Luzerne County Council still faces budget decisions

There is less trepidation heading into Luzerne County Council’s 2022 budget adoption Tuesday because a real estate tax increase is not proposed, but there are still differing opinions on how the $157.8 million should be allocated.

A major pending decision is the allocation for elections.

The proposed budget seeks $1.48 million to cover election bureau expenses, or an increase of $647,344.

Council wanted more explanation on the increased expenses before voting on Councilman Walter Griffith’s proposal to cut $308,242 in a contractual services category and $10,000 in a salary line that would impact creation of one of two new requested positions.

The administration responded Friday with a detailed report that compared election spending on various items under scrutiny, including contracts, supplies, poll workers and overtime.

Its finding: the county actually spent $1.156 million in 2020, or $27,455 more than the $1.13 million proposed for the same items in 2022. This year’s spending on the items through Dec. 8 was $1.08 million, although more bills may be outstanding.

The difference: the county was able to reduce the impact on the general fund operating budget in 2020 with $739,674 in grants, including $477,198 in Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act funding, the administration said.

The county also received $230,247 in grants to offset the general fund impact this year.

The administration is assuming no new grants will be awarded to cover election expenses in 2022, its communication said.

Creation of a non-union election operations staffer and union administrative assistant would boost the staff from six to eight employees.

$1 million for roads

Another proposed budget amendment focuses on use of funds in the reserve.

The reserve in the proposed 2022 budget was boosted from $250,000 to approximately $1.26 million, mainly because a council majority decided to use $924,000 in federal American Rescue Plan funding to cover the county’s public transportation allocations next year.

Council Chairman Tim McGinley has proposed moving $1 million from the reserve to the road and bridge department to fund road repairs, pointing out citizens have been complaining about deteriorated roadways.

Councilman Harry Haas said the money should stay put in case the county needs it next year, and he emphasized McGinley had not supported the American Rescue transfer that made the funds available in the first place.

McGinley said later his lack of support for the initial transfer is irrelevant to the question of whether the money should remain untouched or used for roads.

A council majority agreed to hold off until the operational services division informs council which road or roads will be fixed with the $1 million.

County Acting Manager Romilda Crocamo subsequently informed council that county Engineer Lawrence Plesh proposed three options for the $1 million based on a road assessment priority list:

• Repair a portion of the highest-priority road — Main Road in Hunlock and Ross townships. The total estimated cost to address the 7.7-mile stretch is $2.9 million.

• Spend the funds to fully complete a less expensive project high on the priority list, such as the 2.75-mile Blytheburn Road in Rice, Dorrance and Slocum townships or the 2.3-mile Orange Road in Franklin Township.

• Address the worst sections of the highest priority roads.

Crocamo noted the administration would have to contact municipalities to determine if they are willing to take over repaired roads — a condition that has been a priority for both the administration and council.

Councilwoman Linda McClosky Houck subsequently proposed a different amendment to transfer the $1 million from the reserve to the capital fund so council would have discretion over how the money is spent. The manager oversees the road and bridge department allocation, she said.

McGinley said he does not support this option because amending the capital plan is a cumbersome process with no guarantee a future council majority will agree to spend the $1 million on roads.

First assistant solicitor funding

Crocamo notified council in October she was eliminating a $40,000-a-year part-time solicitor position to create the new $75,000 part-time first assistant, resulting in a net additional cost of $35,000.

The new position is warranted because the office’s workload has increased significantly in recent years, she has said.

She has funding to cover the position through the end of this year and has requested funding to keep the position in the 2022 budget.

Part-time assistant solicitor Vito DeLuca was promoted to the first assistant solicitor position.

Councilman Stephen J. Urban has proposed a budget amendment to cut the additional $35,000 from the budget.

In his submission, Urban said it would “be more cost effective and make more sense to give the additional duties to a full-time solicitor with additional compensation.”

Part-time assistant solicitors work 32.5 hours per week, the administration said. Full-timers cannot participate in outside legal practice.

Administration requests

The county administration also has proposed some budget alterations that may or may not be taken up by council.

According to the agenda for Tuesday’s meeting, they include:

• Prison food

County Correctional Services Division Head Mark Rockovich submitted a request, which has not yet been discussed by council, to increase the prison food budget by $100,000.

The proposed budget kept the allocation at $965,000 — $705,000 for the prison and $260,000 for the minimal offenders building.

Rockovich said this allocation only recently became an issue because bids reflected a “steep increase” in many food items regularly purchased by the prison.

”We have also experiences difficulty in obtaining many products due to supply chain issues, which in turn has caused us to be very limited in food stock inside the facility,” Rockovich wrote.

• Coroner’s office expenses

The coroner’s office said it needs $80,000 more for forensic examinations, which would bring that budget allocation to $280,000.

Another request seeks $10,000 more for toxicology expenses in addition to a $10,000 increase already included in the proposed budget, which would bring the total allocation to $100,000.

Both requests were based on actual expenses from 2020 and 2021, the administration said.

The administration is not formally asking council to add staff in the coroner’s office.

Crocamo told council she eliminated Coroner Francis Hacken’s additional staffing request from her proposed budget as part of her decision to avoid seeking a tax hike that a council majority appeared to be unwilling to pass.

Hacken had presented statistics to demonstrate his office is busier than ever and in need of two new field investigators that would each receive $32,000 plus benefits. Judicial Services and Records Division Head Joan Hoggarth had told council Hacken’s request was a “desperate plea for help.”

No council members have proposed a budget amendment to add coroner’s office staff.

• Insurance

The administration asked council to increase the liability/casualty insurance allocation by $22,050, to a new $1.33 million, and provide another $3,200 to cover auto insurance, which would total $132,016 if the revised earmark is approved.

Crocamo said the updated requests are based on more precise information from the insurance broker that was not available when the proposed budget was presented in October.

Approved to date

Some matters already have been decided through recent budget amendment votes.

Raises for non-union workers are one example.

Griffith ended up withdrawing a proposal last week that would have cut spending on raises by 10% after the administration presented a cost breakdown and the percentages that he said were not “out of order.”

In total, non-union raises will cost $335,596, but $76,600 is covered by outside funding sources.

The average raises and costs by category: court branch, 2%, $118,728; departments under the county manager, 1.7%, $109,142; district attorney’s office, 2.6%, $27,461; controller’s office, 2.6%, $3,665; and agencies/offices primarily or fully funded by outside sources, $1.6%, $76,600.

Council voted separately on a raise for the clerk it supervises. The original proposal was 3%. Griffith proposed 2%, citing the amounts allocated for other non-union employees. A council majority ended up approving a 2.6% increase for the clerk.

Among other decisions already reached, a council majority decided to keep the administration’s $2.06 million funding request for the Information Technology department, which contains a $610,000 increase to cover additional costs, including three new positions.

Tuesday’s council meeting starts at 6 p.m. in the courthouse on River Street in Wilkes-Barre. A link to attend the meeting remotely is posted under council’s online meetings section at luzernecounty.org.