IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA C.

Alan Walker, in his capacity as Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development, : Petitioner
V.

No. 569 M.D. 2011

City of Harrisburg. Respondent OBJECTIONS TO PLAN OF RECOVERY AND NOW comes Daniel C. Miller, pursuant to the Municipal Finance Recovery Act, 53 P.S. 1170 1.101 et seq., and objects to the City of Harrisburg Recovery Plan, ,as follows: 1. A plan for recovery for the City of Harrisburg was filed on or about Auiist 26, 2013,

approved by the Harrisburg City Council on September 16, 2013, and presented to this Court:on September 19. 2013 2. The Objector objects, initially, on due process grounds to the procedure governing these

objections. Objector, acting pro Se, believes that he has 30 days from the date of the confirmation of the Plan in which to file objections to the plan, or alternatively, that he had 30 days from the date the plan was filed, which, upon information and belief, was on August 26, 2013, and that he has not been provided with an adequate opportunity to fi1e these objections. Objector believes that there are other interested persons and/or parties who also have been denied a full and fair opportunity to file objections to the referenced plan, and that the plan is objectionable on grounds beyond the face of these objections, including the failure to adequately protect the interests of the taxpaying citizens and residents of the City of Harrisburg. A full and fair opportunity for all interested persons and parties should specifically be provided. 3. Objector notes that the Court suggested that the time for filing objections has passed, and that

no objections have been filed; however, Objector was denied the chance to present pertinent information in court on September 19. 2013, and files these objections accordingly. Objector had also objected to the plan in March 2012 and was allowed to testify, and today was merely an amendment to the original plan, and

opposed the ratification of the Plan by the Harrisburg City Council on September 16, 2013, and presumed that the March, 2012 objection was still open, a it had not been resolved. 4. Objector objects on the same basis as he did in March. 2012, and that is that the plan is not

comprehensive and sustainable. Objector has grave concerns that this plan will not enable the City to balance its budget for the three years described or the thirty-seven not mentioned. While Objector has concerns that many of the estimated increases and decreases presented in the plan may be incorrect, Objector accepts them for purposes of this analysis. Objector believes, however, the original revenue starting point is in error. 5. Objector's analysis begins with the 2012 actual revenue, the most recently completed year,

and makes all relevant adjustnients including the plan assumptions for year 2014. The plan states total revenue as $603M however we believe it to be $55.9M. The major differences are that the plan includes items that we believe will 'not be received, processing fees from sewer and water (the city will no longer be processing after 1/1/14) and a one-time $1.75M grant received only in 2012. These items along with other minor items account for the $4.4M reduction in stated plan revenue. This variance is significant and changes a $OAM surplus into a $4.0M deficit. 6. The plan budget also does not sufficiently address the potential Verizon expense of $7.4M

beginning annually in 2017 or the $11.7M annual OPEB expense. Both of these items have significant negative budget consequences. 7. It is Objector's view that, with the sale and transfer of municipally owned assets, the burden is

placed disproportionately on the residents and taxpayers of the city. 8. The plan dismantles city government by removing control of basic city functions from the

city's residents. It reinforces the misperception that residents of a majority minority city can't govern themselves. This suggests arbitrariness and caprice.

14.

The plan also does not adequately address whether bankruptcy would have been a better

economic option for the City. 15. The attached analysis supports all of the foregoing concerns, and also indicates concerns with

the plan budget assumptions that are troubling. Objector also attaches a copy of his September 11, 2013 correspondence to the Harrisburg City Council. 16. Objector requests the opportunity to appear and testify in regard to all of the foregoing, and to

be available to assist in any way possible to find solutions to Harrisburg's unfortunate financial crisis. 17. Objector reserves the right to supplement these objections, join in the objections of others, or

otherwise present filings and/or evidence in regard to the City of Harrisburg Recovery Plan. WHEREFORE, Objector requests a further hearing be scheduled to consider these, and any other objections, to the referenced recovery plan. Respectfully Submitted,

// cY4&
Daniel C. Miller

Receivers Plan Harrisbug City Financial Projections (in millions) Estimated General Fund Revenues: Harrisburg City Sustainable Revenue PA Commonwealth subsidy General Fund Revenues Increases: EIT from 1% to 2% Parking Meter Fines Priority Parking Distributions Supplement to Priority Parkng Dist
-

Adj. Budget 2013

Recovery Plan Projections 2014 2015 2016

Post Plan Projections 2017

45.0 5.0 50.0

46.5 5.0 51.5

46.6 5.0 51.6

46.8 5.0 51.8

46.8 5.0 1 51.8

5.9 0.0 0.0

79 0.4 0.5

79 0.4 0.5 0.5 60.9

7.9 0.4 0.5 1.0 61.6

79 0.4 0.5 1.0 61.6

Total Estimated Revenues

55.9

60.3

General Fund Exp (Net of Debt Service) Plus Debt Service: General Obligation Bonds Capital Equipment Obligations Payments to Suburban Communities Less: Labor Contract Modifications Reduction in Workforce Total Estimated Expenses Net Surplus/(Deficit) Deficit Working Capital/Accts Pay Funding 2013 Budget Balancing Amount
1

51.3 6.0 3.0 4.5

52.3 7.7 3.0 1.5

53.4 7.7 3.0 1.5

54.4 7.7 3.0 1.5

54.4 7.7 3.0 1.0

0.7 0.0
b4.1

4.0 0.6

4.5 0.6
bU.O

4.8 0.6
0 - 1.z

4.8 0.6 6
ou.

-8.2 -8.2 -5.0 -13.2

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.9

PA Commonwealth subsidy - no guarantee it will continue or be $5M/year EIT Revenue could be overstated by $1 M or more Supplement to Priority Parkng Dist - ends in 2019 ' General Fund Exp - we have not confirmed this amount and question it Labor Contract Modifications - we question if this amount can actually be achieved 6 Reduction in Workforce - we question if this amount can actually be achieved
2

Comparison Receiver vs Actual

2013 Receivers Estimated Revenue Actual 2012 Revenue with Plan Additions Variance
Receiver Plan Adj Surplus/Deficit

2014 60.3 55.9 (4.4) (4.0)

2015 60.9 56.5 (4.4) (4.0)

2016 61.6 57.2 (4.4) (4.0)

2017

(4.0)

Potential Expenses: Receiver Plan Adj Surplus/Deficit Less - Annual shortfall or, Stadium Debt Less - Verizon Building Guarantee
Potential Plan Surplus/Deficit

(4.0) 0.2 (4.2)

(4.0) 0.2 (4.2)

(4.0) 0.2 3.7 (7.9)

(4.0) 0.2 7.4 (11.6)

Other Post Retirement Benefits - OPEB (Health Insurance) Most Recent Data - 2011 Annual Expense Incurred - $16,445,618 2011 Expense Paid - $ 4,697333 Annual Unfunded Expense - $11,748,285
Total Actual Annual Deficit

11.7 (15.9)

11.7 (15.9)

11.7 (19.6)

11.7 (23.3)

CITY OF HARRISBURG
2012 YTD REVENUE - BUDGET TO ACTUAL - LINE iTEM DETAIL Budget Unit: 01000100
BU[XET UNIT

I ACCOUNT
301001 301002 301003 301004 302001 302003 304001 305001 305002 305003 306001 306002 306003 307000 308000 309000 310000 311000 312003 313000 314050 315001 315002 316000 316003 316005 316006 316007 318000 318006 321000 323000 323001 323002 323003 324001 324002 324004 324005 325001 325002 325003 325004 326001 DISCOUNT PERIOD FLAT PERIOD PENALTY PERIOD REFUND PRIOR YR RE TAX DISOUNTAMOUNT PENALTY AMOUNT TAX LIENS
-

AIX)PTEO REVENUE YTD REVENUE: 12,884,506 1,268,808 1,033,331 0 -261,512 103,841 0 539,348 842,137 105,973 73,109 196,032 39,716 0 0 436,537 586,890 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,340,516 353 0 536,035 305 -1,057' -265 4,458,963 0 -82,410 0 -3,582 168,440 8,640, 79,760 16,520 2,375,927 130,054 29,514 11,012 . 284,201 12,371,188 1,366,615 1,720,932 0 -247,424 172,093 0 642,300 800,000 95,000 82,995 165,000 40,000 0 0 390,000 714,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,648,223 2,288 0 569,993 1,183 -1,619 -570 3,238,185 0 -63,586 0 0 170,000 8,000 75,000 7,000 2,400,000 100,000 30,000 8,500 300,383 540 7,810 580,741 0 -11 58,320 0 16,158 6,102 5,659 2,555 1,471 2,489 0 0 36,425 108,890 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 677,701 0 -10,034 0 -895 116,360 2,000 1,680 2,640 32,631 65,917 5,520 4,627 17,390

SI RON( ARM CHANGE 0 0

01.

S I ROC ARM

BALANCE 12,884,506 1,268,808 1,033,331 0 -261,512 103,841 539,348 842 137 105,973 73,109 196,032 39,716 0 0 436,537 586,890 0 0

GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERALREVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEF'I GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN

0 0 0
...........

PRINCIPAL

TAX AMOUNT-1ST PRIOR YEAR TAX AMOUNT 2ND PRIOR YEAR TAX AMOUNT-3RD PRIOR YEAR PENALTY/INT 1ST YR PRIOR PENALTY/TNT 2ND YR PRIOR PENALTY/TNT 3RD YR PRIOR TAX AMOUNT/TAX SALES PENALTY/INTEREST TAX SALE TRANSFER TAX REVENUE HOTEL TAX REVENUE OPT CURRENT YR REVENUE OPT CURRENT YR PENALTY OPT PRIOR YR TAX OPT PRIOR YR PENALTY OPT CUR YR COMMISSION OPT PRIOR YR COMMISSION EMERGENCY/MUN SERVICES CURR YR PENALTY E.M.S. TAX REBATE EMS TAX PRIOR YEAR PEN PRIOR YEAR EMS TAX COMMISSIONS PRIOR YR EMS COMMISSION EIT CURR YR
-

0 0 0 0. 0 0 0
-

0 0 0 0 oe 0 0 0'

0.
0 0 1,340,516 353 0
. .............

ol
0 0, 0 0 0 0 6,841,037 0 82,410 0 0
,

536,035 305 -1,057 -265' 11,300,000 0 0 -3,582 1,40' 8,640. 79,760 16,520 2,375,927 130,054 29,514 11,012' 284,201.

Err PRIOR YR
-

EIT COMMISSIONS Err EQUITY DISTRIBUTION E1T-DCTCC FEES MERCANTILE/BUS LIC CUR YR MERCANTILE/BUS UC PR YR MERC/LANDLORD LIC CURR YR MERE/LANDLORD LIC PRIORYR MBP TAX CURRENT YR
-

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MBP TAX MBP TAX MBP TAX

PRIOR YR PENALTY INTEREST

MBP AMUSEMENT TAX

CITY OF HARRISBURG
2012 YTD REVENUE - BUDGET TO ACTUAL - LINE ITEM DETAIL
GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEI'J GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVENI GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVENI GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVENI GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVENI GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN 326011 327000 327001 327002 327003 329000 340002 340008 340027 340029 340040 340050 340055 340060 340061 340065 340080 340081 340085 340090 340091 340092 341001 341002 341003 341011 341020 341021 341022 341023 341024 341025 341026 341027 341028 341030 341033 341040 341041 341050 341051 341060 341061 341070 341071 341072 341080
1

AMUSEMENT TAX PENALTY MBP PARKING TAXES CURRENT MBP PARKING FEE PARKING LICENSE FEE-PRIOR PARKING LICENSE FEE-PENAL MBP GENRAL LICENSE TAX HBG WATER UTILITY FUND GRANTS FUND SANITATION UTILITY FUND SEWERAGE UTILiTY FUND SATISFACTION FEES FlUNG FEE RETURNS ADVANCED COSTS RETURN METRO LIFE PARTNERSHIP REGISTRY LIENS
-

700 1,528,632 12,900 475: 1,500 33,000 1,501,097 87,866 957,745 6,776,451 1,859 2,465 10 174,475 25 18 155,881 88,875 8,365 78,324 85 0. 1,000 458 0 84,654 68,638 51,479 400,389 2,288 2,288 6,864 17,160 2,517 1,100 80,078 0 1,000 600 9,152 68,638 10,000 48,000 0 0 20,000 0

0 6,178 500 0 0 4,390 0 0 715,693 0 100 169 0 0 25 0 0 0 187 8,430 0 0 1,370 0 0 125,030 12,459 10,375 32,276 50 150 1,522 13,165 1,131 100 2,390 0 0 0 0 34,985 2,600 4,767 0 0 86,165 0
-

504 1,507,727 13,513 784 2,298 35,355 703,078 0 810,490 277,652 865 1,384 0 152 437 50 19 171,811 94,084 9,808 65,143 30 0 1,575 400 0 186,310 87,126 53,915 377,878 2,972 2,325 11,310 24,523 3,935 855 20,445 0 0 0 4,780 59,735 9,975 57,926 0 0 92,925 0
-

0 -1,507,727 0 0 0 0 -703,078 0 0 -277,652 0 0 0 0 0 0

ol

504 -0 13,513 784 2,298 35,355 1

on
0. 810,490 -0 865 1,384. 0 152,437 50 19 171,811 94,084 9,808 65,143 30, 0 1,575 400 0 18 6,3 10 87,126. 53,915 377,878 2,972 2,325, 11,310 24,523 3,935 855 20,445 0

COURT COSTS

COLLECTION REV (SCHOOL) COLLECTION FEES(SCHOOL) NSF CHECK FEE OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE MERCANTILE DOCS/PUBUCATE D.P. CHARGEBACKS ROOMING HOUSE APPEAL HEARING FEES MiTIGATION FEES LICENSE RENEWAL FEES ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEE PLUMBING PERMIT FEE BUILDING PERMIT FEE LOW VOLTAGE ELEC. PERMITS DUMPSTER PERMIT FEES DEMOLITION PERMIT FEES FIRE PREVENTION CODE SPECIAL PERMIT FEES FLOOD PLAIN CERTIFICATION BUYER NOTIFY FEES CODES INSPECT SERVICE EMG ORD LIENS /PRINCIPAL EMG ORD LIEN/INTEREST PLANNING FEES HEALTH INSPECT FEES ZONING HEARING BOARD FEES PERMIT FEES-ZONING SIGN DEMO LIENS-PRINCIPAL DEMO LIENS-PENALTY RENTAL INSPECTION INCOME SALE OF PUB/MAPS/GIS DATA

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0

0 4,780 59,735 9,975 57,926 0 0 92,925 0.

CITY OF HARRISBURG
2012 YTD REVENUE - BUDGET TO ACtUAL - LINE ITEM DETAIL
GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVENI GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEI'I GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEt' GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN 341089 341090 341091 342007 342008 342009 342015 342020 342021 342030 342042 342043 342050 342051 342061 342070 342071 342072 342073 342074 342075 342079 342080 342081 342082 342083 342084 342085 342086 342088 342089 342090 342091 342092 342093 342094 342095 342096 342097 342098 342099 342901 343002 343003 343010 343029 343030 HHA REIMBURSEMENT OTHER DBHD GOVERNMENT GRANTS TEMP NO PARKING SIGNS BURG/FIRE ALARMS VEHICLE EXTRACTION FEES TOWING FEES POLICE INV REPORTS BOOKING PROCESSING FEE FIRE INV REPORTS POLICE APP PROCESS FEE FIREFIGHTER APP FEES METER BAG RENTAL FIRE GRANTS (SAFER) POLICE PERSONNEL REIMB ARRA COPS 2009 ARRA ENERGY BLOCK GRANT ARRA JAG GREAT GRANT POLICE ON PATROL TRAINING GRANT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE GRANT AUTO THEFT GRANT ACADEMY GRANT WEED N SEED GRANT UNIVERSAL HIRING GRANT PROBATION/PAROLE GRANT COUNTER TERRORISM GRANT FEM/USAR CONTRACT PSP REIMBURSEMENT HHA REIMBURSEMENT OTHER PUBLIC SAFETY PERMIT PARKING FEES FINE AND COSTS DRUG TASK FORCE REIMBURS HIGHWAY SAFETY GRANT VICE REIMBURSEMENTS E911 SURCHARGE SCHOOL DIST REIMBURSEMENT DOG AND CAT LICENSES BOOTING FEES POLICE EXTRA DUTY STREET CUT INSPECT ST CUT DEGRADATION FEES SEWER TAPPAGE PERMIT VMC CHARGES DAUPHIN CTY VMC CHARGES THA COVANTA 25,000 100 0 432 35 536 100 25,500 64,000 0 1,090 0 0 165,789 630,573 0 351,905 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 315,000 0 277,545 65,000 50,000 59,878 96,134 16,144 0 0 0 7,154 9,255 420,000, 35,000 11,000 55,000 40,000 80,000 0 0 0 0 3,610 43 4,350 875 6,977 150 0
ol

0 0 0 0 29,975 335 27,775 68,917 38,649 675 0 0 171 576 0 0 150,789 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 86,540 0, 364,209 41,767 33,940 91,092 102,549 3,343 0 0 0 8 378 16,200 504,080, 89,150 1,990 25,783 45,689 66,814

O
ol ol

0 0 0 29,975 335 27,775 68,917 38 649 675 0 0 171 576 0 0 150,789 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 86,54& 364 209 41 767 33,940 91,092 102,549 3,343 0 0 0 8,378 16 200 504,080 89,150 1,990 25 783 45,689 66,814

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ol

22,799 0 0 43,989 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99,916 4,952 755 45,739 23,289 0 0 0 0 842 1,500 52,673 0 0 4,389 1,671 578

0 0
ol

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ol ol

0
ol

CITY OF HARRISBURG
2012 YTD REVENUE - BUDGET TO ACTUAL - LINE iTEM DETAIL
GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEF4 GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVENI GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEI't GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN 343032 343035 343036 343037 343039 343040 343043 343044 343045 343046 343050 343051 343052 343080 343083 343084 343090 345001 345002 345011 345029 345081 345082 345084 345090 346012 346013 346015 346020 347010 347020 350000 350001 350003 350009 350024 350070 351000 351091 352000 352053 352055 352099 355000 355001 356000 358090 VMC CHRGS - WATER UTILITY VMC CHRGS FED GRANT VMC CHARGES STEELTON BOR VMC CHRGS/SAN1TATION FUND VMC CHRGS/SEWERAGE UTY VMC CHRGS/STATE LIQ FUEL VMC CHARGES HBG PARK AUTH VMC CHARGES HBG REDEVLOP VMC CHARGES HBG SCHOOL VMC CHARGES HBG HOUS AUTH SEWER MAINT CHARGE SEWER MAINT LIENS PRINCIP SEWER MAINT LIENS PENALTY PUBLICATIONS/MAPS REVENUE RECYCLING REV DEMOLITION CDBG REIMB POOL #1 POOL #2 SHADE TREE FEES PARK PERMIT FEES OTHER SPEC PARK FEES CITY ISLANJ CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS PUBLICATION ADVERTISING OTHER PARKS & REC Di TRAFF VIOLATINS Di SUMMARY CRIMINAL OFF DJ CODES VIOLATIONS PARK TICKETS VIO FINE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENS TV FRANCHISE LICENSE SAVINGS ACCT INTEREST TAX APPEAL INT EARNINGS INT SAVINGS COLL SYSTEM INTEREST EARNINGS EDCL TRAN INTEREST EMS TAX INTEREST INT ON CDS PNI LOAN INTEREST INT ON INVSTMTS/GRANT INT INSURANCE LIABILITY INSURANCE CLAIM INT WATER SALE PCDS RENTAL INCOME HPA RENTAL INCOME EASEMENT FEES SALE OF ASSETS DEMOLITION 63,000 5,000 82,000 227,000 41,283 101,938 , 30,000 1,000 330,000 6,000 925,000 7,500 2,000 0 0 200 1 000 5,000 13,000 13,000 200 0 0 10,000 5,000 25,000 422,202 150,000 105,000 1,400,000 31,800 544,040 3,000 200 0 700 0 160 55,000 16,000 500 1,000 0 0 5,000 20,800 30,000 0 15,097 955 9,633 11,962 11,113 3,491 2,587 183 6837 881 96,051 48 10 0 0
ol

65,596 4,178 68 447 225,550 49,761 112,000 28,688 994 247,171 6,442 823 149 1,470 704 7 0 131 667 8,787 10,374, 73 145 0 0 0 0 0 184,067 357,127 77,139, 1 093 142 28,740 544,559 313 100 6 460 14 29 42,813, 16,054 1,164 22 0 0. 2,778 24,267 34,812 0

O 0 0
ol

65,596 4,178 68,447 225,550 49,761 112,000 28 688 994 247,171 6,442 0 1,470 704 7 0 131 667 8 787 10,374 73 145 0 0 0 0 0 184,067 357,127 , 77,139 1,500 000 28,740 544,559 313 100 6 460: 14 29 42 813 16,054, 1,164 22 0 0 2,778 0 34,812 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 823 149 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ol

OTHER PUB WORKS

800 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 18,117 48,950 12,771 125 466 0 0 1 8 1 57 0 2 6,032 1,914 63 0 0 0 325 20,800 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 406,858 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
oi

0 24 267 0 0

CITY OF HARRISBURG
2012 YTD REVENUE - BUDGET TO ACTUAL - LINE iTEM DETAIL
GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVENJ GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEI\1 GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN 380000 380002 380010 380033 382000 384000 384001 384007 385000 385003 385006 385090 392000 393000 394000 395000 396000 396010 397000 397001 397002 398002 398006 398011 398014 398027 399099 REIMB FOR LOSS /DAMAGE STOP LOSS RECOVERIES RECEIPT OF PRIOR YEAR REV INSURANCE REIMB FOR LOSS CONTRIBUTIONS AND DONAT MISCELLANEOUS CONT P I LOT S HBG BROADCASTING NTWK REFUNDS OF EXPENDITURES EXPRESS SCRIPT REBATE MEDICARE PART D PROGRAM MISCELLANEOUS PENSION SYSTEM STATE AID GAMING FUNDS PUB UTILTY REALTY TAX CAPITAL FIRE PROTECTION GRANT PROCEEDS FED/STATE(FED)PASS ThR GR HBG PRK AUTH COORD PKG HBG PRK AUTH COORD PKG HBG PRK AUTH COORD PKG HBG WATER UTILITY FUND CAPITOL PROJECTS FUND STATE & FED GRANTS FUND FEDERAL GRANTS SANITATION UTILITY FUND ESTIMATED CASH CARRYOVER 0 0 0 80,000 0 0 501,522 24,300 142,411 170,000 . 85,000 5,000 1,517,751 0 38,000 2,500,000 0 0 1,400 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,688 939 0 0 0 47,298 2,386 0 0 20 955 0 0 0 1 027 205 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 175 47,298 57,362 0 78 370,704 1,350 29,225 13,543 81,348 3,914, 2,543,634 0 35 704 2 500,000 0 0 250 000 0 0 0 0 1 750 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 250 000 0 0 0 175 47,298 57,362 0, 78 370 704 1,350, 29,225 13 543 81 348 3,914 2,543,634 0 35,704

2,500,000 5,000,000

3,300,000 3 300,000 500,000 0 0 1,750 000 0 0 0 500,000 0 0 0 0 1 688 939 0

1,139,705 1 688939

54,961,108

4,729,687

47,583,922

8,294,432

55,878,354

GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVENJ GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN GENERAL REVEN

340002 340029 343050 355001 398011

HBG WATER UTILiTY FUND SEWERAGE UTILITY FUND SEWER MAINT CHARGE HPA RENTAL INCOME STATE & ED GRANTS FUND

1,501,097 6,776,451 925,000 20,800 0

0 0 96,051 20,800 0

703,078 277,652 823,149 24,267

703 078 277 652 823 149 24 267

0 0 0

0
0

1,750,000 1,750 000

-3,578,146

Office of City Controfler

Daniel C. Miller
10 N 2nd Street, Suite 403 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101

Wanda Williams, President Members of Harrisburg City Council 10 N 7nd St. Harrisburg, PA 17101 Dear Ms. Williams and all Members:

September 11,2013

As the City of Harrisburg's elected fiscal watchdog, I have read and studied the receiver's plan, and feel compelled to share some of my concerns with City Council. Whether Council ultimately votes to support or reject the plan, it should be sure that its decision is based on a comprehensive understanding of the details and their short and long term ramifications. Council took a step in the right direction by seeking assistance from Alvarez and Marcel to conduct an independent review of the parking transaction. One of the first questions that should be answered is whether the plan represents shared pain and shared sacrifice. In my view, with the sale and transfer of municipally owned assets, the burden is placed disproportionately on the residents and taxpayers of the city. While it's true that the city's major creditors have agreed to accept an immediate partial payment of approximately $210 million of the nearly $300 million debt, the plan calls for additional distribution of future funds that will make the creditors whole. As willing participants in the incinerator retrofit financing deal at the root of many of the city's financial woes shouldn't the plan require these creditors to make substantial concessions? I am also uncomfortable with the plan's proposed increases in parking fees and the questionable assumptions of its financial projections. To begin with, there has been no cost benefit analysis to determine how the increases will affect businesses and no consideration of their effect on residents, particularly low income city dwellers and elderly residents who live on fixed incomes, who find it necessary to park in one of the areas subject to the new fees. Shouldn't we have those answers before we move forward? Shouldn't Council consider just how much additional revenue could be raised from the parking proposal if rate hikes are off-set by dramatically reduced demand? Given the interdependence of various elements of the plan, shouldn't City Council have an independent professional Economic Impact Statement on each of the elements before approving any part of the measure?

What follows is a specific breakdown of the various elements of the receiver's plan that raise red flags, major concerns and troubling questions for me. If they also raise red flags and troubling questions for Council members, shouldn't we have answers and assurances before we proceed?

Receiver Lynch's plan dismantles city government by removing control of basic city functions from the city's residents. It reinforces the misperception that residents of a majority minority city can't govern themselves.

The city loses control of its parking assets for a minimum of 40 years, allowing others to set rates, terms and conditions. The city loses control of the sewer and water systems, including billing and collections, with the transfer of this asset to The Harrisburg Authority. The city's solid waste collection is outsourced. The plan creates a competing entity, funded by the city, for the purpose of economic development. However, the board is not controlled by the city and may include non- residents. The plan also creates a competing entity, funded by the city, for the purpose of infrastructure improvement. However, the board is not controlled by the city and may include non- residents.

Receiver Lynch's plan doesn't call for any real concessions from AGM or Dauphin County, and minimal to no concessions from others. Is that fair and shared pain?

Upon the sale of the incinerator and lease of the parking assets these major creditors get a lump sum payment and get the rest from future revenues. Other claimants make minimal to no concessions: CJT--$3. 5 million concession AMBA C-no concession MetroBank-no concession Sun TrustLeasing-no concession at this time Covanta-what appears to be a $1 6.5 million concession could be made up through grants and contracts

Receiver Lynch's plan leaves other debt issues unresolved. The plan does not address the potential $7.4 million annual debt service due from the City Guaranteed Harrisburg Redevelopment A ut horily for the Verizon building beginning in 2017. The plan doesn't address the shortfall on stadium bond payments. The plan doesn't contemplate the loss ofparking revenue which would be due in the event of a Harrisburg University debt default.

The Receiver's plan may result in considerable liability after the sale of the incinerator to the LCSWMA. The city is party to a long term contract that requires it to produce a minimum amount of tonnage, 35,000 tons annually at $190 per ton, to the LCSWIvIA. Increases in recycling or reductions in solid waste for any other reason still leaves the city Jlnancially obligated for the contracted amount, a minimum of$6, 650,000 annually.

The Receiver's plan balances the city budget with smoke, mirrors and uncertainty. Although recent history has proven the state subsidy to be unreliable, the plan relies on $5 million annually from the Commonwealth. The plan relies on $4 million in savings from union contracts that have not yet been achieved. Although the 100% increase in the city EIT is only scheduled to last until 2016, the likelihood that it will become permanent can't be ignored. Other distressed communities in the Act 47 program have seen their EIT increased to 3.4% and more.

As if these issues were not troubling enough, the Receiver's plan projects very little future revenue to go to the city's general fund where the city's democratically elected officials determine the best use of this revenue for the benefit of the citizens of Harrisburg. Rather, the plan generously funds non-city controlled entities that don't answer to the residents of the city. The $3.7 million the plan assigns for OPEB debt (retirees health insurance) is insignificant in comparison to the $180 million unfunded liability. Yet, none of the loss of Harrisburg's citizens' decision making powers is necessary. The monetization, refinancing, added subsidy from the Commonwealth and fee increases projected with the lease of the parking assets could all be achieved without removing them from the city's control.

N THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA C. Alan Walker, in his capacity as Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development, Petitioner :
V.

No. 569 M.D. 2011

City of Harrisburg, Respondent CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Daniel C. Miller, hereby certifiy that I have served a true and correct copy of the Objections to Recovery Plan filed this date upon counsel for all the parties, postage pre-paid, and addressed as follows:

Kenneth Lee Post & Schell Attorneys at Law 17 N. Second Street 12th Floor Harrisburg, PA Mark Kaufman McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP 303 Peachtree Street NE Atlanta, GA 30308 Neil Grover 2201 N Second Street Harrisburg, PA

Daniel C. Miller 10 N. 2nd Street Suite 403 Harrisburg, PA 17101 717-234-2250 Date: September 20, 2013