Marietta City Council rejected skipping the third reading of a 2025 Marietta Municipal Court related budget ordinance Thursday and some members expressed their objections to the budget.

Council performed the second reading of Ordinance No. 131 (24-25), which sets the amounts to be provided from different funds, including the general fund, for the 2025 budget for the Marietta Municipal Court. In the ordinance the amount the court would receive from the general fund for 2025 is $1,138,371.

The breakdown of the general fund appropriations to the municipal court includes: salaries and wages $603,694; Medicare $8,832; health insurance $284,618; life insurance $453; retirement (OPERS) $109,546; workers compensation $12,182; personnel benefits $17,652; contractual services $3,155; communications-phone $18,280; communications-internet $2,530; professional services $10,000; maintenance of equipment/facilities $7,744; insurance/bonding $15,700; miscellaneous contractual service $3,000; office supplies $5,000; repair and maintenance fleet $985; other $35,000.

The 2025 general fund amount for the municipal court budget is $185,899, or approximately 19.5% higher, than the amended amount for 2024, which was $952,472. The biggest increase was for salaries and wages, which is$136,034 or approximately 29.088%; the amended amount for 2024 from the general fund to the court for salaries and wages is $467,660, while the amount listed for 2025 in Ordinacne No. 131 (24-25) is $603,694.

According to the ordinance, the municipal court gets the money for its budget from several others places, funds and some grants, with that amount totaling $831,091 in the ordinance.

Ward 1 Councilman Michael Scales made a motion, which was seconded by At-Large Councilman Ben Rutherford, to suspend the rules and dispense with the third reading of the ordinance. Council voted 5-2 to reject the motion, with only Ward 3 Councilman Bill Gossett and Rutheford voting yes.

A third reading of the ordinance was not conducted at Thursday’s meeting, and before the vote took place on the motion to suspend, Scales spoke about the court’s budget and some concerns he has regarding it.

Scales said he talked to the city auditor and the city director of budget and purchasing about the legality of putting the court budget in a separate fund by itself, including the court’s revenue.

He also explained the way city council funds the court basically by subsidizing the amount the court needs for its budget if it doesn’t make enough through its own revenues. He said this is required by the Ohio Revised Code.

The amount council came up with for the general fund budget for 2025 was approximately $13,700,000, according to Scales, and council told city departments to keep their budget requests within that amount.

“However the court came up and they want $182,000 more than however it worked,” Scales said. “But last year we started out at a deficit of $809,000. This year, even though we’ve worked very diligently to try to have the general fund back in the black, with what the court wants, we are going to be at (an approximately) $180,000 deficit starting the year.”

Scales did not elaborate on what the amount the court asked for was more than and requests for comment by Scales were not returned as of press time.

The 2025 budget for the city of Marietta, which does not include the court budget, was passed Thursday night, and the total budget amount for the general fund was set at $12,705,200. That amount and the amount Ordinance No. 131 (24-25) would send from the general fund to the court equal more than the $13,700,000 general fund limit set by council, but it is not a difference of $182,000; it totals $13,843,571, which is a difference of $143,571.

At-large Councilman Jon Grimm shared his views on the court’s budget too.

“I’m a little concerned about this because while sacrifices are being made in many of the other departments, I don’t feel the same sacrifices are being made in the court,” Grimm said. “The court has budgeted for raises for all their employees and the other departments have not. I am going to vote no on suspension with the hopes that my fellow councilors will join me in the hopes that the court will come back to the committee and we try to talk through this gap.”

At-Large Councilman Harley Noland also shared his thoughts.

“In our discussion with the (Marietta Municipal Court Judge Randall Jedlink), when we asked if there could be any reductions in his proposed budget, the point that his employees are getting raises while other department have said ‘we’ll hold back on raises,’ I was amazed at the answer, which was ‘No, and if I don’t get this budget I’ll sue you.'”

Earlier in the meeting before the second reading of the ordinance was conducted, City Law Director Paul Bertram urged council members not to reject the budget.

“Everybody here knows that we have some significant issues with finances,” Bertram said. “Rejecting that budget will not bring (Jedlink) to the table, but also what will happen is he will file a mandamus action … it will cost significant money to the city of Marietta.”

He said he would not be able to give the city legal advise in that situation because he would have a conflict of interest and it all could end up costing the city up to $100,000, which would negate the issues they have with the court’s budget.

He also said that during a mandamus action all Jedlink would have to show is that his budget is reasonable.

Rutherford shared his thoughts on the court budget too, expressing support. He said the court provided savings earlier in the year when council was dealing with 2024 budget issues.

“They did provide some economies,” Rutherford said. “They provided space that allowed council to get a little closer to where they needed to be. I would suggest that’s earned some positive good will.”

He also pointed out other receipts from the court would help defray some of the cost to the general fund. Scales said council doesn’t know what that amount will be and it is basically a no-win situation for council.

Neither Jedlink nor any other representative or staff of the Marietta Municipal Court were at Thursday’s meeting, but on Friday Jedlink did address some of the issues brought up in the meeting.

The amount the general fund was set to contribute to the municipal court in the 2024 budget before it was amended was $1,137,000 and the amount for 2025 is nearly the same, Jedlink said.

He pointed out the savings the court helped council find when they were looking to cut costs for 2024 earlier this year.

“During the budget process for (2024) … the court was able to give back a pretty significant sum, just under $200,000 to city council to assist them,” Jedlink said.

Jedlink said that he explained to council some of those savings could be permanent and some would only be temporary for 2024 and when council did their budgeting process for 2025 he thinks they decided “they are entitled to that money every year” and they want the amount the general fund gives to the court to be “substantially lower than it is.”

Jedlink pointed out that the court only costs the general fund about $400,000-$500,000 a year because the court gives some of the money collected from court costs to general fund, as required by law.

Jedlink spoke about the raises for municipal court employees. He said he told council when he became the judge that his goal was to be fair to his employees but not be outrageous. He told council whatever raise they gave police, fire and teamsters union employees would be the same he gave his employees, which is 3%, according to Jedlink.

He said that most municipal court employees are not paid out of the general fund and “the total cost to the general fund is $18,300,” for the raises.

“I’m not going not to change my mind on that,” Jedlink said about the raises, and other departments that are not receiving raises need to ask council where is all the money, where is their waste.

He said the court had very little waste to begin with and they have made cuts to “the point where there’s nothing left.”

The court has a very reasonable budget despite inflation, according to Jedlink, and he is not sure where the animosity toward the court budget is coming from other than council is trying to find a way to close some of the budget pitfalls it has run into.

“They’re trying to get money from anywhere they can … we’ve given them everything we can,” Jedlink said. “The court is not an ATM.”

Jedlink also addressed whether or not he told council he would “sue” them over the budget and what actions he can take regarding the court’s budget. He said the court has the ability to order it’s budget if council doesn’t pass it and if they still don’t pass it after that there are other legal avenues that can be taken.

He said these legal avenues — a writ of mandamus or contempt – are a different function than suing.

“It ends up in court but I wouldn’t use the word sue,” he said.

He said he is sure at some point he said something to the effect of if the budget is not passed he’ll order it, but he denies that he told anyone he would sue the city.

“I’ve never used the phrase sue,” Jedlink said.