Some positive results due to watchdogging

[moose]

work_session_minutes_combined - 2012.pdf (328.49 KB)

Work Session Minutes combined - 2013 redacted.pdf (523.64 KB)

I requested the minutes of the Commissioners work session meetings to see what goes on at those meetings. Take a look at the 2012 minutes first and page through them (I combined them all). I was flabbergasted at the lack of detail, and/or the lack of business going on. Somewhere along the line, I used my utter charm to influence how they record their behind the scenes activities. (These are open to the public, but I can't make them.)

Anyway...what I'm getting at is from my first request (2012) to my second request (2013), there was a HUGE difference in the amount of detail that went into the minutes. These minutes are as important as the regular meetings when someone (like me) is wondering if the Sunshine law is/has been compromised.

I am quite pleased at the difference in the detail and am happy to announce a positive result of government listening to its constituency for once (oops, I slipped, Dexter)

I redacted some salaries in the Corrections facility of the 2013 minutes. I don't want start something....if you need to know, request them yourself. Hope I didn't miss something else that should have been redacted.

[moose]

I gave you all some time to look at the attachments. Did anyone notice that out of all those meetings, the Clean & Green Policy NOR the New Reassessment Ordinance was ever mentioned EXCEPT when they announced that they were going to advertise the new ordinance. Don't you find that a little suspicious, that they could commit to voting and enacting these policies/ordinances without EVER deliberating on them? Aren't they supposed to allow public participation according to the Sunshine Laws? Anybody ever hear them deliberate on them? There's no record of said deliberations, that I can find. Thoughts?

[Venter]

Dec 13, 2013 19:03:06 GMT -5 moose said:

I gave you all some time to look at the attachments. Did anyone notice that out of all those meetings, the Clean & Green Policy NOR the New Reassessment Ordinance was ever mentioned EXCEPT when they announced that they were going to advertise the new ordinance. Don't you find that a little suspicious, that they could commit to voting and enacting these policies/ordinances without EVER deliberating on them? Aren't they supposed to allow public participation according to the Sunshine Laws? Anybody ever hear them deliberate on them? There's no record of said deliberations, that I can find. Thoughts?

WTF?
You expect us to actually READ the Attachments BEFORE Commenting on them?

It's easier if we just comment on your comments
Where are the "Monarch Notes"?

Okay, I'll try to read them and get back to you...

[moose]

Dec 14, 2013 10:45:45 GMT -5 Venter said:

WTF?
You expect us to actually READ the Attachments BEFORE Commenting on them?

It's easier if we just comment on your comments
Where are the "Monarch Notes"?

Okay, I'll try to read them and get back to you...

LMAO!

[Venter]

Moose,
I found it MUCH Easier to read the Minutes from 2012 than 2013

I particularly like this one:

York Springs Municipal Authority – Ben Shull, Wayne Hill & Associates and Ken Beaverson, York Springs Municipal Authority – requesting $72,600 for replacement of asbestos waterline to prevent a health risk to the community. The Authority would also like to enlarge the size of the pipe for fire services.

Asbestos in a Waterline?
Were they afraid it might catch fire!?

Anyway, to answer your question... No, I did not see any mention of Clean & Green, or of the Reassessments.
Did they only Discuss and Vote on them at the other Sessions - the ones that you attended?

[moose]

Dec 14, 2013 13:07:48 GMT -5 Venter said:

Anyway, to answer your question... No, I did not see any mention of Clean & Green, or of the Reassessments.
Did they only Discuss and Vote on them at the other Sessions - the ones that you attended?

They announced their intent to advertise the reassessment ordinance at one meeting, then they voted on it at another meeting. I voiced my opposition at two of their meetings, the one after their announcement and the one they voted on it. There is NEVER a "discussion", which thoroughly pisses me off.

Nothing was EVER brought up about the C&G Policy until they voted on it. The newspaper reported about it before the vote...not sure of their source.

[Venter]

Does this count?

NOTICE-CLERK OF COURTS

LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE is hereby given that the County of Adams, Pennsylvania, by the Adams County Board of Commissioners, intends to enact, adopt, and ordain the following Ordinance at the Board's regularly-scheduled public meeting on Wednesday, December 11, 2013, commencing at 9:00 a.m., prevailing time, in the Ceremonial Historic Courtroom, Second Floor, at the Adams County Courthouse, 117 Baltimore Street, Adams County, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania 17325: ORDINANCE NO. 3 of 2013 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF ADAMS, REPEALING ORDINANCES NOS. 1 OF 1993 AND 2 OF 1996, PROVIDING FOR AN ESTABLISHED MEANS FOR THE EVALUATION AND DETERMINATION OF THE UNIFORMITY OF AD VALORUM REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT; AND PROVIDING FOR THE PERIODIC COUNTY-WIDE REASSESSMENT OF PROPERTY TO ENSURE CONTINUED UNIFORMITY WHEREAS, the County of Adams ("County") undertook a county-wide reassessment of all Adams County real property in 2010, the objective of which was to ensure uniformity in all real estate taxation, the equitable distribution of taxes, and to ensure the fairness of the real estate taxing system; and WHEREAS, the Consolidated County Assessment Law, Act No. 93 of 2010, as amended, codified at 53 Pa. C.S. \c 8801 8868, and case law interpreting this Act, previous assessment laws, and the Pennsylvania Constitution, require that ad valorum real estate taxes be fair, uniform and equitably applied; and WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners and the Board of Assessment Appeals, also known as the Board of Assessment Revisions, desire that real estate taxation remain a uniform and fair system so as to equitably apply real estate taxation to all real property owners of the County; and WHEREAS, the County desires to establish a means for reassessment that relies upon statistical measures, and not simply a chronological process which could cause unnecessary expense for the County; and WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners recognizes insights into economic, market, and other factors that may be provided to the County through the volunteer efforts of local professionals. NOW THEREFORE, be it ENACTED AND ORDAINED by the County and Board of Commissioners, and it is hereby ENACTED AND ORDAINED by the authority of the same, as follows: Section I - Objective: The following Ordinance is adopted by the Board of Commissioners to provide guidance and standards in the area of ad valorum real estate taxation, and to enhance the County's ability to fairly and consistently measure property values throughout Adams County, despite major shifts and fluctuations in the local and national economies and real estate markets. Section II - Definitions: 1. Coefficient of Dispersion ("COD"): A measure of the average percent of deviation of valid property sales from the median assessment as developed using a statistical analysis and type of ratio study applying standard methodologies approved by the International Association of Assessing Officers ("IAAO"), and included in their Standard on Ratio Studies. 2. Full Reassessment: A statistical analysis that is completed by the Adams County Tax Services Department or an outside vendor, which includes field observations and\ r field studies. 3. Statistical Reassessment: A statistical analysis that is completed by the Adams County Tax Services Department or an outside vendor, which does not include field observation or field study. 4. Invalid Sale: A transfer of real estate in which the purchase price does not meet the definition of Market Value as defined in the IAAO Standard on Ratio Studies and the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice ("USPAP"). 5. Ratio Study: A study of the relationship between assessed values and market sale prices. A common interest in ratio studies or the level of uniformity of assessments which can be used to determine if and at what level a reassessment is required. Section III - Scope of Policy: All real estate properties that are located within the legal geographic boundaries of Adams County are subject to this policy. Section IV - Procedures: The process to determine whether or not the County shall undertake a county-wide reassessment will consist of two primary steps: A. Step One: Ratio Studies 1. On an annual basis as of July 1st, the Adams County Tax Services Department will calculate the COD based upon sales which occurred in Adams County between January 1st and December 31st of the previous year. 2. The COD will be calculated using accepted IAAO Standards utilizing various recognized practices, including the screening of Invalid Sales, statistical trimming at 1.5 times the interquartile range, and other practices accepted by the IAAO standards. 3. If the COD calculation for all of Adams County is greater than 20.0 in any year, then Step Two of this section shall be initiated. In addition, a budgetary line item shall be considered by the Board of Commissioners for planning purposes when the COD is approaching 20.0 so as to minimize fiscal impacts on the County budget during the timeframe the reassessment is conducted.. B. Step Two: Reassessment Task Force 1. A Reassessment Task Force ("Task Force") shall be appointed by the Board of Assessment Appeals to examine and recommend potential courses of action, and to discuss options as a result of the determination that the county-wide COD exceeds 20.0. 2. The Task Force will be appointed by the Board of Commissioners, in consultation with the Board of Assessment Appeals (if separately existent), and will contain an odd number of members, no larger than seven (7). Task Force members shall be Adams County residents who represent a cross section of property ownership within the County. The following expertise and professional skills shall be considered for Task Force membership, while remaining mindful of current or prospective conflicts of interest: a. Licensed Real Estate Agent. b. Certified General Appraiser. c. Banking or Finance Industry. d. Local Municipal or School District official. 3. The following shall also attend Task Force meetings to provide assistance and support to Task Force members: a. Director of Adams County Tax Services and\ r the Adams County Chief Assessor. b. One Adams County Commissioner. c. One member of the Adams County Board of Assessment Appeals (if the Board of Assessment Appeals consists of members other than the Adams County Board of Commissioners). d. County Solicitor. 4. The Task Force shall examine by whatever means they believe prudent, the need, impacts, costs, and general timing of a county-wide reassessment, and whether it should be performed by the County itself or an outside vendor. Included in the analysis will be the review of the statistical techniques used to arrive at least the past two (2) years' CODs to confirm the accuracy of those calculations. An outside consultant may be hired at the expense of the County to verify the previous CODs, if the Task Force has a basis to believe that the County's techniques were incorrect, or that the COD results are erroneous. The meetings of the Task Force will be open to the public unless the Board of Commissioners determines a need exists for confidential discussions (e.g. attorney - client privileged, reviews of contracts or proposals, etc.). The Task Force shall establish meeting schedules, parameters, and rules. 5. On or before December 1st of the same year as the COD determination noted in section IV. A. 3., the Task Force will provide the Board of Commissioners, and the Board of Assessment Appeals (if separately existent), with its recommendations on the following: (a) whether to perform a county-wide reassessment; (b) the need for a county-wide reassessment based upon results of a COD study, if such a study was undertaken by an outside consultant and the results indicated the County's calculated CODs were in error, and whether a COD below 20.0 existed for the year; or (c) what other course of action the committee believes is appropriate, within the scope of reassessment law and procedure. 6. Upon recom- mendation to perform a reassessment, the Board of Commissioners, in consultation with the Board of Assessment Appeals (if separately existent), will decide whether to undertake such a reassessment, whether such a reassessment if undertaken will be a Full Reassessment or a Statistical Reassessment, and whether it will be performed by the Adams County Tax Services Department or an outside vendor. A decision on whether to conduct a Full Reassessment or Statistical Reassessment, and whether it is performed by the Adams County Tax Services Department, an outside vendor, or through a combination of the two, shall be made within 180 days of receipt of a written recommendation of the Reassessment Task Force, as required in section IV. B. 5. The intention is to maximize the use of County resources in any reassessment. The Board of Commissioners may elect to include the Task Force in the selection of a vendor to perform any facet of the reassessment, if the Board decides that such outside assistance is either necessary or appropriate. C. Board Autonomy: Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, the Board of Commissioners, and the Board of Assessment Appeals (if separately existent), may decide on their own initiative to conduct a Statistical Reassessment or a Full Reassessment when conditions suggest a reassessment is appropriate. Section V - Type of Reassessment 1. If it is determined that a reassessment is necessary, and it has been less than ten (10) years since the last Full Reassessment (the 2010 Reassessment is considered a Full Reassessment), it is assumed a Statistical Reassessment will be performed, unless other factors apply. 2. If it is determined that a reassessment is necessary, and if it has been ten (10) years or longer since the last Full Reassessment, it is assumed that a Full Reassessment will be performed. 3. If a Statistical Reassessment is undertaken, the County will have twenty-four (24) months to complete the reassessment, and shall prepare to have change of assessment notices mailed by the next July 1st following that twenty-four (24) month period. 4. If a Full Reassessment is undertaken, the County will have thirty-six (36) months to complete the reassessment, and shall prepare to have change of assessment notices mailed by the next July 1st following that thirty-six (36) month period. 5. Upon completion of any re-assessment a Predetermined Ratio of 100% shall be adopted. 6. The Board of Commissioners, in consultation with the Board of Assessment Appeals (if separately existent), may decide to use an outside vendor if, in the Board of Commissioner's sole judgment, the complexity, market factors, or other variables suggest that use of an outside vendor will provide the County with a better product. Section VI - Funding 1. The Board of Commissioners shall create a line item to be added to the County budget with annual funding to assist with the cost of future reassessments. The amount allocated to this function shall be at the Board of Commissioner's discretion, and shall be undertaken so as to minimize or eliminate the need for borrowing or issuance of bonds to pay for the reassessment. 2. The Treasurer's Office, in cooperation with the Board of Commissioners, shall establish a committed reserve fund. The fund is to be used as a depository for assets to be used to pay for future reassessment, as provided for in Section VI., No. 1. Section VII Outreach 1. The Board of Commissioners, and the Board of Assessment Appeals, may identify and educate major audiences within the County to the basic components of the reassessment process. These groups may include: a. Chambers of Commerce. b. Veterans' Organizations. c. Realtors Association of York and Adams Counties. d. Area or County Business Associations. e. Farm Associations. f. Service clubs and organizations. 2. The Board of Commissioners and the Board of Assessment Appeals may use tools in order to educate the County's citizens to the reassessment process such as, but not limited, to: a. Public or Group Meetings. b. Flyers or Brochures. c. Newsletters. d. Newspapers. e. Public Service Announcements. f. Public Television. g. DVDs. h. Internet. Section VIII - Repeal: Any and all prior Ordinances or portions of prior Ordinances that are in conflict with this Ordinance, including Ordinance No. 1 of 1993 and Ordinance No. 2 of 1996, are hereby repealed. Section IX - Savings Clause: Should any section, provision, or other part of this Ordinance be found to be illegal, unenforceable or void, such shall not affect the remainder hereof, which shall remain fully binding, valid and enforceable, and such section, provision or other part shall be modified to the extent necessary to conform to the law. The Board of Commissioners of the County of Adams hereby declares its intention that should any section, provision or other part of this Ordinance found to be illegal, unenforceable or void, it would have made the foregoing Ordinance without such part, or with such part so modified so as to conform to the law. Section X - Effective Date: This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its enactment. ENACTED AND ORDAINED into an Ordinance this 11th day of December 2013. ATTEST ADAMS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Paula V. Neiman, Chief Clerk Randy L. Phiel, Chairman James E. Martin, Vice Chairman Marty Karsteter Qually, Commissioner The above proposed Ordinance may be examined without charge at the Adams County Commissioners Office, Second Floor, 117 Baltimore Street, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania 17325, telephone [phone], during regular business hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Adams County Commissioners John M. Hartzell, Esquire, Solicitor .... More
Appeared in: Gettysburg Times on Monday, 12/02/2013

[moose]

Dec 14, 2013 15:02:19 GMT -5 Venter said:

Does this count?

That was the advertisement in the newspaper. That ad in the paper DID NOT match the Official Draft posted on the county website.

Section IV - 3. If the COD calculation for all of Adams County is greater than 20.0 in any year, then Step Two of this section shall be initiated.

The advertised ordinance in the paper made no mention of the Two Consecutive Years clause, so I questioned them as to which one they were voting on that day. They voted on the advertised ordinance, which Did Not cite two consecutive years. Still, at some point, the ordinance changed and they would have HAD to discuss this change somewhere. Where did that happen? Why wasn't the public invited to attend this apparent closed door session? Doesn't it take a quorum to change something like that? True, the ordinance they voted on is a little more palatable than the two consecutive years one, but they need to do things according to the law. They just can't do whatever in the hell the want to do. Well, maybe they can .

[paulkellett]

I am surprised that you received the 2012 minutes, as I read them closely and they were never approved, and as we all know unapproved minutes are not subject to the sunshine law. I was also surprised by the attendance, as many of the minutes reflect that no one was in attendance other than the commissioners, but they heard from people. Huh, I was also struck by the fact that executive session was called at every meeting. The sunshine law does allow for it, but not to set personnel policy, raises or general rules.Lawyer/client only works if discussing matters of litigation, real estate purchase, not hey, are we screwing up questions. The minutes are to reflect all matters discussed, so you are quite right, when were these policies formulated? The sunshine law is quite clear that deliberations are to be public, so look at the time of each meeting, and ask yourself are these guys working full time? Legally working full time?

[Venter]

This is for a Separate Ordinance.
Following highlights and emphasis are by me:

WORK SESSION June 19, 2013
Commissioners Meeting Room...

Public Hearing for the Adams County Zoning Ordinance
Chairman Phiel called to order the advertised public hearing for the Adams County Zoning Ordinance at 9:12 a.m. this date. At this time Chairman Phiel recognized Rob Thaeler.
Mr. Thaeler noted the Planning Office has been working on these revisions and updates to the Adams County Zoning Ordinance and came to the conclusion it would be more effective to repeal the existing Ordinance and immediately replace with the revised Ordinance that is being presented now. The Municipalities affected are Butler, Germany and Menallen Townships. No map elements are being changed at this time. All the adjustments made are in the text. An advertised public meeting was held last month by the Planning Department and approximately 100 people attended for a question and answer period.
The second process was to allow any other interested persons to provide verbal or written comment which was advertised in accordance with the requirements. The only written comment received was from Quail Valley Golf Club which is being entered into the public record for this hearing.
The final part of the adoption process will be the decision by the Board of Commissioners on whether or not to adopt this Ordinance
which has been advertised for next Wednesday, June 26th. However if any comment, written or verbal, is received prior to next Wednesday that could affect the Board’s decision, the adoption date could be rescheduled.
Chairman Phiel asked if there is any other public comment to be received. With no further comment to be received, Chairman Phiel noted
all information will be taken under advisement and a decision will be made at the public meeting June 26th.
A question was asked regarding changes to the Ordinance and Assistant Solicitor Behn noted as long as the changes or not significant you will not be required to re-advertise.

If they are able to determine whether the changes are "Significant", then who are we to question?
Not sure if this above example is precedence for "not required to re-advertise".
You guys would know the technicalities better than I would.

[moose]

Dec 14, 2013 19:36:37 GMT -5 Venter said:

This is for a Separate Ordinance.
Following highlights and emphasis are by me:

WORK SESSION June 19, 2013
Commissioners Meeting Room...

Public Hearing for the Adams County Zoning Ordinance
Chairman Phiel called to order the advertised public hearing for the Adams County Zoning Ordinance at 9:12 a.m. this date. At this time Chairman Phiel recognized Rob Thaeler.
Mr. Thaeler noted the Planning Office has been working on these revisions and updates to the Adams County Zoning Ordinance and came to the conclusion it would be more effective to repeal the existing Ordinance and immediately replace with the revised Ordinance that is being presented now. The Municipalities affected are Butler, Germany and Menallen Townships. No map elements are being changed at this time. All the adjustments made are in the text. An advertised public meeting was held last month by the Planning Department and approximately 100 people attended for a question and answer period.
The second process was to allow any other interested persons to provide verbal or written comment which was advertised in accordance with the requirements. The only written comment received was from Quail Valley Golf Club which is being entered into the public record for this hearing.
The final part of the adoption process will be the decision by the Board of Commissioners on whether or not to adopt this Ordinance
which has been advertised for next Wednesday, June 26th. However if any comment, written or verbal, is received prior to next Wednesday that could affect the Board’s decision, the adoption date could be rescheduled.
Chairman Phiel asked if there is any other public comment to be received. With no further comment to be received, Chairman Phiel noted
all information will be taken under advisement and a decision will be made at the public meeting June 26th.
A question was asked regarding changes to the Ordinance and Assistant Solicitor Behn noted as long as the changes or not significant you will not be required to re-advertise.

If they are able to determine whether the changes are "Significant", then who are we to question?
Not sure if this above example is precedence for "not required to re-advertise".
You guys would know the technicalities better than I would.

Saw this was for a different ordinance and didn't give it the time of day. Got my hands full enough already. Without knowing what changes they were talking about, I couldn't comment.

[Venter]

Moose,
If the changes aren't "significant enough" to re-advertise, then it seems like it's possibly common practice to just pass them without further comment!?
If they are willing to do it with this, then why not ALL Ordinances?

[Venter]

The Title of this Topic is "Some positive results due to watchdogging".

You know... shouldn't they be doing things because they are the "RIGHT THING TO DO", and not just because someone is watching them?

And when questioned, why do they always seem to accept it as a challenge?
If they were perfect, they wouldn't need a Solicitor to think for them.

[moose]

If they've nothing to hide, they've got nothing to fear. I don't necessarily think the Commissioners are hiding anything...I just feel that they are unsure what exactly is happening in there, particularly in the Office of Open Records. Someday, maybe they'll wake up and wonder why the county litigates so much. That's it for now, stay tuned...