Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-08-1982 ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING TUESDAY JUNE 8, 1982 7:30 P.M. SUPERIOR COURTROOM, ORANGE COUNTY COURTHOUSE HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA A. Public hearing on the proposed County budget for Fiscal 1982-83. ---- 11P RI hard E. , itte, Orange County Board .`���^ 02 1 JUNE 8, 1982 MINUTES The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in special session on Tuesday ne 8, 1982, at 7:30 P.M. in the Superior Courtroom, Orange County Courthouse, 'llsbnrough, North Carolina. Commissioners present: Chairman Richard E. Whitted and Commissioners Norm staveson, Shirley E. Marshall, Norman Walker and Don Willhoit (who arrived at :45 P.M.) Chairman Richard E. Whitted announced that this was a public hearing on e proposed County I982-83 budget; he introduced Orange County Manager Kenneth ' Thompson who introduced the Finance Staff, Department Heads and reviewed the 'ecutive summary for the public. Chairman Whitted opened the floor for public comments. Pat Sumner: A teacher and a parent, spoke in favor of the Orange County hool Board budget. She said with two systems in the County, one suffers from b-standard facilities. She is in favor of local supplement to the teacher's `lary' She asked member of the audience to stand in support of this budget. Lindsay Tapp: A Principal, spoke in favor of capital funding for Orange County chools. He said with a brand new jail, the students surely deserved as much as he inmates of the jail . He told the Board to get "their priorities in order." e specifically mentioned A.L. Standback school as a high need area. Millie Hunter: Orange County school teacher, spoke in favor of the teachers' alary supplement. Debra Corbin: Spoke in favor of the entire Orange County school budget. She dded that teachers are over-loaded with work which brings on stress. Nancy Rudisill: Spoke in favor of the teachers', salary yupplement. She said any teachers spend money out of their own pocket for instructional materials. Jerry Cheeks Spoke as a member of the A.L. Stanback Advisory Council. He .aid he supports the entire Orange County budget and said the needs at Stanback .re obvious. Bob Bateman: Also supports the entire Orange County school budget; he specifcally entioned the needs at Stanback. Dick White: a parent, spoke on behalf of Cameron Park School . He also specifically mentioned the needs at A.L. Stanback. He is in favor of increased \ ' �, ,� 8��' °~`~ taxes to fund the capital outlay request of the Orange County Schools. \ | James Dogerty: Spoke as the parent of three children, one at Stanback. He } asked that the Board fund the capital needs of Stanback in full. He questioned the negative environmental impact of Stanback on the learning and safety and security of the children. Jo Westbrook: Spoke as the parent of a child at Stanback. She addressed her concerns to the quality of education available at Stanback, She feels the Board should "ensure every opportunity available" to the children there. She cited safety concerns at Stanback. Shirley Popes: Spoke as the parent of a child in Stanback. She cited safety problems and said there was no improvement over the past year. She asked that the Board of Commissioners appropriate the full amount the Orange County Board of _ Education has requested for Stanback. Brenda Alexander: Spoke as the parent of a child at Grady Brown and for 65 other parents. She is in favor of funding for children with special needs. Robbie Harris: Foresty Service employee. Spoke in favor of restoring the . $4,300 the Manager cut from his budget. He said the State would match that cut with $6,400 in cuts. He said a new vehidle was needed this year on the Forestry Services replacement policy. John Morgan: Spoke for the Greater Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce. He said the Chamber supports the no tax increase budget brought in by the Manager. He asks that the Board and the schools discuss needs prior to next year's budget. The Chamber endorses plans to strenghten the Sheriff's department. The Chamber feels, however, that some money should be specified for economic development in the County budget. The Chamber asks that a study be performed to determine if: 1) thure1s duplication of services; 2) responsibility and liability for volunteers; 3) number of persons receiving service; and, 4) cost of service delivery for ' human services departments. Katherine Morrison: Spoke for the Rape Crisis Center. She cited the Center's activities in the past year and statistics on rape in the County. She asked that the Board consider funding the Center at its full level requested. | Rovert Greenburg: Asked for an increase of 2.8 workers in Child Protective Services. He said this would just meet mandated services. He said due to inadequate staffing some cases are missed. Slally Plummer: Spoke for her support of the day care services. She said it ' ' - �� `_�{.`��^ ` �.� � ■ '� ,` . ^�.� .� v�����! A��� ' ,��'! / allows parents to work; attend school to upgrade their skills; and serves as a resource for families in stress and an early remedial tool for children. Malcom Hunter: Spoke as the parent of a five year old child in day care. He is in favor of funding for day care services, citing the workers as efficient and hard-working. He said good day care could have an impact on the number of jail cells the County would need later. Julia Bowen: Spoke in favor of funding day care services. She said it is cost effective and breaks the welfare cycle. Linda Foxworth: Spoke as the Director of the Sycamore Day Care Center. She is in favor of funding day care services. She cited the benefits of day care on . special needs children and said day care teaches essential social skills early. She said Title XX cuts are forcing them to choose between low income and special needs children for service. — Greg Jarvis: Spoke as the parent of a special needs child in Sycamore Day Care School . He cited her progress as a student at the school and said since his daughter is on a scholarship, funding cutbacks may eliminate her from the school. Dee Gamble: Spoke in favor of the day care services in the Department of Social Services budget. She asked that the Board increase funding to 8d@t Pro- tective Services for the additional positions. Thelma Harms: Spoke in favor of day care funding particularly in these "hard economic times'" Dick Clipper: Spoke in favor of increased funding for Day Care Services. He said the cost of a special needs child for day care was 2 times that of a normal child. He said the long term benefits to the child and by extension the government far out weigh the short term costs of good day care service./ n^��� ' . Mary Jane Meeker: Urged the Board to increase dpy care funding. Jane Cousins: Thanked the Board for past funding of Battered Women and Children services and asked that they continue support at the full funding level requested. Charlie Shaeffer: A pediatrician in Chapel Hill spoke in favor of increased funding to Child Protective Services. He said 25% of the children treated through this program had been sexually abused. Brenda Edwards: Women's Health Counseling Service, asked for increased fund- ing over the Manager's recommended budget. She reviewed the objectives for this 014 year and the program for last year. Ms. Edwards said 4,000 hours had been vol- unteered. Jan Schwa]: Thanked the Board for its past support of the Dispute Settlement Center and asked for its continued financial support. Sue Faulkner: Spoke in favor of increased funding for Child Protective Ser- vices. Brenda Burney: Spoke for increased funding for Child Protective Services; she said Orange County carries 3-4 times the recommended case load. Marshall Cates: As a member of the Exchange Club, asked the Board to increase Child Protective Services funding and to fund the schools' requests. Paul Williams: From Bingham Township, spoke in favor of day care funding. He !cited the beneficial effects of good day care, enhanced physical and skill develop- ment, self control and pride in the child. Peggy McCarthy: Chair of the Commission on Women, said that the Commission, as an Advisory Body to the Board, fully supports the budget requests of Day Care, Rape Crisis Center, Coalition for Battered Women. She asked that the Board increase funding to the Health Department by $60,500 for development of maternity clinics, a child health program and the infant seat loaner program. Jean Chapman: A parent spoke on behalf of day care funding. She asked that it be increased. She is also a pediatrician in Orange County. She said good day care can aid in the early detection of kids' problems. John Hughes: A social worker at NCMH, spoke in favor of increased Child Protective Services funding. He is also in favor of increased day care funding. Martha Carr: Spoke in favor of full funding of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools' request. She cited the excellent services offered by this school system. She said the School Board had cut the budget requested by Dr. Mayer by $106,000. Lois Lee: Spoke as a teacher and parent. She said changes in the programs offered would be required as the result of these cuts in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools' budget. She asked that the total education budget be funded as requested. Peg Parker: Spoke as a parent, voter and taxpayer. She said the Board's most important appropriation ,was to the schools. She asked that the Chapel Hill- Carrboro schools be funded at their full request. She suggested that the supple- mental school district tax be increased to fund programs as requested. Majorie Hill: Spoke as a parent. She said it was a shame to see programs cut which were offered last year. She said once a program was cut it was impassible / ' | ' 0��� ' to refund it and start it up again. She asked that the supplemental tax be considered to make up the difference in the cuts and said education is # 1 priority. She asked that both school systems' budgets be funded in full. Sarah Stewart: Spoke as a parent and a reading teacher. She asked that the Board consider the impact of the cuts on the children. She is in favor of funding the elementary remedial program. Pat Dalton: Spoke as a member of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Federation of Teachers. She said this school system's budget contained "no luxuries, no frills" and asked that the Board remember that cuts had already been made due to the short- fall' She said further cuts will affect direct services to the children. The requirement, according to Ms. Dalton, of a quality education is time, energy and commitment from the schools and money from the Board of Commissioners. Edwin Caldwell: Spoke as a member of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education. He said this is a "realistic budget" and that the School Board had already cut where it could. He said he was alarmed by the funding cuts being made in Washington and said they were not being picked up at the State level; therefore, it is up to the Commissioners to pick up those cuts' He urged cooperation between the Commissioners and school boards. Tom Walston: Spoke as a parent of children in Carrboro schools. He urged the Commissioners to support the budget request and fund it in full. He said the Manager's budget was insensitive to the needs of Orange County citizens. Linda Barber: Spoke as a teacher in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro school system. She is in favor of full funding of the budget request and for "planning for future quality education for children." She suggested increasing the supplemental tax to ensure commitment to education. Robert Bryan: A resident of Chapel Hill. Said he doesn't want to pay in- creased taxes and asked the Commissioners to hold thq line on taxes this year. He said it is "inconceivable that these people can call this a 'bare bones' budget." Richard Andrews: Said that he wanted to enforce the previous speakers' exhortations with regard to the education budget. He asked that the Chapel Hill- Carrboro schools' budget be funded in toto. There were no others who wished to speak. Chairman Whitted announced the Board work sessions on the budget and thanked those who had spoken this evening. .` . ' . ', ^ r'�� '�` ,' ��� _ ` z ()�� Commissioner Walker moved, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson, to adjourn. ' Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0, ' �� ~ �n- * Rjoha -~ ' ''' ' . Paulette Pridgen-Pond, Clerk ' ` _ . ' ! | | The Greater Chapel Hill-Carrboro 1 chc.1rnRer-Z of ezvcommerzce 104 S.ESTES DR./P O.BOX 2897/CHAPEL HILL,N.C.27514 (919)967-7075 TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners FROM Executive Committee DATE: June 7, 1982 RE: Proposed 1982-83 Budget The Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce supports the proposed Orange County Budget for 1982-83 as proposed on May 2 by the County Manager. We applaud the emphasis on cost containment and efficiency. We believe the County's tax payers will appreciate the successful effort to avoid an increase in the tax rate. The Chamber position is based on a review of the proposed budget by Chamber committees and directors, and as a result of a comprehensive discussion of the budget with the County Manager. In taking this position, we are mindful of the impact of the budgets of the two school districts on the overall budget. Their budgets account for about 51% of the total property tax dollars expended. We understand the Commissioners' position in view of the economy. We urge the school dis- tricts and the Commissioners to discuss and resolve their differing view- points prior to next year's budget consideration. The Chamber strongly supports the Manager's program to measure the cost effectiveness and overall performance of the various county departments. We also endorse the proposed plan to strengthen the Sheriff's department and to improve patrol and investigative services. The County supplies a wide range of human services to Orange County resi- dents, including families of students attending the University here and probably other schools in nearby areas. Most of these services are free. The Chamber recommends that wherever possible medical and health fees should be charged on the basis of ability to pay. Such an approach has been recommended by the Medical Health Division of the Health Department; and the Dental Clinic has been doing this for some time. In face of the likelihood of further reductions in state and federal giants, such a program should be broadened and given strong support. Orange County Board of Commissioners June 7, 1982 Page 2 We note that among services classified as non-departmental expenses are allocations to independent agencies, several of which appear to duplicate services performed in Human Services departments, or United Fund agencies. We recommend that a study be undertaken to: 1) determine if there is duplication of services; 2) determine who has responsibility and liability for volunteers serving in these agencies; 3) how many persons are served by the activity; 4) the per-person cost for the services in comparison with state norms. The two objectives of such a study should be 1) to determine if the benefits exceed the costs, and 2) whether the service is best performed by a public agency (under local government control) or by an independent non-profit agency. The Chamber is very concerned that there is no specific allocation for economic development in the otherwise very detailed budget. We, of course, understand that economic development is, in a real sense, a basic function of government and it is therefore implicit in many departmental budgets. However, in light of recent studies encouraged if not funded by the County; in light of the Commissioners stated interests in encouraging economic development and in light of recent Chamber comments on the County's image among those concerned with development, the Chamber does not understand this apparent ommission. The Chamber believes that the County should establish a development fund out of which expenditures could be made to permit the extension of water, sewer, streets and other governmental services as needed and where appropriate. This fund should initially be established at at least a $100,000 level. It should be added to annually through additional appropriations and through recoveries of previous expenditures such as tap on fees where water lines are extended. Moreover, there should be funding for a county wide economic development effort such as outlined by the Chamber in its major policy recommendation entitled "A Structure to Encourage Economic Development in Orange County" which will be in the hands of local government officials within the week. We strongly urge the inclusion of funds to encourage economic development in this budget. The opitmum way to manage them can be determined later. The key decision for the immediate future is that such funds will be set aside. We appreciate the opportunity to be heard and look forward to working with you in the future. John L. Morgan, Jr. Vice President, Public and Governmental Affairs MANAGER'S RECOK4ENDED 1982w83 e PROGRAM � �. B IIN UDGET & J Executive \ a' ORANGE COUNTY", NORTH CAROLINA E XCCUTI VE_,SU14MARY I NTRODPCTi ON The purpose of this 'summary is to provide a comprehensive and simplified overview of Orange County's budget and to highlight important factors that affect the budget process. Summaries of projected revenues and recommended appropriations follow this introduction. It t is expected that General Fund Revenue growth will amount to 3.11 percent. This year compares with past year growth of 6.74% in 1981-82, 14.85% in 7980-$1* and 6.99% in 1979-80. The lower growth rate in the tax base is believed to be due to a general slump in the economy. � Locally we know that building permits are down 30 percent .from 1981 and 44 percent from 1980. Also, lesser amounts of inventory are being maintained in area businesses. Sales, of goods and services, which shows up in sales tax revenue and personal property tax revenue, might be affected by many wage earners experiencing layoffs and fluctuating work weeks (alternati-ng between 4 and 5 days among f County manufacturers) and by Orange County farmers who see milk prices droppinq and.tobacco price ' supports in an uncertain condition after this year. Faced with these conditions and notin�l various indicators of economic pressure on the citizenry, the Board slave early instruction that effort should be made to pare expenditures so as to maintain the existing tax rate for another year. What follows complies with the instruction. It proposes an appropriation level that seeks the best utilization of existing funds to maintain current service , levels and reach work program objectives without a tax increase. The public's assessment together with input from departments, agencies and public during May and June will enable-the Board of Commissioners to .judge the impact of the various expenditure recommendations- and to make- the adjustments it sees fit before adopting a final budget for the coming year. i * The 1980-81 growth rate included an 11% tax increase - from $.90 to $.995 per $100 valuation. -1- ORANGE COUNTY , NORTH CAROLINA THE GENERAL FUND The general fund is the general operating fund of the County and is used to account for all financial resources except those required to be'-accounted for in another fund. Revenues As in former years, the major revenue source will be ad valorem taxes on personal and real property. After consideration of non-tax sources the portion to be funded from current year taxes is $9,838,920. This is up from the $9,420,324 in current year revenue of 1981-82. The tax rate necessary to produce the amount for 1982-83 is 54.4¢ per $108 in valuation. The revenue growth in the General Fund is used to decrease the fund balance appropriation necessary to balance the budget this year over last, retain the necessary operating capital , and meet expenditure increases. Fund Balance This year's recommended appropriation of fund balance needed to "balance" the general fund budget is $300,000, which is considerably less than the current years appropriation of $773,280. The significance of this decrease is that it reduces the dependency on prior year, non-recurrent funds and allows the County to maintain the working capital needed for those months at the beginning of the fiscal year where expenditures exceed revenues. Appropriations The recommended general fund appropriation is only $25,435 more than the 1981-82 budget or a .15% increase. In the recommended budget, County operating departments decreased 1.5%; school operating funds, which makes up 37% of the general Band, increased 1.8%, and agency support decreased 2.6%. --- ORANGE COUNTY , NORTH CAROLINA i SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS 1 The special revenue funds are used to account for the proceeds of specific revenue sources that are legally restricted to expenditure for specific Purposes. The special revenue funds of the County include. Property Revaluation Fund, Local Fire Districts and Dogwood Sanitary District. The fire districts tax rates are recommended as follows: Cedar Grove $.06 Efland ,025 Eno .04 New Hope .035 Orange ,03 Orange Grave .04 South Orange .07 E Chapel Hill .065 Southern Triangle .04 Little River .o6 A rate for the newly proposed Demascus Fire District will be recommended if the voters elect to approve the establishment of the district June 29, 1982. E 5 Monies to set aside in reserve for the next octennial revaluation of real property, as required by G. S. 153A--1500, are also made a part of this fund. The recommended appropriation � is $52,500 versus $50,000 last ,year, The Dogwood Sanitary District makes up the third component of the fund. Out of an original $80,000 in bonds sold to pay for extending a waterline to the subdivision $20,000 remains standing. Principal will cost $5,000 while interest will amount to $1 ut- ,150. !l tax rate of out- is recommended for 1982-83. ORANGE COUNTY . NORTH CAROLINA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Capital improvements, which are shown in the general fund as an interfud transfer, are recommended at a reduced level as another measure necessary for balancing the budget within the revenue available. a. County capital improvements are recommended at a level of $300,000. This is down $203,100 or 39% from the 1981-82 level of $507,100. b. Capital improvement appropriation is recommended at $250,000 for each school system. This is down $50,000 or 16.7% from the 19€31-82 level of $300,000 and short of the sums requested. This is the recommended budget for 1982-83. Board action on the recommendation together with any modifications resulting from further budget work-sessions will be decided June 22, 1982. f { ORANGE COUNTY , NORTH CAROLINA REQUIREMENTS IN COUNTY FINANCE The Budget must be balanced. Sufficient appropriations must be made for Debt Service, dny deficits, contracts, and reappraisal reserve. Mandated services must be funded. Contingency appropriations are limited to 5%. Property tax collection estimates may not exceed the prior year experience. 1 ORANGE COUNTY , NORTH CAROLINA SUMMARY Of REVENUES 3 �t 1 �cflOLIN/*I' --------- -.- -...-..-_.....ORANGE } J Y sJU�t4 SUMMARY OF REVENUES 1982-83 ALL! 'FUNDS '• SPECIAL CAPITAL GENERAL REVENUE PROJECTS TOTAL FUND FUNDS FUNDS TAXES: - current Year Levy 10,123,292 9,838,920 254,372 Prior Years' Collections 152,700 150,000 2,700 - Penalties & Interest on 47,000 47,000 - - Delinquent Tax ! Payments in Lieu of Taxes 1,300 1,300 - - F Local Option Sates Tax 2,050,000 2,050,000 - - Animal Tax 32,000 32,000 - - Franchise Tax 2,500 2,500 - - TOTAL TAXES 12,408,792 12,121,720 287,072 - License & Permits 82,400 82,400 - - Intergovernmental Revenues 3,369,423 3,369,423 Charges for Services 480,473 480,473 - - Interest on Investments 321,935 313,000 8,935 - Other Revenue 132,750 _ 132,750 - - 16,795,773 766 296,007 � TOTAL REVENUE 16,499, � Transfers From Other Funds 402,696 5,196 52,500 345;000 Total Revenues & Transfers 17,198069 16,504,962 348,507 345,000 I Fund Balances Appropriated 342,687 300,000 42,687 - ' TOTAL BUDGET 17,541,156 16,504,962 391,194 345,000 i I I k E NTY NORTH -ORANGE CQU GENERAL FUND SCHEDULE OF REVENUES 1982 --# 1983 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE RECOI3MENDED APPROVED PROPERTY TAXES Current Year Levy 8,813,462 9,420,324 9,600,000 9,838,920 Prior Year's Collection 208,135 112,000 155,000 150,000 Penalties & Interest 88,543 40,000 40,000 47,000 Payments in Lieu of Taxes 2,778 1,300 1,300 � _ Total Property Taxes 9,112,918 9,573,624 9,795,300 10,037,220 OTHER TAXES Local Option Sales Tax 1,736,136 1,839,588 1,900,000 2,050,000 Animal Tax 34,490 36,500 34,500 32,000 Franchise Tax - - 1500 2,500 Total Other Taxes 1,770,526 1,876,088 1,936,000 2,084,500 LICENSE & PEU1ITS Privilege License 7,938 6,000 10,000 10,000 Electrical Inspections 24,824 25,000 25,000 25,000 Building Inspectionn 29,656 35,000 27,000 33,250 Plumbing Inspections 8,336 10,000 6,700 7,250 Mechanical Inspections - 10,000 2,300 6 Total. License & Permits 70,754 86,000 71,0€30 82,400 INTERGOVERMIENTAL REVENUE Social Service Programs 1.,401,317 1,358,403 1,192,475 1,093,746 Support Enforcement 32,784 35,722 50,000 58,700 Health Programs 306,606 329,119 329,119 305,422 Aging Programs 51,407 55,532 57,100 93,294 Criminal Justice 10,860 13,504 13,504 12,392 Planning Grant 1,581 ^ � Veterans' Service - 1,000 1,000 1,000 Human Resources Grant 38,923 44,869 44,869 44,869 Land Titles Grant - 1,000 -- 11,000 i Energy Grant : 3,349 General Revenue Sharing 495,839 500,000 500,000 500,000 f t 1�1'ii' � Gt7t i` TY . 4�.4�`F`l'F# ��IE�C3�.1t'�1��=-- - - - ..--._... - ... .. _ GENERAL FUND SCHEDULE OF REVENUES 1982-- 1983 1980-81 1 981-82 1982-83 ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIRATE RECOMMENDED APPROVED State Shared Revenue ABC Board 560,000 576,820 540,000 500.000 ABC Rehabilitation 38,871 40-376 40,000 40,000 Intangibles Tax 554,012 425,000 554,011 575.000 Beer & Wine Tax 76,044 78,325 130,106 134,000 _ ' Total Intergovernmental Revenues 3,571,593 3,459,670 3,452,184 3,369,423 CHARGES FOR SERVICES Register of Deeds' Fees 168,328 173,888 165,000 156,000 Consolidated Tax Collection 25,431 27,000 27,000 27,000 Court Facility Fees 31,510 30,000 30,000 33,000 Health Services Fees 52,038 66,650 47,650 62,600 Dental Health Fees 19,625 28,000 28,000 37,000 Recreation Programs 30,606 80,499 35,000 35,000 Officers' Fees 34,677 30,000 38,000 38,000 Telephone Charges 10,937 12,000 12,000 26,736 Election Fees 735 9,000 6,000 500 Social Services Charges 10,433 3,750 3,750 Dog Program Fees 4,037 4,500 2,000 4,037 3 ,jail Fees 3,721 1,500 1,500 1,500 Aging - HHA Fees 23,647 44,080 31,680 25,000 Planning Fees 1,062 25,000 18,900 19,100 Software Licensing Fees - 15,000 Total Charges for Services 416,787 5:35,867 446,4$0 480,473 Interest On Investments 329,861 325,000 343,000 31E3 1 OTHER REVENUE Water & Sewer Reimbursement 45,391 35,348 35,348 45,000 Indirect Cost 35,186 33,000 22,000 15,000 Special Assessments 8,905 5,000 16,530 16,000 IV-D Refunds 30,454 35,550 30,000 20,250 E Sales Tax Refunds 15,412 11,200 11,200 16,000 , _ Donations 5,613 4;500 7,050 6,500 : r .Motor Fuel Refunds 5,547 5,800 5,800 7,000 Rents 2,850 4,000 2,400 2,400 , Other 27,960 15,600 9,000 41600 Total _ Other ,�,,..n.,,�, 149 9 8 139,328 � 112,750 ORANGE COUNTY , GENERAL FUND SCHEDULE i OF REVENUES 1962 - 1983 1361-82 1982-83 1980-81 RECOMMENDED APPROVED ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE Balance Forwarded: 149,998 139,326 132,750 Total Other Revenues .177,318 r _ _ 5,196 25,0_ 13 16 504,962 Transfer T�ra�n Other funds 15,474,870 '�16,0� 06,247 �1fs,16�i,29? Total Revenues 6 transfers 773 280 X108 X162} 3©i�,fl{lC Fund Balance Appropriation (1�Q9) -----�--- f0I'AL $I5,374,461 $16,779� 527 $ 6,0� 7b,13(� 1 ,804 ? i l t r ORANGE COUNTY . NORTH CAROLINA THE REVENUE DOLLAR 1982-83 3 I PROPERTY TAX 593 � fi Yi� �z� t. .j�Y'Iilti�•lii`i.� .'� �.'ii`iL� OTHER LOCAL TAX 1Z.4t tsss Raft I$UCALU.utn Myllii �f�l�s���`(;�� F S tON Alt t?LC7l.fi?ttIC AX4 F1FrfAF[ �:}� ..•' _''' tFi, r�' °^— 132,y_`' i INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE 20.1� E 81S "`7= ia. , � '1�} CHARGES FOR SERVICE 2.8G I 18600452A 2 A d 5 L, = , •�--�_ - 1 - , 5 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS Mips — j no's OTHER 1.3 � f `I ~ :'°°+'^-�. ,�• ? �, FUND BALANCE APPROPRIATED 1.8� 1 UO.Ot 3 f ORANGE COUNTY , NORTH CAROLINA f s SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED APPROPRIAT11ONS T i —ORANGE COUNTY , tt)01r I-iFl. iJ SUMMARY OF,APPROPRIATIONS 1982-83 ALL FUNDS t SPECIAL CAPIT4 GENERAL' REVENUE PROJECTS TOTAL FUND FUND F— UNDS General Administration 51,790,144 $1 ,790,144 a - - Communi.ty Maintenance 468,051 468,051 - - Human Services 4,454,565 4,454,565 - - Education 6,207,544 6,207,544 - Public Safety 1 ,649,986 1 ,649,986 - - Public Works 727,555 72.7,555 Nondepartental 1,162,117 1,109,617 52,500 - Remittance to Special Districts 333,498 - 333,498 - . Capital Protects 345,000 345i 000 Transfers to Other Funds 412,696 397,500 5,196 - Total Budget $17,541,156 $16,804,952 $391 ,194 $345;000 f a ORANGE COUNTY , NORTH CAROLINA -- GENERAL FUND SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED APPROPRIATIONS 1982-83 PERCENT CHANGE 1980-81 T' 1981-82 1982-83 INCREASE/ ACTUAL BUDGFT ESTIMATE RECOMMENDED DECREASE) APPROVED Community Maintenance- County Commissioners 93,661 100,219 97,794 100,027 (.2%% Courts* 10,705 21 ,331 21 ,331 27;405 28.5% Elections 67,965 109,869 105,204 73 ,055 (35.3%) Register of Deeds 196,290 254,716 243,170 235,189 (7,7%) Soil R Water 32,486 32,935 31,547 34,375 4.4% Total Community Taint. 401 ,107 9 70 99,046 6� 8,051 General Administration: County Manager (Inc, Energy} 134,729 147,728 136,841 329,679 012.2%) Personnel 44,887 67,217 64,853 73,151 8.8% Finance 135,760 153,599 148,757 152,049 (1.0%) Purchasing** 65,292 45,862 38,608 64,121 39.8% Tax Supervisor 303,553 345,749 312,370 335,461 (3.0%) Tax Collector 124,353 124,483 129,483 115,854 (6.9%) Child Support Enf. 40,139 71,447 69,986 70,634 ;1.1%) j Data Processing 134,233 173,476 158,587 220,950 27.4% Planning 316,859 395,222 357,004 351 ,639 Transportation Planning 8,220 7,700 - - _ Central Services``* 123,207 162,959 162,313 276,606 69.7% Total Gen. Admin. 1 ,431,232 1,695,441 1 ,568,798 1 ,790,144 Education: Schools - Current Expense 5,238,728 5,642,844 5,642,844 5,707,544 1, 3% Schools - Capital Outlay 575,880 600,000 600,000 500,000 (16.7%) Total Education 5,814,600 ,24� 2,84T 6,242,844 6,237,544 Human Services: Social Services 2,210,617 2,254,029 2,017,497 2,166,500 0.9%) Mental Health 259,143 259,143 259,143 252,563 (2.5%) Health 817,695 1,002,313 9909-449 1 ,012,068 1.0% Agriculture Extension 97,894 112,957 105,305 11£,721 3.3% Recreation 217,106 284,656 267,954 253,953 ('10.8%) Rec.-Municipal Support 88,000 88,000 88,000 88,000 Aging**** 107,269 157,723 148,943 208,371 32.1% ©RANGE COUNTY , NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL FUND SUMMARY OF RECOI`MDED APPROPRIATIONS 198?-83 PERCENT CHANGE 1980-81 I 1981-82 1982-83 INCREASE/ ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE REC0MMENDED CLECRE ASE APPROVES Hunan Services: (cont`d) Libraries 154,400 180,840 180,840 180,840 Dispute Settlement Center 5,400 6,400 6,400 Council on Status of Women 15,174 , 18,552 18,242 18,854 1.6% Nutrition 3,575 4,100 4,100 4,100 Historical Commission 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 JOCCA 35,903 35,903 35,903 35,903 RSVP 5,000 14,598 14,698 Shelter home 41 ,265 65,000 66,000 66,003 Summer Day Camp - 3,000 - - Juvenile Justice 6,969 81000 8,000 7,311 (8.6%) Janus Horse 3,701 4,000 4,000 3,718 (7.1%) Tree House 8,632 1 ,504 1,504 1,353 (9.4%) r Rape Crisis 7,999 10,500 10,500 10,500 Battered Women 4,000 4,400 4,400 4,400 Women's Health 9,999 14,000 14,000 14,000 Misc. Prior 20_,18 Total Human Services 4,128,524 ,5333,718 , 4 8,878 4054,565 Public Safety: Sheriff 772,708 981 ,182 888,276 1,051 ,964 7.2% Emergency Services 473,425 567,267 548,755 565,522 (.3%) Forest Service 22,000 22,500 22,500 22,500 Medical Examiner 9,450 1 0,000 10,000 10,000 Total Public Safety :, 7T X7,583 1 ,580,949 1 ,469,531 64-9 6 Public Works- Public forks 624,842 795,258 732;916 667,205 (16.1%) Street Surfacing - 60,000 60,000 60,000 Lake Orange 324 350 350 350 Misc. Prior 10,853 - Total Public Works 636,019 855,618 843,266 727,555 ORANGE COUNTY j NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL FUND SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED APPROPRIATIONS 1982-83 PERCENT CHANGE 1980-81 3981•-82 1982-83 INCREASE/ _ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE RECOMMENDED (DECREASE APPROVED Miscellaneous; Debt Service - - - 844,105 (1.3%) Other - - - 15,898 Bldg & Equipment 213,446 125,194 93,409 54,000 (56.9%) Total disc. -21-3-,4-4-6- 125,194 93,409 914,003 Transfers: Debt Service €I45,319 855,115 855,115 - Revaluation 100,615 50,000 50,000 52,500 5.0% EMS Capital Projects - - -- 45,000 Capital Projects 527 360 205,243 205,243 300,000 46.2% Total Transfers 1 ,473,294 10,3`58 1, 10,358 397,500 Contingencies - 116,335 - 195,614 Total Appropriations TG-M-,9-08 16,779,5-2T 16,0 6,T3{l 6,8-0 ,9-62 .2% ORANGE COUNTY , NORTH CAROLINA SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED APPROPRIATIONS Footnotes• , * The recommended amount reflects increased rent for court counselors and judges offices in Chapel dill and cost of carpeting to muffle noise in lower court room. ** Personnel cast has been transferred from the Central Services account. There is no change in the number of positions. *** See full budget explanation. Essentially, costs have increased because of hospitalization insurance rates, budgeting unemployment insurance for the first time and workman's compen- sation based on higher rates and increased claims. * ** Aging is up due to the transfer of the RSVP Program from Chapel Hill. The County's share remains the same while contributions from the towns are reflected in revenues. S -17- ORANGE COUNTY , NORTH CAROLINA MAJOR CHANGES I (Made passible by realignments, expenditure cuts and new revenues) Medicaid and Title XX 10O,0OO. Public Health 33,586. New Jail and Patrol 86,680. School Current Expense 64,700. 3 ORANGE COUNTY . NORTH CAROLINA THE EXPENDITURE DOLLAR 196-83 SCHOOLS-CURRENT EXPENSE, CAPITAL OUTLAY, DEBT SERVICE 41.7¢ HUMAN SERVICES 26.5 4534 � anx - 0 -- GENERAL ADMINISTRATION 10.71 E 18GOOL452 A PUBLIC SAFETY Mt 1186004. 2A PUBLIC 14ORKS 4.3t COMMUNITY MAINTENANCE 2.8� CAPITAL PROJECTS 2.1t OTHER 2.1t MOM ORANGE COUNTY , NORTH CAROLINA PURPOSE OF PUBLIC HEARING I s Recommended amounts are subject to Board of Commissioner modification. This is your budget, your county; therefore your comments are solicited and will be weighted before budget approval decision scheduled for June 22, 1982, 3 1 y -- V LIST OF PEOPLE WHO DESIRE TO SPEAK AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON JUNE 8, 1982: 1. Mr. Lindsay Tapp Route 1 Efland, NC 27243 Principal, Stanback Middle School ' 2. Mr. Robert (Bob) Bateman Route 3, Box 384 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Friends of Stanback 1 1 i ( noe V' ,------------- _keA9 0 / . ti \ .., . 0 , / ( ( ._. gu.kt. al- )1;e7e-a. hiL4 1 R `J ate' /� �'�` G , ,'!:,y A,...,,,, x? _ '4& / rE } ,�' > { trivAill-iii /14 il . .. ,d22-17S14-4-(-15A) ....., --- /7.4,2 - 73ZX ' ;- 7,5 -g557 . W � 11 ' . •�' „ '4•1-1,', '.' ' ..� ••+ -kit+ 1w1 '• 'r• }R A ‘,J/ ,yr .y {. yy >r ,,.,4zi I Y ;1 J� / . � 1.--5 ' f t�Y mss. V �, . , „5M ,te _ s + �" . 7 � Vi1 Pa.)",1'-mss '. )f, .ki sol- rif ...e...''.%-tet'.., ///J��'" f•;;;,•:_•:^1,\‘', *71 I ..I ,le K I esiezi.J- - Ibi m . ... "i a---8' ' ' _,. _ .__________._ __ _. __ � `_.... _ _ _ _ . - - — - - , s s�s t.,..-}:,,,. . ,, . .,. . , , „..., , . . _ . . _ _ . ',,,,„&:-.. ' b ' :TTRII•i!''. .. J • • „r'•r9^'^r "- _ _ .. - . ,: e . -J, `��CI♦ ,.r ,, t RF , ----.7-777-7 •, -4-4——4. . . .. .. 1111! - "i_oltd pah,,..nkti -21)6 C1ka-0 01-4F . ... • . . . .. . .. .. . . ,./.1ad .1 . , r iv i ", .. . , . .. .,.. (..,.„. •,:: g ,.,,,, : .,..„:;,4,,.., ,,ii ,.: :11-''''• T's 14 -... . , 4. S.• A,O.'it;'. •:i.';'*'- .' - .... ..., - .. Li 2■: ^ .4....i.,, "": ', . ''': i,; , :', 40 1•*a_i.:': '' 9 I ..,1 .1,,17_,-- • 14: •..:. . ..„ 1tr.-. .'ra?;.-• .; 1 , . .. . . , . . . ..•• . . . ... . . : • ■4, "1,:,1„e. .. ...-., . • ''''' • " .. ,- ,,,,..., , ;.;:%;.;•,..,-,`":,,,, ,;',::f.ts:i,y,,,,:;,,Lr'0.„:44.iit',.74,ii ;;"';Y:4.:;i. i:,..`,'!,''ir'1441,'140.,,i . , . ::„.4,..,:.':...':,., , .44-, 4. 444........w.r.. St .- ......4 ...., .4,-.....-,....11 i ....... .441-'.—..,467...r. 0! ...4—.4.-* 1 .4 .—.. "94,. 7--..,. 1 Y //1 . '1.14 . 4' ---.-.' leachers. ____ .„4„..., ...:: . . • i . , _ _..._. _ --- .....:::)...— -- ___ —. —- .7i...:::■,; .. ------------------------ --- ----"---------.. 9,-. 0........_ a/AXI,/.." )_ •• .:.. ....____. .._.. .....,_ .,. .... _ . ___ ........ _ -4,..,,,„ / • / / (e. ., . .. ....,„.__... . ___..... ._ . .. 101, =---,,*,... „,,,....,. .--......-9.,,,,......,- ..• , ...... ......... ,,.... .... .........,.........* ....b. •"';1:4-1' . .. ......--„*-.......-.....--- ,,m,,..... .„...*.,.....-...........,-.,.....-----,,,.*, -, ................... .. ......,..--..F............. *,.....,,,„*„*......-,...... ,'7,t,,•1:, „ ,.. _„..—........„,„,,....-....... ..... „,„.„...,_,,, .„,*,..__., „... „ ...............,,,,,-. „„ ...............m me.*„.......--.—....- ,.......„-.........*„.„.., ,,■::, • — — - -.. .. — — .—_. ..-. - - -- - ..... 7 ::'7%,74,.:7:. :-,!-?:,.7:.7'.".!,'.;;;:.,J,'.'7.,7.11,7,,,,,i.: 7;1,7t4-!t4.1•:....;-V, r.,^Z!•::-,,'..:., ....,.,:'-4::',!':'r.":":7:-.4.-:.-,,■''".:!.:i-.1,,-7 ':- T!:4,y,44,!?'4:7,■;-fry..qm."7,,,,K4.7:.,1-47,74',":-S.:-.,;, : . . . : . . 1 . -:'.! . , mrimmiewiniilliallnii - LIST OF PERSONS WISHING TO, SPEAK AT THE PUBLIC HEARING - June 8, 1982 Mrs. Brenda Alexander (parent Route 3, Box 86A Hillsborough, NC 27278 Topic: Exceptional Childress Program Mr. Jerry Cheek (parent - Stanback Advisory Council) Route 4, Box 570 Hillsborough, NC 27278 qtoelofee (4,- 1415 Smith Level Road Chapel Hill, ,N:C. 27514 June 8, 1982 Orange County Board of ComMissionera Orange County. CouithoUge HillsborOugh, -N:C: 27278 Dear Commissioners; I need to spend the evening with *Y.- children and cannot attend the public hearing on' the'budget. Sonethelesar, I want to let you'knOw how I feel about a-feWbudget itema; r am an Orange CoUnty property owner and taxpayer. I feel strongly that r prefer to be taxed nowto Pay for quality day care, child protective SerViceS:, family planning maternity and well,,child clinics -- rather- than be taxed in the future forsadditional VillieWl facilities, beefed-up remedial schoOl'programs, increaSedAuvenili justice resources and the like. - I am fully perguaded that it is cost effective to invest in preventing problems in children from'befOre birth, and in early, life.' We have had the good fortune to learn a great deal aboilt hoir to Cake for'children's medical, embtional, and develOpMental welfare ever the past half century. This knOwledge is particularly important since,. during the game time period, our traditionil-methoda for caring for our young have been seriously' underkined.bYmobility and other' ecenOmic and social factora. ' You have all shown great leadership in the Peat in supporting innovative and preventive social programa. 'I knaw7the'Strestes ate treater then ever this year to avoid maintaining our investment in preventivelMeagureSin the name of'econOny. Don't be fooled and don't heOreseured by those with short sight. Fund day care, child protective Service , and healthdepartment clinics to the full extent recommended by the DSS and Health:Department Boa*4a. Sincerely, 47 _,--. ,6.... / <.< Nancy yson Park