WEIRTON CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL MEETING - SPECIAL
FRIDAY MARCH 12, 2010 2:00 PM
A special meeting of the Common Council of the City of Weirton, Hancock and Brooke Counties, West Virginia was held on Friday, March 12, 2010 at 2:00 p.m. in Council Chambers of the Weirton City Building.
Mayor Harris called the meeting to order.
Councilmembers in Attendance: George Ash Councilmember Ward 4 Ronnie Jones Councilmember Ward 1 Fred Marsh Councilmember Ward 3 Harold Miller Councilmember Ward 2 David Dalrymple Councilmember Ward 6 Max Fijewski Councilmember Ward 7 George Kondik Councilmember Ward 5
City Officials in Attendance: Gary DuFour City Manager Thomas J. Maher, Jr. Finance Director A.D. Mastrantoni Water/Sanitary
Mayor Harris led everyone in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. A motion to allow citizen’s comments was made by Councilman Ash, second by Councilman Fijewski. The motion passed by majority, 7/0.
CITIZENS COMMENTS
A.D. Mastrantoni 3% Increase
Mr. Mastrantoni stated, “I rise today not as the utilities director, but as a private citizen. I understood that on today’s agenda, Councilman Kondik placed a possible raise for our city employees. The council has done amiably in the past of taking whatever funds it has and investing in the equipment in needs to do its job in the best fashion that it could, but one of the greatest assets that we have are our people. If we continue to buy all the gadgets we need to get those jobs done, at the end of the day we have just a collection of gadgets unless you invest in the asset that brings those gadgets the benefit that those gadgets to fruition. You have licensed, trained, very good people. I’m seeing a trend from where I sit of people leaving as a result of just the forces in the economy. I would ask that the council their support to the community by investigating in its greatest asset, investing back into it’s community. Just hearing from a resident, I think that you should show support to our employees.”
NEW BUSINESS
1. Ordinance establishing and fixing rates, fees, and charges of the Municipal Sanitary Board of the City of Weirton, West Virginia (City Manager)
A motion was made by Councilman Jones, second by Councilman Miller. The Mayor stated that a representative from Griffith and Associates was on the phone for a conference call. Councilman Fijewski stated, “I submitted my comments to councilmen a while back. I would just like to make a few quick points, and then we can move on. It’s been stated in the paper that this increase is quote bare bones, end quote. The truth of the matter is I count is $404, 377 a year from the citizens if this passes, moving from $3.00 a month to $5.70 is a 90% increase in rates. In terms of bare bones, we are required by bonds to have 115% threshold as stated in documents provided to use by the sanitary board. If you look at the financial information it is for the period ending June 2009. If you also look at the information they provided us we pay off the bonds July 1 of 2010. With those bonds being paid off which is only 3 months away, we will have an additional $30,000 a year which is not accounted for in the original documents we received. While I think we are all in favor of the pay increase for everyone, considering a 3% raise here very shortly, the pro forma which was given to us provides a 5% increase to the sanitary individuals. If you also notice in the pro forma, there was a significant change and that is the removal of non-operating revenue for purposes of determining the 115%. Last year, $280, 740 was considered part of that. The assumption to us takes out all non-operating revenue and assumes that money will be received. That is extremely significant. As you may have soon the document ended June, 2009, it shows a reserve amount of $696,017. My expectations are that was 09. I’m sure that number right now is closer to $700,000. The last time we had a work shop on this we asked about the ability to potentially tap in to that if emergency required it. We were told we were allowed to do that. We told that we had to maintain the number that was given to us, $255,000. Lastly, if you look at the pro forma, the going level required under the R&R is $51,667. Should this increase be passed, that will be increased $10,000.61. Based upon all of that I am in agreement that there is a great increase that is needed and I have no problem voting for that. I am also anticipating that this will probably end up under the PSC or even later or legal matter so I want to go on record and state that I have no problem with the rate increase. I will be than willing to support one, but for the points that I have made I can’t support one that is being presented to us today. Thank you.” Councilman Jones stated, ”I think it’s really irresponsible for us to set the rates because we need the funds. It comes out to about $2.70 up $.09 per day. We had a professional accountant tell us what we need. You set this as low as you could go so that it could get by. I don’t think $.09 a day is that much.” The Mayor stated, “The number they (Griffith and Associates) gave us was bare bones minimum. I don’t know what else to say. I’m not an accountant.” Councilman Fijewski stated, “I would just take exception. I don’t recall Griffith saying it was bare bones minimum. That was quoted in the newspaper.” Mr. Narage, representative from Griffith and Associates stated, “Well you have, based on the pro forma number 1 scenario you really want to have a final cash surplus of $137,000. In compared to revenue published $2.5 million, that’s really minimal. If it’s not bare bones then it’s close to it. There’s not a lot of (?) type with $137,000 surplus.” Councilman Fijewski stated that at the work shop he questioned what was the minimum amount that would be required to meet the 115% bond requirement and that if he recalled correctly he was told $.30. Mr. Narage stated, “There’s something you have to keep in mind with that that coverage number, 254.62%. That is a comparison of cash available for debt service which is indicated by the letter A of $649,986 divided by the principal and interest on your outstanding loans which is $255,274. That calculation gives you the 254.62%. Now on the comment earlier that that was excessive because minimum coverage was 115%, you have to keep in mind that doesn’t take into consideration the money for loans payable ($30,164) which I understand pays off soon, but it also doesn’t consider debt service requirements of $87,000 for the (?) of $140,000. So if you were actually looking for a ratio, a revenue to revenue requirement and took all of those numbers in to consideration, your factor would be 126%. That’s basically the $645,000 divided by all of those other factors. Your bond holder may look at your cash flow, they want to see that number at 115% or higher, but it’s only the available cash divided by principal and interest so really there’s not you know the difference between 254% and 115% that’s extra money. It’s there, but it’s to cover all of the other requirements. You can have a positive debt service coverage and a negative cash flow. We could lower that $5.70 but it would give a negative cash flow, and for CPA coverage you have to have the 115% plus a positive cash flow. So we can lower the $5.70, but you have to keep that in mind. So to get that down to a positive cash flow, you’re not going to be able to go too far down.” Councilman Fijewski stated, “There was some confusion, at least between Councilman Jones and myself, on the document we received on December 2, 2009 it shows a five year plan of elimination of pump stations at Valley Way Circle, South Circle and Joseph Blvd. I wasn’t quite clear as to whether that was or was not part of this increase.” Mr. Mastrantoni stated that that five year plan is not in the $2.70 it was in the other option that was provided to council. Councilman Fijewski stated, “Based upon what we saw in the paper yesterday, disturbing as it was, we’re going to be back here I would anticipate if the figures that were put in the paper yesterday were anywhere close, we’re going to be back here in a very short period of time being asked to raise the rates significantly for whatever needs to be done for that. Now I know nothing has been finalized for that, but at least based upon what I read in the paper yesterday we’re looking at a situation for potential raise increase today and I think that these people are end up going to more for their sewer rates and less going in to their pockets, and I just ask that we all keep that in mind.”
A roll call vote was asked for by the Mayor:
Councilman Ash- No Councilman Jones- Yes Councilman Marsh- No Councilman Miller- Yes Councilman Dalrymple- Yes Councilman Fijewski- No Councilman Kondik- Yes
The motion passed by majority, 4/3.
2. Ordinance modifying Ordinance No. 1313, as amended, establishing new minimum and maximum salaries of municipal employees of various departments within the City of Weirton general fund. (Mayor) A motion was made by Councilman Jones, second by Councilman Ash. Councilman Ash stated, “Mayor if you look at the list of the positions that’s here, there are a lot of positions that are not filled and at this time I would like to make the amendment that these positions are totally eliminated for any consideration at any time. Development director, we don’t have one. City planner, UDO Administrator, Housing Resource Planner, Rehab Coordinator, Building Inspector, Parts Person, and I believe dispatch. So there’s eight positions I would like to have eliminated from this list and any future list.” A motion was made by Councilman Ash to modify the original Ordinance, second by Councilman Marsh.
A roll call for the amendment was asked for by the Mayor:
Councilman Kondik- No Councilman Fijewski- Yes Councilman Dalrymple- No Councilman Miller- Yes Councilman Marsh- Yes Councilman Jones- Yes Councilman Ash- Yes
The motion passed on the amendment by majority, 5/2.
Councilman Fijewski stated, “Quite frankly I don’t know what we’re doing here today. The effective date of this Ordinance is July 1st. Why we have to have an emergency reading to consider this, I don’t know. Council wasn’t even notified about this until Monday. What’s also troubling to me is that at the end of our second workshop Council had concerning the budget, many councilman inquired about the fact that we wanted to give a pay raise, and we wanted to find out at that time if we had the resources in the budget to do that. My recollection is that we were being told we didn’t know what we were going to get out of the… revenue, potentially we were going to lose a lot of money. Two, that there was going to be a taxation of the money that we didn’t know what we were going to get so we had to be very careful about making any decisions until the budget process was complete. Well the budget process was completed. No one ever came back to me as a councilman to say by the way guys we have $130,000 to do what you requested, so could have put forth an ordinance and had it proceed in an orderly fashion. The fact that it comes up the way it did, it comes up in a special session instead of a regular session where the public gets more advanced notice than the five days. Personally, I’m going to vote for it, but that’s not the issue in my mind. The issue is that it’s being pushed through like this and I think that’s totally inappropriate. Council wanted to do this and council asked for the information to find out how much we had to do it. For whatever reason, I didn’t get that information. I just think that it’s unfortunate that we have a special session to deal with this. I hope in the future, we were notified two days ago that we were going to have a workshop to talk about parking lots but we’re not going to have a workshop to talk about pay raises. I find that dichotomy just unbelievable to understand. I just wanted to share with the audience that if members of the workforce for the city had any idea that somehow the majority of council was against this, I wanted to share with you the background to let you know the real facts and that if there may be one individual spear-heading this and thinking that that came from that individual, I want to correct that assumption. That’s totally inaccurate, and I still feel strongly that this should go through the normal process and that we should have had ample opportunity to sit down and talk about it. Who knows, we could have done 4%, I don’t know. No one told me how much money we had or what we could or could not afford.” The Mayor asked the finance director if the city could afford a 4% pay raise. Mr. Maher stated, “Not at this time.” Councilman Ash asked the finance director if the city could afford the pay raises. Mr. Maher stated, “You could afford these pay raises for two years, possible three at which time you will need to look at cutting expenses or looking at revenue sources.” Councilman Marsh inquired how the city was going to fund the raises. Mr. Maher stated, “You have the stabilization fund which is resting with $670,000 this year. You also operating with your contingency fund at approximately $421,000. There is also the decrease in the public employee retirement system, there is some relief after the initial impact of the 6% that was made from the 11% to 17% in which case it is now a 1.5% increase to 12.5% for the initial year. They’re going to take that up gradually. Over all, over this period of the year, it will cost us more money however this was the decision that was either way outside of our power. That was a change after our budgetary process, so we didn’t anticipate that increase, that impact in the budget.” Councilman Fijewski stated, “Tom the financial stabilization fund did not significantly change as a result of the budgetary process. Also the invest account, at the conclusion of last council meeting we had roughly 2.3 million dollars. That is the same thing prior to the budget meeting as it is today. So those two would be the major areas that we would get the money for this. Not of that significantly changed as a result of that. Again, I don’t know why we as council weren’t told that we had this money to give the increases when we initially asked whether give an increase to the employees and do it through the budgetary process.” A roll for the amended ordinance was asked for by the Mayor:
Councilman Jones- Yes Councilman Marsh- Yes Councilman Miller- Yes Councilman Dalrymple- Yes Councilman Fijewski- Yes Councilman Kondik- Yes Councilman Ash- Yes
The motion passed by majority, 7/0.
3. Ordinance modifying Ordinance No. 1313, as amended, by establishing new salaries of employees who are members of the Weirton Municipal Employees Union (WMEU), and authorizing the City Manager to sign contracts necessary to place these changes into effect. (Mayor) A motion was made by Councilman Marsh, second by Councilman Miller. Councilman Miller stated, “I agree with Councilman Fijewski that not a lot of us were advised about where the funds were to come from. We were promised we have enough for two years and beyond that we weren’t sure. I have for a number of years also questioned autonomous boards’ ability to support themselves. We always take the water and sanitary to task, that they go out and bill for their services and we approve it, no harm no foul. But every year we’re up to about $800,000 that we support the park board and library that comes from general funds. I would suggest that those two autonomous boards get very serious over the next two years and look at means to support themselves 90% or make some changes in the operations, and there’s $800,000 to the general fund where we can support the services through providing the safety and security of our community like we have for years. I think those other autonomous boards better get serious about 100% support on them.” Councilman Kondik stated, “This is my third vote for pay increases, back in 01, 05, and now in the year 2010 and I was unaware of this, but I did take the time and spend with Tom Maher to find out where exactly we’re getting the money. As I look back in 01 and 05 we had 13 million dollar budget and 11 million dollar budget. We always spent money, a line item here and a line item there. Back then we didn’t spend that money. If we have to next year, we won’t spend that money in a different line item to protect our employees. That’s why I’m in favor for this.” Councilman Ash stated, “I would suggest that the next municipal election that we put up for vote a levy on the park board. I’m not making a motion this is just a suggestion. I think the park board should take a look at this very seriously.” A roll call vote was asked for by the Mayor:
Councilman Marsh- Yes Councilman Miller- Yes Councilman Dalrymple- Yes Councilman Fijewski- Yes Councilman Kondik- Yes Councilman Ash- Yes Councilman Jones- Yes
The motion passed by majority, 7/0.
4. Ordinance modifying Ordinance No. 1313, as amended, establishing new salaries for policemen who are members of the Fraternal Order of Police and for firemen who are members of the Weirton Firefighters Association, and authorizing the City Manager to sign contracts necessary to place those changes into effect. (Mayor) A motion was made by Councilman Ash, second by Councilman Fijewski.
A roll call vote was asked for by the Mayor:
Councilman Miller- Yes Councilman Dalrymple- Yes Councilman Fijewski- Yes Councilman Kondik- Yes Councilman Ash- Yes Councilman Jones- Yes Councilman Marsh- Yes
The motion passed by majority, 7/0.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business before this March 12, 2010 special session of the Weirton City Council the meeting was adjourned after the closing prayer.
|