If the city of Harrisburg were a person, it would be in court-ordered financial rehab.

That’s one way of looking at the city’s Act 47 label, which denotes its membership in a club of cash-strapped municipalities. Right now, Harrisburg and 14 other cities, townships and boroughs are considered “financially distressed” by the state of Pennsylvania.

Harrisburg has been in Act 47, a state-run financial oversight program, since 2010. Eight years later, the city is facing two options: stay in the program under a three-year exit plan or persuade state lawmakers to let it leave immediately.

The new crossroads has put Act 47 back in the headlines in Harrisburg. Here’s a primer on Harrisburg’s financial fall and recovery, covering everything from incinerator debt to commuter taxes and home rule charters. We’ll update it as Harrisburg moves through the Act 47 exit process.

What is Act 47?

Act 47 is an oversight program that creates special regulations for municipalities with poor finances. The state’s Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED) administers the Act 47 program. To enter the program, a city must seek an Act 47 designation from the DCED secretary.

How does Act 47 work?

The most important aspect of Act 47 is that it lets cities pass higher taxes, usually as they’re forced to cut spending.

Pennsylvania’s state constitution and tax codes regulate tax rates and increases for all municipalities in the commonwealth. When a city is in Act 47, those tax laws no longer apply. The Act 47 law sets its own tax rates that allow cities to put a higher tax burden on residents. Cities in Act 47 are allowed to appeal to the state’s Commonwealth Court to approve tax hikes within the limits of the law.

These “revenue enhancements” are meant to be temporary, lasting only as long as a city stays in Act 47. The hope is that a municipality can use the additional tax revenue to build up savings or pay down debts ahead of its Act 47 exit.

What does an Act 47 coordinator do?

Every Act 47 city gets assigned a DCED coordinator – essentially, a caseworker who reports back to the state. A coordinator will draft the municipality’s recovery and exit plans, amend it based on public comment, and submit it to municipal officials for final approval. She also signs off on the city’s yearly budgets. Harrisburg’s current Act 47 coordinator is Marita Kelley.

Why can’t Harrisburg just balance its budget?

As the seat of state government, Harrisburg is home to lots of jobs and tax-exempt land. Thirty thousand commuters come into the city for work daily. Forty-eight percent of the property in Harrisburg is owned by the commonwealth, nonprofit agencies, hospitals or universities—none of which have to pay taxes.

What’s more, 32 percent of the city’s 49,000 residents live in poverty, according to U.S. Census data. Harrisburg’s tax base is small, but, as an employment hub, its financial burdens are huge. Harrisburg’s roads and emergency services personnel serve the local population as well as commuters.

“This city has always had a revenue problem,” Councilman Ben Allatt recently said. “It’s a math equation, and, at the end of the day, the math doesn’t add up.”

The city also has a history of irresponsible financial management, which stresses its budget to this day. Former Mayor Stephen Reed borrowed hundreds of millions of dollars to fund projects that were meant to generate revenue for the city, including the National Civil War Museum, a retrofit for the Harrisburg incinerator and a never-realized Wild West museum. Harrisburg was in more than $300 million of debt when residents voted Reed out of office in 2009.

The city unloaded some debt when it sold the incinerator and leased its parking assets in 2013. But it’s still funneling 15 percent of its annual budget into debt payments.

How long can a city stay in Act 47?

When Harrisburg entered Act 47 in 2010, the law didn’t impose any deadlines on cities in financial recovery. But that changed when the state legislature amended the Act 47 law in 2015. Now, every city in Act 47 can adopt a five-year recovery and obtain a one-time, three-year extension before it must exit.

Municipal officials and policy experts say the eight-year timeframe isn’t enough for cities to recover from deep financial distress. But lawmakers who supported the reform said that too many cities were taking advantage of the high taxes that Act 47 allowed them to pass.

What changed for Harrisburg under Act 47?

In the past eight years, Harrisburg has reduced its staff, leased its parking assets to a private company, and sold the debt-ridden Harrisburg incinerator. It’s also deferred maintenance on its roads and other critical infrastructure.

Meanwhile, the city has increased taxes on residents and non-residents who work in the city. Council doubled the city’s personal income tax (earned income tax or EIT) in 2012 and tripled its local services tax (LST) from $52 to $156 in 2016. The local services tax is paid by anyone who works in the city – residents and commuters alike.

Together, these tax hikes have brought in an additional $11.8 million of annual revenue for Harrisburg. Mayor Eric Papenfuse has said that they’re absolutely essential to the city’s long-term financial health.

With this combination of tax hikes and spending cuts, Harrisburg has been able to run surpluses each of the four years that Papenfuse has been in office. The city is using its growing fund balance (along with a slew of state grants) to pay for infrastructure improvements for the first time in years.

What happens when a city exits Act 47?

Cities that exit Act 47 usually have to lower their tax rates. The only way to avoid that is to pass its own unique home rule charter. A home rule municipality is free to set its own rules and tax regulations, but it has to be approved by a majority of the town’s voting population.

When does Harrisburg have to exit?

Under state law, Harrisburg can only stay in Act 47 through 2021.

Why has Harrisburg been lobbying state lawmakers?

Local officials have long said that the city can’t afford to leave Act 47 and revert to tax rates set forth in the state constitution. City officials have asked lawmakers to set special taxing provisions allowing Harrisburg to keep its current LST and EIT rates.

In June, House Speaker Mike Turzai blocked Harrisburg’s tax measure from coming up for vote, leaving the city in limbo as its Act 47 deadline nears.

Isn’t the legislature in recess? Where does Harrisburg stand?

Lawmakers will return from summer recess on Sept. 12.

State Rep. Patty Kim, whose district includes Harrisburg, and Rep. Greg Rothman, who represents much of Cumberland County, are co-sponsoring a House bill that would let Harrisburg keep its LST and EIT. If the bill passes, nothing will change for Harrisburg – it would continue to levy its status quo tax rates indefinitely. It would also exit Act 47.

What will happen if the legislature doesn’t act?

If it stays in Act 47, Harrisburg will have to adopt a three-year recovery plan prepared by its Act 47 coordinator.

The state-sponsored recovery plan can only make recommendations based on current state law. As a result, Kelley and her team at DCED are limited in what they can recommend to the city. When they published a draft recovery plan in July that called for doubling property taxes in Harrisburg, residents, business owners and local officials universally panned it. Harrisburg’s elected officials said they would reject any exit plan that increased the tax burden on city residents.

Kelley’s team went back to the drawing board with hundreds of public comments and released the revised exit plan on Wednesday, Aug 8.

What does the new exit plan say?

It proposes a four-year budgeting strategy that would let Harrisburg keep its current tax rates through 2020, as long as the city actively continues its lobbying strategy.

If Harrisburg can’t compel the legislature to act by 2020, it will have to adjust its budget to prepare for an Act 47 exit in 2021. Kelley recommends dialing down the Earned Income Tax rate starting in 2020, and then, the following year, cutting the LST down to a $52 annual rate — the maximum amount allowed under current state law. The city would have to cut spending and use its fund balance to bridge any deficits.

In short, the plan maintains the city’s status quo for two more years. Harrisburg residents wouldn’t incur any property tax increases, nor would commuters face a new tax on their incomes. But the plan also acknowledges the very real possibility that state lawmakers won’t act Harrisburg’s favor.

TheBurg obtained a full copy of the exit plan through DCED. As of Thursday, Aug. 9, hard copies of the exit plan are posted in the City Clerk’s office. They should be online through the city and DCED later today.

Harrisburg Recovery Coordinator Exit Plan — Revised by Lizzy Hardison on Scribd

Why did the city want to levy a commuter tax?

Last week, Papenfuse said that he proposed what would essentially be a commuter tax. It would cost commuters a lot more than the current LST, but it wouldn’t increase the tax burden on Harrisburg city residents.

Under the mayor’s proposal, everyone who works in Harrisburg would pay a 2-percent income tax. Many commuters already pay an income tax to the municipality where they live. But most boroughs and townships in the region have a rate below 2 percent. They would pay their standard EIT to their home municipality, then pay the balance of their 2 percent rate to Harrisburg.

Update, August 8: DCED’s revised exit plan does not call for a commuter tax. Instead, it would allow Harrisburg to keep levying its current LST and EIT through 2020.

Is a commuter tax even legal?

Even if Kelley had recommended a commuter tax in her exit plan, it would have ultimately been up to a Commonwealth Court judge to decide if the city can levy it.

The Act 47 law says that a city can’t pass a tax hike on non-residents that it doesn’t levy on residents. But since Harrisburg residents already pay a 2 percent earned income tax, the hike that Papenfuse proposed would bring non-residents up to the same rate. So, non-residents would see a tax hike, but their tax rate would not exceed that of Harrisburg residents.

I’m a commuter – why does Papenfuse want me to pay Harrisburg’s bills?

When the mayor proposed the commuter tax, it wasn’t because he thought it would be the best option for Harrisburg. He said last week that was using it as a bargaining chip with state lawmakers, who would be subject to the tax themselves.

Papenfuse would rather keep the status quo – a $156 annual LST and a 2 percent EIT for residents. He hoped that lawmakers, faced with a potential tax hike, would approve the bill that would let Harrisburg levy these taxes indefinitely. Now that the revised exit plan would let Harrisburg keep its LST and EIT, lawmakers aren’t facing the same urgency to approve new taxing provisions.

In general, though, the mayor and other city officials have long said that commuters who use Harrisburg’s roads and emergency services should pay for them. He’s open to lowering the LST in the future, if the city’s tax base grows.

What happens if Harrisburg rejects the coordinator’s exit plan?

Nobody really knows the answer to this question.

Papenfuse said last week that the city is in “uncharted territory” with regards to its exit plan. If it rejects Kelley’s final plan, it could be the first city in the history of Act 47 to do so.

The Act 47 law says that the DCED secretary should ask the governor to declare a “financial emergency” in any city that bucks the end of the Act 47 process. The governor could theoretically decline to do so.

If a mayor isn’t happy with an Act 47 recovery plan, they’re allowed to write their own amended version, just as former Mayor Linda Thompson did in 2011.

But the law doesn’t make the same allowances for exit plans. In fact, it doesn’t consider at all what would happen if city officials disagree with their coordinator about the best course of action.

Can we pass a home rule charter?

Papenfuse wants to start proceedings for a home rule charter if the city stays in Act 47. But it’s a lengthy process, and he’s not confident the final charter would get the majority vote it would need to pass.

A home rule charter would let Harrisburg keep its current EIT rate. But since the charter only would apply to residents, the city can’t set any special tax rates for non-residents. As a result, home rule would not allow the city to keep its current LST rate, which generates $4 million annually. In short, it’s not a silver bullet like it is for other, smaller municipalities.

What will happen next?

The best-case scenario, according to Harrisburg officials, is that the state legislature will pass a law allowing the city to keep doing exactly what it’s doing now: assess a $156 yearly local services tax on everyone who works in Harrisburg and a 2 percent earned income tax on residents.

But lawmakers won’t have a say until September, and the Act 47 law sets a firm timeline on exit plan proceedings. So, Harrisburg is pursuing both paths at once.

The city will meet with a Commonwealth Court judge next week to see if it can delay the deadlines in the Act 47 law. That could defer a vote on the exit plan. Meanwhile, its lobbying effort will continue in the statehouse, even as City Council considers the exit plan and potentially votes on it.

This post was updated on August 9 with new information about Harrisburg’s revised exit plan.

The historic Shipoke neighborhood will be the site of National Night Out festivities tonight. (File photo)

Who says there’s nothing to do on Tuesday nights?

The Harrisburg Police Bureau is partnering with neighborhood organizations tonight to host National Night Out, a series of free events at locations throughout the city.

National Night Out is an annual campaign that promotes police partnerships in communities across the country. This is the Harrisburg Police Bureau’s first NNO event in recent years, according to Harrisburg community policing coordinator Blake Lynch.

Members of the bureau will host the flagship event at Sunshine Park, also known as Morrison Park, at 12th & Herr streets from 5 to 8 p.m. The free, outdoor event will feature more than 50 vendors, including the Pennsylvania State Police, the Harrisburg Fire Bureau and EMS personnel, Lynch said.

Participants can enjoy free games, live entertainment and police K-9 and helicopter demonstrations. Free food and drinks will be on hand, with police officers serving complimentary Kona Ice and Farm Show milkshakes from the Pennsylvania Dairymen’s Association.

Neighborhood associations are putting on their own, simultaneous events at locations across the city. Law enforcement officials will be present at each one, along with community nonprofits, businesses and food vendors.

The South Allison Hill Homeowners & Residents Association (SAHHRA) will host its 35th annual NNO Celebration from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. at the Heart of the Community Garden on Derry and Kittatinny streets.

“National Night Out gives our community a chance to stand together to promote awareness, safety, and neighborhood unity and celebrate our community’s accomplishments over the past year: a lower crime rate, cleaner neighborhoods, and redevelopment of blighted properties,” said SAHHRA president Shirley Blanton.

Friend of Midtown will host an event in the Broad Street Market courtyard from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m, and the Shipoke Neighborhood Association will hold a gathering at the Riverfront Park Gazebo starting at 6:30 p.m.

All NNO events are free and open to the public.

Lola Lawson took the oath of office following her appointment to the Harrisburg school board on Monday.

He had a standing ovation, an endorsement from a union president, and the support of former students – but it wasn’t enough to land Cornelius Chachere a seat on the Harrisburg school board.

Harrisburg’s eight-member board on Monday night passed over Chachere, a nonprofit executive, and two other candidates to appoint Lola Lawson, a former board director, to serve a term through 2019.

Lawson replaced board director Tyrell Spradley, who resigned his seat in July without explanation. Spradley was just appointed to the board in February.

Members of the 70-person audience reacted immediately to the appointment, exasperated by what they perceived as an opaque selection process that favors friends of the district administration.

Lawson was the second board veteran appointed to the body in the past month. Former board director Patricia Whitehead-Myers was appointed to a vacant seat last month.

Lawson has almost a decade of experience as a board director, but Chachere, who has worked as a substitute teacher at Harrisburg High School’s John Harris Campus, was the apparent crowd favorite. He garnered applause during his questioning before the board, and more than half the room gave him a standing ovation when his interview concluded.

But the board still voted 5-3 to appoint Lawson. After votes were tallied, young district alumni led a chant calling for justice, and one resident brandished a poster board sign saying, “We Call BS.”

Even though Chachere had wide public support, many residents said they were not surprised by the vote.

“Clearly this is the outcome of collusion,” said Charla Plaines, co-founder of the citizen-led school reform group C.A.T.C.H. (Concerned About the Children of Harrisburg.) “It does not reflect the will of the public. Once again, this board has proven it has no desire to do the right thing.”

One board member joined the residents voicing frustration over the appointment process. Before the board began interviewing candidates, director Brian Carter accused his colleagues of accepting bribes before filling a vacant seat last month.

“There were several conversations where board members were trying to bribe other board members to vote for certain candidates,” Carter said, without identifying any of his colleagues by name.

Carter declined to comment on his accusation during a recess, but reiterated his claim at the end of the meeting. He said that board members tried to persuade their colleagues to vote for Whitehead-Myers and Lawson.

But board solicitor Samuel Cooper said that political lobbying is not necessarily bribery.

“Unless there’s some transfer of money or promise of future gain, there’s no bribery,” Cooper said.

Along with Whitehead-Myers, Lawson was among the first members of the re-formed school board that wrested the district back from mayoral control in 2010. Former Mayor Stephen Reed had taken direct oversight of the school district in 2000, the first arrangement of its kind in the commonwealth.

Mayor Linda Thompson assumed Reed’s role briefly following her election in 2010 before community members reconstituted the elected board of directors.

Lawson declined to seek re-election for her seat in 2013 but was appointed back to a vacant seat the same year.

In her interview before the board tonight, Lawson touted a long history of public service, which she said started with her first sit-in demonstration at age 14.

“My heart is in the right place,” Lawson said. “I’m a strong, independent thinker. You can’t sway me… but I’m still willing to collaborate with people.”

Lawson was president of the board that terminated superintendent Gerald Kohn in 2010 and replaced him with Knight-Burney. Kohn later filed a wrongful termination suit against the district that ended in a $2.4 million settlement in his favor.

Lawson and Whitehead-Myers also voted with three of her colleagues to strip former school board president Roy Christ of his leadership title in 2011.

A retired broadcast personality and media consultant, Lawson served alongside current board directors Whitehead-Myers, Ellis Roy, Melvin Wilson and vice president Danielle Robinson until 2016, when she declined to seek re-election for her appointed seat. They all voted for their former colleague on Monday, along with director Lionel Gonzalez.

Board president Judd Pittman and directors Carrie Fowler and Brian Carter voted for Chachere.

Claude Phipps, a former business executive, and James Thompson, an architect and former board director, also applied for the vacant seat but did not receive nominations.

Phipps, Thompson and Chachere all applied for the vacant seat that Whitehead-Myers took in July. At the July 28 selection meeting, teacher union president Jody Barksdale urged the board to appoint Chachere.

Community members continued to advocate for Chachere in the public comment period at the end of tonight’s meeting.

“When you look at this man, how could you sensibly make the decision that you did?” said Joelle Ewing. “It looks suspicious, like you don’t want anyone who will go against the grain. I don’t understand it.”

Harrisburg’s mayor is seeking state permission to levy an augmented commuter tax for the next three years, he said on Thursday, as the city enters its final chapter of Act 47 and prepares for a future with smaller revenue streams.

Mayor Eric Papenfuse has vowed that he will not adopt the measures outlined in a July report from the city’s Act 47 coordinator, which recommended doubling property taxes to prepare for Harrisburg’s Act 47 exit in 2021.

He’s now asking the state-appointed coordinator to consider an alternative: a 2 percent non-resident Earned Income Tax (EIT) on everyone who works in the city.

The tax would replace the city’s augmented Local Services Tax (LST), which is $156 per year for all Harrisburg workers. But Papenfuse said it would generate millions of dollars in additional revenue during Harrisburg’s final three years in Act 47, a state oversight program for financially distressed municipalities.

“We know how many commuters work in the city, and while we don’t know exactly where they live, we can get that data,” Papenfuse told TheBurg. “But it would be much more.”

The proposal is bound to inflame Harrisburg’s 30,000 commuters. But Papenfuse hopes that exercising one of the last options available to Harrisburg under the Act 47 law will spur state lawmakers into action.

A bill expected to go before the house in September would allow Harrisburg to keep its current LST rate and exit Act 47 for good. If legislators are faced with a massive tax hike on their own income, through a higher EIT, Papenfuse hopes they’ll be more likely to support the legislation.

“My hope is that the region would see that it’s much more onerous than a local services tax,” he said. “I stand by what I’ve said before: I don’t see viable long-term future for Harrisburg without the legislature assisting us. We need the ability to have our revenues match our expenditures, and we’re not trying to spend on anything other than core government functions.”

Under the mayor’s proposal, the city’s LST would revert to its pre-Act 47 rate of $52 per year. Meanwhile, everyone who works in Harrisburg would start paying a 2 percent tax on their income.

Since Harrisburg residents already pay that rate, their EIT burden would not change. But commuters who work in Harrisburg would pay the difference between their hometown’s EIT rate and the city’s 2 percent rate, with the balance going into Harrisburg’s coffers.

For example, a commuter who lives in Susquehanna Township may earn a $50,000 salary working in Harrisburg. She currently pays the $156 local services tax in Harrisburg, as well as Susquehanna Township’s 1 percent EIT rate—$500 per year based on her income.

Under the new tax, her EIT bill would double to $1,000, with $500 going to the city of Harrisburg. She would pay $52 per year in local service taxes.

Papenfuse knows that the tax hike would sting. His goal isn’t to squeeze commuters, he said, but to spare Harrisburg the massive property tax hikes proposed in last month’s draft Act 47 exit plan.

“Do we really think legislators care that Harrisburg residents would have to pay double property taxes?” Papenfuse said, letting the question go unanswered. “Will they care if they themselves pay an increased EIT? Maybe.”

Harrisburg has one of the highest EIT rates in the region. Only a handful of municipalities—including Camp Hill, Swatara Township, Dauphin Township and Lower Paxton—levy the same 2 percent rate, according to a DCED database.

Excluding those municipalities, EIT rates range from 1.4 to 1.65 percent in Cumberland County and 1 to 1.7 percent in Dauphin.

The tax would expire when Harrisburg exits Act 47 in three years. But, with the revenue it would generate over that time, Harrisburg could pay down general obligation debt and trim its expenditures from 2021 onward, Papenfuse said.

In the meantime, the city would continue to lobby for its enhanced LST privileges. Papenfuse also hopes to initiate the proceedings for a Home Rule charter, which would preserve the city’s resident EIT rate.

If the state-appointed recovery coordinator Marita Kelley complies with his request, the commuter tax will be included in the final exit plan she presents to city council.

A DCED spokesperson declined to comment on the contents of the final exit plan today. She said that DCED was in the process of revising the plan based on the feedback received during the public comment period.

Papenfuse said Kelley’s team was “willing to consider” the proposal. City officials submitted the commuter tax proposal to DCED as part of a formal comment on the exit plan.

Council vice president Ben Allatt said he’d support any exit plan that doesn’t increase the tax burden on Harrisburg residents. But he’s not sure a hefty commuter tax would aid Harrisburg’s long-term lobbying efforts.

“As a negotiating tactic, it could backfire,” Allatt said. “I worry about any move that would alienate us from the legislature.”

DCED’s exit plan could land before city council as early as Wednesday, Aug. 8. If council does not approve it, the state DCED secretary will ask Pennsylvania’s governor to declare a fiscal emergency in Harrisburg, which could put the city back into receivership.

The future site of the State Archives building at N. 6th and Harris streets in Midtown Harrisburg.

Vacant lots on Harrisburg’s 6th Street will soon get a new building filled with some very old décor.

The state Department of General Services got the first stamp of approval for its new State Archives facility, a four-story, state-of-the-art structure that will also create a permanent home for Harrisburg’s record collections.

DGS representatives presented the preliminary land use proposal to the Harrisburg Planning Commission on Wednesday night. They plan to develop 2½ vacant acres on N. 6th Street between Harris and Hamilton streets with a modern, glass-and-brick structure, a public plaza and a below-ground parking area.

Although project leaders shared preliminary renderings at Wednesday’s public meeting, they refused to allow TheBurg to photograph them.

With unanimous approval from the commission, DGS will now seek approval from Harrisburg City Council.

DGS first announced plans to build the archives at 1681 N. 6th Street in 2016. The state hopes to put the project out to bid in spring 2019 and break ground in the summer, according to Daniel Vodzak, an architect at the Lemoyne-based firm Vitetta. He expects construction will last two years.

Much like the federal courthouse that broke ground last month, the long-awaited archives building is expected to spur development on Harrisburg’s struggling 6th Street corridor.

Harrisburg officials and history enthusiasts are also relieved that the city’s archives will have a safe, accessible home after languishing for years in substandard storage.

“This is a great win for the city,” Mayor Eric Papenfuse said. “We have all of these fragile, aging and decaying documents, and we want to put them in a place where they can be preserved.”

Harrisburg’s archives, which include death and tax records, city directories, historical photos and other memorabilia dating back to the early 19^th century, are currently stored in a mansion in Reservoir Park. They were housed in a Parking Authority office in Strawberry Square until the city privatized its parking assets in 2014.

When state officials announced their plans to build a new archive facility, Papenfuse lobbied for them to carve out space for Harrisburg’s collection.

He later convinced the Wolf administration to scrap plans to build the archive facility in Susquehanna Township and helped them select a parcel of vacant lots on 6th Street mostly owned by Susquehanna Township-based Vartan Group.

“This idea of putting the archives in a research park where they’re less accessible to the public didn’t sit well with me,” said Papenfuse, whose father served as the Maryland state archivist for 30 years.

Members of the public can’t access Harrisburg’s archives in the current location in Reservoir Park. The aging facility also isn’t climate-controlled, leaving the documents vulnerable to mold, moisture and temperature fluctuation.

“A lot of people don’t know the archives even exist,” said Calobe Jackson, Jr., a historian and lifelong Harrisburg resident.

Jackson hopes the new facility will encourage more residents to explore the city’s history.

“It’s necessary to increase the size, and I think combining the city archive with the state will be great for everyone,” Jackson told the Planning Commission last night.

The proposed archive building will feature a “self-service zone” where visitors can access digitized archives from the state and the city’s collections. Patrons can also view original records and artifacts in a separate, climate-controlled viewing room.

Preliminary renderings call for a modern, glass-box building with a concrete frame and brick siding. A solar shade atop the building will filter out sun, since UV light can degrade paper records.

The temperature and humidity in the facility must be precisely calibrated to preserve the aging paper records. The main storage facility will be windowless, but the reading rooms, processing rooms and staff offices will have natural light thanks to UV-resistant glass windows.

The extensive HVAC apparatus will be housed in an enclosed equipment courtyard outside. The campus will also feature a landscaped public plaza along 6th and Harris streets.

Harrisburg will retain ownership of its records when it transfers them to the new archives facility, but the memorandum of understanding it signed with the state historical office waives storage and management fees.

The city does not currently employ an archivist. Plans to hire one stalled when the city declared a hiring freeze earlier this summer.

But with an expected three years before the project is complete, Harrisburg will have plenty of time to prepare its archives for transfer, Papenfuse said.

The state archives are currently housed in a tower at 3rd and Forster streets on the grounds of the Pennsylvania State Museum. Andrea Lowery, executive director of the Pennsylvania Historic and Museum Commission, said that the state is conducting a feasibility study to decide how to reuse the structure.