makers, it is critical. I have been saying this for a long time. We spend a lot of money on this technology. It shocked me that these companies have not reached out to us at all to talk to us.

Mr. Hartwick: They are going to have to.

Mr. DiFrancesco: They didn't up until now. Obviously in today's conversation we are discussing that it unnerves us a little bit. It is time for you to come in now and speak directly to us.

Mr. Tully: I think the first step is to contact the President Judge and I think he probably would be in agreement to allow us to gather information.

Mr. Haste: He can come over and we can do it jointly.

Mr. Tully: If we do it that way I think it would serve all our purposes.

Mr. Haste: Ask him to come over and sit in with us.

Mr. Tully: We can do that.

Mr. Haste: H is pulled. That leaves us A through S, minus H.

It was moved by Mr. DiFrancesco and seconded by Mr. Hartwick that the Board approve Matters Requiring Board Action Items A through S, minus H (listed above); motion carried.

Mr. Haste: Item T, Resolution #13-2008 is that a loan or a line of credit?

Mr. Hartwick: Line of credit.

Mr. Haste: The document here says loan. I was told that within the last week or so it was changed to a line of credit.

Mr. Robinson: It has always been a line of credit. I'm not sure the legal terminology. It may go against the County as a loan, but a loan would indicate that we have already drawn down the money. A line of credit would be as we draw it down.

Mr. Haste: Correct.

Mr. Robinson: If we could amend the Resolution to say Line of Credit?

Mr. DiFrancesco: I have some questions either way.

Mr. Haste: Where is the Resolution?

Mr. DiFrancesco: Help me through this process. Right now, I'm assuming the IDA has already approved it from their end, but they need our approval as well? Is that how this works?

Mr. Robinson: It works that way because the rules of the institution that we work this process through have changed and that is why it is back with the County again. Correct on your first point.

Mr. DiFrancesco: If the institution wasn't requesting our backing, then the IDA would have to go out and do this on their own; without any vote from us? I'm trying to get a feel for it.

Mr. Robinson: They will not allow the IDA to do it without the County's backing.

Mr. DiFrancesco: I'm saying if they would pull that stipulation could the IDA do this without our approval? If the institution didn't require the County's backing on this particular loan, would the IDA still have to bring that to us for approval, just to get our nod of support or.

Mr. Robinson: Not necessarily, because that was our original intent not to bring it before the Board.

Mr. DiFrancesco: Alright. My issue with Item T isn't so much even if it is a line or a loan. I may have mentioned this earlier when we approved sort of some earlier items where we basically took all the IDA items and put them into one fund pretty much rather than a couple different loan programs that we had. I'm not comfortable and I'm not happy with this entire program as it exists. In fact, regardless of line or loan I will not be supporting Item T. My concern is and I realize we have some obligations out there that we have to meet. One in particular, but until we do some clarification on how we want to use these loan programs and put some mechanisms in place that allow us to make better judgment calls on where the money is going I don't want to put additional money into it. I don't want to put $300,000 in when we only need $50,000. If this is the only way that we can meet the obligation that is out there that we already made then I would approve up to $50,000. The $300,000 I can't support. The other piece of it that troubles me is the way this whole transaction came to be. Originally it was not supposed to need the County's backing. Now all of a sudden we are doing the County's backing and Dan correct me if I'm wrong, but the institution approached us therefore we saw no need, because it was a pretty good deal that they were offering to us we saw no need to go out and meet with other business partners to see if maybe there was a better deal out there because of the way it was presented to us. Now, as we go to vote on it, some of the items are changing, the negotiations are changing and now we have to put our backing on it. I'm not comfortable with that either. I don't know if you would have made the same choice to go with this institution or not, based on if the deal looked this different.

Mr. Robinson: Flashing back a year from today, but.

Mr. DiFrancesco: That's what I'm saying.

Mr. Robinson: Everything that was presented to you and I is not what you are voting on today, but there is a reason that it is before you today. Everything you said is correct.

Mr. DiFrancesco: In terms of interest rates, if you are out talking to our business partners saying hey the County backed this loan then we may get a better interest rate or whatever. There are chances that market forces will come into play. I'm not comfortable with PNC. I know the item is there that we have to make sure that we can meet our obligation that we all support and if this is the way to do it. I just have a lot of concerns on this particular item. I just can't support it at this time. There are too many questions and troubles that I have with this.

Mr. Hartwick: I suggest that we table this at this time. It is clear that it is not what we intended on voting on. Nick raised some good points. If you could go back and revisit that and put it before the Board at a later time, because I'm not comfortable with the Resolution as it stands.

Mr. Tully: It doesn't reflect what was being articulated.

Mr. DiFrancesco: Now, it does bring up the second question. I don't know how quickly we have to meet that obligation and whether or not there are other means.

Mr. Haste: We'll find out.

Mr. Robinson: As I peruse the Resolution the loan program/line of credit.

Mr. Haste: It calls it a loan throughout.

Mr. Robinson: We will revise it.

FORMER BUSINESS

(There was none.)

NEW BUSINESS

(There was none.)

COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION & ACTIONS

(There was none.)

CORRESPONDENCE

Mr. Haste: We have correspondence that has been received by the Board, Items A through I, which will be handled by the staff accordingly.

1. Notification from FCC Environmental advising that the Hydrocarbon Recovery Services, Inc. is renewing its General Permit to continue operating a transfer facility for the processing of waste oil, spent antifreeze and waste oil/water mixtures prior to beneficial use.
2. Notification from CET Engineering Services advising that the Lower Paxton Township Authority is applying to DEP for a General Permit #3 for the Earl Drive Interceptor Replacement.
3. Notification from Skelly and Loy advising that the PA Department of Transportation is submitting an environmental assessment to DEP for the Bear Creek Phase II AMD Treatment Project and Advanced Wetland Compensation Project in Wiconisco Township.
4. Notification from Classic Communities advising that they are applying to DEP for a General NPDES Permit for stormwater discharges associated with construction activities at Quail Hollow.
5. Notification from Light-Heigel & Associates, Inc. advising that Borough of Dauphin is applying to DEP for a WQM Part 2 Permit for the replacement of approximately 210 L.F. +/- of damaged 10" terracotta sewer effluent main with 12" SDR 35 PVC Pipe.
6. Notification from PinnacleHealth advising that they are in the process of renewing their permit from DEP for the operation of the boilers and emergency generators at Harrisburg Hospital.
7. Notification from Rettew advising that Performance Motors, Inc. is applying to DEP for a NPDES Permit for the wastewater treatment plant expansion at South of Intersection of Lumber Street and Industrial Road in Highspire Borough.
8. Notification from Brinjac Engineering advising that the PA Department of General Services is applying to DEP for a General NPDES Permit for stormwater discharges associated with construction activities (repair and replacement of electrical ductbank and renovation of electrical substation on 7th St.) at the Capitol Complex, Harrisburg.
9. Notification from Raudenbush Engineering, Inc. advising that Nathan R. Crawford is applying to DEP for a General NPDES Permit for stormwater discharges associated with construction activities at the southwest corner of the intersection of Bachmanville Road and Felty Mill Road.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Mr. Haste: We are again at the point in time in the meeting for public participation. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address the Board at this time? (There was none.)

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, it was moved by Mr. Hartwick and seconded by Mr. DiFrancesco that the Board adjourned.