|
7¸5
<br />
<br /> Jmnua~ 27. 1970
<br />
<br /> 70-34 - "At a recent meeting of the City Council, I w~s requested to have a study
<br />made of the pensions fOr retired Firemen and Policemen. ~his has been done by Bowles, Andrew
<br />and Towne, Actuaries, who drew up the retirement plan. Pension benefits were computed
<br />to reflect the changes that have taken place in the active employees' pay scales since
<br />the commencement date of the retired employees' pension payments. The additional liability
<br />to the City under this plan will be $425,000, or if this liability is funded under the
<br />present system, the additional annual cost to the City will be about $$5;000.
<br />
<br /> If the pensions now being paid were to be adjusted to reflect the change in the Consumer
<br />Price Index from 1968-69, the additional liability resulting from the pay scale adjust-
<br />ment only (over and above the cost-of-living adjustment) would be $345,000, which would
<br />cause an increase of about $28,000 in the City's annual cost.
<br />
<br /> It is possible that the benefits of all pensioners can be increased without increasing
<br />the annual contributions by the City. At the present time, the City is financing its
<br />liability over a thirty-Meat period. By extending the City's contributions over a forty-
<br />year period, this will reduce the City's annual contribution. To do this will require
<br />an actuarial re-evaluation of the retirement plans and will take about three months for the
<br />actuaries to complete. This could then be incorporated in the 1970-71 budget for all
<br />retired City employees and, in all probability, will not cost the City additional funds.
<br />
<br /> t recommend that I be authorized to have the evaluation done by Bowles, Andrews, and
<br />Towne, Actuaries."
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Turner that the City Manager beaauthorized to make the study was adopted,
<br />without dissenting vote.
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. King that the City Attorney draft an ordinance to inc'rease the pay of all
<br />retired city employees on an equitable basis; that the ordinance be returned to the Council
<br />at its regular meeting on February 10th, to be effective in March, 1970, was adopted, with-
<br />out dissenting vote.
<br />
<br /> 70-35 - "I submit the attached letter from Mr. Herbert K. Bangel, one of the City
<br />of Portsmouth's representatives on the Area-Wide Stadium Authority.'
<br />
<br /> 'Yesterday, I appeared at the site being proposed by the C~ty of Norfolk for an area-wide
<br />football stadium. Enclosed find the Architect's site development plan that was mm~ avail~
<br />able to those in attendance. I also enclose a copy of the article appearing intthis morning's
<br />Virginian-Pilot, which fairly well covers what transpired at this meeting.
<br />
<br /> With the information available, I feel that I am not in a position to say upon which of
<br />the two sites it is more feasible to construct the area-wide stadium.
<br />
<br /> It would appear that at the forthcoming meeting of the Stadium Authority on January 22,
<br />1970 a decision will have to be made as ~to whether the Authority chooses one site over the
<br />other, or the Authority commissions its engineering firm to proceed with a thorough evaluatior
<br />of the two sites.
<br />
<br /> Having been appointed to the authority by the Portsmouth City Council, I request in-
<br />structions from you as to which course of action you desire me to take.'
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Johnson that the Greenbriar farm area be designated as the site for the
<br />area-wide football stadium, was adopted, without dissenting vote.
<br />
<br /> 70-36 "Attached hereto is a copy of a report that was submitted to the committee
<br />appointed to study the advantages and/or disadvantages of the four Tidewater cities consoli~(
<br />datingc~or certain of the cities consolidating, or entering into joint services of various
<br />types which might be advantageous to the cities. The committee agreed to submit this
<br />matter back to the four City Councils since there is a possibility that local funds may
<br />have to be expended, not to exceed $1,000.
<br />
<br /> Since the meeting of the committee, there appears to be some objection to this study
<br />being done towards the possibility of any consolidatiun ar merger of any of the cities.
<br />With the possibility of State and Federal funds being available, it may be possible to
<br />have this study done to explore any advantages there are in joint services between the
<br />political sub-divisions. Certainly, every method should be studied towards reducing the
<br />cost of government to the taxpayers.~
<br />
<br /> 'The Subcommittee consisting of the City Managers of the Cities of Chesapeake, Norfolk,
<br /> Portsmouth and Virginia Beach invited and received nine proposals from well known consulting
<br /> firmm. In addition, the Subcommittee received expressions of interest from several firms
<br /> which were unsolicited. From this group of expressions of interest, representatives of the
<br />following firms were interviewed by the Subcommittee:
<br />
<br />Cresep, McCormick ~ Paget, Incorporated
<br />Griffenhagen-Kroeger, Incorporated
<br />Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates
<br />Public Administration Service
<br />
<br />As previously reported, the Institute of Government of the University of Virginia indicated
<br />it was not in position to submit a proposal.
<br />
<br /> Attached is a copy of a letter ~eferring to a telephone conversation between the Director
<br />of the State Division of Planning and the City Manager of Norfoik, which indicates that there
<br />is a good possibility that Urban Assistance Incentive Funds may be available to finance a
<br />
<br />
<br />
|