Harrisburg Strong Plan

Municipal Financial Recovery Act
Harrisburg Strong Plan

City of Harrisburg
Prepared on behalf of the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Department of Community and Economic Development
Governors Center for Local Government Services
Originally Filed - February 6, 2012/Confirmed March 9, 2012
Harrisburg Strong Plan Filed August 2013/Confirmed September 23, 2013
Modifications Filed November 25, 2015/Updated February 25, 2016
(This page left intentionally blank.)
Table of Contents
CHAPTER
PAGE
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................... 1
ACCOMPLISHMENTS TO DATE ...........................................................................................................................5
BASELINE OPERATING BUDGET STRUCTURAL DEFICIT ........................................................................17
WORKFORCE AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING .......................................................................................... 22
ELECTED OFFICIALS ...........................................................................................................................................35
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION .............................................................................................................39
GOVERNANCE ........................................................................................................................................................47
BUREAU OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................................51
LAW BUREAU ..........................................................................................................................................................53
BUREAU OF POLICE..............................................................................................................................................55
BUREAU OF FIRE ...................................................................................................................................................61
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ..................................................................................................................66
IMPACT HARRISBURG .........................................................................................................................................76
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ......................................................78
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS .............................................................................................................84
CAPITAL REGION WATER ..................................................................................................................................86
DEBT .. 87
REVENUE..................................................................................................................................................................95
FORENSIC CLAIM ................................................................................................................................................110
Introduction
The challenges the City of Harrisburg (City) faced when it entered Act 47 in December 2010 were overwhelming and the threat
of municipal bankruptcy loomed as a dark cloud over Pennsylvanias capitol city. The path Harrisburg followed in the ensuing
years was difficult, yet through the perseverance of elected officials, the active engagement and participation of numerous key
stakeholders, extremely hard work and willingness to make difficult decisions, Harrisburg was able to emerge from the fiscal
emergency declaration issued by the Governor in October 2011 and move along a path towards sustainability. Indeed,
Harrisburg has made great strides since the confirmation of the Harrisburg Strong Plan (Strong Plan) in September 2013 and has
been viewed on a national platform as a model of how to effectively address what seem like overwhelming fiscal challenges.
The Strong Plan was designed to accomplish the following objectives:
1. Eliminate all obligations (debt, swaps, investments, licenses and contractual obligations to vendors) related to the
Resource Recovery Facility (approximately $360,000,000).
2. Eliminate all debt obligations of the Harrisburg Parking Authority and the City including those that were cannibalizing
City general fund revenues (approximately $100,000,000)
3. Deposit nearly $36 million to the benefit of the City to pay off obligations, reduce accounts payable, balance 2013
budget, leave the City with a positive fund balance for the first time in many years and provide seed money for
infrastructure and economic development projects.
4. Increase net revenues to the general fund to enable the City to operate with a balanced and sustainable budget
(approximately $10 million per year of new revenue coming from parking transaction and increased EIT, and a
reduction in debt service expenses of between $15-$20 million per year for a total general fund improvement of in
excess of $25 million per year).
The Strong Plan accomplished the foregoing goals. It resolved the oppressive debt burden faced by the City in 2008 - 2013. It
also succeeded in breaking the string of consecutive years with larger annual structural operating deficits. With the help of the
Strong Plan, the City has built a modest cash reserve while also improving transparency in day-to-day financial management.
The City finished 2014 with its annual revenues balanced against its annual expenditures for the first time in many years.
That being said, Harrisburg, as with all cities in Pennsylvania, confronts fiscal pressures in addressing its ongoing operational
budget and providing quality services to its residents. Approximately 70% of Harrisburgs budget is made up of personnel costs
(salaries, health care benefits and pensions) and these costs have increased historically and continue to increase each year. Of
course, other expenses increase each year as well; so without a corresponding revenue increase, a deficit will inevitably begin to
grow, and that is what is now occurring. Additionally, the City has determined to build up its internal capacity to provide,
among other things, better neighborhood services and in so doing has committed to increase its full time equivalent
complement and wean the general fund off of inter-fund transfers from the Sanitation Fund much more quickly than
contemplated by the original Strong Plan. The Citys limited growth of its tax base, deferred capital needs and the pressure to
strengthen municipal services, especially in the public safety area, must be more fully addressed for the City to have a
sustainable future. Deteriorating infrastructure, outdated or inadequate technology, and aging equipment and vehicles, all make
the job of financial recovery more difficult. Moreover, the Citys dire financial condition in 2009 forced the City to trim public
services and to meet service demands with limited front-line staff and reduced management capacity. Since 2009, the City has
eliminated 162 personnel positions from the City budget, representing a 27% decrease over the 2009 budgeted staffing levels.
As demonstrated in the table below, no City department has been immune to staff reductions.
Budget FTE 2009 through 2016

2009
Actual
General Government
2010
Actual
2011
Actual
2012
Actual
2013
Actual
2014
Actual
2015
Actual
2016
Budget
Total FTE
Increase/
(Decrease)
Percent
Increase/
(Decrease)
42.4
Mayors Office
-1
-25.0%
City Council
0.0%
Controller
0.0%
Treasurer
6.75
-0.25
-3.6%
Law Bureau
50.0%
39.6
38
30
32
20
17
25
30
-8
-21.1%
17.34
17
15
14
13
15
13
9.4
-7.6
-44.7%
12
11
12
12
12
11
14
16.7%
219
200
176
163
145
150
148
165
-35
-17.5%
Fire Department
93
84
71
71
65
76
76
85
1.2%
Department of Public Works

(Engineer, Neighborhood Services,
Vehicle Maint.)
53
37
42
49
50
46
52
26.5
-10.5
-28.4%
Department of Parks, Recreation

and Enrichment (Now in DCED)
31
22
14
-22
-100.0%
495.34
437
382
370
333
345
354
357.65
-79.35
-18.2%
28.5
23
20
20
19
20
24
66.75
43.75
190.2%
2.35
2.6
2.6
100.0%
Water Utility Fund (CRW)
34.33
29
28
27
-34.33
-100.0%
Sewerage Utility Fund (CRW)
37.83
34
31
32
-37.83
-100.0%
TOTAL UTILITY FUNDS FTE
100.66
86
79
79
19
20
26.35
69.35
-16.65
-19.4%
596
523
461
449
352
365
380.35
427.00
-96
-18.4%
Department of Administration
(Finance, IT, HR, O&R, RM&
Parking)
Department of Community &
Economic Development (formerly
DBHD) (now Planning, BHD, BD,
Arts, Culture & Tourism)
Codes Bureau
Police Department
TOTAL GENERAL FUND FTE
Sanitation Utility**
Host Fee
TOTAL FTE
Source City Finance Office

**Will be renamed Neighborhood Services in 2016. This number includes City Services, Sanitation, and Host Fund FTEs
An important element of the Court appointed Coordinators role in providing oversight to the Citys recovery process is the
need to periodically revisit the Strong Plan to survey and assess what has been accomplished and to evaluate, from a holistic
perspective, how best to respond to evolving conditions, challenges, and successes and make modifications every few years
based on the Citys actual performance. Further, significant amendments to Act 47 were enacted at the end of 2014, (known as
Act 199 which was signed into law after the Strong Plan was confirmed), that require the Strong Plan to provide financial
projections through 2018 (representing the initial five-year term for the City to be under the provisions of the Act). Act 199
now prescribes a firmer date for the City to leave Act 47 status. During the fifth year a review is to be undertaken by the
Coordinator and recommendations made as to whether: the distressed designation should be rescinded; the Receivership
provisions of the Act invoked; a dissolution process undertaken (in limited instances); or a three year exit plan be prepared.
Finally, Act 199 has now provided certain revenue alternatives that were not available when the Strong Plan was enacted.
Given these changes and the fact that it is prudent and common to make certain modifications to a recovery plan every several
years, the Coordinator and his Team have worked closely with City officials in the preparation of a further modification to the
Strong Plan that will provide financial projections for 2016 through 2018 along with attendant recommendations that will
advance the Citys financial recovery towards the ultimate rescission of its Act 47 designation.
This Modification projects that in light of the Citys commitment to increase staffing commencing in 2016, and to wean itself
off of reliance on transfers from the Sanitation Fund by 2017, and in light of limited tax base growth and certain revenues
coming in below projections made in 2013, the City will have annual operating deficits as soon as 2016 unless it takes
corrective action to prevent them. Although the City has done an excellent job of managing expenditures and staying within
budgeted line items, continual growth in the cost of employee pensions and health insurance, including retiree health insurance,
will increase the Citys annual budgeted expenditures. Increased pension costs, primarily with the police pension fund due to
the phase out of the smoothing provisions provided by Act 44 of 2010, will result in a substantial increase in pension costs for
2016 2018.
It is important to acknowledge that some of the revenue sources that had been relied on in the Strong Plan have not materialized
in the amounts projected in 2013, and this has led the Mayor to initiate a request that the City be permitted to avail itself to one
of the new revenue alternatives.1 Earned Income Tax (EIT) revenue collections have been under budget by approximately 10%
and real estate tax collections are slightly below Strong Plan projections in 2015. While parking revenue deposited to the
general fund increased by over $3 million in 2014 which exceeded Strong Plan projections in its first year and is expected to
exceed Strong Plan projections for 2016, the parking cash flows in 2015 were approximately $1 million below Strong Plan
projections due primarily to slumping parking fine revenue. Finally, the Strong Plan had contemplated that funds created by the
parking monetization and set aside for economic development and infrastructure repair would be spent in 2014 and 2015 and
would be the seeds to growth in the real estate tax base and the Earned Income Tax, among other things. This money has been
available since the end of 2013, but has not yet been utilized on behalf of the City due to the time it has taken Impact Harrisburg
to get off the ground. Assuming an increase in City personnel as recommended by the Administration, this will also add to the
Citys annual recurring cost structure.
On the revenue side, Earned Income Tax (EIT) revenue collections have been under budget by approximately 10% and real
estate tax collections are slightly below Strong Plan projections in 2015. While parking revenue deposited to the general fund
increased by over $3 million in 2014 which exceeded Strong Plan projections in its first year and is expected to exceed Strong
Plan projections for 2016, the parking cash flows in 2015 were nearly $1million below Strong Plan projections due primarily to
slumping parking fine revenue. Finally, the Strong Plan had contemplated that funds created by the parking monetization and
set aside for economic development and infrastructure repair would be spent in 2014 and 2015 and would be the seeds to
growth in the real estate tax base, among other things. This money has been available since the end of 2013, but has not yet
been utilized on behalf of the City due to the time it has taken Impact Harrisburg to get off the ground. Assuming an increase in
City personnel as recommended by the Administration, this will also add to the Citys annual recurring cost structure. These
trends, coupled with a limited tax base growth and increases in committed personnel costs, will push the Citys annual operating
1
As informed by the Receivers team and by a national consultant the Harrisburg City Council retained to review the Strong Plan, the
Strong Plan was far superior than pursuing options through bankruptcy court, and was a good start. That being said, the report
delivered to the City by the national consultant to City Council identified the following issues: i. The projections were subject to
uncertainty and variation depending on evolving events, ii. Some assumptions inevitably will not materialize,
iii. Unanticipated events and circumstances will occur, and iv. Therefore, actual results achieved may vary materially. The 2013
projections were based on the best available information at the time and most of the projections are well within an acceptable margin
of error for projections.
budgets out of balance again.

The Coordinator is estimating a $1.8 million structural imbalance in 2016 rising to $3.8 million in FY 18 if no action is taken
and believes that it is prudent to begin to address the underlying issues as soon as possible.
The goal of this 2015 Modified Act 47 Recovery Plan (Modified Recovery Plan) is to provide City officials with a roadmap that
will assist the Citys decision-makers as they continue to build upon their achievements made pursuant to the Strong Plan. This
Modified Recovery Plan will address the aforementioned issues and position the City for eventual rescission of its Act 47 status
under the Act. This Modified Recovery Plan offers the City coherent and comprehensive strategies for balancing its future
operating budgets using the limited tools that are solely within City governments discretion. It offers preferred alternatives that
attempt to assuage the fiscal burden of City taxpayers and current employees, and gives the Citys elected and appointed leaders
and employees flexibility to achieve balanced operating budgets. Finally, it provides more funding for capital improvements for
City services that are essential to improve the Citys quality of life and economic vibrancy and prepare the City to successfully
exit Act 47.
The initial version of the Plan Modifications was presented to the City on November 25. Since that time there have been
various discussions with the Mayor and City Council on the Plan modifications including two public meetings that were held by
Council on January 21 and February 3. The dialog was very constructive and raised numerous items that would further advance
the Citys recovery. Based on those comments the Coordinator has made a number of edits to the earlier version of the Plan.
The comments of the Mayor, members of Council and the public are an important part of the process and are greatly
appreciated. The following document is a result of that process.
The Strong Plan was designed to eliminate the fiscal emergency and to create a foundation that would give the City an
opportunity to succeed. It is now up to the elected officials of the City to grasp that opportunity in order to ensure a stable,
sustainable and healthy financial future.
Accomplishments to Date
On February 6, 2012, the Receiver for the City of Harrisburg filed a recovery plan (Receivers Plan) containing 130
recommendations designed to address the Citys significant structural operating budget deficit, enhance City operations, and
address the Citys untenable debt liabilities. The Receivers Plan was subsequently confirmed by Commonwealth Court of
Pennsylvania on March 9, 2012. This plan provided a long-term road map to improving the Citys financial condition and City
services, though it recognized that the plan also serves as a living document that must respond to changing conditions and
priorities to remain relevant and meet its ultimate objective. The Receiver Plan recognized the challenge in resolving the Citys
significant outstanding debt. It laid out an open and transparent process to sell the Harrisburg Resource Recovery Facility
(RRF), monetize the Citys parking facilities, stabilize water and sewer operations including setting a path for addressing
significant environmental concerns and restoring credit market access and provide for a balanced annual operating budgets. It
recognized that all stakeholders in the Harrisburg community would need to participate in a solution for it to be successful. The
Receivers Plan recognized that once actions on these matters had occurred, the Receivers Plan would be reviewed and updated
and subsequently brought back to the Commonwealth Court for consideration.
Following months of meetings, discussions and significant work by the Receivers Team in concert with City officials, City
employees and creditors, the Receiver in August 2013 filed a modified plan with the Commonwealth Court known as the
Harrisburg Strong Plan (Strong Plan). This plan addressed a resolution to the significant debt obligations related to the HRRF
through the sale of the RRF to the Lancaster County Solid Waste Management Authority and the monetization of the Citys
parking facilities. The Strong Plan addressed the consensual resolution of numerous outstanding creditor obligations, including
those from the RRF and suburban municipalities. The Strong Plan also provided for the transfer of the Citys water and sewer
operation to The Harrisburg Authority (now Capital Region Water), renegotiated collective bargaining contracts with City
employees, imposed an increased Earned Income Tax and created non-profit entities to administer funds provided to the City
from the parking monetization for infrastructure, economic development and other post-employment benefits (OPEB) liabilities.
These latter funds were directed to the City in an effort to provide residents of the City with an improved quality of life and a
sustainable future. Following a public hearing on the Strong Plan, the Commonwealth Court confirmed the Strong Plan on
September 23, 2013.
A key milestone of the Strong Plan was reached with the closing on the sale of the RRF and monetization of the parking assets
that occurred simultaneously on December 23, 2013. This step represented the consummation of the Strong Plan and notice of
said consummation was provided to the Court at that time.
Results of the Strong Plans consummation were significant and are summarized below.
At the time of filing of the Strong Plan, it was estimated that under then current market conditions, the incinerator could
generate a net sale price of between $126 million and $132 million. The final net sale price after pricing the bonds in
the capital markets was $129.9 million.
At the time of filing of the Strong Plan, it was estimated that under then current market conditions, the parking
monetization would generate a lease price of between $258 million and $268 million. The final net sale price paid was
$267.5 million.
Upon closing on these transactions and paying off creditors of the City of Harrisburg, the debt load in the City was
reduced by approximately $490 million. Unlike the prior debt transaction structure, the City is not a guarantor of the
debt service payable on the RRF by Lancaster County Solid Waste Management Authority (LCSWMA) or on the debt
service payable on the parking bonds by PEDFA. This was not merely a restructuring of the City's liabilities, it was an
elimination of debt (see chart below).
Tipping fees were reduced somewhat and the City is now receiving approximately $285,000 per year as a Host Fee
from LCSWMA.
The City immediately enjoyed an increase in parking tax receipts at approximately $1.6 million per year that had been
pledged to parking bonds issued by the Harrisburg Parking Authority (HPA) that were paid off using proceeds from the
parking monetization.
All parking bonds that were guaranteed by the City have been fully repaid or an irrevocable escrow has been
established to provide for payment when the bonds are redeemed in accordance with their terms.
The City used $6 million of parking bond proceeds on December 23, 2013, to pay debt service on its General
Obligation Bonds. This was the first time the City was able to pay any of its General Obligation Bond debt service
since 2011.
The City used $4.5 million of parking bond proceeds on December 23, 2013, to repay nearly 40% of the obligations
owed to the Suburban Communities resulting from alleged over charging of sewer rates.
All amounts promised for deposit by the City for economic development, infrastructure improvements and OPEB were
deposited with Metro Bank on December 23, 2013.
The City ended FY 13 with in excess of $4 million in fund balance and accounts payable of less than $2.7 million.
End of Receivership
The Strong Plan contemplated a point in time when the fiscal emergency would end and as a result the receivership would be
vacated or terminated. At that time, ongoing Strong Plan implementation would be accomplished by a Coordinator in
accordance with the provisions of Section 221(b)-(d) of Act 47.
Upon petition by the Receiver, Commonwealth Court extended the initial two-year term of the Receivership on November 27,
2013. Subsequent to this action, significant benchmarks occurred in December 2013 in implementing the Strong Plan, most
notably the successful closing and funding of the Strong Plans two keystone transactions the sale of the RRF and parking
system both of which occurred on December 23, 2013. The closing and funding of the RRF and monetization of its parking
system transactions conclusively resolved the outstanding emergency fiscal conditions that had existed since 2011 and which
gave rise to the Declaration of Fiscal Emergency. Specifically, the closing and funding of the aforesaid transactions had the
6
effect of retiring the Citys outstanding RRF debt and, consequently, rendering moot the imminent and pending creditor actions
arising from the RRF debt that previously threatened to drain the Citys coffers and preclude the provision of vital and
necessary community services. Additionally, the consummation of the Strong Plan also resulted in the infusion of additional
reoccurring revenues into the Citys general fund that would pave the way for a structurally balanced operating budget through
the recovery period ending December 31, 2016, provided the City otherwise conducted its operations in conformity with the
Strong Plan.
The Receiver filed a Notice of Consummation of the Harrisburg Strong Plan on December 23, 2013, advising the
Commonwealth Court that the Conditions to Consummation had been satisfied, indicating that: the asset transactions were
completed and implemented; the various settlement agreements that were material to the Strong Plan had all been executed and
implemented; and that the required payments or distributions to the City and to the its various creditors as contemplated by the
Strong Plan had been made. Thus, as of December 23, 2013, the statutory criteria set forth in section 602(b) of Act 47 no
longer existed: the City no longer was insolvent, nor was it unable to ensure the continued provision of vital and necessary
services, and the City had adopted, and was in the process of implementing, the Court-confirmed Strong Plan.
While Harrisburg still faces many challenges--including the continued implementation of various components of the Strong
Plan which are designed to ensure the provision of core municipal services, address operational efficiencies, enhance the quality
of life for residents, and foster economic development and private investment in the City, thereby increasing its tax base and
providing for a sustainable future--the conditions precedent to a fiscal emergency outlined in the Governors Declaration of
Fiscal Emergency and supporting Concise Statement of Facts dated October 24, 2011, no longer existed. We emphasize that
while the fiscal emergency is over; there will continue to be significant challenges on a daily basis for Harrisburg as there are
with other Act 47 cities. In his February 6, 2012 Receiver Plan, the Receiver noted that:
1. Approximately half of the property in Harrisburg is exempt from real estate taxes;
2. The revenue sources of core communities such as Harrisburg are insufficient to provide it with the resources to
handle unanticipated financial events and the City will constantly be on the razors edge providing core
government services;
3. Cities are not given significant powers to control labor costs which are approximately 70% of their budget; and
4. Legacy costs will continue to mount as the workforce ages and people continue to live longer.
The Receiver acknowledged in the February 6, 2012 Receiver Plan that these general policy matters went beyond his powers
under Act 47. He concluded that the City must focus on its core services and have other services handled through
intergovernmental cooperation or third party arrangements.
As to this last suggestion, the City will continue to have significant work to do with regard to building relationships with a host
of entities that can provide it with additional capacity and resources. The recent agreement with the Visitors Bureau and
brokering an arrangement between the City Islanders and the Senators are examples of how this can work well; the decline in
shared services between the City and Capitol Region Water (CRW) to $400,000 per year (or less, from a high of $1.2 million),
the Citys inability to recoup some or all of the $1.35 million being held by LCSWMA in an escrow account and its inability to
resolve differences with regard to the park permit and bond financing of the City Island stadium are examples of where more
work is needed.
Thus, in recognition of the end of the fiscal emergency in the City of Harrisburg, and pursuant to Section 608(a) of Act 47, the
Secretary of the Department of Community and Economic Development on January 16, 2014 certified that the economic
conditions that led to the Declaration of Fiscal Emergency had been alleviated and the statutory criteria prerequisite to the
existence of a fiscal emergency were abated. He further requested that the Commonwealth Court terminate the Receivership
effective March 1, 2014, acknowledged that the City shall continue to be subject to the provisions of Act 47 and requested
approval of his appointment of Fred Reddig as Coordinator to oversee the continued implementation of the Strong Plan.
Commonwealth Court Judge Bonnie Leadbetter then issued an order on February 25, 2014 vacating the Receivership effective
March 1, 2014. The order further authorized the appointment of a Coordinator who serves as the successor to the Receiver and
is authorized to perform all functions and responsibilities vested in the Receiver as to the further implementation of the Strong
Plan. Finally the order provided that the Commonwealth Court retained jurisdiction over the provisions of the Strong Plan and
any subsequent modifications to it.
Following the Strong Plans consummation, work then shifted to place an even greater emphasis on operational issues and on
certain additional work necessary to implement actions related to both the RRF and the parking system.
Accomplishments - Monetizations
The following section will provide a summary of the significant accomplishments that occurred as part of the consummation of
the Strong Plan and the resolution of other debt related matters.
Lancaster County Solid Waste Management Authority (LCSWMA)
The Lancaster County Solid Waste Management Authority (LCSWMA) assumed operation of the Resource Recovery Facility,
now known as the Susquehanna Resource Management Complex (SRMC), on December 23, 2013.
DPW Relocation - Pursuant to the terms of the sales agreement with LCSWMA, the City was required to relocate its public
works facility. The City was under a March 23, 2014 deadline to complete the move in order to receive a $300,000 payment
from LCSWMA. Although it was a significant challenge the City was able to meet this deadline and entered into a lease for a
former automobile dealership on Paxton Street. The LCSWMA subsidy will pay for rent on the new facility for approximately
20 months. The City is currently negotiating an extension of the 2 year lease to provide time to consider a long term plan to
address the needs of its public works operation.
Put or Pay - Tonnage from the City of Harrisburg, that was delivered to the SRMC in 2014 was 36,982 tons which exceeded
the Citys minimum required 35,000 tons. In 2015 the City again exceeded its 35,000 ton minimum with 36,636 tons delivered
thus not requiring any additional City payment. With the hiring of a recycling coordinator and the deployment of new recycling
receptacles, the City has experienced a significant increase in recycling volume. The more the City recycles, the less it has to
pay for disposal.
Host Fees - The City is now receiving approximately $285,000 in annual Host Fees from SRMC which are being used for a
variety of purposes including subsidizing the salary of a recycling coordinator. Tipping fees charged for trash originating from
the City have not increased for 2015 or 2016 as agreed to in the transaction.
Escrow Account - The City has approximately $1.35 million in an escrow account securing its obligations to LCSWMA to pay
ongoing tipping fees. It has several options relating to liquidating this account in whole or in part, and providing alternative
security. Transfer of these amounts could help the City pay for new equipment or other necessary capital items. The
Coordinator has recommended that the City work cooperatively with LCSWMA and consider taking appropriate actions to
satisfy LCSWMA so that some or all of these funds can be released to the City.
Since LCSWMAs acquisition of the SRMC, the site has undergone significant improvements and has restored the facility into
a community asset once again.
As of the third quarter of 2015, LCSWMA had invested approximately $8.6 million in the SRMC. LCSWMAs investment has
been in three key areas: 1) improved customer experience, 2) substantial improvements to site infrastructure and aesthetics, and
3) community engagement.
Improved Customer Experience

LCSWMA has emphasized the importance of the experience of both hauling and residential customers and as such has strived
to make enhancements in all areas of their operations. Advances at the SRMC in this area include:
1. Improved site traffic flow and reduced on-site/cueing time by an average of 50%. This was accomplished by moving
the main entrance to 19th Street, installing a new scale house with separate inbound and outbound scales, and construction
of a $5 million transfer building for deliveries of construction/demolition waste and smaller customer deliveries. These
improvements provide operational redundancy, reduces the volume of vehicle traffic moving through the main tipping floor
building, and increases tipping floor safety for customers and LCSWMA staff.
2. Enhanced facility operations through improved traffic management on the tipping floor, use of tare weights on fixed
container vehicles, expanding facility waste acceptance hours, providing timely and helpful communications regarding
adjustments to operating hours or potential delays, and offering various tools and resources to expedite customer on-site
time.
3. Strengthened customer relationships by hosting a customer appreciation day, in addition to an annual customer meeting
for the purpose of sharing information and updates with the management of hauling customers, as well as to engage in
discussion of how LCSWMA can continue to improve customer service and build valuable relationships.
Substantial Improvements to Site Infrastructure and Aesthetics

Operational efficiency and site appearance represent two additional qualities for which LCSWMA is known. LCSWMA
devotes the necessary resources to ensure the functional preservation of its sites and continues to improve its aesthetic
appearance. Images of the improvements made to the SRMC, including before and after photos, can be viewed at
www.lcswma.org/srmc.
Some of the improvements include:
1. Replacing boiler air heater tubes and grate tiles and installing soot blowers in all three boiler units.
2. Constructing a new access road into the ash landfill and addressing numerous issues related to long-neglected leachate
lines.
3. Completing extensive site clean-up, including the demolition of numerous obsolete buildings, removal of scrap
equipment and steel, grubbing of trees and brush, grading and seeding green spaces, and extensive landscaping.
4. Adding new perimeter site fencing with privacy slats, reactivating on-site street lamps, and placing new signage
around the site and on several buildings.
Community Engagement
In addition to the significant investment made for improved customer experience and site infrastructure/aestheticsefforts that
will continue over the next several yearsLCSWMA has also supported the local community in numerous ways:
1. Ongoing recompense to the City of Harrisburg in the way of host fee payments typically exceeding $285,000 annually.
2. Furthering local clean-up and beautification efforts around Harrisburg, including waving tipping fees for hundreds of
tons of litter collected from public areas and providing supplies for The Great Harrisburg Litter Clean-Up and other
community clean-up events.
3. Donating 500 waste receptacles (25% of the total need) to the Better, Cleaner City of Harrisburg campaign in an effort
to provide local residents with the resources necessary to contain trash and ultimately reduce litter.
4. Supporting local non-profit organizations in a variety of initiatives to improve the livability of the local area. Such
focus areas include fostering open space, restoration of much-needed lighting and arts and culture.
Parking
The parking assets as of the Plan consummation were acquired by the Pennsylvania Economic Development Authority
(PEDFA) who has engaged the Capital Area Regional Economic Development Corporation (CREDC) to oversee the operation
and management of the parking operation. Standard Parking Corporation (SP+) is now managing day-to-day operations of the
facilities and PK Harris/Trimont Real Estate Advisors is managing the parking assets.
A Parking Advisory committee comprised of a representative each from CREDC (as the representative of PEDFA); PK
Harris/Trimont Real Estate Advisors, the Asset Manager; Standard Parking Corporation(/SP+), the Operator; the Parking
Authority; the Mayor; City Council; DGS; Assured Guaranty; and the County has been established and is meeting periodically.
The Advisory Committee is intended to serve as a forum for communication and interaction among the parties with interests in
the operation of the Parking System and as a vehicle for customer and public input with respect to the operation of the Parking
System. The Advisory Committee has no decision-making authority; but is empowered solely to provide input to the parties.
The Advisory Board has been meeting twice per year and has convened several public forums to obtain community input on the
parking operation. Input provided has resulted in various enhancements to the parking operations that are intended to provide a
more user friendly system.
A number of new technologies and equipment have been installed since the new operators began managing the system.
Although many were part of the initial plan some of the improvements are the result of the Advisory Board forums. Most
meters in the City now are multi-space pay stations, accept credit cards, allow for pay-by-phone and allow parkers to add time
by phone. The new technology enables parkers to not only pay for their parking, but it reminds them where they parked, sends a
text message when their meter is running out of time, enables them to text the number of minutes they wish to add in order to
avoid a fine, and enables businesses to market, send coupons and validate parking. The Mid-Town meters have a 15-minute
grace period prior to requiring payment and the Central Business district now has a 5-minute grace period at the end of the
period paid for by the parker.
Once installation of the technology in the garages is complete and integrated, additional parking programs and improvements
should become available to workers, merchants and residents. The City has also made arrangements with Park Harrisburg to
reduce meter rates from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. weekdays and on Saturdays for users of the Pango application, and Park Harrisburg has
implemented several changes requested by the City and community members including $5 for after 5 p.m. parking and reduced
lunch time parking at the River St. Garage. The City agreed to subsidize a reduction in meter rates from 5-7 p.m. and on
Saturdays, if certain metrics were not otherwise met. Thus far revenues have exceeded thresholds so there has been no cost to
the City for this program. The City has also come up with a creative use of loading zones for short term parkers for drop off
and pick up needs at downtown businesses. Other programs are also currently being considered.
In addition to the hundreds of millions of dollars of up-front benefits derived from the parking monetization, the City is
receiving very significant additional benefits in the form of annual cash flow from the parking monetization. The Strong Plan
had estimated an increase in annual revenues to the City (inclusive of additional parking tax revenues) of in excess of $3
million per year, and the City realized these additional benefits in 2014 See Parking - Table I below.
Parking - Table I
Change
Group
Parking Taxes
Account Description
Parking Taxes
MBP PARKING FEE
Parking Fees
PARKING LICENSE FEE-PRIOR
Parking Fees
PARKING LICENSE FEE-PENAL
Parking Fees
TOWING FEES
Parking Fees
METER BAG RENTAL
Parking Fees
MBP PARKING TAXES CURRENT
2012
2013
2014
2015
1,507,727
1,613,906
3,100,722
3,289,446
1,781,720
118.2
13,513
13,271
16,721
11,573
-1,940
-14.4
784
476
3,266
2,131
1,347
171.8
2,298
668
3,477
2,007
-291
-12.7
27,775
24,954
28,360
21,665
-6,110
-22.0
171,576
149,706
62,834
21,504
-150,072
-87.5
FINE AND COSTS
91,092
72,919
72,570
49,535
-41,557
-45.6
Parking Fees
BOOTING FEES
16,200
1,925
14,595
8,850
-7,350
-45.4
Parking Tickets
PARK TICKETS-VIO FINE
1,093,142
880,585
1,887,962
1,100,593
7,451
0.7
Priority Parking
Distribution
Rental Income
PRIORITY PARKING DISTR.

HPA RENTAL INCOME
0
24,267
0
0
587,286
20,800
527,900
0
527,900
-24,267
100.0
-100.0
Hbg Prk Auth Coord Pkg
HBG PRK AUTH COORD PKG
250,000
-250,000
-100.0
3,198,374
2,758,410
5,798,592
5,035,205
1,836,831
57.4
Total Parking Revenue
In 2015, while the general fund again benefited from additional parking cash flow, it was a disappointing year in that parking
fine revenues collected were approximately $1 million below projections.2 Because of the successful conclusion of the Verizon
Building project, and an increase in scheduled rates paid under the DGS Vehicle Lease (the Commonwealth had been
guaranteed below market rates for the first two years of the lease), the City is projecting receipt of amounts that exceed the
amounts projected in the Confirmed Strong Plan again for 2016. See Parking-Table II below.
Much has been said about the projections that were used to market the bonds issued in connection with the parking transaction. The
PEDFA bonds were marketed three months after confirmation of the Strong Plan and contained their own set of projections which
were used to market and sell the bonds. The parking revenue projections used to sell the bonds were projected for Guggenheim
Securities by nationally recognized parking consultant Desman Associates. Because Dauphin County was guaranteeing a significant
amount of the parking bonds and ultimately bore a substantial amount of risk, the County retained another nationally recognized
parking consultant (Walker Parking Consultants) to review the projections. Assured Guaranty Municipal Corporation thoroughly
vetted the projections prior to guaranteeing the parking bonds as well. Finally, City Council asked the Receiver if it could retain (and
the office of the Receiver authorized the retention and agreed to pay over $45,000 for this purpose) nationally known turnaround firm
Alvarez & Marsal to review the numbers and identify the risks to the City. Based upon the express statements in the Alvarez and
Marsal report, the City was informed in writing of certain risks including that the Level of uncertainty in the revenue projections is a
risk for the City and the Creditors. Enforcement and meter increases are based on slim underlying data, and therefore carry higher
variability in the forecast.
10
Parking Table II
Amounts built into Addendum 1 of Strong Plan ($ millions)
2014
2015
2016
Line 1
1.10
1.10
1.10
Line 1
3.20
3.20
3.20
Line 4
0.40
0.40
0.40
Line 5
0.50
1.00
1.50
5.20
5.70
6.20
TOTAL
Baseline Tickets and Fines

Parking Taxes/ 20% of off-street;
includes $1.4 m per year increase
Priority payments under waterfall of
Indenture
Priority payments under waterfall of
Indenture
Strong Plan vs. Actual/Updated Projection ($ millions)

2014
2015
2016
Strong Plan
5.20
5.70
6.20
Actual/Projected
5.62
4.66
6.39
Difference
0.42
(1.04)
0.19
Notes:
2014 Actual is based upon City financial statements; includes $.521 m in parking fines outside of Competing Parking Area; $2
m from PEDFA and $3.1 m of taxes.
2015 is based upon City financial statements; assumes $.463 m in parking fines outside of Competing Parking Area; $1 m
from PEDFA and $3.2 m of taxes.
2016 is based upon City budget; assumes $.47 m in parking fines outside of Competing Parking Area; $2.12 from PEDFA
and $3.8 m of taxes.
Amount allocable to 2015 may be increased upon receipt of amounts owed with respect to 2015 parking.
The Asset Purchase Agreement and the Trust Indenture for the Parking Bond transaction have been misconstrued by
some. These documents were executed four months after the Strong Plan was filed with the Commonwealth Court and are not
the projections relied upon by the Strong Plan. The provisions of those agreements were negotiated with credit enhancers and
creditors and ultimately will allow for the City to receive 100% of the excess cash flow (after operating expenses and debt
service) on a priority basis and prior to certain payments to Standard (SP+), Trimont, PEDFA, etc. These contractual provisions
are not guaranteed amounts nor should they be used as forming a basis for the City's budget. These negotiated levels were
designed to provide the City with some of the upside benefits of the parking transaction if, and only to the extent there are
excess revenues. The transaction was negotiated so that if the parking transaction was successful the City would share in the
success. The intent was to have the incentives of the operator, asset manager and City focused on success and aligned.
Parking Taxes and Waterfall Payments

2014 Results of Operation.
As a direct result of the parking monetization, parking taxes to the City increased by approximately $1.5 million, according to
the 2014 audit. This was a result of using parking acquisition proceeds to repay the Harrisburg University Bonds and the
HPA Series U Bonds (these bonds were repaid using upfront proceeds of the parking monetization).
In addition, the amount the City had collected from meter fines ($880.6 K in 2013) was replaced with payments by PEDFA
under the Indenture waterfall. See Parking Table I above for the year over year comparison based upon the Citys records.
The amount of waterfall payments was projected in the PEDFA operating budget and by the City to be $2 million for 2014 and
when taking into account amounts received in 2015 but, allocated to 2014, the City booked precisely that amount. When taken
together, the increase in cash flow with respect to parking taxes and the waterfall resulted in a significant improvement in cash
flow to the City (approximately $3 million more to the City than prior to implementation of the parking monetization). This
improvement in cash flow along with continuing fiscal restraint by the Citys management enabled the City to not only maintain
11
a balanced budget in 2014, but also provided for an increase in its fund balance. The City was also able to adopt a balanced
budget in 2015.
2015 Results of Parking Operations

Due in large part to the disappointing performance of fines and penalty revenues, payments to the City under the waterfall have
declined from last year to approximately $1.0 million paid through November 1, 2015. Tax revenues though continue to be
$1.5 million or more greater than in 2013, with $3.3 million collected in 2015, so the combined benefit of the waterfall
payments and the increased tax revenues resulted in the City receiving approximately $2.5 million more from parking in 2015,
as compared with 2013 (or pre-Strong Plan consummation) results of operation from parking.
Transient revenue ran under budget ($359,501) but was more than offset by higher meter revenues ($764,008).
Monthly contract revenues are for the most part on budget, but for delays in payment due to the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania not having an adopted budget for 2015-2016.
Approximately 300 new occupants of the Verizon Building have begun drawing parking passes and generated
additional revenue for the system in 2015 including additional Local Service Taxes paid to the City.
Fines and penalty revenues are well below budget ($1,567,951). A booting program will be initiated in the near future
that should assist with parkers who disregard tickets issued.
Operating Expenses came in slightly above budget for 2015.
CDM Smith Consulting Report. PEDFA engaged CDM Smith to undertake a review of operations as required under the
Trust Indenture because the 125% debt service coverage ratio was not met in 2014. The coverage ratio was 122%. CDM
Smith, the long-time consultant for the parking system was retained and provided the following findings to PEDFA at its
October 21 meeting.
SP+
It is the opinion of CDM Smith that a much smoother handover from HPA to SP+ could have taken place, including
temporarily hiring former HPA employees. Hence, we believe that SP+ management should have better planned for the
transition from HPA to their firm. This transition also should have included more support from SP+ managers outside
Harrisburg.
It would have been difficult to completely mobilize because the transfer date was uncertain. Devoting resources in a
standby capacity during the holiday season would have been difficult. Further complicating the transition period from
HPA to SP+ was the companys recent merger between Standard Parking and Central Parking becoming SP+.
PK Harris also expressed concern with the on street parking enforcement equipments inability to allow a 5 minute
grace period on parking meter violations. According to SP+, it is a technology issue, and the vendor has not provided
a solution. A 5 minute grace period would engender some goodwill with downtown Harrisburg parkers. (The grace
period has now been implemented)
Enforcement Revenues - Lower than Projected.

There were two key actions SP+ needed from governmental agencies to be able to collect parking violation fine
revenue. On May 27, 2014, SP+ received their Originating Agency Identifier (ORI) from the Pennsylvania State
Police needed to complete their responsibilities in writing parking citations. On November 12, 2014, the City of
Harrisburg passed Bill Number 16 Ordinance Number 13 of Session 2014 that raised the parking violation fee
from $14 to $30, with an additional $20 assessed if it is not paid in 96 hours.
12
On July 22, 2015, Judge Richard Lewis ordered the Magisterial District Courts for the City of Harrisburg to not
accept for filing any summons, citation, or other document charging an infraction where the violation occurred
more than 365 days prior to such filing. Therefore, all tickets issued between January 2014 and July 22, 2014 were
beyond the Statute of Limitations.
Based on Judge Lewiss July 22, 2015 Statute of Limitations decision, all parking tickets issued between January 1,
2014 and July 22 2014 are null and void.
We believe that it would have been difficult to predict the difficulty in receiving the ORI from the State Police and
the parking enforcement enabling law from the Harrisburg City Council. Those two actions, as well as the
organization of AOPC in order to receive and process a large number of parking tickets, resulted in unexpected
delays and ultimately a reduction in enforcement revenue.
Annual enforcement revenue generated from fines and penalties is expected to range from a low of $1.5 million to
a high of $1.9 million once the system settles down and everything is working smoothly.
Overall Performance.
The Park Harrisburg system underperformed slightly in 2014 because it produced a coverage of 1.22, and the
Trust Indenture requires a 1.25 coverage. The 2015 coverage is projected to also fall below the 1.25 requirement.
In 2014, the coverage would have been achieved had the system produced $310,000 of additional net revenue.
Unrecoverable enforcement revenue in the court system from January 2014 through July 2014 is estimated to be
$250,000. Recoverable income from August 2014 through December 2014 is estimated to be $200,000. When the
recoverable income is secured by SP+, the systems 2014 coverage should reach 1.24. We assume that the
recoverable income will be applied to 2014 financial results.
In the absence of the implementation of the Strong Plan, the Citys obligations to repay the incinerator bonds, notes, swaps and
other obligations would have been in excess of $17.5 million in 2015, and the parking revenues would have been approximately
$2.5- $3 million less, which would have resulted in an approximately $20 million deficit (or, 33.7% structural deficit). As a
result of the incinerator sale, the parking monetization and expenditure restraint, last years budget saw a year end surplus which
added to the fund balance of the City. This year there is a projected $1,000,000 budget deficit (or 1.7%) based upon current
cash flow estimates. Because the police, fire and non-uniformed employees will be receiving raises, increased health care
payments and pension payments, and with limited revenue growth, it is inevitable that a structural deficit will again begin to
form, however the magnitude of such deficit will be far less, and management will have a variety of ways of addressing it.
The Verizon Bond Problem has been addressed.

The Verizon Bond Problem is described in greater detail in the Strong Plan, and originated from the fact that the so-called
Verizon Bonds were issued as long term, capital appreciation bonds in 1998 to fill a budget shortfall of the City at the time.
The assumption was that Verizon or someone would be a tenant in the building paying sufficient rent to pay approximately
$41.6 million of debt service from 2016 2033. The City of Harrisburg had guaranteed repayment of all the debt service on the
Verizon Bonds. The Verizon lease ended prior to the requirement that debt service be paid. Therefore, if Verizon moved out
prior to the debt service becoming due, which was expected in recent years, and actually occurred, and the building remained
fallow, the City would be required to pay the entire $41.6 million in debt service.
The Coordinators team worked diligently with the various parties involved through 2014 and early 2015 to develop a viable
resolution to this liability. The negotiation of a lease between Harristown Development Corporation (HDC) and DGS was a
critical component to providing an ongoing revenue stream. The Citys repayment obligations were also structured so as to
make them affordable and provide it with capacity to borrow for capital improvements over the next several years.
The Mayor and City Council had been provided with an executive summary and periodic, in-person updates as to progress on
the Verizon issue during late 2014 and early 2015. The summary provided details of how a tenant was procured, how a rental
rate was negotiated, how a Commonwealth statute had to be changed to accommodate the move, how Harristown Development
Corporation had to make concessions and procure an energy savings based loan for significant improvements to the building,
the approval process involved, how the Citys repayment obligations were structured in order to make them affordable and
provide the City with the capacity to borrow for capital improvements beginning in the next several years, along with the
summary of the Settlement Agreement entered into with Assured Guaranty Municipal Corporation (AGM). The Settlement
Agreement was approved by the Court on March 13, 2015.
Benefits to the City

The benefits to the City of the arrangement that was consummated on January 30, 2015 include:
The Commonwealth as a single tenant, with high credit rating and high likelihood of staying in Harrisburg entered into
a 17 year lease (the entire repayment term of Verizon Bonds).
HDC concessions and DGS willingness to make installment purchase payments provide significant reduction (expected
to be in excess of a $20 million reduction) in City repayment obligations.
HDC is provided incentives to increase the subsidy of City debt service coming from lease payments.
Property remains on the tax rolls generating real estate revenue.
Over $16 million in capital improvements are being made to the three buildings in the Strawberry Square complex.
13
Significant energy savings improvements to reduce cost to Commonwealth and increase amounts available to City.
900 people moving into central business district should help merchants and will increase Local Service Tax to City by
approximately $46,000 per year.
Additional vehicles to be parked in system should increase parking tax collections of the City by approximately
$330,000 per year and total parking system revenues by $1.65 million.
Update on Improvements
The project is on track to be completed by March of 2016 and by all accounts is one of the biggest improvement projects being
undertaken within the downtown area. Work on the 6th, 7th & 9th floor commenced in mid-May of 2015, and was managed
through on-going communication between Harristown, R.S. Mowery and Dept. of General Services representing the interests of
the Department of Human Services. Phases 1 & 2 are now complete with the 6th, 7th and 9th floors successfully occupied by 409
Department of Human Services employees. As of December 15, Verizon has vacated the remaining space and Phase 3
construction has commenced on the remaining floors (4th, 8th, 11th and 12th) with completion scheduled for March 1, when the
new lease commences. DHS move in dates will begin March 1, 2016 and be sequenced following the furniture installation for
each floor. Commonwealth Tower is scheduled to be fully occupied with 771 DHS employees by April 8, 2016. The DGS
Security System Upgrade Project throughout the Capital Complex was coordinated with the security system requirements for
DHS in the Commonwealth Tower. The security system has been completed for PHASE 1 and PHASE 2 with the remaining
floors to be complete in PHASE 3.
As of July 2015, electric costs were down substantially. These savings are a result of three major initiatives. The first is $16
million dollars of energy improvements made throughout the three building complex since January, 2015. The second is a
result of managing kilowatt utilization during defined peak demand days identified by PJM. Energy usage during these defined
peak days affect Capacity rate; through energy usage reduction steps HDC has reduced Pass-Thru Peak Energy Charge by 21%
or $122,866. Finally, HDC is now seeing the impact of its electric commodity rate reduction of one cent per kilowatt which
commenced as of the June billing.
Work on the energy upgrades was a separate project between DGS and HDC that was coordinated with the build out of Phase 1
and Phase 2. Installation of over 37,000 LED replacement lights and occupancy sensors complete, the water fixture retrofit,
building envelope insulation projects, water fixture retrofits, VAV box replacements and steam system insulation are also 100%
complete. Building automation installation and fire system modifications are well underway and will provide significant
improvements to the manner in which we operate our buildings. Chillers were also installed for 333 Market Street and
Strawberry Square.
Verizon Bonds and Overall City Debt Structure

The Citys budget remains quite fragile. Recognizing this fact, the Receiver and Coordinator worked with all stakeholders to
minimize any gap between what the DGS Lease can yield toward debt service and what the debt service obligations are.
To the extent of any shortfall between the net annual lease payments remitted on the Verizon Bonds, plus an amount
the City can reasonably afford to pay under its guaranty and the scheduled debt service, the Strong Plan contemplates
that AGM would advance monies to bondholders sufficient to make up the difference.
This accommodation by AGM will provide the City with some liquidity.
The City will be required to repay any such advances in full and to pay interest to AGM, though it is under no
obligation whatsoever to avail itself to this accommodation by AGM. If it does not take advantage of any AGM
advances, the City will not have to repay anything to AGM.
For such accommodation, AGM insisted on a mortgage on the Verizon Tower, securing repayment of the Verizon
Bonds.
Of utmost importance to the Coordinator is the City's ability to repay over time; the Verizon Bond shortfall without impairing
the Citys recovery. To facilitate the Coordinators discussions with AGM about various City repayment models that might be
employed to retire the Verizon Bonds, estimates were made of what the City might be able to afford and when. In doing so,
the following assumptions and metrics were used:
14
Wait until some of the Citys existing financial obligations under the Plan decline (repayment to Suburban
Communities and General Obligation Bonds), prior to amortizing Verizon Bond obligations so that the Citys
obligations remain level or declining.
Use 10% of revenues as an approximation of the maximum annual amount of debt service obligations the City should
strive for.
Constrain the growth factor for revenues to 1% per year to conservatively model the Citys revenue forecasts and
capacity to service Verizon Bond debt service.
Assume that the City may wish to issue $5 million of debt for capital purposes in every third year commencing in 2022.
The Settlement Agreement has taken the above into account in formulating forbearance and repayment schedules. The below
graphic layers in the Verizon Bonds debt service with the Citys other debt and obligations (AMBAC insured general obligation
bonds, suburban communities repayment and Verizon Bonds are shown in the graphic. The City is also attempting to reform
the Senators Stadium park permit and avoid having to pay any debt service on those bonds.)
City Island; Senators Bonds, parking option and permits.

There remain numerous City Island issues that are yet to be fully addressed including parking issues, DCNR related matters and
the Senators park permit. In addition, PEDFA retains an option with respect to the garage and certain surrounding spaces
located on City Island.
The City has undertaken a more comprehensive review of City Island to determine its best use as a regional asset. There are a
number of issues that relate to the Island that are under review. The City participated in a charrette in the fall of 2014 that was
undertaken by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) to assist with this process. The ULIs report was presented to the City in March
2015 and provided both short-term and long-term recommendations. Key recommendations included developing a master plan
for the Island and centralizing management for island related activities. While meetings with DEP and DCED had been
scheduled to occur over the summer to try to advance this issue, the Mayor asked to cancel these meetings as the City pursues
other priorities.
The legal arrangement with the Harrisburg Senators for the City Island stadium remains an issue as the City has had to make
debt service payments in excess of what is paid to them under the park permit. Historically this has been approximately
$180,000 - $200,000 annually; however, the amount increased further in 2015 to $234,825 due to the Senators withholding
additional 2015 revenue (naming rights and City Island parking fees) from the City. We understand the Senators owners are
holding back payments to the City in order to fund capital improvements to the stadium, thereby increasing the amount of debt
service the City is required to pay under the Guaranty of the bonds.
The City has retained outside counsel to help with the park permit and renegotiation of the arrangements between the Senators
ownership and the City. The City does not desire to pay debt service on the Senators bonds, which it has been doing for a
number of years. Under the Guaranty Agreement and Trust Indenture, the Trustee is supposed to notify the City if it does not
have sufficient sums from the team ownership and the City is supposed to transfer the shortfall. The amount of the transfer by
the City is then supposed to be booked as a contingent asset as the ownership is required to pay the City back out of stadium
revenues. It does not appear to the Coordinator that the City or the Team are following the protocol set forth in the Indenture or
Guaranty. The Coordinator has recommended to the City that it keep track of all advances under the Guaranty it makes so that
if and when there are revenues sufficient to repay the City, the City can be repaid for its advances.
The goal of a new permit/lease is to insure that adequate revenues are received to fulfill the debt service obligations on the
15
stadium bonds. Since a local businessman now owns the Senators, there is a hopeful sign for a renegotiation of the permit. The
Mayor continues to have periodic discussions with the new owner to address issues related to the Senators Park permit in an
effort to resolve this obligation. The Coordinators Team has offered to assist with this effort should the City desire.
Coordination with the Harrisburg Parking Authority (HPA) has also occurred, as certain parking facilities on City Island are
included in the parking monetization transaction. HPA completed a survey of City Island in March 2015 to provide the basis for
the creation of condominiums related to the parking facilities with the parking garage as the primary footprint. HPAs counsel
has worked to prepare City Island legal work for setting up a condominium comprised of the parking garage and a small portion
of the parking lot to accommodate PEDFAs exercise of its option. The exercise of the option is not as important at this point as
DHS decided to provide employee parking within the parking garages in the business district rather than on City Island.
However, the City should put itself in a position well before any option is exercised to accommodate the acquisition of the
garage by PEDFA in accordance with the Asset Transfer Agreement.
Derivatives, Class Action

Both of the Citys guaranteed bond issues, outstanding through the Harrisburg Redevelopment Authority (HRA), had
investment agreements provided by entities that are subject of a class action known as In re: Derivatives. In re: Derivatives has
settled and the payout to various claimants is currently being sorted out. The HRA has filed a proof of claim with respect to
several of its bond issues, including the Verizon Bond issue and the Senators Stadium Bond issues. It is anticipated that the
City will find out in the first or second quarter of 2016 how much of the settlement proceeds will be paid with respect to the
Verizon Bond issue and how much with respect to the Senators Stadium Bond issue. It is further anticipated that amounts paid
to the HRA will be applied to the related bonds to reduce the Citys obligations. It is too soon to tell how much the HRA may
receive, and in turn the City will receive in settlement proceeds in the case.
16
Baseline Operating Budget Structural Deficit

The purpose of this chapter is to estimate the Citys baseline structural deficit (the amount by which the Citys Operating
expenses consistently exceed its revenues) looking forward from 2016 to 2018 assuming no changes as a result of this plan.
2016 2018 General Fund Baseline Projections

Baseline projections for the General Fund were developed for 2016 through 2018 using 2013, 2014, and 2015 operating Budget
Actuals and the Citys 2016 adopted budget. These projections assume that no plan interventions are made to change either
the existing revenue or expenditure trends. In developing these projections, a variety of assumptions were used.
The revenue assumptions used in the baseline projections were as follows:
All tax rates were held constant at the 2016 budgeted levels; fee revenue is based upon the Citys 2016 proposed budget
fee schedules.
Revenue from real estate taxes was reduced by one half percent (0.5 %) annually throughout the period as continuing
assessment appeals may reduce growth in valuations. Delinquent tax collections were included at historical levels.
Other Taxes were reviewed on a line-by-line basis. Earned Income Tax revenue was increased by one half percent
(0.5% ) per year, the Business Privilege & Mercantile Tax revenue by one half percent (0.5% ) per year and the Real
Estate Transfer Tax revenue held level at the 2016 budgeted base. Permit and Fee revenues were increased annually by
one half percent (0.5%). Baseline Local Services Tax revenues were increased in 2016 to account for the transfer of
Commonwealth employees to locations within the City and then by an additional $940 annually which represents 20
new employees yearly in the City.
State aid for pension expense was increased by the historical average annual increase of 2.0 % through the period.
The Commonwealths Allocation for Public Safety Services ($5.0 million) is included in these projections. Grants for
public safety (COPS) were estimated for the 2016 and 2017 years. Other grants were estimated for receipt only in
2016.
Most other revenues are held constant over the period.
Reimbursement of administrative charges from the Neighborhood Services Fund is based on the Citys 2012 Maximus
cost allocation study.
Priority Parking/Ground Lease payments were estimated based on discussions with the Citys Parking System Asset
Manager.
Ground Lease Payments were estimated at $1.166 million for 2016 and increased 3% for 2017 and 2018
The impact of the 2016 budget Neighborhood Services Fund was considered for those revenue and expenditure
categories affected by the transfer of funds and expenditures to the new Fund. Reimbursement for Shared Services
Revenue of $400,000 was removed from the General Fund and is reflected in the Neighborhood Services Fund for
2016-2018
General Fund Revenue Projections, 2016-2018

Revenue
Property Taxes
Earned Income Taxes
LST
Parking Taxes
Other Taxes
Licenses, Permits and Fines
Intergovernmental
Transfers
Ground Lease Payments
Priority Parking Distribution
Other Revenues
Total
2016
Projected
16,715,001
10,716,430
1,978,994
3,812,500
5,045,295
4,531,106
7,515,769
1,911,063
1,166,990
954,810
2,566,361
56,914,319
2017
Projected
16,631,426
10,770,013
1,979,934
3,812,500
5,061,942
4,528,215
7,359,000
811,063
1,202,000
1,798,000
2,572,870
56,526,961
2018
Projected
16,548,269
10,823,863
1,980,874
3,812,500
5,078,671
4,527,834
7,403,880
811,063
1,238,060
1,762,331
2,572,870
56,560,214
% Change
2016-2018
-1.0
1.0
0.1
0.0
0.7
-0.1
-1.5
-57.6
6.1
84.6
0.3
-0.6
17
The expenditure assumptions used in the baseline projections were as follows:
The number of personnel increased per 2016 budget but thereafter held constant at the 2016 budgeted levels.
Wages have been increased as specified in the respective collective bargaining agreements. Wages were increased by
1.0% annually after the expiration of the current contracts. No wage increase are included for non-bargaining unit
employees.
Employee medical costs have been increased by a rate of 6.0% annually. Employee healthcare contributions remain at
rates in the last year of contract for bargaining unit employees and at 2016 budgeted rates for non-bargaining unit
employees.
Other major insurance costs have been projected on a case-by-case basis.
No new debt is assumed. Transfers to the Debt Service fund are assumed using existing amortization schedules.
Municipal pension obligations are increased by 1.0% annually through the period.
Payments to the suburban communities are in accordance with the agreement for reimbursement.
Other expenditures were increased at various levels using the Core Personal Consumption Expenditures Index, held at
budget level, or adjusted based on type of expenditure.
Expenditures are projected to grow from $60.767 million in 2016 to $61.166 million in 2018. The principal factor for the
increase in expenditures is personnel costs, primarily employee medical insurance and wages. Medical insurance increases from
$11.0 million in 2016 to $12.4 million in 2018, an increase of 12.4%. Wages increase from $21.6 million in 2016 to $21.6
million in 2018, an increase of 4.8%.
General Fund Expenditure Projections, 2016-2018

2016
Projected
2017
Projected
2018
Projected
% Change
2016-2018
Expenditure Type
18
Salaries/Wages
Temporary Wages
Overtime
Sick Time Buyback
Medical & Life Insurance
Police Pension
Fire Pension
Fringe Benefits
Total Employee Expenses
21,229,919
200,000
1,577,000
193,000
11,000,000
2,906,315
280,858
2,829,586
40,216,678
21,879,799
200,000
1,577,000
193,000
11,660,000
2,996,275
255,000
2,858,204
41,619,279
22,181,038
200,000
1,577,000
193,000
12,359,600
3,065,364
257,550
2,873,038
42,706,590
4.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.4
5.5
-8.3
1.5
6.2
Communications
Professional Fees
Utilities & Services
Insurances
Rentals
Maintenance & Repairs
Contracted Services
Supplies And Expenses
Minor Capital
TRAN Interest
Street Lights & Signs
Grants
Lease Purchase
Other Capital
Walk to Work Program
Transfer to Debt Service Fund
Fines & Settlements
Total Non-Employee Expenditures
383,114
1,412,021
549,956
1,360,977
145,000
1,196,188
610,330
2,307,785
98,300
674,808
228,287
565,486
18,875
50,000
9,112,527
1,500,000
20,213,654
389,578
1,426,106
560,405
1,383,670
145,760
1,096,760
589,127
2,291,832
93,300
683,639
232,624
507,800
14,139
50,000
8,592,493
1,000,000
19,057,234
396,165
1,440,459
571,053
1,406,795
146,534
1,047,343
567,995
2,305,127
93,300
692,638
237,044
516,272
14,407
50,000
8,761,988
1,000,000
19,247,122
3.4
2.0
3.8
3.4
1.1
-12.4
-6.9
-0.1
-5.1
0.0
2.6
3.8
-8.7
-23.7
0.0
-3.8
-33.3
-4.8
Total Expenditures
60,430,332
60,676,513
61,953,712
2.5
Baseline Projections Summary

2016
Projected
2017
Projected
2018
Projected
2019
Projected
2020
Projected
Revenue
Expenditures
Surplus/(Deficit)
Lost EIT Revenue
56,914,319
60,430,332
-3,516,013
0
56,526,961
60,676,513
-4,149,552
0
56,560,214
61,953,712
-5,393,498
0
56,018,817
63,727,809
-7,708,992
-7,197,868
Net Surplus/(Deficit)
-3,516,013
-4,149,552
-5,393,498
55,912,949
62,549,425
-6,636,476
-7,162,058
13,798,534
-14,906,860
These baseline projections show the City with increasing deficits throughout the period without benefit of increased LST or
other Plan initiatives. It must be emphasized that upon leaving Act 47 at the end of 2018, without Home Rule and/or
Legislative changes to the Local Enabling Tax Law (Act 511), the City will lose its authority for higher Local Services tax and
its ability to levy Earned Income Tax at greater than 0.5%. This will result in lost revenue of approximately $9.7 million. This
equates to a 77.7% increase in current real estate taxes or an 18.7% cut to expenditures excluding pension and debt service.
Act 47 Revenue Loss upon exit
Current RE Taxes 2018
Inc in RE Tax Needed
Inc in RE Levy Needed @ 85.7% collection
$9,700,000
$14,569,485
66.6%
77.7%
If the City is not in a position to exit Act 47 at the end of 2018, the cautionary advice above will still be important for the City to
heed, as by 2021 the ability to replace the necessary tax dollars or cut the necessary expenditures may be even more difficult.
19
Neighborhood Services Fund

In the 2016 Budget proposal, the City realigned a number of its public works functions, combining them with the former
Sanitation and Disposal Funds, creating the Neighborhood Services Fund.
Baseline projections for the Neighborhood Services Fund were developed for 2016 through 2018 using the Citys 2016
proposed budget. These projections assume that no plan interventions are made to change either the existing revenue or
expenditure trends. Given the significant change in City budgeting it is imperative that the City closely monitor the Funds
performance on at least a quarterly basis and make appropriate adjustments as necessary pursuant to REV 08.
Revenues from Collection and Disposal were grown slightly at 2% annually.
Shared Service Revenue from THA of $400,000 was included for 2016-2018.
Other Sanitation Fund Revenue (reported Operations Revenue) was reduced from $150,000 in 2016 to $10,000
in 2017-2018 in line with prior years.
Liens Revenue (reported Operations Revenue) for 2017-18 were held constant at 2016 budget levels
Revenue
Operations
Miscellaneous
Reimb for Shared Service
Transfers
Cash Carryover
Total Revenue
2016
Projected
12,980,440
396,223
400,000
0
2,412,000
16,188,663
2017
Projected
12,843,239
93,329
400,000
0
Expenditures
Personnel
Services
Supplies
Other
Debt Expense/Capital
Transfer to General Fund
Total Expenditures
Surplus/(Deficit)
13,336,568
2018
Projected
13,099,054
93,762
400,000
0
0
13,592,816
% Change
2016-2018
0.9
-76.3
0.0
0.0
-100.0
-16.0
4,287,505
8,220,005
454,000
52,000
1,660,905
1,100,000
15,774,415
4,386,920
8,220,005
454,000
52,000
338,905
0
13,451,830
4,474,055
8,220,005
454,000
52,000
338,905
0
13,538,966
4.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
-79.6
-100.0
-14.2
414,248
-115,262
-53,850
The number of personnel has been held constant at the 2016 budgeted levels.
1.0% annually after the expiration of the current contracts. No wage increases are included for non- bargaining unit
employees.
employees.
Capital Expenditure of $1.2 million is included in 2016 only. Its important that the City develop and implement its
Capital Program and Budget in order to prioritize future capital needs.
Lease Purchase Expenditure reduced to $150,000 in 2017-2018 from $250,000 in 2016
Motor Equipment reduced to $10,000 annually in 2017-2018
Transfer of $1.1 million to the General Fund is included in 2016 only.
All other expenditures were held at 2016 Budgeted levels.
20
Other Funds
The financial status of the City depends upon a number of operational funds in addition to the General Fund. The principal
additional operational funds which must be considered are:
Debt Service Fund Accounts for transactions relating to City debt excluding any guaranteed debt;
Liquid Fuels (Highway Aid) Funds Accounts for Commonwealth funds to maintain streets and roads; and
Host Fee - The Host Municipality Fees Fund is funded by quarterly amounts of host municipality benefit fees received
from The Harrisburg Authority for waste tonnage received and disposed at the SRMC, as mandated by Act 101 - The
Municipal Waste Planning, Recycling, and Waste Reduction Act. The Fund will be used to account for this fee revenue
with the proceeds being made available as a funding source for critical environmental projects and related
administrative costs.
Blight Remediation - The Blight Remediation Fund is responsible for the collection of fee revenue and related expenses
of the City as they pertain to enforcement of ordinances regulating blight and local health, housing and safety codes and
regulations, including expenses related to remediation of blighted conditions, as authorized.
Special Funds Accounts for specifically designated revenue sources and uses.
o Special Events & Project
o Fire Protection
o Police Protection
o Parks & Recreation
o WHBG (Cable Television)
21
Workforce and Collective Bargaining

Overview
As with most local governments, personnel costs for the City of Harrisburg (City) represent the majority of the Citys actual
expenditures. The City requires a substantial workforce to prevent and investigate crime and enforce laws, maintain safe
and clean streets, ensure public safety and deliver other important municipal government services.
Since the Strong Plan was confirmed on September 23, 2013, the City has made significant progress toward establishing a
more stable and sustainable fiscal structure, a major piece of which involves a remodeled plan for workforce expenditures.
The City is fortunate to have a dedicated workforce with many long-tenured employees, The substantial majority of
Harrisburg employees are represented by one of three unions: the Fraternal Order of Police Capital City Lodge No. 12
(FOP), the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees District Council 90, Local 521 (AFSCME),
and the International Association of Firefighters, Local No. 428 (IAFF).
Because Harrisburg was in financial distress, all three of the Citys unions voluntarily came to the bargaining table and
agreed to amend their collective bargaining agreements (CBA) in a cooperative approach to maintaining Harrisburgs fiscal
health, even though there was no legal requirement that any of the unions do so. Specifically, prior to the filing of the
Strong Plan, the FOP and AFSCME agreed to amend their respective CBAs with the City, as reflected in the Plan that was
filed in August 2013. While the IAFF also agreed to amend its agreement with the City, it did not finalize the terms of such
amendment until April 2014 after the Plan was filed and confirmed. In doing so, these employees made sacrifices for the
benefit of the Citys future, voluntarily giving up certain rights in recognition of the Citys dire financial circumstances. In
so doing, these employees displayed their commitment to making a stronger Harrisburg for the next generation,
As a direct result of the Citys three unions willingness to renegotiate the terms of their then-existing CBAs before any of
those CBAs were set to expire, Harrisburg began to achieve savings in workforce costs. These savings were an important
first step in embarking on the long path towards fiscal health, which must be continued in the coming years in order to
achieve balanced budgets and eventually exit from the strictures of Act 47.
As they currently stand, the Citys collective bargaining agreements with the FOP and AFSCME expire on December 31,
2016. The CBA with the IAFF is set to expire on December 31, 2017. Accordingly, the City will need to negotiate this
year with the FOP and AFSCME and next year with the IAFF. Negotiations for successor agreements with each of the
unions will be the first time since the City entered into Act 47 that the unions will be obligated to negotiate all terms with
the City not just those that the unions were willing to discuss and that the City has the right to renegotiate employment
terms with the unions. In this regard, the upcoming negotiations will be radically different from the mid-term negotiations
that the unions voluntarily entered into with the City in connection with the filing of the Strong Plan in August 2013,
Given the significant impact that workforce expenditures have on the overall budget, the City must continue to be vigilant
in managing employee compensation (including both wages and benefits) in order to ensure the City remains fiscally
healthy. Even with the improvements in certain revenues that have been achieved since the Strong Plan was initially
implemented, there remains a continuing need to contain workforce expenditures in light of Harrisburgs still sluggish
revenue growth (both actual and projected).
This Chapter of the revised Plan provides an overview of issues pertaining to the Citys represented workforce, including
headcount, compensation, and pension issues, and then identifies several initiatives that the City must follow when entering
into new labor agreements with its unions, in order to ensure continued compliance with the strictures of Act 47.
22
Employee Overview
Headcount
As of November 2, 2015, Harrisburg employs 366 full-time employees. 332 of the 366 full-time employees are paid out of the
General Fund, while 23 are paid out of the Neighborhood Fund.
The following chart demonstrates the number of employees in each of the collective bargaining units as well as those employees
who are not represented.
Employee Group
Covered Positions
Non represented
Executive, management,
confidential
All sworn Police Officers
FOP
AFSCME
IAFF
Total
All non-executive, nonmanagement, nonconfidential employees not

otherwise covered in FOP or
IAFF
All firefighters, lieutenants,
captains, battalion chiefs,
and deputy chiefs
2015
FTEs
58
132
103
73
Total
Contract Term
N/A
January 1, 2007
(amended in 2013)
- January 31, 2016
January 1, 2004
(amended in 2013)
- January 31, 2016
January 1, 2006
(amended in 2014)
- January 31, 2017
366
Compensation
By far, Harrisburgs largest workforce expenditure is employee salaries. For example, in 2014, salary expenditures from the
General Fund cost the City $20,982,971.00. In addition to salaries, overall compensation includes a wide variety of
components, including, without limitation, longevity pay, shift pay, special assignment pay, other cash premiums and bonuses,
employer-portion of applicable payroll taxes, vacation, holidays, paid leave, active employee life insurance, and other
miscellaneous fringe benefits.
Prior to the confirmation of the Strong Plan, two of the citys three public unions the FOP and AFSCME reached
agreements to reduce a combination of wages and other employment terms and benefits through December 31, 2016. With
regard to salary, the FOP and AFSCME each agreed to wage freezes during the years 2013 and 2014, followed by 1% raises in
the years 2015 and 2016. While no agreement had yet been reached with IAFF at the time the Strong Plan was confirmed,
IAFF thereafter agreed to modifications of its collective bargaining agreement with the City through December 31, 2017,
agreeing to a wage freeze for its members in 2013 and 2014, followed by a 1% raise in 2015 and 2016, and a 2% raise in 2017.
In addition to salary, the Citys union employees receive longevity pay per the terms of their CBAs. While the City achieved
some concessions from its unions with respect to longevity pay, only some of the rates were frozen through 2016.
Specifically, AFSCME agreed to freeze longevity payments as they currently existed in the CBA from September 16, 2013, the
date of ratification of the amendment, through December 31, 2016. Additionally, AFSCME agreed that longevity pay will not
be given to any employee hired on or after September 16, 2013.
At the time of the renegotiations, FOP and IAFF employees received longevity pay at the rate of 1% of the employees base pay
for each year of service after the employees third year, up to a maximum of 13%. As a result of the renegotiations, the FOP
agreed to freeze longevity pay for eligible employees from the date of the ratification of the amendment, September 16, 2013
through December 31, 2016. Further, the FOP agreed that employees hired after January 1, 2013 will not be eligible for
longevity pay, while the IAFF agreed that employees hired on or after April 7, 2014 will not be eligible for longevity pay.
In addition to salary and longevity pay, the City provides other forms of cash compensation in the form of shift differentials,
holiday premium pay, unused sick leave, overtime, and premium pay.
The following chart demonstrates that the City of Harrisburgs paid leave benefits remain more generous than private sector
norms, and are competitive with other state and local government, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics National
Compensation Survey from March 2015.
23
Employee
Group
Annual
Holidays
Personal
Leave
Vacation
after 1
year
6.88
hours
per
month
5 hours
per
month
Vacation
after 5
years
10.63
hours
per
month
6.88
hours
per
month
11.34
hours
per
month
7.34
hours
per
month
19 days
per year
Vacation
after 10
AFSCME
7.5
hours/day
13 days
per year
3 days
per year
AFSCME
8-12
hours/day
13 days
per year
3 days
per year
FOP
13 days
per year
3 days
per year
10 days
per year
16 days
per year
(12)
days per
year
15 days
per year
16 days
per year
(12)
days per
year
15 days
per year
30 days
per year
(22)
days per
year
20 days
per year
(16)
days per
year
20 days
per year
IAFF
11 days
per year
1 days
per year
12 days
per year
(8) days
per year
Private
Sector
Median
State and
Local
Government
Median
8 days
per year
n/a
11 days
per year
n/a
12 days
per year
15 days
per year
18 days
per year
22 days
per year
7.34
hours
per
month
5.34
hours
per
month
16 days
per year
15 hours
per
month
10.63
hours
per
month
16 hours
per
month
11.34
hours
per
month
22 days
per year
Vacation
after 20
years
18.75
hours
per
month
13.74
hours
per
month
20 hours
per
month
14.67
hours
per
month
Numbers in italics apply to those union employees hired after the date of the ratification of CBA amendments.
As the result of the negotiations with the unions that took place prior to the filing of the Strong Plan, the City was able to
achieve immediate reductions in overall healthcare costs savings that need to continue to be achieved in the years ahead.
Indeed, the third party administrator calculated the Citys savings in 2013 to be -5.72% for active PPO members, or $343,838
annually (reduction from $6,007,590 to $5,663,751) based solely on the savings in 2013 on base premiums. In 2014, the third
party administrator calculated the Citys savings to be -10.04% for active PPO members, or $603,424 annually (reduction from
$6,007,590 to $5,404,165) based on the savings achieved over base premium rates that had been in effect as of
Before the unions agreed to amend their CBAs, all units enjoyed different health care insurance benefits, including different
plans and plan designs. For example, FOP employees enjoyed Highmark Classic Blue Coverage, including all medically
necessary tests, chemotherapy coverage, and one routine pap smear per year. IAFF employees were enrolled in Blue Cross/Blue
Shield coverage with Blue Cross 365 Day Special Full Service Coverage, Blue Shield Prevailing Fee Coverage, and Custom
Blue Coverage. AFSCME employees were enrolled in the PPO Blue 100 Plan. These coverages were also made available to
the employees dependents. While AFSCME employees made small contributions towards the cost of their health care
premiums (2-6% of base salary, with higher rates paid by employees with more dependents covered), FOP and IAFF employees
did not contribute at all to the premium costs.
As a result of the amendments, between the fourth quarter of 2013 and January 1, 2014, all AFSCME, FOP, and IAFF
employees were moved to the Basic Health Plan provided to all City employees, the main features of which are as follows:
Select PPO Blue plan
Coinsurance of 90% in-network/70% out-of-network after deductible is met
Deductible of $250 for in-network services and $500 deductible for out-of-network services
$20 in-network and $40 out-of-network co-pays for office visits
24
$100 co-pay for ER visits

$500 maximum out-of-pocket for in-network services/$1,000 maximum out-of-pocket for out-of-network services
Additionally, for the first time, FOP and IAFF employees began to contribute toward the cost of their health care premiums.
FOP employees agreed to share in the cost of their premiums on the same schedule as the AFSCME employees agreed to, based
on percent of base salary and tier of coverage, as set forth in the chart below. For FOP employees, the base salary used to
calculate contributions was that of a 6-year patrol officer.
FOP and AFSCME Premium Contribution Chart
Single coverage
2 person coverage
3 person coverage
4 or more person coverage
2013
1.0%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
2014
1.5%
2.5%
3.0%
4.0%
2015
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
2016
2.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
Beginning as of February 1, 2014, IAFF employees began contributing towards the premium costs of their health insurance
coverage at the rate of $40 per biweekly pay for single coverage, and $90 per biweekly pay for two or more person coverage.
All three amended agreements provide that, beginning January 1, 2015, if the Citys increases in its medical and health COBRA
rates exceed 6% over the prior years rates, the City and the unions shall negotiate changes in the design of the health care plans
to reduce the burden on the City that such increases would pose. If the parties are unable to reach agreement over changes in
plan design that would sufficiently reduce costs, then either party had the right to request expedited interest arbitration.
As a result of all of the changes in plan design and employee contributions to health care costs, the City realized a cost
reduction of over $650,000 annually for the three bargaining units since the changes were implemented.
In addition to health care offered for active employees, the City also provides for certain post-retirement health benefits.
Although the City cannot change the plan design for employees who have already retired as of the date of the amendments, both
the FOP and AFSCME agreed to change entitlements with respect to active employees and future employees (those who have
yet to be hired). All units agreed that future employees of the City shall not be entitled to receive post-retirement health care at
the Citys cost. As to benefits provided to active employees upon their eventual retirement, all units also agreed that the
coverages would be provided at levels that are the same as active employees, and that such retiree coverages may be modified
from time to time if similarly modified for active employees. All units also agreed that retirees would contribute a portion of
their pension towards the premium costs for healthcare coverage, though the IAFF carved out this obligation with respect to
certain active employees.
Another item of potential adverse impact on the budget is a pending class action grievance filed by the IAFF on behalf of the
Harrisburg Bureau of Fire members who entered the Fire Academy in March 2014 and began receiving pay from the City at that
time. In the grievance, it is alleged that this class of individuals is not being afforded the proper benefits in accordance with the
former iteration of the CBA (pre-April 2014 amendments). It is the Coordinator's understanding that City employees in cadet
status, whether attending the Fire Academy or Police Academy, are not members of the respective bureaus/bargain units until
they graduate and are sworn into service by the Mayor. Accordingly, they are not afforded the benefits of collective bargaining
until such time and are, likewise, not obligated to pay dues or participate in any other bargaining unit activities. It is the
Coordinator's further understanding that that the City and the IAFF were both aware at the time of the amendments that fire
cadets enrolled in the Fire Academy at the time the amendments would join the bargaining unit upon being sworn in by the
Mayor pursuant to the terms of the amended agreement. An arbitration of that grievance will not be held until March 2016 or
later. While the coordinator is hopeful that there will be a favorable decision, an adverse decision will create further restraints
on the maximum expenditures available for the IAFF unit.
25
Other Post-Employment Benefits

Harrisburg OPEB Trust Fund
Prior to the adoption of the contract amendments with the three collective bargaining units, the City provided post-retirement
health care benefits to all employees. The actuarial report delivered at the beginning of 2013 estimated that the City had an
unfunded accrued actuarial liability relating to these benefits of more than $177 million. Taking into account some of the
contract provisions that were both administratively expensive and added to this unfunded liability of the City, some of the
contract amendments were tailored to reduce both the stress on the administration and cost of the benefits. Further, this postretirement benefit has now been eliminated for all employees hired after the adoption date of the respective CBA amendments
and for non-represented employees hired after September 18, 2013. Employees who were hired prior to the amendments as
well as current retirees, however, are still entitled to post-retirement health care benefits. As of the most recent actuarial
valuation date of January 1, 2014, the Citys unfunded accrued liability for post-retirement health care benefits was reduced to
$133,006,585 (approximately $44 million less than reported prior to consummation of the Strong Plan). At least as important as
this reduction in the unfunded accrued actuarial liability is the fact that this reduction in liability should also translate into less
pressure on the General Fund to pay the benefits included in the liability.
As a resource to assist in funding the Citys post-retirement health care benefits commonly referred to as Other PostEmployment Benefits (OPEB) the Receiver set aside $3.7 million from the parking monetization as the initial deposit for an
OPEB Trust Fund. The purpose of the Harrisburg OPEB Trust Fund is to provide a source of future and ongoing funding for
the City's OPEB obligations, improve the City's financial statements, and demonstrate the City is proactively addressing its
unfunded OPEB liability through prudent fiscal management. The Government Finance Officers Association ("GFOA")
recommends pre-funding OPEB in a trust, given that the benefit is earned on an actuarial basis (i.e., over the working life of the
employee) as opposed to paying for each year's OPEB expense through budgeted contributions on an annual "pay-as-you-go"
basis. Historically, the City and other public entities have funded OPEB on a pay-as-you-go-basis, which is the simplest and
cheapest option in the short term, though it does not recognize the growing liability that typically occurs. In the long term,
however, pre-funding at least a portion of the OPEB liability or paying the entire estimated current cost and the amortization of
the unfunded portion of the liability offers significant advantages and, when coupled with responsible cost-containment
measures and benefit design, will help ensure the sustainability of the City's OPEB obligations.
Another advantage of the OPEB Trust Fund is its favorable impact on the City's financial statements. The Government
Accounting Standards Board ("GASB") has prescribed certain requirements for a trust used to prefund OPEB that, if met, will
allow the City to reduce the reported OPEB liability on its financial statements and calculate its unfunded OPEB liability using
an advantageous discount rate, both of which should positively impact its credit rating. To comply with the GASB trust
requirements, the Harrisburg OPEB Trust must be irrevocable and the assets generally must (1) not revert to or be used by the
City other than for provision of OPEB to retirees and their beneficiaries, (2) be legally protected from the City's creditors, and
(3) be held in a tax-exempt trust. An Internal Revenue Code Section 115 trust is the preferred OPEB funding vehicle for many
public employers because it is administratively less burdensome than other tax-exempt trust options, which require an Internal
Revenue Service filing to confirm the trusts tax-exempt status and ongoing compliance with applicable IRC requirements to
maintain such tax-exempt status.
In accordance with the Strong Plan, a dedicated OPEB Board must be established as a separate legal entity governed by a board
of trustees comprised of nine (9) members. The composition of the Harrisburg OPEB Board is as follows:
1 individual appointed by the FOP

1 individual appointed by AFSCME
1 individual appointed by the IAFF
2 individuals appointed by City Council
2 individuals appointed by the Mayor
2 individuals appointed by the Receiver
The OPEB Trust Board shall prepare a trust agreement, an investment policy statement and a custodial agreement (the "OPEB
Trust Documents") and submit these documents to the Commonwealth Court for approval. Upon the Courts approval of same,
the City and City Council, shall take all necessary action to facilitate and effectuate the formation of the Harrisburg OPEB Trust
Fund, pursuant to the OPEB Trust Documents and this revised Plan. The OPEB Board members will be fiduciaries with the
duty to act in the exclusive interests of the beneficiaries of the Harrisburg OPEB Trust Fund and not the City.
Actions of the Harrisburg OPEB Board

Distributions from the Harrisburg OPEB Trust Fund will be made only at the direction of the OPEB Board by Board action.
The City may not, without unanimous OPEB Board approval, access the funds in the Harrisburg OPEB Trust Fund to satisfy
26
current OPEB payments to participants if, at the time such OPEB payments are due, the City has any "unfunded actuarial
accrued liability" such that the present value of OPEB benefits that have accrued to date exceeds the funds set aside in the
OPEB Health Care Trust, as determined by the City's independent actuary under GASB 45. As stated in the Strong Plan, the
amount maintained in the OPEB Trust Fund may never be transferred or loaned for any purpose to the Citys General Fund.
The OPEB Board will select a custodian for the trust assets and an independent third-party investment adviser to oversee the
investment funds and establish an investment policy subject to any City requirements and procedures for entering into similar
contracts and arrangements. The OPEB Board will separately pay from the funds maintained in its trust account all fees related
to the ongoing administration of the Harrisburg OPEB Trust Fund. Additionally, although the City will generally retain the
power to amend the Harrisburg OPEB Trust Fund, no amendment will be permitted without approval of the OPEB Board. No
such amendment will be permitted to the extent it would cause the Harrisburg OPEB Trust Fund to lose its status as a GASB
trust, to be revocable, or to provide for distributions when the City has any "unfunded actuarial accrued liability" for OPEB so
that the present value of OPEB benefits that have accrued to date exceeds the funds set aside in the OPEB Trust, as determined
by the City's independent actuary under GASB 45. In the event the receivership is vacated or terminated and a coordinator is
appointed by the Secretary of DCED ("Coordinator") to oversee the continued implementation of the Plan, no amendment will
be permitted without the approval of said Coordinator.
Pensions
Based on the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report of the City of Harrisburg for the year ended December 31, 2014 and the
Certification of the City of Harrisburgs Minimum Municipal Obligation (MMO) under Act 205 of 1984 for 2016, the City
will be required to pay a net amount of approximately $1 million, after receipt of aid from the Commonwealth, to satisfy its
obligations with respect to the Combined Police Officers Pension Plan (the Police Plan), the Combined Non-Uniformed
Employees Pension Plan (the Non-Uniformed Plan) and Combined Firefighters Pension Plan (the Firefighters Plan)
(collectively, the Pension Plans).
The modifications to the funding of the Pension Plans on account of changes regarding the Pension Plans in the most recent
amendments to the respective CBAs may impact the Citys financial obligations. In particular, collectively bargained changes
may affect the Citys progress in reducing the underfunding of the Police Plan, which is a single-employer pension plan
controlled by an independent board of trustees. Diligent efforts should be undertaken to monitor the Police Plans funded status
and reduce the potential for increased underfunding of the Police Plan. The Non-Uniformed Plan (for AFSCME employees) and
the Firefighters Plan, both of which are part of the Pennsylvania Municipal Retirement System (PMRS), are presently fully
funded. However, the funded status of the Non-Uniformed Plan and Firefighters Plan should also be carefully monitored to
ensure that they remain fully funded to reduce the likelihood of materially increased future calculations by the City.
Actuarial assumptions for Non-Uniformed and Firefighters Plans are set by PMRS and use a return on investment (ROI) of
5.5% and wage growth of 4.1%. The Police Plan, which is locally administered, uses an ROI of 8% and wage growth of
5%. For 2014, the Police Plan had an ROI of 6.05% - which is 2% below the actuarial assumed rate.
The following chart demonstrates the unfunded liability of the Police Plan in comparison to the Firefighters Plan and the NonUniformed Plan:
Non-Uniformed
Active Members
Retired Members
Unfunded Liability
January 2009
307
January 2011
270
($19,077,693)
($21,568.647)
January 2013
229
179
($21,788,396)
Fund Ratio
135%
139%
136%
IAFF
Active Members
Retired Members
Unfunded Liability
January 2009
93
January 2011
83
($12,009,756)
($13,201,626)
January 2013
72
123
($10,008,099)
Fund Ratio
FOP
Active Members
Retired Members
Unfunded Liability
123%
January 2009
161
124%
January 2011
165
$1,992,355
$8,543,570
116%
January 2013
146
176
$13,526,580
Fund Ratio
97%
88%
83%
27
Initiatives
As with many municipal governments, workforce expenditures represent the majority of the Citys general fund expenditures.
Restoration of Harrisburgs financial health is dependent upon controlling workforce compensation. The initiatives outlined
below are intended to move the City toward a more stable and balanced budget so that the City can focus on improving the
Citys financial recovery, rather than merely limping on as a struggling municipality.
As a result of a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision involving collective bargaining and interest arbitration issues in Scranton,
significant amendments were made to Act 47, commonly referred to as the Act 133 Amendments of 2012 (Act 133
Amendments). As amended, Act 47 now requires the coordinator to project revenues and expenditures for the current and next
three fiscal years, and develop a capped amount for each city bargaining unit to be available for total compensation for
employees in that unit. For that reason, and unlike the predecessor Strong Plan, this Plan separates the costs related to each of
the Citys collective bargaining units included in the overall cost projections in the Plan so that each bargaining unit can have an
active role in collectively bargaining for those terms of compensation that are most important to the employees in such unit.
With limited exceptions, arbitration awards under Act 111 are subject to this amendment of Act 47 and preclude arbitrators
from imposing financial terms on the City that would require it to pay overall compensation to its employees that exceeds the
amounts set forth in this Plan. Although the Act 133 Amendments had been passed prior to the filing of the Strong Plan, the
City was not able to impose those obligations on the bargaining units because none of their contracts had yet expired. Those
obligations can now be imposed since each units CBA will expire at some point during the term of this revised Plan.
WF01
Maximum Compensation Allocations and Costing Analysis

Target Outcome:
Maintaining budget stability and cost reduction
Five Year
See below
Financial Impact
Responsible
Mayor/City Council/Department Heads
Party
Impacted
All employee groups
Employee Group
Pursuant to the Act 133 Amendments, this Plan will set the maximum amounts of funds that are available to each bargaining
unit and non-represented employees for each of the next three years. The maximum expenditures for each employee group
show the baseline costs prior to any adjustments through upcoming negotiations or arbitration as well as any allowances
for collective bargaining. Compensation components impacted by negotiations include, but are not limited to: wages/salaries,
longevity, shift pay, special assignment pay, other cash premiums and bonuses, applicable payroll taxes, vacation, holidays,
paid leave, active employee health care, active employee life insurance, and other miscellaneous fringe benefits. Included in the
maximum allocations for each year are the costs carried forward from recurring increases in prior contract years.
Projected costs for the FOP unit are set forth in the chart below. These projections are based on a 1% increase in base wages for
each of the next three years and longevity being frozen at current rates for the officers receiving longevity payments. The
increases shown for salaries/wages-extra duty and for social security are based on the anticipated 1% increase in base salary per
year. There is no estimated increase in overtime, sick leave buy-back, or severance so the projected increase in base salary rates
may have to be adjusted if there is to be any changes to these items. The projections for the clothing allowance are based on a
cost of $625 per new employee for 3 years, and there is no estimated increase in this cost. The total medical costs are limited to
a 6% increase due to the FOPs collective bargaining agreement, which provides that, beginning January 1, 2015, if the Citys
increases in its medical and health COBRA rates exceed 6% over the prior years rates, the City and the FOP shall negotiate
changes in the design of the health care plans.
28
FOP Category
Salaries & Wages
Longevity
Salaries/Wages-Extra Duty
Overtime
Sick Leave Buy Back
Severance Pay
Social Security
Clothing Allowance
Subtotal
Medical Police Active
Medical Contributions
Total Medical
Total for FOP
2016
Projected
9,091,326
631,423
769,502
500,000
75,000
197,191
163,334
112,382
11,540,157
2017
Projected
9,384,777
638,925
793,321
500,000
75,000
200,000
165,184
112,382
11,869,589
2018
Projected
9,609,516
645,314
811,613
500,000
75,000
200,000
168,801
112,382
12,122,626
%
Change
5.7
2.2
5.5
0.0
0.0
1.4
3.3
0.0
5.0
2,022,185
-361,152
1,661,033
2,125,458
-364,763
1,760,695
2,234,747
-368,411
1,866,336
10.5
2.0
12.4
13,201,190
13,630,284
13,988,963
6.0
Projected costs for the IAFF unit are set forth in the chart below. Pursuant to their collective bargaining agreement, IAFF
employees will receive a base wage increase of 1% for 2016 and 2% for 2017. The projections for salaries and wages in 2018
are based on a 1% increase in base wages. Longevity projections have been calculated pursuant to the rates agreed to in the
collective bargaining agreement, which is an increase of 1% of base pay for every year of service over three (3) years, up to a
maximum of 13%. Retirement projections are based on four (4) new hires in 2016 and two (2) new hires in 2017. The increases
shown for premium pay and for social security are based on the anticipated increase in base salary per year. There is no
estimated increase in overtime, sick leave buy-back, severance, clothing allowance, clothing maintenance allowance, or college
credits so the projected increase in base salary rates may have to be adjusted if there is to be any changes to these items. The
total medical costs are limited to a 6% increase due to IAFFs collective bargaining agreement, which provides that, beginning
January 1, 2015, if the Citys increases in its medical and health COBRA rates exceed 6% over the prior years rates, the City
and the IAFF shall negotiate changes in the design of the health care plans.
2016
Projected
4,521,507
319,317
0
650,000
365,000
112,000
92,831
250,000
85,000
10,000
6,800
6,412,455
2017
Projected
4,711,827
345,515
-258,601
650,000
361,827
112,000
91,769
250,000
85,000
10,000
6,800
6,366,137
2018
Projected
4,822,508
379,546
-405,813
650,000
361,639
112,000
92,864
250,000
85,000
10,000
6,800
6,364,545
%
Change
6.7
18.9
0.0
0.0
-0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.7
Medical
Employee Contribution
Total
1,118,071
-60,320
1,057,751
1,181,536
-60,320
1,121,216
1,248,809
-60,320
1,188,489
11.7
0.0
12.4
Total IAFF
7,470,206
7,487,354
7,553,034
1.1
IAFF Category
Salaries & Wages
Longevity
Retirements
Overtime
Premium
Sick Leave Buy-Back
Social Security
Severance Pay
Clothing Allowance
Clothing Maint Allowance
College Credits
Subtotal
Projected costs for the AFSCME unit are set forth in the chart below. These projections are based on a 1% increase in base
wages for each of the next three years and longevity being frozen at current rates for those employees receiving longevity
payments. The increases shown for social security are based on the anticipated increase in base salary per year, and are
calculated at 7.65% of wages. There is no estimated increase in overtime, sick leave buy-back, or clothing allowance, so the
projected increase in base salary rates may have to be adjusted if there is to be any changes to these items. The total medical
costs are limited to a 6% increase due to AFSCMEs collective bargaining agreement, which provides that, beginning January 1,
2015, if the Citys increases in its medical and health COBRA rates exceed 6% over the prior years rates, the City and the
AFSCME shall negotiate changes in the design of the health care plans.
29
2016
Projected
4,920,607
43,917
122,000
9,100
389,815
112,382
5,597,821
2017
Projected
4,969,813
44,356
122,000
9,100
393,613
112,382
5,651,264
2018
Projected
5,019,511
44,800
122,000
9,100
397,449
112,382
5,705,242
%
Change
2.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
1.9
Medical AFSCME Active

Total Medical
1,619,300
-218,888
1,400,412
1,705,514
-221,077
1,484,437
1,796,791
-223,288
1,573,503
11.0
2.0
12.4
Total for AFSCME
6,998,233
7,135,701
7,278,745
4.0
AFSCME Category
Salaries & Wages
Longevity
Overtime
Sick Leave Buy Back
Social Security
Clothing Allowance
Subtotal
Projected costs for non-represented employees are set forth in the chart below. Consistent with the projections for bargaining
unit employees, these projections are based on a 1% increase in base wages for each of the next three years and longevity being
frozen at 9% for those employees receiving longevity payments. The total medical costs are limited to a 6% increase.
2016
Projected
3,710,027
283,817
3,993,844
2017
Projected
3,710,027
283,817
3,993,844
2018
Projected
3,710,027
283,817
3,993,844
%
Change
0.0
0.0
0.0
Medical Management Active

Total Medical
837,968
-135,906
702,062
880,092
-135,906
744,186
924,743
-135,906
788,837
10.4
0.0
12.4
Total for Non-Represented
4,695,906
4,738,030
4,782,681
1.8
Non-Represented Category
Salaries & Wages
Social Security
Subtotal
For those employees represented by a union, the City and the respective bargaining units may agree to spend the allocation on
various compensation components so long as they mutually determine that such an allocation is appropriate. This is subject to
the specific limitations laid out in this Plan. The City and the unions shall not exceed the annual allocations in the above chart.
The City shall avoid any compensation adjustments that result in disproportionate long-term costs.
The City must ensure that future collective bargaining agreements continue to remain compliant with the Plan. To that end, no
person or entity, including (without limitation) the City, any union representing City employees and any arbitrator appointed
pursuant to Act 111 or otherwise, shall continue in effect past the stated expiration date of any current labor agreement the
wages, benefits or other terms and conditions of the existing labor agreement if such wages, benefits or other terms or
conditions are inconsistent with the initiatives made in this updated Plan.
If any existing collective bargaining agreements and/or amendments or extensions are void or voidable, no person or entity,
including (without limitation) the City, any union representing City employees and any arbitrator appointed pursuant to Act 111
or otherwise, shall continue in effect past the stated original expiration date of the prior collective bargaining agreement the
wages, benefits or other terms and conditions of the prior existing labor agreement if such wages, benefits or other terms or
conditions are inconsistent with the initiatives made in this updated Plan.
All collective bargaining agreements, interest arbitration awards, settlements, memoranda and agreements of any kind issued or
entered into after the approval of this updated Plan must be effective at the earliest possible date, and no later than the expiration
of the then-current and legally binding collective bargaining agreements and interest arbitration awards. This shall apply even if
the agreement is entered into or the arbitration award is executed subsequent to the effective dates, thus requiring that the
agreements or awards be retroactive. No collective bargaining agreements, interest arbitration awards, settlements, memoranda
and agreements of any kind issued or entered into after the approval of the Plan may extend the current expiration dates of the
existing agreements and awards, nor the expiration dates of the prior unextended and unamended agreements and awards if such
extensions are void or voidable.
30
The current collective bargaining agreements for the FOP and AFSCME units are set to expire December 31, 2016. The current
collective bargaining agreement for the IAFF unit is set to expire December 31, 2017. The City shall take steps to promptly
bargain new collective bargaining agreements with each of these units and shall follow all time limits for interest arbitration so
that any interest arbitration award shall be issued prior to the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement. This shall also
equally apply if any or all of the existing amendments to the collective bargaining agreements are void or voidable. The
timelines contained in Act 111 shall be adhered to strictly and may not be waived. If an arbitration award is not issued prior to
the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement then the City shall implement all of the provisions and initiatives of the
Plan to the maximum extent legally consistent with applicable law.
Unless and until this revised Plan is confirmed, any new labor agreement between the City and any union representing City
employees (whether resulting from collective bargaining, interest arbitration pursuant to Act 111 or otherwise) must comport
with the Initiatives set forth in the original Strong Plan, without regard to the period of agreement specified in any such
Initiative. Once this revised Plan is confirmed, any new labor agreement between the City and any union representing City
employees must comport with the Initiatives as set out in this revised Plan.
For any proposed changes to the Compensation Components in place at the expiration of the current collective bargaining
agreement or any new Compensation Components proposed, the City shall conduct a full cost analysis of those changes for
each year of the proposed collective bargaining agreement (or annually for non-represented employees) to determine and assure
that the maximum allocations shown above are not exceeded. The City shall provide the full cost analysis information to the Act
47 Coordinator in form and content acceptable to the Coordinator as soon as possible for the Coordinators review and
approval. If the Act 47 Coordinator determines that the proposals exceed the maximum allocated amounts, the proposals shall
be returned to the bargaining units or employees and the City for modification. The Act 47 Coordinator will not approve any
cost analysis if the Coordinator determines that inadequate information is provided to verify the cost analysis or if the analysis
is not provided in a timely manner. The intent of this provision is that the Act 47 Coordinator is the final decisionmaker as to
the cost of any proposed change to a compensation component, whether those proposed changes occur during labor agreement
negotiations or during arbitration of any such agreement or at any other time.
In providing this costing analysis the City shall include the following information for each Compensation Component for which
there is a proposed change or any new Compensation Component proposed:
Current rate, formula, leave allocation structure, or other standards that are in place for that Component and the
proposed changes to the Component.
Number of employees in the bargaining unit who currently receive the Component, those who will become eligible for
the Component during the term of the agreement under the status quo and those who would become eligible for the
Component during the term of the agreement under the proposed change (e.g., X employees receive shift differential in
2014, Y will receive shift differential in 2015 under the status quo, Z will receive shift differential in 2015 under the
proposed change). This data should be provided on an annual basis for each year of the collective bargaining agreement
where appropriate.
Average salary of the employees who currently receive the Component and the average salary of the employees who
would receive that Component under the proposal. This information shall be provided at the bargaining unit, position or
whatever other level of detail is appropriate to the proposed change.
The number of hours per shift and, if applicable, shifts per 24-hour period.
Any applicable minimum staffing requirements or assumptions. If the proposed change affects overtime, the costing
shall include an estimate on how the proposed change will impact overtime.
Actuarial analysis, as applicable, of any modifications to retiree benefits.
The above list is provided to guide the City in providing adequate costing analysis and is not a comprehensive list of the
information that the Act 47 Coordinators may request to verify costing analysis. All items may not apply depending on the
change proposed. If the City does not provide additional information requested by the Coordinators, the Coordinators reserve
the right to return the analysis for modification.
31
WF02
Retain Experienced Public Labor Relations Counsel to Negotiate with Unions and/or
timely Initiate Process to Pursue Interest Arbitration
Target Outcome
Ensuring thoughtful and strategic negotiations designed to
achieve meaningful cost savings and eliminate wasteful
practices
Five Year Financial Impact
Not available
Responsible Party
Mayor/City Solicitor
Impacted Employee Group
All represented employees
Throughout the period in which this revised Plan is in effect (as well as during all periods prior to the confirmation of this
revised Plan), the City shall retain and continue to retain experienced public employment labor counsel to negotiate successor
CBAs to take effect following the expiration of the FOP and AFSCME agreements at the end of 2016 and IAFF at the end of
2017. The City shall select and use qualified counsel as an active participant in the review and development of negotiations and
as the chief spokesperson for all contract negotiations and interest arbitrations.
Having an experienced public employment labor counsel will allow the City to address past practices that unnecessarily
increase the cost of operations and are permissive subjects of bargaining. After ascertaining such past practices, the City shall
provide a list of such practices to the Act 47 Coordinator prior to the initiation of collective bargaining negotiations with each
union.
In negotiating the new CBAs, the Citys labor counsel should attempt to integrate any relevant amendments to each of the
agreements into a final and comprehensive document. This way, the City and the respective unions will be able to ensure that all
parties are fully aware of and understand all relevant provisions of the successor agreements and that the expenses associated
therewith can be most accurately forecasted. Pursuant to the Act 133 Amendments, the City is legally precluded from entering
into any CBA with any union where the costs associated therewith would exceed the amount allocated by this revised Plan. A
fully integrated document would help the City to ensure that any agreements it negotiates are in compliance with the Act 133
Amendments.
The City shall make every good faith effort to achieve negotiated labor agreements consistent with this revised Plan (or,
pending confirmation of this Plan, the Strong Plan). If negotiations do not result in new agreements with one or more of the
three unions, then counsel shall initiate the process to pursue interest arbitration in a timely manner with respect to the units
where an agreement could not be reached.
WF03
Establish and Participate in Labor-Management Committee Meetings for Each

Bargaining Unit
Target Outcome
Facilitating productive discussions between management
and labor in order to identify problems and implement
solutions
Not available
Responsible Party
Mayor/City Solicitor/Department Heads
Experienced public labor relations counsel should also be engaged to facilitate developing a plan and schedule for joint labormanagement committee meetings for each of the bargaining units. The purpose of such meetings would be to identify issues,
problems and grievances within the respective unit and identify potential solutions that can be reached through collaboration.
The committees could also be used to identify new services for the City to offer, improved methodologies for delivery of
services, and creative cost-savings opportunities for the City to consider, such as the use of volunteers or non-City workers as
may be appropriate. This practice of regular meetings between labor and management for each unit should improve morale and
communication within the unit while also reducing the filing of formal grievances and arbitrations the latter of which results
in an overall cost savings for the City.
WF04
Monitor Pension Plan Funding and Take Steps to Avoid Underfunding Issues
Target Outcome
Maintain or improve funding status of Citys pension plans
Not available
Responsible Party
Mayor/City Council
While the Pension Plans for IAFF and AFSCME employees are fully funded at present, the City should take steps to monitor its
practices to ensure funding levels continue to be sufficient for projected retirees. Because the Pension Plan for the FOP is
presently underfunded, the City should take steps to address this underfunding through regular monitoring, ensuring consistent
32
and timely contributions are being made, and taking proactive steps to reduce the underfunding levels. In connection with this
Initiative, and those set forth elsewhere in this revised Plan, collective bargaining agreements entered into with the Citys
unions must not provide any enhancements to or increase the level of pension benefits to future retirees.
WF05
Affordable Care Act Study

Target Outcome
Responsible Party
Optimizing compliance with Federal healthcare programs

Not available
Mayor/City Council/City Solicitor
All employees
The ongoing implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) will likely create both challenges and
opportunities for the City.
Among the most significant challenges, beginning in 2018, the ACA is expected to impose a 40 percent excise tax on the value
of health insurance benefits exceeding certain thresholds often referred to as the Cadillac tax. The current threshold
estimates are $10,200 for individual premiums and $27,500 for family premiums, and both will be indexed to inflation. The
thresholds will likely be higher for plans covering high-risk professions such as police and firefighters, and employers will not
be able to pass the excise tax along to employees.
Due to uncertainty surrounding the ACAs Cadillac tax on health care plans due to go into effect in 2018, and the potential that
some of the Citys plans may be subject to these charges if not adjusted, the City shall include healthcare reopeners in any labor
agreements extending into 2018, to allow it the flexibility to address such issues before the tax goes into effect. The general
budget assumptions and collective bargaining allocations within this Plan include no dedicated funding for Cadillac tax
payments, such that plan redesign to remain below the ACA thresholds may be required to avoid instability.
At the same time, the creation of healthcare exchanges to provide greater access to coverage may provide opportunities to
develop alternative, more affordable approaches for retiree healthcare for those Harrisburg employees still eligible during the
years prior to Medicare coverage. For example, some employers are moving toward a stipend approach that better aligns with
the ACA program.
Given the above and other potential impacts, it will be important for the City to actively study the projected impacts and
potential opportunities created by the ACA, as it has already begun. This will likely require expert support, and would also
benefit from early and active labor-management communications and collaboration.
WF06
Establish the OPEB Trust Fund and provide subsequent funding to the extent
possible through funds received as a result of the pursuit of the forensic claims,
from the Harrisburg Supplemental Growth Fund with respect to the Escrow
Agreement between the City, AGM and Dauphin County and to the extent funds are
available from the Citys budget.
Target Outcome
Manage funding of OPEB to ensure availability of monies
for same
Not available
Responsible Party
All employees
The Strong Plan provided for the establishment of an OPEB Trust Fund after plan consummation. Other more pressing
priorities have taken precedent to date; however, in 2016 the City, in coordination with the Coordinator, shall proceed with
those actions required to establish the OPEB Trust Fund and to see that the funds provided are transferred to the Trust Fund and
invested pursuant to the Trust Funds investment policy. Although the City is not in a position to make additional contributions
to the Harrisburg OPEB Trust Fund for 2016, the City is encouraged to annually contribute towards reducing its unfunded
actuarial accrued liability for OPEB, in addition to any amounts that may be transferred to the OPEB Trust Fund from the
Harrisburg Supplemental Growth Fund under provisions of the Escrow Agreement and/or pursuit of forensic claims. Although
prefunding the OPEB Health Care Trust will result in higher initial costs than if the City continues each year to only pay its
current OPEB liabilities on a "pay-as-you-go" basis, the additional contributions will yield significant cash flow savings in later
years, better secure funding of OPEB liabilities for current and future retirees, and lower the burden that increased OPEB
liabilities will have on future taxpayers.
33
WF07
Limit Enhancements to OPEB in Future Collective Bargaining Negotiations

Target Outcome
Contain costs to ensure ability to achieve a balanced
budget
Not available
Responsible Party
In the last round of negotiations with the Citys three unions, all unions agreed that future employees (defined as those
employees hired after the ratification of the respective CBA amendments) of each bargaining unit would not be entitled to postretirement health care provided by the City. This freeze of post-employment benefits for future employees helps to curb costs
and places the City in a more financially stable position moving forward, given that it limits uncertain future liabilities.
Therefore, unless the City is required by law to change any wages, benefits, terms, provisions, or conditions enumerated here in,
all new collective bargaining agreements (which phrase shall include but not be limited to new agreements, extensions,
amendments, side agreements, memoranda of understanding and settlements) between the City and the unions representing its
employees (whether resulting from collective bargaining between the parties or interest arbitration pursuant to Act 111 as
applicable or otherwise) covering calendar years 2015 through 2018 and subsequent years (or any portion thereof) must not
contain, require or provide for (1) any new benefits for retirees or other inactive employees (e.g., those in layoff or disability
status), or (2) any improvements in existing benefits for retirees or other inactive employees, nor the continuation of existing
benefits that were modified by the Strong Plan.
34
Elected Officials
Office of the Mayor
The City of Harrisburg operates under the Mayor-Council form of government. The Mayor is elected at-large and is the fulltime Chief Executive of the City that heads the Executive branch of City government. As the Chief Executive, the Mayor is
responsible for enforcing the laws of the Commonwealth and ordinances of the City.
The Mayor manages City operations through department heads and oversees all employees through the administration of the
Citys personnel system, policies and three collective bargaining agreements.
The functions within the Office of the Mayor include communications, constituent relations and general support for the Office.
The Office can play a significant intergovernmental role through the public bodies on which the Mayor serves and through
interactions with the County, Commonwealth and Congressional representatives.
A summary of the Office of Mayors staffing and expenditure history, as well as baseline projected expenditures through 2018,
is provided in the following tables.
Office of the Mayor

Staffing
2012
Budgeted
2013
2014
2015
2016
4
Office of the Mayor

Historical Expenditures by Major Category
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Reported
Change
267,774
190,109
188,959
266,255
268,239
0.2
Temporary
13,100
-100.0
Social Security
21,487
14,655
14,761
20,369
19,839
-7.7
Services
11,492
6,501
4,352
4,028
6,853
-40.4
Supplies
827
599
861
447
468
-43.4
4,333
4,920
4,492
7,510
1,591
0.0
319,013
216,784
213,425
298,609
296,989
-6.9
Category
Salary & Wages
Other
Total
Office of the Mayor

Projected Expenditures
2016
2017
2018
Projected
Projected
Projected
Change
Salary & Wages
202,500
202,500
202,500
0.0
Social Security
15,491
15,491
15,491
0.0
Services
15,514
15,569
15,624
0.7
Supplies
4,300
4,300
4,300
0.0
Other
Total
2,000
2,000
2,000
0.0
239,805
239,860
239,916
0.0
Category
35
Office of the City Council

The City Council serves as the Legislative branch of the City. The City Council consists of seven City Council members,
elected at-large to four-year, staggered terms and is responsible for approving all ordinances, including adopting an annual
budget. Council members elect a Council President, who presides at its meetings. A Vice President is also elected to preside in
place of the Council President in his/her absence. Legislative session is held at least twice a month, and study committees are
utilized to conduct City business. The committees are: Administration; Budget and Finance; Building and Housing;
Community and Economic Development; Children and Youth; Parks and Recreation; Public Safety; and Public Works.
A summary of the Office of the City Councils staffing and expenditure history, as well as projected baseline expenditures
through 2018, is provided in the following tables.

Staffing
2012
Budgeted
2013
9
2014
9
2015
9
2016
9

2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Reported
Change
Salary & Wages
232,787
207,304
209,297
242,576
254,259
9.2
Social Security
17,808
15,954
16,179
18,557
19,046
7.0
Legal/Contract Services
32,919
2,500
46,668
89,546
85,872
160.9
Services
20,660
20,329
30,544
31,157
20,210
-2.2
Supplies
Total
276
7,681
4,536
17,234
21,468
7,677.8
304,451
253,768
307,224
399,071
400,856
31.7
Category

2016
2017
2018
Projected
Projected
Projected
Change
Salary & Wages
259,500
259,500
259,500
0.0
Social Security
19,852
19,852
19,852
0.0
Legal/Contract Services
40,000
40,000
40,000
0.0
Services
65,593
65,741
65,891
0.5
Supplies
Total
29,450
29,450
29,450
0.0
414,395
414,543
414,693
0.1
Category
36
Office of the City Controller

The Office of the City Controllers mission is to ensure the fiscal health of the City of Harrisburg by advising the general
public, City Council and Mayor of the Citys financial condition.
The City Controller is elected at-large and is an independent office established to provide financial oversight to the City. By
Commonwealth law, the City Controller reviews and approves all expenditures of the City. Additionally, the Office of the
Controller is responsible for reviewing purchase orders, warrants and all other City expenditures to ensure budget authority and
compliance with Commonwealth law and City Code.
The City Controller may examine, audit and settle accounts and shall annually (or more frequently) audit the collection and
disbursement of public money and report findings to the City Council. An annual report to the City Council is required at its
first meeting in March of each year. Monthly financial statements are issued to the Mayor, City Council and Treasurer that
include analysis of revenues and expenditures. Additional ad hoc reports are prepared and presented as needed. The Controller
may exercise financial control functions, which include requiring written warrants prior to fund disbursement.
A summary of the Office of the Controllers staffing and expenditure history, as well as baseline projected expenditures through
2018, is provided in the following tables.

Staffing
2012
Budgeted
2013
2014
2015
2016
3

Historical Expenditures
2011
Category
2012
2013
2014
2015
Actual
Reported
Change
Actual
Actual
Actual
Salary & Wages
130,789
131,982
131,793
90,282
124,820
-4.6
Social Security
10,005
10,097
10,111
6,906
9,227
-7.8
Services
28,075
33,159
1,000
1,291
1,293
-95.4
Supplies
50
292
10
3,775
5,831
11,577.0
0.0
168,919
175,530
142,914
102,254
141,171
-16.4
Other
Total

Category
2016
2017
2018
Projected
Projected
Projected
Change
Salary & Wages
132,142
132,563
132,989
0.6
Social Security
10,109
10,141
10,174
0.6
Services
9,000
9,019
9,038
0.4
Supplies
Total
11,000
11,000
11,000
0.0
162,251
162,723
163,201
0.6
37
Office of the City Treasurer

The City Treasurer is an elected office established to collect, hold safe and invest all City revenues including taxes, fees and
fines. The City Treasurer receives and disburses all City funds in accordance with warrants signed by the City Controller. The
Office of the City Treasurer also coordinates all electronic fund transfers and receipts and receives all taxes, fines, fees and
other funds paid to the City from public and private sources. According to Pennsylvania Third Class City Code, the Office of
the City Treasurer is the collector of city, county, school and institution district taxes assessed or levied in the city.
Additionally, the City Treasurer is tasked with depositing funds in a bank within the City and may make investments, subject to
certain limitations. Investments are made to optimize interest earnings and retain cash available for operations.
The Harrisburg School District pays approximately one third of the Office of the City Treasurers cost for the services it
provides to bill, collect and process tax payments for the district.
A summary of the Office of Mayors staffing and expenditure history, as well as baseline projected expenditures through 2018,
is provided in the following tables.

Staffing
2012
Budgeted
2013
8.4
2014
2015
8.4
2016
6

Category
Salary & Wages
Temporary
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Reported
Change
365,241
350,161
378,061
216,031
233,341
-36.1
2,550
8,215
-100.0
1,225
0.0
Social Security
28,136
26,805
29,104
17,249
17,364
-38.3
Services
84,648
72,294
69,858
50,887
35,477
-58.1
Supplies
16,402
20,651
26,746
2,222
2,701
-83.5
Overtime
Other
Total
41,018
41,018
0.0
537,996
510,929
503,770
295,828
288,883
-46.3

2016
2017
2018
Projected
Projected
Projected
Change
Salary & Wages
304,335
305,919
307,518
1.0
Social Security
23,282
23,403
23,525
1.0
Services
80,655
81,142
81,639
1.2
Supplies
9,000
9,038
9,077
0.9
Other
Total
8,000
8,000
8,000
0.0
425,272
427,502
429,759
1.1
Category
38
The Department of Administration is responsible for providing fiscal, technological, personnel, and central administrative
functions for all other City departments. The Department is comprised of six functions: Business Administrator,
Communication, Financial Management, Human Resources, Duplication Licensing, and Information Technology.
The Office of Business Administrator is responsible for direct management of the administrative functions of the City and also
has labor management and contract negotiation responsibilities; however, it is important to note that the Business Administrator
position has been vacant for approximately two years and the responsibilities of the office have been performed by the Mayor
since the beginning of 2014. The Bureau of Communication is responsible for providing information about City government to
the public and to City employees. The Bureau of Communication operates the Citys 311 Customer Resource Management
(CRM) program and also oversees the Bureau of Information Technology. The Bureau of Financial Management is responsible
for the management of all funds, accounting for all assets and financial activity, budget and audit preparation, the production of
all financial documents, and the administration of Debt Service, General Expenses, and Transfers to other funds. The Bureau of
Financial Management also manages the Citys purchasing and risk management functions. The Bureau of Human Resources
oversees and administers a wide range of centralized personnel services, including payroll. Duplication and Licensing is
responsible for billing and collecting mercantile, business privilege, parking, and amusement taxes as well as various license
fees for the City and the Harrisburg School District. In addition, Duplication and Licensing handles incoming and outgoing
mail, processes printing jobs for all City departments, and distributes office supplies to other City bureaus and departments. The
following figure shows the organizational structure of the Department of Administration.
Department of Administration Organizational Chart

Business
Administrator
Bureau of
Financial
Management
Bureau of
Communication
Bureau of Risk
Management
Bureau of
Information
Technology
Bureau of
Human
Resources
Duplication
and
Licensing
The Department of Administrations FTE count has decreased in the last eight years, but is up from its low in 2014. The
improvements in staffing levels since 2014 had a substantive positive impact on City operations. The Bureau of Information
Technology is fully staffed and making progress toward major IT initiatives. The Bureau of Financial Management has added a
financial analyst/accountant and a purchasing manager position. This has allowed the Bureau to improve internal processes
(e.g., accounting and purchasing) and also allowed the City to address a backlog in annual audit and financial reporting.
The following table shows the Departments historic staffing level from 2009 through 2016. The decline of 12.6 positions since
2009 is primarily attributable to the transfer of the operations and revenue divisionwhich provided water and sewer billing
servicesto Capital Region Water following the transfer of water and sewer assets from the Citys control.
Historic FTE Count
Department of
Administration
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Budget
39.6
38
30
32
20
17
25
28
Total FTE
Increase/
Decrease
-11.6
39
The following tables show the Departments historical expenditures and projected baseline expenditures through 2018.
Category
Salary & Wages
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Reported
Change
1,436,197
1,398,741
1,480,187
965,233
1,222,965
-14.8
7,019
1,385
0.0
225
15
249
307
-100.0
Social Security
109,407
107,988
114,796
73,864
90,744
-17.1
Postage
124,717
121,386
130,830
108,659
96,608
-22.5
Services
285,012
282,541
256,148
578,310
269,544
-5.4
Supplies
77,571
66,054
49,806
123,064
121,713
56.9
Other
Total
39,212
17,308
72,759
2,390
-93.9
2,074,190
2,001,612
2,114,155
2,056,355
1,921,869
-7.3
Temporary
Overtime
Category
2016
2017
2018
Projected
Projected
Projected
Change
1,591,206
1,593,738
1,596,295
0.3
Social Security
121,727
121,921
122,117
0.3
Audit
135,000
137,565
140,179
3.8
Postage
133,525
136,062
138,647
3.8
Services
506,638
508,245
509,882
0.6
Supplies
184,065
184,967
185,885
1.0
Other
152,196
86,884
87,585
-42.5
Total
2,824,358
2,769,381
2,780,590
-1.5
Salary & Wages
Analysis and Recommendations

The 2013 Harrisburg Strong Plan included nine major initiatives for the Department of Administration. Many of the initiatives
were the responsibility of the Bureau of Financial Management and focused on developing financial policies and procedures
and appropriately staffing the financial management function.
Many of these initiatives have been accomplished effectively. The Bureau of Financial Management has successfully
implemented quarterly financial reporting, implemented a standard budget development calendar, and established a standard
position control system. The Department has conducted a comprehensive review of City purchasing policies and worked with
the Office of the Controller to implement improvements to the purchasing process. The Department has also modified the
existing chart of accounts to track grant program funds on an individual basis. Most significantly, the Department of
Administration has developed critical staffing capacity in the areas of financial management and IT management. These
improvements in internal expertise have resulted in real progress. One of the most significant improvements relates to financial
management. The Bureau of Financial Management is fully staffed and has caught up on a backlog of prior year audits and
built internal expertise to complete annual pre-audit preparation. This advancement will allow the City to remain up-to-date on
its annual financial audits.
However, though the City has completed a number of important initiatives, there are still significant opportunities in the areas of
executive management, financial management, and information technology that deserve attention in the coming months and
years.
40
Executive Management
Admin 1:
Fill the position of Business Administrator with funding support from a DCED Act 47 grant.
The City of Harrisburg has long maintained the position of Business Administrator in its table of organization. Under the Citys
Strong Mayor form of government, the Business Administrator position serves as the Mayors Chief of Staff, responsible for
day-to-day management of City finances and operations. This enables the Mayor to focus on broader strategic initiatives and
planning, while also ensuring that full-time effort is dedicated overseeing and coordinating the often complicated and
interrelated facets of running a local government.
The City has, however, been without a Business Administrator position for approximately two years and, as a result, the Mayor
has served as both the chief executive officer and chief administrative officer of the City. One of the difficulties in recruiting
for the position has been the salary limitations of the City. In order to attract an experienced, qualified candidate for this
position the salary will need to be at least in the $120,000 salary range. To assist with recruitment the City should apply to the
Department for a salary supplement grant that would provide supportive funding for up to an initial three year period. Given
the complexity of the Citys operational and financial challenges and prospective special projects a dedicated full-time
employee is warranted to carry out administrative responsibilities under the direction of the Mayor.
The salary supplement would involve an Act 47 grant of $260,000 over three years allocated according to the table below. The
supplement would include salary and a 30% allowance for benefits. It would also include a 7% increase to primarily address
benefit cost increases. The impact for FY 16 on the General Fund would be minimal as it would be approximately mid-year
until an individual is hired and the FY 16 cost could be allocated primarily to the Neighborhood Services Fund.
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
DCED
$120,000
90,000
50,000
City
$ 36,000
77,000
128,600
Total
$156,000
167,000
178,600
Admin 2:
Enhance the Citys existing performance management system by developing annual work plans linked
to the Citys strategic initiatives and adopting a work plan review process.
Performance management systems are a process tool utilized to ensure that the work of both employees and management is
focused on the vision of the organization being served. Effective performance management systems ensure that employees
focus their work in ways that directly support the organizations strategic plan, or in the absence of the strategic plan,
departmental goals, objectives, and work plans. Further, this system monitors the organizations progress toward achieving the
goals and priorities identified in the strategic plan.
A performance management system typically consists of three core elements: (1) setting goals and creating strategic plans; (2)
measuring performance against established performance goals; and (3) sustaining a dialog between management and employees
to ensure that the work of the organization is completed in conformance with established schedules.
A performance management system encompasses all of the workincluding strategic planning, budgeting, and the planning of
all work that is done in an organization. A performance management system includes all of the processes through which
managers plan and manage the work of the organization to fulfill the organizations mission and produce the desired outcomes.
The collection and use of performance measurement data is one element of a performance management system (see
Recommendation 3 in this report).
In addition to monitoring the work, a good performance management system employs discipline. Under such a system,
managers meet with direct reports on a regular basis to review organizational performance. The manager meets with his/her
direct reports at least once a month to discuss a regular agenda of issues. As regularity and discipline of the management
system becomes integrated into operations, discussions about performance become focused on important issues. This type of
management system allows managers to avoid total crisis management, as the rigor of the system helps ensure regular meetings
to discuss strategic issues rather than the crisis du jour.
The City of Harrisburg has already made great strides in the implementation of a performance management system. The Mayor
conducts weekly operations meetings where the senior management team discusses operations and shares relevant information
and developments among the management team. It will be important to build upon that progress by vesting the business
administrator with the responsibility to conduct regular one-on-one meetings with department directors, develop annual work
plans linked to the Citys broader strategic initiatives, and oversee progress toward the completion of those work plans.
41
Admin 3:
Develop and implement performance measurement system.
Performance measurement is designed for policymakers, chief administrative officers, department heads, and program managers
to assess whether a program or service is obtaining the desired or expected results. Performance measurement should be
considered an integral part of the overall performance management system.
The use of performance measures is an excellent management tool to help assess the overall effectiveness of services that are
being provided and determine if resources are being allocated efficiently. City programs can be subjected to measurement to
ascertain current levels of effectiveness and efficiency. If performance is measured systematically, leaders will have the
information that can serve as the basis to make changes to improve on quality, timeliness, or cost over a period of time.
Performance measures should become part of the organizations regular dialogue about program goals, budget allocations, and
accomplishments.
There are a number of factors to be considered in the structuring of a good performance measurement program. Once the
measures themselves have been determined, care must be given to the implementation of the program. Data collection,
reporting, and survey development are three very important areas requiring management attention if the program is to be
successful and provide relevant information in order to adopt best practices and strive for continuous improvement.
A program evaluation system should be in place for each program in the City as part of the performance management system.
Effectively evaluating City programs should include the following elements:
Provision of clear direction and support from City Council and Mayor
Inclusion of feedback from constituents and key stakeholders, collected through surveys, interviews, focus groups, etc.
Identification of information needed for measuring effectiveness and efficiency
Determination of criteria for effectiveness
Identification of resources available for collecting information
The Business Administrators Office should compile performance measurement data from each department on a quarterly basis
and present to the City Council any important trends or changes, as well as actions taken by the City in response to those trends.
In addition, the City should include the regular collection of stakeholder feedback evaluating current programs, and other
resident feedback on City services. Furthermore, it is appropriate to engage the City Controllers Office, as the internal audit
function of the City government, to assist in developing and tracking performance measures.
Though there is value in pursuing a performance measurement system in Harrisburg, it is important to note that performance
measurement systems can be labor insensitive to develop and track. It is therefore appropriate to begin with key executive level
performance measures for each City program, to focus on collecting quality data and utilizing that data in the Citys
performance measurement system, and developing a more robust program over time. The Act 47 Coordinator also has team
resources available to assist the City in the measurement development process.
Admin 4:
Contract with a third party to complete a classification and compensation study for non-represented
and managerial positions in the City of Harrisburg with funding from a DCED Act 47 grant.
Though the City of Harrisburgs financial recovery has been, and will continue to be, a complex process involving multiple
stakeholders and evolving circumstances, there are two fundamental things that must happen for the City to sustainably exit Act
47. First, the City must develop a reliable revenue stream sufficient to meet or exceed minimum operating and financial
requirements. Second, the City must be able to recruit and retain human resources with skills and expertise necessary to take on
the challenge of continuing to improve city operations and service delivery.
Since the City entered Act 47 in 2010, the Act 47 Coordinators team and the City have worked diligently to build this staff
capacity in critical managerial and administrative positions. For example, the Bureau of Financial Management has been
reorganized and vacant positons have been filled, enabling the City to significantly improve financial management systems and
processes.
However, though there have been many successes in the effort to attract quality personnel, recruitment continues to be a
significant challenge for the City. Moreover, even in cases where the City has been able to recruit quality personnel, retention
has been difficult. This significantly slows the Citys efforts to initiate and maintain long-term improvements to operations and
service delivery. There are two major drivers to this issue.
First, Harrisburgs recent financial history, its limited financial and human resources, and the anticipated challenges ahead,
present a challenging picture to potential employees. Potential employees can expect difficult working conditions. The City
42
has reduced its workforce since entering Act 47 and though some workload has been redistributed to other agencies or
eliminated, on balance, workload has not appreciably declined and, in some areas, necessary process or service improvements
have resulted in increased workload. This means that individual employees must often take on multiple roles and
responsibilities. Furthermore, due to the Citys limited financial resources, those employees access to resources (e.g., nonpersonnel funds) is constrained. Quality candidates for managerial and technical positions will often have job choices and will
have the opportunity to work for other local governments that are comparatively stable. Therefore, there must be appropriate
incentive to attract and retain these candidates.
The second driver impacting the Citys ability to attract and retain professional and technical level positions is that the pay,
benefit and incentive package is not competitive in the labor market place. This has been consistent feedback from potential
candidates during hiring processes and evident in the Act 47 Coordinator teams experience in recruitments both in
Pennsylvania and across the country.
It is clear that the compensation package needs to be adjusted in order for City to attract and retain the quality personnel
required to carry the City beyond Act 47. However, it is not clear what positions should be adjusted or to what degree those
positions need to be adjusted. As a result, a pay and benefit study is necessary to assess where investment is needed.
This process would involve the City contracting with a third party employment firm to conduct an objective comprehensive
classification and compensation study for non-represented employees. A classification and compensation study is a study of
current labor market to provide new information to determine whether the organizations pay structure is appropriate or may
need adjustment. It will provide insight and recommendations as to whether the organizations current compensation structure,
policies and practices are effective or in need of adjustment. It can determine if the current job classification structure is
efficiently structured or may need the introduction of new job classes, mergers of existing classes or the re-titling of classes as
more appropriate descriptors of work performed. It also provides for the evaluation of the organizations current job
descriptions and the potential need to perform edits and/or major re-writes to improve the utility of the documents as primary
sources of information for talent management, performance appraisal, recruitment and retention.
Comprehensive classification and compensation studies are time consuming, detailed process and so often command a high
price tag. It is estimated that a classification and compensation study for management and non-represented employees in
Harrisburg will cost approximately $65,000. It is further recommended that the City apply for an Act 47 grant in the amount of
$65,000 to undertake this study.
Financial Management
Admin 5:
Develop Comprehensive City-wide financial policies.
The 2013 Strong Plan called for the development and adoption of comprehensive financial policies. Such policies are looked
upon favorably by rating agencies and are another important step in the City regaining credibility in the financial marketplace.
In 2015, the Act 47 Coordinator developed a draft debt policy for prospective review and adoption by the City. This draft has
also been reviewed with the City administration and Council. The Chair of Councils Finance Committee has expressed strong
interest in advancing this policy. Examples of a Fund Balance policy have also been provided to the City for consideration.
The City has also developed and adopted operating budget schedules and processes, processes for the annual closing of books,
and cash flow analysis process. However, there are still policies that warrant development. With guidance and support from
the Act 47 Coordinator, the City shall establish formal financial policies.
These policies shall be developed in accordance with GFOA best practices. Specific policies that shall be developed include, but
are not limited to:
Debt Policy The City shall proceed with the review of the Debt Policy that was advanced and enact said policy in
early 2016.
Fund Balance The City shall establish a fund balance policy that identifies the appropriate size of unreserved fund
balance, the process by which resources are set aside for unreserved fund balance, and the methods by which
unreserved fund balance resources may be utilized.
Process for Departmental Budget Charge Backs The City shall establish a policy to identify internal operations that
necessitate departmental charge backs (e.g., the Bureau of Information Technology charging City departments and
bureaus for network administration services) and create an internal service fund structure within the chart of accounts
in order to document and monitor chargebacks as needed.
Process for Preparation, Coordination and Response to Comprehensive Annual Financial Audits The City shall
formally establish a policy outlining the necessary preparations for the annual audit, the roles and responsibilities of
City staff in coordinating the completion of the annual audit, and the process by which the City will respond to any
corrective actions outlined in the external audit upon its completion.
43
Admin 6:
Require Act 47 Coordinator review and comment prior to submission of City applications for public
safety hiring grants
For the previous several years, the City has been successful in obtaining hiring grants from the federal government to augment
staffing in the police and fire departments. Specifically, the Bureau of Fire has been successful in obtaining SAFER grants,
administered through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), to fund firefighter positions. Similarly, the
Bureau of Police has obtained Department of Justice (DOJ) hiring grants to fund police officer positions. In fact, the proposed
2016 budget for the Bureau of Police includes the hiring of five additional police officers funded for two years through a grant
obtained in late 2015.
The City is to be commended for the successful pursuit of these grants though they come with conditions that the City needs to
be fully aware of. Public safety grant programs typically cover the salary cost of officers authorized under the grant, though
they do not cover associated fringe benefit costs. Under the stipulations of these grants, the City is then obligated to fund the
positions for an additional year, during which time the City cannot fall below a stipulated staffing floor (e.g., minimum number
of police officers) during that once year period. Though obtaining these grants offers the opportunity to fund much needed
positions, it also obligates the City to future expenses because the City must maintain the stipulated staffing floor after the
grantor ceases to provide revenue to the City. Given the potential financial implications of these grants, it is important that the
decision concerning whether to pursue such grant opportunities be fully vetted by the Act 47 Coordinator to ensure that it is
consistent with the limitations set forth in the Citys recovery plan and the Citys ability to absorb the additional expense after
the term of the grant.
Admin 7:
Develop a five year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and Process.
The City of Harrisburg has made significant strides in refining and improving its operating budget process; however, the City
has yet to develop a multi-year capital budget and planning process that centrally identifies and prioritizes capital needs in the
City. This tool has not been prioritized for development because the City has not had access to the financial resources necessary
to fund a capital improvement program. However, this will not always be the case.
Resources provided through the parking monetization to Impact Harrisburg, the non-profit corporation established to administer
$12.3 million in funds available to the City for infrastructure and economic development, along with the completion of the
Citys comprehensive plan, will serve as a foundation for a capital improvement program. The Citys debt service schedule has
also been structured in a way that will allow future borrowing to meet capital needs. Finally, grant funding opportunities at both
the state and federal level also provide resources to support capital investment. For example, PennDOT has committed to $10
million in infrastructure development investment in the City of Harrisburg over the next five years. To that end, it is important
to develop the necessary process and planning tools to take advantage of funding opportunities that become available. It its
especially important to have a structure in place to centrally and comprehensively evaluate all capital needs and prioritize
investment within the strategic priorities for the City. Currently, each department or bureau is responsible for funding capital
investment as an element of their operating budget and there is no process in place to segregate and evaluate comprehensive
capital investment needs or to plan to address needs beyond the one-year operating budget timeframe.
The CIP is a long-term planning tool for prioritization, financing and technical design, execution and timely completion of all
capital projects. Generally, these capital projects will have a significant impact on the City's infrastructure and protect the
health and safety of the public. Additional benefits include:
Establishing a system of examining and prioritizing the needs of the City ensures that the most essential capital
improvements are provided first;
Providing a mechanism for coordinating and consolidating all City departmental requests prevents duplication of
projects and equipment purchases; and
Coordinating physical/infrastructure planning with long-range financial planning allows maximum benefits from
limited funding sources.
An adequately funded annual capital improvement program is the sign of a financially healthy and viable community. The
City's capital infrastructure, consisting of streets, sidewalks, buildings, vehicles and equipment all require both regular
maintenance and capital investment to remain functional. Capital items have relatively fixed useful lives that can be impacted
by environmental conditions, active preventative maintenance and capital investment.
The CIP document represents a five-year period of the City's ongoing capital Improvements. Each year, the document is
updated to represent the next five-year window. In each annual update, completed projects, as well as projects scheduled to be
completed before the end of the fiscal year, will be removed from the document, new projects will be added, and other
previously-programmed projects may be re-prioritized.
44
CIP planning is a dynamic process that will include changes over time. These changes may be necessitated by organizational
changes, funding uncertainties, unforeseen emergencies, project delays or plans by other entities that can impact the CIP.
The CIP is a planning document to be used as a companion to the City's annual operating budget. Each year, the funding
included in the first year of the five-year CIP is allocated and approved by the City Council as part of the annual budget
adoption process. In addition to the up-front funding requirements
associated with CIP projects, the City's annual operating budget must also absorb the cost of maintaining and operating new
facilities or equipment that are constructed or procured under the City's capital plan. Capital projects are economic activities
that lead to the acquisition, construction, or extension of the useful life of capital assets. Capital assets include land, facilities,
parks, playgrounds and outdoor structures, streets, bridges, pedestrian and bicycle systems, water and sewer infrastructure,
technology systems and equipment, traffic control devices and other items of value from which the community derives benefit
for a significant number of years.
Capital expenditures and operating expenditures are primarily differentiated by two characteristics: dollar amount of the
expenditure and the useful life of the asset acquired, constructed or maintained. Capital expenditures will enhance, acquire or
extend the useful life of assets through a variety of activities. Generally, land acquisition, feasibility studies, planning, design,
construction, asset rehabilitation, enterprise technology acquisition, and project implementation are activities associated with
capital projects.
In general, capital projects in the CIP:
Have a total project cost in excess of $50,000.
Range from construction of new infrastructure or buildings to renovations, additions or conversions or demolition of
existing facilities.
Have a minimum useful life of 10 years, significantly extend the useful life of an asset, or significantly alter the nature
and character of an asset (i.e., not to include annual asset maintenance costs, annual warranty cost or other ongoing
costs).
The CIP is also the vehicle by which planning for technology capital investments occurs. In general, technology capital projects
in the CIP:
Have an estimated cost in excess of $25,000 and/or require six months or 1,000 hours for implementation or
completion.
Include applications systems, network design and implementation, telecommunications infrastructure, enterprise
hardware and software systems, web design and implementation services, document imaging, data base design and
development, consulting services (business process studies, requirements analysis or other studies), and technology
associated with new construction and/or renovation and relocation projects.
Have a minimum useful life of three years, significantly extend the useful life of an asset (i.e., not to include annual
software and hardware maintenance and upgrade costs, warranty costs or other ongoing costs), provide a significant
enhancement to functionality, or represent a change of platform or underlying structure.
The Maintenance Capital program is designed to protect City assets from premature failure and to minimize and eliminate
unnecessary risks and loss to the City. An effective Maintenance Capital program ensures that existing capital assets are
maintained in reliable, serviceable condition without requiring capital appropriations that vary significantly from year to year.
Maintenance Capital funds programs consist of non-expansion projects. Non-expansion projects are those that do not change a
footprint of a building, expand a current asset, provide resources for services not already being undertaken or increase the
operating budget once complete. For example, street paving is funded to maintain the condition of Harrisburgs roads, but it
would not fund the construction of new turn lanes or travel lanes.
Another important aspect of a Maintenance Capital program is that projects must significantly extend the life of the asset and
meet the criteria for a capital project. Repainting individual offices (as a program) may add to the life of an asset, but it would
not meet the criteria of a capital project. Painting buildings, on the other hand, would be fundable as a component of a
Maintenance Capital project.
The ultimate goal with respect to existing capital assets is to maintain a high level of serviceability and functionality while
minimizing net present costs. This is normally accomplished through a rigorous program of preventative maintenance,
rehabilitation and replacement. As a result, it is equally important to integrate the Capital program development and evaluation
45
process into the work plans for infrastructure maintenance crews (e.g.., street maintenance crews in the Department of Public
Works). Focused preventative maintenance plans, based on infrastructure condition assessments, can prolong the life of
infrastructure assets and effectively delay the need for major capital investment.
Finally, the Citys CIP development process must include an interface with Impact Harrisburg. This practical requirement
necessitates a bifurcated CIP development process, whereby the City must assess capital development needs and determine
which projects can be submitted to Impact Harrisburg for funding consideration.
46
Governance
The City of Harrisburg currently operates under the Optional Charter provisions of the Third Class City Code. The Optional
Charter provisions were authorized by the Optional Charter Law of 1957. The Optional Charter provisions provided a
framework for two optional forms of government - a strong mayor-council or a council-manager plan. It is no longer possible
to adopt an Optional Charter as this provision was replaced by the Home Rule and Optional Plans Law in 1972. Those cities
which had enacted Optional Charters subsequent to the 1972 law, of which there were 11, are allowed to keep them.
In November 1968 the citizens of Harrisburg elected a 9 member Charter Commission by an overwhelming vote of 10,034 to
1,479. The Commission studied the then Commission form of government and optional forms of government available at the
time and rendered its report recommending a Mayor-Council Optional Charter. Their report was then presented to and
approved by the electorate in May 1969 and went into effect January 1970. Harrisburgs Optional Charter provides for a 7
member Council and a Mayor, Treasurer and Controller all elected at large for 4 year terms. The Mayor is the chief executive,
supervises all city departments and enforces the ordinances of Council while Council serves as the legislative and policy
making body.
The Constitutional Convention of 1967-68 addressed the issue of Home Rule and the new local government article adopted in
1968 provided that Municipalities shall have the right and power to frame and adopt home rule charters. It went on to provide
that a municipality enacting a home rule charter may exercise any power to perform any function not denied by the
Constitution, by its home rule charter or by the General Assembly. Home Rule transfers the authority to act in municipal affairs
from state law to a local charter that is enacted and amended by the electorate of the municipality. It becomes the constitution
for the municipality. The provisions of the Constitution were implemented with the adoption of the Home Rule and Optional
Plans Act in 1972.
A home rule charter written by an elected government study commission and adopted by the Citys electorate pursuant to the
Home Rule Charter and Optional Plans Law can provide the City with the ability to design a government structure that best
meets its needs. It may provide, among other possible governmental changes, local tax enabling authority for the City to levy
an EIT rate that is deemed appropriate to meet the Citys General Fund revenue requirements. A home rule charter may also
include these basic components:
General powers of the municipality
Organization of the government
Procedures or safeguards to assure due process
Provisions for citizen participation and powers reserved for voters
Mandates for administrative practices
General Provisions, such as transition procedures and effective date
The City currently levies an earned income tax rate of 1.5% on its residents. One percent of this rate is authorized by Act 47
(with Commonwealth Court approval) and 0.5% is authorized by Act 511. It was the conclusion of the Strong Plan that
levying the additional 1% earned income tax rate is both more equitable and efficient in producing the required revenue for the
Citys General Fund rather than increasing the real estate millage on the Citys property owners. However, the only way to
retain the 1.5% EIT rate would be for the City to either remain an Act 47 distressed municipality indefinitely or for City
residents to adopt a home rule charter that includes a provision which permits the Citys elected officials to levy an EIT rate
above the 0.5% limit imposed by Act 511. Without the adoption of a home rule charter, in 2018 the 1% rate increase
authorized by Act 47 would have to be eliminated upon the rescission of the Citys Act 47 status and only the Act 511 rate of
0.5% will remain. Therefore, this Strong Plan modification incorporates a provision that the Citys elected officials offer its
citizens an opportunity to decide the Citys future governmental and tax structure.
The table below illustrates the impact on the Citys earned income rate structure and the estimated revenue generated without
the Citys adoption of a home rule charter permitting the City to levy an EIT rate above the 0.5% Act 511 limit in 2019. The
loss of the 1.0% Act 47 EIT revenue in 2019 will reduce the Citys total EIT revenue by $7.2 million. To generate the $7.2
million loss of EIT revenue in 2019 through a real estate millage increase the City would have to increase its current real estate
millage by 48%.
Thus, the City shall consider placing on the November 2016 election ballot the home rule question from the Home Rule Charter
47
and Optional Plans Law relative to the election of a government study commission to evaluate the Citys current government
structure. If an elected government study commission recommends drafting a home rule charter for the City and the City
electorate adopts a commission proposed home rule charter, then, for the fiscal year 2019, the City shall: (1) levy an EIT rate of
1.5% pursuant to authority granted by the adopted home rule charter; or (2) a combination earned income tax rate and real estate
millage that equates to the decreased $7.2 million EIT revenue in 2019. The City, in consultation with the Coordinator, may
include expenditure reductions to offset any real estate millage increase mandated by this initiative.
Should this home rule initiative fail due to the electorates rejection of the creation of a government study commission, a
government study commissions failure to recommend drafting a home rule charter or the electorates rejection of a government
studys proposed home rule charter, then the City shall make commensurate expenditure reductions and/or increase revenue
from other City revenue sources to address the Act 47 EIT revenue reduction. The below table shows the impact of the EIT on
the Citys budget.
2016
2017
2018
2019
Act 511 EIT Rate
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
Act 47 EIT Rate
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
0.0%
Combined EIT Rate
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
0.5%
$10,716,430
$10,770,013
$10,823,863
$0
$0
$0
($7,162,058)
49.2%
$14,790,231
$14,716,280
$14,642,699
$21,731,543
Projected EIT Revenue

Decreased EIT Revenue
Potential Real Estate Millage Increase
Projected Current Real Estate Revenue
$3,607,954
Gov 1
Initiate procedure for adopting a Home Rule charter
With the support of the Mayor, City Council shall consider the initiation of the procedure, as outlined by the Home Rule
Charter and Optional Plans Law (Act 62 of 1972), for adopting a home rule charter for the City of Harrisburg. Action
shall occur in sufficient time for placing the question of electing government study commission on the November 2016
general election ballot.
The basic concept behind home rule is the transfer of a municipalitys government structure and authority from state law (for
Harrisburg the Third Class City Code) to a local government charter drafted and adopted by a municipalitys voters. In short, it
is an opportunity for a municipality to create a government structure that best meets the particular needs of that municipality.
The Commonwealth's Home Rule law provides two methods for placing the question of creating a government study
commission on the ballot. The question may be initiated either by (1) an ordinance of the municipal governing body or (2) a
petition of the registered voters of the municipality. Once the question is on the ballot, voters will then decide whether to create
a government study commission to evaluate a possible change to a home rule form of government.
In the same election in which the creation of a government study commission is considered, the Citys voters will also elect a
group of citizens (7, 9 or 11) to serve as members of the commission upon its creation. City Council is required to select the
size of the study commission when adopting the government study commission question. Each candidate for the study
commission shall be nominated and placed upon the ballot in accordance with the Pennsylvania Election Code and listed
without any political designation. All candidates shall be registered voters of the City. As the office is nonpartisan, persons
covered by local or state civil service regulations are also eligible to serve. Current office holders, including local, school,
county and state officials are eligible to serve as members of the government study commission. A nominating petition must be
signed by at least 2% of the electors voting in the last gubernatorial election or 200 electors, whichever is less. Nomination
petitions shall be signed and circulated no earlier than the 13th Tuesday and no later than the 10th Tuesday prior to the election
(August 9 August 30, 2016). Nomination petitions shall set forth the name, place of residence and post office address of the
candidate, that the nomination is for the office of government study commissioner and that the signers are legally qualified to
vote for the candidate. Each nomination paper must have attached an affidavit signed by the candidate, consenting to stand as a
candidate at the election, and promising to take office and serve, if elected. Nomination papers must be filed no later than the
10th Tuesday prior to the election (August 30, 2016).
Each voter signing a nominating paper must list their occupation and residence, including street number and post office address.
Each voter may sign nominating papers for as many candidates as the number of members proposed for the government study
commission. Each nomination paper must be accompanied by an affidavit of one or more of the signers, affirming the paper
was signed by each signer in their own hand writing, that to the best of the signer's knowledge all signers are registered voters
48
of the City, and that the purpose of the paper is to endorse the candidate named for the office of government study
commissioner.
If an insufficient number of persons have filed nominating papers by the deadline to fill all the positions on the government
study commission, the question is still placed on the ballot. However, if additional persons are not elected to the study
commission by receiving at least as many write-in votes as signatures required for the nomination paper, then the question is
deemed to be defeated. If two or more candidates for the last seat draw an equal number of votes, then they must draw lots to
determine whom is elected
There are three options for the initial question regarding the election of a government study commission and the number of its
members. However, since the adoption of a home rule charter is the recommended initiative of the recovery plan only the
following question is pertinent to this initiative:
Shall a government study commission of (seven, nine or eleven) members be elected to study the existing
form of government of the municipality, to consider the advisability of the adoption of a home rule charter; and
if advisable, to draft and to recommend a home rule charter?
Council shall enact an ordinance placing the above government study question on the November 2016 primary ballot no later
than August 2, 2016 in order to meet the filing requirement with the Dauphin County Board of Elections of 13 weeks prior to
this election. Following Councils action to enact the ordinance, the City Clerk shall, within 5 days of adoption, and no later
than August 9, 2016, file a certified copy of the ordinance with the Dauphin County Board of Elections.
Both the county board of elections and the City Clerk must legally advertise the question of the election of a government study
commission. The county board of elections must include the question in its official notice of the election. In addition, the City
Clerk must post a notice of the election in each polling place on the day of election and publish a notice in at least one
newspaper of general circulation in the City once a week for three consecutive weeks during the period of 30 days prior to the
election.
The county board of election must certify the results of the election to Harrisburg City Council, the Secretary of the Department
of State and the Secretary of the Department of Community and Economic Development. A majority of voters must approve
both the creation of the government study commission and elect a sufficient number of members. If the majority of voters
approve the creation of the commission, the commission will evaluate various forms of government and subsequently present
their recommendation to the voters for a final decision through a referendum ballot question.
As soon as possible, and in any event, no later than 10 days after certification of the election the members of the government
study commission shall make an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Pennsylvania and
to perform the duties of the office with fidelity. No later than 15 days after the certification of the election the study
commission shall organize and hold its first meeting. At this meeting the commission shall elect a chair and vice chairman and
establish the hours and location of its meetings and adopt rules for the conduct of its business. The commissions meetings are
subject to the Sunshine Law.
Once elected, the members of the government study commission serve as representatives of the City and are charged with (1)
studying the current structure of City government; (2) , considering various forms of government: (3) reaching decisions on how
the City might best be run; and (4) presenting their recommendations to the voters. The process is a City process; although
outside help is available, local citizens do the bulk of the work, and the decisions reached are their responsibility. The process is
also a citizen process. The commissioners are elected by the citizens and are to conduct their affairs with the maximum possible
public involvement and discussion. Membership on a Study Commission does not necessarily imply expertness. Wisdom,
practical judgment and enthusiasm are as fundamental to a successful study commission as are legal, social and political
expertise.
A summary of the role of the government study commission is:
To conduct an in-depth study of City government.
To probe deeply into procedures and inter-relationships of different parts of government so as to discover
weaknesses or defects.
To look outside the City to discover improved practices that might be applied and adopted.
To evolve from its studies an arrangement for a better, more efficient and accountable government.
Develop the major elements and set them down in a clear, logical and consistent form as a Charter.
To conduct its affairs in a manner, which will win the respect of the citizens and educate and stimulate citizens
groups and officials to have the Charter adopted.
49
Pennsylvania local government structures are based in the distant past, embellished by acts mandated over the years by the
General Assembly or created locally to meet a pressing need. The government study commission often makes the first complete
review of this structure. The results of their study, analysis and decision making will form a proposal to be either ratified or
rejected by the voters. Seen in this perspective, the work of the government study commission may be one of the most formative
acts in the life of the City.
The most critical element of the commission's role is writing and distributing its report which is to be completed no later than
nine months following the election. If the commission elects to prepare and submit a proposed home rule charter, it has an
additional 9 months to prepare the charter and submit its final report which is the summation of the commission's work and its
recommendation. The commissioners will spend most of their time considering various viewpoints, discussing the advantages
and disadvantages of various governmental structures and deliberating on the recommendations they will make. The final
report constitutes the end result of this activity and is important for at least two reasons. The first stems from the very purpose
for the study commission - to represent the voters and report its activities to the people. A second reason is the need for the
voters to consider the commission's recommendations. If the commission's recommendations are to go into effect, the voters
must first give their approval. Thus the commission's final report plays a central role in informing the voters on the choice they
are to make.
The final report should summarize the commission's experience in studying the current form of government and the basis for
their recommendation. As it is meant for wide distribution among the City's residents, the commission's final report should be
written with the residents in mind. Above all, the report should be written in an easy to read style for the average voter. The
commission should strive to reach as many City residents as possible with the final report. Most voters do not have the time or
patience to wade through a massive, complex document. Thus the final report should be logical, clear, readable and as brief as
possible without ignoring essential elements. After reading the report, voters should have sufficient knowledge and information
to make an informed decision on the recommendation to be placed before them.
The cost for a study commission can vary depending upon several variables. Recent study commissions have spent in the range
of $10,000 - $20,000. Specific costs for a study commission include advertising, printing and clerical support. Legal services
and the use an outside consultant can increase the costs, though many study commissions have been able to obtain pro-bono
assistance for both legal and consultant assistance. DCED can also provide guidance to the commission on the home rule and
optional plan process. It is recommended that once the commission is elected and certified that one of their first actions should
be to submit a budget request to the City for the FY 17 budget.
Currently twenty third class cities and 80 municipalities state-wide have enacted home rule charters. Nearby Carlisle Borough
residents adopted a Home Rule Charter in May 2015. The Act 47 cities of Altoona and Nanticoke and Plymouth Township
have all recently enacted home rule charters that now provide them with a governance structure that their residents believe will
best meet their future needs.
The Harrisburg Charter Commissions report from 1969 in its Statement to the Citizens provided several interesting comments
that in retrospect remain applicable today. Harrisburg is a microcosm. It is confronted in varying degrees with all of the
complex problems that best the core cities, plus some that are peculiar to our own community. Like other metropolitan core
areas, the City of Harrisburg lies at the crossroad of hope and despair. It has its share of the ills of the cities. It goes on to state
that Harrisburg also has great hope, rising expectations, many natural endowments, and, we believe, people of talent and
goodwill to meet these problems forthrightly and begin the upward climb..We also have a reservoir of talented people of
goodwill and generous spirit, of all ethnic, religious and cultural backgrounds. The job ahead is that of harnessing the talent to
motivate the people of the city to solve their own problems. It further stated Let no one misunderstand; a change in the form
of government is no panacea, provides no magic solutions. No form of government works unless an interested and enlightened
electorate chooses the best possible leadership.
The home rule charter option is an option that did not exist for the City in 1969. The City now has the ability to further examine
what has transpired in the 46 years since the Charter Commissions report and to consider what form of government would best
meet its needs in the new millennium. It is important that leaders of the City's nonprofit, neighborhood and business
communities as well all citizens play an active role in discussing the home rule charter process and the impacts that this change
in form of government may bring to Harrisburg. Citizen education and participation are critical to the government study
commission process.
50
Bureau of Information Technology

Since the passage of the Strong Plan, the City has made significant progress toward addressing critical IT needs. For example,
the City has contracted with a third party to maintain its phone system which will prolong the useful life of the system and allow
the City adequate time to plan for a needed system upgrade.
In addition, the City has made significant progress on the implementation of a 311 Customer Resource Management (CRM)
system, intended to significantly improve customer service and responsiveness. The 311 system, which launched on May 5,
2015, is staffed from 8:00 am to 6:00 pm Monday through Friday. Calls are routed to the receptionist and up to six backup
stations when the receptionist is busy. This is one of the first 311 systems in the region and City staff should be commended for
the successful roll-out. This is a significant achievement and one that can be leveraged to improve municipal services.
Lastly, for the first time in years, the IT Bureau is fully staffed with a Director and skilled staff with the expertise necessary to
maintain and improve the Citys IT infrastructure.
Though the City has made important and noteworthy progress, there are still a number of issues related to IT infrastructure that
deserve attention as resources become available.
IT 1:
Replace the UPS.
A critical component of the Citys data center and the electrical power system for City Hall is the more than 25 year old
uninterruptible power supply (UPS). The UPS protects the City from momentary dips and surges in power and can provide
enough power until electric generators can start up.
While the City has faced challenges obtaining the $150,000 in funding needed for a UPS replacement, this is a vital need that, if
not addressed, puts the Citys most critical IT infrastructure at risk should there be any power fluctuations or interruptions. The
current unit is more than 25 years old and needs to be replaced. Although unsuccessful with applications in 2013 and 2014, the
City should continue to pursue funding from the Department of Homeland Security funding or other funding sources including
Impact Harrisburg to replace this unit as this need becomes more critical as the unit ages.
IT 2:
Proceed with a third party contract to eliminate unused phone lines from City service.
The Citys existing phone system, a Nortel Option 61, is more than 25 years old and has not been supported by the
manufacturer in more than five years. As the City considers the replacement of its ailing phone system, one area that often gets
overlooked is what phone lines are still in use as well as what lines are no longer in use but for which the City is being billed.
In 2014, the City initiated a contract with Morefield Communications to complete a full, system-wide phone line traffic analysis
to identify phone lines that can be eliminated. The result of that analysis indicates that by eliminating unused phone lines, the
City can save in excess of $1,200 to $1,700 per month. However, due to staffing shortages, the City has been unable to
eliminate the redundancy and realize the cost savings.
The next step in this process is to proceed with the contract with Morefield Communications to go through each extension
believed to not be in use and remove the physical bridge clip on the Citys PBX. This process will verify usage of the
extensions and consolidate lists of lines that are truly needed and ones that are extraneous and no longer necessary. This
particular process requires technical knowledge with telecommunications equipment; as a result, it is appropriate to contract
with Morefield Communications to complete this work.
IT 3: Separate the document management and imaging system backups from all other data backups to reduce the
time it takes to complete backups of critical data.
Network and email backups are critical issues for the City of Harrisburg. Email backups are currently working after previous
failures resulting from lack of space. After email went down for an extended period of time, the IT Bureau had to remove old
users and buy three servers to recover mailboxes. The remaining issue with backups is the time it takes for full backups to run;
full backups are currently taking in excess of five days to complete. The apparent cause of the slow backup process appears to
be the DocuWare imaging system used by the Police Department.
The DocuWare system requires over 11 tapes and several days to run while the rest of the City-wide backup takes only four
tapes and can be completed in a fraction of the time. Much of the data on the document management and imaging system is
static, so the City should consider whether weekly backups are really necessary. Because of the way this system is structured,
well over half of the Citys storage demand comes from the document imaging system and this number is likely to grow
considerably in the future.
Since the imaging system stores largely static data, it is recommended that the City complete full backups for this system
monthly, rather than weekly, and complete incremental backups on a nightly basis.
51
The Bureau should also consider backing up the imaging system to the cloud using Amazon Glacier or other comparable
backup solutions. Amazon Glacier provides a low cost-per-terabyte solution. Amazon Glacier would cost approximately $81
per month to store up to 8 TB of data and uploads are free. Assuming the City would only need to store three backups at Glacier
at any one time, the cost would be manageable and help ensure data is backed up and secure. It should be noted that retrieving
files from Amazon Glacier may take as long as four hours.
IT 4:
Consider installing City-owned conduits under roads as they are being resurfaced.
Many cities with large urban areas are beginning to install conduits under roads that are being resurfaced as a way to tap into
other sources of revenue. As telecommunication companies seek to install new fiber cabling, these cities can mandate that
companies lease access to this City-owned conduit. As the City begins to plan and implement major road and transportation
infrastructure improvements, and as capital funding becomes increasingly available, it will be prudent to begin scoping paving
projects to include conduit installation. The major cost of conduit installation is the excavation. Given that this work would
already be completed in major pavement projects, the City can begin installing conduit one section at a time with the intent to
generate revenue through system lease payments.
Not only could this become a revenue stream for the City, but it could reduce road cuts and extend the life of roads throughout
the City where conduits have been deployed. The City should build conduit installation projects into its capital plans.
IT 5:
Develop and fund a City-wide computer replacement plan as an element of the Bureau of Information
Technology budget.
The Citys original Act 47 plan identified personal computer (PC) replacement as an important issue. Many City employees
were operating on systems that were 10 years old and the reliability and capacity of those systems significantly impacted
employee productivity. Appropriately, City departments began the process of budgeting for computer replacements and the
City was able to replace many of its oldest personal computers. However, the issue of ailing computer systems has resurfaced.
The City has approximately 35 personal computers operating under the Windows XP operating system, which is no longer
supported by Microsoft and therefore highly susceptible to attack from viruses and malware. However, the proposed 2016
budget does not include significant interment in PC replacement, though some departments have indicated a desire to replace
some personal computers if 2016 budget trends allow.
This issue has evolved again because the City has had limited discretionary funds and each department or bureau is responsible
for budgeting for PC replacement at their own discretion. Each department is therefore forced to prioritize where it will invest
resources and more often than not, personal computers are prioritized last against other important departmental needs. For
example, when making the choice between police cars and PC replacements, the Bureau of Police will always choose cars
because of their importance for day-to day operations. However, this presents a significant problem.
The useful life if a PC is three to five years and the technology evolves at such a pace that a reactive, rather than proactive
replacement approach, leads to a point where significant one-time investment is needed to replace obsolete and non-functioning
equipment. This can be resolved by creating a central process of evaluating PC condition and replacement needs and
developing an annual replacement program that smooths the cost of PC replacement from year to year. This serves to limit
large one-time expenditures, major fluctuations in budgeting, and, most importantly, the incidence of obsolete or faulty
equipment that negatively impacts employee productivity.
The process of evaluating personal computer replacement needs should be managed by the Bureau of Information Technology
in a centralized way. This will ensure that the limited resources available for replacement go toward the Bureaus and
Departments with the most critical needs. Centralizing this process will serve two important functions. First, it will emphasize
the importance of regular computer replacements. Second, it will allow standardization over time, which will enhance the IT
staff productivity when PC repairs are required. Third, it will allow PC funding to be evaluated independent of other
department needs and allow a comprehensive evaluation of City needs, not just individual department needs. The estimated
cost to replace approximately 25 computers per year is approximately $15,000 per year.
52
Law Bureau
The City Solicitor and staff of the Law Bureau perform a myriad of duties, encompassing all facets of trial practice including
courtroom litigation, administrative hearings, grievance hearings, appellate argument and minor criminal prosecutions. The
Law Bureau drafts legislation, contracts and other agreements for the various City departments and reviews those generated by
individuals and companies seeking to do business with the City. The City Solicitor responds to requests for formal opinions
from elected officials and department heads. The Law Bureau keeps a record of all tort claims filed against the City and
litigation and administrative proceedings to which the City is a party. The City Solicitor or a designee attends all legislative and
non-legislative meetings of City Council as well as committee meetings upon request.
Additional routine activities of the Law Bureau include:
Assisting the Bureau of Human Resources to assure compliance with FMLA, ADA, the Citys Pension plans, 457
Deferred Compensation plans, commercial drivers license (CDL) policy, Workplace Violence and AntiHarassment/Non-discrimination policies;
Assisting the Bureau of Human Resources to review correspondence sent to Civil Service Commission candidates;
Participating in labor/management meetings and drafting/reviewing Memoranda of Understanding between

management and unions;
Representing the Police Pension Board which meets monthly and involves assignments outside of those meetings;
Reviewing and/or drafting contracts which involve making substantive and non-substantive changes to the contract
language and negotiating with the contracting party;
Reviewing Workers Compensation and Heart and Lung claims;
Drafting legislation on a biweekly basis;
Reviewing subpoenas issued to the City for compliance;
Attending depositions of City officials and employees subpoenaed in civil cases;
Drafting official documents for the Mayor and other City officials;
Attending legislative sessions of the City Council as the Parliamentarian;
Attending committee meetings of the City Council to advise them in regards to proposed legislation;
Reviewing and filing liens;
Assisting the Right to Know Officer; and
Assisting all departments in compliance with federal and state law and reviewing and/or drafting correspondence with
county, state or federal officials.
The Departments FTE count has increased in the last eight years. The following table shows the Departments historic staffing
level from 2009 through 2016.
Law Bureau
Historic FTE Count
Law
Bureau
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Budget
Total FTE
Increase/
Decrease
2
53
The following tables summarize the Bureaus historical expenditure trends and projected baseline expenditures through 2018.
Law Bureau
Category
2011
2012
2013
2014
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
2015
Reported
Change
124,341
129,865
220,482
251,387
283,642
128.1
Temporary
3,945
240
100.0
Overtime
0.0
Salary & Wages
Social Security
9,512
9,935
16,928
19,533
21,021
121.0
Legal Services
444,119
349,424
184,020
105,199
200,109
-54.9
Services
5,849
2,577
8,700
14,647
6,332
8.3
Supplies
19,536
17,738
23,324
22,595
22,404
14.7
3,436
1,195
0.0
603,357
509,539
456,891
417,306
534,943
-11.3
Other
Total
Law Bureau
2016
2017
2018
Projected
Projected
Projected
Change
Salary & Wages
368,140
368,638
369,140
0.3
Social Security
28,163
28,201
28,239
0.3
Legal Services
300,000
300,000
300,000
0.0
Services
19,992
20,132
20,276
1.4
Supplies
36,068
36,734
37,413
3.7
Category
Other
Total
1,900
1,900
1,900
0.0
754,263
755,605
756,968
0.4

In the 2013 Harrisburg Strong Plan the Law Bureau had a total of three initiatives and all three initiatives have been completed.
The Law Bureau hired outside counsel to assist in labor relations activities and increased the number of staff attorneys from one
to three. In addition, the Law Bureau also completed, recodified, and enacted the Code of the City of Harrisburg.
Law 1:
Use professional assistance for labor relations activities.
Though the City utilized contracted professional assistance from labor negotiations in 2013 and 2014, the City will be tasked
with re-negotiating two collective bargaining agreements again in 2016 and a third in 2017. It continues to be important for the
City to contract for specialized expertise in this area. As such, the City shall retain experienced public-sector employment labor
counsel for its labor relations activities beginning with negotiations of new collective bargaining agreements. The City shall
also seek professional legal assistance, either through the Law Bureau or outside counsel, for other labor relations issues. The
Pennsylvania League of Cities and Municipalities offers a Public Employer Labor Relations Advisory service which the City
would find advantageous for those involved in labor related matters. This service also provides access to wage and benefit data
as well as assistance on a variety of labor law issues.
54
Bureau of Police
The Bureau of Police provides law enforcement and crime prevention services within the City of Harrisburg. The Bureau is
currently accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA).
The commanding officer of the Bureau is the Chief of Police. The Office of the Police Chief is responsible for the management
of available resources to ensure that the Bureau's mission, goals and objectives are achieved. Functions/units operating within
the Office of the Chief include Community Policing, Animal Control, Weed and Seed, Foot Patrol and Internal Affairs.
The Police Chief oversees all operations of the Bureau with assistance from two Captains who are responsible for commanding
the Bureau's three policing divisions: Uniformed Patrol; Criminal Investigation; and Technical Services. In addition, the Office
of the Chief of Police oversees the Bureau of Codes, which was transferred under the direction of the Chief of Police in 2015.
The Uniformed Patrol Division is primarily comprised of three platoons of uniformed patrol officers. These officers respond
directly to calls for service and conduct routine patrols within the City's seven police districts. Patrol officers also staff the City's
booking and detention center 24 hours a day. In addition to the three platoons, the Street Crimes and K-9 units operate within
the Uniformed Patrol Division.
The Criminal Investigation Division is charged with investigating and resolving crimes referred by officers in the Uniformed
Patrol Division. The Division is staffed by detectives and investigators who operate within the following focus areas: Adult
Offenders; Juvenile Offenders; Vice/Organized Crime; Arson; Special Operations; and Forensics. The units within the Criminal
Investigation Division frequently collaborate with regional and state partners, particularly the Dauphin County District
Attorney's Office, in ongoing criminal investigations and prosecutions.
The Technical Services Division, which is overseen by a Lieutenant, provides a wide variety of administrative and operational
support functions for the Bureau. The Division is staffed by uniformed and civilian personnel who operate within the following
units: Training; Property Management; Court Liaison/Special Events; Background Investigations; and Accreditation/Crime
Analysis. The Captain of the Technical Services Division also manages the Bureau's Parking Enforcement function and Records
Management Center and liaisons with the Dauphin County emergency communication Center and the Countys INSYC record
management function, which the City will join by the close of 2015, in lieu of the Metro records management system
historically used by the City
The Bureau of Codes is primarily responsible for enforcement of Harrisburgs building, property maintenance and health codes.
Codes Enforcement Officers are responsible for residential and commercial building inspections, while Health Inspectors
inspect restaurants and other food service businesses to maintain proper health and sanitation standards. The Bureau is also
responsible for neighborhood mitigation operations, including cleaning and sealing of vacant homes, demolition of condemned
property and clean-up of vacant parcels. The Bureau of Codes works closely with the Department of Public Works to
accomplish neighborhood mitigation goals. These neighborhood clean-up operations are funded primarily through Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds from HUD. The Bureau also works with other departments when questions arise
regarding code related issues and supports several boards, including the Housing Code Board of Appeals, the Health Board, the
Plumbing Board and the Electrical Board.
The following figure shows the organizational structure of the Bureau of Police.
Bureau of Police
Organizational Chart
Office of the
Police Chief
Codes Division
Uniformed Patrol
Division
Technical Services
Division
Criminal Investigations
Division
55
The Bureaus FTE count has decreased by 54 FTE in the last eight years. This reduction is partly attributable to a reduction of
parking enforcement personnel following the monetization of parking assets and the transfer of significant enforcement
responsibility to Standard Parking (SP+). However, the majority of this reduction in personnel has taken place in the sworn
ranks as a result of attrition. Due to resource limitations, the Bureau of Police has been unable to replace these positions and, as
a result, the average number of officers available for regular patrols has decreased and the Bureau has been forced to make
reductions in special units that divert staff from core police patrol functions. The following table shows the Bureaus historic
staffing level from 2009 through 2016.
Bureau of Police
Historic FTE Count
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Total FTE
Increase/
Decrease
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Budget
Bureau of Police
219
200
176
163
145
150
148
165
-54
Codes Bureau
13
12
11
12
12
12
11
14
Total
232
212
187
175
157
162
159
179
-53
The following tables summarize the Bureaus historical expenditures and projected baseline expenditures through 2018.
Bureau of Police
Category
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Reported
Change
11,532,306
11,073,730
9,967,862
9,597,451
9,553,695
-17.2
431,258
483,620
425,516
561,883
654,987
51.9
Overtime
590,647
376,875
464,073
447,061
483,685
-18.1
2,745
13,208
18,182
29,388
970.7
Severance Pay
354,217
38,910
468,436
121,396
128,287
-63.8
Social Security
253,359
216,978
201,047
186,800
181,130
-28.5
Salaries & Wages
Sick Leave Buy Back
1,158
1,938
1,199
1,259
1,259
8.7
Clothing Allowance
68,434
31,549
101,134
169,411
95,439
39.5
52,321
47,775
42,900
-100.0
Medicare - Part B
436,000
626,474
1,628,078
287,152
292,101
-33.0
4,510,723
2,524,734
2,613,548
2,428,193
2,972,450
-34.1
9,000
8,800
10,000
11,100
23.3
Services
598,627
486,722
581,599
713,591
584,059
-2.4
Supplies
34,588
42,749
12,430
46,102
68,683
98.6
15,300
115,000
1,100
243,778
0.0
18,875,382
15,976,154
16,636,030
14,589,581
15,300,041
-18.9
Loss Time & Medical

Police Pension Plan
College Credits
Other
Total
56
Bureau of Police
2016
2017
2018
Projected
Projected
Projected
Change
10,545,609
10,854,791
11,094,230
5.2
769,502
793,321
811,613
5.5
Overtime
500,000
500,000
500,000
0.0
75,000
75,000
75,000
0.0
Severance Pay
197,191
197,191
197,191
0.0
Social Security
226,283
228,763
233,015
3.0
1,259
1,259
1,259
0.0
Clothing Allowance
112,382
112,382
112,382
0.0
Loss Time & Medical
300,000
300,000
300,000
0.0
2,906,315
2,996,275
3,065,364
5.5
12,100
12,100
12,100
0.0
Services
868,707
877,529
886,519
2.1
Supplies
245,696
247,547
249,433
1.5
Other
Total
243,000
247,617
252,322
3.8
17,003,043
17,443,774
17,790,427
4.6
Category
Salaries & Wages
Sick Leave Buy Back
Medicare - Part B
Police Pension Plan

College Credits

The Bureau of Police has made strides in implementing many of the initiatives outlined in the 2013 Strong Plan. The Bureau
has consolidated the use of specialized units in the Bureau in favor of assigning additional personnel to the patrol function. It
has reduced civilian staffing in the parking enforcement function as a result of the monetization of parking assets to Standard
Parking. In addition, the Bureau has decreased the number of captain positions from three to two.
However, the most pressing issue confronting the Bureau is staffing shortages and the lack of sufficient resources to both hire
new officers and outfit those officers with reliable and functioning equipment. To that end, it is appropriate to evaluate what
steps cab be taken to increase the availability of officers within the Bureau and to prioritize the funding of equipment deemed
necessary and critical to effective public safety.
PD 1:
Create a committee tasked with evaluating shift schedule alternatives for the Uniformed Patrol
Division to mitigate the impact of staffing shortages.
The most significant operational and financial challenge confronting the Bureau of Police relates to sworn staffing, especially in
the Uniformed Patrol Division, which is the largest sworn police function. According to interviews with the senior executive
officers of the Bureau, the Uniformed Patrol Division targets daily shift staffing goal of 15 patrol officers per shift to meet its
calls for service demand and adequately engage in the proactive policing activities, such as foot and bicycle patrols. This is
based on Bureaus existing patrol beat and response structure. Though the target for the daily shift staffing is 15 patrol officers,
the Department maintains a minimum required staffing level of 10 officers per shift. If staffing falls below the 10 officer
minimum, officers are called in on overtime to meet minimum staffing targets. According to Bureau estimates, each of the
platoons requires a target staffing of 25 officers in order to consistently meet the patrol officer staffing goal of 15 officers per
shift; the current budgeted patrol officer staffing level per platoon is 21 patrol officers. According to the Departments staffing
estimates, an additional 12 patrol officers are required to meet the shift target staffing level.
In late 2015, the City received word that it received a Department of Justice COPS grant to fund the salaries for five patrol
officer positions through 2016 and 2017. The City must maintain funding for these positions through 2018. Though this will
help the Bureau maintain staffing levels in the face of naturally occurring attrition, it will not resolve the staffing shortfall
discussed above. Further, it is not clear that sufficient financial resources will be available to the City in the coming five years
to fund significant increases in patrol staffing.
In the alternative, it is appropriate to evaluate if other deployments schedules are available to enable the Bureau to more
effectively, or more efficiently, deploy its limited staffing resources. Police officers who are assigned to uniformed patrol
perform steady tours of either 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. or 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., with steady days off.
57
Although a steady tour schedule provides a welcome measure of regularity for the workforce, there are a number of other
schedule alternatives that can be evaluated to determine if deployment and schedule changes can mitigate the impact of staffing
shortages. For example, implementation of 12 hour schedule deployment models has demonstrated value in decreasing the
incidence of unexpected time off, which impacts staffing availability and potentially overtime usage.
Effective scheduling requires analysis of operational and financial efficiencies, the unique needs of the Bureau and the
community, and the impact of the schedule on the agencys employees. There are literally dozens of possible alternatives, and
the evaluation of those alternatives must be made to ensure that they result in a more efficient use of resources that will enhance
police service without creating undue stress on the members of the Police Bureau.
Therefore, before a new duty schedule is implemented, an in-depth study should be conducted to ensure that the nuances of the
Bureau are explored and addressed. Therefore, a committee consisting of the Chief of Police and/or designees, representative(s)
of the Fraternal Order of Police, and the Act 47 Coordinator shall be created to implement this initiative and make the final
determination on a new schedule that meets the operational needs of the Bureau, enhances efficiency and reduces expense to the
greatest degree possible
PD 2:
Initiate discussions with the District Attorneys Office to develop an approach to utilize the Dauphin
County Forensic Investigation Team for City of Harrisburg forensic investigations.
The Bureau of Police currently does not participate in the Dauphin County Forensics Team, instead opting to maintain a staff of
three in-house Forensics Investigators. The Bureau of Police has maintained this internal capacity for two primary reasons.
First, the Department wishes to maintain internal capacity to avoid the possibility that forensics personnel will be unavailable
when needed. The Bureau of Police has expressed concern that since the Dauphin County Forensics Team is responsible for
providing services across Dauphin County, the team may not be promptly available to provide service at Harrisburg crime
scenes when needed. Second, the Bureau of Police maintains considerable pride in the quality of its forensic investigations, the
expertise of its investigators, and the level of training provided to personnel. Given the importance of forensic investigation as
a major investigative tool, the Bureau of Police is reluctant to pursue a shared service model for fear that the loss of direct dayto-day control may impact the ultimate quality of forensic investigations.
These are important considerations; however, they must be considered and prioritized within the broader issues that the
Department is facing relating to staffing levels. These staffing shortages ultimately result in having fewer officers on the street
at a given time.
The City currently dedicates three officers to forensic investigations. By participating in the Dauphin County Forensics Team,
the City may have the opportunity to dedicate only one officer to forensics investigations full time, which would allow the
Department to redeploy the other two Forensic Investigators to other units, such as Patrol, where sworn staff is needed.
Moreover, the City will be able to capitalize on the regional resources provided by the Dauphin County Forensics Team. In
other words, depending on the agreement reached with District Attorneys Office, the Bureau of Police could realize an increase
in street strength and an increase the forensic investigation resources.
PD 3:
Pursue regional policing opportunities detailed in the 2015 Dauphin County Regional Policing Initiative.
In 2015, Dauphin County and the District Attorneys Office, with support from the Act 47 program, contracted with the Police
Executive Research Forum (PERF) to assess opportunities for regional police initiatives in the County. The City of Harrisburg
Bureau of Police, as the largest police department in the County, was included as an important participant in that assessment.
Both the Harrisburg Police Chief and the Citys FOP representative participated as members of the study Task Force.
A final report with recommendations for service and cost sharing was issued in December 2015. The report details a number of
large scale regional policing/consolidation initiatives. The major consolidation options are summarized below:
58
Option 1: Dauphin Metropolitan Police Department 12 police departments that make up the central urbansuburban core of Dauphin County around Harrisburg would form a single metropolitan police department (Derry
Township, Highspire Borough, Hummelstown Borough, Lower Paxton Township, Lower Swatara Township,
Middletown Borough, Paxtang Borough, Penbrook Borough, Royalton Borough, Steelton Borough, Susquehanna
Township, and Swatara Township). This option could provide an approximate 39% cost savings.
Option 2: Harrisburg Metropolitan Police Department This agency would be comprised of the 12 departments
that make up the central core of the County as described in Option 1, plus the City of Harrisburg. This option could
provide an approximate 33% cost savings.
Option 3: Southern Dauphin Merger Seven smaller agencies (Highspire Borough, Hummelstown Borough, Lower
Swatara Township, Middletown Borough, Paxtang Borough, Royalton Borough and Steelton Borough) would be
merged with Swatara to reduce redundancy and improve efficiency. This option could provide an approximate 26%
cost savings.
Option 4: Southern Dauphin Regional Police Department This option would combine five small agencies
(Highspire Borough, Lower Swatara Township, Middletown Borough, Royalton Borough and Steelton Borough) into a
single department with a focus on less redundancy and more effective policing. This option could provide an
approximate 9% cost savings.
Option 5: Derry Regional Police Department Hummelstown Borough would be merged with Derry Township
under a contract arrangement to provide a more efficient approach to policing in these adjacent jurisdictions. This
option could provide an approximate 32% cost savings.
Option 6: Northern Regional Police Department This option would combine four small agencies (Halifax
Borough, Lykens Borough, Millersburg Borough and Wiconisco Township) north of the mountains to provide
expanded coverage to this area. At least two officers would be on patrol around the clock. This option would include a
363% plus cost increase but is provided to demonstrate what would be required to provide full-time policing in the
north part of the county.
Option 7: Countywide Police Department Although a change in state law would be required to enact this scenario,
PERF was asked to examine the parameters for one police department that would serve the entire county. This agency
would be composed comprised of four police districts and a substation to maintain a focus on the localities involved.
This option could provide an approximate 29% cost savings.
Of the large-scale consolidation options summarized above, the Harrisburg Metropolitan Police Department (option 2) and the
creation of a countywide police department (option 7), are the two options that would directly involve the City of Harrisburg.
Both options would require significant cross-community buy-in and detailed analysis to move forward; however, if the political
will is in place to pursue this option, the potential cost savings to all communities involved indicate that fully evaluating this
option would be warranted. The other five options identified in the analysis would not directly impact the City though there
would be some indirect impact with several. .
These options, which are smaller in scale than creating a county-wide department, offer two substantive benefits. First, they are
more likely to be implemented because they involve fewer political jurisdictions and are more manageable to implement than a
central county-wide department. Second, they will potentially increase the scale, size, and scope of operation for Harrisburgs
regional neighboring departments, many of which are currently small departments. As these departments increase in size
through consolidation or merger, they will be better equipped to provide specialty services and act as partners with the City of
Harrisburg on regional initiatives. This may provide an opportunity for the City to utilize these neighboring departments for
specialty services which will allow the Harrisburg police department to redeploy personnel to other priority areas of operation.
It is important to note, however, that these consolidation options have only been discussed at the conceptual level and the
potential fruit of consolidation efforts is not certain. Regardless, it will be important for the City to continue to engage as a
member of the Task Force and seek opportunities, as the largest police department in the County, to add value and benefit from
the regional initiatives.
In addition, the regional policing study also identifies some opportunities for cooperation, short of consolidation, that
Harrisburg should aggressively pursue. Those options are summarized below:
Shared K-9 Resources: K-9 dogs and their handlers are specially trained to augment street-level patrol in a variety of
functions, such as tracking (for example, fugitives on the run from patrol officers as well as burglary and other crime
scenes to track potential suspects), criminal apprehension (dogs can be trained to perform bark and hold techniques to
restrain suspects until officers arrive), drug detection, and other situations patrol officers may encounter. Memoranda
of Understanding (MOAs) may be drafted among participating agencies to share current K-9 resources or to fund the
training of K-9 officers and the purchase of police dogs. Ideally, K-9 resources should be funded so that all
participating agencies will be able to request the assistance of a K-9 team across jurisdictions and shifts so that there is
at least one K-9 team in the field at all times. All such dogs should be dual purpose dogs: trained for drug detection as
well as general patrol work.
School Resource Officer Intelligence Sharing: School Resource Officers (SROs) are a valuable contribution to an
agencys community policing and juvenile crime response efforts. The City of Harrisburg may wish to re-implement
their SRO program at the high school level, if resources become available. Regional department interviews indicated
countywide SROs were very successful in sharing information between surrounding districts. For example, this
information sharing assists with crime prevention, intelligence gathering, and the provision of social services. Building
upon this, for those agencies in Dauphin County that utilize SROs, consideration should be given to sharing
information on a regular basis in order to identify trends and patterns in the school districts they work in that could
affect other jurisdictions or schools in the county.
59
Drug Task Forces: The Harrisburg Police Department should work to integrate its drug task force back into the
Dauphin County Drug Task Force. Interviews with Harrisburg Police Department staff revealed that Harrisburg was
once part of the countywide task force, but broke off to create their own task force. The Harrisburg Police Department
and the countys task force should move towards re-implementing a combined task force. In any event, both task forces
should ensure that they are coordinating with the Pennsylvania State Police to ensure that participants on both task
forces are aware of operations in each others jurisdiction. As there are multiple task forces in the county (the city and
county task forces, as well as task forces for the state police and the state attorney generals office), it is crucial that all
task forces deconflict, preferably with the state police, to ensure the safety of all task force members.
It is recommended that the City aggressively and proactively pursue those opportunities.
PD 4:
Increase compliment of the VICE/Street Crimes Unit as resources become available.
Bureau staff and other stakeholders interviewed generally agree that a large portion of the City's violent crime is driven by
illegal narcotics, yet only four investigators are assigned to the Bureau's Vice Unit, the squad primarily charged with narcotics
investigations. Although the Citys fiscal condition is likely to result in staffing challenges for the Bureau for the foreseeable
future, the enhancement of the Vice Unit is in the Citys best interest and will contribute to the reduction of violent crime.
Therefore, staffing of the Vice Unit shall be increased to a minimum of six investigators.
The effectiveness of this initiative can be measured by the number of narcotics arrests and seizures made; the number of search
warrants executed; and reduction in the violent crime rate. If the desired outcomes are not achieved, personnel can be reassigned
to patrol or other investigative duties. The City shall retain the right to reassign personnel to patrol or other investigative duties.
PD 5:
Fund a police department vehicle replacement program within the parameters of the police department
budget.
Police vehicles are subjected to unusually hard use; they often run 24 hours a day, stay idle for lengthy periods and are operated
by multiple drivers. Typically, after approximately 75,000 miles, maintenance costs and out of service time begin to outweigh
the replacement cost. Most importantly, it is indisputable that vehicles are essential tools; the job cannot be done without them.
In accordance with the recommendations of the Citys adopted recovery plan, the Police Department amended its policy of
purchasing most of its police vehicles at once and instead opted to begin implementing a phased vehicle replacement plan. It
has been able to dedicate some financial resources to vehicle replacement; however, it has primarily utilized grant resources to
fund vehicle replacements. Though this has allowed the Department to achieve some vehicle replacements, it has not been
wholly sufficient and many of the departments active patrol vehicles have well over 100,000 miles are in need of replacement.
Unfortunately, resources remain limited; however as resources become available, it will be important to place high priority on
replacing patrol vehicles and carrying forward the Bureaus targeted vehicle replacement approach. Patrol is the most active
and visible element of the police force and patrol vehicles are critical and important tools.
PD 6:
Pursue grant funding to replace and upgrade the Uniformed Patrol Division Vehicle Mobile Data
Terminals.
Mobile Data Terminals (MDT) are the in-car computers utilized by patrol officers to access state and national databases and the
emergency communications center dispatch screen and records management system. Currently approximately half of the
Mobile Data Terminals MDTs used by the Police Department are able to connect to the Countys JNET system. This is because
they are running on an old and unsupported operating system, Windows XP. The MDTs that are still running XP are older
Fujitsu computers that also suffer from heat issues with a significant number of the internal fans failing. The Federal
Government does not allows access to the JNET system from XP operating systems because XP is no longer supported by
Microsoft, and therefore more susceptible to virus attack.
Having less than half of police vehicles equipped with more reliable MDTs capable of running Windows 7 and able to connect
to the Countys JNET system is a critical life safety issue. Unreliable MDTs overburden dispatch, resulting in delays for officers
doing traffic stops as they cannot run the tags on a vehicle. While the Police Department is making some progress on upgrading
the remaining MDTs, this should be a funding priority if the Police Department is not able to win more grants. In addition,
MDT upgrade may be pursued for funding under the Act 47 grant program.
The most recently purchased Fujitsu MDTs purchased by the Department cost approximately $2,335. To replace all 28 units
with the latest model would cost approximately $65,380.
60
Bureau of Fire
The Bureau of Fire provides emergency response to fires and other hazardous conditions within the City of Harrisburg, and also
provides emergency medical services at the first responder-level for calls involving life-threatening conditions. Transport
services for medical emergencies within the City are supplied by a third party provider, Life Team. The Bureau is also the
designated Emergency Management Agency for the City of Harrisburg. The Bureau's Mission Statement is as follows:
The Harrisburg Bureau of Fire exists to serve the City of Harrisburg, and when needed, the greater Harrisburg metropolitan area
by providing effective fire suppression, emergency medical services, tactical rescue, urban search and rescue, water rescue,
hazardous materials response, fire prevention, fire codes enforcement, and public safety educations.
The Bureau of Fire is a team of highly motivated diverse individuals dedicated in common to public interaction and providing
efficient services. This involves the use of modern fire and rescue equipment, integrated up-to-date training and safety
techniques, computer technology, and cooperation with surrounding fire, rescue, and EMS agencies to provide the best service
available by making public safety and protection our perpetual primary priority.
From three City fire stations, the Bureau operates two engine companies, two truck companies, and one engine rescue one of
which responds as a rescue engine. The Bureau is primarily staffed by career firefighters, but is supplemented by two volunteer
companies, (Riverside, Camp Curtin and Mt. Pleasant) with approximately six total active volunteer members.
The following figure illustrates the Fire Bureau's primary areas of operation, which include Fire Suppression, Fire Safety
Education, Fire Inspection, Fire Training and Emergency Management. The Fire Chief oversees all operations of the Bureau
with assistance from one Deputy Chief (non-bargaining unit member) and three Battalion Chiefs (bargaining unit members).
Office of the Fire Chief
Fire Suppression
Fire Safety
Education
Emergency
Management
Fire Inspection
Fire Training
Fire Suppression encompasses the Bureau's response to all emergency and non-emergency calls for service, including fires,
emergency medical services at the scene of accidents and in life threatening medical emergencies, tactical rescue, urban search
and rescue, water rescue and hazardous materials response.
Fire Safety Education involves the planning and execution of fire safety and burn education for residents and businesses,
including schools and daycare centers, within the City.
The Fire Bureau is the City of Harrisburg's designated Emergency Management Agency (EMA). The Fire Chief is the
designated Emergency Management Coordinator. EMA responsibilities include the creation and ongoing review of the City's
Emergency Operations Plan, which is used to guide City operations during large-scale disasters that require the management
and coordination of numerous and diverse resources. The City works closely with the Dauphin County Emergency Management
Agency during any such disasters.
Fire Inspection primarily applies to the enforcement of the City's Fire Prevention Code, including the review and approval of
plans for all new construction as well as major renovations to existing structures. Additionally, existing properties are inspected
to ensure compliance with applicable codes and standards.
Fire Training includes the drafting and implementation of the Bureau's annual comprehensive training plan. Also included
within this function is the Bureau's apprenticeship training program, which is mandatory for all new recruits.
In addition to the primary operational areas listed above, the Fire Bureau offers multiple specialized services, and also
participates in several regional teams and task forces as described below:
61
The Bureau assists Harrisburg River Rescue (third party provider) in providing water rescue response on the
Susquehanna River and all other bodies of water within the City. Most members of the Bureau are trained in at least the
basic level of water rescue.
The Bureau's Rescue One Program responds to specialized technical rescue emergencies, including building collapse,
trench rescues, confined space rescues, high angle rescues and heavy vehicle extrication in the City and the surrounding
region. Firefighters that participate in Rescue One have advanced technical training as well as mandatory yearly
training updates.
The Bureau is currently a participant in Pennsylvania Company One (PA-CO 1), one of nine regional elements of the
Pennsylvania Urban Search and Rescue Response. PA-CO 1 is activated by PEMA for technical rescue and response
across the Commonwealth in an emergency. The Bureau also participates in the South Central Pennsylvania Counter
Terrorism Task Force (SCTF), which provides incident management during large-scale emergencies.
The Bureau also participates on the Dauphin County Hazardous Materials Response Team (HMRT). An agreement
between the City and Dauphin County allows on-duty firefighters to immediately respond to hazardous materials calls
throughout the County with the Hazardous Material Response Unit. Through the joint agreement, senior members of
the HMRT also provide members of the Bureau with basic hazardous materials certification and annual required
training.
The Bureau of Fire provides fire suppression, emergency medical services, tactical rescue, urban search and rescue, water
rescue, hazardous materials response, fire prevention, code enforcement, and public safety education services to residents of
Harrisburg. The Bureau responds from three fire stations with five pieces of front-line apparatus that are staffed 24/7 by at least
15 firefighters and fire officers.
The Bureaus FTE count has decreased by eight FTE in the last eight years. The following table shows the Bureaus historic
staffing level from 2009 through 2016. The increase of nine firefighters proposed for the 2016 budget is intended to allow the
Bureau to pre-stage for retirements expected in 2017 and avoid excessive overtime costs. Correspondingly, the proposed 2016
budget includes a $250,000 reduction in overtime
Historic FTE Count
Bureau of Fire
62
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Budget
84
71
71
65
76
76
85
93
Total FTE
Increase/
Decrease
-8
The following tables summarize the Bureaus historical expenditures and projected baseline expenditures through 2018.
Bureau of Fire
Salaries & Wages
2011
Actual
4,504,380
2012
Actual
4,242,455
2013
Actual
4,156,587
2014
Actual
4,515,318
2015
Reported
4,744,796
Overtime
2,288,901
2,719,249
2,729,170
1,828,382
848,997
-62.9
Premium
305,019
100.0
121,280
114,937
89,433
100,107
94,240
-22.3
Social Security
91,746
92,800
95,748
94,222
87,905
-4.2
Group Life
-1,011
-100.0
603,217
315,308
400,042
208,507
214,097
-64.5
Medicare - Part B
43,296
51,394
53,488
64,480
67,157
55.1
Loss Time & Med
267,101
252,538
307,607
175,122
277,494
3.9
Category
Sick Leave Buy-Back
Severance Pay
%
5.3
Fire Pension Plan B
358,000
100.0
Hearing Aid -Fire
263
135
100.0
45,074
38,982
54,407
77,736
70,556
56.5
5,945
1,499
6,360
6,240
3,048
-48.7
College Credits
7,184
4,992
5,204
6,596
-8.2
Services
120,061
154,257
163,279
239,519
238,410
98.6
Supplies
77,072
76,947
53,651
198,722
200,825
160.6
Other
Total
18,137
129,731
1,800
-90.1
8,192,382
8,065,619
8,109,772
7,643,290
7,519,076
-8.2
Clothing Allowance
Bureau of Fire
Category
2016
2017
2018
Projected
Projected
Projected
Change
5,059,517
4,999,876
4,993,680
-1.3
Overtime
650,000
650,000
650,000
0.0
Premium
365,000
365,000
365,000
0.0
Sick Leave Buy-Back
112,000
112,000
112,000
0.0
Social Security
95,927
93,678
93,711
-2.3
Severance Pay
250,000
250,000
250,000
0.0
Medicare - Part B
69,234
69,234
69,234
0.0
Loss Time & Med
250,000
250,000
250,000
0.0
Fire Pension Plan B
280,858
255,000
257,550
-8.3
500
500
500
0.0
Clothing Allowance
85,000
85,000
85,000
0.0
Clothing Maint. Allowance
10,000
10,000
10,000
0.0
6,800
6,800
6,800
0.0
Services
326,200
253,267
230,374
-29.4
Supplies
286,150
286,810
287,483
0.5
Salaries & Wages
Hearing Aid -Fire
College Credits
Other
Total
155,000
157,945
160,946
3.8
8,002,186
7,845,111
7,822,278
-2.2
63

In the 2013 Harrisburg Strong Plan, the Bureau of Fire had a total of 13 initiatives that were the direct responsibility of the
Bureau of Fire. The Bureau has made significant progress toward implementing many of those initiatives. Notably, through
collective bargaining negotiations, the Department has been able to close one fire station and adjust its company staffing level
to 14 firefighter/lieutenants and one command officer per shift, which has in turn allowed the Bureau to significantly reduce its
overtime expenses. This has added significant value from both a public safety, firefighter safety and response perspective.
The Bureau has also worked to cover the cost of providing special services provided outside the course of normal firefighting
services. City Council adopted an ordinance increasing emergency response and vehicle extrication fees and the City is now
aggressively billing insurance companies accordingly. The City Council also approved increased fire alarm fees that more
accurately reflect the cost of providing services, though additional adjustments to the false fee structure are warranted.
The Bureau, with the cooperation of the IAFF, has also converted an Administrative Assistant position to a civilian position. In
addition, the Bureau has created a formal Safety Committee review of each work-related injury, as well as observed safety
issues, so that effective action can be taken to reduce work-related injuries going forward.
There are however additional initiatives and opportunities that should be pursued by the Bureau in the coming years.
FD 1:
Partner with Dauphin County and the Act 47 Coordinator to conduct a study to evaluate regional fire
service delivery opportunities.
With changes to the deployment model and the addition of personnel to the Bureau of Fire, staffing and deployment has
stabilized in the Bureau. The Bureau provides a high level of service to residents, businesses and visitors, and maintains a
complement of highly trained firefighters and command staff.
Given the level of service provided by the Bureau, and the Bureaus proximity to other boroughs and townships, there are
opportunities in the coming years to develop regional partnerships or contracting models whereby the City of Harrisburg could
provide fire suppression, special rescue, and fire prevention services to neighboring communities. This is especially true given
the loss of volunteers across the Commonwealth. Such initiatives have the potential to serve the purpose of improving fire
services in neighboring communities while also serving as a potential revenue source for the City of Harrisburg.
The Bureau of Fire has begun evaluating these opportunities. However, full evaluation of options available will require detailed
deployment and staffing analysis, cost estimates, and extensive conversations with neighboring communities and their elected
officials. It is therefore recommended that the City seek to partner with Dauphin County and the Act 47 Coordinator to conduct
a fire regionalization and service sharing study to identify and prioritize opportunities.
FD 2:
Incorporate a fire apparatus replacement schedule into the recommended Capital Improvement Plan.
Since the passage of the Strong Plan, the Bureau of Fire has made progress improving the condition and preventative
maintenance of its apparatus. The Bureau has contracted with a fleet maintenance company thats specializes in fire apparatus
maintenance to complete regular scheduled preventative maintenance for Bureau apparatus. This has allowed the Bureau to
ensure that its front-line apparatus remains active. In addition to improving its fleet management program, the Bureau has
utilized grant funds and funds available through the Firemans Relief Association to purchase new or high quality used fire
apparatus. Further, the Bureau is in the process of developing specifications to purchase a new pumper truck in the coming
year.
Though the Bureau has made progress in the area of fleet management and apparatus replacement, it, like most City
departments, does not have a dedicated recurring funding stream available for apparatus replacement. The Bureau estimates
that front-line apparatus, such as pumper trucks and fire engines, have a life-cycle of approximately 10 years. It is estimated that
the heavy use (e.g., number of runs) of apparatus in Harrisburg and difficult conditions in the City (e.g., road conditions) limits
the ability of the Bureau to extend front-line apparatus beyond this timeframe. Moreover, the Bureaus experience with
refurbishments (apparatus that have been outfitted at the 10 year mark for recirculation as front-line apparatus) has been poor.
As a result, the Bureau is reluctant to rely on refurbishment as an option to extend the life of its apparatus, though refurbishment
is far more cost effective than purchasing new apparatus.
Given these considerations, it is necessary to develop a phased apparatus replacement schedule and to incorporate that schedule
into the Citys capital budgeting and planning processes. Though this is important from a planning and budgeting perspective,
it also important for the Bureau to continue to conduct individual condition assessments of firefighter apparatus as tool to
evaluate actual replacement need.
64
FD 3:
Develop a company-based fire inspection program.
The Bureau is currently unable to keep pace with annual fire prevention inspections with the existing fire inspection staff.
Therefore, engine companies should be leveraged to provide basic fire prevention inspections under the general oversight of the
Fire Chief and Deputy Fire Chief. This will allow a tiered, proactive approach to improving fire and life safety. Engine
companies will conduct basic inspections, while seeking assistance from the Bureau's Fire Inspector(s) and the City's Bureau of
Codes for more complex issues. In addition to improving fire safety, the inspections will foster in firefighters a deeper
familiarity with City structures and their specific firefighting challenges, which will be beneficial in emergency response.
Under the direction of the Fire Chief, and with input from the City's Codes Administrator, firefighters should receive training in
the required knowledge, skills, and abilities to conduct effective inspections as needed. Engine companies will inspect noncomplex properties, such as parking structures, retail businesses, and offices, until significant experience is gained. Inspections
performed by the engine companies will be only those that are routine, Fire Prevention Code enforcement-related. Once the
engine companies' firefighters have gained significant experience, the engine company inspection program should be expanded
to include more specialized inspections of other structures.
The Bureau should set an initial workload target of 20 inspections per week, distributed evenly among the Bureau's stations.
The program may be expanded further as staff gains experience. It is recommended that, for the first year of this program, no
fee above the annual fire prevention permit fee (already paid annually by property owners) be assessed. Once the program is
established, the City, with assistance from the Act 47 Coordinator, should work to develop and adopt a comprehensive fee
structure for fire prevention activities, including the engine company inspection program.
FD 4:
Evaluate a revision to the false alarm fee ordinance to enable the City to bill alarm companies directly.
The primary goal of assessing a false alarm fee is to encourage improved maintenance of systems and reduce unnecessary
response from firefighters, thereby ensuring that response capacity is available for true emergencies. A secondary goal of a false
alarm fee is the recovery of costs associated with repeatedly deploying resources to the same site unnecessarily.
In 2013, the City implemented a more aggressive fee schedule in tandem with a public education program with the goal of
educating property owners on methods for improving the reliability of alarm systems. In addition to charging an annual fee of
$60 for fire alarms, the City of Harrisburg also charges alarm system owners that have more than two false fire alarms in a 12month period. Chapter 3 Section 901.5 of the Fire Code includes the following false alarm fee structure.
Number of Alarms
Fee
1 to 2 false alarms
No charge
3 to 4 false alarms
$150 per alarm
5 to 7 false alarms
$250 per alarm
7 or more false alarms
$500 per alarm
False alarm fees are not popular with residents that have frequent false alarms and billing and collecting false alarm fees can be
cumbersome and unpredictable. In response to these issues, many communities have begun fining alarm companies directly for
the costs associated with false alarms rather than fining individual residents. Under this approach, alarm companies are assessed
a fee that is determined by the number of false alarms from the companys subscribers. Fining alarm companies provides an
incentive to alarm companies to proactively reduce the number of false alarms while improving public relations with citizens
since they are not fined. A limitation of this policy is that the incentive for alarm system owners to reduce the number of false
alarms is removed if the alarm companies do not pass along the fees to its customers. However, more often than not the cause
of a false alarm is related to the system, not necessarily the resident. Assessing the false alarm fee to alarm companies
incentivizes the alarm companies to assess and repair fault systems to mitigate the issue.
65

The Department of Public Works is responsible for maintaining public infrastructure, managing solid waste collection, and
ensuring a healthy, safe, and natural environment. The 2016 proposed budget for the City of Harrisburg includes a substantive
reorganization of the Department of Public Works that creates a Bureau of Neighborhood Services in addition to the longstanding Bureau of Vehicle Management and the Bureau of Engineering.
The new Bureau of Neighborhood Services will encompass all functions relating to refuse and recycling collection. In addition,
the Bureau of Neighborhood Services will include the street maintenance and park maintenance function. The traffic
engineering function, which is responsible for managing the Citys sign and traffic signal infrastructure, will be organized under
the Bureau of City Engineering. The Bureau of Vehicle Management will continue to be responsible for the administration,
maintenance, and repair of the Citys fleet of approximately 400 vehicles and pieces of equipment. The following figure shows
the organizational structure of the Department of Public Works.

Office of the Director
Bureau of
Neighborhood Services
Bureau of Engineering
Bureau of
Vehicle Management
The Departments FTE count has decreased significantly during the last eight years, primarily as result of the Bureaus of Water
and Sewerage being transferred to Capital Region Water. The 2016 proposed staffing composition shows a significant transfer
of personnel from the Department of Public Works to the Sanitation Utility. This reflects the proposed reorganization to create
a Neighborhood Services Bureau that encompasses all functions relating to Sanitation services. The following table
summarizes the Departments historic staffing level from 2009 through 2016.

Historic FTE Count

Sanitation Utility
Total
66
2009
Actual
2010
Actual
2011
Actual
2012
Actual
2013
Actual
2014
Actual
2015
Actual
2016
Budget
53
28.5
81.5
37
23
60
42
20
62
49
20
69
50
19
69
46
20
66
52
24
76
25
72
97
Total FTE
Increase/
Decrease
-28
43.5
15.5
The following tables summarize the Departments historical expenditures and projected baseline expenditures through 2018.
Department of Public Works General Fund

Category
Salaries & Wages
Overtime
Social Security
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Reported
Change
1,791,113
2,205,675
2,143,292
2,060,699
2,099,424
17.2
93,032
82,904
109,871
194,781
203,491
118.7
144,138
175,346
173,444
173,475
172,265
19.5
Services
992,414
807,246
1,097,048
1,367,922
1,608,188
62.0
Supplies
1,551,837
1,642,800
1,270,502
1,391,855
835,123
-46.2
728,023
314,023
781,209
417,084
1,172,083
61.0
5,300,556
5,227,995
5,575,366
5,605,815
6,090,573
14.9
Other
Total
Department of Public Works Sanitation Fund

Category
Salaries & Wages
Overtime
Social Security
Services
Supplies
Other
Total
2011
Actual
771,516
32,867
62,358
1,150,266
160,207
3,200
2012
Actual
751,561
39,108
61,762
1,149,188
172,568
0
2013
Actual
752,208
61,529
63,367
775,959
182,333
4,000
2014
Actual
1,217,212
181,509
107,843
1,601,879
618,851
5,900
2015
Estimated
na
na
na
na
na
na
%
Change
na
na
na
na
na
na
2,180,413
2,174,187
1,839,395
3,733,194
na
na
Department of Public Works General Fund

2016
2017
2018
Projected
Projected
Projected
Change
1,198,598
1,208,524
1,218,549
1.7
Overtime
52,000
52,000
52,000
0.0
Social Security
95,671
96,430
97,197
1.6
Services
1,766,556
1,736,787
1,707,403
-3.3
Supplies
1,441,200
1,439,395
1,446,727
0.4
674,808
683,639
692,638
2.6
5,228,833
5,216,776
5,214,515
-0.3
Category
Salaries & Wages
Other
Total
67
Department of Public Works Neighborhood Services Fund

Category
Salaries & Wages
Overtime
Social Security
Services
Supplies
Other
Total
2016
Projected
2,810,471
175,000
230,218
8,220,005
454,000
52,000
11,941,695
2017
Projected
2,851,182
175,000
249,877
8,322,794
454,000
52,000
12,104,853
2018
Projected
2,876,434
175,000
251,986
8,322,794
454,000
52,000
12,132,214
%
Change
2.3
0.0
9.5
1.3
0.0
0.0
1.6
Department of Public Works Host Fee Fund

Category
2016
Projected
2017
Projected
2018
Projected
%
Change
115,446
115,446
115,446
0.0
8,832
8,832
8,832
0.0
Services
40,500
40,500
40,500
0.0
Supplies
10,000
10,000
10,000
0.0
240,000
90,000
90,000
-62.5
414,778
264,778
264,778
-36.2
Salaries & Wages

Social Security
Other
Total

The Department of Public Works (DPW) has undergone considerable change since the passage of the Strong Plan in 2013. The
Bureaus of Water and Sewerage, and the responsibilities of those bureaus, have been transferred to Capital Region Water
(CRW). This transfer, though necessary, decreased the number of Public Works staff that could be drawn upon to meet the
departments maintenance responsibilities.
Staffing availability has been further limited as a result of systematic issues in the sanitation operation. Recurring staffing
shortages in the sanitation operation have historically forced the department to regularly draw upon street maintenance
personnel to effectively perform refuse and recycling routes. As a result, the City has been unable to dedicate sufficient
resources to the street maintenance operation. The Receivers Team, had recommended contracting out sanitation as it believed
that it would be very difficult for the City to be able to: 1. wean itself off of Sanitation Fund transfers for some time, 2. Afford
the ongoing capital needs of the sanitation operation, and 3. Increase staffing and improve operations to the levels required to
improve the service delivery to the required level. However after extensive discussion, at the end of 2013, the City determined
that it would maintain the sanitation operation in-house with substantial improvements in its operation.
Thereafter, with Act 47 funding and support from the Act 47 Coordinator, the City completed a comprehensive sanitation
program evaluation in 2015 and developed a plan to modernize the sanitation operation which built on recommendations from
the 2013 Strong Plan. Recommendations focused on obtaining new or refurbished collection vehicles, purchasing and
deploying new trash and recycling containers, increasing recycling through educational efforts, enforcing current ordinances
and validating all commercial and residential billing information. Significant improvements were made in 2015 and the City has
proposed a 2016 budget that adds staffing resources to the sanitation operation, thereby allowing streets maintenance personnel
to be fully dedicated to their assigned tasks. These are positive steps and the progress that had been made in the sanitation
operation is to be commended. There are however, additional steps that must be taken into the future to ensure that the City can
capitalize on this progress and advance further improvements in the sanitation operation. The City will need to closely monitor
sanitation operational changes and complete an analysis of how to pay for the increased expenditures on personnel and
equipment, which is critical to determining whether building in house capacity is sustainable in the long run.
68
The Bureau of Engineering, with Commonwealth and Act 47 enabled funding, has also made significant investments in the
Citys infrastructure. In 2014, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) committed to contributing $10
million over a five year period toward infrastructure repair funding in the City of Harrisburg. This commitment stood in
addition to PennDOTs planned repairs and projects on Commonwealth managed roadways and highways in Harrisburg. As of
November 2015, the City has so far been awarded $3.19 million in funding from PennDOT and has requested reimbursement of
approximately $670,000 for the Citys accrued costs related to applicable projects. The City intends to use this reimbursement
amount as local match money for future grant applications through PennDOT and other Commonwealth and Federal agencies.
This funding will serve to allow the City to make major road repairs in the coming months and years.
The Bureau of Engineering has also begun the process of updating its traffic signal system and has adopted the practice of
updating traffic signal infrastructure when other road projects are being completed. This is a prudent approach to replacing the
antiquated traffic signal system. In addition, the City is currently engaged in a comprehensive street light upgrade program to
replace the Citys incandescent street lights with Light Emitting Diode (LED) lights. This project, which was partially funded
with the historic artifacts sale authorized in the Strong Plan, will serve to reduce the Citys ongoing utility expenses. Though
these are noteworthy projects, there are still significant infrastructure issues in the City.
Though the Department has made strides in the area of infrastructure repair, the City will be confronted with significant facility
viability issues into the future. The Citys lease on the Department of Public Works garage facility expires in March of 2017
and the City must assess and pursue alternatives well in advance of the lease termination date. In addition, the City will be
confronted with the need to make significant facility related capital improvements in the coming years. Those needs must be
professionally assessed and options evaluated so that both daily maintenance plans and capital investment requirements can be
appropriately prioritized.
The Department has also made significant improvements in its fleet maintenance operation. It has appointed a full-time fleet
manager and has included additional fleet maintenance personnel in the proposed 2016 budget. There are, however,
opportunities for the Bureau of Vehicle Management to more proactively take advantage of existing software to improve fleet
management, and to implement practical best practices.
Refuse and Recycling Collection

Following the completion of the assessment the City has moved forward with implementing many of its recommendations and
has made significant improvements in the sanitation operation over the course of 2015. In an attempt by the City to better
manage the waste collection effort and improve operating efficiencies in the City, residential carts for both refuse and recycling
were deployed in 2015. This action by itself has been a great improvement in cleaning up the streets since waste to be collected
must now be in a cart. Enforcement for waste violations is also easier to spot and document
Prior to deployment of carts, generated waste was set out at the alley or the curbside in either bags or generator-provided
containers. Deployment of carts has provided uniformity in the waste containers, associated billings, and results in easy to spot
enforcement issues. Deployment of the carts is also creating equity in the waste services program. Prior to cart deployment, the
waste generation limit was six bags which was difficult to enforce since it was almost impossible to provide documentation on
which waste generator was responsible for the offense. Now, each cart has a standard billing rate. More carts result in a
multiple of the cart rate.
Deployment of waste carts across the City, along with Capital Region Water taking over billing for water and sewer, has
compelled the City to audit and improve its sanitation billing operation. Prior to April 1, 2015, the City had provided billing
services for water, sewer and waste collection. The removal of water and sewer invoicing as a City responsibility forced the
City to review its billing and accounts receivable practices relative to waste collection. The Citys residential accounts had
some errors, mostly due to change of addresses which were not being timely changed in the accounting system. The
deployment of the carts has provided an opportunity to the City to perform a complete audit and verification of its residential
accounts.
Once residential carts began being deployed in the City, the Citys focus was deployment of residential carts until every
residential account holder had a cart. This process took until near the end of July, 2015 to be completed. Conversion of
commercial accounts to carts or an audit verification of the account has been proceeding though work is still to be competed.
Small commercial accounts that can be converted to carts have been the easiest to audit and verify. By the end of 2015, the City
expects to have audited and verified about half of its commercial accounts with the remainder to follow in the first half of 2016.
The City has also pursued most of the largest commercial accounts with similar findings during the account review and
verification. Some of the issues associated with the commercial accounts are: 1) incorrect, reduced or no billing for service
provided, 2) service provided more frequently than billed, 3) more dumpsters than being billed, and 4) accounts not paid and
service still being provided.
69
The City also has approximately a quarter of its commercial accounts being serviced by private vendors in violation of a City
ordinance. The Mayor has met with the three largest private waste haulers doing business in the City and is preparing a plan of
action to transition these private hauler accounts to the City. This process will occur over a two-year period so as not to disrupt
existing contracts. The City has also purchased two front-loading waste collection trucks to service dumpsters and is ready for
this transition.
Joint billing for water, sewer and waste collection by the City ceased after the first quarter of 2015. The separation of the bills
brought a review of the procedures to manage accounts within the City and how the data is acquired, verified and managed in
the Citys database. The account review process has also produced a renewed interest in collection of overdue monies. A
recent report has alleged that a few commercial accounts owe the City more than $1.5 million after individual audits of the
commercial waste accounts. The City is moving forward to hire special legal counsel to assist in recoveries of these unpaid
monies due to the City.
The City moved quickly in 2014 to create and fill a staff position to provide enforcement of waste ordinances. The word of
mouth publicity of enforcement of long standing waste violators combined with the deployment of residential carts has brought
some order into the Citys waste management system. Unfortunately, the individual hired by the City for this job left in August
for other employment and a new hire was not completed until the end of the third quarter of 2015. The focus of the current
enforcement is on the worst of the violations followed by individuals who are overfilling their carts and avoiding payment of
increased waste services.
The May 2015 Waste Collection and Recycling report documented many issues in the City regarding waste services and other
City cleaning services provided by City staff. The report documented some outstanding service to City residents. Since the
report was released, the level of commitment to provide a high level of service to City residents has been reaffirmed. Staff has
been challenged by operating equipment issues, safety of working in the alleys and less than full staff allocation to fulfill their
jobs. Deployment of the carts has helped improve collection safety and waste collection efficiency.
At the beginning of 2015, it was a rare day when the City had its entire fleet of waste collection trucks on the road working. At
the time of this report, the City has been able to have its fleet on the road nearly every day by developing a maintenance
agreement with a local diesel mechanic company to outsource maintenance that the City was otherwise unable to perform due to
constraints of its public works garage and the nature of the refuse collection trucks.
The City also hired a recycling coordinator in the second half of 2014 and the results are beginning to appear after the
deployment of the residential carts. Recycling at various Harrisburg businesses and the Harrisburg Schools is more noteworthy
since some of these establishments were not recycling until recently. By way of comparison, recycling tonnage in October 2014
compared to the same month in 2015 rose from 62 tons to 146 tons, a significant improvement. The City purchased a new
recycling truck in the third quarter of 2015 with funding from DEP that compacts the recyclables allowing for the entire route to
be completed prior to unloading the truck.
The older recycling vehicles are the segregated bin style allowing for curbside sorting which is no longer performed but does
impact the efficiency of operations since these vehicles require frequent unloading. The City is using single stream recycling
and changed its contract to transition from a paid service to a revenue sharing model for recycling materials delivered, which is
a positive improvement with potential revenue implications. The deployment of carts has made waste generators more
cognizant of their waste disposal options and fees for service.
The current public works garage does not have a high bay which creates a need to use outside maintenance for the waste
collection and recycling trucks. Due to the age of the waste collection trucks and historical delayed invoice payment issues,
timely performance on waste collection trucks was a significant issue in early 2015. While this outside vendor issue has been
mostly resolved, several trucks in the Citys aged fleet require replacement for safety and operational issues. The City also has
better access to common parts, such as filters when performing work in house.
Though the accomplishments detailed above are noteworthy, there are still a number of initiatives that must be pursued to carry
forward the improvements the sanitation operation.
DPW 1:
Replace alley collection with curbside collection in the City to the greatest extent possible.
The City waste collection still occurs at the alley in most cases and recycling collection is at the street curb. In 2016, the City
intends to replace the oldest waste collection trucks and return to a full crew on each collection route. For the City to reap the
full safety and collection efficiency benefits of cart collection, alley collection needs to be replaced with curbside collection.
This change is also a requirement to preserve the investment in new collection trucks since experience has demonstrated that
alley collection is hard on the current fleet causing regular tire and body damage to the vehicles in addition to risk of damage to
parked vehicles during close quarters on alleys. Further the alleys are not built to withstand the weight of the refuse trucks.
70
DPW 2:
Develop and fund a recurring fleet replacement program for sanitation operations.
It has been no small feat to get the waste collection fleet to operate on a daily basis in 2015. The four newest vehicles are 2009
and the remainder of the Citys waste vehicles require replacement to achieve safety and waste collection improvements begun
with implementation of the cart collection. Newer trucks have a variety of safety enhancements compared to the 2009 trucks
and will have two cart tippers instead of one as is the current equipment. Also recommended is an Automated Vehicle Locator
(AVL) device on each truck to allow communication with home base and logging of account changes which has been so
lacking. The 2016 proposed budget includes finding to add AVLs to the Citys existing refuse and recycling collection fleet.
Future replacement of AVLs should be linked with the fleet replacement schedule for sanitation operations. Funding of
maintenance of equipment and equipment acquisition on an ongoing basis needs to be part of the City-wide capital
improvement plan in order for the City to avoid back sliding into an unreliable fleet.
DPW 3:
Transition all appropriate commercial refuse and recycling accounts to the City sanitation operation by
the close of 2017.
In 2015, the City purchased two front loading waste collection vehicles to service commercial accounts. The Citys billing
structure allows four cubic yards, or more to be with a dumpster, lessor amounts to be by cart. Completion of the commercial
account review and verification process needs to occur in the first half of 2016. Transition of private hauler accounts will occur
as contracts expire. Due to the need for a specialized vehicle to service roll-off containers and the lack of resources in 2016,
roll-off services should be left to the private haulers for the near term, however, the City needs to implement a system in its
accounting to track this service and receive reports that waste is delivered to the SRMC and credited to the City.
DPW 4:
Complete a comprehensive process improvement evaluation of the sanitation billing, audit and
reconciliation process to ensure accurate sanitation revenue collection.
One of the most significant issues confronting the sanitation operation has been poorly audited or inaccurate sanitation billing
practices that have resulted in lost revenue. The City is missing out on collection for value added services because it either does
not have, or has a poor reporting system that prevents billing for value extra services. This is attributable to many factors
including staffing challenges, communication limitations, and the lack of clear and consistently applied work processes for
service monitoring and effective communication to billing personnel.
Radios in City equipment have been allowed to go unrepaired, or do not exist in some equipment in favor of mobile phones.
While this change in technology is acceptable, it is not uniformly available. DPW equipment requires AVL devices in each
vehicle that has crew assigned, and especially the waste collection vehicles. An AVL device is nothing more than a modified
mobile phone that can be used for two way communications (safety), location of the vehicle, and each of the 10 buttons on the
number pad can be programmed for a certain standardized code. The waste collection crews get to see firsthand the results of
waste improvements and violations occurring in the City. City staff is accustomed to performing first class service, regardless
of price. Going forward, staff needs to use the AVL to record waste violations, value extra service, or other waste issues
programmed into the device to allow for better revenue and enforcement opportunities to be managed. Besides the AVL device,
the City may have to make changes in its billing software to allow for an acceptable interface between the AVL and the billing
of extra series.
In addition, there are serious revenue accounting issues for waste collection services. The historical methods for billing
associated waste collection have changed. Going forward, the City will still find itself providing value-added services that
require a change in its billing methods. The requirement for waste collection crews to provide feedback for billing is an
important step in identification of value added services. However, the current billing system requires modifications to allow
value added services, or software changes to allow for value added services. The changes are important for fairness in the waste
collection system and to receive associated revenues for services provided.
DPW 5:
Purchase and deploy a single operator leaf collection vehicle with funds allocated in the 2016 budget.
City crews are using traditional techniques for leaf collection whereby one leaf route requires three full-time personnel to
complete. These techniques are very labor intensive and for a DPW that has limited manpower, leaf season is disruptive and is
an all-consuming task essentially preventing work on other DPW functions during leaf season.
The purchase of large and single operator leaf vacuum machines has been recommended. The City will purchase one vacuum
sweeper in 2016 and has requested funding for an addition vacuum sweeper via a Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection 902 grant application submitted in November of 2015.. This will provide benefits in manpower and also in the
ability to keep streets clean, especially storm drains during times of the year outside of leaf season.
Leaf and yard waste management present some significant and unique challenges to the City. The City has combined sewers
and needs to keep street debris from entering storm drains. Leaves and yard waste are placed into the streets for collection, or
placed into the collection carts which go to SRMC for disposal at $190 per ton. Current options are limited for City residents
71
who desire to avoid cart or street disposal of leaves and yard waste. The City is moving forward on establishing a dedicated
yard waste debris site in 2016. The establishment of a yard waste site can bring new opportunities and rules regarding the
disposal management of leaf and yard waste. In the interim, and to comply with DEP requirements, the City is using the
Swatara Township compost facility. Some opportunities may be regular separate yard waste collection on a fee basis. Another
opportunity is to force the landscape service companies to provide disposal of the yard waste at a City site instead of the current
practice of leaving the debris in the street for City collection.
Typical of most urban areas, an expected service is street cleaning. This is true for the City, especially since street debris finds
its way into the storm drains which then feed into the sanitary sewers as this is a combined sewer. Due to the quantity of leaves
and other material in the street, the broom sweepers are not as efficient as street vacuums. The City intends to purchase one
vacuum truck in 2016 and is seeking grant funding for a second truck. Changes in yard waste management and disposal will
assist this effort.
DPW 6:
Complete an assessment of the Sanitation System improvements after the close of 2017
In 2013, the Citys financial difficulties concluded with several events that included the sale of the debt-ridden incinerator to the
Lancaster County Solid Waste Management Authority, LCSWMA) and creation of a stand-alone operating authority for water
and sewer operations. As part of the financial recovery plan for the former City waste-to-energy facility, the City agreed to
deliver a contractually set minimum amount of solid waste (35,000 tons per year) to LCSWMAs newly-acquired (and newly
named) Susquehanna Resource Management Center (SRMC) at a tipping fee of $190 per ton for a term of twenty years. The
current Dauphin County tipping fee for non-City wastes that are directed to the SRMC via a County flow control ordinance is
$80 per ton via the Countys Solid Waste Management Plan.
Included as a related element of the Citys recovery plan was an effort to contract out the refuse and recycling collection
services in the City. This effort was initiated because the refuse and recycling program was underperforming and prior efforts
by the City to revamp the service were unsuccessful, the City was not able to develop a plan to finance capital needs of the
utility, the City would need to hire a significant number of new employees which it could ill afford at the time, and it was
believed that the City would need to rely on transfers from the Sanitation Fund to the General Fund for several additional years.
The City had a sanitation fleet that was past its life cycle and the City could not afford timely replacement. In 2013, the City
had 14 sanitation packers and five recycling trucks, and of that number, 10 would need to be replaced within the next three
years, assuming industry standard life cycles. At up to $180,000 per vehicle, the Citys financial condition could not support
replacement of trucks and access to financing options was limited due to Citys financial position.
At the time, the City had and very low recycling rate (approximately 4% though the State average is 20% and the PA Act 101
goal is 25% per community) and was at risk of punitive action from the Department of Environmental Protection. It was critical
that the City increase its recycling rate.
The sanitation operation was plagued with chronic employee absenteeism which had a critical impact on General Fund
operations. When Sanitation employees called off, Neighborhood Services staff had to backfill. This meant that critical street
and transportation infrastructure maintenance is being delayed or not completed. With already limited staffing in Neighborhood
Services, this was not sustainable. It not only impacted the Citys ability to accomplish Sanitation related initiatives but it
impacted Public Works capacity to complete daily maintenance and accomplish other important Strong Plan initiatives.
These factors, when considered within the context of Harrisburgs broader recovery efforts, and considering the availability of
highly skilled and cost effective private sector refuse and recycling contractors, led to an RFP initiative in 2013 to contract for
refuse and recycling collection, which resulted in three bids from refuse and recycling contactors.
Though the bids would have resulted in cost savings to the City, City Council did not believe that waste privatization would
provide a sufficient level of service or generate significant savings to the City. As a result, City Council determined that the
City would not contract for refuse and recycling services but would instead work with sanitation employees to evaluate and
develop a plan for improving the sanitation operation in 2014.
In 2014, the Act 47 Coordinator leveraged Act 47 funding and with the support of the new City administration contracted with
a sanitation services consultant to complete an assessment of the sanitation operation and develop an approach for
improvement in the Citys operation. It was determined early on in the reevaluation that the current system of waste and
recyclables collection and related services in Harrisburg, was in simple terms broken and unsustainable without major
improvements.
The status quo, do nothing alternative, was not an option for the Citys waste and recyclables collection
program. However, the shortfalls in the 2013 RFP process dictated a more focused look at developing consensus and exploring
alternatives to a straight privatized bid for waste and recyclables collection services.
Managed Competition has been evaluated by the Consultant Team as it relates to the Citys waste and recycling collection
programs. The events of 2013 offer Harrisburg an excellent opportunity to employ a hybrid approach to managed
72
competition, since the City has the benefit of learning through the RFP process what a privatized system might look like for
Harrisburg.
The premise of this analysis, as acknowledged by both AFSCME representatives and the City administration is as follows:
Acknowledge that the Citys current waste and recyclables collection system is broken, and cannot be sustained
without major changes and improvements
Acknowledge that changes will need to be made to all sectors of the program to make it acceptable and sustainable,
including labor (union), management (Public Works and administration oversight), equipment (trucks, containers),
physical collection system changes, billings, accounting, public education, and codes enforcement.
Evaluate the Citys waste and recycling system in detail
Evaluate the Citys sanitation budget in detail. Identify issues with the current system, and identify recommended
improvements to the current system.
Work with City administration and City Council to help identify funding sources and budget allotments to support the
new programs and changes. Prioritize initial improvements that are most critical to changing the system.
Make these changes, and allow a trial period of at least 12 months, to demonstrate the capability of the City to make
changes, and to demonstrate the success of the initial changes and improvements to the system.
Perform an evaluation of specific and measurable changes to the system
If initial success can be demonstrated, initiate additional changes/ improvements in a similar manner to achieve the
greater improvement
If these initial changes do not result in measurable and observable system improvements, then acknowledge this and
move on to a private bid process to procure waste and recycling collection system services, and identify residual
services that will need to continue as a City responsibility. 3
As summarized in the preceding sections, the City has made significant strides toward improving its sanitation operation in
2014 and 2015. In addition, the approved 2016 budget includes funding for new positions and equipment that will serve to
further enhance operations. However, there are still a number of outstanding issues that could serve to significantly disrupt the
financial and operationally sustainability of the program.
For example, the City has not developed a capital improvement plan and funding stream that demonstrates its ability to
sustainably maintain and fund the regular replacement of sanitation packers, recycling trucks, dumpsters and carts on an
ongoing basis. Perhaps more importantly, the City has been operating under a heavily disputed commercial refuse collection
rate structure. This structure may require revision which could potentially impact sanitation revenue. In addition, the
operations improvement highlighted in the previous sanitation related initiatives must be effectively implemented to reach
sustainable improvement.
Given these unknowns, it will important to complete, at the close of 2016, a full assessment of the success of the proposed
sanitation operating improvements; revenue and expenditure history and projections, and; plans for maintaining a sustainable
operation going forward. If sufficient improvement can be achieved the City should continue with further implementation of
the evaluations recommendations. If improvement cannot be achieved, however,, it is recommended that the City re-initiate a
bid process to effectively compare the new sanitation operation to the services that can be offered by private sector contractors.
This will allow policy makers to make an informed policy and budgetary determination regarding the prudence of maintaining a
public sector sanitation operation versus contracting the service out.
Fleet Maintenance and Management

The 2013 Strong Plan includes two initiatives relating to the management of the Citys vehicles and heavy equipment, or
rolling stock. Specifically, the Receivers Plan calls for the City to aggressively manage fleet make-up and quantity and to
create a fleet agency and create a fleet and facilities manager to oversee the management of the fleet. These
recommendations were largely contingent upon the recommended addition of dedicated fleet management personnel with focus
on developing a robust inventory of fleet condition and utilization data. This information would then serve as a basis for
developing a plan to more efficiently manage the Citys fleet inventory.
Due to the Citys stressed financial condition and cash flow constraints, staffing resources have not been available to perform
the level of data collection and analysis required to implement these initiatives. However, the City has created a full-time fleet
3
City of Harrisburg MSW and Recyclables Collection System Analysis, May 2015
73
manager position and has proposed an increase of two mechanics in the 2016 proposed budget. These additions should
reasonably allow the City to improve the fleet management process.
DPW 7:
Implement the City owned fleet and fuel management system and provide staff with the necessary
training to utilize the system.
One of the largest issues for the fleet management function of the City is the general lack of electronic capabilities and
inconsistent record keeping. The VMC maintains an Excel spreadsheet that is used to monitor basic characteristics for the
Citys fleet, such as mileage at inspection periods and fuel usage. In addition, each department maintains its own fleet
inventory and varying record keeping formats are employed. However, the availability and reliability of utilization data (e.g.,
annual and seasonal utilization data) and life cycle cost information is limited at best.
The lack of electronic records and, more importantly, asset management and life cycle analytical tools, makes assessment of the
efficiency and effectiveness of this operation difficult. Without sufficient data, it is practically impossible to maintain a full
understanding of the costs of vehicle ownership including labor, supplies, fuel, depreciation, and overhead (i.e., department
indirect costs) attributable to the fleet activity. This makes it difficult to analyze and project the long-range costs associated
with maintaining a vehicle and inhibits the Citys ability to determine the most cost effective option available for vehicle
repairs. Moreover, the City cannot effectively analyze utilization or vehicle life cycles to determine the point where the cost of
owning a vehicle exceeds the cost of replacing it.
One of the most commonly applied methods to monitor, analyze, and control fleet expenditures is to implement an electronic
fleet and fuel management system that tracks the utilization characteristics and life cycle costs of maintaining a vehicle. In a
2011 survey conducted by Government Fleet Magazine, 87% of public sector fleet managers reported utilizing some sort of
electronic fleet management system.
Development of a centralized fleet and fuel management system will allow the City to maintain a central inventory of
vehicles/equipment and, using system analytical tools, regularly analyze both ownership costs and utilization. An integrated
fleet and fuel management system will also allow the City to: better manage preventative maintenance programs and workload
by monitoring vehicle mileage and automatically scheduling preventative maintenance; identify and analyze high-cost vehicles;
develop reports for regulatory compliance; monitor vehicle use and fuel consumption; and establish vehicle replacement cycles.
Moreover, implementing an effective fleet and fuel management system will further the Citys efforts to develop a
comprehensive asset management system for all City infrastructure.
Once baseline inventory data is established, it can be compared to projected asset lifecycles (an analytic feature of many fleet
management systems) and five to seven year replacement cycles can be developed. This will better equip the City to centrally
evaluate organizational fleet needs and evaluate financing options that can be used to keep its fleet within life-cycle.
Fortunately, the City has already purchased a fleet and fuel management system; however, due the lack of staffing and training
resources it has been unable to implement and utilize the system. It is recommended that priority be paid to activating and
utilizing the fleet management system as a tool to monitor the fully-burdened cost of maintaining vehicles.
Every vehicle and piece of equipment reaches a point where the cost of maintenance and operation and the impact of failures on
City operations compel replacement. Without good vehicle telematics, it is difficult to identify the point at which replacement
or surplus should occur.
DPW 8:
Develop an annual utilization and surplus fleet review and disposal program.
Currently, the City maintains an inventory of approximately 400 vehicles and heavy equipment. However, the City does not
maintain an active surplus vehicle review and disposal process. This is largely the result of the absence of staffing resources
and conveniently accessed vehicle utilization and cost data. The current public works facility is cramped for space and the
elimination of surplus vehicles will provide much needed space for maintenance purposes. Further, the City is paying the cost
of insurance on these vehicles even though they are not in use.
Following implementation of a fleet and fuel management system and the addition of fleet maintenance staff, the Bureau of
Vehicle Maintenance will be in a position to regularly assess vehicle utilization and cost to maintain, to utilize that data to help
department inform annual budget requests and to identify those vehicles that can be sold at auction on an annual basis.
However though it will take some time to get a full ad reliable set of data from the fleet and fuel management system, the
Bureau can and should begin eliminating those vehicles that are deemed permanently out of service.
74
Facilities Maintenance and Capital Planning

DPW 9:
Develop facilities condition assessment and associated capital estimates and maintenance work plans to
focus limited facilities resources on priority items.
The City of Harrisburg is dealing with two issues relating to City facilities. The first issue, which is more general, is that most
City facilities are in need of substantive maintenance. Many require capital investment to address major issues (e.g., bad roofs
or HVAC systems) and with limited personnel, recurring maintenance is ad hoc and completed as a response to failures rather
than an act of preventative maintenance. The resolution of this issue is unfortunately directly linked to the availability of
resources. The City has proposed the addition of a facilities maintenance technician in the 2016 proposed budget. This position
is warranted; however, given the square footage of the Citys facilities, its building maintenance and custodian service needs,
and the general condition of City facilities, this staffing commitment will be insufficient. Given these considerations, it will be
important for the City to conduct a comprehensive facility condition assessment and associated, prioritized maintenance work
plan, to allow building maintenance personnel and contracted personnel to focus on priority items.
DPW 10
Develop a Public works facility transition plan by the close of 2016
The second issue pertaining to facilities is time sensitive. The City had a permanent public works garage that was located
adjacent to the incinerator. The sale of the incinerator meant the City had to vacate their DPW facility and find other quarters.
A former car dealership on Paxton Street at 19th Street serves as the current Public Works garage and was rented with
combination of $300,000 in proceeds from LCSWMA through the incinerator sale and the City budget. This facility is leased
on a yearly basis through March, 2017 and the current owner has not considered a long term lease as the facility is available for
sale. The current location is adequate, but has some significant drawbacks as a DPW garage. The wash bay is only large
enough for medium sized vehicles and cannot accept waste trucks due to the size of vehicles. Vehicle washing is an important
maintenance tool. No high bay is on-site allowing for any waste truck service except for oil changes. The site is also small
requiring some thought as to how vehicles are parked overnight to allow daily service operations and no warm storage is
available for large vehicles thus requiring engine heaters for all the diesel engine vehicles. The need to plan for a permanent
DPW is a necessity as part of future budget planning. 2016 requires the evaluation of land sites in and within close proximity of
the City. Available land sites large enough are in short supply and some require significant investment to be usable for the
purpose of a DPW garage. Alternatives such as contracting for fleet maintenance still require overnight parking space for the
Citys fleet of approximately 400 vehicles. With all of the improvements in DPW in 2015 and 2016, the lack of permanent
quarters may jeopardize continuation of these improvements. The lack of a permanent DPW garage is considered to be a
vulnerability for future budget planning and requires further investigation prior to preparation of the 2017 budget.
75
Impact Harrisburg
Following its appointment in early 2014, the Task Force for Infrastructure and Economic Development worked diligently to
develop a Governance Proposal and Action Plan pursuant to the provisions of the Strong Plan. Their work was to create a
structure for the administration of the $12.3 million that was set aside as part of the parking monetization to address
infrastructure needs of the City and to incentivize economic development opportunities to aid the City in strengthening its tax
base and addressing critical infrastructure needs thus enhancing the quality of life for City residents. Although the Strong Plan
envisioned separate non-profit entities to administer each activity, the Task Force deemed it would be more efficient to create a
single non-profit to administer both funding streams. The Task Force completed their work and provided the Coordinator with
its recommendation in August. Following comments by the Coordinator and minor revisions to the Plan, the Coordinator
requested concurrence certificates from the City and Dauphin County. The application was then finalized and the Governance
Proposal and Action Plan filed with Commonwealth Court on October 3, 2014. Following review by the Court, Judge Leadbetter
issued an order on November 25, 2014 granting the Coordinators request to further modify the Harrisburg Strong Plan to approve the
Governance Proposal and Action Plan for the creation and operation of a single non-profit corporation to be known as Impact
Harrisburg to promote economic development and infrastructure improvements. The order also approved a request by the City to
allocate up to $75,000 to assist the City in financing an update to its Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan update is a key
recommendation of the Strong Plan and its completion will serve as a basis for the Citys economic development and infrastructure
priorities and greatly assist Impact Harrisburg in guiding its funding decisions.
The nine member Board was appointed by the Coordinator in January 2015 following the receipt of recommendations from the
Mayor, City Council and the County. Its first meeting was held in February and since then has been meeting bi-weekly to
address organizational activities and has made considerable progress to date. Officers include Neil Grover as Chair, Doug Hill
as Vice Chair, Les Ford as Secretary and Brittany Brock as Treasurer. The Board had engaged Vance Antonacci of McNees
Wallace & Nurick LLC as counsel to assist with its incorporation with the Department of State and establishment as a 501(c)(3)
non-profit organization with the Internal Revenue Service. Articles of Incorporation were filed with the Department of State and
approved on March 17. The 501(c)(3) application was also filed with the IRS in March and approved by the IRS on June 18,
2015.
The Coordinator and his Team provided support to the Task Force during 2014 and have continued that support to the Board
during 2015 and will continue to do so until an Executive Director is hired.
Much has been accomplished by the Board through early November. Following an RFP process, it selected Fulton Bank as its
depository. Subsequently, the $12.3 million in funds set aside as part of the parking monetization was transferred into the
Boards account. The Board is currently reviewing the proposed Investment Policy and plans to finalize it within the next month
after which a portion of their funds will be invested in longer term investments. The Board also finalized arrangements for
Board insurance with the Enders Insurance Agency and Directors liability insurance and fidelity bonding were put in place
effective August 17. It is also in the process of securing the services of both an accountant and auditor. The Board also
approved and made payment to the City for the $75,000 allocated for the update of the Citys Comprehensive Plan. It has also
finalized terms of an agreement with Pinnacle Health for no cost office space at the Pinnacle Health facility at the former
Polyclinic Hospital site along North Third Street. They took occupancy of this site in November.
The Board also devoted considerable time to the recruitment of an Executive Director. A broad recruitment effort in late spring
resulted in 39 applications being submitted for the position. Interviews were conducted in June and July, a finalist was selected
and terms of employment negotiated, however, late in the process the finalist determined that for personal reasons the position
would not work and in early August withdrew from consideration. The Board then decided that its best course of action was to
renew the recruitment process and re-advertise the position. Ads were placed in the local media and various trade publications
which resulted in 10 new applications being submitted by the September 15 deadline. These applications were reviewed and 6
candidates selected for interviews. At its November 17 meeting the Board reached consensus on a candidate and has negotiated
terms of employment. This individual has begun working with the Board on the guidelines with the application process to
begin sometime in the first part of 2016.
The Strong Plan provided for a two stage process which has been followed, however, it has taken two years and no projects
have been funded. The Mayor has expressed concerns over the amount of time it is taking to reach a point where project
applications can be received and funded. Although he understands that the two stage process is in conformance with the Strong
Plan and that both the Task Force and Impact Harrisburg Board have moved forward without undue delay, he had hoped that
the process would have been faster and the funds set aside for economic development and infrastructure would have had a
quicker, positive impact.
The Board also recognizes this and has discussed advancing project applications before year-end given the delay in the
recruitment of an Executive Director. In hindsight the two step process, though providing for significant input and involvement
76
by stakeholders, may have been a bit cumbersome and slowed the ability for the funds to have a positive impact on the Citys
recovery.
77

Effective in 2014, the City of Harrisburg amended its organization structure to create a consolidated Department of Community
and Economic Development led by a new position, the Director of Community and Economic Development. The
reorganization consolidated the Bureaus of Planning, Business Development, Building and Housing Development, and Parks
and Recreation under the direction of one director. In addition, the reorganization created a new Bureau of Arts, Culture and
Tourism under the direction of the Director of Community and Economic Development.
The core responsibilities of the Bureau of Planning are current and long-range planning. The Bureau reviews development
proposals to insure that new development is consistent with the Citys Comprehensive Plan as well as the Zoning Code and the
Subdivision and Land Development Code. It encourages and enforces development and reinvestment within the City of
Harrisburg. The Bureau is responsible for updating the Citys Comprehensive Plan and creating more specific plans and
guidelines for residents and business owners in the City. Applications for new development, mercantile licenses and floodplain
certificates within the City are reviewed by the Bureau to ensure compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Planning and
Zoning Codes. This includes oversight of the Plans and Permits Unit and preparation of zoning letters and preparation of maps
using the GIS system. This also includes historic preservation within Harrisburg, where there are six municipal historic
districts, seven eligible national historic districts, five national historic districts and one architectural conservation overlay
district. The Plans and Permits Unit also provides an opportunity for a pre-application review of development proposals. The
Unit consists of representatives from Planning, Code Enforcement, Housing, City Engineer, and Capital Region Water, as well
as the Fire and Police Bureaus. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requires that all federally assisted projects must
receive an environmental review and clearance. Most of the Citys federally funded programs have received multi-year
clearances that are annually reviewed by the Planning Bureau and HUD for compliance. Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, requires that all federally assisted building demolition projects be reviewed by the
Commonwealth for their potential impact upon historic and archaeological resources. The Planning Bureau obtains clearance
from the Pennsylvania Historic and Museum Commission and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
The Bureau of Business Development exists primarily to support small business development, especially MBE/WBE
businesses. The Bureau is responsible for supporting both new and existing businesses in the City, which involves addressing
the following needs: job retention and growth, expansion needs, financial incentives, permitting and regulatory guidance.
Success is measured by the number of small businesses that attend pre-bid meetings with local contractors for new construction
projects, as well as by how many small businesses are selected in these projects
The Bureau of Building and Housing Development exists to manage and administer the use of federal and state community
development programs assisting in the development and execution of Harrisburgs current Five Year Consolidated Plan. The
funding provided by HUD includes federal CDBG funds. These grant programs provide funding for neighborhood renewal
programs, encouraging homeownership, stabilizing property values and assisting homeowners with emergency repairs.
Specifically, the Citys housing programs include: 1) the Home Improvement Program (HIP) which provides loans and grants to
assist homeowners to bring their home up to current State Building Code standards; 2) The Home Opportunity Program (HOP)
allows the City to rehab vacant properties to bring them up to current State Building Code standards. Once up to code, the City
can sell the property to citizens of Harrisburg; 3) the Lead Abatement Program provides funding for the City to assist
homeowners with lead abatement; 4) the Home Emergency Loan Program (HELP) provides funding to assist homeowners with
emergency repairs; 5) The Citys ESG program includes allocations to three agencies that provide services to the homeless
population in the City, and; 6) the Citys HOME program, which includes allocations to local non-profit agencies that provide
direct housing services (homeownership and homeowner rehabilitation) to City residents.
The Bureau of Parks & Recreation is responsible for providing leisure time programming and services in the City. The Bureau
acts as stewards of the Citys recreational and horticultural resources including parks, playgrounds, green spaces, and related
facilities. The Bureau is responsible recreation programming for over 450 acres of public land and 27 recreation sites, which
include two City pools, one City beach, more than 50,000 shade trees and the 1,200 acre Capital Area Greenbelt. The Citys
largest park is City Island, home to the Harrisburg Senators, a AA minor league team for the Washington Nationals Major
League Baseball team The Island is also home to the City Islanders soccer team a member of the United Soccer League who
play at the Skyline Sports Complex. The Bureau of Parks and Recreation is responsible for recreation programming; however,
park maintenance crews from the Bureau of Public Works are responsible for maintaining park properties and facilities.
The Bureau of Arts, Culture and Tourism (ACT) aims to improve the quality of life in the City and to support the economic
development of the City by assisting, promoting and encouraging artists, arts & cultural organizations and seasonal events, as
well as preserving the Citys diverse cultural and historical heritage. The Bureau works to offer programs, services and activities
that encourage participation in recreational activities, leisure services and cultural experiences.
The following figure shows the organizational structure of the Department of Community and Economic Development.
78

Office of the Director
Bureau of
Planning
Bureau of
Business Development
Bureau of
Parks & Recreation
Bureau of Arts, Culture

and Tourism
Bureau of Building and

Housing Development
The Departments FTE count has decreased in the last eight years. The following table shows the Departments historic staffing
level from 2009 through 2016.

Historic FTE Count
Department of Community
& Economic Development
Bureau of Parks &
Recreation
Total
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Total FTE
Increase/
Decrease
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Budget
17.34
17
15
14
13
15
13
5.4
-11.94
31
22
14
-27
48.34
39
29
18
17
19
17
9.4
-38.94
The following tables summarize the Departments historical expenditures and projected baseline expenditures through 2018.

Category
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Actual
Reported
Change
Actual
Actual
Actual
1,495,238
794,492
808,338
751,237
767,475
-48.7
187,238
109,828
158,205
168,689
111,977
-40.2
37,252
2,355
9,506
27,279
163
-99.6
Social Security
131,560
69,594
75,859
72,487
65,749
-50.0
Services
329,567
65,946
65,434
94,746
242,195
-26.5
Supplies
48,694
459
7,068
12,137
13,047
-73.2
594
445
4,390
639.2
2,230,142
1,043,120
1,124,410
1,126,576
1,204,995
-46.0
Salary & Wages

Temporary
Overtime
Other
Total
79

2016
2017
2018
Projected
Projected
Projected
Change
1,126,180
1,131,877
1,137,632
1.0
200,000
200,000
200,000
0.0
10,000
10,000
10,000
0.0
Social Security
102,218
102,654
103,094
0.9
Services
307,800
309,217
310,662
0.9
Supplies
133,850
135,585
137,352
2.6
1,200
1,223
1,246
3.8
1,881,247
1,890,556
1,899,986
1.0
Category
Salary & Wages
Temporary
Overtime
Other
Total

In the 2013 Harrisburg Strong Plan, the bureaus that now comprise the Department of Community and Economic Development
have made noteworthy progress toward the implementation of key Strong plan initiatives. Beginning in late 2014, the City of
Harrisburg, began a comprehensive plan update process. With the Courts approval to allocate up to $75,000 from the funds set
aside for economic development in the Harrisburg Growth Fund, the City reinitiated the Comprehensive Plan update process.
Council and the Planning Commission took action to move forward with the update in early 2015 and an RFP was developed,
proposals received and evaluated and a consultant selected. In April, the City awarded the contract to Office of Planning and
Architecture (OPA) of Harrisburg to lead the process supported by 5 other firms (K&W Engineers and Consultants, Good Land
Collaborative, ARUP Americas, CSPM Group and AB3 Development). A kick off meeting for the project occurred on May 7.
Following a contest held to brand the planning process, BeHBG was selected as the name for the update process. A BeHBG
web site established to provide the community with ongoing updates and to allow further community input has resulted in over
500 registered users and generated over 1200 ideas to date in topical areas of transportation, housing, economic development,
historic resources and parks and recreation.
The process has included extensive public engagement with numerous stakeholder meetings and community workshops held.
Staff also participated in 24 community events in getting the word out about the update, to gather further input on how the City
should evolve and develop over the next twenty years and to obtain a sense of the priority of City issues. The consultants have
also met with PennDOT on transportation issues and Harrisburg Housing Authority representatives to discuss housing issues.
The comprehensive plan is expected to provide land use guidance and strategies for housing and economic development and is
expected to be completed by summer 2016. This is a significant accomplishment that will serve to guide the Citys strategic
investments going forward.
The City has developed and adopted a Local Economic Revitalization Tax Assistance (LERTA) program. The LERTA is a tax
abatement program designed to incentivize development within the City of Harrisburg by offering tax abatement programs for
those individuals and businesses interesting investing in targeted neighborhoods. Priorities of the LERTA program, and the
Citys appointed LERTA program administrator, will further be informed by the Citys updated comprehensive plan. The City
is awaiting action on the LERTA from the Harrisburg School District.
As a result of the parking asset sale, approximately $12.3 million was set aside, under the administration of a non-profit board
called Impact Harrisburg, to be used for infrastructure investment and economic development purposes. The City is expected to
begin applying for access to those resources in 2016, which serves as a valuable opportunity to leverage additional resources
toward economic development that will grow the Citys tax base and aid in its economic recovery and ultimate exit from Act
47. This is more fully discussed in the Impact Harrisburg section of the Plan.
The Bureau of Planning, which has been heavily involved in the comprehensive planning process, has also made significant
strides in increasing the utilization of the Citys Geographic Information System (GIS). The City has fully developed internal
capacity to manage the GIS and has taken over the responsibility from a contracted third party. In addition, the Bureau has
worked cooperatively with Capital Region Water to consolidate and share GIS information that will prove useful to the City
planning and operations and maintenance personnel.
80
In addition, in 2016, the Department has proposed dedicating a full-time position to manage the Citys extensive festivals and
special events. These festivals and special events are important community development and economic development tools for
the City.
Economic Development
DCED 1:
Coordinate with the Act 47 Coordinator and Capital Region Water to develop a prioritized list of
economic development and infrastructure projects for consideration by the Impact Harrisburg Board.
Included as part of the sale of the City of Harrisburgs parking assets was the set aside of $12.3 million in asset monetization
proceeds, to be used for the purposes of infrastructure repair and economic development in the City of Harrisburg. Those
proceeds, which are to be managed by an independent non-profit, Impact Harrisburg, can be applied for by the City for uses
related to economic development and/or infrastructure repair/investment.
By the close of 2015 the Impact Harrisburg Board had hired an executive director and completed its various organizational
activities. It is currently finalizing funding guidelines and anticipates that funding will become available in by late winter early
spring 2016. There are numerous projects in need of funding in the City of Harrisburg and limited resources available to fund
those projects. It will be important to work closely with the Impact Harrisburg Board, Capital Region Water and the Act 47
Coordinator to develop a list of projects for consideration that meet the intent of the funding and, where possible, leverage other
funding resources available at the Commonwealth or Federal level.
DCED 2:
Complete and Implement Comprehensive Plan and Housing Strategy
As part of the Citys Comprehensive Plan update an assessment of the Citys housing stock is being completed. The
comprehensive planning process has provided an opportunity for considerable input into housing issues within the City. The
plan will provide a housing strategy for the City. As the City moves forward with implementing housing recommendations of
the comprehensive plan the City should convene a working group composed of representatives from the City Council, the HRA,
the HHA, City staff and other key partners. The purpose of this working group shall be to guide implementation activities and
coordinate and facilitate projects related to blight, housing rehabilitation and new construction.
At a minimum, the housing strategy shall incorporate needed improvements in the following areas. This is not an exhaustive list
of possible improvements, but rather some specific examples of areas that need to be addressed:
Neighborhood planning, including short, medium and long range planning should be encouraged by the City. Ideally,
this would be a bottom up approach, soliciting input from the community.
A strategy for assessing new construction vs. rehab development Guidelines need to be established for all groups to
determine areas for renovation of current housing stock and areas for demolition and infill. In addition, by establishing
such a strategy, distribution of available funding would be more easily accomplished.
Live in the City Campaigns - In coordination with the City and local economic development groups, a new emphasis
should be placed on Live in the City campaigns. There are significant opportunities both in the downtown area as
well as surrounding neighborhoods for additional residential infill. The downtown area has significant vacant class B
and C office space. There have been successful programs in Philadelphia, York and Lancaster, which have converted
vacant space into condo developments to encourage downtown living and working.
Parks and Recreation

The Bureau of Parks and Recreation is responsible for the management of recreation programming at the Citys active
recreation areas, such as the Citys two pools and the City Island beach. Park maintenance is completed by park maintenance
staff housed in the Bureau of Public Works. It is important for recreation programming to be closely coordinated with park
maintenance. The Bureau of Park Maintenance and the Bureau of Public Works have a good working relationship and
coordinate with each other well but there are opportunities to build upon this relationship. This opportunity is further
emphasized by the fact that the budget for park maintenance is proposed to be transferred from the Bureau of Public Works to
the Bureau of Parks and Recreation. To that end it will be important to define clear expectations of service and workload
standards for the park maintenance function. Identifying these standards clearly establishes a standard and provides a metric
that the Bureau of Parks and Recreation can use to evaluate park maintenance service alternatives.
The City has undertaken a more comprehensive review of City Island to determine its best use as a regional asset. The City
participated in a charrette last fall that was undertaken by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) to assist with this process. The ULIs
report provided both short-term and long-term recommendations. Key recommendations included developing a master plan for
the Island and centralizing management for island related activities. Other priorities though have limited further pursuit of this
initiative. There are also issues related to permits and prior grants the City received under the Federal Land and Water
81
Conservation Program (LWCP) for work on City Island including the stadium area. The Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources (DCNR) is the administrator for these grants and close coordination with them is needed to resolve
outstanding issues. While meetings of the City Island Task Force with DEP and DCED had been scheduled to occur over the
summer, the Mayor has asked to cancel these meetings as the City pursues other priorities.
DCED 3:
Develop a master plan for City Island to build on recommendations of the ULI report.
City Island is a significant asset for the City and for the region. It offers many opportunities that can support the Citys
economic development plans though without a thoughtful strategy the Islands full potential will not be achieved. The ULIs
report was presented to the City in March and provided both short-term and long-term recommendations. Key recommendations
included developing a master plan for the Island and centralizing management for island related activities.
DCED 4:
Coordinate with DCNR and DEP issues involving City Island facilities.
Issues involving possible land conversion of land developed with the use of LWCP funds, marina and dock permits all involve
DCNR and DEP, and thus it is important to engage in ongoing communication, maintain compliance with permit and grant
requirements and to coordinate any future plans with those agencies.
DCED 5:
Develop park infrastructure maintenance and workload standards to guide park maintenance.
The National Recreation and Park Administration (NRPA) has established benchmark guidelines that the City can use as a basis
for determining staffing needs that are driven by service standards, service frequency, and labor hours required to complete
specific types of work. These guidelines can be adjusted to reflect the actual experience of Harrisburg and thereby used to
accurately project the Citys unique park maintenance resource requirements by month and year, for both existing and planned
infrastructure.
The following table summarizes the NRPA maintenance guidelines. The first line of the table provides a hypothetical example
of an annual labor hour calculation for tractor mowing. These calculations can be replicated for each of the primary areas of
work for Parks and Open Space. The hypothetical example includes the following assumptions and calculations:
82
100 acres of parkland categorized for tractor mowing
100 acres designated for 34 mows per year
100 acres X 34 mows per year = 3,400 acres mowed per year
NRPA benchmark guideline is 0.5 hours/acre
3400 acres mowed per year X 0.5 acres per hour = 1,700 annual labor hours
NRPA Maintenance Guidelines

Activity
Unit of
Measure
Inventory
Guideline
Tractor
Mowing
Bed Work
Acre
Sq. Ft.
0.33 hrs./sf
Push
Mowing
Edging
Acre
2.5 hrs./acre
Linear
Ft.
Linear
Ft.
Acre
1hr/1000 lf
# Trees
1.9hrs.tree
# Trees
1.3hrs/tree
# Courts
1hr/court
# Courts
1hr/court
# Courts
1hr/court
# Pieces
1.2hrs/year/piece
Sq. Ft.
2hrs/10,000sf
Weed
Eating
Fertilize/
Herbicide
Tree
Pruning
Tree
Planting
Tennis
Courts
Volleyball
Courts
Basketball
Courts
Equipment
Maint.
Child Play
Area
100
0.5 hrs./acre
Annual
Freq.
Annual
Labor
Hours
34
1,700
1.2hrs/acre
11hrs/month/
100sf
It is important to reiterate that while the NRPA guidelines serve as a useful benchmark, they should not be substituted for local
experience. Though the type of work that is completed by Park Maintenance personnel is comparable to that completed by
other jurisdictions, the conditions under which work is performed are unique to Harrisburg (e.g., type of playground equipment,
distance between parks, quality standards). As a result, the Citys service standards and, most importantly, the Citys
experience regarding the average amount of labor hours required to complete specific tasks (e.g., to complete 1 acre of tractor
mowing) should reflect the Citys unique experience.
DCED 6:
Evaluate the possibility of converting a park maintenance position to a facility maintenance technician
position.
The other equally important value added through developing park maintenance workload standards and a clear workload profile
is that it clearly defines the seasonal workload patterns, and expertise required, in the park maintenance function. This is
important because the seasonal nature of park maintenance work inevitably results in slow periods of work during the colder
months of the year. In many communities, this slow time is used to complete other key priorities, such as facility
maintenance.
Once of the most significant long-term issues in the City, and in the Bureau of Parks and Recreation is the deterioration of the
Citys public facilities. For example, in 2014 and 2015, the City was required to make significant improvements at its pool
facilities. Given the seasonal nature of park maintenance work, there is an opportunity to consider converting park maintenance
personnel to facility maintenance technicians. These technicians could perform park maintenance work during the growing
season but focus on facility repairs, both within the Bureau of Parks and Recreation and other City departments.
83
Intergovernmental Relations
Prior to, and since the Citys entrance into the Act 47 program, the City has engaged in collaborative work with a variety of
intergovernmental agencies. For example, The City produces and distributes property tax bills on behalf of the School District
and also collects the payments.
The City and Dauphin County collaborate in the provision of public safety services. The Harrisburg Police Bureau participates
in the Dauphin County Special Weapons and Tactics Team (SWAT) and works closely with the Dauphin County District
Attorneys Office in criminal investigations. In June 2011, the Dauphin County Communication Center began providing 911
and dispatch operations for the City of Harrisburg, at no charge to the City.
Dauphin County, through its Department of Community and Economic Development, directly assists businesses and
municipalities within the County in undertaking economic development projects. The Dauphin County Economic Development
Corporation, a non-profit development entity, has partnered with the City in ongoing efforts to retain and grow existing
businesses as well as attract new ones through business resource networks and calling programs.
Following a Strong Plan recommendation, the City also became a member of the Capital Region Council of Governments
(CRCOG) in 2014. CRCOG is a voluntary association of 40 member boroughs and townships from Cumberland, Dauphin,
Perry and York Counties, formed to promote intergovernmental communication and cooperation. It offers a joint purchasing
program and an auction for surplus property and equipment. The City is also a member of the Dauphin County Tax Collection
Committee which administers the collection of the Earned Income Tax for all municipalities and school districts in the County..
While there are specific instances of cooperation between and among the City of Harrisburg, the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, Dauphin County, the Harrisburg School District and other neighboring municipalities, there is no mechanism or
body that facilitates discussion of issues of mutual interest or concern. It is therefore important for the City to take a proactive
role in pursuing intergovernmental cooperation opportunities.
The Act 47 Plan includes a number of initiatives relating to intergovernmental relations and cooperation. In the area of public
safety, there are two major opportunities going forward. The first opportunity relates to the outcome of the regional policing
study targeted for completion in late 2015. The study, which was funded partially by the Act 47 program, and completed by the
Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), identifies multiple opportunities for intergovernmental service sharing and
cooperation in the policing area. It will be important for the City to pursue those opportunities to determine where costs savings
and/or service improvements can be achieved.
The second public safety opportunity relates to the fire service. As staffing in the Bureau of Fire has stabilized, and volunteer
firefighter availability in surrounding communities declines, the City may be in a position to offer fire service to its neighbors.
The deployment approach, service impact, and financial implications of such opportunities must be fully vetted but they
potentially serve as an opportunity to enhance service levels and secure valuable revenue for the City, while potentially
enhancing fire service quality in neighboring communities. However, these opportunities should be aggressively pursued as
part of the Citys recovery effort.
The City must also work closely and cooperatively with the County and the Commonwealth on infrastructure and economic
development initiatives. PENNDOT has committed to contribute significant resources to the City for infrastructure repair and
development that will be critical in fostering the Citys economic recovery. The cooperative relationship that exists between the
City and PENNDOT should be maintained. The City and the County are also important partners in the regions economic
development and, equally important, in the delivery of services to City and county residents. These efforts, and others, should
be aggressively pursued to strengthen the Citys recovery and support its sustainable exit from Act 47.
IG 1:
Identify and implement intergovernmental cooperative initiatives that decrease costs and/or improve
service levels.
The City should build on the successes achieved so far and continue its active participation in the Capital Region COG. Further
it should proactively pursue additional opportunities with Dauphin County on public safety, sanitation and recreation.
With the assistance of the Act 47 Coordinator, the Mayor and City Council shall convene a group of leaders from the City,
Dauphin County and the Harrisburg School District to discuss possible collaborative intergovernmental initiatives aimed at
conserving funds and/or improving current services and promoting economic development. These initiatives may address topics
including, but not limited to: tax collection; tax abatement programs; fleet maintenance; purchasing; facilities maintenance;
financial management services; and information technology. The group shall meet regularly with the ultimate goal of
identifying the most promising areas for future shared services, developing initiatives within these areas (along with specific
implementation plans) and implementing these initiatives within each organization. The group shall analyze opportunities based
84
on potential for cost savings, ability to improve current service delivery and/or savings on long-term capital costs for all entities
involved.
85
Capital Region Water

Capital Region Water Overview
As the municipal authority responsible for stewarding drinking water, wastewater and stormwater services for the City of
Harrisburg and its surrounding municipalities, Capital Region Water (CRW) is changing the way its customers think about their
water. In late 2013, CRW took over Harrisburgs water systems as part of the Harrisburg Strong Plan. Capital Region Waters
goal is to invest in its customers communities and become the regions premier water utility. Currently, CRW has 103
employees and is managed by a five-member, City-appointed Board of Directors, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial
Officer, and Directors of Engineering, Operations and Administration.
Since late 2013, Capital Region Water has made significant advancements toward complying with regulatory demands,
increasing capacity to operate aging infrastructure, increasing preventive maintenance measures, and creating a long-term
renewal and replacement strategy. Examples of these advancements are provided below:
1. CRW is currently undertaking a $50-million upgrade to Capital Region Waters Advanced Wastewater Treatment
Facility (AWTF) to reduce nutrients entering the Susquehanna River and the Chesapeake Bay thanks to funding from
PENNVEST and M&T Bank secured after the transition of operations from the City to CRW. The project began in
March 2014 and will be completed in early 2016. This project is currently on schedule and forecast to come in on
budget. This project has also addressed Chesapeake Bay compliance issues with the Environmental Protection Agency
and Department of Environmental Protection.
2. In April 2015, CRW launched City Beautiful H2Oa community based campaign to improve the health of local
waterways and green the City of Harrisburg, while meeting stormwater and combined sewer system compliance issues.
This campaign includes a Green Stormwater Infrastructure plan for CRWs stormwater service area, a partnership with
Lower Paxton and Susquehanna Townships to complete a watershed-wide compliance strategy to meeting Paxton
Creek water quality standards, and robust community education and engagement programs. These plans will be
incorporated into the Citys Comprehensive Plan and CRWs Wet Weather Planning for regulatory compliance. These
plans will result in significant investment into the community while attempting to minimize the financial impact to our
customers.
3. Since 2013, CRW has been completing a comprehensive mapping and condition assessment of its underground
infrastructure. Consultants and in-house staff are compiling both observed and historically documented data into a
Geographic Information System and Asset Management System that will allow us to prioritize capital repairs and
improvements and to identify weaknesses in the system for repair prior to failure.
4. CRW has been successful in preventing large costs of borrowing by developing successful financial strategies. CRW
has completed four successful borrowings since 2013 and plans for two more in 2016 including a large scale
refinancing for debt service savings, subject to market conditions at the time.
5. CRW will be completing a Strategic Plan in 2016 that will further streamline operations to the benefit of our customers,
ratepayers, and community.
86
Debt
The following provides a further update on the current status of the Citys outstanding indebtedness.
I.
Prior Debt
A. Resource Recovery Facility
The approximately $360 million in debt and other obligations relating to the Resource Recovery Facility has been paid,
settled or otherwise satisfied on or prior to December 23, 2013:
All Outstanding Bonds relating to the resource recovery facility have been retired,
Covanta Claim settlement amount,
CIT Claim settlement amount,
Vendors and Subcontractors claims settlement amounts,
RBC Termination Amounts for Swaps, and
Lehman and Bank of America investment agreement settlement amounts.
There are no continuing obligations under any of the foregoing instruments.

B. Parking
All of the Harrisburg Parking Authoritys parking bonds, whether they were guaranteed by the City or secured solely
by revenues of the parking system were repaid or defeased on December 23, 2013 and are no longer outstanding.
There are no continuing obligations under any of this debt.
II. Existing Debt
A. General Obligation Bonds
Below is a table with the remaining debt service on the Citys general obligation bonds. As illustrated, debt service
payable by the City on its general obligation bonds was reduced pursuant to a consensual settlement with Ambac.
Commencing in 2014 the Citys obligations were reduced by $1 million per year to provide additional liquidity and
help structurally balance the Citys budget. Commencing next year the Citys obligations were reduced by another $1
million/year. The intention was to alleviate some of the Citys debt load in anticipation of having to raise new revenue
and/or cut expenses due to salaries and benefits out pacing revenue growth.
City ULT Debt (Full Faith and Credit)
GO Bonds 1997D&F
Settlement with Ambac
Due to Insurer Due to Trustee
Total GF Pmt
[1]
Total
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
54,291,386
22,138
22,138
22,138
87,498
87,498
87,498
87,498
5,387,498
5,387,498
5,387,498
5,387,498
5,387,498
5,387,498
5,387,498
5,387,498
5,387,498
5,387,498
[2]
47,620,000
7,670,000
6,665,000
6,660,000
6,660,000
6,660,000
6,655,000
6,650,000
[1]+[2]
101,911,386
7,692,138
6,687,138
6,682,138
6,747,498
6,747,498
6,742,498
6,737,498
5,387,498
5,387,498
5,387,498
5,387,498
5,387,498
5,387,498
5,387,498
5,387,498
5,387,498
5,387,498
87
Since Plan Consummation, the City has made all required payments to the Trustee and Ambac on a timely basis.
B. Settlement with Suburban Communities
This settlement arose as a result of allegations that the City was overcharging the suburban communities for sewer
treatment. While not technically indebtedness, this settlement was taken into account for purposes of restructuring the
general obligation bonds (above) and the Verizon Bonds (below). In 2016, the City will be obligated to pay the final
installment of $1.5 million pursuant to this settlement agreement. In 2017 and 2018, this obligation will drop to $1
million per year and in 2019, the final payment of $225,000 is expected to be paid by the City. The City has made all
required payments on a timely basis to date. The City does not pay this from the Debt Service Fund and therefore,
these obligations are not reflected in the Citys debt service budget but are rather in the general fund budget under
settlements. This payment is not reflected below in the overall debt structure.
C. Verizon Bonds
The Verizon Bonds settlement is described in more detail elsewhere in this document.
Without the Commonwealths commitment to move into the building and it remaining vacant, the City would have
been responsible for $1.8 - $2.3 million per year of debt service between 2016 and 2032 without any offsetting revenue.
This would have had a material adverse impact on the Citys recovery prospects.
The Receivers Team structured the rent in 2016 and 2017 in a manner that together with amounts available from the
settlement of a law suit (In Re Derivatives) and amounts available under the Debt Service Reserve Fund, should result
in no payments from the Citys general fund in 2016 and little or no payments from the Citys general fund in 2017.
The City is permitted to avail itself to specified amounts of liquidity to be provided by AGM, if and to the extent the
City so desires, however, it is under no obligation whatsoever to do so. The below illustration shows some draws from
AGM under the Settlement Agreement (but, less than the maximum allowable). If the City does not avail itself to the
AGM liquidity it will pay more debt service in the earlier years, but less in the later years. If the City draws the
maximum amount permitted under the Settlement Agreement it will pay less debt service in the earlier years and more
in the later years.
88
Verizon Lease/Appropriation Bonds 1998 (AGM)

P+I
iv
[1]
Total
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
41,680,000
930,000
1,880,000
1,910,000
1,930,000
1,960,000
1,990,000
2,010,000
2,040,000
2,070,000
2,090,000
2,120,000
2,150,000
2,180,000
2,210,000
2,240,000
2,300,000
2,320,000
7,350,000
AGM
[2]
1,860,570
256,994
401,072
415,700
430,171
154,479
178,618
23,536
Coupon: 4%-5.432%
DGS Installment
Other Amts.
Payment
[3]
11,425,000
500,000
600,000
600,000
600,000
600,000
600,000
600,000
600,000
600,000
687,500
750,000
750,000
750,000
750,000
750,000
750,000
750,000
187,500
[4]
430,000
780,000
810,000
630,000
420,000
440,000
460,000
190,000
220,000
152,500
50,000
70,000
7,162,500
Est. GF Pmt
vi
[1] -[2}- [3]-[4]
18,615,000
500,000
500,000
700,000
940,000
950,000
950,000
1,250,000
1,250,000
1,250,000
1,430,000
1,445,000
1,450,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
IV
General Fund burden on City reduced due to HDC concessions and DGS installment
purchase payments. DSRF Available for use by City in 2016 and 2017.
AGM advances cannot exceed amounts specified in Settlement Agreement.
vi Other amounts include amounts available in DSRF ($2.404 m), residual payments, In re
Derivatives proceeds and other amounts legally available to pay down the debt;
Final year paydown expected to be from proceeds of installment purchase by Commonwealth
or sale by City.
D. Senators Bonds
In 2012 and 2013, the two years leading up to preparation of the Strong Plan, the City paid between $150,000 and
$180,000 per annum towards the debt service on these bonds. The Strong Plan stated that the Receiver was
investigating the issues related to these bonds, with the goal to resolve matters in such a way that the City will no
longer need to pay a portion of the debt service on these bonds from its general fund. After the Receivership was
terminated, the Coordinator and his team met on several occasions to discuss matters on City Island including turning
portions of the island into condominium units to accommodate the option PEDFA has to acquire the parking garage,
assisting the City with compliance with certain grant agreements managed by the Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources, and reforming the Park Permit and parking arrangements with the Senators ownership. During
2014, the Mayor determined that the City no longer needed the Coordinators assistance and the City would take care
of this on its own. Since that time the Mayor has met with the Senators new owner and is pursuing additional uses for
the stadium that would generate additional revenue for the City. Recently an arrangement was announced whereby the
City Islanders soccer team would play ten games in the stadium this year. Uses of the stadium for other events are also
being discussed by the City with the new owner.
The Park Permit and related issues with the Senators for the City Island stadium though remain an issue as the City has
had to make up the difference in debt service from what the permit revenue provides. This financing was supposed to
be self-liquidating or self-supporting yet the City is being required to contribute significant sums from its general fund
to make up shortfalls under its general obligation guaranty. The owners are holding back revenues from their operation
of City Island parking, concessions and other operations in order to fund capital improvements to the stadium, thereby
increasing the amount of debt service the City is required to pay under the Guaranty of the bonds since the
89
confirmation of the Strong Plan. In October 2015, the City had to transfer an additional $85,000 to meet the debt
service requirement on these bonds. The increase in debt service versus the Strong Plan projections heightens the
reasons for making best efforts to use all resources and capacity available to reduce or eliminate this obligation. As
shown below, a resolution of the Stadium Bonds in a manner where they become self-supporting could save the City
approximately a quarter million per year in debt service. The addition of the City Islanders to the Schedule at Metro
Bank Park and any initiatives that would increase cash flow to support the Stadiums expenses could inure to the
benefit of the City and are recognized by the Coordinator as positive steps by the City.
Redevelopment Authority Debt with City Guarantee

Stadium Rev. Bonds 2005 (ABK)
P
Coupon: 4.83%-5.29%
I
GF Pmt
[1]
Total
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
6,760,000
310,000
325,000
340,000
360,000
375,000
395,000
420,000
440,000
460,000
485,000
510,000
540,000
570,000
600,000
630,000
[2]
2,993,312
343,026
327,403
310,859
293,287
274,690
254,895
233,705
211,345
187,945
163,375
137,276
109,503
80,144
49,197
16,664
iii
[1]+[2]-379,738
3,924,242
273,288
272,665
271,121
266,549
262,952
263,157
266,967
264,607
261,207
254,637
253,538
255,765
256,406
255,459
245,926
We have recommended in the past, and recommend currently that so long as the City is making payments under its
guaranty of these bonds, all advances made are memorialized in a manner that enables the City to maximize its ability
to be reimbursed by the team ownership out of excess revenues, if and when they become available. See DS-2 below.
E. Capital Leases
The City has a series of capital leases for a variety of capital items they entered into in 2005, 2007 and 2009 for
equipment and furniture. As a result of the Strong Plan consummation, the City was able to significantly pay down
much of its outstanding capital lease debt obligations. As of 12/31/15 the projected remaining balance was reduced to
$191,906.
90
As referenced in the Finance Chapter, the Coordinator recommends that the City prepare a capital budget for all
departments and use a coordinated approach to determining whether to buy or lease and which capital improvements
should be prioritized. In the near future, the goal of the City should be to try to reinstate its credit rating so that if and
when it is desirable and feasible, the City can access the capital markets for certain items as well.
Of note is the fact that CRW was able to successfully complete a relatively large borrowing on its creditworthiness and
is likely to be the first Harrisburg entity to reinstate its credit rating. Also of note is the fact that multiple banks are
now bidding on the Citys annual Tax and Revenue Anticipation Note request for proposals and the City was able to
successfully close on its LED financing described below.
F. Pennsylvania Infrastructure Bank
This is a loan from the PA Department of Transportation that was used to fund street resurfacing work. Final payment
is due in 2018. Delinquent payments on this loan were also brought up to date at Plan Consummation.
PA Infra. Bank Loan

P
[1]
Total
2016
2017
2018
824,306
263,740
274,619
285,947
4.125%
I
[2]
68,921
34,003
23,123
11,795
GF Pmt
[1]+[2]
893,227
297,742
297,742
297,742
G. LED Guaranteed Energy Savings Contract

The City successfully closed on a bank loan from M & T Bank using a guaranteed energy savings contract extended by
The Efficiency Network (TEN) shown below. The structure of the transaction involves an annual guaranteed energy
savings amount that is projected to be and guaranteed to be more than sufficient to pay debt service. To the extent that
savings exceed debt service, general fund expenditure savings will accrue. After 10 years, the City owns the equipment
and bulbs, and the energy savings that remain inure to the benefit of the general fund.
The 2016 repayment is subsidized with a $500,000 grant from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to the City and the
below shows the general fund debt service after application of the grant. The City has expressed an interest in buying
down some of the loan by applying for the infrastructure funding administered by Impact Harrisburg. The City books
gross debt service in the debt service fund and all of the savings as a decrease in general fund operating costs therefore
in total debt service, the City books gross debt service owing under the loan.
91
LED Financing with TEN and M and T

Proposed MT Bank-AnnualApprop
P
Nominal rate: 3.549%

I
GF Pmt
[1]
Total
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
3,069,144
761,253
308,072
319,185
330,699
342,628
354,988
367,793
284,526
[2]
423,438
124,887
78,068
66,955
55,441
43,511
31,152
18,346
5,079
[1]+[2]
3,492,582
386,140
386,140
386,140
386,140
386,140
386,140
386,140
289,605
LED Guaranteed savings

Savings
[3]
5,461,951
510,333
517,988
525,758
533,644
541,649
548,773
558,020
566,390
276,000
276,000
276,000
276,000
Net Saving
ii
[1]+[2]-[3]
2,413,973
124,193
131,848
139,618
147,504
155,509
162,634
171,880
276,786
276,000
276,000
276,000
276,000
H. Overall Debt Structure

The Citys overall debt structure at this time has a relatively short duration, with a final maturity in 2032 or 2033. The
intention of the Strong Plan was to enable the City to undertake some small borrowings and to continue to reduce the
debt service expenses as a percentage of the general fund expenses. The below graphic illustrates that without further
action, it will likely take until 2022-2023 for the City to reduce debt service as a percentage of general fund (and now
Neighborhood Services Bureau)revenues into the 10-12% range. With relatively minor changes however, this goal
may be accomplished more quickly. That being said, the City should keep in mind that it has moved from debt service
being more than 40% of its general fund expenses in 2013, to a much more desirable situation, and the goal of reducing
debt service as a percentage of expenses should not be accomplished at excessive costs to future tax payers. The City is
coming from a place where the future was frequently sacrificed for the present and the Coordinator urges the City not
to repeat past mistakes that contributed to the financial crisis the City found itself in.
92
2
Total#Debt#Service
#City#General#Fund#
Payments#
#As#a#
percentage#of#
Expenses*#
#As#a#
percentage#of#
Expenses**#
14.6%
13.6%
13.5%
13.3%
13.5%
13.4%
13.3%
11.3%
10.8%
10.7%
10.8%
10.7%
10.6%
10.6%
10.5%
10.0%
9.9%
13.4%
12.4%
12.3%
12.1%
12.3%
12.2%
12.1%
10.4%
10.3%
10.2%
10.3%
10.3%
10.2%
10.1%
10.0%
9.9%
9.8%
Total
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
8,767,701
8,232,479
8,237,141
8,200,187
8,436,590
8,441,795
8,440,605
7,291,710
6,998,705
6,992,135
7,171,036
7,188,263
7,193,904
7,242,957
7,233,424
6,987,498
6,987,498
The above table makes the following assumptions:

1. General Fund Revenues for 2016 are $60.6 m and increase by 1 % per year.
2. Suburban Communities payments are not characterized as debt by the City and thus not included.
3. LED Financing in the first column booked as gross debt service in first column showing percentage (*) and as
net debt service in second column showing percentage (**).
4. Senators obligations assumed to be paid in full by the City but for the Park Permit fees in the first column (*)
but Senators are assumed to pay debt service in second column (**)
DS 1:
Explore options to reduce debt service to a range of 10%-12% of the General Fund Expenses.
The City has expressed an interest in reducing the debt service portion of its general fund budget to the 10-12% of total
expenditures level, more quickly than the current structure provides for. This is in keeping with best practices and the
Coordinator is supportive of any number of initiatives aimed at accomplishing this goal. Options for doing so could include
creating a sinking fund for one-time resources received to pay down or subsidize debt service payments (e.g. escrow with
LCSWMA, In re Derivatives settlement, proceeds from successful litigation and surplus in sanitation fund) and renegotiating
existing arrangements as appropriate (such as the Senators Bonds and the General Obligation Bonds). While the Verizon
Bonds have a built in liquidity facility which was negotiated with AGM, the more this option is used by the City in the earlier
years, the more interest the City will have to pay later on. The Coordinator thus cautions the City against deferral of
repayment into future years, without having a well thought out plan to build up native revenue streams to service such future
indebtedness. As between the Verizon Bonds and the General Obligation Bonds, the City would likely avail itself to the built
in liquidity of the Verizon Bonds Settlement, as the interest rates being charged by the two insurers are the same and the
additional liquidity has already been negotiated with AGM (the City is already availing itself to the additional liquidity built
into the general obligation bond restructuring), thereby saving it, time, effort and money.
DS 2:
Begin to memorialize the amounts owed by the Senators to the City under the Guaranty.
The City and the Citys accountants should memorialize the aggregate amounts advanced by the City under the City guaranty
of these bonds. Each year the City pays more on debt service than what it brings in it could take the position that it is making
a payment under the Guaranty of the Senators Bonds. This obligation should be accruing to the benefit of the City with
interest at a rate of 6% and is payable from Stadium Revenues under the Reimbursement Agreement. This provides the
93
City with the basis for a demand for payment of the obligations owing to the City.
94
Revenue
As with all municipalities, Harrisburg requires stable, recurring revenue sources with moderate growth in order to fund
necessary and vital services for its residents, businesses and visitors. Both factors stability and growth are important as
most local government expenditures are related to recurring and increasing costs for personnel and benefits, which make up the
largest percentage of the Citys budget. Harrisburgs General Fund tax base had been stagnant or declining for some time as
evidenced by various demographic statistics. City revenue streams were unable to cover the growing costs of City services,
leading to the use of nonrecurring revenue including bond proceeds and ill-advised transfers from utility funds, in ongoing
attempts to balance the General Fund operating budget. The Strong Plan has addressed a number of issues including the
overwhelming Resource Recovery Facility debt and numerous operational adjustments enabling the City to achieve balanced
budgets in 2013 and 2014. Achieving sustainability will be an ongoing challenge for the City.
Harrisburgs Revenue Structure

There are some positive attributes to Harrisburgs current revenue structure. Specifically, the City has a revenue base composed
of the full range of tax and non-tax revenues that are available to municipalities in Pennsylvania. Additionally, Harrisburg is
home to large governmental employers, which often act as a stabilizing force during an economic downturn.
However, these affirmative aspects are offset by other factors:
The Citys principal revenue sources were not consistently producing sustainable growth, which had led to the use of
significant increases in operating and utility fund transfers, tax increases and one-time revenue sources to fill operating
needs. The utility fund transfers were stopped by the Office of the Receiver in 2012.
Harrisburg has a high tax burden when compared to other similar jurisdictions in Dauphin County and elsewhere in
Pennsylvania. Over time, this will have an impact on the location decisions of residents and businesses and will also
affect property values.
Historically, the single largest component of the Citys General Fund revenues has been taxes. In 2014, property taxes,
including PILOTS, made up 30% of revenues; earned income tax 17%; and other taxes were 17%. The City receives 14% of its
revenue from intergovernmental sources; 11% from licenses, permits and fines; and 11% from fund transfers and other sources.
Together, taxes make up approximately 65% of the Citys General Fund revenues. The other revenue sources are fairly typical
of Pennsylvania municipalities.
Notably absent from revenues since 2013 are the transfers from the water and sewer funds that previously had been made to
shore up the General Fund and reduce the need for tax increases. These transfers were stopped by the Receiver in 2012.
Subsequent to the transfer of the water and sewer operations to Capital Region Water (CRW) any appropriate payments are
addressed through the Shared Services Agreement between the City and the CRW.
Harrisburg plays host, as both a state capital and a county seat, to a number of institutions that are exempt from the real estate
tax. Tax exempt properties make up approximately one-half of the assessed property value in the City. Commuters make up
more than half of the workers in the City. These commuters make contributions to the General Fund revenues largely from the
Local Services Tax (LST) which is levied on employees based on their employment location. The five year annual average
current and delinquent LST revenue from 2010-2014 was approximately $2.16 million.
The General Fund has a typical Pennsylvania municipal revenue portfolio which makes it vulnerable to a decline in any one
source. The City was able to maintain General Fund revenues in 2009-2011 with significant fund transfers of $19.5 million in
2008, $22.6 million in 2009, $18.8 million in 2010 and $14.4 million in 2011. In 2012, due to a cessation of improper fund
transfers instituted by the Office of the Receiver, these additional resources were not available and greatly altered the Citys
revenue picture as depicted in the table and chart below. The reduction in reliance on transfers is a positive step towards
stability but is painful in the short-term.
95
General Fund Revenues, 2010 2015

2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Revenue Group
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Reported
Property Taxes
15,715,733
15,596,976
16,825,289
16,411,907
18,001,339
16,827,430
7.1
PILOTS
%
Change
410,244
420,286
370,704
417,821
561,832
471,068
14.8
Earned Income Taxes
3,149,169
3,485,781
4,372,971
7,539,647
10,689,449
10,071,681
219.8
LST
2,217,093
2,232,038
1,875,888
1,812,338
2,637,709
2,078,643
-6.2
Mercantile Business Privilege
3,040,838
3,048,531
3,139,927
3,161,507
3,385,975
3,388,641
11.4
Realty Transfer Tax
367,160
329,181
436,537
272,145
907,771
744,923
102.9
Parking Taxes
741,335
651,222
1,521,240
1,627,177
3,117,443
3,301,019
345.3
Hotel Tax
714,000
753,104
586,890
350,000
527,320
840,000
17.6
5,995,394
13,602,909
6,393,214
4,936,899
6,968,287
5,351,434
-10.7
Intergovernmental
3,664,257
5,575,820
2,916,013
3,605,302
3,485,912
2,734,330
-25.4
-100.0
Commonwealth Allocation for Public Safety Services

Transfers
Other Revenues
Total
987,000
496,000
4,250,000
5,000,000
5,000,000
18,821,932
14,429,395
4,555,482
3,647,070
2,852,971
2,562,503
-86.4
587,286
527,900
100.0
713,799
56,537,954
851,172
61,472,416
339,766
47,583,922
4,209,573
52,991,387
2,990,874
61,714,170
2,761,114
51,660,686
286.8
General Fund Revenues, 2010 2015
96
-8.6
The figure below shows the estimated share of revenues for 2015 by major category.
General Fund Revenues - 2015
Revenue Sources
Transfers and Administrative Charges
The Citys General Fund revenues were not able to keep pace with expenditures prior to 2012 without the large amount of fund
transfers. Following the Receivers action to stop the large utility fund transfers, starting in 2012 the sources for administrative
charges into the General Fund were primarily the appropriate indirect charges for administrative services for the eligible utility
service. The utility fees are charged to both taxable and tax-exempt properties. In 2010, transfers accounted for 33% of
General Fund revenues. By 2012 transfers had declined to 13% of General Fund revenues and by 2015 had fallen to 4.6%.
With the transfer of the water and sewer utilities to CRW at the end of 2013 even the prior related transfers for administrative
charges are no longer applicable. Subsequent charges for services rendered between the City and CRW will be handled through
the Shared Services agreement. This has become a very challenging situation for the City to deal with and has driven the need
to pursue other replacement revenue options. The creation of the Neighborhood Services Fund in the 2016 budget along with
the proposed use of a higher Local Services Tax are necessary components of the plan modifications in order to fill this
significant revenue gap.
97
Transfer Revenues, 2010 2015

Revenue Source
Sanitation Utility Fund
Incinerator Fund
Neighborhood Service
Fund
Sewer Maint Charge
Sewer Maint LiensPenalty
Sewer Maint LiensPrincip
Sewerage Utility Fund
Hbg Prk Auth Coord Pkg

Hbg Water Utility Fund
Total
2010
Actual
2011
Actual
2012
Actual
2013
Actual
2014
Actual
2015
Reporte
d
2,255,32
4
305,000
%
Chan
ge
2,253,448
2,958,098
2,499,429
1,210,521
2,155,32
4
531,369
0.0
925,997
843,666
823,149
753,731
163,099
100.0
1,041
831
704
547
918
697
-33.1
3,702
3,935
1,470
2,182
2,260
1,482
-60.0
7,275,386
7,843,865
277,652
846,131
2,664,000
1,250,000
250,000
5,698,358
1,529,000
703,078
833,959
18,821,932
14,429,395
4,555,482
3,647,070
2,852,97
1
2,562,50
3
0.1
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
-86.4
Intergovernmental Revenues
Some of the Citys intergovernmental revenues are used as General Fund revenues. In 2010, these revenues accounted for 8.2%
of General Fund revenues. This has risen to 14% of budget in 2015. Other intergovernmental revenues are accounted for in
special revenue funds, for example the Liquid Fuels Tax Fund and Community Development Block Grants.
The recurring intergovernmental revenues include reimbursement for public safety expenses, CDBG reimbursement and
pension aid. The most significant change in intergovernmental revenues has been the Commonwealths $5 million annual
commitment for public safety services provided by the City for the protection of Commonwealth employees who work in the
City as well as for property and facilities located in the City. This commitment remains an important element in the Citys
budget going forward and the City is strongly urged to continue to communicate the importance of these funds to both the
Governors administration and the legislature.
Since 2010, overall CDBG funding has decreased, leading to reductions in services and reimbursements for the General Fund.
Public safety grants may fluctuate from year to year because they are dependent on current Commonwealth and Federal
initiatives. A summary of the Citys intergovernmental revenue is depicted in the table below.
Intergovernmental Revenues, 2010 2015

Revenue Source
Capital Public Safety
CDBG Reimb. - Demolition
Government Grants
Grants Fund
Pension System State Aid
Public Safety Grants
Equipment Grant
State/Fed Grants Transfer
Total
2010
Actual
987,000
95,725
3,854
91,050
2,651,339
822,289
0
0
4,651,257
2011
Actual
987,000
78,012
0
95,705
4,530,373
871,730
0
0
6,562,820
2012
Actual
2,500,000
131,667
0
0
2,543,634
240,713
0
1,750,000
7,166,014
2013
Actual
5,000,000
114,938
0
106,500
2,609,214
774,650
77,848
0
8,683,150
2014
Actual
5,000,000
94,862
0
175,900
2,438,398
776,753
22,152
0
8,508,065
2015
Reported
0
21,526
0
40,000
2,158,604
514,200
0
0
2,734,330
%
Change
-100.0
-77.5
-100.0
-56.1
-18.6
-37.5
--41.2
Government Earnings
The City provides a broad range of services to residents, businesses and property owners. Many of these services are
accompanied by fees and other charges that are expected to cover at least a portion of the cost to provide these services
Some of these revenues, most notably building and related permit revenues, vary with changes in the local economy. District
Justice fees have fluctuated significantly though the recent trend has been rather constant but at a lower level. Total fee and
98
permit revenues decreased from $1.6 million in 2010 to $1.18 million in 2015, a loss of more than $400,000.
As opposed to the cost reimbursements, the City has some ability to manage these revenues. The rates for some of the fees,
licenses and fines are set by the City and, therefore, can be increased to generate additional revenues. Some of the district
justice fees are set by state law, and cannot be changed. Fees also cannot reasonably exceed the cost of the service related to the
fee.
It is considered a best practice to review the rate schedules at least every two years to ensure full cost recovery. This is often
accomplished by a cost study to make certain that the full costs, including overhead, are considered when adjusting fees. The
City last commissioned a fee study in 2012. Maintaining an accurate cost reimbursement program including regular
examinations of costs and fees will be very important for the long-term fiscal health of the City.
A summary of the Citys revenues from licenses, permits and fines is provided in the table below.
Licenses, Permits, Charges, and Fines, 2010 2015
District Justice Fees

Fees/Permits
License
Parking Fees
Parking Tickets
Public Safety Fees/Permits
Public Safety
Reimbursements
Public Works Fees/Permits
Rental Income
Recreation Fees
Vehicle Maintenance Charges
Total
2010
Actual
744,297
1,644,894
573,948
228,403
1,228,749
177,945
2011
Actual
501,386
1,500,032
570,107
210,803
1,138,239
175,494
2012
Actual
618,333
1,529,353
573,299
252,573
1,093,142
238,020
2013
Actual
421,516
1,350,811
571,658
210,223
880,585
267,477
2014
Actual
412,265
1,829,662
584,134
151,156
1,887,962
285,970
2015
Reported
403,675
1,300,542
593,939
99,128
1,100,593
228,863
%
Change
-45.8
-20.9
3.5
-56.6
-10.4
28.6
471,314
967,733
1,012,605
593,099
1,210,134
1,044,268
121.6
60,445
10,617
33,372
821,409
5,995,394
142,408
7,421,591
44,116
930,999
13,602,909
116,923
27,044
10,593
921,329
6,393,214
35,073
2,363
11,366
592,728
4,936,899
0
22,900
13,051
571,053
6,968,287
157,649
2,100
16,562
404,117
5,351,434
160.8
-80.2
-50.4
-50.8
-10.7
Assessment of Revenue Sources

As a Third Class city governed by the Optional Third Class City Charter Law, the City of Harrisburg has the power, within
prescribed constitutional and statutory limitations, to levy taxes on: the taxable value of land and real estate improvements; the
earned income and net profits of individual residents, workers (both resident and nonresident), operations and gross receipts of
businesses doing business in the City; occupations of residents; parking receipts; and transfers of real estate. By action of
Dauphin County, the City receives a portion of revenues from the County Hotel Excise Tax for designated tourism-related
purposes. By action of the Commonwealth, the City receives a portion of the Public Utility Realty Tax based on the assessed
value of taxable utility realty. By action of the Commonwealth Court the City levies an additional 1.0% tax on the earned
income of residents. This levy is of limited duration under the declaration of fiscal distress under the Municipalities Financial
Recovery Act.
With few exceptions, the City maximizes the taxing powers authorized by the Commonwealth. The figure below identifies the
Citys tax revenue sources in 2015.
99
Tax Revenue Sources - 2015

Parking Taxes
8%
Mercantile
Business
Privilege
9%
Hotel Tax
2%
Real Estate Taxes

45%
LST
5%
EIT
27%
Pilots
2%
Realty Transfer
Tax
2%
As noted in the above figure, 45% of the tax revenue is from the value of taxable real estate and 2% is derived from the realty
transfer tax. Employment based taxes represent 32% (EIT 27% and LST 5%) of taxes. Business Privilege/Mercantile receipts
represent 9% of tax revenue while Parking taxes represent 8%. The Hotel tax represents 2% and the City receives 2% of tax
revenue through in-lieu of tax payments.
The 2015 proportion of tax revenue shown above is representative of the Citys tax structure under Act 47. It must be
emphasized that upon leaving Act 47 under the statutory requirement of five years, the City will lose its authority and its ability
to levy Earned Income Tax at greater than 0.5%. This will result in a reduction of revenue of approximately $7.2 million.
Tax Rates
Raising additional revenue through higher tax rates and/or new taxes needs to be tempered by the impact they have on economic
drivers, business location decision makers, policy makers and, of course, residents. Both short-term and long-term
consequences need to be considered, particularly when unemployment remains high, and wages are stagnant. This is
particularly true with continued economic recovery as businesses and other investors consider locations for future expansion
and growth.
Major areas where the City presently has additional capacity to tax under the Commonwealths authorizations are:
Increasing the Real Estate Tax rate on land and improvements, though the combined tax rates on City property are very
high compared to neighboring municipalities;
Increasing the Earned Income Tax rate on residents as authorized under Act 47;
Increasing the Local Services Tax rate on employees in the City as authorized under Act 47;
Pursuing revenue from property now classified as exempt from taxation; and
Increasing collections through amnesty, enforcement and higher penalties.
Real Estate Taxes

On an equalized basis, the City of Harrisburgs property tax rates are significantly higher than those in its largest suburbs but in
the middle range of other Third Class cities in the region. In 2015 the City levied a split rate tax on the assessed value of land
of 31.15 mills and improvements at 5.16 mills for an equivalent single millage rate of 10.96.
The millage limit for Harrisburg under the Third Class City Code is 30 mills for the general purpose levy and with Court
approval an additional 5 mills. There are also provisions for special purpose levies for street lights, recreation and shade trees
and no limits for indebtedness of the City. However, any increase in the Real Estate Tax rate is an option that needs to be
weighed against the impact it will have on current and prospective property owners, both residential and commercial, and
against the affect it will have on the Harrisburg School District.
100
Employment Based Taxes

Earned Income Tax (EIT)
Under the Local Tax Enabling Act (Act 511), the EIT is capped at 1.0% and split equally with the School District, effectively
limiting the tax to 0.5% on residents. In the development of the Strong Plan all stakeholders including City residents were
asked to participate in the Citys recovery. The Plan provided for a 1% increase in the EIT on City residents effective as of
January 1, 2013 as their contribution to the recovery. That increase provided much needed revenue as the utility fund transfers
had been eliminated. Although the City also imposes a 1% levy on non-residents, the City receives comparatively little revenue
from non-residents as the municipality of residence has first right to the tax up to the level they impose under the crediting
provisions of the Act.
In 2013 the Local Government Commission undertook a comprehensive study of Act 47 that culminated in amendments
enacted in late 2014. Among other changes the amendments provided several additional revenue generating options including
an increase in the Local Services Tax from the current $52/year to $156/year or $3/week. This provision was consistent with
the 2013 Strong Plans REV 09 recommendation for the City to pursue a legislative action with respect to the Local Services
Tax.
Parking System Based Revenues

One major change to the Citys revenue structure subsequent to the Strong Plans consummation was the revenue received from
the parking system. The City now receives three major revenue streams from the parking system. The parking tax and ground
lease components are fairly stable but the priority parking distribution is highly dependent on performance of the parking
system. The monetization of the Citys parking system provided a much needed revenue boost for the City to address both the
RRF debt and provide an ongoing revenue stream to the City. For example, the 2013 Strong Plan projected an increase from
parking tax collections as a result of no longer having to use parking tax revenues to repay the Harrisburg University Bonds and
the HPA Series U Bonds as those obligations were repaid from proceeds of the parking monetization.
The parking tax is imposed at a 20% rate on all revenues generated in the parking system inclusive of those in the
Commonwealths lease. In 2015 the City received approximately $3.289 million from this tax. Based on revenues from the
Verizon Tower relocated Commonwealth employees (765 new parking passes) and the contractually committed increases in
parking rates for the balance of the Department of General Services Vehicle Lease intended to bring up the base rate closer to
market rates (4,306 parking passes), the City is projected to receive an increased benefit of $600,000 more than it received in
2015.
The ground lease payment is part of the parking monetization currently being paid to HPA and transferred to the City. The
2013 Strong Plan projected $400,000 though at that time the Asset Transfer Agreement had not been finalized. Under the
finalized Asset Transfer Agreement and upon consultation with the Asset Manager, this amount is expected to be $1,166,000 in
2016. The Asset Transfer Agreement provides for incremental yearly increases in this payment.
The priority parking distribution is the payment made under the trust indenture waterfall which the City receives as an annual
distribution (on a priority status, after debt service and operating costs are paid) of 100% of the revenues actually available up to
a set maximum amount. The expected amount of payment to the City is $954,810 per the projections of the Asset Manager.
Although significantly more than prior to the monetization, parking system revenue is underperforming the systems operating
projections, primarily with respect to fine revenue. Transient revenue continues to run under budget but that amount is offset by
higher meter revenues. Meter rates are generally lower than transient rates at this point and those using the system are
considering that in their decision where to park. Meter utilization is in the mid-30% range during peak hours in the Central
Business District so the on street system has the ability to absorb the additional use. Monthly contract revenues and revenue
from the Commonwealths DGS lease are on budget. When the Verizon Tower is fully occupied by March 2016 approximately
500 additional spaces will be occupied.
As with any change of this magnitude the transition to the new system has had its ups and downs. The system is generating
significantly more revenue than occurred prior to plan consummation, though there remain challenges.
Initiatives
Requirement for Sufficient Revenue to Eliminate Deficits
The following Revenue Initiatives combined with other Initiatives contained in this Plan provide for the elimination of the
operating deficits projected through 2018 as reflected in the financial table at the end of this section. Because many of the
actions outlined under this Plan require significant planning, cooperation, and a level of uncertainty concerning revenue
increases or expenditure decreases, the Coordinator could not always determine a reasonable dollar value impact from every
101
Plan mandate. Accordingly, it is the intent of the Coordinator that revenue increases from increased property tax millage must
be used to offset the projected deficits that result from the inability of the City to fully realize sufficient revenue increases or
expenditure reductions from the initiatives contained in this Plan in order to maintain necessary and vital services.
It is anticipated in this Plan that the City will realize results from the Plan mandates that will ameliorate the amount of
increases necessary from property taxes. However, to the extent that the Citys implementation of Plan mandates does
not entirely reduce operating deficits, the City shall increase the tax rates on property to eliminate yearly operating
deficits.
REV 01
Increase the Local Services Tax to $156/year
Harrisburg is a major employment center for the region with over 40,000 individuals working within the City daily. These
individuals all utilize a range of city services including using the citys roads and streets, benefitting from the citys police and
fire service and using the various city amenities. The Local Services Tax provides the ability for municipalities to receive
compensation from those employed in the municipality for these services while allowing for a low income exemption threshold
of $12,000. Based on comments provided to the Coordinator by City Council, the initiative further provides for an increased
low income exemption for those individuals whose total net income from all sources is less than $24,500 for the calendar year.
Based on our analysis of the Citys projected fiscal position and in order to obtain a structurally balanced budget the use of this
new revenue option is included as transitional revenue for the next three years. We are conservatively projecting an additional
$1.75 million in 2016 due to the collection/remittance timeline and start up issues. The increased tax is subject to both Council
and Commonwealth Court approval upon adoption of the amended Strong Plan. The necessity for the tax will need to be
presented as part of the presentation of the Strong Plan modifications to the Court. Further the City must recognize that this
increase must be eliminated subsequent to 2018, which is the last year of the Citys initial five year time under Act 47.
Therefore, initiatives aimed at increasing revenues, reducing recurring expenses or both should be undertaken as soon as
possible. If the City does not grow its revenues sufficiently to eventually replace the Local Services Tax revenue or change its
governing form to a Home Rule Charter, the City will not be able to exit Act 47 under the five year schedule and will be
required to undertake revenue and expenditure changes that will ensure its exit from Act 47 by 2021. Such actions to ensure the
Citys recovery will include tax increases and/or severe personnel cuts. Moreover if, for whatever reason, the City is unable to
implement the additional Local Services Tax, the City will need to have an alternate plan for 2016 to increase revenues by
means within its control, decrease expenses or a combination of both
Effect of an Increased Income Exemption on Annual LST Revenue

Type of Exemption
Base
Increased
Lower Income Exemption
$15,600
$24,500
Estimated Number of Payers with Under $12,000 Exemption
39,593
39,593
Less: Additional Exemptions
-3,184
-9,934
Net Payers With Exemptions
36,409
29,659
Net Rate Under Act 47
$151
$151
Estimated Total LST Revenue
$5,497,759
$4,478,509
Impact
0
-6,750
-6,750
-$1,019,250
Financial Impact
2016
$1,379,888
2017
$2,504,615
2018
$2,509,715
Total
$6,394,218
REV 02
Maintain the rates currently imposed for the Real Estate, Earned Income, Mercantile/Business Privilege
and Parking Taxes through 2018.
The Citys revenue base requires recurring, stable revenue sources to provide adequate revenue for core municipal services. To
that end it is vital that the current taxation structure be maintained. Aside from the increase in the Local Services Tax provided
for above, other tax rates are proposed to be maintained at current levels with the proviso that for whatever reason the City is
unable to implement the additional Local Services Tax or other associated initiatives in this Plan, then the City will need to
further adjust existing tax rates and/or reduce expenditures to maintain a balanced budget. Based on the Citys current
assessment one mill of real estate tax at the Citys current collection rate generates approximately $1.4 million. To replace the
LST revenue would require a real estate tax increase of approximately 20 percent.
102
REV 03
Review Real Estate Taxable Assessments for Uniformity and Equity
Dauphin County last completed a county-wide reassessment in 2002. However, there is no Pennsylvania statutory mandate for
conducting periodic revaluations to maintain accurate assessed valuation of property, though the Commonwealth Constitution
requires that assessments of all properties be uniform. In the meantime, the City and the School District each have standing to
challenge assessments of individual parcels, with an annual deadline to file an appeal of existing assessments beginning
August 1, with the effect of any change made the following January 1.
Accurate and uniform property valuations are essential to the maintenance and growth of the Citys real estate tax base.
Without proper assessment practices providing up-to-date valuations, the City will not realize real estate tax revenue growth
outside of millage increases. Recently, the City has been experiencing increased assessment appeals and has seen the valuation
reduce after successful appeals by individual property owners. Strengthening the real estate assessment base is a critical
component for long term fiscal stability. It is very important that the City be proactive with respect to both the appeal process
and as appropriate to initiate challenges to real estate assessment appeals. City initiated appeals should be the result of careful
review of the individual property that may be under assessed and therefore violating the concept of uniformity and equity in
taxation. In no event should the City consider large scale mass appeals of neighborhoods or commercial or industrial areas. A
careful and selective evaluation of assessments may produce appeals that will increase the Citys tax base and tax revenue. The
City Treasurer shall initiate a joint effort with the School District to identify under assessed or improperly classified tax exempt
properties, and if necessary engage a qualified appraiser in making preliminary reviews. If it is determined that the assessment
is not equitable for the property, the City shall appeal (either alone or jointly with the school district) the assessment valuation.
REV 04
Review and increase utilization of Payment in Lieu of Property Tax (PILOT) Agreements
Similar to many other core communities, Harrisburg is home to many non-profit entities. These tax-exempt properties represent
approximately half of the Citys real estate value. The total value of these tax exempt properties is $1,514,181,100 or 48.5% of
the total assessed value of property in the City. For the purposes of comparison, the Citys taxable 2016 budgeted assessed
valuation is $1,605,285,100.
More than 75% of the tax-exempt value is held by the government or government sponsored organizations, which are, by
constitutional or statutory law, exempt.
In 1997, the General Assembly enacted a lower standard for meeting the tax-exempt criteria by passing Act 55 of 1997. The
practical effect of the Act was to allow virtually all non-profit organizations tax-exempt status that in turn, placed a greater
burden on other taxpayers. However, the Pennsylvania courts did not agree that the original Hospital Utilization Project
(HUP) was struck down by Act 55, and as a result in 2012, the Supreme Court reestablished the need for a charity to meet the
higher standard HUP Test before considering the Act 55 standards. Act 55 encourages non-profits to enter into PILOT
agreements with municipalities. The City has PILOT agreements with 13 organizations on 16 parcels. The 2015 PILOT
revenue was approximately $482,000, the majority of which was from the following four organizations: Pinnacle Health;
Commonwealth of PA/PHEAA; PA Housing Finance; and Penn Center Harrisburg.
Since the passage of Act 55, it has been reportedly difficult for local governments (including Philadelphia and Pittsburgh which
have substantial amounts of non-government, non-profit organizations) to renew or enlist new PILOT agreements. Pittsburgh
has had some success in negotiating a PILOT arrangement under its Act 47 plan. By working with the Pittsburgh Foundation,
the Pittsburgh Public Services Fund was established and resulted in PILOT payments of approximately $4 million annually or
about 1% of its budget though the program has not been continued by the new City administration. Harrisburg should quantify
and communicate the value of the services it provides to its larger (Purely Public Charity) non-profit property owners, pointing
out the advantages of the City services that support the organizations operations.
In the pursuit of PILOT payments the City should take the following actions:
1. Determine the impact on property tax revenues as part of the due diligence of selling government owned property to
for-profit organizations.
2. Solicit voluntary contributions from government sponsored organizations to reimburse the City for all or a portion of
the services provided by the City. The City shall review the implementation of an Act 55 format for the formal
agreement and payment of specified PILOT revenue from organizations exempt from property taxation.
3. Review the status of the qualification and PILOT agreements with the non-profit healthcare institutions and the other
private organizations with large tax-exempt assessments (starting with those of at least $1 million in assessed value).
4. Seek voluntary contributions / PILOTs with non-profit organizations, starting with those having the highest tax-exempt
values and those who utilize substantial amounts of the City services. An increase of 5% - 10% of the five year PILOT
average amount will yield more than $100,000.
103
Estimated Financial Impact

2016
$20,000
2017
$45,000
2018
$45,000
Total
$110,000
REV 05
Improve real estate taxpayer collection rate
The City Treasurer is responsible for collecting the real estate tax for both the City and the School District. The collection rate
for the Citys current real estate levy has varied per year but has averaged 85.7% for the period 2011 through 2015. Efforts to
increase the collection rate will reduce the amount of the Citys liens for delinquent real estate taxes. It is estimated that each
additional 1% improvement in current real estate collections will yield over $140,000.
The City Treasurer, Chief of Staff/Business Administrator, Finance Director and Tax Enforcement Administrator shall review
the status of real estate tax collections for the current year no less than every three months and especially after the face period
for redeeming tax bills. The City Treasurer shall develop and implement a system to enhance the Citys notification of current
unpaid tax accounts so that property owners are reminded that taxes are due and that there is time to avoid penalty costs for late
payment of real estate taxes. The City Treasurer shall communicate to the Dauphin County Tax Bureau the importance of
decreasing the amount of delinquent taxes. The City Treasurer shall also review with the Tax Claims Bureau the possibility of
increased frequency of notices to owners beyond the statutory mandated amount and increased number of tax sales.
Financial Impact
2016
2017
2018
Total
$140,000
$280,000
$490,000
$910,000
REV 06
In cooperation with the Coordinator, work closely with the Asset Manager and Operator of the
Harrisburg Parking System to monitor ongoing operations and maximize revenue from the system and play an active
role in the Parking Advisory Committee.
The City now receives three major revenue streams from the parking system: the parking tax, a ground lease payment, and a
priority parking distribution or waterfall payment. The parking tax and ground lease components are fairly stable revenue over
time but the priority parking distribution is highly dependent on performance of the parking system.
Fines and penalties revenues are well below the 2015 operating budget due to the large number of outstanding tickets and the
difficulty in obtaining adequate responses from alleged offenders in order to move the tickets through the adjudicatory process.
The Coordinator and Trimont have both been engaged with the County Court system and Administrative Office of the
Pennsylvania Courts in an effort to address this problem and improvements in collection have occurred over the last several
months. A booting program will be initiated by SP+ in the near future and that should result in improved fine collections
especially with parkers who disregard tickets issued.
The active participation of the City on the Parking Advisory Committee and a diligent effort to properly ticket and collect fines
will result in increased revenue to the City.
REV 07
Consider a transition from the Mercantile/Business Privilege Tax to the Payroll Preparation Tax
The City of Harrisburg levies a Business Privilege & Mercantile Tax (BPMT) on all businesses in the City except for those that
are statutorily exempt, such as manufacturers. The BPMT is based on the gross receipts of retailers at 0.075% (0.15% when
combined with the BPMT rate levied by the School District); of wholesalers at 0.05% (0.01% combined rate); and of other
businesses at 0.2% (0.3% combined rate). Among the Third Class cities which are closest in proximity to Harrisburg, the
BPMT is levied in York and Reading but not in Lebanon or Lancaster. Like all political subdivisions in the Commonwealth,
the City and School District of Harrisburg are barred from raising their BPMT tax rates.
The 2014 amendments to Act 47 provided another revenue alternative for Act 47 municipalities. They are now permitted with
Court approval to replace the Mercantile/Business Privilege Tax with a Payroll Preparation Tax. The tax is levied on for profit
employers and imposed as a flat percentage on gross payroll. The initial implementation of this tax must be on a revenue neutral
basis, though the base has the ability to grow over time as payroll grows. An important consideration is the ability for the
Payroll Preparation Tax to remain in place even after the municipality exits Act 47 thus the change would be a permanent one.
104
The City in cooperation with the Coordinator should review and analyze its existing Mercantile/Business Privilege structure and
collection process and weigh the benefits of making this transition. The City should also engage the business community in this
discussion prior to making any change.
Because of the required revenue neutral phase-in period and the estimated time for that transition, no financial impacted is
expected in the timeframe of this amended recovery plan. This initiative will be considered as a strengthening of the tax base of
the City that will increase annually more than the revenue source replaced.
REV 08
Provide Appropriate levels of services and revenue support for the newly created Neighborhood
Services Fund
With the development of the Citys 2016 budget, the Administration has proposed a consolidation of certain City activities
previously covered under the General Fund and Sanitation Fund into a consolidated Neighborhood Services Fund. The
Coordinator has reviewed the stated intentions for creation of the Fund and is in general agreement with the Citys goals for
funding appropriate City services under an appropriate fund system. The Coordinator understands that the revenue component
of the fund will be fee based and will be initially funded with a use of fund balance from the Citys former Sanitation Fund.
The removal of certain expenses from the General Fund and its concurrent revenue source of taxes and fees to a fee based
services fund is appropriate provided that the fees charged will be sufficient for the maintenance of the fund and its services
without further General Fund support. The expanded employment needs anticipated by the Neighborhood Services fund must
be covered by an appropriate level of fees that are reasonable and supported by both citizen users as well as commercial users of
the services and ensure that all rates for collection and disposal of residential and commercial trash with the City are uniform
and cover costs of services. The City must review the performance of the Neighborhood Services fund at least quarterly as part
of its normal financial review, and if projections of revenue fail to meet the projected expenditures, the City shall notify the
Coordinator and provide the Coordinator with the appropriate combination of revenue and expenditure changes necessary to
avoid a fund deficit or subsidy of the Fund by the General Fund.
REV 09
Pursue Legislative Change for the Local Services Tax (LST)
This was an initiative that was in the 2013 Strong Plan that was addressed by the Act 47 Task Force and ultimately resulted in a
provision in Act 199 that allows a distressed municipality, with annual Court approval, to increase the LST levy to $156/year.
If enacted, the increased levy must be reduced to the underlying $52/year levy at such time as the municipalitys Act 47 status is
rescinded. The LST is imposed on those individuals who work within a municipality as a compensation for the services
provided by the municipality as part of a persons employment irrespective of their residency. It provides a revenue stream to
compensate the municipality for these services and in that regard is an important element to long term sustainability. The
elimination of this revenue stream would compound the municipalitys fiscal pressures and lessen its ability to achieve
sustainability, thus there is merit to the ability to continue to levy the tax up to the $156/year rate subsequent to the
municipalitys exit from Act 47 provided the municipality is able to demonstrate the necessity for its imposition.
The City shall initiate discussions with its Legislative delegation and with the Pennsylvania Municipal League to begin the
process to extend the imposition of the Local Services tax rate beyond the municipalitys tenure in Act 47. It is recognized that
special legislation will be required to enact this change.
REV 10
Generate revenue through Market Based Revenue Opportunities
Market based revenue opportunities (MBRO) have been used by many municipalities in Pennsylvania and around the country to
produce revenue from advertising, service concessions, marketing and sponsorship opportunities. The Citys location as a
tourist destination as well as a regular venue for meetings and business visitors to the State Capital makes an MBRO initiative
an important alternative to increases in local fees and taxes.
The City shall pursue an RFP process to select a broker to help identify potential City assets for an MBRO program, assist with
establishment of a policy framework and market available and approved opportunities. Channel 20, the Citys cable access
channel, shall also be included in this review. As estimated in other municipal MBRO plans, the City can expect approximately
1% of General Fund revenues once an MBRO program is fully implemented. The estimated five year revenue is based on the
estimated percentage of City revenues and the anticipated time to develop and implement MBRO initiatives.
Financial Impact
2016
$56,914
2017
2018
Total
$111,425
$167,433
$335,772
105
REV 11
Review Fee Structure To Ensure Full Cost Recovery.
The City shall review the fee schedule for all services and permits provided to users of the service or permit. The City shall
consider all costs related to the provision of service, including but not limited administrative costs, employee benefits, storage
costs, inspection costs, and overhead and maintenance.
The fee schedule shall be reviewed every two years to ensure that increased costs are recovered in a timely manner.
REV 12
The City shall consider placing on the November 2016 election ballot the home rule charter question
from the Home Rule Charter and Optional Plans Law relative to the election of a government study commission to
evaluate the Citys current government structure. (Due to its impact on Revenues this recommendation is also included here
as well as under Governance)
The City currently levies an earned income tax rate of 1.5% on its residents. One percent of this rate is authorized by Act 47
(with Commonwealth Court approval) and 0.5% is authorized by Act 511. It was the conclusion of the Strong Plan that levying
the additional 1% earned income tax rate is both more equitable and efficient in producing the required revenue for the Citys
General Fund rather than increasing the real estate millage on the Citys property owners. However, the only way to retain the
1.5% EIT rate outside of Act 47 status would be with the adoption of a home rule charter which permits the Citys elected
officials to levy a resident EIT rate above the 0.5% limit imposed by Act 511. Without the adoption of a home rule charter, the
1% rate increase authorized by Act 47 will need to be eliminated upon the rescission of the Citys Act 47 status and only the
Act 511 rate of 0.5% would remain. Therefore, this Strong Plan incorporates a provision for the Citys elected officials to offer
its citizens an opportunity to decide the Citys future governmental and tax structure.
The table below illustrates the impact on the Citys earned income rate structure and the estimated revenue generated without
the Citys adoption of a home rule charter. The loss of the 1.0% Act 47 EIT revenue in 2019 would reduce the Citys total EIT
revenue by approximately $7.2 million. To generate the $7.2 million loss of EIT revenue in 2018 through a real estate millage
increase the City would have to increase its current real estate millage by approximately 48%. (The table only reflects the City
levy. An additional .5% is also levied by the Harrisburg School District.)
Thus, the City shall consider placing on the November 2016 election ballot the home rule question from the Home Rule Charter
and Optional Plans Law relative to the election of a government study commission to evaluate the Citys current government
structure. If an elected government study commission recommends drafting a home rule charter for the City and the City
electorate adopts a commission proposed home rule charter, then, for the fiscal year 2019, the City shall: (1) levy an EIT rate of
1.5% pursuant to authority granted by the adopted home rule charter; or (2) a combination earned income tax rate and real estate
millage that equates to the decreased $7.2 million EIT revenue in 2019. The City, in consultation with the Coordinator, may
include expenditure reductions to offset any real estate millage increase mandated by this initiative.
Should this home rule initiative fail due to the electorates rejection of the creation of a government study commission, a
government study commissions failure to recommend drafting a home rule charter or the electorates rejection of a government
studys proposed home rule charter, then the City shall make commensurate expenditure reductions and/or increase revenue
from other City revenue sources to address the Act 47 EIT revenue reduction.
Act 511 EIT Rate

Act 47 EIT Rate
Combined EIT Rate
Projected EIT Revenue
Decreased EIT Revenue
Potential Real Estate Millage Increase
Projected Current Real Estate Revenue
106
2019
2016
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
$10,716,430
$0
2017
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
$10,770,013
$0
2018
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
$10,823,863
$0
49.2%
$14,790,231
$14,716,280
$14,642,699
$21,731,543
0.5%
0.0%
0.5%
$3,607,954
($7,162,058)
Revenue/Expenditure Projections with Plan Modifications

General Fund
Revenue
Property Taxes
Earned Income Taxes
LST
Parking Taxes
Other Taxes
Intergovernmental
Transfers
Priority Parking Distribution
Other Revenues
Total
City of Harrisburg - General Fund

2016
2017
Projected
Projected
16,715,001
16,631,426
10,716,430
10,770,013
1,978,994
1,979,934
3,812,500
3,812,500
5,045,295
5,061,942
4,531,106
4,528,215
7,515,769
7,359,000
1,911,063
811,063
1,166,990
1,202,000
954,810
1,798,000
2,566,361
2,572,870
56,914,319
56,526,961
2018
Projected
16,548,269
10,823,863
1,980,874
3,812,500
5,078,671
4,527,834
7,403,880
811,063
1,238,060
1,762,331
2,572,870
56,560,214
% Change
2016-2018
-1.0
1.0
0.1
0.0
0.7
-0.1
-1.5
-57.6
6.1
84.6
0.3
-0.6
Expenditure
Personnel
Services
Supplies
Other
Debt Service
Total
40,216,678
5,657,586
2,406,085
3,390,756
8,759,227
60,430,332
41,619,279
5,591,407
2,385,132
2,848,215
8,232,480
60,676,513
42,706,590
5,576,345
2,398,427
2,877,215
8,395,135
61,953,712
6.2
-1.4
-0.3
-15.1
-4.2
2.5
Surplus/(Deficit)
-3,516,013
-4,149,552
-5,393,498
-3.1
Increased LST
2015 Public Safety Allocation
Additional Revenues/Expense Reductions
1,379,888
5,000,000
0
2,504,615
0
2,509,715
0
81.9
-100.0
1,644,937
2,883,783
0.0
2,527,589
Cash Balance BOY

Cash Balance EOY
1,223,853
4,087,727
4,087,727
4,087,727
4,087,727
4,087,727
Initiatives
107
Neighborhood Services Fund

In the 2016 Budget proposal, the City realigned a number of its public works functions, combining them with the former
Sanitation and Disposal Funds, creating the Neighborhood Services Fund.
Baseline projections for the Neighborhood Services Fund were developed for 2016 through 2018 using the Citys 2016
proposed budget. These projections assume that no plan interventions are made to change either the existing revenue or
expenditure trends. Given the significant change in City budgeting it is imperative that the City closely monitor the Funds
performance on at least a quarterly basis and make appropriate adjustments as necessary pursuant to REV 08.
Revenues from Collection and Disposal were grown slightly at 2% annually.
Other Sanitation Fund Revenue (reported in Operations Revenue) was reduced from $150,000 in 2016 to
$10,000 in 2017-2018 in line with prior years.
Liens Revenue (reported in Operations Revenue) for 2017-18 was held constant 2016 budget levels
City of Harrisburg Neighborhood Services Fund
Revenue
Operations
Miscellaneous
Reimbursement for Shared Service
Transfers
Cash Carryover
Total Revenue
2016
Projected
12,980,440
396,223
400,000
0
2,412,000
16,188,663
2017
Projected
12,843,239
93,329
400,000
0
13,336,568
2018
Projected
13,099,054
93,762
400,000
0
0
13,592,816
% Change
2016-2018
0.9
-76.3
0.0
0.0
-100.0
-16.0
Expenditures
Personnel
Services
Supplies
Other
Debt Expense/Capital
Transfer to General Fund
Total Expenditures
4,287,505
8,220,005
454,000
52,000
1,660,905
1,100,000
15,774,415
4,386,920
8,220,005
454,000
52,000
338,905
0
13,451,830
4,474,055
8,220,005
454,000
52,000
338,905
0
13,538,966
4.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
-79.6
-100.0
-14.2
414,248
-115,262
53,850
115,262
100.0
414,248
53,850
-87.0
Cash Balance BOY

Cash Balance EOY
7,635,186
8,049,434
8,049,434
8,049,434
8,049,434
8,103,284
Dec 2015 Balance Sheet

Cash
Disposal
Fund
6,295,504
Sanitation
Fund
1,339,682
Total
7,635,186
Surplus/(Deficit)
Initiatives
Additional Revenues/Expense
Reductions
Note: Cash Balance BOY 2016 = Total Sanitation & Disposal Funds.
108
The number of personnel has been held constant at the 2016 budgeted levels
1.0% annually after the expiration of the current contracts. Annual wage increases of 1.0% are included for nonbargaining unit employees below the level of director.
employees.
Capital Expenditure of $1.2 million is included in 2016 only
Lease Purchase Revenue reduced to $150,000 in 2017-2018 from $250,000 in 2016
Motor Equipment reduced to $10,000 annually in 2017-2018
Transfer of $1.1 million to the General Fund is included in 2016 only.
All other expenditures were held at 2016 Budgeted levels.
109
Forensic Claims
To date many parties have been impacted by the Strong Plan and participated in the resolution of the Citys debt related issues.
This includes City residents who are faced with higher taxes, City employees who suffered wage freezes and made other
concessions, AGM, Dauphin County and AMBAC creditors of the City and Authority, other creditors who were involved in the
renovations to the Resource Recovery Facility and the monetization of City assets. The one group of parties that has not
participated to date in the Citys recovery is the various professionals who were involved in the financing transactions related to
the Resource Recovery Facility. Pursuant to the provisions of the Strong Plan, the Receiver, and now the Coordinator, has been
actively pursuing forensic claims. Although limited by confidentiality concerns, information provided below summarizes
actions taken since the Strong Plans confirmation.
Over the last two years, Dentons US (formerly McKenna Long and Aldrich) Counsel for and on behalf of the Receiver, now
Coordinator has been engaged in the pursuit of these claims. With the forensic audit completed by the Harrisburg Authority as
background, letters were sent to parties involved in the various financings related to the Resource Recovery Facility. Meetings
have also been held with the parties in an effort to achieve a consensual resolution as to their role in the financings. In the
absence of a resolution, early this summer the Coordinator through the Office of General Counsel, solicited proposals from
firms to engage in possible litigation in this matter. Harris Wiltshire and Grannis LLP with its main office in Washington was
selected in September 2015 and is now engaged to represent the Coordinator in evaluating all outstanding claims for litigation
purposes. The Coordinator remains committed to the pursuit of these claims on behalf of the City.
Concurrently, a separate claim related to the Harrisburg Parking Authority (HPA) and Harrisburg University has also been
pursued. This claim relates to the payment of $3.6 million that had to be made at plan consummation in order to obtain free and
clear title to the Harrisburg Parking Authority facilities at Harrisburg University. Under an agreement with HPA this claim was
assigned to the City through the Office of the Coordinator. Further responsibility for the pursuit of this claim now rests with
AGM and Dauphin County as they are the parties who were financially impacted at plan consummation and thus will ultimately
receive proceeds from any settlement. They have engaged counsel and are actively pursuing this claim.
FOR 01
Reallocation of any Recoveries from Pursuit of Forensic Claims.
In moving forward and in recognition of the Citys debt service obligations, in recognition of the Citys desire to further
reduce its debt obligations, achieve the goals of DS-1 to reduce the Citys debt service to a range of 10%-12% and
strengthen the Citys overall financial position, the Coordinator recommends a modification to the current Strong Plan
provisions contained in Part V, paragraph G.3 that address the distribution of any net proceeds from the pursuit of the
forensic claims. Currently the Strong Plan provides for 10 percent of recoveries to be available for the City and 90
percent of the recoveries to be allocated equally to the three non-profit entities established under the Plan (although since
that time a single non-profit was created to administer the economic and infrastructure funds.
The Coordinator recommends the following allocation for any future recoveries attributable to the City:
1.
10 percent of such recoveries shall be available for the Citys use as the then Mayor and City Council
shall jointly agree and direct.
2.
40 percent of such recoveries shall be deposited as follows:
a.
Two-thirds of the 40 percent, for a total of 26.7% to Impact Harrisburg, and
b.
One-third of the 40 percent, for a total of 13.3% to the OPEB Trust created by the City pursuant
to the Strong Plan.
3.
50 percent of such recoveries shall be used for one or more of the following purposes:
a.
Repayment in advance of all or any portion of outstanding amounts owed to the Suburban
Communities,
b.
Deposit into Debt Service or Bond Fund maintained under the Indentures for either the Verizon
Bonds or the Stadium Bonds.
c.
Prepayment of any portion of Ambac General Obligation Bonds
110
Summary
The Coordinator is charged with the responsibility of overseeing the implementation of the Court confirmed Harrisburg Strong
Plan, administering it in accord with Act 47 and providing Commonwealth Court with ongoing updates on the status of
implementation activities. It has been almost two and one half years since the confirmation of the plan and a number of things
have occurred both with respect to the Citys implementation of the Plan and legislative activity related to Act 47. In that
regard there is a need to revisit the plan and to make certain modifications to it to further advance the Citys recovery. The
Strong Plan modifications address both the statutory requirements brought about by the enactment of amendments to Act 47 in
late 2014 (Act 199) and a review of the Citys current and projected financial position.
Among its various provisions Act 199 now prescribes a more defined time period for a municipality to be in Act 47 status with
the goal of moving the municipality from a point of fiscal instability to fiscal sustainability in as short a time period as possible
with a maximum time period of 8 years. The initial time period for a municipality to be under the Act is five years. All new
Act 47 plans are to address a five year recovery period. During the fifth year a review is to be undertaken by the Coordinator
and a recommendation made as to whether: the distressed designation should be rescinded; the Receivership provisions of the
Act invoked; a dissolution process undertaken (in limited instances and not applicable to Harrisburg); or a three year exit plan
prepared. The Harrisburg Strong Plan was confirmed September 23, 2013. At that time there was not a requirement that
projections encompass a five year period and based on the variables that existed in the summer of 2013, the Receiver proposed
projections for a three year period through 2016. Since that time the Strong Plan was consummated with the transactions for the
sale of the Resource Recovery Facility, the monetization of the parking facilities and the transfer of the water and sewer
operation. Further various operational elements of the plan have been implemented and results are now available including
revenue and expenditure performance over the last two and half years. These have included the negotiation of new collective
bargaining contracts with the FOP, IAFF and AFSCME; the new relationship with Trimont Asset Management and Standard
Parking (SP+) for parking, transfer of water and sewer operations to CRW; the resolution of the Verizon Tower bonds; and a
restructured Sanitation and Public Works operation with the creation of the Neighborhood Services Fund.
I believe Harrisburgs future is bright. There are many positive things that have already occurred and the City is positioned to
avail itself to many others. The economic recovery in the capitol region is gaining momentum and as the focal point of the
region Harrisburg will benefit. The Strong Plan modifications contained herein are focused on moving the City to a point of
fiscal sustainability. The path though is not an easy one. There are many issues that impact the Citys recovery but are outside
its ability to fully control. Some are dependent on legislative action at various levels of government including the electorate of
the City while others are dependent on the growth of the broader economy. Effecting strong partnerships will be key to success
in these areas. Issues that are within its control will take difficult decisions by City officials, however, with commitment by all
parties it can happen. Implementing the initiatives in the Strong Plan modifications will achieve the Plans objectives and
ultimately position the City for a rescission of its Act 47 designation.
111

Harrisburg Strong Plan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Harrisburg Strong Plan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Harrisburg Strong Plan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Municipal Financial Recovery Act

Harrisburg Strong Plan

Prepared on behalf of the

(This page left intentionally blank.)

Budget FTE 2009 through 2016

Department of Public Works

Department of Parks, Recreation

Water Utility Fund (CRW)

Sewerage Utility Fund (CRW)

TOTAL UTILITY FUNDS FTE

TOTAL GENERAL FUND FTE

Source City Finance Office

budgets out of balance again.

Improved Customer Experience

Substantial Improvements to Site Infrastructure and Aesthetics

MBP PARKING FEE

PARKING LICENSE FEE-PRIOR

PARKING LICENSE FEE-PENAL

METER BAG RENTAL

MBP PARKING TAXES CURRENT

FINE AND COSTS

PARK TICKETS-VIO FINE

PRIORITY PARKING DISTR.

Hbg Prk Auth Coord Pkg

HBG PRK AUTH COORD PKG

Total Parking Revenue

Baseline Tickets and Fines

Strong Plan vs. Actual/Updated Projection ($ millions)

Parking Taxes and Waterfall Payments

2015 Results of Parking Operations

Enforcement Revenues - Lower than Projected.

The Verizon Bond Problem has been addressed.

Benefits to the City

Property remains on the tax rolls generating real estate revenue.

Verizon Bonds and Overall City Debt Structure

City Island; Senators Bonds, parking option and permits.

Derivatives, Class Action

Baseline Operating Budget Structural Deficit

2016 2018 General Fund Baseline Projections

Most other revenues are held constant over the period.

General Fund Revenue Projections, 2016-2018

The expenditure assumptions used in the baseline projections were as follows:

General Fund Expenditure Projections, 2016-2018

Baseline Projections Summary

Neighborhood Services Fund

Revenues from Collection and Disposal were grown slightly at 2% annually.

The expenditure assumptions used in the baseline projections were as follows:

Workforce and Collective Bargaining

All non-executive, nonmanagement, nonconfidential employees not

$100 co-pay for ER visits

Other Post-Employment Benefits

1 individual appointed by the FOP

Actions of the Harrisburg OPEB Board

Maximum Compensation Allocations and Costing Analysis

Medical AFSCME Active

Total for AFSCME

Medical Management Active

Total for Non-Represented

Actuarial analysis, as applicable, of any modifications to retiree benefits.