Tag Archives: Residency

Familiar Threads Woven in Harrisburg Recovery Plan

Posted on by

Over three years ago, in February 2010, we asked if the debt related to a trash incinerator was pervasive enough to cause a municipal bankruptcy filing-colloquially, that the City of Harrisburg’s finances could possibly end “up in ashes”. 

 

After the City was placed into Act 47 status, saw the General Assembly make changes to the statute as it applied to Harrisburg, and operating under the direction of an appointed receiver, a plan, somewhat pretentiously titled “Harrisburg Strong”, has come together for placing the City on the path to a solid financial future.

 

Readers of our reports, especially as they pertain to Pittsburgh, will notice some familiar themes and one very different situation; namely, the presence of the aforementioned dollar devouring trash incinerator. That facility is slated to be sold-to another public authority-and some of the proceeds will go to satisfy creditors (but only partially satisfy since negotiations have produced settlements for less than owed) and reimburse Dauphin County.  That won’t pay all the bills, so a 40 year lease of parking garages, lots, and street spaces to a public-private partnership is expected to yield enough money to pay off parking debt, the rest of the incinerator debt, for the City itself, and for funds related to economic development, infrastructure development, and a trust fund for retiree health care obligations.

 

That last point is a good starting place to assess how the City and its employees are partnering up at this critical juncture.  As the February 2012 recovery plan pointed out, Harrisburg is similar to many municipal governments in that it is a very labor intensive undertaking and the lion’s share of costs are attributable to employee compensation.  Three bargaining units represent the majority of the workforce covering police, fire, and non-uniformed staff (461 employees total including non-represented staff) and all negotiated early-bird contract extensions that limited the City’s and the receiver’s ability to make changes.  Compared to other cities of the third class in Pennsylvania (Reading, York, Allentown, etc.) the plan found that Harrisburg public safety minimum salary ran about $10,000 higher. The recovery plan projected workforce costs to rise from $45 million to $52 million from 2012 through 2016. 

 

As described in the “Harrisburg Strong” plan, two of the three bargaining units (police and non-uniformed) have agreed to concessions during the lives of the existing contracts to move the City toward its goal of getting $4 to $4.8 million in savings.  There are tradeoffs for both the City and the bargaining units: for police, what were to be 3 percent annual wage increases through 2016 are now 0 rising to 1 percent in the final year.  Payments toward health care coverage for current employees will be made with variations based on the number of people covered on an employee’s plan with the percentage of income paid for insurance rising throughout the duration of the agreement.  Current employees who retire after the ratification of contract changes are treated the same as active employees and, as is almost always the case when it comes to legacy cost changes, new hires will not be eligible for post-retirement health care benefits. The police contract opens up the possibility that certain positions might be offered to civilian employees and that booking could be transferred to Dauphin County. Most of those same terms will apply to the adjustment for non-uniformed employees.  

 

So what sweeteners do the employees get in return for these concessions? For one thing they are asking for elimination of the residency requirement. This issue has been bandied about in Pittsburgh over the summer and will no doubt intensify closer to Election Day. In Harrisburg, the proposed amendments for both police and non-uniformed contracts contain language stating “…the residency requirement contained in prior collective bargaining agreements between the parties is eliminated, and employees, regardless of hiring date, shall not be required to establish or maintain a residence within the corporate limits of Harrisburg”.  Could that be a deal breaker for City officials who must pass some of the necessary ordinances to make “Harrisburg Strong”? 

 

Overall approval for the plan falls to the Commonwealth Court, which plans to review the proposal in mid-September. 

Port Authority Board Appointment Bill Moves Forward

Posted on by

By a 16 to 10 vote in the Senate Appropriations Committee on June 10th, Senate Bill 700 took another step toward becoming law. Of course, the full Senate has to consider it and, likewise, the House must approve and it is not clear what the reception will be in that body.

 

 

The bill, sponsored and heavily supported by the president pro tem of the Senate, has two key provisions. First, the naming of board members of the Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAT) is changed dramatically. Eleven members will be appointed. One by the Governor, one each by officers of the four legislative caucuses, one by the County Executive, one by the Mayor of Pittsburgh, and four by the at-large members of County Council. The at-large member appointees will be named from a list of nominations by four designated organizations (Allegheny Council of Governments, ACHIEVA, the Southwest Regional Commission and the Allegheny Conference on Community Development). Existing members’ terms would end in 60 days. Existing members would also be eligible to serve in the new regime.

 

The effect of this new appointment scheme will be enormous. By removing all but one of the member appointments from the County Executive and placing five with state government officials, the state assumes more of an oversight role for the Authority. By having four board members appointed by at-large council members from various entities presumably there will be some vetting and possibly a variety of viewpoints represented by the members.

 

Appointments-Current Law and Proposed Law

Component

Current Law

Proposed Law

# of Board Members

9

11

Appointment Power

County Executive

Governor (1), County Executive (1), Mayor of Pittsburgh (1), State Legislative Leaders (4), At-Large County Council Members (4)

Residency Requirements

U.S. Citizen, resident of County

Resident of Commonwealth

Qualifications

None Specified

Experience in Budgeting, Finance, Economic Development, Transportation, Mass Transit

Term Limits

None Specified

Three Consecutive Terms

 

It is worth noting the changes in qualifications.  Under the proposed law, members will have to have expertise or experience in areas important to the management of a large organization and specifically some will have to have experience related to transportation issues.

 

The second key provision is a mandate to PENNDOT to (1) study the possibility of consolidation with other local transportation organizations to determine if revenues could be enhanced or expense reduced and (2) to study the opportunities for privatization that will enhance revenues or lower expenses. A report with findings and recommendations for each study is to be ready within 180 days of the enactment of the bill and provided to the Governor, the General Assembly and PAT. 

 

These study requirements are useful but could be worded better to include such things as improved operational efficiency, lower cost per rider, and better service.  Moreover, it is not enough to recommend consolidation or privatization, there needs to language to require the adoption of recommendations when the analysis strongly supports them. A mandate to privatize some percentage of bus service within three years is a reasonable requirement.

 

Obviously, the County Executive and many loyal supporters of the status quo at PAT will be extremely opposed to these steps. But given the state’s financial support and the chronic financial crisis PAT finds itself in and is unable to resolve on its own, there simply must be some major reform.

 

The steps contained in the legislation are a start but they alone do not adequately address the primary source of the Authority’s long term problems-the right of the transit workers to strike. As long as that situation exists, it is only a matter of time until the threat of a strike will force the board, no matter how the appointments are allocated, to choose to approve a contract it cannot afford or a shutdown of the system and all the attendant difficulties and hardship that entails.

 

Still, there is no gainsaying the fact that this proposal is a game changer. It represents a very strong signal regarding the state government’s exasperation with PAT and its constant demands for more funding while operating one of the most expensive per rider systems in the nation.

 

The only question is whether the House members have the same level of exasperation. Will it concur that substantial change needs to occur at the Port Authority?

Residency Proposal Now a Law

Posted on by

In a recent Brief we wrote about legislation that passed both houses of the General Assembly that, if signed by the Governor, would take language requiring Pittsburgh Police officers to be residents of the City out of state law. The Governor signed that legislation last week, and is now known as Act 195 of 2012.

The law does not mean present officers are free to move outside of the City or that those yet to be hired won’t have to move into the City as a condition of employment. It means that the residency issue will be decided by collective bargaining and not because it is embedded in state codes.

What that looks like could take on any variety of forms. As we pointed out in the Brief, Philadelphia requires new officers to reside in the City but those with five years experience or more can reside elsewhere. A quick look at the websites for two of the state’s larger cities, Erie and Lancaster, shows that officers have to live within a 15 mile radius or 20 mile radius, respectively without reference to years of service to the department.