PICKERINGTON CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY,
DECEMBER 27, 2005
CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD
COUNCIL WORK SESSION
REGARDING 2006 BUDGET
6:30
P.M.
1. ROLL CALL. Mayor Shaver called the work session to order at 6:30 P.M., with Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Wright, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Parker, Mr. Wisniewski, and Mayor Shaver present. Mr. Sabatino arrived at 6:32 P.M. Mr. O’Brien was absent. Others present were: Judy Gilleland, Lynda Yartin, Linda Fersch, Ed Drobina, Jeff Fix, Keith Smith, Christie Hammond, David Owens, Patti Wigington, Sean Casey, Dennis Schwallie, and others.
2. Review and discussion regarding proposed 2006 Budget. Mayor Shaver stated this meeting was called by Council to review and discuss the proposed 2006 Budget. Mayor Shaver stated Mrs. Fersch and Ms Gilleland are present to answer any questions that individuals may have concerning the budget.
Mr. Wisniewski stated after looking at the line item budget he is a little confused about some of the wages in the water and sewer funds, as it seems they are all over the board. Mrs. Fersch stated we have looked at individual’s work and have tried to put how much of their time is spent in particular areas. Mr. Wisniewski clarified this is mostly between the water and sewer funds. Mrs. Fersch stated salaries are split among the various funds instead of all coming out of the General Fund. Ms Gilleland stated the ultimate goal is to get it to where we think it is appropriate and follow that year after year so there are not dramatic changes. She stated, however, projects change so there will be shifts from year to year, but we try to do a good job as far as the staffing so Council will know who are the full time employees of the departments. Ms Gilleland stated there are various methods for the various funds to be charged for both administrative time and overhead. She stated the General Fund, the Sewer Fund, the Water Fund, and the Police Fund are the large funds that are charged for personnel. She stated you can reimburse the funds or charge the funds directly, and it is the State Auditor’s recommendation to charge the funds directly. Mrs. Fersch stated she and Ms Gilleland had also contacted other communities and they also pay people directly from the fund as it is a better tracking method.
Mr. Wisniewski stated there was a large increase in the professional services category of the Water Fund and Mr. Drobina stated that category is used when we need to have a pump worked on, electrical work, anything we hire someone from outside to do. Mr. Drobina stated he had based the figure in the budget on past history and, for example, as the pumps are getting older, we may need to have more work on them.
Mr. Wisniewski stated as he reviewed the budget he looked at the big ticket items, but when he started looking at the line items it appeared they were going up a great deal. He stated it seemed like we were expending a lot more money than we expected to bring in and he found that very troubling. Mayor Shaver pointed out that we have not raised our utility rates since 1992 and 1993, so our utility rates have not kept pace with inflation, yet we need to take care of everything with increased costs.
Mr. Wisniewski stated his next questions dealt with Land and Buildings and Building Regulations. Mrs. Fersch clarified the cost in Land and Buildings is for the network lease of the phone system as we upgraded our system. Mr. Wisniewski further clarified the CMI maintenance cost is for support for finance applications and payroll. Mrs. Fersch stated that also includes the hardware as well as the support.
Mr. Wisniewski stated there was $100,000 on the contingency for legal/annexation/economic development, but it seemed that it was part of the budget also. He questioned if that should have been zeroed out in the budget or if it was an additional cost. Mrs. Fersch clarified that was an additional $100,000 on the contingency because we did not know how much the annexation cases would cost us. Mr. Sabatino stated then, as he understood it, the $100,000 on the budget is correct as well as the $100,000 on the contingency list. Ms Gilleland stated that was correct, we were just trying to ensure that we had some sort of estimate of what we might need for the annexation cases.
Mr. Sabatino stated on the legal budget breakdown, there seems to be a big change from the activity in 2003 and 2004 to the activity in 2005, and there are some things that did not have activity in 2003 ort 2004, but show substantial amounts for 2005. He stated he would like Ms Gilleland to elaborate on what they represent. He stated his first question dealt with 101.709.53422 which had no activity in 2003 or 2004, but showed $278,000 in 2005, and $240,000 in 2006. Ms Gilleland stated general legal counsel would have been the salary portion in 2003 and 2004, and that was contracted out in 2005, as we did not have an employee on staff. Mr. Sabatino further stated another new category of activity was litigation legal counsel, and Mrs. Fersch stated we had Schottenstein separate things because we felt we needed to see which were general questions for the day-to-day business as opposed to litigation of suits. Mr. Sabatino stated there seems to be increased activity in FOP legal services and Mrs. Fersch stated we had a case that went to arbitration for one of the police officers, and we also had legal services for the FOP contract negotiations. Mr. Sabatino stated his next area of concern is the subtotal for the professional services. He stated if you added 2003 and 2004 together you had $449,000 and if you add 2005 and 2006 projected, you have $1,047,000. He stated that seemed like a very large difference in those figures. Mr. Wisniewski stated we have all the law suits, all the annexation cases, and there is a lot of stuff going on, and we are definitely not out of the woods on legal issues.
Mr. Wisniewski stated as he understood it, the note issue that is on Council floor to combine eight issues is a one year note to get us into next year and then we will have to split out the utility portion of that if we are going to roll it into a bond. Mr. Schwallie stated that was correct.
Mr. Wright questioned what the standard contract amount was for Schottenstein’s services. Ms Gilleland stated we did not contract with them in 2005. Mr. Wright stated he thought we were paying a certain amount a month, and Mayor Shaver stated they had offered to do that but Council did not want to enter into a contract with any law firm, but go through the search process. Mr. Wisniewski stated he thought we were under a $20,000 per month agreement with Schottenstein. Mr. Wright stated he was very much under the impression we had some type of agreement with Schottenstein. Ms Gilleland stated law firms are willing to negotiate for a certain amount if they are given a one or two year contract. She stated with her dealing with them on a month-to-month basis, and not knowing their future, they are not willing to reduce the rate or what have you. She stated Schottenstein has done just that, however, and the amount they came up with was $20,000 per month. She stated they are not going to guarantee anything to her until Council agrees on some sort of long term contract.
Mr. Wright ascertained the amount dealing with the impact fees was arrived at based on an estimated 175 homes next year, and we know per home what the fees are. Mr. Wright further ascertained that last year we had 284 homes, so the 175 is a conservative estimate and does take into consideration the nationwide slow down in housing start ups. Mr. Wright also clarified that next year we will have some type of analysis to make sure we are not losing residential because we have an impact fee and the surrounding areas do not. Ms Gilleland stated this is something that we will be monitoring very closely.
Mr. Sabatino inquired what the hourly rate we were paying for legal services was, and Mrs. Fersch stated different individuals have different wages. Mr. Sabatino inquired how Ms Gilleland arrived at the $459,000 figure and Ms Gilleland stated the line item breakout for legal services shows what is estimated for general legal, appraisal fees, legal assistance, etc. Mr. Sabatino stated what he was trying to get at was what the $20,000 a month gets us from Schottenstein. Mrs. Fersch stated right now, based on their hourly rate, the November bill would be $30,000, and after speaking to Ms Gilleland they were billing $20,000. Ms Gilleland stated she would get an hourly rate for Mr. Sabatino. Ms Gilleland stated the detailed billing is provided to Finance Committee, however, she would provide copies to all of Council.
Mr. Wisniewski clarified if we leave the budget as it is, can we just reallocate funds if we need to, and Mrs. Fersch stated we can move money around in the fund. Mr. Wisniewski stated he had requested that $40,000 be removed from the Public Information Officer and $30,000 reallocated to the Police Department and $10,000 reallocated to the Municipal Clerk for a Deputy Clerk. Ms Gilleland stated those changes were provided to Council and it would require an amendment on Council floor.
3. ADJOURNMENT: There being nothing further, the work session closed at 7:28 P.M., December 27, 2005.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
__________________________________
ATTEST:
___________________________________