Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-14-83s April 14, 1983 ~~ ` ~I Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Pulaski Town Council held April 14, 1983, at S:OO p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building. There were present: Mayor Raymond F. Ratcliffe, presiding Councilmembers: John A. Johnston, Pauline G. Mitchell, Earl D. Cabaniss, C. E. Boyd, Jr ., Andrew L. Graham, Jr., Ira S. Crawf ord, Alma H. Holston, Glen K. Aust Also present: Garnett Moore, Town Attorney H. R. Coake, Town Manager Ruth A. Harrell, Clerk Visitors: Dee Lindsey and George Shadroui - news media William L. Tate Robert A. Hudson C. W. Hickam, Jr. 8 Town employees 1 area citizen The invocation wac given by Councilman Johnston WAIVER OF NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING f We, the undersigned, duly elected members of the Council of the Town of Pulaski, hereby waive notice of a Special Meeting of said Council at 5:00 p.m., on the 14th day of April, 1983, for the purpose of meeting on a personnel matter (this being to discuss Consolidation with Town Employees). WITNESS our signatures this 14 day of April 1983. ~, Mayor Ratcliffe advised this was a special called meeting for the purpose of meeting with Town employees as they had questions they wanted to review with Council regarding Consolidation. Council had invited the three members of the Advisory Committee for aid in answering questions. ~, ~~~~~~ April 14, 1983 Councilman Boyd moved that we place on today's agenda the subject of an encroachment on Floyd Lane, seconded by Councilman Graham, and carried on the following recorded vote: John A. Johnston - Aye Pauline G. Mitchell - Aye Ear1,D. Cabaniss - Aye C. E. Boyd, Jr. - Aye Andrew L, Graham, Jr. - Aye Ira S , Crawford - Aye Alma H. Holston - Abstain Glen K. Aust - Aye Mr, Moore presented, and Mr. Coake read, an Ordinance allowing an Encroach- ment upon Town property of a certain portion of a carport lying and being within the boundary of Floyd Lane, adjacent to the western boundary line of Lot No. ORDINANCE 7 - "Section E" of the Macgill Sub Division. .This is an ordinance allowing ENCROACHMENT the encroachment to remain on the public right-of-way for as long as the house FLOYD LANE was there. Councilman Aust so moved adoption of Ordinance as read, seconded by Councilman Boyd, and carried on the following recorded vote: John A. Johnston - Aye Pauline G. Mitchell - Aye Earl D. Cabaniss - Aye C. E. Boyd, Jr. - Aye Andrew L. Graham, Jr. - Aye Ira S, Crawford - Aye Alma H, Holston - Abstain Glen K, Aust - Aye Mrs. Holston stated she abstained for personal reasons. An ORDINANCE Allowing an Encroachment upon Town Property of a certain portion of a Carport Lying and Being Within the Boundary of Floyd Lane Adjacent to the Western Boundary Line of Lot No. 7 - "Section E" of the Macgill Sub-Division in the Town of Pulaski, Virginia BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Pulaski, Virginia, that: WHEREAS, a certain portion of a carport is encroaching upon properly belonging to the Town of Pulaski, Virginia, and lying within Boundary lines of Floyd Lane described as follows: BEGINNING at a point in the western boundary line of Floyd Lane S 31° 30' E,, approximately 58 feet from the interesection of the east line of Floyd Lane and the north line of Newbern Road; thence in a northwestern direction into Floyd Lane, a distance of 3 feet to a point; thence in a southerastern direction 35 feet to a point 7-1/2 ft. from the eastern boundary line of Floyd Lane; thence in an eastern direction 7-1/2 feet to a point in the eastern boundary of Floyd Lane; thence there- with to the point of Beginning; and being a strip 3 f eet on the northeastern portion and 7-1/2 feet on the Southwestern portion and running along the eastern boundary line of Floyd Lane approximately 35 feet, which strip is in the boundary line of Floyd Lane, as more fully shown on a plat attached hereto, made a part hereof and recorded herewith. WHEREAS, said encroachment was inadvertently placed on Town property by reason of an inaccurate survey, and is not susceptible to being moved be- cause of its permanent construction, and WHEREAS, said encrooachment as it exists does not in any way obstruct passage or use of said land, and has been recommended that the encroach- ment be granted by the Land and Building Committee; NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Section 15.1-777 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, the Petitioners, Stephen M, Smith and Judy C, Smith are hereby authorized to maintain such encroachment as it existed on the 5th day of April, 1983, and as it exists on this date until such carport is permanently removed. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that if and when the said carport so encroaching shall be permanently removed by the Petitioners or their successors in title on any of the land upon which the encorachment exists, that tlis authorization shall immediately cease; and further, that nothing herein contained shall be construied either to impose upon the municipality any obligation whatsoever for the existence of said encroachment or to impose upon said municipality any liability to any persons whosoever by reason I~ 1 r ~J April 14, 1983 `~~~1 of this authority nor to relieve said Petitioners or their successors of any liability for negligence or otherwise on their part on account of such encroachment. A copy of this ordinance shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Virginia. ADOPTED THIS 14th day of April, 1983, by recorded vote of Council. CONSOLIDATION Mayor Ratcliffe asked for Mr. Tate read a recommendation Consolidation Transition Team, questions from the floor regarding Consolidation. that the Advisory Committee had made to the as follows: "The Advisory Committee on Consolidation for the Pulaski County strongly recommends to the Consolidation Transition Team as they prepare the master plan for the orderly transition of the three governing bodies into one, that they hold inviolate the employment status of any employee of the three governing bodies involved in the Consolidation process who would reach the normal retirment age of 65 before December 31, 1989. This recommendation means that each of the employees in the group listed above be given special consideration for his or her old position. Where this is not possible, that they be offered employment in the new Consolidated County of Pulaski in a position of similar nature as possible in both duties and pay scale. Insomuch as employees who are not in this age bracket may object because of the special consideration given to those listed above, the Advisory Committee further recommends the creation of a temporary employee cadre, equal in size to the number of employees listed above; that where possible these positions, while only temporary, be of a similar nature and pay scale to that held previously be those selected, and that each of the positions in the temporary employee cadre be filled from employees of the three governing bodies participating in the Con- solidation. As normal attrition would occur, the employees assigned to this temporary employee cadre would be placed in permanent positions in the Consolidated County. When all of the employees of the cadre had been placed in permanent positions, the cadre would be discontinued." Mr. Tate further stated that what this does, it addresses what the Advisory Committee felt were needs of a certain group of older employees who may be in a not readily rehireable age group if they were laid off. They have recommended, and it has been adopted, a $2,000 re-employment, educational fund to assist those who are discontinued from employment, to assist them in finding other jobs. Those in this age group and are not rehireable because of their age, this $2,000 would not do them much good. Councilperson Mitchell asked how many employees this involved in the older group. Mr. Tate stated that in his judgment, it is 17. Councilperson Mitchell further asked if Mr. Tate could change the contract now to include 17 employees. Mr. Tate stated that "no" he could not; that the contract had been adopted and this was a temporary measure, and after these employees had been placed in perma- nent position, this would be discontinued. He felt this recommendation would be adopted and put into effect. Councilperson Mitchell advised that since the Advisory Committee had been dissolved as of the time the contract was put out, can they make a recommendation such as this? Mr. Tate stated not as an Advisory Committee, but as a group of concerned citizens who were the former Advisory Committee. Mr. Tate clarified the fact that they were acting as concerned citizens. Councilperson Mitchell further asked if you put these 17 people on, will not this change the savings that we had in the contract. Mr. Tate stated that there would be some short- term costs involved. He felt that the cost was very small compared to the benefits to the employees. Also, that the new Consolidated government would have a cadre of employees trained in governmental work. This would make a stronger govern- ment. Short-term, there will be some expense involved; in long-term, it will be very little. Councilperson Mitchell further stated this was the reason we tried to hold up the contract to bring out these differences. She does not believe that since con- tract has been put out to go to referendum, that any changes can be made to the contract. Mr. Tate advised that they were not asking any of the three governing bodies to address this, to accept it, or reject it - they are making this recommendation to the Transition Team. `7~~~'`~ April 14, 1983 Councilman Johnston stated this was an excel-dent suggestion and a worthwhile proposition. He also stated it was a perfect example of the reason why some of Council were arguing that it should not be sent on to the judge for referendum until these kind of things had been .cleared up. There is no question in his mind that this suggestion supersedes some of the language in the agreement. He does not see how it can officially, or even on the basis of a recommendation to Transi- tion Team, supersede an agreement that has a legal status like the contract, and he wished it could be in the contract. He would be in favor of recalling the contract and adding this to it. Councilman Johnston questioned whether or not there might be similar suggestions to this that we might expect in the next several weeks. Mr. Tate stated this was the only one to his knowledge. Councilperson Holston advised that this was one of the questions that we asked when we met with them at Appalachian Auditorium. She also stated that she did not feel that one word could be added or taken away after it had been voted on and sealed. Mr. Tate stated this was a suggestion to the Transition Team. Councilman Aust stated that the three governing bodies might later come up with items that they wanted to recommend, along with this recommendation, to the Transition team. Mr. Tate felt this was very possible. Councilman Cabaniss stated, that as he understood it, the Transition team was not bound by any rules or regulations. He has faith in the Transition Team that they are going to do what is right. Councilman Graham stated that every change madeuas affecting the savings that had been claimed. Councilman Graham asked Mr. Tate did they put a price tag on how long this would put off the savings. Mr. Tate stated it was very difficult to put a time table on this. Of the16 or 17 employees falling into this category, they don't know who they are or what their employment bracket pay-scale is today. He stated it was going to be in excess of $100,000 which would come out of the General Fund of the Consolidated County. He felt when you put $100,000 cost again ~.t"he tremendous benefits that would be gained, not only by the employees, but by getting a stronger Consolidated government. He feels the long-.term costs are insignificant. Councilman Graham stated that he understood the Advisory Committee made personal contact with Sheriff Conner and their employees will be treated just like ours. He asked if this was. still correct. Mr. Tate stated that they would cover this question later, after answering questions concerning their recommendation to the Transition Team. April 14, 1983 ~~~~~~ Mr. Hudson stated that the Advisory Board had tried to be very realistic and very conservative in every figure they put out. If they used a 20% figure for purchasing last year, they could have come up with $260,000 in savings. They only used $105,000 which is about 7%. They feel there is a strong possibility that better savings will be shown than what they have actually got in the agreement. Councilman Graham stated that it seemed to him to be a late hour for us to be making recommendations as we have a document, and he feels it is late to start attaching recommendations to it. Mr. Tate stated that something as meaningful as this to the employees, he felt they would be doing an injustice if they did not say it. Councilman Graham stated that he was for the recommendation. Councilperson Mitchell stated she felt this was zero hour that they brought this recommendation in, when it had been discussed for the last four weeks. It was brought up to our three people and then it was brought up again to the committee of nine people and nothing was done about it. This was our savings and it was a savings through cutting off this many people. Now, by readjusting this, we do not save this m~.ech, how can they give up 20% discount to the taxpayer. Mr. Tate stated that again they were talking about $120,000 out of the General ~~ iu Fund of the Consolidated County. $2,000 per employee will be saved on the 17 employees in question, and any retraining cost. He feels the benefits will outweigh the cost. Councilperson Mitchell stated she agreed with Mr. Tate regarding the recommendation but she felt it was a'late hour to be making it when it has been brought up all this time. Mr. Tate replied it was better to make it late, than not at all. Mrs. Anderson, employed at the Sewage Treatment Plant, asked why it was difficult to figure out how many people would be involved in this. Mr. Tate replied it was not difficult to figure out how many people are involved; J the difficulty comes in, i.e. there is one employee in Dublin that is already over the age of 65. It is difficult for Mr. Tate to determine what his employment status will be in the~G onsolidated County.- Those employees who reach the normal retirement age between January 1, 1984, and December 31, 1989, are easily identified. Mrs. Anderson further stated all employees were evaluated and she felt it might be possible to go by that. Mr. Tate stated this would be used as a guideline and this is in the contract. That is a guideline for theConsolidation Transition team. Councilman Graham advised that he thought the Sewage Treatment Plant employees would not be affected; when we finalize agreement with Pepper's Ferry, this would lead to something else. Mr. Terry Beck (Police Department employee) stated he would like to hear Mr. Tate's answer to earlier question of Councilman Graham regarding Sheriff's Department. ~~,~~ Apri 1 14, 1983 Mr. Tate replied that the Joint Study Commission on Consolidation, Annexation and City Status made their report to .the citizens of Pulaski County on September 14, 1982.. This report recommended to the citizens of Pulaski and the three govern- ing-bodies involved that they pursue a study on the Consolidation of the three governing bodies into a Consolidated government. When this recommendation was adopted and the Advisory Committee ghat they have been acting on was formed, the die was cast as far as what type of Police Department we would have. In a Consolidated County, you have a Sheriff's Department. The Advisory Committee did not make. this determination; it was made by the Joint Study Commission on Consolidation. When the enactment in the General Assembly was made, it said that the two towns involved, as shires, can have additional police protection but not an additional police force. This means that everything in the Consoli- dated County will be under the jurisdiction of the Sheriff. The Sheriff is a constitutional officer. They hire their own people. When they first addressed the situation of our Police force, it was felt that there was nothing that they could do as far as the members of the Sheriff's Department presently and the Town Police Departments. This was not acceptable to the Advisory Committee and they went to Sheriff Conner, laid out the problem to him and was assured by him that he wouldevaluate every employee of the present Police forces in the Town of Dublin and Pulaski, and from those, and his own group, pick the best men that he possibly could to serve in the Sheriff's Department of the new Consolidated government. Mr. Tate believes that Sheriff Conner is an honorable, dedicated law enf orcement officer, This department does not come under the total jurisdiction of the Transition team. The Transition team can make recommendations to Sheriff Conner, and Sheriff Conner has assured Mr .Tate that he will give consideration to the Transition Team's recommendations. The final decision will be in Sheriff Conner's hands. Mr. Back further asked if all the Police officers that would be dismissed would come from the two Police Departments and not from the Sheriff's Department. Mr. Tate's belief, after talking with Sheriff Conner, that this is not a correct statement. Whether this has changed or not, Mr. Tate does not know. Mr. Tate was told by Sheriff Conner that he would pick the best people possible and that he had a lot of confidence in members of the Town Police force, and he knew the members of the Dublin Police force very well. Mr. Back stated that the ultimate decision was Sheriff~Conner's, with Mr. Tate replying it was Sheriff Conner's decision, but that the Transition team could make recommendations to him. Mr. Back stated that Sheriff Conner did not have to justify his decisions, and Mr. Tate replied that Sheriff Conner is a constitutional officer. Mr. Tate stated there are four constitutional officers, the Treasurer, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Commissioner of Revenue, and the Sheriff. April 14, 1983 ~v,J~ Councilman Crawford stated that the two Police Chiefs were added to the Transi- tion team for recommendations. Councilman Graham stated it was his understanding that the Sheriff and two Police Chiefs on the transition team and would have equal authority in the transition of the Police Departments; and by what Mr. Tate is saying, this is not necessarily so. Mr. Tate stated they would make recommendations, but the Sheriff's Department hires his own people. Councilman Aust advised that he also had talked with Sheriff Conner and he had told him the same thing. Mr. Tate further stated that he felt the Town of Pulaski Police Department will be given an honest and fair consideration. Mr. Hickam stated that all you see in the report is the actual reduction. He explained what we have now and what it will look like in the future. The guidelines are to get us started and, of course, any Board of Supervisors can make changes. Listed the departments where changes will occur as the Town Councils and Board of Supervisors, Pulaski has nine, Dublin has seven and the County has five, for a total of twenty-one. The Consolidated government will have a total of seven. This is a reduction of fourteen. This is one of the big cuts from elected officers. In Administration, the Town shows 1z positions, Dublin shows zero, the County has 5, for a total of 6z. The Consolidated government will be 3, a reduction of 32. In the Consolidated government, these three will be the County Administrator, the Assistant Administrator, and a secretary/clerk. In Personnel, nobody has a Personnel Director now and this is one office that is added in on the Consolidation report, and amounts to 12 people - A Personnel Officer plus one-half time secretarial help. In Finance and Data Processing, the Town has 8 mw, Dublin has 4, and the County has one, for a total of 13. The consolidated report states 6, a reduction of 7. Mr. Hickam feels that most of these 6 will come from the Town because the other juris- dictions do not have people in these capacities. In Le-w Enforcement, the Town has 29, Dublin 10, and the County 48 - a total of 87. The Consolidation Report calls for 70, a reduction of 17. Most of this reduction is mainly the dispatchers. We have 3 communication centers now. In the Consolidated government we would have one communi- cation center. The other personnel are the captains, lieutenants and administrative people. As far as the deputies and foot patrolmen, the patrolmen on the beat, their numbers stay essentially the same. Councilman Johnston asked Mr. Hickham how many dispatchers were we talking about, with Mr. Hickam replying two chiefs, a captain, two lieutenants, 4 sergeants, one investigator, 7 dispatchers, for a total of 17 reduction. Mr. Hickam stated the Building department has 1~, the County has 2~ for a total of 3-3/4 positions. The Report calls for 2z, this is a reduction ofl~ (one building ~v~~~ April 14, 1983 inspector). As of now, the Town has 1 building inspector, the County has 2. In Engineering, Mr. Hickham stated the Town claims 6 (2 of these are secretaries), Town of Dublin and County zero in Engineering, for a total of 6 in Engineering. The Consolidated Report calls for 4, a reduction of 2, but this is mainly a reduction from secretarial, changing them to other departments. In the Consolidated Report, the Engineering Department shows not a savings, but an increased cost because the engineers and assistant engineers will be paid more than the Town is now paying. The actual pay scale of the County is quite a bit higher than the Town. In Highway Maintenance, the Town of Pulaski has 28, Dublin 0, and the County 0, for a total of 28. The consolidated report calls for 20, a reduction of 8. The budget for the Town of Pulaski has budgeted 28 people, but six of the 28 people budgeted are vacancies. Mr. Coake advised that as of right now we had 10 vacancies. During the winter we lose people and hire people back during the summer months. Mr. Hickam stated that facts were based on the date of June 30 and this date was used as a guideline. In General Property, The Town has 13, Dublin 0, the County 8 for a total of 21. The Consolidated government calls for 18 people. This is a reduction of three. Mr. Hickam also stated that under consolidation, buildings will be consolidated and we might end up with a vacant building that might be of such use to lawyers and judges. Mr. Hickam further stated that nobody has a Purchasing Agent and the Consoli- dated government calls for 12 people, and they project a large savings. Under Vehicle Maintenance, the Town has 4, Dublin 0 and the County 4, for a total of 8 people. The Consolidated report calls for 7, a reduction of one. Landfill Operation, the Town has 3 employees, County 3, for a total of 6. Report calls for five, a reduction of one. Councilman Graham asked Mr. Hickam where he got this one, with Councilman Johnston advising the man at the entrance to the Town Landfill. Utility Administration, 1~ employees from Town, 0 for Dublin and 6 for the County, for a total of7~. Consolidation report calls for 6, a reduction of 1~. Water Service, the Town has 7 employees, Dublin 7 and the County 5, for a total of 19. Consolidated report calls for 8, a reduction of 11. Refuse Service, the Town has 9~, Dublin 3 and the County 10, for a total of 22~ people. The Consolidated government is 17, a reduction of 5'4. April 14, 1983 ~~~f3~1 Mr. Hickam stated that he had added one on his list, i.e. the Water Treatment Plant in Pulaski has 7 people, Dublin 0 and the County employs 4 at their water treatment plant for a total of 11. In the Consolidation Report, the Water Treatment Plant is not talked about. The only thing in the Consolidation Report are depart- ments that are affected. The water treatment plant will stay at 11. The sewage treatment plant will stay at its normal level. Recreation will remain the same. Mr. Hickam further stated that if a department was not mentioned in the Consolidation Report, there is no change at all. Total employment of the Town of Pulaski is 127 under the departments Mr. Hickam listed. Dublin has a total of 31, and the County has a total of 1012j for a grand total of 259-3/4 employees under the departments he read out. The Consolidated government will have a total of 1872, which is a reductionof 72~. This reduction consists of 14 on Councils, and the other big one is mainly in law enforcement (dispatches). Also, the administrative people and one here and there due to consolidation. Mr .Hickam was trying to show who is employed now, where the reductions are. The County does not have as many people as the Town, and for example, the Town keeps their people in Water Treatment, Landfill, Engineering, and on the Law Enf orcement, the Consolidated Report shows 13 in the financial statement for the shire of Pulaski. This does not mean 13 deputies, it really means 22. The Town gets 22 deputies. The state law, as it is now, the Town of Pulaski is given credit for g, so Pulaski will be allocated 22 foot patrolmen. Councilperson Holston asked if these men were called "road deputies" with Mr. Hickam r d ying "no", not in the Town. Mr. Hickam restated the Town would have a total of 22. The State gives the Town a benefit for policemen already. When the Advisory Committee were doing the extra tax for hired governmental service, Town was given credit for this money, because State gives us this money now, so Town was only charged for the 13 deputies. Councilman Johnston referred back to his question, if the Town will have 22 which would be 13 and 9, what are those 9 men doing now that they will not do when the new County consolidates. Mr. Johnston stated we had those 9 men in the Sheriff's Dept. now. Mr. Tate replied the 9 men were not in the Sheriff's Dept., but they are in the Town of Pulaski. The Town of Pulaski gets a fund from the State just like the County does although the Town portion is not as high and that is the amount that takes care of 9 of our people. Mr. Moore clarified that in determining the number of duputies now in the County, 9 of them come because of the population within the Town of Pulaski. Councilman Johnston stated Council was advised that the County nowhas 9 peoole in it because of the money that the State gives the County to hire those people based on 30,000 people in the County which includes the Town. Those are the 9 people that ~~+ ~ ~ April 14, 1983 we are talking about that will then be responsible somewhat for monitoring the Shire of Pulaski. His question is, if they are working .now and be taken away from whatever they are doing now to work in the Town, then what are they supposed to be doing in the County. Mr. Tate stated this was not his understanding. The number of people cut off does not reflect this. Councilperson Mitchell asked if these 9 men and the 13 men were going to stay within the Shire of Pulaski. Mr. Hickam replied that he could not guarantee this as the Sheriff is a con- stitutional officer and he is responsible, and is now the chief law enforcement officer in the Townof Pulaski. He has promised that he is not going to cut back on patrols, etc. in .the Townof Pulaski or Dublin. Councilperson Mitchell stated that the Sheriff could use these men anywhere in the County. These men will be used where the Sheriff places them. Councilperson Holston expanded on Councilman Johnston's question - if you have 28 road deputies, 13 to the Town, leaving 15 road deputies. If Town was taken out of it, it would leave six to operate the County. Mr. Hickam stated that you had to add in captains, lieutenants, etc. He further explained that he did not count the nine as road deputies, per se, they are just nine total of the whole thing. Councilperson Holston further asked if we were going to have 22 deputies in the Town. Mr. Hickam stated they may not be called a road deputy, it might be a sergeant or a lieutenant, or a captain. Councilperson Holston stated that she was coming up with 6 deputies for the County and either way we go, one of us is going to be left holding the bag. Mr. Tate stated that Sheriff Conner had reassured him that he could provide equal or better service for the Shire of Pulaski than we presently have, with the resources that he will have. Mr. Tate further stated that Sheriff Conner had stated that they would do whatever is necessary to provide the police protection in the Shire of Pulaski and the Shire of Dublin that was necessary. Councilman Aust stated that the biggest thing they were concerned about "are we going to have as good of police protection as we have now". Councilman Boyd requested Mr. Hickam or Mr. Tate to state what we are paying now as opposed to what County would pay in terms of dollars for police officers. Councilman Johnston asked are the salaries, that Mr. Hickam will gpote Council, added to by the County; in other words he knows the State comes out with a figure and then counties are free to supplement. Mr. Moore stated that right now, the State pays all of the salaries of the Sheriff and they set the Sheriff's salary and the office expense which includes the salaries of the deputies. Mr. Moore further stated he did not know of any April 14, 19$~~~Q County supplementing salaries, unless there were one or two in Northern Virginia. Councilperson Mitchell stated that the Sheriff's salary is added to in this County. Her information came from the Compensation Board. Mr. Hickam stated h~ inf ormation came from the Sheriff's Department, Payroll Department. Salary comparison is as follows: Job Title PresentAvg. Salary Captain $17,600 Lieutenant 16,800 Sergeant 16,000 Patrolman 12,000-13,000 Dispatcher 10,000 Sheriff's Dept. Currently Paying/ Salary Under Consolidation $25,000 21,000 18,500 15,000 10,000-12,000 Councilperson Mitchell further stated that if the Sheriff's Department was paying these salaries, they were paying more than the County of Roanoke. Mr. Hickam stated they tried to be conservative, and by researching the Town's Budget, he found that the Town pays fringe benefits, i.e., if employee paid a salary of $10,000, the Town pays $1,600 to health insurance, social security, etc. The Town's fringe benefit program adds up for ~.he whole Town as an average of about 16% fringe benefits. Mr. Hickam further stated that he hoped the economy would pick up in the Fall, 1 and that the Town has certain vacancies they have not filled right now, and that most of the people that are working now, he feels should have a job for the Consolidated government. The jobs he is worried about are the dispatchers. Councilman Johnston advised that Council had received a number of written questions regarding Consolidated government received from departments of the Town. Councilman Boyd stated the hour was late and the employees had been given the opportunity to be at this meeting. Councilman Crawford stated he felt we should answer these questions in writing. Mr. Tate stated that the Advisory Committee has completed their work and are no [1 longer in existence. They are here today at Council's request. At the same time, they would volunteer their time to assist in trying to get answers for these questions regardless of their official status. If they can be of assistance to this Council or to the Town employees, they will be pleased to do so. Councilman Johnston made the motion that the questions of the employees be reviewed by Mr. Coake, eliminate duplicated questions, and submit the questions to the Advisory Committee for an answer, seconded by Councilman Crawford, and so carried. One employee stated in ref erence to the tax break under consolidationof 20%, he doesn't understand where the money is coming from, etc., but is the Town government going to have to raise taxes within the next year to maintain the services that they have now? Council stated that they would like to have the answer to this question too. Mr. Coake stated that they were still working on the budget. At 6:18 p.m., Councilman Boyd made motion to adjourn, seconded by Councilman ~`~~~~ April 14, 1983 Crawford, and carried. ATTEST: ~~~~~ Clerk of Council APPROVED: o Raymo d F. Ratcli [',