Minutes - 19740625 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Anticipated 10% personnel costs increase for Fair Employment Act 1974 effective January 1, 1975 .10x1/2 year x 532,219 (Salaries & Fringe) m 26,610.95 (1975) .15% effective January 1, 1976 39,916.42 1/1/75 to 6/30/75 26,610.95 7/1/75 to 12/3/75 26,610.95 1/1/76 to 6/30/76 39,916.42 93,138.33 - 3~i ~ Average Per Year 46,569.16 $ 46,569 Grand Total Expenditures 637,OD1 Less (IbTC and Fire Other Districts 23 ODO 614,001 Tax Equivalent 614,001 22,100/Per penny a 27,784 This does riot include 95% collection factor 1.46 29.24 This does not reflect probable infilation by 1975-76 She explained what formula was need to arrive at the thirty (30~) cent levy. She stated that it was the opinion of the town that the citizens of the proposed service districts must bear a part of the cast of the entire operation and that this operation included the fire stations, fire trucks, other equip- ment, liability insurance, cost of.personnel, plus the fringe benefits allocated to the fire department employees and that this total cost as projected for 1974-1975 amounted to 5637,001 and that the Town of Chapel Hill was of the opinion that the thirty (30G) cent tax levy would equalize the proportionate share for all citizens since this was the portion that was being paid by the citizens of the Town of Chapel Hill. Al Rimmar of Churchill Drive stated that based upon the figure cited he Finds the cost fair and that he, personally, desires annexation for the Briarcliff area. Mr. Rimmar stated that the figures, relative to the levy, that appeared in the paper were apparently erroneous, therefore, he wished to speak in behalf o£ the thirty (30C) cent levy for the Briarcliff subdivision. Barbara Loda from Briarcliff asked "is all money paid by the tax payers". Ms. McSwain answered, "Yes, no state or Federal revenue funds is incorporated into the fire departments budget", she replied. It was pointed out that the Revenue Sharing money received by the Town of Chapel Hill was based on the population living in the city limits of the town. Someone from the Briarcliff area asked "why had the twelve (12G) cent and the eight (8G) cent figures been mentioned". It was pointed out that no particular figures were mentioned when the petition was circulated. A discussion ensued concerning the contract that now exists between the Town of Chapel Hill and the Greater Chapel Hill Fire District. Ms. McSwafn stated that this contract would be re-negotiated in 1975 and that up until that time the ten (lOC) cent levy could not be raised due to the fact of the existing contract. Another resident of the Briarcliff area asked "if the rate increase had anything to do with the consideration towards annexation to the Town". Ms. McSwain replied, "No, that annexation was a completely separate issue". Russell Seaman inquized as to how the 57:6 milli:ori dollar tax valuation was arrived at. Herman Henkle of Briarcliff stated that he was the one who originally submitted the petition t'o Mr. Gattis and that the valuation was based on a per- sonal contact with the residents of the area. Overwhelming support was found in the initial investigation of the matter, he said. Mr. Henkle stated that he was in favor of the proposed tax as afire could destroy his home and he felt the tax was well worth the sense of security that it would provide. Betsy Christian from Briarcliff asked "what recourse does the residents have".