FINANCE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL
CITY
HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD
WEDNESDAY,
SEPTEMBER 3, 2008
EXPENSE
SUBCOMMITTEE
8:00
P.M.
1. Finance Committee of Council’s Subcommittee to review Expenses opened at 8:00 P.M., with Mr. Fix and Mr. Sabatino present. Others present were Tim Hansley, Lynda Yartin, Phil Hartmann, Chris Schornack, Ed Drobina, Larry Jones, and others.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF August 20, 2008, Meeting. Mr. Sabatino moved to approve; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Fix and Mr. Sabatino voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 2-0.
3. SCHEDULED MATTERS:
Mr. Fix stated he would like to move Item 3.C. on tonight’s agenda for discussion at this time so Mr. Hartmann will not have to wait until the end of the meeting.
Review and discussion regarding Legal Department costs. Mr. Hartmann stated he had prepared a draft proposal that he distributed to the committee members. Mr. Hartmann further stated he had spoken to Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Hensley, and all council members about this at different times. He stated the draft proposal kept the retainer amount the same, but included additional items under the general retainer. Mr. Hartmann stated as he had discussed with Mr. Sabatino if there is work outside of the general area of the contract he did not have a problem putting a shall not exceed number on it. Mr. Sabatino stated he felt it would be helpful to have the cost of a potential activity up front so that would be helpful in deciding whether or not to do a project.
Mr. Fix stated the purpose of this committee is to see if there are ways to cut costs and he was assuming that this contract is something that Mr. Hartmann is working on with Mr. Hansley and at some point it will be submitted to Finance Committee and all of Council. Mr. Fix stated it appeared that maintaining the current retainer and adding other activities under the retainer is bound to save some money, but that is an undetermined amount. Mr. Fix stated the questions for this subcommittee is if our retainer is where it should be, and as discussed with the engineering process, are we better off continuing to outsource our legal activities or would we be better off to bring that in house. Mr. Hartmann stated when he gets the bill at the end of the month it only contains the raw time. He stated currently associates are billed at $180 per hour and partners at $220 per hour, and those are discounted rates for their office. Mr. Hartmann stated in 2007 there was a total of $42,000 written off, and this year to date the amount written off is $52,000. Mr. Fix stated then, if we were paying hourly, even at the discounted rate, we are coming out ahead. Mr. Hartmann stated that was correct. Mr. Fix stated based on that, it would seem the $15,000 monthly retainer is a good deal for the City. Mr. Fix stated then the second question of if we would be better off financially and in representation by bringing an attorney in-house as opposed to farming out our legal work to a firm. Mr. Sabatino stated he has never had any problem with the quality of work done by Schottenstein’s and they are one of the more prestigious firms in Columbus and along with that comes the commensurate rate to do business with them. He stated he would like to see the City not spend as much as we have in the past on legal fees and Mr. Hartmann has come up with some ideas about how we can accomplish that, such as making some of the additional services we have been paying for to be included in the retainer, as well as, looking at defining our costs going forward on new projects. Mr. Sabatino stated he did not feel that we should start all over again, and we are a City and we have complex needs for both legal and engineering services so the sweep of people available via a firm is probably at this time the most cost effective way to go. He stated if we went to an in-house attorney, it would come back to the same questions we had for the engineer, who was that person and what skills did they have. Mr. Sabatino stated he felt Schottenstein’s has made a good faith effort to try and be cognizant of the fact of the need of the City to get a grip on our expenses and he would not be in favor of looking at an in-house attorney at this time. Mr. Fix stated he also appreciated Schottenstein’s approach to the City and how they did business with us, and the fact that Mr. Hartmann has a group of lawyers in-house that he can consult with on issues is a benefit to him and a benefit to us. Mr. Fix stated he was firmly of the opinion we need to continue with a firm and he felt Schottenstein deserved to continue the contract but that was a conversation for Finance Committee. Mr. Fix stated he would like to thank Mr. Hartmann for his time this evening.
The Finance Expense Subcommittee recessed at 8:20 P.M. and reconvened in open session at 8:25 P.M.
A. Review and discussion regarding estimated savings by outsourcing the Urban Forestry activities. Mr. Fix stated the committee members had received a memorandum from Mr. Drobina and Mr. Schornack that summarized we would save roughly $60,000 per year if we cut urban forestry as discussed. He stated he had received an e-mail from the Mayor and he would ask that e-mail be attached to these minutes. Mr. Fix stated he did not feel he wanted to move forward at this point with something that would have a significantly negative public relations impact for a savings of $55,000 to $60,000. He stated if the income tax issue does not pass, a myriad of difficult decisions will need to be made, of which this will be one. Mr. Sabatino stated he agreed with Mr. Fix and if this is reviewed in the future he felt there were some issues with the draft language that had been provided. Mr. Fix stated he would like this item removed from the agenda at this time.
B. Review and discussion regarding outsourcing Building Department activities. Mr. Fix stated the committee had received a memorandum from Mr. Lane providing a rate of $55 per inspection from Asebrook and he has yet to hear from Schofield. Mr. Fix stated without knowing how much savings there would be by going this route, he did not know what could be done as yet. He stated he would ask Mr. Schornack to get with Mr. Lane and come up with an estimated 2009 savings based on doing it this way versus our current method. Mr. Sabatino stated he felt it might be more productive to invite both of these companies to make a presentation to this committee about any suggestions they might have and how we might get there. Mr. Fix stated this is what they had asked Mr. Lane to do and Mr. Sabatino stated Mr. Lane might not be asking the questions that would get the most favorable reply. Mr. Sabatino stated he would like to see a comprehensive overview of the functions these firms do, more than just a dollar per inspection. He stated he felt it would behoove us to ask the questions of these two companies, if they are the two that are positioned to provide these types of services, and if one is the one the Township uses now, he felt it might behoove us to ask them to provide us with a recommendation for how we could efficiently operate our building department. He stated that context is different than asking how much they will charge us per inspection. Mr. Fix stated he would suggest that Mr. Sabatino contact these two firms and have that conversation with them, and if he found they had answers that were worth bringing to the committee then we could schedule them to make a presentation. Mr. Fix stated this committee has reviewed the functions of the building department with Mr. Lane and the one thing that came out of that review was that there might be the possibility of getting our inspections done more cost effectively than is currently being done. He stated the committee had asked Mr. Lane to provide some numbers, which he had done, and now the question was how would this be better or worse than what we currently have and that is the answer he would like Mr. Lane and Mr. Schornack bring to the next meeting. Mr. Sabatino stated he did not have a problem with calling the two firms and asking them to provide him with commentary and then that commentary can be reviewed and if it looked like it might be worthwhile this committee could make that decision. Mr. Fix stated for the next meeting he would like the projected cost difference between what we currently have for inspections and what it would be with contracting them per inspection. Mr. Schornack stated he would get with Mr. Lane and when that information is completed he will send it electronically to all the committee members so they can review it.
C. Review and discussion regarding Legal Department costs. Mr. Fix stated this had been covered earlier in the meeting.
D. Review and discussion regarding projected revenue and expenses for 2009. Mr. Fix stated he had requested Mr. Schornack prepare a summary of all the activities this committee has reviewed. Mr. Fix stated at the next meeting the committee would continue the review of the engineering department and review the issue of the building department inspections. He stated they would also review the summary Mr. Schornack was preparing.
4. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Sabatino moved to adjourn; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Mr. Fix and Mr. Sabatino voted "Aye." Motion carried, 2-0. The Expense Subcommittee adjourned at 8:40 P.M., September 3, 2008.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
________________________________