Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 12-16-1980 4 Agenda Attachment 5 Grange TountU Repuftmeu#of,vdal ,jeruicim 300 W.TRYON STR EET . HILLS50ROUGH,NORTH CAROLINA 27276 ROnpO; TELCr"ONEt MAt McLENOON,CKAIkPENSON HILL"DF VUG/1 OFF10E DWIi5P1,P47.4751 �5 HI I.LSPOROUGH or?CE 777'P?67,777-0I P7 AAN3CC""OPLER, Chairperson ('iSAP EL 111Lt Di FICE P9PC+ ANNE OARNES R S IAUFIPHY,M.D. TiIDMA December 10 1980 THOMASM WARD � � MC+i'AVLWA�AVt'� TO: Oran County Bosx-. of C0=i6Sianars FROM: Social. Services Board SUBJECT: Need for additonal Chore Ser�rice.;' ng j on December 2, 19$0 the Board of Social Services met in special session to discuss tbe- ! need for additional funding for the Chore Sekidee Proem. After beaming testi.nomy i from many of -the more than 45 persons 'attending, the Board unani.MOusly endorsed a ! request to County Commissioners for $15,000 to insure contimuatien of the program at a spending level. of $14,000 per month for the balance of the current fiscal. year. The last month'a charges usually credited to the current fiscal yearn (May) will be car- - ried over to 1981-$2. The spending for the first five months of the current fiscal year was above $23,0011 per month average (June-October). In November a 201,4 reduction in service affecting all current recipients was placed into effect to reduce spending. November spending was reduced to the 0117:000 range and December is projected to be near $111,000. The high spending level, of near $26,000 per month at the beginning of the fiscal ygax was due to several factors. The agency received State In Home Service 1± aas in 1979-$0 for the first time in the amount of $37,264. Chore Service expansioa funds of 1B,645 was awarded without a county match requirement. The agency also=eceived over $25,000 iaa re-allocated Title XX money at the beginning of 19$'1. Unmatched county money of '18,000 was also budgeted for the fi=st time in 1979-$0 to qualify for the State In Home Service. A combination of all 'these factors was responsible for the in- crease in funde available for Chore Service in the Spring of 1980. The community demand for the service has been high for a number of years, therefo xe, monies avail- able were utilized. During the current fiscal year 27-824 was budgeted for Chore Service from Title XX nd re-allocated funds. The prospects of being awarded such fu a are very Unlikely this u year according to Region. III personnel. Surplus Title XX funds that have been evail- able an the June to September quarter for several years were not available this year. State Funding was increased for Slay Came but not for Chore Services. Early in the fiscal year it became apparent additional funding might not be a reasonable expectation.. Chore Service applications were closed the first week of August 1980. Hourly rates paid to Chore providers were later frozen and any changes in personnel. Were paid Mimi mum wage. This combination of actions to reduce spending were effective to a degree, however, by November spending levels were mach higher than could be Maintained. The 20;-6 reductions in service was placed in effect as an emergency' measure until additio�� funding could be explored. In addition to the action already' reported the Social Service Board ad on December vot i 'December 10, 1980 Memorandum 2 to transfer a total of $20,000 in Title XX funds originally allocated. -6o I?ay Care p=chase to the Chore service program, and $5,000 Exam funds created by vacant positions. The prospective budget for Meceaber through May is as follows; $84,000 ?Needed: $14,000 per month x 6 months = -1 000 '95,000 f nded by additional county' farads 69,000 20,000 tzaneferrQd within Title XX program "_9 Opp 000 5,000 trauaferred from vacant Position funds 44,000 'lalauce in Chore Account xFM:ET BM 5/31/81 �10,00o $10,000 plus any charges above Protected costs to be added to duns 1981 charges and carried forxaxd. to 1981. 82 year. HOM3 See attachment PrePa=ed by staff in explanation of curraut clients being serval by Chore Service PrOgr=' r " As outlined in a memo from Thomas M. Ward, dated 12/310/80, the Adult Services Staff has taken the following actions to di:crease the expenditures for the Chore Service Program: A. have placed no new cases oh the Chore Service Program since August 5, 198Q, 2. decreased hours to the very minimum or texminated'any case where recipient could do more for himself or relatives could help more. 3. no.replacements made for clients placed in rest homes or deceased. 4. A 20% cut for the mast destitute or sick without relatives and a 30X cut in most cases where relative is paid to care for relative. 5. Reduction of maximum payment fr6m $275 to $236 per month. 6. 3 cases transferred to Services to the Blind Chore services 7. Any chore provider who stopped work has been replaced by another person at a maximum rate of $3.00 per hour. With the above listed efforts,: we have reduced the expendituxee !w the limit during the past three months: August, 1980 123 recipients cost $22,510.41 September, 1980 11Z.-recipients 20,928.72 October, 1980 108 recipients 20,213.19 November, 1980 Anticipated expenditure for December, .1980 (if no deaths) 3.s 93 recipients at a cost of $14,303.52. The type clientele that we serve is not in a position.-. to supplement the cost of chore service. 30 recipients receive only Social Supplementary Income, average payment is $168.33 monthly. 49 recipients receive Social Security only, average $258.69. 8 recipients receive Social Security and Veterans Benefits average $74.23 12 recipients receive Social Security and have a small amount of interest, farm income, or ether retirement to supplement, average supplement $132,06 per month. Average overall income of all clients is $284.89 per month. With the present clients served, we can make the following predictions for their futures without chore service: 3 would have to go into nursing homes 75 would have to go into rest homes 10 would have to move in with relatives 10 would endure neglect in their own homes until removed by court action or hospitalization. 3 relatives are already paying for the difference in our rate and full coverage and would probably try to pay this difference. Some of the advantages and charactexistice cared for by Chore Services for the aged and disabled that the other services do not provide: 1. At least one hot meal per day 2. Enough baths to keep reasonably clean 3.'House cleaned. 4. Laundry 5. Shopping for groceries, medicine, etc. 6. Chauffeur to medical facilil.ies and far client to pay bills. 7. for some, their only barrier from complete isolation, r d h' 1 ' 11 -the physical characteristics and dlisabil.tti,ea of:than EGG p�,em s' t d� for December, 1980: Over 85 years of age: 1 blind and other disabilities ' 3 paralyzed from strokes 3 heart conditions primary disability 3 mental deterioration (senility) 1 cancer 1 Parkinson Disease (severe) 70 -- 85 years of age: 5 blind and other disabilities 9 mentally deranged and other disabilities 4 amputees and other complications . 15 heart'conditions and other disabili.ti,esi 10 paralyzed from strokes 2 severe circulatory p6ditiona 1 cancer 1 muscular dystrophy 60 -- 70 years of age: 9 paralyzed from strokes 3 severely mentally retarded 3 heart conditions and other disability I, terminal cancer I muscular dystrophy 2 mentally ill and other disability- 1 double amputee Under 60 years of age: 2 quadrapl.egi.cs I paraplegic 2 paralyzed from stroke 1 cerebral, palsy.. 1 kidney disease (on dialysis) We feel that it would be a tradegy for most of these clients if the money i is exhausted before the end of the budget year and all cases have to be ter- ' minated for a period of tune. Although it is anticipated that 'home Health will help some of our cases with, the Houle Health Aid, we are not anticipating any great impact on the chore expenditures. It will be almost impossible to terminate enough people to meet budgetary level 4ithout requiring the most physically disabled to go into placement unless some funds are added to the Chow SerVice Budget. � 4 I • i ^ I , I � f n^ p�f is-•�- �� Agenda Attachment 6 EMS Prior to duly 1, 1980 several significant problems existed in EMS as it functioned in Orange County. These problems were not necessarily county-wide, in fact several were entirely local. The most significant of these were: A. Inability to obtain a consistently adequate call response time at Orange County, primarily during the day. B. Underutilization of personnel, material and financial resources situated at New Hope. C. Difficulty Orange County and New Hope were having in obtaining sufficient funding to operate. D. No county-wide training system providing advanced 'gaining and leading towards. A.L.S. services. E. A complete unwillingness on the part of the squads to give up any portion of their identity to a larger group_ RECOMMENDATIONS I recommend as our next step the Board asking Memorial Hospital to be- come the sponsor hospital for both the South orange and Orange County Rescue Squads. The purposes of this action are twofold; A, To provide a routinely functioning training mechanism recognized by the squads, the County, and the hospital as the agency providing training both to the paid and volunteer ambulance attendant. B. To put into operation a mechanism that will untimately lead to a county-wide advanced life support system.. C. To adopt an Ambulance (EMS) Ordinance. } E t -2- obviously an action such as this cannot be implemented without the concurrence of both the South orange and orange County Rescue Squads, and the hospital. Given, that our goals at the time we adopted our budget last summer were to: 1. significantly improve response time of units in Northern orange County, 2. redistribute manpower, equipment, and financial resources, 3. selection of a sponsor hospital and development of training program, 4. bringing all this together into a A.L.S. program, One can say we have reached goals"numbers one and two. This recommendation addresses goal number three. We can begin to move towards county-wide advanced A.L.S. (goal 4) only after goal number three has been attained. • �1 Agenda Attachment 9A �'�;����� ���•u��n{�.>i3Fu:�w�•�'e�r2a?inn�.n��.�>�r�� ��*�t-t�-�knt �`;�1.• � 3:t1?,ti+.ast"Tryons.re�!t +IILLSeOLi{7U.xH,N.,C.•2:'?78 office of Director R V•l�,L'ti�4Vt=ST[3ii December 4, 1980 i Mr. David W. Diner P. 0. Sox 231 Efland, North Carolina -27243 Dear David: As of the December 2, 1960 regular monthly meeting it was denoted by the membership that your unexcused attendance record has far surpassed th.at of the Advisory Council's Sy--laws. Therefore, it has been requested of the Board of County Commissioners to appoint a replacement from Cheeks Township. This individual. could then fill the remainder of your unexpired term, which would cease on March 4, 1983. Many thanks for your involvement and positive attitude towaxds leisure services. The Council fully realizes the amount of time, effort and daily commitment which must be made to your new enterprize. Good luck and many successes! NWa s, Weston M-7;/srs Copy to: Ron Hyatt, Chairman, Recreation and Parks Advisory Council 'Don Dickerson, Vase Chairman, Recreation and Parks Advisory Council. Paulette P. pond, Clerk to the County Commissioners i i (ENCLOSURE 1) Agenda Pttachment 11 ` STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA AG-REEMEN COUNTY of ORANGE THIS AGREEMENT, Made and entered into thi-S the day of .. 198 , THE COUNTY PFRANrE, THE AUTHORITY.TOWN F CHAPEL HILL, THE TO;'M OT CARRHORq and r the ORANGE WATER AND SE WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the mutual covenants herein set out and in welfare conidratin ands to e eachoofoth.e' partieschereto,athe part esnheretoadormutua 7lytagree public as follows; SECTION I. PURPOSE OF THE AGREEMENT. 'The purpose cif this agreement is to establish a method whereby coordinated and comprehensive planning may be provided for an Orange County-Chapel H-111-Carrboro joint Planning Area as delineated on. the adopted Orange County Land Use Plan Map. SECTION 2. CREATION OF JOINT PLANNING PROCESS. There is hereby established a joint planning process for the review of lanai development in the Orange County- Chapel Hill-Carrboro joint Planning Area. SECTION 3. DURATION. This Agreement shall be effective upon is execution, by the designated parties hereto, and shall continue thereafter until the day of l9 , or until all but one of the parties hereto have withdrawn. �ination date specified, this agreement may be renewed for an additional At the tez specified period of time, upon mutual agreement of all parties. SECTION 4. MUTUAF. PROMISES AND CONCERNS. It is agreed that a mutual policy of good will is essential to this process. It is further agreed that the process will. be based upon mutual adoption of land use plan and development standards for areas to be urbanized within a ten and twenty year period and those .joint Planning Areas that will remain -rural during the next twenty year period (Rural. Buffer). It is further agreed that orange County will adopt and. apply development standards in the 'Transition Areas as delineated on the adapted orange County Land Use Plan bfap which meet or exceed Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and OWASA development standards. These development standards will be defined and mutually adopted in a subsequent agreement. Upon the adoption of such -regulations, additional agreements will, be adopted authorizing orange County and the Towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and OWASA to review projects in areas subject to joint planning, as well as agreements authorizing the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro to enforce the development standards through site inspections should that be desired by mutual consent. It is further agreed that all parties to this agreement shall be notified in writing prior to the amendment to or modification of any development standard that would apP1Y in an Orange County.-Chapel Hill--Carrboro joint Planaing,Area by the party considering such an action. It is further agreed that joint review of development proposals, including all proposed extensions of the water and sewer system of OWASA in the joint planning areas, will occur initially at the staff level, with each party deciding on the subsequent role of its governing body, planning board, board of adjustment, planning department and other Staff. It is agreed that the parties responsible for a final decision on a project will allow sufficient time for the other interested parties to conduct their reviews prior to action on the request. urther� it is agreed that the Comnottbe limited Joint planning eriadi.c review and valuation :ontinue its xrask to clisder but ,not be limi.,tio to 31'p pragzess ran jo7nt planning, fuxther definition of� point standards ior, ofv ater and roposals, thiesstand okhe urbah services area be necessary for the ext rageein il3 d velopr�ent. sewer facile COUNTY OF ORANGE T014N OF CWXEL HILL TOWN OF C.ARRRORO ORANGE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY I I I 8D ,�. : QREINTGE C0UNTY COMWSS101\TE .S Room No, 12 106 EAST UARGATIEr TANS miff—SiB03ROUGM N. C� 27278 HicifAAA W.}ISTYSL.Ck*; a . NORMAN WALlSM NonxAs GusrAVSSO>i 1)0:7ALU WiLL}id[r ANNA IWLN75 December 11, 1980 Commissioner Anne Barnes, Chair . Orange County Board of Commissioners` 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Bear Commissioner Barnes: I am writing on behalf of the Orange County Youth Services deeds Task Force to advise the Board of Commissioners of CBA funds available to Orange County as a.result of the delayed opening of Shaeffer House. The Task Force has also met to consider proposals consistent with previously prioritized youth needs and is prepared to make recommendations to the Board regarding funding. When the Task Force was advised of the approximately $12,456 of CBA funds that would revert to the State, major youth serving agencies represented on the Task Force were advised and invited to submit pro- posals. There was no media publication because of limited time. At the December 5, 1980, Task Force meeting three proposals were formally presented. They were as follows: 1. Tree House Proposal : Request for six month counselor position for $3,702.23. The Task Force last November had considered this proposal for the twelve month period and had placed it in the top priority (residential care). Tree House has been running on a deficit budget and this is a vulnerable position, Proposal was received by unanimous vote of Task Force. 2. Janus House Proposal : Request for $2,000 to be applied to the soci—aT work Liaison Worker position. Janus House is also currently operating on a deficit budget. The funds would be applied to salary, travel , and typing. Without this money, there will not be sufficient funds to complete n Commissioner Barnes Page 2 the year vlhich could lead to a decision to close. (Janus House received $4,000 in JJDP funds.) Proposal was received by unanimous vote of the Task Force. 3. Orange Coltnty 5chaols Pra oral: Request for $3,064.49 to continue t e school/family liaison worker on a half-time basis, If funds are not received, liaison work will be discontinued in February. Proposal was received by unanimous vote of the Task Force. Since there were only seven voting members present, the Task Force did not have the one--third required for a quorum and there was discussion about how to respond to the proposals. It was decided to record the vote of the appointed members present and to poll those not present (who were ddly.notified of the meeting) to ascertain if they had concerns about this action. This decision had the unanimous support of the voting members. Members submitting proposals agreed not to vote on their own proposals, The total amount requested in the three proposals amounts to $8,766.72 and approximately $12,456 is available, There was concern about funds being unexpended since the amount available was not known in advance and the agencies submitting proposals are running on deficit budgets (Tree House acid Janus House) or running out of funds (Orange County Schools). Thus, it was decided by those present to add $1,228.76 to each proposal and to ask those presenting proposals to revise their budgets. Funding Recommendations: 1. The proposal for $3,064.49 funding for the Orange County Schools liaison worker with an additional $1,228.76 was recommended to the County commissioners with the unanimous vote of six members voting. 2. The proposal for $2,000.00 funding for the 3anus House liaison worker with an additional $1,228.76 was recommended to the County commissioners by the unanimous vote of six members voting. 3. The proposal for $3,702.2:3 funding the Tree House counselor with an additional $1,22836 was recommended to the County commissioners by unanimous vote of six members voting. :. Enclosed please find copies of the proposals that were presented, The Task Force is requesting that the Board of Commissioners consider ing. It is these recommendations at the December 16, 1980, Board meet . M1 1 I.1 Conissioner Barnes Page 3 significant that if action or consideration of utilization of these available funds is not finalized before January 1, 1981, Orange county will lose this funding, Thank you for your consideration of these recommendations and endorsed proposals. I will be present at the meeting of the Board to respond to questions. Sincerely, '- J M. Harold Rogerson, Jr. MHR/ppp CC: Mr. Sam Gattis Enclosures } i < MEMORANDUM TO: County Commissioners FROM: Joe Bradshaw, Ass?scant County Manager DATE: December 16, 1980 RE. PSE II-d positions It will be necessary for the Board to designate the remaining eight (8) positions of Orange County's allocation of ten (10) PSE II-D positions from the Balance of State. Two positions were designated on October 1 by the Commissioners to work in the CETA office and in the'Purchasing Department. Orange County has received 53 requests for the remaining eight (8) positions. Therefore, whatever actions we take will result in many agencies being disappointed. For your information, the II--D program has some mandated requirements. These include: - All jobs must be entry level -- The average wage should equal $7,200/yr -- At least 50% of the allocation must lie spent on "offsite training" for participants (this effectively means each participant will spend only 20 hours a week at the worksite.) To aid in your decision,making process, I am providing a categorization of these request, These categories reflect appropriate criteria for reaching this decision, Due to the shortage of "slots" available, Orange County will not be able to provide positions to all agencies within a category. The categories are as follows: I. Coualy Funded R envies Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools Orange County Schools JOCCA Women's Health Northside Children's Learning Center Orange County Government -2- II. Previous Participation in CETA Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools Orange County Schools JOCCA Carolina Regional Theatre Town of Chapel Hill Town of Hillsborough Orange County Government III. New Agencies_` YMCA Prison Unit North Carolina Association for the Emotionally Troubled Women's Health Chapel Hill Tenant's Association Northside Children's Learning Center IV. Job's with S ecial Emphasis Printer's Assistant (A.H.A.) Ridgefield Community Worker (�.H.) Theatre Technician Apprentice. (C.R.T,) Office Manager (Chapel Hill Tenant's Association) Switchboard Operator (Orange County) Van Monitor (Learning Center) Weatherization (JOCCA) The staff recommends six (6) slots to be awarded to JOCCA's weatherization program. This program supported by Orange County for several years and is listed as a "top priority" in the federal regulations. By awarding 6112 part--time positions, Orange County will effectively be providing one (3) man crew to assist in weatherization and "energy assistance" projects. It should be noted that JOCCA appears in three of the four categories listed above. Also, this project should result in countywide benefit. The staff further recommends that the remaining two slots be filled from the "Jobs with Special Emphasis" category These jobs might serve to attract -3.. eligible persons who are looking for new areas of employment not limited to clerical or construction type employment, Three positions are new and three have been filled by CETA in the past. The staff will elaborate further on these positions at the pleasure of the Board. Your consideration`of this matter will be appreciated. AGENDA ATTACH"LENT 20 ORANGE COUNTY FLING DEPA. rnMivT HmLSE0x0trG]j 1%TORTIE CAR01aWA, 2'7'27$ � ♦ w j7 S� �O«b �t:(♦,,at MEMORANDUM TO: Sam Gattis FROM: Planning Department TLH 0VLL4 61.-A GtAuJ DAVE: December 10, 1980 SUBJECT: Proposed Fee Schedule: Sedimentation and Erosion Control Total. Budget, for Sail and Erosion . . . .. .. . .. .. . $40,425.00 Casts not associated with review Of plats/permits . . . . . . . . Costs that are associated with review of plats/permits .. .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ... . $30,245.00 Total Ann4al Pevenue .for Soil Erasion with Recommended Fees $30 245.00 Total-hours spent on review plans/permits 2,080 hrs./yr. x 2 = 4,160 hrs./yr. 4,160 hrs./yr. x .25 = 3,120 Ctrs./yr. $30,245.00 : 3,120 hrs./yr. ; $10.00/hr. I. Less than 20,000 sq. ft. disturbed: No Permit .needed. No fee charge. 2. PLAN EXEMPTION FORM. 20,000 sq.irt.-•40,000 sq.ft. disturbed Conference with landowner 1 hour initial site inspection 1 hour Periodic site inspections ( 2 per month) . . 2 hours TOTALHOURS . . . . .. .. . . .. .. . .... 4 hours Charges to grade: $10.00/10,000 sq.ft_ disturbed PLAN EXEMPTION: $40.00 fiat fee is recommended Memorandum - Sam Gattis 9-29-80 Page 2 3. PLAN REVIEW: 40,000 sq.ft. - 80,000 sq. ft. disturbed Conference with Landowner . .... . .... . . ... .. . .. .. . 1 hour Initial site inspection . . . ... . . .. . .. . .... . . . .. . . 1 hour Review of plan . ... . . .... . . . . . .... . . .... ... .. ..0. 4 hours Letter to owner enumerating plan modifications ..`2 hours TOTAL HOURS 8 hours (1 working day) $80.00 flat fee per review is .recommended (based on $10.00/hr. ) 4. PLAN REVIEW: over 80,000 sq. ft. disturbed More complicated plan review . ..... . . .... .. . . ... . 8 hours May require several site visits . . .. 2 hours More time on modifications/ammendment letter . ... 4 hours TOTAL HOURS . ... . . 16 hours (2 working days) $160.00 flat fee per review is recommended 5. GRADING PERMI'T'S: 40,000 sq. ft. - 80,000 sq. ft. disturbed A grading permit is issued when Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan is approved. involves periodic site inspections (4 per month). Involves use of County vehicl RECOMMENDATION x . $10.00% 10,000 square feet disturbed. 6. GRADING PERMITS: Over 80,000 sq. ft. disturbed A grading permit is issued when Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan is approved. Involves more site inspections ( 6 per month) . Involves use of County vehicle. More inspection time per inspection. Longer construction time. RECOMMENDATION.- $32,.00/ 10.000 square feet disturbed. 7. RENEWALS: A permit time limit of one year from the date of issuance is recommended. In order to reduce the negative impact on projects lasting, for example, 15 months, it is suggested that renewal of a permit be valid for six months at one-half the original application fee. ORANGE COUNTY S&E CONTROL Total Budget (FY 1$0-1$1) $41,735 Personnel (1 officer, 1 inspector, 1/3 secretary) 30,785 Consulting Services 4,000 Telephone (WATS) 750 Supplies, maintenance, equipment 900 (includes 1 vehicle) Travel 'Orange County charges each department 5,300 33t/mi . for the use of county vehicles A permit is required where more than 20,000 sq. ft. is disturbed. A plan and permit is required where more than 40,000 sq. ft. is disturbed. Permit Fees None at present. Rate system under study. Workload Active 109 sites 365 disturbed acres Permitted* 32 sites 60} disturbed acres About 40% of staff time is spent on subdivision and site plan review, administration of the private road and drainage sections of the subdivision regulations, and administrative duties related to the federal flood insurance program. r Orange County Proposed 1980--81 Budget Ordinance Amendment The 1980-81 Budget Ordinance of Orange County as adopted on June 23, 1980 and subsequently amended, is hereby amended as follows: Fund - Item Increase _. (Decrease) To Total General ��- Planning T Operations 1,600 29,912 Buildings & Grounds 160 208,783 Tree House _ Operations 1,320 1,320 Janus House - Operations 4,000 4,000 School/Family Service •- Operations 4,293 4,293 Fund Resources General Buildings & Equipment (1,600) 167,074 Recreations -- Operations ( 160) 18,873 Crime Control Grant 5,320 5,320 Human Resources Grant 4,293 4,293 Adopted this the __ day of 1981. Orange County Proposed 1980-81 Project Ordinance Amendment The 1980-81 Project Ordinance of Orange County as adapted on December 1, 1980 is hereby amended as follows: Increase Fund - Item (Decrease) To Total CETA - Admin. Pool - Personnel 2,213 44,941 CETA -- Admin. Pool - Operations 431 7,694 CETA -- YCCIP BG -- Personnel 38,473 38,473 CETA - YCCIP BG - Operations 2,667 2,667 CETA - YCCIP BG - Equipment 3,300 3,300 CETA IV'- Services - Personnel 2,402 2,402 CETA IV - Services - Operations 514 514 Fund - Resources CETA CETA IV - Administration 2,644 52,638 CETA IV - YCCIP BG 47,356 47,356 Adopted this the day of 1981.