Harrisburg City Council Policy Meeting 09/10/2025

The time is 5:40 p.m. I'd like to be

mindful of everyone's time. I apologize

for the delay. We were waiting for

another council member to join

virtually.

So, I'd like to officially call our

policy work session to order.

Mr. Chale, could you please call the

role?

>> Miss Daniels,

>> Miss Davis,

>> present.

>> Miss Green,

>> present.

>> Mr. Jones,

>> here.

>> Miss Rolls,

>> Mr. Rodriguez,

>> present.

>> Miss Hill,

>> present. Thank you. Uh the discussion

topic for today's policy work session is

around spending priorities that were

outlined in bill five of 2023.

Um I'd like this to be an interactive

discussion. So we will begin um with the

presentation that was shared um and we

would like to open the floor for

questions throughout the presentation if

that works for you. Okay. Okay. Thank

you. I we were having some technical

difficulties last night. So I'd ask that

anyone that is speaking if you could

please um make sure that the microphone

is on one and two um make sure that it

is very close to your mouth. That way um

people that are either viewing on

channel 20 or viewing on YouTube are

able to hear um the discussion this

evening. Okay. So I will turn the floor

over to Mr. Silkowski

to begin the presentation.

>> Uh, President Hill, thank you very much.

I appreciate the opportunity to be here.

Uh, first thing is first and introduce

my assistant, Mr. Anthony Magna. He's

just started a couple months ago.

>> Can you move it closer to you?

>> He's done a tremendous job and welcome

him on board. So, uh, he helped me put

this presentation together. He actually

did most of the work actually. So,

So um

so this is related to the American

Rescue Plan Act ORPA money. Uh says what

is ARPA? The American Rescue Plan Act of

2021 was enacted in March 2021 to

provide recovery funds to assist state,

local and tribal governments to respond

to the economic effects of CO 19

pandemic. The city of Harrisburg was

awarded for 47,73,625.

The entire amount has been appropriated

as of 2024 through multiple resolutions

with the latest being resolution 53 of

2024

per bill 7 2022, bill 5 of 2023,

resolution 17 of 2024, and resolution 24

of 2024. And as I said, resolution 53 of

2024, the city approved the use of ORPA

funds towards police fire bonuses,

public safety, HVAC emergency

replacement, and revenue replacement.

Bill 7 of 2022 was the first

appropriated 15,623,000

between three activities. One was

revenue replacement of 8,863.

Second was a public safety building HVAC

of 5,500,000.

And finally, the third one was police

and fire bonuses of 1,260,000

totaling 15,623,000.

Of that total, we've actually spent

15,214692.

>> Mr. Silowski, if I may.

>> Sure. Um, so when you uh I see what the

the

bill with the bill appropriated in one

column and then it says actuals. Can you

explain what actuals mean?

>> Actual is the actual amount spent.

>> Okay.

>> So we we didn't spend about $400

uh I think on bonuses because when they

figure out a bonus there was maybe not a

exact number to do that. So we were like

$400 short. Soon.

>> All right. So, go ahead because I'll

wait till you get to the slide where we

can see the numbers. Thank you,

>> Mr. Subkowski. What was the first 8

million for again? I'm sorry.

>> Revenue replacement.

>> 8 million. That was for revenue

replacement.

>> 5 million for the HVAC and then the

police raises.

>> Oh, exactly. Thank

>> So, Bill Five of 2023 appropriated

31,550,000

between 15 activities. On the next page,

it actually gives you those activities.

I don't think you want me to sit there

and read every single number, but if you

got any questions on anything, um,

>> I would like you to read every single

number in the event that people that are

either watching or listening can't see

the

>> I wasn't going to do that, but if you

want that, that's fine. For initial

administrative cost under bill five,

first column is bill five of 2023.

Then the second column is the actual

amount and and any revision in those

numbers from uh succeeding resolutions.

Um so under initial administration bill

5 appropriated 200,000 and we actually

spent 200,000. administration later was

changed. It was a million2 but that was

revised uh in resolution 17 of 2024

I believe to 600

>> 12 12,200,60.

>> Yeah. Under resolution 17 it was lowered

to 600,000

>> or 800,000 total

>> for for administration.

>> Yeah. Okay.

>> Okay. Affordable housing was uh under

bill five was 8 million

and the actual available for that is is

8 million minus the 250 that went to the

governor square which we hope to get

back. Um

I'll talk more about affordable housing

shortly. Uh tree removal um 500,000 was

appropriated under bill five. Home

repairs 5 million was appropriated and

that remains unchanged. Trash bill

initially was under bill five was 1

million. It was revised under resolution

17 of 2024 to 2 million. Um to replace

the South Harrisburg pole was 8 million

and that was revised in resolution 24 of

2024. I think it sp million for the pole

2 million for

engineering and environmental studies.

Uh so it just broke it down same same

dollar amount but just different parts.

Um the ADA accessible playground was

initially 1,500,000

was revised in resolution 17 of 2024.

Uh the upgraded fire radio system was

900,000 and the actual spent was

990,000.

Um demolition applied to property was a

million5

and um workforce development was

initially a million dollars and was

revised in resolution 17 of 2024.

The senior programming was 250,000 and

it's still that much today. Bridge

housing was 1 million and 1 million has

been uh spent or encumbered. Um,

community matters grants was 1 million

and same with the community connection

hub. Those were both revised in

resolution 17 of 2024.

So the original appropriation was

31,550,000

and the actuals were $17,440.

So any questions on that page?

How come those numbers um when you when

they're revised weren't reflected on

here? No room.

>> Well, there's some that hasn't been

completely spent yet, such as the

affordable housing. We're actually under

undergoing a review process as we speak.

We got 26 applications in for affordable

housing. Um,

>> yeah, but

if there was money spent, I mean, you're

showing all of the other spending and if

there was money added to those

categories, um, it would be nice to see

those actual numbers to reflect on this.

>> Can you speak into the microphone,

please? Thank you.

>> Some of those numbers are going to be on

uh the next couple of slides. All the

ones that were revised, you're going to

see in the next two slides, uh, for

resolution 17 and resolution 24 of 2024.

Um, those will have the actual numbers

that were revised in there. Um, and then

everything else that was actually spent

that aligned with Bill Five is on that

current slide.

So for clarification,

the 17 um

17,440,000

was spent is that the total was spent

out of 31 million.

>> Um

I don't think that's entirely accurate

because some of these things actually

were taken away. They no longer exist.

So I can't really compare the 17 million

with 31 million because for example um

the last two items the community matters

grant community connections the the

authorizations for those actually went

away. So that money was never spent and

shouldn't be on the 17 million.

It was in the original act five, but it

was revised in resolution 17

and went away. The authorization for

that went away and it's not in the

current budget.

So, we don't have the authorization to

spend that.

>> So,

when you say that it went away,

>> where'd it go?

>> The resolution took it away.

Okay. So, let me ask this. You're saying

that you don't have authority to spend

it outside of these categories that this

money was originally uh appropriated to.

Correct.

>> That's not correct.

>> That's a question.

>> No. No. So, so this goes to fundamentals

of budgeting, right? In 2023, you made a

list of priorities and provided the

administration. Um and at the end of

2023 into the 2024 budget, all of that

rolled forward and that and every

beginning of every year you do a roll

forward. Then the budget for these

programs came forward in the resolution

in 2024 and didn't include all the

programs. All of it had moved to revenue

replacement. So it went from US US

Treasury money to general fund and then

it was pushed over to the state grant

fund. Right.

>> Right. No. So So the money's there,

right? It's not that it's gone, it's

there. But then there was no

appropriation of that money in 2024 and

therefore there was nothing to roll

forward into 2025. So it wasn't part of

the 2025 budget. So those programs are

unfunded at the moment. Not that that

money was spent.

>> I I wasn't talking about the money. I

was just talking about the programs

where

>> the programs were never created and

never put in place because there was the

the council made a proposal to have

them. The mayor did not bring that

forward as the executive branch and so

those sit there and then when they

weren't rolled forward they were not the

money stayed now as general fund money

in the state grants program. Okay.

>> Doesn't mean there's not an ability for

the mayor and the council to work out

whether they want those programs. So

it's not that it was recommitted.

>> Um this you always have a fund balance

like we've always have but technically

they're general fund money sitting there

in the state grant program with no

appropriation. to the 25.

>> So, how much of the money that's

remaining from the that previously was

COVID money is in the state um grants

fund and how much is in the general?

>> I think it's all state grants funded.

That's the one that's where it all went

when it became revenue replacement. So,

it went to general fund and immediately

then transferred to state grants.

>> There's none of the money in the general

fund at all.

>> Okay.

>> So, your question last night about

>> Excuse me. Can you please speak directly

into the microphone? I'm getting text

messages that nobody can hear you.

>> It's like two inches from my mouth. So

it's like the point is there's no ARPA

money in the general fund. It went into

the general fund.

>> The general fund acted like a pass

through and it was transferred to the

state grant fund. So that money that's

that's unspent is in the grand fund.

>> All right. So it sits there and the

grant fund does not work the same way

budgeting purpose-wise as the general

fund. If you don't reappropriate each

year for the general fund, the

authorization to spend that money for

whatever line item you're talking about

goes away.

So in in the in the resolution that you

guys passed in 24, you took the

authorization away to to spend money for

those two programs. Part of the money

was rolled over into the into the trash

assistance program, but you increased it

from a million in act five. Now it's two

million.

>> So some of that money was taken and

reappropriated someplace else.

>> Okay.

>> Okay.

Any other questions?

>> Keep going.

>> All right. Uh resolution 17 of 2024 was

reappropriate reappropriated 18,850

uh between eight activities. Uh 600,000

went into administration which gives a

total amount of 800,000. Uh affordable

housing was still 8 million. So you re

reappropriated that money. Uh tree

removal was kept in there at 500,000.

Home repairs was was maintained at 5

million. Trash assistance was increased

at 2 million. Demolition of blighted

property is was kept at 1.5. Senior

programming was kept at 250 and bridge

housing was kept at $1 million. You can

see where those other programs that the

the appropriation or the authorization

to put money in those programs no longer

existed after you did uh resolution 17.

>> So,

So the difference between the 315

million and then the 174 million, would

that be in the state grants fund? Like

that that that extra money, that extra

$14 million or is in the state grants

fund just 188.

I think that's what Councilman Jones is

trying.

Well,

I think what was transferred

um

was about approximately $40 million.

Some of that money has been spent. So,

there's no longer $40 million in the

grand fund. And some

>> I'm sorry, what what did Mr. Sauski say?

I cannot hear him. I did not hear what

he just said on how much money was

transferred. I don't mean to cut anybody

off, but I can I can't hear. And I know

President Hill is saying move closer,

but I

>> what was transferred to the general fund

was 40,721,932.

[Music]

>> The other 7 million was spent directly

for for example the the public safety

building repairs was paid directly from

well back in 2023 and 24. The radios for

the fire department were paid for prior

to this transfer to the general fund. So

40 million back in I think 2024 was

transferred to the general fund. Some of

that money has been spent down. Okay.

But not all of it. So I believe there's

probably in the neighborhood of about 20

$21 million has not been spent down so

far.

>> So I did see on one of the line items

speaking of the the radios for fire

900,000 was appropriated. 990 was spent.

Where did the 90 come from?

>> I would say it came from the from these

funds.

>> I mean, it was only 900 appropriated.

So, how did you spend 90? Where did the

other 90?

>> You'd have to ask Chief Analine that

question.

>> And I will say, I don't know if it was

from that or not, but in contracting for

the city, there's usually a 10% variance

on a contract.

>> Well, we didn't leave room for that.

Well, question is, is it therefore is it

otherwise in contracted services? A lot

of the things you put into the city

budget are contracted services. So, I'm

not saying it came from this money. I'm

saying when there's a variant,

>> find out where it came from.

>> Sure, that there'll be an answer

straight up, but I'm saying that but

there is a 10% variance so that you

don't start all over again at the other

end of a contract.

>> So, and that's a

>> and if that's the case, so these numbers

should reflect that. Like I said, when

he's putting uh 600,000, then it was

revived. There's no number there. So we

can't even I mean I know they see him on

the next slide but again when you say

what's appropriated to these categories

900,000 then there was 990 spent we need

to know where that money came from.

>> Sure. I mean that that that'll be right

there. It'll be it'll be in the in the

thing. And what I don't know frankly is

whether the 90 ended up in your

following year's budget as it was being

that I mean there's a lot of places this

stuff comes.

>> I mean I'm just looking at what's being

presented.

>> I I got you. So

>> go ahead.

>> Okay. Um, continuing with resolution 24

of 2024,

reappropriated one activity by splitting

it between two phases. That was the pole

situation. And I explained to you a

little bit earlier that was originally 8

million in in bill five and you split

between phase one and phase two. 2

million for I think that's for

architecture or engineering work plus a

environmental study which is

>> that study was about $60,000. 60 to

80,000 somewhere in that neighborhood.

Yeah, it's currently being done. It

won't be finished until probably

November of this year.

>> 2 million.

>> Yeah. Go ahead.

>> I'm just reporting what the legislation

legislation says.

>> And that was one of my questions, too.

Sorry, Mr. Sakowski. I know we've been

waiting on the environmental studies and

the architecture layout for quite some

time, and the number came in roughly a

little over 60. So just trying to

struggle on how we came up with the two

million for that. The 2 million was

already spent on that project so far.

>> No, no, no. So the two million is if you

get to architectural, right? The the

first phase is the is the environmental

study to see whether it's worth paying

anyone to do an architectural if if it

comes back that you can't use that

property, which I think we talked about

when when this was broken up, that money

is not going anywhere. It's there

appropriated for pools, but that

professional services won't be incurred.

you would see that contract if it came

back like an architect or engineers

contract that would come back to you

>> for the write up on this again I'm just

looking I'm reading what's being

presented and it's very confusing to me

um where and where it talks about the

60,000 being spent for the study the

environmental study to see if we can

even do anything with the pool right

>> it doesn't say anything about anything

else but there was 2 million again

appropriated to environmental study And

what else you said? Land.

>> No. Architect design, which is the big

expens.

>> So that's not spent yet

>> because you wouldn't pay someone until

you knew if environmentally you could do

it.

>> Hear me out.

>> No, just we're on the same page.

>> These numbers aren't reflecting

>> on here. So it's just like these things

are missing

>> because we haven't incurred that expense

yet. And you're not going

>> you're marking everything. Okay. Go

ahead.

>> I'm just reporting what it's earmarked

for.

>> I guess the confusion is just the way

you're presenting it as it was allocated

already. So when we're hearing it, we

know like without reading.

>> Yeah.

>> I'm just saying the two million was

split into phases. Phase one which is

for the environmental study which is

going on now which will be done by

November. Then the balance of that 2

million will be used hopefully not maybe

not all of it but we don't know that

till we know for sure that it's it we

can build it because why would you incur

the expense of it be before you know

whether you can actually do it. Okay. I

mean, we we we understand that. I'm just

looking at the the bare numbers

>> and what's being presented here.

>> That's what I'm asking about. I

understand you. Why would you put the

cart before the horse? You know, I get

it,

>> you know.

>> So, all I said was the 2 million is what

the 2 million is for environmental,

architectural, or engineering. Okay.

>> So, once you do that,

>> 60,000 was spent out of this 2 million.

It's not reflecting.

>> It doesn't reflect.

>> It doesn't show that.

>> That's all.

Okay.

Is it reflective?

Okay. It's on the next slide.

All right. So, that's the that's the

breakdown. Um

on the appropriations slide, this one

here. Um

see there you can see $7,919,190

[Music]

is remaining of the $8 million. So that

reflects

the environmental study.

>> Now, let's go to the top where 55

million 5.5 million was appropriated.

The actual that was spent was 5.25.

>> Mhm.

>> And there's no money remaining. Where's

the rest of the money?

And the next line too, 1 point two um 2

million then actual spent was 1.1 and

then there's no money. Well, I I would I

would categorize appropriated as an

estimate and the actual is what it

actually came back as when you because

whenever you bid a contract, I mean, you

might estimate something costing $20

million, but it may come in at $19,500.

>> So, when you do the project that it

should reflect,

>> but if it came in under the appropriated

amount,

>> there should be fund remaining.

So, if you would have

200,000 left over and you did your

project on the public safety building,

what else would you do with it?

>> So, it should go back into the into the

city coffers and you use for something

else.

>> Well, that's all we were asking. Where

did the remaining balance go?

>> It stays with the city.

>> Okay. Thank you.

>> Um,

>> excuse me.

>> Yes. You mentioned the money stays with

the city and is that money in the state

grant fund then? Is that where it went

back to or

>> excuse me before anybody continues

talking

>> there is it's everyone listening even

councilwoman Ross is having extreme

difficulty hearing any and everything

that's said. So, if you can speak into

the I don't know what else to do either,

but it's frustrating to sit here

>> and go back and forth and people can't

even hear what we're talking about. Um,

I'm getting frustrated because we are

asked on a daily basis, about these

programs, about these funds, what

happened. People are watching and would

like to know. And I I think I'd like to

pause until something is done to ensure

that those watching can hear because

it's pointless if they can't. It's

wasting everybody's time.

>> I had the microphone an inch from my

mouth. So I can't other than swallowing

it. I can't I don't know what else to

do.

>> Well, your volume just went up which I

think someone just pushed a button.

Madam President, did you want to take a

recess to make sure the technical side?

>> I'd like to make sure that the Yes.

Second the microphones are working,

please. Thank you.

messages. So, I'll let you know if they

can't hear you, but go ahead. Proceed,

please.

>> I apologize, but I try to get as close

to my mouth as possible. Uh, okay. Going

to the appropriations. Um,

administrative cost was appropriated.

Actual spend is 800 thou 800,000.

Affordable housing, we have 8 million

remaining. Be we'll come back to that.

Tree removal 500,000 that's been spent.

Home repairs 5 million was appropriated.

Remaining was is 3,889,000.

Um refugees 2 million was appropriated

and what's remaining is 1,224.

Uh I think we just credited people's

accounts Monday of this week about

slightly over 8 million. Um

>> can I ask a question about that?

>> Sure. Go ahead. How were these

individuals selected?

>> Well, they had to be delinquent as of

August 30th. Um, you want to talk about

this a little bit more?

>> Yeah, I can talk about it. So,

effectively, they had to uh miss at

least one payment during the COVID time

frame. So, that was between 2020 and

2020.

>> Miss or

>> they had to miss a payment. So, that

they miss a payment. They also had to

make a payment during that same time

frame to be qualified. Then we also took

out any city employees or elected

officials. And then to the best of our

knowledge, we took out anyone that was a

landlord or like a non-residential

landlord. Um we took out organizations

or anyone that was not uh like a

resident property owner. Um and that was

effectively how we came to the the

initial list from there. So the my

question would be um I don't think you

guys your administration give has given

a response to what was reported um from

the treasury uh of how this money was

going out the window. In some cases

people were upwards of $9,000 of

forgiveness where I think there was a

number said of between $1,100 to600.

Is that accurate?

There was no there was no limit given to

what the delinquent amount would be.

They had they had to be delinquent and

they had to at least make one payment

within that three-year period. If they

did that plus the being not being a

landlord, then they then they qualified.

There was no dollar amount ever set on

who was getting

uh any kind of assistance. I I think he

was saying would are some residents

being uh forgiven upwards to $9,000 not

like a cap or a limit on

>> there was no cap on it.

>> Right.

>> What we were saying was were some of the

forgiveness payments upwards of $9,000

from a,000 upwards to $9,000 or is there

a list perhaps you could share with

council? Uh there is a list that uh we

could share if you would like but

effectively um I do not know the exact

what was the minimum and the maximum but

for my knowledge um there was a couple

that were under a thousand and there

were some that was upwards of five or

6,000 but I do not remember the exact

maximum. I wouldn't say it's egregious,

but don't you think it would be

pertinent for council to be able to view

it as we're going through the motions

today just to rest assure everyone and

we could actually see the live numbers

because right now there's just a lot of

fog and it's unclear. Um, so we could

say there was 8 million forgiveness, 2

million forgiveness, but how are we to

actually know that these individuals

were taken care of? How do we actually

know that these dollars are being

allocated towards that specifically

besides just taking your word for it?

>> Yeah. So, there was an application that

they went into the mail to them

separately. They had to return that and

sign it. Not shockingly, some people

decided to share that application with

people that weren't on the list. Those

aren't getting and again it's being

processed one by one. Um I what is it

about a 50% return by now about the

numbers that went out? Not the that's

not the dollar amount, that's the number

of people that got in on the list. Um,

we worked around an awful lot to to see

what formula fit the $2 million, right?

And and knowing you'd still not get a

full return because that's that's just

not the way when you mail people things,

they don't respond necessarily. If they

never open the envelope and had a window

of 15 days to respond, um, then you

didn't open the envelope. You know, it

was providing an opportunity uh to take

people that seemed to have a good faith

effort during CO to make some payment um

and to to resolution. Bottom line at the

other side, people just need to be

realistic about what it is. This is a

transfer of funds of money that was

given to us by the federal government

back to the city. That's

>> I mean that I'm I'm at least I'm not

questioning that we agreed to put and

even up it another million to do this

for our residents in the in the manner

it was being given out is the question.

And you say 500 on this sheet, but I

think the total was 541. So are these

numbers correct?

>> How many people receive these

applications and then 50% of that how

many people return them?

>> So the people are still returning some

applications. So this is ongoing and

part of the reason like to uh the

solicitor's point that we didn't send it

out to everybody yet is because we

didn't want to cause confusion. But

right now uh so there was 541 people

that were eligible. We took five people

off the list because they were either

elected officials or city employees. And

then that left roughly about 536 that

went out. Um about 48% roughly have been

returned. So I don't remember the exact

number but it's somewhere around 250 260

that have been returned.

>> So would th again

would those numbers reflect here? I'm

just trying to watch how this is going

out and then if these numbers are adding

up to what you're you're presenting to

us in front of us.

Yeah. I mean, so what is presented right

now, we have the uh the delinquent

refuge disposal bill assistance. These

these numbers were updated when we

created the PowerPoint, but as I said,

we are still receiving some back. So

those numbers are not going to be 100%

accurate at this current exact moment.

Um we have received back um just over

$800,000 worth of uh forgiveness.

Okay.

>> I had a question. Um, I was wondering

what what's being put in place uh to

make make sure that these delinquent

bills, the people that we are going to

be forgiving their um trash bills,

what's being put in place to make sure

that they don't come into this same

situation against because this is that

at one time money. Um, and I'm just

wondering what do we That's a question a

lot of residents had. How is this going

to stop the continuence of the

delinquent bills from these same

individuals?

>> May I address that?

>> Was that May I address that?

>> Yeah.

>> So, so as you know, maybe two and a half

years ago, the council with the request

of the mayor approved the uh extra

position in the law bureau for a lean

specialist and and there was significant

amount of trash bills. That's why we got

a lean specialist. We had to triage how

we approached it. So the way we triaged

it is we started with

accounts that were over 10,000 past due

uh that were commercial we started with

and then they got a

>> Say that again.

>> Accounts that were commercial that were

more than 10,000 past due is what we

started with that list. So we broke the

list into different categories. So if

you're a commercial account and more

than 10,000, we started with that list.

the under due process rights, you're

entitled to a notice. So, we issue a

notice letter that we're going to lean

your property. You then get a second

letter if you didn't respond. And after

that second letter, after about 60 days,

you you end up uh with a lean on your

property for the full amount plus

interest. Um, and if you did respond, we

will see

>> that's for commercial trash.

>> That's where we started, right? So, so,

and I don't have the full numbers in my

head on how many accounts there were,

but this is how we broke it down, how we

how to manage the flow. Um, we then took

those that were over 10,000 and you

could instead of getting leaned on your

property and into a payment plan that

usually range from 3 to 5 years at the

most where you're paying your current

bill and a percentage. So, at the end of

it, you will be caught up in those

payment plans, which is the same method

the city has used for probably 35 years.

Once you sign that agreement and pay on

time, the penalty stops running as long

as you're paying your current bill plus

that. If you stop, all the penalties

come back onto your bill. I mean, so

that's

>> is there a resolution around this?

>> No, this was just a program that's been

in place forever.

>> Okay. Yeah, I know. I I I get it. I'm

just looking again at how it's being um

issued out, who how they were selected,

what you're explaining. It would have

been nice to see this prior to getting

to this because I mean again

>> so so they're two different questions,

right? You're asking how we got to where

we got. I'm giving you I'm giving you a

history of of where these were. We

completed everything that was over

$10,000. I forget what

>> I don't want to know how you got to

where you got. I want to know how we're

going to what what's what did

administration put in place so these

same people aren't delinquent again?

>> I'm getting right there.

>> You okay? That's

>> that's where I'm going. So it's it's not

being done without thought. So the next

program was to do residential over

10,000. Same process. Now with these

ones, instead of waiting till there is a

balance, what we had met with the mayor,

people on forgiveness, if they go beyond

12 months now, which is about $400,

we're going to be giving them that

notice we would give someone that had

been up at the $10,000 and say, "You now

you got your forgiveness. You're not

paying your bills still. we're going to

send out this notice to you for a lean

if you're not paying your bill. So that

is the that's where it changes from what

the practice has been to to how to take

the other side of this forgiveness.

You've gotten you've gotten the benefit

of this and there's no more benefit to

get in the future. So that is and that's

just a change in practice. I mean of of

how we do it and it's it's to basically

say you're not going to get there. Now,

part of this, I think you were all

aware, we got here from when CRW and the

city split apart and there was no longer

water shut off for trash bills. We're

not the only municipality that has that

issue. Um, and it is a challenge to get

people to pay when you don't have that

lever, but that is the mechanism that

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania gives

Commonwealth Pennsylvania gives us in

terms of the municipal lean process in

order to put that lean in place. So used

to we we started on the big end. We're

moving towards coming down low where

it's going to be starting earlier for

people.

>> So are you saying out of the 500 and 541

whatever applicants

some of those were actual businesses?

>> No, none of them were select. No, I'm

saying the businesses were how we have

the laundry how you started. Okay. On

doing leans and how to how to start

bringing this trash into account, right?

And then we moved to the residential.

Then this program came along. The

difference of what we would do with

because this program came along is

instead of going after the biggest ones,

you know, and working our way down

because you're in this program now,

you're going to be on the list to after

12 months of going where

>> any residents.

>> Yeah. The ones who aren't paying their

bills, who got the forgiveness, now

they're going to be on the list to get a

lean much earlier, you know, in order to

bring because they got the benefit of

this. There's a total of about 18,000

city accounts for this.

>> Was that explained to them when when

this was given to them? it will be

explained to them. So, so

>> that was my question too. Did they know

Thank you for bringing it up, Councilman

Jones. I was wondering, did the

residents know when they got um the

application in the mail that if you sign

this and we forgive it, but then if you

get back into delin a delinquent bill at

500400 some dollars, this is what the

next step's going to be because we've

done this for you. Did they know that

during the process of application? Was

that in fine print?

>> It is not. And frankly, it doesn't

matter because right now we have the

right, the city, to lean every single

person who doesn't pay their bills. We

just don't have the capacity. So, if you

think you can go through life and not

pay your bill and have no consequence

and the city let that happen for a

while, that's on you. But don't expect

that you got something for it and you

can go back to what you were doing. So,

I if you think we have to explain that,

I frankly don't understand it. Because

right now, every one of them could be

linked. Everyone could could be lame.

>> We understand. We understand.

>> Like the

>> Go ahead, Councilwoman Rose.

>> I'm sorry. I

>> No, finish. F finish what you were going

to say.

>> Yeah, we understand that you have the

power to lean, shut down, do all of

these things, but I'm going to tell you

why I'm asking this question. Because

when these letters was giving out,

residents came to me, is this a trap?

And I was like, "No, it's not a trap.

>> It is not a trap."

>> Can you hear me out?

>> They asked me, "Was it a trap?" And I

was like, "What do you mean?" So, what

this sounds like now again from And I

read the letter and it had none of this

language that you're speaking of in it.

>> I'm talking about forgiveness and we're

going to do this if you don't cuz she

asked a question. what is put in place

to make sure that uh uh we as residents

don't fall back into this particular

situation of of not being able to pay

and then you said well we're they're

going to know they didn't know when it

was went out so I'm just asking because

there were a lot of people that came and

asked was this a trap and this sounds

like almost a bait and switch

>> it how can it be because

>> I mean because what you're saying you're

going to do to them now that they took

this so what about everyone else So

what? So we're clear. What's going to

happen is they will get earlier than

they would a letter 60 days ahead of

time and says you are delinquent. Can

you come in and bring your bill up to

date? And if not, can you come into a

payment plan and stop your penalties

from running? We we have

>> Yeah. The 60 days is the initial notice

and sometimes it stretches out to

sometimes 80 just depending on

communications. If you're communicating

with the city, it's not a automatic

thing. If you're ignoring the city, that

clock is 60 days, right? So, you got a

first one and you get a second one at 30

days. And the the effort is to get them

to come in and start bringing their bill

current. It's not an automatic work

we're coming for you. But the difference

is we're now communicating with them

earlier.

>> Well, that's what it sound like. That's

what that's what it sound like.

>> I'm a litigator, so you know, I'm saying

but we're but it's an what I started

with. That's the process. you get a due

process notice and because the city let

it go for so long over the years you had

to start a due pro it'll be instead of

letting it go for years the city needs

to get to the point which way way back

when when there was an operations

revenue office and it was automatic like

it just just like if you don't show up

for district court and there's automatic

notice for a warrant the computer kicked

out a letter automatically that you're

this delinquent and you have this much

notice to come in and and get up to

speed or you could be leaned That was an

automatic mainframe thing 25 years ago.

It went away as the system got weary.

>> Yeah. Again, I just I'm just asking

these questions again. Um it's my duty,

my job to ask what my uh constituents

ask me and and represent them in. So, um

they're not here. So, we have to do

that. And again, we're not downing this

program because obviously council put

them, you know, uh put put this in a

resolution to do this. And it makes

sense this revenue. we do know will come

back to the city which is a good thing.

Again, it's just about the

administration and the process of how

it's being done. That's it.

>> Um I had one more question. Thank you um

for clarifying that. I I'm glad there's

something put in place missing case um

someone decides to be delinquent again.

But I do wish that would have been part

of the application.

Understand what you're saying. was

served over. I'm saying that we don't

you didn't have to put it in there, but

that could have made people also be a

little bit nervous to go delinquent

again. Um I know if I would have seen

I'm not going to be delinquent on my

trash bill, but if that would have been

something that I would have seen because

I was it might have um made me make sure

that I wasn't a but

>> we can't

>> we can't hear you. You're a little

muffled.

Someone does.

>> Councilwoman Ros, you're muffled. We

can't really hear you. She can't um knew

this program was happening. That was

something they were concerned about. My

second question though was um for the

you hear me?

>> No, we couldn't hear the majority of

what you just said. It was a little

muffled. I won't say anything cuz I

don't know what to do.

>> Okay.

>> Am I still on my phone?

>> No, you're better now. Did you want to

ask your other question?

>> You can move past. No.

>> Okay.

>> President Hill.

>> Yes.

>> Okay.

>> I I just wanted to make one point.

>> Can you hear me now?

>> Yes.

>> Yes. Thank you. Uh I just was wondering

um there were two lines that

Okay. There were two lines with the

delin if I'm looking right. the

replacement of the Southside Harrisburg

pool. Um the actuals in the appropriate

don't match the remaining because it

like it says 2 million appropriate 2

million 2 million actual for the

delinquent refuse and disposal bill

assistance but then remaining is 1.2

million. So I'm just and the same thing

for the pool. So I'm just wondering what

I'm missing mathwise.

I think she's on

>> why it says that in the remaining if

everything was used or it's going to be

I just I just don't understand that.

>> Did you want to answer? So I think she's

talking about the slide eight. It looks

like the delinquent uh refues and

disposal bill assistance. I think you

did answer that earlier when you

mentioned that uh only

48% had been returned. So the total has

not been exhausted. And then for the

pool, you mentioned earlier that the

appropriation for the earth study um

60,000.

>> Yeah. The remaining amount is is the 8

million minus what we spend for the

environmental study, which you said was

like 60 or $80,000.

>> 60.

>> Yeah. 60.

>> The one point I want to make earlier is

there is a follow-up letter to be sent

to those people that had their bills. uh

assistance to those. So those letters

have not gone out yet. So some of the

things that you're talking about or

asking about now would probably be in

that letter.

>> So it's a letter to those that have

returned the application, the 48%

>> and it's been that is correct.

>> Right. Okay.

>> Correct.

>> Are there any other questions related to

the appropriation for the delinquent

refues and disposal bill assistance or

can we move forward with this slide?

we can move forward.

>> Thank you. If you could please proceed.

>> Okay. The next one, if you go two

slides, would be bill 7 of 2022.

Um that was where the money was

appropriated for the um public safety

building where 5.25 million was spent.

So that gave us of the 47 million that

was originally appropriated, it left

41,822,665

in there.

The next slide is where the police and

fire bonuses. Frontline police officers

and firefighters are given a one-time

bonus for their unwavering commitment to

serving the citizens of Harrisburg

during the CO 19 pandemic. And that

total bonus has come out to 1,100,732.

>> Now those two slides again where the re

there's still money that is missing and

you said you will give us a copy of

where that money is, right?

Correct.

>> Okay. Under administrative cost, that's

where the 800,000 was appropriated and

uh so after that was spent uh the

remaining balance was 39,921,933.

Uh we had incurred expenses in in the

administration department, finance

department, building and housing, public

works, facilities, parks and recreation,

codes, diversity and compliance, the

fire department, and the police. And it

was used to cover uh personnel hours,

posted supplies, general management to

track funds, development, implement

programs, reporting and auditing. So,

okay. Under the affordable housings,

next slide, uh that's where the $8

million was appropriated. Um we as of um

September 5th, we received 26

applications. Uh we're this week and

next week we will be spending time uh

having our committee um um score those

and see who's eligible and who's not

eligible. Um, that is going to take some

time.

>> I was want to ask that what was the what

was the timeline? This was a very quick

turnaround. It seemed like it was rushed

from August 11th to September 5th and

that was a short period of time for

people to get their paperwork together.

So, what do you think the timeline will

be looking at these applications?

>> I would say it would probably take

another week. We got a lot more

applications than I was expecting

personally.

>> I'm sure it's 8 million bucks.

>> Pardon me.

>> It's 8 million bucks. I'm sure.

>> Well,

>> there was a 3WE period.

>> Yeah, 3-we period for them to respond.

So, I we had no problem with people

responding. Um I mean, I made a one

slight mistake where I said we respond

till 5:00 on Friday. I should have said

four o'clock, not five o'clock. It's

because everybody from the front office

leaves at 4:00 and so I had to go down

and answer the front door myself. So,

not a big deal. Um so, I would say I I

spoke with with most of the committee

today. They're gonna be picking up their

documents and their and their evaluation

sheets tomorrow and it's probably going

to take maybe most of a week.

>> So there's a rubric or is it is it okay

if council can look at that?

>> Yeah, you can.

>> Who are the members of the evaluation

committee?

>> Doug Hill, Mr. Doug Hill. Uh we asked

Mr. West Major, but he's going through a

mer a medical process. So uh we have

another individual who we're going to

reach out to tomorrow. Uh, Eric Jenkins.

>> Okay. Thank you.

>> How many members?

>> So, you only have two at the moment.

>> We're speaking to tomorrow.

>> So, will that hold up the process of

these uh applications?

>> Definitely not. No, most definitely.

>> Getting evaluated?

>> Most definitely not.

>> All right. Yeah, I would definitely love

to see a copy of that rubric, please.

>> The reality is also that it's a very

tight eligibility. There's going to be

very few of those 26 that are going to

be able to hit that. just very few and

that was on purpose

>> and that so what happens with that

remaining do we have a plan for that all

the eight million won't go no one's

asking for for $20,000 right but I'm

saying of the 26 you know you had to be

already providing affordable housing and

providing more in the city I think

everyone in this room knows that's a

very small universe of people

>> that's just the reality of it all All

right.

>> Okay. Any other questions on the

affordable housing?

>> Okay.

>> No, thank you.

>> Tree removal program. Um, so far

progress we made. 105 trees have been

removed, 31 trees pruned, and eight

stumps have been removed. Um, we

additionally will be purchasing an air

burner unit to eliminate woody waste

material. currently waiting on EPA

approval to move forward with the

purchase and as you know EPA works

slowly

>> the EPA. So um I do have a question and

I see uh public works is here um

purchasing this and burning. Is there

anything else that we can do with this?

I know we have a we have a a chipper. Am

I correct? We don't have a chipper.

>> Hello Cody Forester.

Go ahead. What was the question?

>> Do we have a wood chipper?

>> We do. Yes.

>> Okay. So, what is the purpose of just

burning this up and instead of using

mulch and, you know, grinding this up?

>> So, we currently have a pretty massive

backlog of wood chips that we just don't

have a use for. Um, the burner is not

just for wood chips, but for larger

woody material that also is currently

backlogging our shops. Um,

>> so the 500,000 would be for that

purchase of this air burner or this is

what it costs for the trees to be

removed.

>> The 500,000 is what was appropriated and

the burner itself is a third of that.

>> Is there do you have a cost or is there

is there a line item for this going to

cost? How much is this going to cost?

>> I have a quote for for the unit

>> and it is

>> it's around 200,000.

>> Wow.

Okay.

>> So, I don't have specific numbers, but

uh I do have tonnage that was provided

to me by public works for woody material

that was delivered out outside city

limits. Uh that's around 250 tons last

year.

Effectively, that that tonnage would

reduce to zero. We wouldn't have to ship

woody waste outside of city limits and

and pay for it. I don't have those

figures on how much we did pay for it,

but uh that's also not including the

woody material that park maintenance

produces.

Uh just to give you current numbers on

the tree removal pro pruning program,

500,000 was appropriated. 112,491

has been spent because I mentioned

earlier 105 trees have been removed.

31 been pruned. So the balance in there

is 387,509.

[Music]

>> That's the remaining balance. And a

potential 200 to go out for a air

burner.

>> Correct.

>> Okay.

>> As of today,

>> no.

>> All right. I guess the updated numbers

total money spent was 187,929

to date.

Okay.

>> So, are the the numbers of trees

removed? Are all of those numbers still

accurate? 105, 31, and 8. And did if you

could remind me, I thought there was a

goal for the number of trees to be

removed. There wasn't. Okay. Well, do

you have a goal in mind or are you

>> Yeah, this this is still preliminary to

the other $2 million um IRA grant. Uh

the goal was I don't think we had a

specific number of trees uh to be pruned

or removed with this money, but uh we've

definitely blown the water out of the

number of trees we've gotten to in the

in the past previous years. So 105 is

quite quite a lot. I personally think

>> Okay. Thanks. I just wanted to clarify

that

>> this also includes the tornado that went

through Belleview. We took all the

trees.

>> Mhm.

>> All those trees aren't gone. I ride

through that park. Them trees are laying

in the reservoir park.

>> Those are the trees that were the

residents said

>> and there still some back behind.

>> Excuse me. Can I talk?

>> Yes.

>> Okay. Those were the trees that the

residents said that they were going to

take down themselves and have their own

private contractor come out.

>> These are trees that are in the park.

Just for the public, these trees are

still laying and I'm sure you can see

them as well. These trees are still

laying in Reservoir Park.

>> Yes.

>> So, we did spend just under $11,000 on

trees in Reservoir Park. There are a few

currently still laying there that our

staff is just going to do ourselves. Um

I think particularly closer to the Civil

War Museum up on the hill there. There's

a couple more, but um yeah, just under

11,000 was was spently too.

>> Thank you for the clarification.

>> Oh yeah.

>> Um I wanted just to say um President D

was correct. There was a goal for

retribution.

It was 50 trees. You We did overdo the

We went over the goal, but I wanted to

make sure um that was clarified. She's

correct. There was a goal. I had that

written down in my notes.

>> Um and then I just had a quick question.

Um I know you had I can't see who's

talking, but um I know you had mentioned

you didn't know what to do with the

mulch. Somebody from public works I

think was just talking. Um, and I was

just wondering, did you all ever think

maybe putting the mulch around the new

trees that are being planted? I see a

lot of those being planted and going up,

and I think it would look very nice to

put mulch around those.

Or is there any way to offer mulch to

residents who maybe can't afford mulch?

And it just these type of ideas if we

don't can't think of anything else to do

with the extra mulch. So, I was just

wondering if those ideas came up and I

wanted to clarify what um President Neo

had said about the um the goal for the

tree removal. Thank you.

>> Okay, so for the for the mulch question,

um it's not recommended to use natural

mulch in all situations. Um you

certainly can for uh garden beds. Uh but

but uh park maintenance does already

have mulch available to us. So when we

do plantings, that's that's what we do

utilize just because it is, you know,

more recommended for for new tree

plantings. It's definitely not out of

the question if residents want wood

chips. Uh I don't see why they couldn't

get that themselves other other than any

sort of legal um conflict there. But uh

yeah, that's I think been done in the

past. Um

>> Oh yes.

Hello, my name is Sasha, deputy

director. We donate um plenty of wood

chips throughout um the city of

Harrisburg to gardens.

>> Good.

>> I think particular like H gardens and um

pollinator

>> about how much you said you have a a

tonnage of it.

>> Uh like that we're currently

stockpiling.

>> Yeah.

>> No, we don't have that.

>> No, we have about two tractor trailer

loads of of wood chips right now. And

anybody contacts us um and they need

some more wood chips, we'll be we'll be

able to deliver them.

>> And again, I'm just asking again because

of the purchase of the the burner and we

have something that helps make that with

those wood chips.

>> No. So the burner is also going to help

out with our lease. We pay right now.

There we go. Now we come on now. See how

we going to use this thing. So we um

right now we pay Suscoana Township um

for our leave removal for a large um

wood so like wood sticks the bottom of

the trees and stuff. We actually paid

Zeer Brothers to um get rid of that. But

Zeer Brothers is going to be going out

of business soon. So we won't have no

avenue to get rid of this stuff. So, the

$200,000 um burner is going to save us

money and save us um looking for a

location to to uh get rid of the uh the

trees.

>> Thank you for the clarification.

>> Thank you.

>> Thank you. Any

>> Thank you for that

answering that question. I'm sorry,

President Hill. I didn't mean to cut you

off.

>> No, you're fine. Do you have any other

questions regarding the tree removal

program?

No, I do not. That was it. They

explained it. I understand. And about

the mulch, so I'm I'm good. Thank you.

And thank you. Um I heard Director Ross

explain that residents could pick up the

wood chips if they wanted to. I

understand that they're natural now. So

I do understand that. I just heard mulch

and so I was, you know, assuming it was

in the state of mulch that we put down.

So I didn't fully understand but now I

do. Um but thank you um for answering

that question and clarifying.

>> You're welcome. Thank you.

>> Um quick question about the tree removal

program. Um, how do we uh, I guess,

segregate what our public works or parks

and w traditionally will go after for

tree removal and the designations for

the tree removal program. Are we

incorporating those uh, simultaneously?

>> Could you could you repeat the question?

>> Because traditionally there's already a

line item for tree removal throughout

the city. Um, but through the tree

removal program, it would give us the

means to do more. Are we segregating the

initiative or are we keeping that

separate so we could show what the tree

removal program is removing as opposed

to what traditionally we already remove?

>> Those aren't those aren't being se

separated. Um

>> right. So the question is how are we

indicating that for the public for

council so we can determine okay that's

specifically coming from the tree

removal program and that's ideally what

we you know ordinarily remove yearly

within our budget. our operations

manager um keeps a tab of how many trees

we remove. So emergency trees, trees

that um that's smaller that we can get

to ourselves. So we want to utilize the

money wisely because it's one time. So

if it's a smaller tree that we can do,

we take care of it.

>> But I No, thank you for that, Director

Ross. But I I guess what I'm saying is

are we saying the tree removal program

is a part of what we traditionally

already

utilize throughout the year annually

with our traditional budget? because

there's always a line item for tree

removal. So, we're kind of incorporating

the two. Yes. Okay. Okay. That was my

question. Thank you.

>> Yes. So, we can utilize the money that

we have in the general well neighborhood

services for something else that we

need.

>> Thank you.

>> Yes, I have a question. Okay.

>> Um, so I understand that the air burner

is going to drastically reduce our waste

cost, but does do the residents know

that they can come to the city and get

the wood chips?

a lot of our local gardens. Um I just

got an email um last week and we're

delivering three dump loads of it

tomorrow. So a lot of our gardens we

deliver for the garden on Market Street.

So a lot of our gardens um our local

gardens know this but um no today is hey

if you need any uh wood chips for your

gu your personal gardens come reach out

to parks and recreation. Is there any

way we can make the residents know,

advertise, get

>> I can get a flyer together?

>> I think it would be nice for the

residents.

>> Okay, I'll add it to the website.

>> Thank you.

>> You're welcome.

>> Any final thoughts on the tree removal

program?

Okay, we can proceed. Thank you.

>> Okay, home repairs. Uh we have you've

appropriated $5 million for this. 38

homes have been completed uh

rehabilitation.

13 are in progress. 20 more more have

been approved and are waiting. Uh

primarily the weight is due to

limitations on the number of qualified

contractors. Uh 62 homes have been

denied largely due to either not meeting

the program income requirements or

incomplete applications. 86 homes are on

the waiting list to be served and there

were a total of 220 applicants.

So after that gives us about 26,421

left in appropriations. So any questions

on the home repairs?

>> Yes. Um and not to sound abrasive at

all, but if 62 homes have been denied

due to not meeting program income, would

that mean they made too much or not

enough? Because only reason why I ask is

if a resident was in that specific

situation where they needed the help,

shouldn't we have maybe some type of

assist program where we can get them to

where they would need to be instead of

um kind of just denying them or were

they just over the guidelines? Miss

Gloria,

>> this is um when they submit their

application, it is based on income.

>> Okay. And so some of these persons that

have made application

exceed our income.

>> Okay. Made too much.

>> And and so um

another issue for us is that we are

sharing contractors for three different

home rehab programs.

>> Okay. So, it may seem like this is a so

slow process, but um when we're sharing

with lead now,

>> yes,

>> because we have a 4-year grant

uh awarded by HUD and we have our HRP

program. So, the slow up is not that

we're not trying to get these

applications out. We are we have

reviewed them. We have identified the

persons or the or the homeowners that

qualify, but we need more contractors

and we are going to have a contractor

meeting this month.

>> Thank you for that. I have a followup

for you if you don't mind. Um, if

they're in dire need and they do

qualify, but they're waiting just for

something like a contractor, would they

then be able to maybe take care of the

cost if they could afford it and submit

an invoice?

>> Well, if they qualify and they have a

emergency uh need like a a roof, we put

them at the top of the list. Okay. And

deal with it right away.

>> Okay. So there is kind of a priority

depending on the

>> Absolutely. And if they're senior

citizens, they also get the top of the

list.

>> Okay. And then just my final question,

what is the process? How does that look?

Um let's say I'm I'm a family at risk.

I'm struggling. I meet that guideline as

far as income medium. How does that look

as far as the application process?

>> You would uh can go online on our

website. You can submit an application.

bring your application in. You can pick

up an application in the office and fill

it out and then we go through the

process.

>> First come, first serve. Fine. First

come, first serve. Okay.

>> Yeah. We have a Yeah. a a numeric

greeting where it's first come, first

serve.

>> So no one's getting turned away per se

that meet every requirement. It's just

when they are over overseating their

income. Okay. Thank you.

>> Absolutely. You're welcome.

>> Um I have a question regarding this. Um

good evening. Are we following the same

income guidelines as the federal program

or have we increased income guidelines

to make for sure that we are meeting the

needs of a different audience?

>> We are following federal guidelines.

Um, I would just suggest I know when we

first were discussing the home repair

program uh back when we were creating

this legislation,

we uh wanted to make for sure that the

income guidelines were increased some so

that we weren't just servicing the exact

same population that already qualify for

the federal funding. and really wanted

to make sure we could address that

working poor that might be just over

that income guideline uh for the the

federal government since we had the

ability to tailor this program since it

was now revenue recovery money um and we

don't didn't have to follow those

guidelines. So, I would think that

that's something we could look into to

make for sure that we are meeting the

needs of people who don't qualify for

any of these other funds because of

their income, but they may have retired

from a really good job, but they're

still on a fixed income and can't afford

to have a roof put on because, you know,

it's leaking severely or because their

furnace went out. Um, and they kind of

always miss out on these programs

because they're over income. Mhm.

>> Um I thought that when we created this

program, we really wanted to focus on on

that audience as well to make sure they

didn't continue to be forgot about.

>> No, when this program when I came in,

this program wasn't even created. So it

it wasn't until I came in that this

program was created. And when the

federal guidelines change, we change our

guidelines.

>> Correct. The program was not created,

but there was a discussion with the

previous director on what the program

could look like and what council would

like for it to look like. And that

included increasing the income

guidelines because this was not a

federal program any longer. It was a

city of Harrisburg program and we had

the ability to make those changes. Well,

that's something we can certainly look

at when we reopen the program, but um I

have no idea what the previous director

promised or or was discussed and nothing

was left for me uh to make that

determination, but it's certainly

something that when we reopen the

program again, we can look at that.

>> Thank you. But I I definitely would like

to be um part of that discussion um if

you're available to to look at what we

can do to make sure we're we're

addressing some of those working poor

people or just people who are on fixed

incomes and might need some major house

repair. So thank you.

>> Okay. I'd be more than happy to have you

at the table.

>> I have a question. Director of Martin

Roberts. Once the once the repairs are

done, are is there someone who goes out

to the homes to inspect and make sure

that what was spent is appropriate and

how can we or the public see um a list

of the monies that was spent and the

repairs that were done.

>> We don't put the money in the hands of

the homeowner.

um program staff actually facilitates

paying the contractors and

subcontractors for services. Um we do

have inspection. So when the program is

completed, there's a walk through by

staff with the homeowner

to uh make sure that everything that

they that needs to be done and keep in

mind this program is to make homes code

safe. They're not there to decorate

somebody's house, to beautify their

home. It's to make sure their homes are

safe and they have healthy homes. So,

our staff go out and they look at all

the work that's been done. We even have

a form for the homeowner to sign to say

whether or not they're satisfied with

the work that's been done on their

property.

>> Okay. And then the contractors, are they

selected? How are they selected for the

public to know?

>> That's that's a good question. We have a

walkth through. So, when an application

is approved and the homeowner is

contacted,

um we have uh our contractors go out and

do a walk through the house and they bid

on the job and our staff then opens

those bids and determine the best bid

for the jobs that's been submitted.

>> Okay. Thank you.

>> You're welcome. And I just have one

followup. Um, are the images that we're

looking at, it looks like a old cast

iron stat getting replaced. Is are the

four images to the same home?

>> Um, Ray, are they to the same home?

>> Yeah.

>> So, it looks like a pretty expensive

repair. Um, for all the homeowners, they

would know what that something like that

would cost. What is a cap? Is there a

cap? Um, what could it exceed, Madame

Mayor? Or

>> 28,000.

>> Okay. And that would be the limit. Okay.

All right. Thank you for that. You're

welcome.

>> One more question. I apologize. She's

ready to hand the mic. Um,

as far as the contractors whenever you

need contractors, do you have

contractors already set aside that the

city uses or is it

>> Yeah, we have a list of contractors

>> because they have to go through codes,

they have to have their certification,

they have to have insurance. there's a

whole litany of things that they have to

qualify for before we can use them. So,

we do have a list of contractors. And as

I said, this month we're going to have a

contractor's meeting because we're also

trying to get new contractors in.

>> Yeah. So, we can expand our contractor

list to help facilitate moving these

programs along a little faster.

>> That was my next question. Thank you for

answering.

>> You're welcome.

Are there any final questions regarding

the home repairs program?

Okay.

>> Okay.

Uh, next page I think we can skip. We

talked about this pretty extensively.

Um, does anybody has any last questions

on that? This is the refuge and disposal

bill assistance.

And the next slide is the Harrisburg

poll. I think we talked about this one

also including breaking it down into

phases.

Any additional questions on that one?

Okay, next slide is the upgraded fire

radio system. Um that's where the

990,000 was expended. Uh so we'll get a

clarification on your question on that

uh from earlier in the meeting.

This is the demolition of blighted

property is set aside 1,500,000 for

that. Uh 10 sites have been demolished.

Uh 500,000 out of the 1.5 million was

used to purchase required equipment to

complete de demolitions inhouse more

efficiently. Uh so that has worked very

well.

>> So question there,

what um inhouse, what would it cost the

city in-house to knock down a property?

>> You're asking for the cost of

>> Yeah. for in-house for us to knock down

It varies if it's double party walls, if

it's a difficult property, if you have

to build a foundation wall, but on

average for in-house demos,

including party walls, say two party

walls, I'd say it's probably about 50 to

60,000.

50,000 maybe.

>> Interesting.

because we spent a million $500,000 went

to equipment which we needed. So we're

saying we spent $100,000 per property

for 10 properties,000

>> to equipment. Then you got a million

left out of a million5. So $100,000 for

10 properties. Are you saying we spent

$100,000

per property?

>> It was close to that. Yes. Uh the

contractor ended up the total cost

because things varied whether we had to

do a party wall or not depending on what

we saw once we took it down. But the

total cost ended up being 945,000.

So we did two extra party walls with

that money and we had to pay for an

engineer for

uh engineers report on one of the party

walls that the contractor had taken

down.

>> Outside engineer, we didn't use ours.

No, not for this situation.

>> Very deteriorated.

>> Even even if you say those numbers, um

they're still in that category. There's

still about $7,200

left. If you go back to your slide

um

Oh, hello. Yes. Uh I'm John Watson,

operations manager from public works.

So, the $7,200 left is an equipment. We

purchased uh an excavator, a new

excavator, and two high lifts that we

used to demo the properties. The 7,200

was because of a discount given from the

uh from where we purchased the equipment

from because we traded in two old lifts

instead of having them and incur the

expense on uh fixing them. So, $7,200 is

left uh is left. We will use that amount

because we cannot take um a dusty debris

to the incinerator.

>> So we are using that money to create a

misting device or something to be able

to water down the demolished material.

So when we take it to the incinerator,

we don't get flagged because if it is

dusty, they will refuse our load or or

we can get fined from uh you know from

the incinerator. Thank you for

explaining. But again, these numbers

just don't they just don't equal up. If

we're saying we took down 10 properties

and now we bought some equipment, we

already spent 500,000 for that. There

was some extra money for uh double

walls. Now we bought some more

equipment, you're saying? Um

>> so we were we didn't purchase it yet. It

is in the making of of being purchased

now. these for the inhouse

>> and I appreciate that but again these

these numbers just don't reflect what's

what's here what you guys are saying

what you guys are saying on on this

slides

the math just isn't it's not math

so yes this is the list that we have

these are the 10 properties that is

broken down

uh and the cost of each one and yes it

will cost an outside contractor more

money than it will in-house because we

do it at cost. We will do it uh per

hourly wage and stuff like that. So the

contractors of course will have you know

a cost associated with the contractor

versus in-house. So this is why

>> so I I think this would have been

appropriate again to be in the slide so

we can actually see what's happening.

I'm looking at it,

>> but I would love for the public to see

it. So, I don't know how we can do that

if you can publish this somewhere, your

communications or something.

>> Yeah, we would get that to you right

away.

>> Oh, I could have passed it down to my

colleagues, too, so they can see. I

apologize.

>> Uh, Councilman Jones, so when we do do

bid outs for the demolition, usually the

cost of those are much higher than the

in-house. Usually that runs from 85 and

up. Again, thank you for the

explanation. It's just the numbers. It

just didn't make sense. When you say 10

properties, you got and then you got

money left over. So, I'm like $100,000

per property. That's why I started out

asking how much would it cost us

in-house to knock down a property. And

now 50,000,

60,000, we still got another 40 that's

out there. So, I just wanted to make

this make sense not only to me again for

the public and hopefully we can get this

information so they can see the

breakdown.

>> Sure. And we it was 10 that the demo

bundle was taken down and then the

in-house they've taken down 17 so far

this year.

>> That's a great job. Again, just just

looking at the numbers.

>> No.

>> Yes. Our so our cost for in-house demo

is coming from our public works budget.

This is what we use to tear down.

>> That's what that's not that's not these

funds. We use our neighborhood services

demo and clearing budget to take down

in-house.

>> So the the million was for those 10

properties that was sent out for bid.

>> So that's yeah we used 500,000 for

equipment so that we can double or do

more in-house demos.

>> Okay. So these were subbed out and we

didn't do ourselves as

>> these. Right.

>> So these these numbers that you just

gave us

>> were bid out

>> from this million that we

>> from this million. Yes.

>> Okay. Why didn't we Why didn't we do it

in house if it would have been much

cheaper?

>> Yeah, we Well, we have been we did 17

properties inhouse. So, we have this was

associated so that we can do more

demolitions. We are currently working

non-stop. And I'm going to say 17, but I

go by halves, too. So, we're 17 and a

half because they'll be done with

another one in a week. So we're almost

essentially at 18, which is we did 17

all of last year. So the reason why we

purchased this excavator and the two

high liifts is so we can up the number

of in-house.

>> Gotcha. Just again, just looking at this

stuff, it just looks like it's I mean,

you got I got to ask these questions. It

doesn't

>> Absolutely. Absolutely. No problem.

>> 17 was us at full capacity giving it all

we got.

>> Yes. Our four our four employees that

we're rotating. Dave West created a

rotating demo. So which was he uh asked

for another employee in last year's

budget for the demolition department.

This is what's created. This is the

benefit of that. The reason why we are

now in September at 17 and the total for

all of a last year was 17. So we we

still got a few months left.

>> Thank you.

>> We're going to break the record.

>> That was similar to like my question

with the tree removal program. I just

wanted to know what we were doing

besides the actual allocation for the

program through the ARPER funds. Um Mr.

Mr. John um is that including like the

tilling fees afterwards or is that

separate?

>> Yes, that's including everything.

Tilling fees, the um that would be the

you mean for the in-house?

>> Yes.

>> Yes, absolutely. And the hourly wages

and everything that's that also reflects

like the tilling fees as well, the

80,000 the one point for the 10 the

other 10.

>> So those 10 are for the demo bundle.

>> Okay. So, yes, that would include

whatever the contractor, I'm assuming,

bid. That's what they

>> knocked out and get out of there. Okay.

Okay. All right. Thank you.

>> I have a question for Miss Montgomery

regarding the uh goal number of sites to

be uh demolished. I know there was like

a red category, a high priority

category. Do was there a goal in mind um

for the number of sites

>> for the in-house demos or for the demo

bundle?

>> For the demo bundle.

>> So there was uh

you're asking for the total number that

we were looking for.

>> Yes. Was there a goal? I thought there

was based on the priority of the

different colors that you showed before.

>> Yeah, it was a goal of 10.

>> A goal of 10. Okay.

>> Okay. Thank you.

>> Yep.

>> Are there any other questions

regarding the demolition of blighted

properties?

>> Okay.

>> Okay. Next slide.

Senior programming. An application

process is being developed to award the

programming funds to a to an appropriate

senior housing and programming

institution. The administration has

updated counselors Rodriguez, RWS, and

Green separately about the timeline and

are moving forward with said timeline

and plan.

>> Was everyone privy to the timeline and

plan or what information was shared?

>> They are still in the midst of trying to

make sure.

>> Yes, sir. How are you?

>> Good.

He look like he was out there balling.

>> Oh, okay. Please mute your

>> ear

>> cuz you get all sweaty.

>> Mute your

>> Okay,

>> there we go. Excuse me.

>> Senior programming.

>> Mr. Rodriguez, I'm I'm sure you're aware

of you you're going to meet with um my

administration to finalize this project.

So, you may want to give an update on

what you're

>> Yeah. So, what I was privy to in a

previous meeting with Madame Mayor and

Councilwoman Ross, um we agreed to come

up with uh a program where there'll be

metrics where senior entities that are

qualifying can apply as opposed to just

designating where the 250 can go to.

Making it a fair process.

>> So, making it what we were asking for

all along, an application process. And

if this is if the uh if there's only one

applicant, so be it. At least it was a

transparent process and other entities

had an opportunity to apply for the

funding.

>> Just to be completely transparent, we

actually had that conversation where we

weren't comfortable just delegating it

or designating those funds to one center

actually giving many opportunities and

madame mayor was actually open to it in

that meeting.

>> Okay. But also to make sure that they

are certified and clarified at least

that they are providing us services. And

one of the one of the questions that uh

Councilwoman Ross and myself asked was

would we be able to see if they were

maybe having a history of irresponsible

spending if we could see how those

expenditures are going out so we can

hold them accountable.

>> Okay.

>> That was discussed.

>> So previous expenditures

>> well moving forward. Moving forward.

Yep.

>> Okay.

>> If they were to be awarded.

>> Okay.

>> Yeah.

>> Any questions related to the senior

programming?

Um, can everybody hear me good?

>> Yes.

>> Okay. I was just going to add on to what

um Councilman Rodriguez said, and if he

said already, I'm sorry because it the

sound was going in and out, but um we

also spoke with administration and um

Mayor Williams

about um I think it was about like not

just giving them all the whoever does uh

get rewarded some money, not giving it

to them all at once, but making them

submit itemized bills to be reimbursed

in a way or being able to show exactly

what they're spending the money on. So,

I just wanted to add to what Councilman

Rodriguez said about what we discussed.

Everything else he said was totally

correct on what we discussed in the

meeting. I was just adding that in. If

he already said that, I'm sorry.

>> No, he didn't. Well, he did, but not

that the bill submission would occur.

So, thank you for clarifying.

>> You're welcome.

>> Okay,

next slide.

Bridge Housing Program. The funds have

been awarded and delivered to Christian

Churches United in downtown Daily Bread.

Each were awarded 500,000 over two

installments and the second and last

payments of the 250 each are going out

later this month.

>> Thank you. Any questions related to the

bridge housing program?

Okay.

>> Okay. Revenue replacement. A total of

12,681,933

was designated as revenue replacement

and transferred to the general fund

between two bills. There are bill 7 of

2022 which 8,863,000

was appropriated and transferred. And

under bill 24 of 2024,3,818,933

was appropriated and transferred

which total 12,681,933.

Any questions on that?

>> Any questions regarding revenue

replacement?

Uh uh just for my edification, I could

be totally off because initially we

spoke about the 8 million revenue

replacement, 5 million for the HVAC, 1.2

for the police raises, then the 31 uh

five for everything listed. Wouldn't the

additional well the 12681

actually take us over 47 million

>> because I know just with the 30. So on

that slide, the the additional 3.8

million was actually what was left over

and not appropriated into any other

specific program between resolution 17

and resolution 24 of 2024. So the total

amount between all of the uh bills and

resolutions that went to revenue

replacement is that 12.6 million. And

that's um throughout the all the slides,

the numbers at the bottom there are

basically taking us from the 47 million

that we were allocated down to the zero.

So that's just showing that between two

different pieces of legislation, that's

where the revenue replacement went. And

that's only things that were

specifically slated as revenue

replacement, not uh part of these

programs or the HVAC project or the but

onetime bonuses.

>> Right. Right. Specifically exactly what

I'm saying. So with these programs, it

would be 315. Correct. The programs.

>> So technically the revenue replacements

of 31 million, right? This is the money

that ended up in the general fund as

opposed to the state grants fund. Okay.

>> So when you in 20 when when the council

listed in bill five all the programs and

the mayor came back in 2024, there was

still the $3 million in change that

wasn't listed. You moved all of it into

revenue replacement and since there was

no program to go with it, it became

general fund money just like the

original 8 million in change became

general fund money. So that's where you

get to the 12 million. But but for for

US uh Treasury per purposes, it's the 31

million that was moved over.

>> Okay. The 315. Yeah. Okay. All right.

Thank you.

>> Any other questions related to revenue

replacement?

>> Okay.

>> Okay. Additional programs. Uh those are

the four programs we talked about

earlier. the million five for the ADA

accessible playgrounds workforce

development 1 million community matters

grant 1 million community connections

hubs 500,000 these funds were never

reappropriated after bill five and were

not utilized the total amounts were

reallocated in resolution 17 2024

towards an increase in the trash bill

assistance program and revenue

replacement

>> so

you're saying these are the ones

disappeared, right? Kind of. So, the

words you use, right? These are the

programs because of of the

non-reallocation

>> reappropriation. I apologize.

>> The appropriation authority was removed

by council and it was never put back in.

>> So, this is again, I'm just asking a

question. This is why these are the

programs you're referring to that were

no longer there because of what council

did,

>> right?

>> Okay. That's what I'm asking. So, um I

would offer administration

um you know on on workforce development

I think and I know you have a slide down

here at the bottom but I do have some

recommendations that I was look looking

at that could help with our uh business

local businesses with some of our

residents starting um new businesses

that we can help them and I'll just run

a few ideas and see if you something

that you would be willing to look at far

as workforce development um like Um,

>> hold on one second.

>> That's the next slide.

>> Any other questions regarding this

slide? I don't want to lose if anybody

wasn't clear on the action we took.

>> Okay.

>> Okay. Next slide. Workforce development,

please.

>> Okay. Pro program goals, career

readiness, financial literacy,

mentorship, pathways to employment. Um,

so we actually have done a little bit on

workforce development. Uh, one thing

council did, we just did this uh earlier

this year,

>> 75,000

>> was the 75,000 for uh TLC workbased

training as for the apprenticeship

program to sponsor five apprentices. Um,

and that's funding for 2025-26.

That was appropriated through resolution

37 2025.

Uh, you know, additionally, the

solicitor's office and the mayor's

office and the business administrator's

office have utilized several interns

over the past five years with the

intention of building the program out

for future years. So, I have talked to

other departments about potentially

doing internships. I think we can use

that kind of program for recruiting

future employees of the city. Uh, work

very well for our office this this

summer. Um,

>> yeah.

>> Okay. I'm sorry.

>> Go ahead.

>> Okay. Um, so did did you want to talk

about Dena and her her efforts a little

bit?

>> No, she wanted

>> Deanna uh will be working with council.

She's going to have a uh Harrisburg

opportunities for professional

experience and she wants to make sure

that you understand what she's going to

do with the workforce development.

>> She's not here presently, but

>> I know who Deanna is, but maybe other

people listening might not know who she

is. Okay. Deanna is well she at this

point we call her her we call her the uh

interim right now interim director in

cross signis job but we looking at

working with the solicitor to reidentify

what position she what title she will

have.

>> Okay thank you. So again, I would just

offer a couple things that maybe um

either you or her

VA, somebody could look at just some of

the things that I think especially when

we're in a time of talking about

revitalizing our city. I think looking

at in a lot of the times some of our

local businesses have been the backbone

to drive our economy locally. And I

think if we could and put some dollars

there, it would help. And I'm just like

some local technical assistance for

businesses. um scale your business

grants

um even for broad street market an

initiative to bring new businesses there

to give them some type of initiative to

make way I mean we have to attract

people back to the city so I'm saying

these are just some of the ideas that I

offer that hopefully that you guys are

willing to look at and work through um I

think it would be beneficial for all

parties

>> and she's already working on that that

she's going to have a report for you

she's not here tonight but she will have

a report for you she's already done that

she has a full-fledged report

Yeah, I will I will wait to see it.

>> You'll see it. Say you wait to see it.

>> I can say I can wait to see it. I will

wait to see it.

>> Well, she's doing it. I'm telling you

that she's doing it. We don't need that.

All you can say is I'll be prepared when

she sees it. I have questions. That's

all I said. Concerns or you want to add

any additional things.

>> I said I want I'm waiting to see it.

>> But you don't have to repeat. You don't

have to respond like that.

>> Respond. You're You're responding

aggressively.

>> I'm not yelling at you. I did not raise

my voice. I'm offering a suggestion.

accept.

>> Thank you.

>> Thank you for your suggestions. We will

receive the information and we can go

from there. But thank you for your

recommendations, Councilman Jones. Um,

madame president, if I may, uh, madame

mayor, um, I would love to see if we,

uh, we had a workshop with public works

right here in this room maybe six months

or so ago about some workforce

development opportunities as far by way

of like trying to curb recidivism. And

I'd love to set up a meeting perhaps

with you and the solicitor to see if

it's something you'd be interested in

doing and maybe ask Mr. John and Mr.

West on it. um just a way that we could

continue cleaning up the city by way of

public works, but also engage those

returning maybe from small stints in

prison or just returning trying to make

the best of their lives. Um it might be

a bit confusing, but I'd love to see if

we can collaborate a meeting by way of

Mr. Trudeale to see if we could, you

know, work together on initiative like

that.

>> Thank you.

>> Okay.

Deanna has already uh contacted about 20

25 different agencies and also different

organizations that she's going to bring

into the city and that's one thing she's

working on is work workplace development

workforce development

>> completely different um but if you

didn't mind I'd love to bring the

opportunity the idea to you okay thank

you

>> I'll say I'll mention that to her

>> okay thank you

>> thank you I don't know if there are any

other burning questions I think we asked

many throughout the presentation but I

will ask my colleagues one last time.

Are there any other questions related to

the presentation that was shared?

>> No, not another question. But would uh

solicitor Grover would the best way to

be to coordinate that is have Mr. work

through Mr. Trudale so we can get all

parties involved in that conversation?

>> I if if if Mr. Trudale contacted Tiffany

West with the mayor's schedule, that

would be the best way because when the

mayor tells me we're having a meeting,

we're having a meeting.

>> Perfect.

>> So,

>> just wanted to try to get ahead of it.

Thank you all.

Thank you. Any other final questions?

Okay. Anything else from the

administration?

>> No, I just would I appreciate the

opportunity to be here. Uh wish we

didn't have that initial technical issue

with the microphone. I think this may

have worked a little bit better because

we had to pass around the microphone to

everybody. So that worked well from that

perspective. So um we just appreciate

the opportunity to speak and appear

before you. Thank you for the

information. As I stated earlier, it's

something that we've been hearing and

asking uh receiving uh questions on a

daily basis about. So, it was nice to

see and hear um from you and the

directors um regarding the status of the

funds. And ju just for the public for

the clarity of it because the money the

31 million in change was put into

revenue replacement

>> the deadline for the expenditure of the

federal money it's considered expended

already because it went into revenue

replacement. So that 2026 deadline is

gone. It doesn't exist. So it gives the

council and the mayor the ability to

think about with those resources that

are left how to use it as the 2026

budget comes in. But that deadline is

not over us anymore. Um, we have

satisfied the US Department of Treasury.

We've made the reports to them of our

expenditures and are we have fully spent

what they have given us in compliance

with their obligments.

>> Thank you. Um, at this time I will open

the floor for public comment. Just a few

housekeeping notes before we begin. Uh,

please state your name and your address

for the meeting record. If you don't

feel comfortable sharing your address,

please share the vicinity in which you

live within the city. You will have four

minutes to share your comments. Uh Mr.

Trudale will serve as our timekeeper. He

has projected a timer on the screen for

your reference. I'll begin to my right.

Is there anyone that would like to offer

public comment?

Good evening, city council president and

city council members.

>> I came here for clarity and I'm not

going to lie, I'm more confused than I

was when I came here. I don't one I

don't understand how this money was

allocated in July, if I'm correct, of

2023, the 8 million for affordable

housing and it's two years over two

years later and we still don't even have

a plan. The plan is to give people

developers the money with a plan. It

took two years to come up with a plan to

give developers money. I don't

understand that. And

it's just you could see that the

administration is so unorganized and

incompetent

to spend 1.5 million to tear down houses

when some of those houses probably could

have been repaired. I don't know how

they selected which houses should have

been tore down or not, but I had a

affordable housing plan that that 1.5

million and the 8 million would have

made 9 a.5 million and it could have

been coupled with government other well

state and federal government funds could

have been coupled with those to have

even more money towards affordable

housing. It just seems ridiculous to me

that the mayor's push was for affordable

housing, but we're four years into those

them having the money and the money's

not even spent yet, but they had no

problem spending the first third of the

money giving it back to the city whether

it's revenue replacement, which I

understand that, but I don't understand

how police officers got a raise before

the city before the citizens got any

other money. the public safety building

gets almost $6 million in upgrades

before the people got any money. I just

think that's ridiculous. It's very

ridiculous. Um especially considering

after the raise, we had some of the

highest crime and murder rates in our

city's history after the police officers

got a raise. Well, not a raise, but a

bonus, a 2% bonus or whatever it was,

$5,000.

Um,

I knew she was going to walk out of

here, but I watched this the mayor sit

in front of in front of the TV screen. I

was watching the debate and she

mentioned that she wasn't giving

businesses $10,000 more dollars. But

that was allocated in the original plan.

And there was no money for workforce

development, nothing for youth training,

nothing that would give people skills to

make more money. Just a bunch of

nonsense. playgrounds, trees, uh, pools.

$8 million for pool for a pool. Like,

that's almost the equivalent to the same

amount of as for affordable housing.

Those I'm not saying a pool's not

needed, but I think housing is needed

way more. They should have came up with