FINANCE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL
CITY
HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD
WEDNESDAY,
JULY 16, 2008
EXPENSE
SUBCOMMITTEE
8:50
P.M.
1. Finance Committee of Council’s Subcommittee to review Expenses opened at 8:50 P.M., with Mr. Fix, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Sauer present. Others present were Cristie Hammond, Tim Hansley, Lynda Yartin, Linda Fersch, Chris Schornack, Ed Drobina, Brenda VanCleave, Paul Lane, Brett Thompson, Scott Parker, Larry Jones, and others.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF June 18, 2008, Meeting. Mr. Sabatino moved to approve; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Fix, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.
3. SCHEDULED MATTERS:
A. Review and discussion regarding Engineer, Law Director, Street Department, Development Department, Urban Forestry, and Administrative Support budgets. Mr. Fix stated he appreciated everyone’s patience with the longer than expected Finance Committee meeting tonight.
Mr. Fix stated they would begin review of the Building Department’s budget and he understood Mr. Sabatino had some comments he would like to make. Mr. Sabatino stated he had contacted Asebrook & Co., and they are a company that does this type of work in the Township and they work on a contracted basis. He stated our work in this area is a little different now than it was a couple of years ago and he felt that in addition to analyzing the way we are doing things now, he felt we should take a look at getting a proposal on how to accomplish the same thing. Mr. Fix clarified that the suggestion was that instead of having a building inspector this service be on a contractual basis. Mr. Sabatino stated he would like to have Mr. Hansley contact this company and see if they might want to offer some suggestions and see if it makes sense. He stated he did not know what the company could or could not do or what they might suggest, he just felt this would be an alternative we should look into. Mr. Fix stated in the building department’s budget there is a line item for $100,000 for building contract inspectors and questioned if that was similar to this type of service or what kind of services we were outsourcing now. Mr. Lane stated we are currently outsourcing the Certified Building Official (CBO) and plans review with Mr. Phillips and we are also outsourcing the electrical and plumbing inspections. Mr. Sabatino clarified that our building contract inspectors are paid per day and questioned if we have any analysis of how many inspections are done on a given day for both the electrical and plumbing inspections. Mr. Lane stated in the past two years have been fewer inspections than in the past several years. Mr. Lane stated in 2006 the cost was $30.00 per inspection and we paid $36,000 for electrical inspections. He stated in 2007 we paid $37,000 and that was based on paying per day rather than per inspection and that worked out to $165 per day or $55 per inspection. Mr. Lane stated when he was looking at different ways to contract the inspections he spoke to Groveport’s CBO, and the per day rate was recommended. Mr. Fix inquired if we scheduled several inspections per day or if we paid them so many days no matter what, and Mr. Lane stated we contract for so many days no matter what. Mr. Fix clarified we could pursue changing the way we do it now. Mr. Lane stated he likes the way we are doing it because his budget is set and the contract inspectors are happy with it. Mr. Fix clarified that regardless of the charges, outsourcing this service is working for us and there wouldn’t be an issue with looking at outsourcing other services of the building department. Mr. Sabatino stated he felt that when you have a contractor that is being paid a daily rate there might be some question as to whether or not they actually were an employee or a 1099 contractor. He stated typically contractors are paid either commission, by the job, or something along that line. Mr. Sabatino further clarified Mr. Lane had the law director review and approve the contracts with the CBO and the contract inspectors. Mr. Sabatino inquired if the amount we collect in fees offsets in totality the expenses incurred for the building contract inspectors, and Mr. Lane stated with this year’s numbers, probably not. Mr. Fix stated he would like everyone to understand that this subcommittee is reviewing all department budgets and are trying to understand better how the money goes out and how it comes in so we can try to see if there are ways to do what we do more efficiently, or choose not to do some of the things we do because they are not absolutely necessary. Mr. Fix stated then as he understood it, there are three possibilities with regard to inspections; we can do what we are doing now, we can get a proposal from Asebrook and anyone else in that line of business, and we can also have a conversation with the Township about having us be their contracted supplier. Mr. Fix stated the Committee would like staff to get a proposal from Asebrook and any other firms that are qualified to provide these services, to pursue that conversation with the Township about being their contracted provider for inspections or vice versa, and that the information be put on the agenda for the Expense Subcommittee agenda for August 20th for discussion.
Mr. Fix stated the next department for review would be the engineering department. Mr. Fix clarified that the building inspectors perform inspections on the infrastructure for subdivisions and for commercial projects. Mr. Fix summarized that the building department is responsible for what goes above the ground and the engineering inspectors are responsible for the streets, sidewalks, and what goes below the ground. Mr. Fix stated the general fund spends $61,000 for the outsourced engineer and another $40,000 for Category B services, and there are charges to other funds for the Category B services. Mr. Fix clarified that in 2007 we spent approximately $400,000 for Category B services and another $115,000 on the contract, and outside of that we spend funds on projects with Stilson. Mr. Fix stated it appeared we spent overall somewhere near $1,000,000 between projects, Category B, and retainer. He stated his concern was that if we were spending between $600,000 and $1,000,000 outsourcing engineering services, we could hire our own engineers for less money. Mr. Hansley stated since we renegotiated the engineer’s retainer contract we have saved major dollars. Mr. Fix stated he felt it was safe to say that we have spent over $1,000,000 on engineering, outsourced, for the past four or five years consecutively. He stated his question was if we would be in that same situation if we were to spend half of that on one or two engineers, and Mr. Sabatino stated he felt we would because of the areas of specialty. Mr. Sabatino stated he did not feel the City had enough of an on-going demand to have all of those “specialists” just sitting around. He continued he felt the way we have it now with having an in house engineer for the day-to-day types of things, and a contract engineer for when we need the depth of experience in different areas. Ms VanCleave stated it was her opinion that there will never be a time when we would not need outside engineering firms to help out, such as on large projects like the wastewater treatment plant. Mr. Fix stated his question was if we would be better off hiring someone as opposed to paying that retainer, knowing that there would still be outside projects that we would have to go to other engineers to do. Mrs. Hammond stated she thought the question was what would be the benefit to the city if we had a full time city engineer; would there be a significant amount of things that could be handled that fall under the area we are now paying for the retainer. Ms VanCleave stated we have a contract with Stilson to handle some of the day-to-day project management and that type of thing could be better spent on someone on staff, however, we would probably have to have some sort of a contract on an as needed basis to answer the technical questions that arise from the plans being developed. Mr. Hansley stated we would be discussing this later this year when working on the budget as well. Mrs. Hammond stated she did feel that we should entertain looking at having the city engineer be a staff position, and Mr. Sauer stated he would also like to see those numbers to see what the cost analysis was. Mr. Fix questioned if the subcommittee could have that analysis for the next meeting.
The Finance
Committee subcommittee recessed at 9:55 P.M. and reconvened in open session at
10:05 P.M.
The subcommittee reviewed the budgets for the Manager’s Administrative Support, Administrative Support, and Facilities Operations Administration with no questions.
Mr. Fix stated the next department for review would be Urban Forestry. Mr. Drobina stated Mr. McKinley of the Tree Commission was here earlier, and at the last Tree Commission meeting they passed a motion in support of urban forestry. Mr. Sabatino clarified that some of the costs for urban forestry are offset by the developers. Mr. Drobina clarified that trees do not get planted in the subdivisions until the house is built and the sod is down. Mr. Fix clarified that the City is responsible for the on-going upkeep of the street trees in the City. Mr. Sauer questioned if there were any other communities that took responsibility for the street trees in subdivisions. He stated the resident is responsible for mowing the grass in the tree lawn, for the maintenance of everything between the sidewalk and the curb, and is even responsible for the sidewalk. Mr. Hansley stated it is pretty normal for the city to maintain the street trees, however, the city could pass an ordinance putting that back on the property owner. Mr. Sauer stated that was where he was going for residential neighborhoods. Mr. Drobina stated currently the price the developer is paying for each tree is a little over $400 and if we would buy the tree and contract out having it planted, we would still have a little money left. Mr. Fix stated he would like to be convinced that we should keep urban forestry, and Mr. Drobina stated if it were decided not to fund urban forestry and Mr. Hansley stated we would have residents that are used to having the City maintain their trees complain. Mr. Drobina stated if we lose urban forestry we may lose a well-maintained tree program. Mr. Sauer questioned if it was possible to get some sort of an analysis to compare the cost of what we are paying to maintain the trees in-house as opposed to what it would cost to contract it out. Mr. Fix stated the trees in front of his home look great and are well maintained, and that is great. He stated he knew there was a value to this, but the question was if it was a necessary value. He further stated when asking the voters to fund us significantly more, we have to be able to say we have taken every single non-necessary function out of our budget, and if the income tax does not pass this fall, we will have to make cuts anyway. Mr. Fix stated he would ask Mr. Hansley to prepare the legislation that would shift the responsibility of maintaining trees to the citizens, and that we prepare a conversation for the entire Finance Committee on cutting urban forestry from the 2009 budget. Mr. Drobina stated our arborist also meets with developers when they are coming in to develop property to determine what trees should be kept and what can be removed in accordance with our tree preservation ordinance. Mrs. Hammond stated we may want to consider if the arborist could be a part-time position and still maintain the quality of our maintenance. Mrs. Hammond stated she felt it would be more appropriate to have a full discussion at the Finance Committee before preparing legislation. Mr. Sauer stated he would also like to see the cost of maintaining the trees in the City’s main corridors.
Mr. Fix stated the next department to be reviewed would be the Street Department. Mr. Sauer stated his question was if there was a cost benefit to the City if we would negotiate it jointly with the Township or Canal Winchester or whatever. Mr. Drobina stated he has spoken to Violet Township about trying to get our contracts to expire at about the same time, and we are presently paying about the same rate. Mr. Drobina stated it might have give us a small savings, and he would check into that further. Mr. Drobina stated the amount of salt we purchase will probably increase when Diley Road is complete as that is five lanes instead of two, and as more roads are added. Mr. Sauer further questioned if it would be possible to coordinate our street paving to coincide with when the Township is doing paving, and we contract together for that. Mr. Drobina stated there could be a cost savings and it is something he has been discussing as well. Mr. Sauer stated he was also curious as to the condition of our City’s fleet, such as the age, the mileage, each vehicle’s condition, etc. Mr. Drobina stated he does maintain those records and he would be happy to provide it to Mr. Sauer.
The subcommittee reviewed the budget for the Development Department and determined there were no questions on this budget for this year.
Mr. Fix stated the final budget to be reviewed was for the law director. Mr. Fix stated it has been suggested that perhaps one or two members of this committee have a conversation with our law director on how to structure their fee schedule in 2009 to be a little less expensive. He stated his question would be if we are getting a good deal on our retainer. Mr. Hansley stated we need to police ourselves better when we ask a question, ask if it is under the retainer and if it is not, determine if it is something we want answered at their hourly rate. Mr. Fix stated he believed everyone is fairly diligent about making sure the questions asked are under the retainer. He stated his question was if we were getting 100 hours a week on the retainer it is a good deal, if we are getting 12 hours a week on the retainer, it is not a good deal. Mr. Hansley stated then the committee would like some type of analysis on what we are getting each month. Mr. Hansley stated he felt Mr. Hartmann was pretty fair and does as much as he can under the retainer. Mr. Fix stated the question was similar to the engineer, would it make sense to hire a law director instead of outsourcing, do we spend enough time on all the questions that people ask that fills the retainer in a way that makes sense or are we paying too much. Mr. Fix stated as we prepare for the contract’s expiration, can we do an analysis to see if there is a better way to do the retainer and then Council can talk about going out for bids and talk to our current law firm to see if they can tighten it up.
Mr. Fix ascertained the subcommittee had reviewed the budgets for all the City’s departments. He stated at the next meeting the subcommittee would review the information that was requested this evening and any other items that have been requested at other meetings.
B. Review and discussion regarding projected revenue and expenses for 2009. Mr. Schornack stated he did not have that information this evening and he hoped to have it for the next meeting. Mr. Sauer clarified that this discussion would be to look at what we will do if the income tax increase does not pass.
4. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Sauer moved to adjourn; Mr. Sabatino seconded the motion. Mr. Fix, Mr. Sauer, and Mr. Sabatino voted "Aye." Motion carried, 3-0. The Expense Subcommittee adjourned at 11:10 P.M., July 16, 2008.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
________________________________