Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-12-1978 BUDGET CONFERENCES SCHEDULE FOR JUNE 12, 1978 GENCY TIME 1. Orange County Health Department 7:30 _ 8:30 2. CETA 8:30 - 9:00 3. Rescue S uads 9:00 - 9:30 4. Animal protection Society 9:30 -10:00 5. Open Discussion 10.00 - NaRge Coaatq 94eaffi Tepakfwat 144 F_MARGARET LANE 19 E45TGATE'49OPPING CENTER ,{1LL58OROUGH. N G..27278 CHAPEL WILL. N. C. 27514 PHONE: 732-8181 tXT, 215 PHONE: 04x,•4168 (FROM CHAPEL HILL 997.9x51) MEMO TO: Orange County 30mmissiOners FROM: Jerry Robinson DATE: June 12, 1978 RE: Fiscal 1979 Budget COUNTY MANAGER'S PROPOSED BUDGET on Monday, June 6th Sam Gattis and Neal. Evans presented the Manager's proposed budget for the Health Department to you. On June 9th per suggestions by Commissioners Walker--and.:Gustaveson, I asked Sam to distribute copies of our requested budget to you so as to allow you some base of comparison. On Tuesday, June 7th I talked to Sam and Neal and was informed regards the Manager' Budget proposal for our department. The Manager's Budget proposal was 'put together as follows: Last year's T tat appropriation 384,681 Annual cost of mid year staff increase 46,725 I Sub total 7% increase of above sub total 30,198 Stab total � .� Di fference be�ween Last year's grants plus 7% & text year's grants 10 702 Total. program 7�0� Subtract Prop sed Lhvironmental Health Fees -25,ODD Subtract vari us grants -1142 86,6 Proposed Fisc 179 local support 3V'7-6 " Fiscal 178 to al support 252,881 ' Local Support Increase g ,559 Subtract Unallocated Funds from District Department Dissolution (est. ) 3.04 Net Increase '79 2L ,559 Mr. Gattis an Mr. Evans were explicit in stating that their 7% increase was arbi- trary. Secondly, hey stated that the relationship between their funding recommendatioi and the budget narratives (cur proposed objectives and services) was not considered; that this was the rovince of the department. Mr. Gattis stated that it was not his intent to reduce the staff or Level of services over those presently authorized. With a positi e mental attitude, T proceeded to analyze how this department could or could not be rui on that allocation. In my analysis I held three criteria: (A) We wish to provide moe of the minimum level of number and kinds of services in the State " it must be pointed out that this level was not intended to support the staff in crease granted in February, nor based on a planned program, nor based on meeting Standa nor on an analysis of Local needs. r Page 2 Standards than slid the District Department; (B) We wish to provide at least the .same service .level as at this year ending; (C) We do not wish to discharge any staff. I can state with confidence that we can meet all three criteria above at this budget level,. In crder to do this, however, I would be cautioned that there is no room for error. I would have to be &Ugal regards purchase of x-rays , basically not purchase equipment , and perhaps limit mileage later in the year. Secondly, a PU lic health department is supposed to be able to(respond to un- usual,, community problem.) 1 have no premonition that any such situation will arise. However , our budget categories would be tight to the point that we would have to have a. speci.al.appropri ion by the Commissioners to respond to the unusual. Lastly, the State is constantly asking us to provide either short term special services and/or institute new services. For example, we have a directive from Secretary Morrow to now have certain nursing .involvement with developmentally delayed children to prevent then from becoming permanently damaged and not become public wards --- without any State money. Next year I will have to say no to such new directives and simply forward then to the�Boar-d-~and-th ..Commissioners --- staff can only be pushed so far before they will. get into the positi n of having so many duties as to be able to accomplish none of them. Again , it is n?t my intent to be an alarmist. I can continue the"existing staff level and the present services level on this allocation. COMPARISON TO DEPARTMENT REWEST There exists no way to accurately compare .last year's budget and/or the Manager's proposal to our reMIZest except by totals. Last year's budget was nothing more than a 'guesstimate' of whit it would cost to pick up necessary staff to begin with. It was not based on meetin State Standards , cogrnunity needs,or even a program budget. Mr. Gattis' pr posal , as was stated preceeding only deals with a total and does not break this down into program allocations. The narrative portion of our budget was previously presented to you. Our budget was constructed with an analysis of community needs , was grounded in the State Standards ., and was sized in close comparison to appropriate county departments To reinterate his point: We compared ourselves to 9 selected counties in North Carolina that were Thosen to give the best sample. We chose counties of approximately 50,000 population (to discount our student population). Orange Counties' per capita health appropriation was shown to be next to lowest at $4.38 in a range that extends to $6.83; our budget was next to lowest in a range that tops out at $505,909; we had only one 20% time staff ember more than the smallest county department (28.2 staff compared to a11 other depart ents whose staffs n m►berred between 42 and 61): only one other department meets la s of the Standards than we do (the gap between the Orange and Lenoir counties and the otter departments in the sample is Large). The allocation totals may be compared as follows: Total Local Share Fiscal. 178 Bud et beginning allocation ,3 -9T)8i 252, 1 --- _—— Annual Cost of mid-year staff increase 46 725 45,725 Fiscal 178 Adjusted total 3 9 299,606- Manager's Pro ed 179 total budget 472,306 304,440 Page '3 Health Department Request 619,734 403,868* Difference Between Manager's Proposal and Department Request 1247,428 990428 IMPACT OF MANAGER'S PROP0SED BUDGET The Manager's dget by my analysis would allow us to 'hold-the-line' in all respects , if cautiously used. In Environmental Health, since we did receive a mid-year staff increase, we are staffed only one--h .f person short of Standards and we will be able to meet all required minimal work loads .and activities. I would recommend we delay until sometime into the next fiscal year any attempt to regulate private and semi-private water supplies. This would represent a large work load increase and I am presently uncertain as to.attempting this without additional staff. Not doing wells cuts our fee revenue potential approxi- mately in half. in Family Plarning we will continue as at present. We could not expand our load as our clinics are filled up and we would not have funds to hire staff (part-time) to hold additional clinics as proposed. We will continue to be concerned abo).t. teen pregnancy and provide health education time as at present. The proposed teen pregnancy prevention special effort could not be .instituted as sufficient health educator, nurse and clinic time will not exist . This is an interesting example of not doing one thing Leading to additional costs elsewhere. It is highly predictable that some youth we do not get to will end up with a child on A.F.D.C. The generalized preventative health education effort for the community could not be implemented as we could not hire the necessary health educator We.ideh.tified a V.D. epidemic in our narrative. We would continue to not act on this problan exeep as incidental to the Family Planning Program. We would not e able to give attention to tuberculosis as proposed. However , we have to expand our present service level here even if by reducing some other area or areas slightly. We would be urwise to attempt any solo-rectal cancer screening as we would not be able to follow Lp. Secondly, in terms of other chronic disease screening, we would be able to ,expand cur present level (but not as much as proposed) as we are better or- ganized and trained now. Our Maternal ealth and Child Health patient loads are, when compared to community need, quite inade ate. We would not be able to do significantly more than at present. Regards Schoo. Health: I cannot recommend continuing to provide more aid to Chapel Hill/Carrboro than Orange County. I do not value either set of students more. At the proposed budget le el we would not have the option of expanding the Orange County School Health services. he present pattern of inadequate (when compared to need) school healt services will bec e worse as the schools mainstream children with little help from thiE department and wit the impact of inflation on parent's ability to obtain care for their children. Our request suggested increasing staff in Environmental. Health by one; taking on well regulation (ap roximately same size task as septic work); charging full cost recove fees at $73,000 per annum estimated rate, rather than partial fees of $25,000. Page 4 As .inflation ontinues upward , more and more people are being excluded from the for-profit medical service non-system. The demands on our department for preventative clinical services up. Therefore, we either turn people away or provide less of something else. M ts t Likely, we will have to decrease our home nursing visits next year. This will 'adually result in more chronic disease, maternal and child health problems. With,l s community services the high morbidity statistics for Northern Orange County is a tilt chronic diseases and infant mortality will ,predictably,not decrease. It is highly predictable that, for instance, some persons suffering strokes associated with undiagnosed , untreated hypertension will become a public burden along with their families. This Department has the vision and desire to become aggressive and proficient enough to .impact public expenditures by preventing problems rather and simply picking up the incredible oasts after-the-fact. We have picked up momentum and are presently progressing at an unprecedented rate. Holding-the-line will be disastrous to us. We do not want to become a lethargic organization. RELATED ISSUE A key issue in olving non--local Hands used by this department must be decided. Paraphrasing Neal Erans; if program X generates revenue, then that revenue should be used to offset t e local, costs of program X. Sam Gattis indicated.i.fhat this policy would not prohibit using new revenue unrelated to existing programs tira'open a new service, if paid fob totally by the new (non-local tax) revenue. The problems wth these sentiments from my point of view are: (A) public health program 1lindi.ng is not .that categorical, and the expectation is for us to finance new efforts by ne;j rev itng prQpr 2M; (H) given the depressed level of non- oval Nndin� we could never expand our services , all could hope to do is decrease our local at x hand dependency by a smallish margin."* By the accepti g the populist sentiment above, the Commissioners will guarantee exclusion of this d partment from upwards of 70% of all possible Federal health programs and a few of the St to programs. This will guarantee that the bulk of this departments' reso€arces will come mom :local property taxes. e ANIMAL PRO I=CTION SOCIETY OF ORANGE COUNTY POST OFFICE BOX 1304 s CHAPEL HILL . NORTH CAROLINA 27514 lu TELEPHONE 91 9-9& 7- 7 3 8 3 Based on its long record of performance and its interest in all aspects of animal control, the Animal P otection- Society of Orange County believes that it is the agency best qualified to ope ate the Orange County Animal Shelter, as outlined in the original proposal submitted to the governing boards of Chapel Hill and Orange County on September 15, 1977. Major areas of support which APS is uniquely prepared to provide are set out below and are contingent upon APS management of the shelter. I. APS has earned the public's trust and would serve as a buffer for local government by handling the public's animal related problems. I.I. APS can m I a available a pool of volunteers to assist when needed. III. In a county-wide animal control effort, APS can provide proven expertise and the in erest of the entire organization to whom an effective program has highest priority. The goal of APS would be a progressive, cost-effective, and complete animal control program which would include educating the public toward responsible pet ownership and reducing the animal surplus through well planned spaying and neutering programs. IV. APS would erate the shelter according to written procedures that have been carefully d veloped over the past several months. These procedures, which cover all a pects of operating a shelter and participating in an overall animal control program, are based upon actual- experience of APS members in handling animal related problems over a long period of time and are consistent with guidelines developed by national humane organizations. Following these standards of procedure will minimize problems in both shelter operations and complaints from the public. V. APS has off red an estimated contribution of $159000 to cover costs of equipping tie shelter with kennel cages, cleaning equipment, a freezer, water and flied contrai.ners, and office furnishings. Furthermore, APS offers an annual contribution of $10000 - $11,000 toward shelter operation. These contributions would represent considerable savings for the taxpayer and are tanfible demonstration of APS's responsible commitment to support an effectiv tcountywide animal control, program. APS is also in a position to attract ax deductible donations for the shelter. In addition, the use of APS vo1 steers will provide added services to the public in areas such as its rout ne lost-and-found and adoption program. 946 AV T from Agatha R. Johnson Mz Willhoit: I I have checked the June 12th tape of the Aps Conversation and it is as follows: III W kit: would like to see the Board work /,, toward further discussion of a contract that would see more of development of fees and fines and etc. , than what the ApS feels is a reasohal charge in this area." Dr. Reist responded by stating the APS would be d8lighted to work with the Board in tLs area. MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REALLOCATION OF CETA FUNDS The sta f today reviewed with Jack Stone and Dennis Cada their latest anal sis of Title VI funding available for dispersal in Orange County. To set forth clearly our position we are submitting the following statements and recommendations; 1. DOE TS estimates it has $80,445 available today to continue Title VI through September 30th. 2. To and all current Title VI positions through September 30th DOES needs $120,000. 3. DOET3 must reduce its level of operation in Orange County by $40X00 between now and September 30th. 4. Next year (10/l/78 - 9/30/79) DOETS estimates Orange County can real nably expect funding sufficient for 32 job slots. 5. Curr ntly 73 job slots are funded in Orange County. 6. The staff recommends reducing CETA funding to a level more nearly corresponding with the 32 slots estimated to be available for the next federal fiscal year. 7. To implement this recommendation the staff recommends. " A. Carrboro accept financial responsibility for 5 of II CETA slots presently working for the Town. B. Hillsborough accept financial responsibility for 5 f the 11 CETA slots presently working with the Town. C. Chapel Hill accept financial responsibility for 10 of the 14 CETA slots presently working for the Town. U. grange County accept financial responsibility for 5 of he 21 slots presently working for Grange County. Q E. he 40 slots presently functioning in non governmental gencies be continued until the conclusion date of their existing projects, September 30th. 8.-, This will leave 42 positions funded on September 30th, with 31 havi g been discontinued at previously determined times. 9. This proposal makes no provision to continue non governmental posi �ions beyond September 30th with some positions being terminated prior to that time. 10. The staff is making no recommendation concerning allocation of Title VI positions beyond September 30th. To accomplish the dollar cutback necessary to recover the $40,000 mentioned in statement 3, the staff recommends: A. Orange County eliminate by transferring to the County payroll the slots filled by: Est a, David Wagner d. William Torain b. Marvin Rosemond e. Benjamin Clark c. Charles Baldwin B. Carrboro eliminate from the CETA payroll : a. Accounting Clerk b. Two police positions c. Two sign project positions, one of which is currently vacant C. Hillsborough eliminate from its CETA payroll : a. Bookkeeper b. Plant operator c. Two positions from the water-sewer project d. Equipment operator position, which is now vacant D. Chapel Hill eliminate from its CETA payroll : a. Recreation custodian Community worker in the Ridgefield project c. Eight positions from the Parks Project, three of which are vacant and all of which are scheduled to terminate 8/8/78 or before. 11 . If the above recommendations are actually implemented on September 30th, CETA employees in Orange County will be distributed in this manner: A. Orange County 16 B. Carr5oro, 6 C. Hill borough 6 D. Chap 1 Hill 12. The County should reserve approximately $40,000 in its contingency to fund positions that may be discontinued because of changed federal regulations on October 1 , 1978. CETA RECOMMENDATIONS- FUNDING Existing Recomended Extension Unit Positions Extension FundijK County 21 16 24,700 Carrboro 11 6 11 ,500 Chapel Hill 14 4 6,200 Hillsborough 11 6 13,600 Nonnta 16 16 17,100 �G�overnme Sub total 73 48 73,100 Fringes 7,310 Total 73 48 80,410 ORANGE COUNTY RECOMMENDED CETA CONTINUATION POSITION EXPIRATION DATE Switchboard Operation 9/30/78 Finance Clerk 6/30/78 Sanitation Driver 6/30178 - Sanitation Laborer 6/30/78 Assistant Sanitation Driver 6/30/78 Librarian 6/30/78 Clerk I (Social Servi es) 6/30/78 Planning Technician 7/25/78 Assistant Driver (Gre n Box Project) 6/30/78 Repair Person (Green 3ox Project) 6/30/78 Coordinator (Status of Women) 8/8/78 Electrical Repair 6/27/78 0ainter 7/5/78 P1-umber 8/15/78 Secretary (PuM-ic Works) 6130/78 Electrician 6/30/78 REQUIRED CETA FUNDS 24,700 RECOMMENDED FOR COUNTY FUNDING POSITION EXPIRATION DATE Maintenance 6/30/78 Planning Technician 6/16178 Repair person (Green Pox Project) 7/1/78 Truck Driver (Green Box Project) 6/30/78 Plumber 7/5/78 REQUIRED COUNTY FUNDS _.44,038 (Annual plus fringes) CARR80RO RECOMMENDED} CETA CONTINUATION POSTION EXPIRATION DATE Housing Code Inspect 6/30/78 Fire Home Inspector 6/30/78 _ Fire Fighting Engine r 6/30/78 Police Position 6/30/78 Street Maintenance 6/30/78 Street Maintenance 6/30/78 REQUIRED CETA FUNDS _ l�t_ _ 500 _--- RECOMMENDED CARR80RO FUNDING OR .DISCONTINUATION POSITION EXPIRATION DATE.. Account Clerk II 6/30178 Police Position 6/30/78 Police Position 6130/78 Carpenter 6/19/78 Laborer 6/19/78 REQUIRED CARRBORO FUNDING _A,OQD, (3 months) t CHAPEL HILL RECOMMENDED CETA CONTINUATION POSITION EXPIRATION DATE Carpenter Foreman 5/30/78 _ Carpenter Trainee 8/31/78 Carpenter Trainee 8/31/78 Personnel Clerk 5/30/78 REQUIRED CETA FUNDS 5,200 RECOMMENDED CHAPEL HILL FUNDING OR DISCONTINUATION POSITION EXPIRATION DAVE Recreation Custodian A11 7/18 - 8/8 Laborer Laborer Laborer Laborer Laborer Laborer Laborer Crew Chief Community Worker REQUIRED CHAPEL MILL FUNDING _12,000 (3 months) HILLSBOROUGH RECOMMENDED CETA CONTINUATION POSITION EXPIRATION DAVE Pipelayer 6/30/78 Pipelayer 6/30/78 Equipment Opr. 6/30/78 Carpenter 6/30/78 Carpenter 6/30/78 Pipelayer 6/30/78 REQUIRED CETA FUNDS 13,600 RECOMMENDED HIL.L.S80RQUGH FUNDING OR DISCONTINUATION POSITION EXPIRATION DATE Bookkeeper 6/30/78 Plant Opr. 6/30/7&t- Equipment Opr. - Pipelayer 6/24/78 Equipment Opr. 6/24/78 REQUIRED HILLSBOROUGH FUNDS 11,400 3 months) NONGOVERNMENTAL RECOMMENDED CCTA CONTINUATION POSITION EXPIRATION DATE None Based Tutor 6/30/78 Tutorial Assistant 9/19/78v-- Home Based Tutor 6/30/78, Tutor Assistant 9/19/78`` Tutorial Assistant 9/19/78 Crew Person 8/18/78 Crew Person 8/18/78 Crew Leader 8/18/78 Tutor 9/19/78.- Crew. .Person 8/18/78 Crew Leader 5/24/78 Crew leader 8/15/78 Crew Person 6/21/78 Forerun 6130/78 Carpenter II 6/30/78 Mason 6/30/78 REQUIRED CETA FUNDS 17_j00 - I 6/9/78 W, 445 . 00 TITLE Vi Orange County Jetty Hutcher on SwItc.hboard Opr . $251.53 (B/W) Rose Guthrie Finance Clerk $248.80 (B/w) San; Borland Driver (Sanitation) $314. 42 (B/W) Charles Moody Laborer " ;_ $z82. 6s Wilbur Turner Assistant Driver" e= $288.46 t/paul Thompson Foreman $384. 61 Francis Covington Librarian $263.81 J/hick Sartis Carpenter 11 $308.34 ./Fred Chavious Mason $383. 71 David Wagner Maintenance $349.13 Marvin Rosemond Planning Technician $342.60 Barbara RiC3 e Clerk T (Social Seryi-ce) $252.J30 Theresa Matlock Planning Technician $342. 62 "Green, Box Project" 3e Charles Baldwin Repair Person $233.00 Gerald McPherson Assistant Driver $242.33 Richard Tho.mpsan Repair Person $233.00 - William. Torain Truck Driver $238.04 i p-4 Fero i 6c t 1 ��tt1.S o.�. Wo .....r,,., Ivanc y Park Coordinator $326. 92 "Cedar Grove Project`! Benj="nin Clark Plumber $299.49 - Alvin Ca..rte;. Electricial Repair $300.35 r j TOWN OF CARRBORO Su,.tainmeut Debra Hamlet Account Clerk 11 $:333. 7.3 William Kilpatrick Uousing Code Iinspector $367. 96 Micky Baker Fire Home Inspector $288. 00 Stanley Foush - e Fire Fighting Engineer $302. 68 Michael Harris Police Officer $333. 73 _ Mahlon Willials Police Officer $317. 6© Sara Denny Police Dispatcher $317 . 60 Freddie Strou Street Maintenance $249. 04 Randolph Small Street Maintenance $248 ,80 S ' Weldin.g roject Donald Hilton Carpenter $30-5.88 "Open Position" Laborer TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL Sustainment Gilbert Armstrong Carpenter Foreman $374 . 08 David Burnett Carpenter Trainee $322 . 56 James ,Tones Carpenter Trainee $.322. 5£ Tempe Smith. Personnel Clerk $297 . 60 "Open Po"sition" Recreation. Custodian "Park Project's' Open Position Laborer Raymond Ales` ck Laborer $252.80 Open Posti,on Laborer Michai!l O 'Connell Laborer $156. 73 Harry Downey Laborer $252. 80 Jennifer Wi_son Laborer - $24� •88 Dennis Lee Laborer $156. 73 Roy Woodward Crecy Chief $277 . 20 (Hired by to Rid�,ef.ield Prn l ect°� P iKeith Mitchell Community Worker $307 . 20 r l'©VN OF F[ILLSBOROUGH Sep s to inmen t.. Donald Daye Pipelayer $313. 03 Paul Cherry Pipelayer $313 .03 Frank Combs Equipment Opr - $368.88 Fred Corzine Bookeeper $384_ 61 ,Tames Hayes Plant Opr» $381. 60 Ben Kenion Carpenter $384. 61 Glenn Miller Carpenter $384. 61 Lewis Walker Pipelayer $328. 48 Open Position Equipment Qpr. -Water -aa(I-Sewer Pr2j_ect. George Peacock Pipelayer $31-3,03 Gary Franklin Equipment Opr. $30$., 00 J-0 C C A Sus t'ainment Jeanie Arnel Bone Based Tutor $269. 23 Teresa Duvall Tutorial Assistant $302.88 Carol Eshleman Home Based Tutor $269. 23 Margarita Rice Tutor Assistant $302.88 Bruce Sampson Tutorial Assistant $259. 92 Johnny Harrison Crew Person $240.00 Steven Trolyer Crew Person $216. 00 Paul ,Thompson Crecy Leaden" $384. 61 Re-rrd Kar ti._n Tutor $288.46 (Resigned) [d iterzai_an- P'zoject ( not 12 months) Larry Brittian Crew Person. $246-.,.00 Mart: Marks Crew Leader $3$4. 61 Kenneth Reid Crew Leader $384. 61 Paul Trembley Crew Person $240. 00 a�