WORTHINGTON -- A special 7 a.m. meeting Friday had the Worthington City Council facing four members of the Nobles County Board of Commissioners in an attempt to resolve issues over a shared contract for prosecution services.
Contract talks have gone back and forth between the two entities since the county acted in late February to terminate the agreement with the city effective Feb. 28, 2009. The basis for termination is that the county has had to outsource some of its caseload, at a rate of $140 per hour, because of a staff shortage in the county attorney's office.
Since the existing contract was established in 2003, the city has paid 25 percent of the county attorney's total budget in exchange for the department's work on city cases. That means the city's share has also covered 25 percent of the hourly rate paid to attorney Joel Wiltrout, who agreed to take on the excess caseload.
In the county's latest offer, it wants the city to increase its portion of the funding to 30 percent, despite information from County Attorney Gordon Moore's statements that the city workload takes up about one-quarter of his staff's time.
Four of Nobles County's five commissioners were invited to Friday's meeting -- Norm Gallagher, Vern Leistico, Marv Zylstra and David Benson.
ADVERTISEMENT
"We wanted to invite the commissioners that represent parts of Worthington, no slight to Diane (Thier), but we wanted to visit with those that do," said Mayor Alan Oberloh.
One of the first questions from the city was the sincerity of the county to establish a new contract. Alderman Lyle Ten Haken pointed out that the county voted in February to terminate the contract.
"I don't think the partnership was ever an issue," responded Commissioner Marv Zylstra. "I think everyone on the board agreed that it was a relationship we need to continue."
Ultimately, what it comes down to is whether the city and the county can find common ground regarding what share of the county attorney office's budget is the responsibility of the city.
"We haven't seen any heavy data ... that there's a justification for going from 25 to 30 percent," said Alderman Ron Wood.
His comment led to a discussion on the need to conduct a time study in the office. Having employees keep track of their time spent on city versus county work over the course of a year would give both city and county leaders a good basis for the next contract.
"You run the risk, too, that we ought to be paying 20 percent or 19 percent," said Wood.
While the time study would help in figuring what share of the budget should be paid for by the city, Moore was concerned about the time and effort it would take in an already maxed-out office.
ADVERTISEMENT
"Timekeeping is the lawyer's worst nightmare," said Moore. "I just see it as adding a whole layer of bureaucracy on top of what we've got now."
If a time study were to be completed, Moore suggested the entities set a three-year contract and conduct the time study during the second year. That information could then be used to renegotiate the next contract. He encouraged the city and county to maintain the prosecution contract, and reiterated that the contract's approval calls for the hiring of a fifth attorney and a part-time support staff position.
"I think there is great economies of scale of us staying with this," said Wood. "If we go into the business, too, we're going to be recruiting the same attorneys that you're recruiting."
"I think the citizens need to be aware that we're still operating under a very efficient system here," Ten Haken said. "It's not so much fighting over the dollars, but doing a good job of combining ourselves together to spend the tax dollars wisely."
Oberloh said the county's latest offer -- a three-year contract with the city covering 30 percent of the $743,285 budget -- puts the ball back in the city's hands. He said the city will meet to further discuss the issue before responding to the county's proposal.
