HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-21-1982 .
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REGULAR MEET NG
TUESDAY, SEP EMBER 21, 1982
7:30 P.M.
COMMISSIONER ' ROOM, ORANGE COUNTY COURTHOUSE
HILLSBOROUGH L NORTH CAROLINA
A. BOARD COMMENTS
B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
I. Mat± rs on the printed agenda
2. Matters not on the printed agenda
C. MINUTES ) June 8th, 9th, 10th^ August 26th and September 7th, 1982
D. ITEMS FOR
1. Housing Housiing rehabilitation awards
2. Sup ementml Grant to Health Department
3. Consjideration of Addition to the State Secondary Road Svstem
4. Revision of Transportation Plan and UMTA 16 (B- 2) Capital Assistance
Appl cation Approval .
' ' -
5. Planning Director Salary Authorization
E. REPORT--Headstart and Title V
e
545
u }l.
MINUTES -
' |
SEPTEMBER 21, 1982
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on
Tuesday, September 21, 1882, at 7:30 P.M. in the Commissioners' Room,
Orange County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina.
Commissioners present: Chairman Richard E. Whitted, and Commissioners
Norman Gustavuson, Shirley E. Marshall, Norman Walker and Don Willhoit.
A. BOARD COMMENTS,
Commissioner Marshall added a report on the Economic Development Committee
meeting and an update from Social Services; Commissioner Willhoit added an
announcement regarding JOCCA's public hearing on Block Grant funds and asked
that North Carolina Association of County Commissioners Legislative Goals
be added to the agenda for September 27, 1982'
• B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There were no audience comments.
C. MINUTES
Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to approve
the Minutes of June 8, 1982, as submitted. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0.
Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall , to approve
the Minutes of June 9, 1982, as submitted. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 8.
Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by CunmissinnerCustaveson, to approve
the Minutes of June 10, 1982, as corrected. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, U.
Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to approve:
the Minutes of August 26, 1982, as submitted. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, O.
Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to approve
the Minutes of September 7, 1982, as corrected. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0.
D. BOARD DECISIONS
1. Housing Rehabilitation Awards: Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded
by Commissioner Gustaveson to aWard housing rehab contracts to Gates Construction
(unit # 44 for $5,845); McDuffie Construction (units 58 & 59 for $11,000 and
$I0,800, respectively);and to Taylor Home Improvement (unit # 84 for $13,760.)
as recommended by the CD Staff. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, O.
(Complete bid results on each unit are on pages of this book.)
55G
Z. Supplemental Grant to Health Department: The Manager told the Board
that had the County been aware of this money during budget deliberations, he
thought the Board would have used the money to offset Federal cuts'
Commissioner Gustaveson moved, seconded by Commissioner Walker, to apply
for the extra $12,736 from MCH Block funds. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. During,
discussion following the vote, Commissioner Gustaveson clarified that his motion
had been intended to approve the recommendation that "The County apply for
the extra MCH Block funds grants by increasing the family planning program by
, � that 736 th t �6,368 be used to offset County funds in operation costs and that
$6,368 be used to purchase equipment for the Health Department." No Board
member changed his/her vote as a result of the motion clarification.
3. Addition to the State Secondary Road System: Correspondence from
the DOT recommends that Neville Road (dead end off SR 1945) not be added to
- the State Secondary Road System due to the cost of upgrading it to State
; standards, Chairman Whitted asked that DOT be sent an acknowledgement of its
recommendation.
4. Revision of Transportation Plan and UMTA 16 (b)(2) Capital Assistance
Application,
Mr. Passmone, Director of the Department on Aging, told the Board that
the County should know by January if funding f or this project wou ld be available
(For specifics of the revised Transportation Development Plan, see pages
of this book.) Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson,
to approve the recommendation (see page of this book). Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, O.
5. Planning Director Salary Authorization: Commissioner Gustaveson moved,
seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to approve hiring Mr. Marvin Collins at
Salary Grade 77, Step 4B. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, O.
E. REPORT--HEADSTART AND TDTLE V
The Manager presented A report to the Board and passed out a memorandum
(see agenda file for this date for a copy) giving an update on the Older
Americans Act (Titles III B, III C and V), the Headstart Program and the
Emergency Assistance Payments Program. He noted that the threat to Title V
{ had been defused for the time being with the over-ride of the President's
(Reagan's) veto. The Manager said the Headstart program would be administered
i ~
through Wake Opportunities through December 31, 1982, (as clarified by Commissioner
Willhoit); he added that Project Outreach in Chapel Hill had not decided yet
D���
68,1.
whether or not to submit a proposal for the Headstart Program. The Board
asked to be updated on Headstart as it preferred that sponsorship be acquired
by a Chatham or Orange County based organization, The next scheduled update
is on Monday, September 27, 1982.
Regarding the Emergency Assistance Payments, the Manager said there were
no Federal funds allocated and therefore this would continue to be a 100%
County funded program. Commissioner Marshall said that Ms. Janice Schopler,
Chair of the Board of Social Services, would be sending the Board of Commissioners
a letter indicating that the funds for the Emergency Assistance Payments was
being rapidly depleted; further, Commissioner Marshall said the agencies such
as the Inter-Faith Council and Samaritan Relief Fund, were not setting aside
funds for the winter. DSS is unable to meet existing needs and is turning
people away.
Commissioner Willhoit said this use of Block Grant funds, for Emergency
Assistance Payments, is acceptable under the block grant guidelines and as
JOCCA is having a public meeting on September 22nd, this need should be
addressed at the meeting in order that JOCCA can work it into its work program.
Economic Development: Commissioner Marshall reported on the results of
the Economic Development Working Committee meeting held on September 16, 3982.
She said after several hours of discussion, the Committee asked that the Town
Managers of Chapel Hill and Carrboro and the County Manager meet together
to disoussthese issues (governmental responsibilities and the Board of Dir-
ectors) and report back to the Committee. Commissioner Marshall said she would
like for the Board to have a work session with the Manager to clarify the
County's position on this issue. There was a consensus that such a session
should be scheduled on either the September 27 or October 4th meeting of the
Board.
Commissioner Whitted said the North Carolina Association of County Commis-
sioners' President, Forrest Campbell, had scheduled hearings on the Legislative
goals and that he, Commissioner Whitted, has been asked to serve on the Legislative
Goals Committee.
With no further business, Commissioner Gustaveson moved, seconded by Com-
missioner Marshall to adjourn- Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, O.
| Richard E. Whitted, Chair
Paulette Pridgen-Pond, Clerk
.
. |
. :1- '
||
'
I onnNo oWNIT
BOARD ceCcmmIssIomERS action Agenda
�-
INDEX
SEPTEMBER 21, 1982
TOPIC | ACTION , PAGE
Minutes
June 8 Approved 1
.1 ,.- - ' " "
June 10 August 26 " it
Sept. 7 " "
Housing Rehab Contracts Awarded 1
Supple. 8r%. to Health Dept. Approved 2
State Sec. Rd. Syt Clerk to Auk' letter 2
Rev. of TOP Approved 2
Planning i Hiring approved 2
Report
Headstart update on 9/27 3
Older Am.1 Fund received 2
Emergency Asst. Pay. " 3
[con' Dev' Com. " / work session scheduled 3
' ' ' • ' ' ^ " ` "^
44 / Hill Street Gates Construction 5`845.00
58 Hill Street Hauffie Construction 11,000.00
59 Hill Street HcDuffie Construction 1O,9OO.$O
84 Daye Street Taylor Home Improvement 13,760'00
��
~^~�
o�mE COUNTY
~" BOARD CF COYMISSIONS Action Agenda
Ztein Vp'
ACTION AGENDA r11'el ABSTRACT
/u:CzzaoxzE__ae, '""' ^;
Housing Rehabilitation Bid Award.
o��je��`
' | Public Hearing: yes x
Community Development
,
•
(s): Information Contact: Wilbert McAdoo
Bid Result's Phone Ntrrtber: 429
zozPose: Award of four Housing Rehabilitation Contracts.
•
. _
'Need: Sealed bids were received and opened on September 7, 1982.
Attached is a tabulation of the bids by dwelling uhit numbers.
� ; Awards of contracts to the lowest bidder will be consistent—^ with present housing rehabilitation bid procedure.
| "
zezxzmmITKIntiou(s);
DU�
'Street Contractor Bid Amount
44 Street Gates Construction S846'O8^` '
58 Rill Street McDuffie Construction 11,000'O0
69 Hill Street McDuffie Construction 10,900.00
84 Daye Street Taylor Home Improvement 13,760,00
RESULTS OF BID OPENING
APPLICATION NUMBER 44
";;ER; Geraldine Jones
COSI ESTIMATE: 5 922.00
•
A7DRESS: Hill Street
:aCEWTAGE OF BID OVER_�—
UNDER 1.31 COST ESTIMATE
aECK ONE: JOB BID II XJ .,
JOB NEGOTIATED F---]
BID D (!T
COMPANY
•
Gates Construction 5,845.00
Taylor Home Improvement _-- -7,025.00_----
3.3 Frank Griffin & Associates 7 465.00
Eugene Morrow 9 000.00 •
4. McDuffie Construction 6 000.00
6, Winstead Construction 8,590 00
Bids opened by:
Robert Wilse* '
Time of Bid Opening:
3:00 p.m.
Date of Bid Opening: Se•tember 7
Witnessed by: Albert Morrow
*****1...****..•+*Y*tf*4***ti e.rsit**t+ii'Mr.,k***.•..,****. .M+i****i***.'.f **,.*f
Lowest Acceptable Bid: 5,845 00
N/A
A --
Negotiated Amount: , /A
Contractor: — Gates Construction
NAME
Rt. 1, Box 8, Snow am' N X31
376-6597 •
PHONE NUMBER
COMMENTS:
/ (' ��- DATE:
g / z
Submitted by:
Bid Approved by:
LJ Not Issued
Proceed Order: Issued
COMMENTS:
' �� . _ _ _. _--~-_-_-_____-__--__-__- --_-_ _ .
-' --='-m � °
3k / 1 ()" / & � i ~
-�
RESULTS OF BID OPENING
APPLICATION NUMBER 58
OWNER: Oveta Com"ton
COST ESTIMATE: 11,674.00
_
"30RE55: __
^�------� ` [O3T [�TlH�TE
' UxC�� ��I8—
,FeCEwTAGE OF BID OVER _
CHECK ONE: JOB BID I X I JOB NEGOTIATED | \ _
COMPANY BID AMOUNT
^
/ Gates
l3,l4O.0]
2 Ta lor Home " ^ '"'^
] Frank `' ' '' - Associates
��
,
Eugene Morrow 16,000.00
4 '
5 McUvffie Construction . ---_
~---------
16,300.00
B. Winstead Construction
Bids opened by: Rober ' "^ ,
m O0
Time of Bid Opening: 3:00 '
Date of Bid Opening: 108. '
Albert Morrow _
Witnessed by: °,,,,,,°,,,._~,,^,,_,__,°°°,,°,°°°°~,,°°,,°*°,,°~_
°°°°~~°~°°~°^°~~°°..°°—°..
-
Lowest Acceptable Bid:
— _—
xegoLiated Amount:
"" --
Contractor: McDuffie C ---HAME
Rt. 4, Box 402, Hillsborough, N.C. 27278
ADDRESS .
732-6901
PHONE NUMBER
COMMENTS:
--
E� / .
Submitted by: _
Bid Approved by:
Not Issued L-__]
Proceed Order: Issued r— \
—
COMEHT5:
,.
^
_ ___ '___' - _ -_-- _ -����
~^~^"
J � � �
h & - , D
° ~1 ° �� ��
RESULTS OF BID OPENING
APPLICATION NUMBER 59 -
9xoER: _,^ ^v" O.
ADDRESS: Hill Street
COST ESTIMATE: 10'604.00
' COST ESTIMATE
9[EUTACE OF BID 0Y�R ----- 0NQE�
---- JOB NEGOTIATED | J
'-.'ECx ONE: JOB BID iX1 `
COMPANY BID AMOUNT
^
i Gates Construction _ 12/118.80
n _
2 Taylor Home Improvement
3 Frank Griffin & Associates 15.3nn on
4 Eugene Morrow 15,000.00
McDmffie Construction
1O,900.00
Ro�� �l�on
Bids opened by: --____
Time of Bid Opening: 3.:00 p.m.
Date of Bid Opening: September 7, 1982
Albert ��rruw
Witnessed by: _
Ln^ust Acceptable Bid:_ 10.900.00
N/A
:�guduted Amount: _
Contractor: McDuff'- '"^ Mcinn
Rt. 4, Box 402 Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
ADDRESS
732-6901
PHONE NUMBER
COMMENTS:
) _ / DATE: 9 - / 3 - ����
. Submitted by: /'�/
Bid Approved by:
nut Issued F---�
Proceed Order: Issued L---1 / ^
C0NAEnTS:
-55 C
9
pJ,suLTs rr
APPLICATION NuMBE2. 84
Mable
COST
15,936.00
CF B OE 13.66
OE: ,:;05 BID I k COST EsTimATE
COMPANi BID AMOUNT
Gates Construction 19,964.00
Taylor Home Improvement
Frank Griffin & A ' 19,325.00.
Eugene Morrow
McDuffie Construction 14,50.00
Sids opened by: Robert Wilson
Time of Bid Openior:
Date of Did Opening: , September 7 1982
Witnessed Oy: Albert Morrow
......... ... ,
_nwnst Acceptable Bid: 13,760.0 __
:eco ted ArlIGunt,
Contractor: Taylor Home Im r. -11-1
NAME
1156 Fiske Street, Durham, North Carolina 27703
ADDRESS
68B-3214
PHONE NUMBER
COMMENTS:
1 792 (14e671C—&- DAir •
Submi tted by:
APPr°v"=d bY:
riot Issued
Proceed Order: issued
COMEHTS:
•
557 •
ORANGE COUNTY ..!
BOARD OF COYNISSIOgERS Action ?Ganda
I-€-r: No-
ACE= Z,GE4.1DA TTal 'ABSTRACT
I=I DATE September 21, 1982
• i_ e=t: Supplemental Grant to Health Department
Hea •lth 1 [ Public 11 =ring:
I
Attacalmant(5) : InformatiOn C.ontact.: Jerry Robinson
A. Grant Offer Letter
B. Capitol Outlay Request PhOme Nuitber: 311
___-----
Pur=se: To obtain $12,736 extra in Block Grant funds,
Background: A. At the State level, some underutilized low income energy assistance fund
are being transferred to the NCH Block Grant, We can obtain $12,736 via
filling out a Family Planning budget amendment.
B. The funds can not be spent on personnel but can be spent in family
planning operations and/or equipment,
C. At the August 26, 1982 Board of Health meeting, the Health Director re ,
commended that the funds be uses to purchase equipment from the miV
years accumulation of unfunded equipment needs, The Board of Healt
voted to recommend such use to the Commissioners,
D. Subsequently, the Manager met with the Health Board Chairman and C.
Director and advocated all the grant be used to offset a $33,5M
in local funds to family planning this fiscal year due to federal
reductions.
E. The aforementioned parties have agreed to the recommendation
Need: The County would benefit from the extra grant.
Impact: If used as recommended below, the County funds increase to family planni7:z
be reduced by $6,368; secondly, the Health Department would be able to purch .) ,
(primarily) patient oriented furniture and educational equipment.
Bcc::-. 71: 3tiOn(s) : The County apply for the extra MCH Block funds grants by increas '1,
the family planning program appropriations by $12,736; that $6,3
used to offset County funds in operation costs and that $6,368 be
used to purchase equipment for the Health Department,
S III
¶ iltivr
DIVISION OF HEALTH SERVICES
P0. Box 2091
RcIeigh, N.C. 7602-2091
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT: Jerry R. Robinson, Director
Orange County Health Department
Margie Rose, Head
Family Planning Branch IX g sCP 0 7 1182
STATE KALTH DIRECTOR
September 3, 1982
Additional Grant Funds for FY1982-853511\1:1 M.LEInes mix), M.PH.
The Family Planning Branch is pleased to allocate $12,736 in Block
Grant funds Ito the Orange County Health Department for use in FY1982-83.
Since there is no indication that similar funds will be available in
FY1983-84, We recommend that these funds be used accordingly.
1
The FaMily Planning Branch finds that your proposal to use federal
funds to free-up local dollars to make an equipment purchase is acceptable.
An additional advantage of your proposal is that title to any equipment
purchased with local money would remain with the county.
A partially-completed budget revision, increasing the total family
planning budget by reflecting the change in revenue, will be sent to you
soon. Please distribute this additional revenue and route the completed
revision tolDenise in Fayetteville for further processing.
WB:jd
cc: Denise Holmes
STAMOFNORTHCAROUNA
I.l"I1ll1II""""'""M " .' b 1 '
)j,0,7071valgN0HURIV I r /
/ DEPARTMENT CF riumAN RESOURCES Sarah I m°""' MD M
SEOETARY
s#�
ORANGE COUNTY HEan, DEPARTMENT
Unfunded Capitol Outlay Request
ITEM
JUSTIFICATION REQUEST
-
5* Couches, 4 seater, for Rilisbarough our furniture for patients is extremely uncomfortable for
waiting, we nedd the present furniture back im,the clinic
area for patient processing {presently using folding chairs} $2,900.00
400.00
2 Pamphlet racks for waiting Rooms Some as above
480.00
8 Plastic chairs, stacking, with arms Same as above
I filmstrip projector and cassette player
Essential for adequate health Education 250.00
1 Carousel slide projector
Needed for educational activities 520.00
1 set of library reference material shelving Materials are improperly stored at present
500.00
4 Chairs, secretarial Needed for clerics who have broken or improper chairs 460.00
I Typewriter, electric, correcting
Needed to fully utilize Clerk/Reception ist/Typist 790.00
I Calculator, display, tape Needed for-Accounts Clerk IV's work 200.00
GRAND TOTAL $6,400.00*
Actual amounts are subject to bid process.
55
ORE COLD;74
Ea\RD OF CO:q1ISSI0MERS
tem
1,1.7.:4 ABSTRACT I Vo_
rEET:'71-NG DA'rE Se9temba, l9F17
Subject: Addition of part Of Melville Road (SR 1945) to the State Maintained System --
.1 j Public
1/ ormation Contact: Susan Smith
Attz.,ch.-7;e_:nt(s): a)Letter from Sam .Jcnes an
to Manager dated-9/13/82; b) Secondary
Road Addition Investigation Report -- Phone Number: 732-8181 Ext. 359
PURPOSE: Consideration of the petition for addition of part of Melville Road onto
the State Maintained System and the LOT Secondary Road Addition Investigation
Report findings.
DEED: LOT recei-ved_a petition for addition of part of Melville Road onto the
State Maintained System. DOT recommends that the portion of Melville
Road not be added to the State Maintained System because of excessive
cost of improvement relative to the number of houses served. The MT
Secondary Road Addition Investigation Report is attached. The petition
has not been sent to the County by MT.
IMPACT: If the petition for addition of part of`1.Vb1lalle Road onto the State
Maintained System is not approved, all maintenance on the road will -
have to be provided for by residents a1on the road. Should the
residents be willing to upgrade the road to State standards, DOT
would most likely reconsider the request.for State maintenance.
aCIDIVEaDATION: Disapproval of the petition for acceptance of the road onto the
State Maintained System.
• '
. .
„ „ •
•
41111'.241LA._.
4111.N'
sk.411E-ri 4-rn
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B.HUNT.JR Graham, North Carolina 27253-0766
GOVERNOR DIVISION OF HIGHWAY
September 13, 1982
WILLIAM R.ROBERSON,JR
SECRETARY
Orange CeurrW
M . Kenneth R. Thompson, County Manager
Orange COunty
106 East Margaret Lane
Hillsborrught North Carolina 27278
Subject: Petition for Adnitioa - Dead Ead off SR 1945
Dear Mr.1 Thompson:
Attached is Form SR-4, Secondary Road Addition In-
vestigation Report, or a dead end off SR 1945-
This is being forwarded to you for J:eview by Your
Board. of Commissioners.
Yours very truly,
S. H. Jones
DISTRICT ENGINEER
/jbh
Atta.
co:, Mr. J. W. Watkins
_ , _
. ,
¶
•
NORTH CAROLINA STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
• DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
SECONDARY ROAD ADDITION INVESTIGATION REPORT
1
County nrmtge Co, File No. Date
Township _chapel Hill_ Div, File No,
Local Name Dead Rad off SR 1945 Subdivision Name
Length SL.33L Width 12, Type B Condition Poor
1
Is this a subdivision street subject to the construction requirements for such
streets? No 1 Recorded Book Page
Is this a subdivision street subject to participation paving? No
Number of homes having entrances into road b ________
Other uses having entrances into road Nate
Does right-of-way 'obtained meet present Division of Highways requirement? No
If not, why? Not ec. ; ed
Is petition ( R- attached? e
Is the County Comrrissioners' Approval 'DR-2) attached?
If not, why?
Does the road meet present minimum Division of Highways construction requirements?
NO I
If not, state what. is needed to place the road in an acceptable maintenance
condition under Remarks and Recommendations.
Is a map attached ilindicating information for reference in locating road by the
Planning Department? yes
Cost to place in acceptable maintenance condition: Total Cost $_224000.00
Grade, drain, stabilize $ ?pp000.00 , Drainage $125sp ___, Other $.500.00Riaht ot Way
1
Remarks and Recommendations Grade, drain, and, stabilize. Meets minimum housing
n :—.1* due to excessive cost to Diane in an accentable maintenance
4.9 .." of cases that are served we recommend do not add.
1
Reviewed and approved
Board of Transportation Member
•
Reviewed and approVed ,T,W. WAtie4ng S.
DIVISION ENGINEER 0 STRIC NGINEER
n (Do not write in this space -
For use of Secondary Roads Dept.)
) (,711thil
— Petition No
(Do not write in this space -
For use of Planning Dept.)
Form SR-4 (7-77)
5(3[
� �
•
.
�
o ��)
ORANGE COUNTY �
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda
acruom AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No.
_____
MEETING onzE September 21 , 1982
Subject: Revision
of Transportation Plan and UMTA 16(h)(2) Capital Assistance
Application Approval
Department: Department on Aging ) | Public Hearing: _ \_~— yes X no /
-
Attachment n : c e"u e 0 ^ctinn Information Contact:
and Improvements Wl ; Revised Replace- Jerry Passmore, ext. 280 or HSAC T,anspurtation
ment Schedule #2; UMTA 16(b)(2) CaPi- Committee
tal Assistance Application 3 Phone Number: ,
PURPOSE: Commissioners need to take action on revisions to the Orange County Trans-
portation Development Plan (TOP) approved last year. Three items:
'- (l) A Schedule for Actions and Improvements in the Orange County
Coordinated Human Services Transportation System in the Period
1981-1985 (Attachment #1), specifically:
(a) developing a formal coordinated structure entitled Orange
C.A.T. for Orange County Coordinated Agency Transportati
(b) designating JOCCA as lead transportation agency for p`/r+
of capital equipment requests under UMTA l6(b)(2)
(c) establishing an independent Orange County transportation
board responsible to the County Commissioners
(d) allowing C.A.T, vehicles to purchase fuel from the County
garage
(e) designating Orange County (DOA Director as coordinator to
work with County staff) as manager of a central vehicle
maintenance system on behalf of the Orange C.A.T.
(2) A Revised Replacement Schedule for Vehicles and Related Capital
' --
Equipment that includes the April UMTA Application (Attachment #2t
(3) The UMTA 16(b)(2) Capital Assistance Application submitted in
April 1982 JOCCA on behalf of the C & T and a decision on the
�pr by , . .
funding contribution, if any, for the applicatinn. Application
specifies $7"035 of County funds (Attachment #3).
NEED:- Although JOCCA`s 1982 application for 16(b)(2) funds was found satisfactory
' by the State (see Attachment #4), it was not approved due to the lack of
funds at the State level.
Nonetheless, action is needed by the Board for (1) processing the UMTA
16(b)(2) application by the N.C. Dept. of Transportation in the event that
funding becomes available later this year and (2) establishing a governing
body to coordinate vehicle requests and the transportation system.
IMPACT: If approved, the revised TDP will mean the possibility of several thousands
of dollars of UMTA Capital Assistance funds. However, it may require
additional County funds to match future UMTA applications and will indicate
an increased County involvement in coordinating transportation.
REC0MENDpJl0N(S):
Department on Aging staff recommends approval.
Attachment ��i//~���
Revised April , l982
39.!
A SCHEDULE FOR ACTIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS
IN THE ORANGE COUNTY COORDINATED
HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
IN THE PERIOD 1981 - 1985
1981
As outlined in the initial service design in the TDP, the system will—
begin operations in the fall of 1081 after certain a n ac tions are completed
At this point (6/81 ) management of the system is under an informal alliance
of the Human Services Advisory Commission (HSAC) Transportation Committee
and Orange County. The actions include (l ) appointing a part-timecoordt-
nator and arranging for senior worker staff, (2)finalizing vehicle lease
and operating agreement with the relevant agencies, (3) developing and
arranging maintenance contracting, and (4) arranging fuel purchase through
the county garage. The HSAC Transportation Committee as the governing
board, needs to be formalized at some point as well as clarifying manage-
ment structure and responsibilities . Establishing an evaluation methodology
for system's development and operations is also needed in the first year.
Vehicle operating and administrative costs in FY 81-82. [not fncludi-1
salaries) are projected at $94,807 with $87,107 to be provided by Or,'"'
Department on Aging (DOA) , Orange-Person-Chatham Mental Health (D' '
Joint Orange-Chatham Community Action (JOCCA) and Orange-Chatham
Comprehensive Health Services and $7,700 by Orange County, Initially
Orange-Chatham Comprehensive Health Service (OCCHS) did not participate in
� � transportation
the transpnrtati plan, but a medical rnute was developed
and coordinated between DnA and OCCHS on trips between Prospect Hill-
Cedar Grove- Hillsborough and Chapel Hill-Carrboro area.
Orange County will be providing the local match $7,700 for JOCCA'S
April , 1981 UMTA 16-b-2 application to replace five vehicles. Additional
^
County funds will be requested in FY 81-82 for the system's projected
Spring 1982 UMTA 16-b-2 application for vehicle replacement and for future
applications .
- - _- __ --_-_-_____. _ _
.
- ' �� ,
- �=,=~
��v ��l��'
.
- 2 -
1982
In regard to the management structure, the major actors (Orange County,
HSAC, and the four agencies) will need to decide by 1982 whether to continue
on the basis of an informal county-agency alliance or to adopt the HSAC
Transportation Committee' s recommendations which include -
(1 ) developing a formal coordinated structure
entitled Orange C.A.T. for Orange County
Coordinated Agency Transportation, This
would involve a highly visible and unified
identity for all coordinated Vehicles through
common orange color and vehicle labeling.
(2) designating JOCCA as lead transportation agency
for purpose of capital equipment requests under
UMTA 16(b)(2) on behalf of the participating
agencies in the C.A.T. system. JOCCA qualifies
as an eligible non-profit private organization.
(3) ettablishing an independent Orange County Trans-
portation_ ^ '
Board directly responsible to the County
Commissioners for managing a coordinated system.
A small board initially composed of JOCCA, DvA. ,
' -Ol.C8S~_DPC Mental Health Center, private operator
and consumer representative, would meet monthly to
make independent decisions about important operational
matters directly affecting member agencies. The
Department on Aging (Director/Secretary)would provide
a minimal amount of administrative/clerical support
to the Transportation Board for coordination and
planning purposes.
-
- ` .
��� ' - '_ ��� - ' � _
-~_, - _.�
._--__-- --__—� r / � ���� �'`�- ' �'.�� �� ������ ���������• • �.��'
- 3 -
u 9
] -�
~
(4) requesting that all vehicles (not just Do8.s)
participating in the C.A.T. system be allowed
to purchase fuel from the county garage in
Hillsborough' This would provide an operational
savings on vehicles based tn Northern Orange.
Arrangements would need to be made for a fuel site
in Southern Orange to serve the system.
_
--- As described in the service design, maintenance will be Yn�tfaTlY
performed as a dual function - largely through private contracts to be
developed by governing board with service being bid on by private or
public garages (for both preventative maintenance and major repairs) .
When the two DOA vehicles are replaced in 1982, it will be determined
whether their maintenance will continue at the county garage or join the
remainder of the vehicles under contract maintenance and repair. That
will likely be decided by the degree of control the governing board deci
to have over vehicles that constitute the fleet.
The- issues of vehicle replacement, the types of services to be
offered now and in the future, controlling operational costs, transportation.
program operation interface and several other issues face the system in this
early stage of development. As indicated in the service design for the firs
year of system's operations , the vehicle mix existing among participating
organizations was not adequate to allow for much more than some timesharing
of vehicles on the routes operated by DOA, 8PCHH, JOCCA and OCCHS. Fifty
percent (60%) of routes involved double runs and some 80% of vehicles were
filled to capacity during client pick-up and drop-off runs . Seventeen
out of nineteen vehicles used by the five agencies for route transportation
were 12 or 15 passenger vans , greatly limiting ridesharing on the many r ta!
_ -. '- -
.
564
. - -
_ ' � �� � � � ��
` ~ ��«�� � � � • . � �'' = ` !��
- 4 -
that involved 15 to 23 clients ' In this second year of operations, members
of the system will be making decisions aS to what degree of ridesharing to
allow for, and its impact on operating costs and flexibility, as well as
upon individual program operating hours and dynamics- If ridesharing is
to account for an appreciably higher percentage of serviCe delivered and
if operating costs are to begin to be stabilized, significant changes need
to begin in this 1982-83 period: If the fleet is to evolve from the 17 vans
,
1 bus, 1 mini-bus configuration to a mix that will allow for more ride-
sharing, (with mini-buses) more demand response service with vans and _
increased accessibility for the handicapped and elderly clients (with more
lift capacity) , changes will need to take place in 1982 and 1083 through
vehicle replacement.
Thus , of the vehicles to be requested in the spring of 1981 through the
fall of 1982 rounds of UMTA 15-b-2 applications, eight will be vans and
five will be small buses (four of these lift equipped) and one (1)- 35
passenger bus . The radio equipment of DCCHS now existing would be used
to serve demand response trips especially medical appointments. Completely
outfitting the fleet with radios early in the evolution of the system may
_ -
be unnecessary from a need standpoint and impractical from a budgetary
standpoint.
In the second year of operations , service could possibly be provided
on a limited bas-is-(until fleet seating capacity increases) , to individual
or client groups of other agencies and departments. This would be true
especially for trips between the major service centers in the county, such
as Carr Mill , Northside, NCMH in Chapel Hill/Carrboro and the courthouse,
Hillsborough Human Service Center and the Cedar Grove School in the northern
part of the county. The most likely additional trip needs to be served
would be County Health Department and County Social Services client trips
to medical services.
_ - - - - -_ _ _- ' ,
. - .
•
.- ' ` °�
����
' . _~�� .--
\ ' '~� ��� � ��,��;��!�� ' � ' ��
, � � .� `� -'^ .`` `
- 5 - ' ' � �
-
K�u � . � ���'��
- -
These trips would fit into our reOplar routing pattern and clients
of full time agencies on the governing board would be given seating
priority in their agreement to purchase service. It may also be possible
I.
to serve some town and county employees in trips between service centers
in 1982 or 1983.
Budgeting will be the responsibility of—the system's governing
transportation board. The coordinator (OnA Director) , depending on the
final form the system takes will be the chief link on budgetary and most
- - -
'--' other matters between the governing board, county manager and commissioners ,
town governments , and other interested parties.
A regular training program should be established by this time for
training drivers in defensive driving techniques, first aid, lift equip-
ment and in the use of radio equipment. Arrangements can be made with local
rescue squads for first aid training, with state police for defensive drYvfn
and with county communications for radio use.
The governing Transportation board will establish a personnel polil
the first two years of operations and will modify it according to the
- system's- employee balance of the driver contingent. The board needs to-
decide by 1982 or 1983 whether they wish to continue with 108% of drivers
hours being provided on an in-kind basis , or if it would be preferable to
arrange with member agencies a shifting of funds (through their per trip or
per mile operating contract) to allow other agencies to hire some full time
drivers . Individual routes may be longer in duration and thus it may be
more appropriate to use some personnel in a full time driving role that will
not interfere with their agency program duties. Some agencies will be able
to arrange with their funding sources to allmx for this and some may have
no choice but to continue to provide in-kind driver time.
•
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
'
,56�
/"''
- b -
Due to the changing nature and configuration of the vehicle fleet over
the l98l-1 985 period, procedures will be developed by the Transportation
Board on a continuous basis to allow for the most appropriate and efficient
use of vehicles and their auxiliary equipment. Protocols for matching
vehicles to routes will be established, Numbers of types of clients, the
nature of the routes involved, and other factors will be considered in the
flexible of vehicles to routes .
The budget for FY 1982-83 should look approximately like this
SYSTEMS REVENUES
$ 49,827 DOA
$ 52,618 OPCMH
$ 14`908 JOCCA
$ 58,649 OCCHS
� 7,035 Orange County
$ '181 `127 Total Expenditures
Vehicle Operations
$ 41,982 Fuel/Oil
�
4,781 Tires
$ - 4,817 _ Vehicle Repairs/Maintenance
�
�
O . Mileage Reimbursement (volunteers, staff, etc.)
� 5,028 Vehicle Insurance
$ 7,215 Vehicle Depreciation/Use Allowance
�
5 Vehicle Lease
� 48 License/Registration
$ 26,250 Local Match for Capital Replacement
90,126 Subtotal
_ _' ________ .________'__________ _____ __ __
� \ s
��i�'
=� / —_ - - - —'--__-___ --_ .
/�� "�� ����
`: -'`�� �- -'' - ' �'`r~ ' ' ��� • ��
' - - ` - ' •
!� ` - 7 - ''�`^ `^ : ���
- _ .' -`.—~
Personnel
$ 1,537 Transportation Board (members , 2 hrs , per month, in-kind)
$ 1 ,080 Coordinator's Salary (DoA Director, 8 hrs . per Month , in-kin
$ 79,582 Drivers' Salaries (1n-kind)
� 4,500 Secretary (50% DoA Senior Worker, in-kind)
$ 86,699 Subtotal Personnel
•
Other Administrative Costs
$ 2,000 Purchase of service (Bus tickets, etc.)
-- $
0 - .Office Equipment _
�
130 Supplies/Duplicating
$ I,100 Rent/Space
� 372 Telephone
� 700 Travel
$ 4,302 Subtotal Other Administrative Costs
$ l8l ,127 Total Expenditures
I983-l985
Due to expected budget cutbacks in overall human service funding levels
L.
--- of block grant funding at the state level
as well as the unknown effects u o gra c level , we
do not project much more than a 15% increase in passenger trips delivered in
the 1984-85 period as compared to initial 1981-82 levels . This degree of growt
is primarily feasible through- ridesharing and cutting back on the double routes
through the use of the 22-25 passenger mini-buses which, according to our re-
placement schedule, should be coming on line to a significant degree in 1984
and 1985. Operating savings derived from stabilizing or reducing vehicle
mileage, fuel use and drivers hours through ridesharing can be translated to
^
an increased ability of the system to better serve previously underserved
geographical areas and/or client groups within the county. Thus , savings on
one side of the ledger may translate to higher or better levels of service n
--_- _-__- -- __- __-_ - - -
- 8 -
the other' A shift to large bus/mini-bus/van/mix fleet by 1985 is vital if '/
the system is to accomplish desired changes in operations and dynamics .
While monthly billing arrangements or ticket systeM for passenger
trips delivered appears to be the basic form that revenue collection will
take, adjustments may need to be developed after the first few years of
operations to allow for significant differences in trip distances or time
invulved. The coordinator will need to develop these rates with information
gained from operating experience and with the help of the governing Trans-
portation boord. Flexibility in rate structure cun. aot as an incentive
in the future for agencies to streamline the transportation components of
their programs .
It appears that the system will continue to need to call upon Orange
County to contribute to operating revenues for the system, both in terms
of portions of DOA' S payment and their continued support of certain over-
head and personnel costs . The county could find a marked increase in its
responsibilities if UMTA l6-h-2 funding is curtailed and they are called
upon to help fill the gap.
Most trips will fit into a fixed or flexible route mode. Demand
response service mostly to and from medical service areas will be in effect
in 1982—and 1983, but not at significant levels until the fleet has a viable
mix in 1984. It would be especially helpful if the system could make better
use of its mid-day capacity (10 A.M. to 2 P.M.) through arrangements with
membey agencies and smaller agencies that may require service. Coordination
must continue with Chapel Hill Transit and private bus and taxi companies
operating in the area. Chapel Hill Transit has mentioned in their TOP
the possibilities of instituting regular Chapel Hill-Hillsborough service
in the 1984-85 period, which could impact some of our ancilliary trips by
government workers and clients of small organizations , that might otherwise
be served by some of the system's demand responsive service. Basically, the
..� �
^��.��
565
~^=
� '
' � �` ��� �� , -
•
I-)+,
-
9
.
- •
system will continue to encourage other providers to serve our populations
and the general public, especially if they can do this at reasonable
cost and efficiency levels .
Due to the fact that by 1983 the system will be implementing higher
levels of ridesharing and cutting back on double routing, operating data
involving miles traveled, fuel use, drivers hours and other dynamics
should see some significant changes . Thus it is rather difficult to present
an accurate operating budget for years three through five of system's opera-
. — -- ' —
--- tions' For the period FY 1983-84 and FY 1984-85 we will simply indicate our
capital budget for equipment replacement and our operating budget will be
updated as we develop a clearer vision what our transition service means
in terms of impact on our operating budget and revenues. The capital
replacement budget which we can predict reasonably well will be $13,273
for FY 1983-84, $1 ,759 in FY 1984-85, and $0 for FY 1985-86'
In overview, the system that will exist in 1985 in Orange County
for human service transportation will likely look like this:
- Consist of 12 vans, 6 mini-buses and 2 full size buses ,
--- lO being lift equipped.
- Deliver 80%-86* fixed and flexible route trips and l5*-20%
demand response trips.
- Governing Transportation board (Participating agencies and
Orange County) and cuordinutor make up the organizational
structure, within the format of a formal alliance known as
Orange C.A.T. (Coordinated Agency Transportation) .
- Use of in-kind drivers, to a large degree.
- Funding through monthly payments for trips delivered to
agencies and from county contributions . _
- Ridership to include a wide range of human service clients ,
- . _
_- - - -__ - ' --_
:����� ' �������'�� ������ � ` ''/ `r^�� �- |" " ^
'r�, •
•
- |O -
u
the elderly handicapped and disadvantaged as well as
agency and government employees be ' een service centers .
Flexibility in the development of the system is essential , since the
history of coordinated transportation delivery is so short in this area
and so many changes are scheduled to evolve over a relatively brief
period. The plans that have been projected here will need to be
constantly fine tuned in response to the experience we get from operating
---
different types of service and vehicles through different modes- like - -
ridesharing (new to the Orange County human service transportation
experience).
-
E
0'1
I
> slr ,mss V t.�•T^��G' �.t#tt�i+�\ �.� t L1RflN�C �.fSr�t ��
r ,+
a"' 4► Co.'D Cpf 6u A �
E�j • a t'C Fttvf,�c,tlaryl{�
►"a a ca(oti YAur,/-B&SC-S
s. �ac .ce l~ti3
(ReviSed April 1982)
REPLACEMENT SCHEDULE FOR VEHICLES ANO RELATED CAPITAL JU�
EQUIPMENT FOR THE ORANGE COUNTY COORDINATED
HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
A. June 1981
l . Vehicles currently available for a coordinated human Services trons-
poration system in Orange County:
From JOCCA, seven vehicles including: '
One (1) 1980 Ford van, 15 seats {427)
One (1) 1979 Ford mini-bus, 18-22 seats #26)
One `l ' 1979 Rlymouth van, 15 seats (#29)
One-(1) 1979 Plymouth van, 15 seats, with lift (title - - � - -
transferred from DoA to JOCCA)
One (1) 1978 Plymouth van, 15 seats (#22)
One (1) 1976 Plymouth van, 15 seats (4l7),
One, (1) 1974 Ford bus, 32 seats (#8)
From OPCMH, seven vehicles including:
Three (3) 1979 Plymouth vans, 15 seats (OI, LEC, NCLC)
One (1) 1979 Dodge van, l\isaats (MH)
One (1) 1978 Dodge van, 15 seats (Ol)
One (1) 1974 Dodge van, 15 seats (NCLC) (Backup)
One 1) 1974 Dodge van, (Or) with lift (Backup)
(belongs to Vac,. Rehab.)
From DoA, two vehicles including:
One (1) 1976 Dodge van, 15 seats
- --- One (1) 1974 Chevrolet van, 12 seats
From OCCHS, three vehicles including:
One (1) 1977 Dodge van, 8 seats and lift (91 ,000 miles)
One (1) 1974 Ford van, 12 seats 270,000 miles) (Backup)
One (1) 1874 Ford van, 12 seats (225,000 miles)
This would provide the system with approximately sixteen vehicles
for regular use and three for backup.
2. In the April 1981 UMTA 15(b)(2) grant application, we applied to
replace five vehicles, including:
DoA/s 1974 Chevrolet and 1976 Dodge vans
JOCCA's 1974 Ford bus (48) and 1978 Plymouth van ,�422)
OPCXH's 1974 Dodge van (NCLC backup)
_ - -
7 z
��_~
° /"�
�
��Uu
��
These are to be replaced by four 15-passenger vans and one 25-
passenger mini-bus at a capital cost of:
$50,000 (4 vans + $12`500)
20,000 (one mini-bus)
37O`OOO
3,500 (5% contingency)
$73,500
This is to be divided as follows:
Federal grant request 80% of project) $58,800
State contribution lO% of project) 7,350
Local contribution (lO% of project) 7,350 _ _
--- - - $73,500
If the application is approved, we should be receiving these vehicles
under state purchase in June or July of 1982. For current vehi-
cles to be considered for replacement, they must have 100,000 miles
on them when the request is submitted or at least 80,000 miles with
20,000'ar more miles to be put on thern in the next year.
8- In the spring of 1982, we should apply to replace [under UM?A l6(b)(2)l
and obtain the following capital equipment:
7 ' JUCCA - 1876 van, #17 (Headstart)
2' OCCHS - 2 -1974 Ford vans (one as backup) , 1977 Dodge van with lift
3. OPCMH - 1978 Dodge van UI � 1979 Plymouth van (NCLC)
1974 Dodge van '(OI) `backup\ , 1979 Plymouth van (0I)
4' seven lifts
5. one %5-passenger bus - for special large group outings - shopping,
field trips
So as-to increase the ridesharfng capability of the fleet and to cut down
on double routing, the percentage of the fleet made up of mini-buses should
increase over the next three to four years from one out of nineteen vehicles
to six out of nineteen. Thus, in this and in future rounds, we should have
some vans replaced 5y mini-buses. OCCHS' three vehicles are now a part of
the coordinated system, operating coordinated medical routes (Prospect Hill-
Carrboro route) and rural Chapel Hill area and need replacement with one
being a backup for the system.
The seven vehicles requested in this round should be equipped with lifts,
as should several in future applications, to allow for more accessibility
by the handicapped and elderly and more flexibility in their use. More
lift equipment was felt to be necessary at this time than radio equ1pment.
Vehicles used to replace OPCMH 1974 Dodge van COI) would be used as backup
for coordinated system and for out-of-county small group trips. A large
35-passenger bus is requested since neither JOCCA's nor the County 3ecr=A-
tion Department's large buses are operable fonelderly out-of-county field
trips and weekly large group shopping.
. _-----__ _'--___'_ -___' ____- -
` "
� '
'
Our capital requirements in this round would be approximately: ,,
5100,000 four mini-buses (25-passenger models) (525,000 each)
45,500 seven lifts (56,500 each)
52,300 three 15-pasoenger vans (513,000 each)
30,000 one 33-Passenger school bus
22,300 five air conditioning units
5250,000
12,500 5% contingency
$262,500
Federal grant request 80% 5210,000
State contribution 10% 26,250
Local contribution (10%) 26,250
$262,500
Thus, by early spring of 1983, the fleet will be made up of:
One (1) 1983 35-passenger school bus with A/C
Four (4) 1933 vans with three (3) lifts
Four (4) 1983 mini-buses, four with lifts plus A/C
One (1) 1982 mini-bus
Fpur' (4) 1982 vans
One (1) 1980 van (JOCCA - #27)
Two (2) 1979 vans (LEC, JOCCA - #29)
One (1) 1979 mini-bus (JOCCA - #26)
One (1) 1979 van with lift (JOCCA/DoA)
One (1) 1979 van, 12 seats (MH)
*All vans are 15 seats, except where noted.
C. By the spring of 1983, we should apply to replace:
^ - ~
1. JOCCA/00A 1979 Plymouth van with lift
2. OPCMH's LEC 1979 Plymouth van
These should be replaced by two vans with lifts. Capital requirements
at this tire would be:
530,000- two-vans-(515,000 each)
_13,0][\ two lifts (56,500 each)
543,000
2,150 5% contingency
�46,l5O
Federal grant request 30% 536,120
State contribution 10% 4,515
Local contribution (10%) 4~516
545,150
- - - -- --'-- - ---- -' ' '
�
` . ,
•
�
'
Ab
February/March of 1924, when we receive these two vehicles, the
fleet should consist of:
Two (2) 1984 vans with two lifts
One (1 ) 1983 36-passenger school bus with A/C
Four (4) 1983 vans with three lifts
Four (4) 1983 mini-buses, four with lifts plus A/C
One (1) 1982 mini-bus
Four (4) 1982 vans
One (1) 1980 van, #27
One (1) 1979 van, #29
One (1) 1979 mini-bus, #26
One (1) 1979 van, 12 seats (HH)
D. By the fall of 1983, we should apply to replace:
1. JOCCA's 1979 van (#29)
2. JOCCA's 1979 mini-bus (#26)
3. OPCMH's 1979 van (HH)
These vehicles should be replaced by one mini-bus, one 15-passangervan,
and one full-size (35~passenger) bus equipped with a lift for large route
grovth' Capital requirements would be approximately:
$25,000 one mini-bus with A/C
13,000 one 15-passenger van
30,000 one 35-passenger bus, with lift plus A/C
15,500 one lift ($G,SOO) and two air conditioning units ($9,800)
S83,500
4,175 5% contingency .
$87,675
Federal grant request 80% S70`740
-- State contribution 7O% 8,768
' Local contribution (10%) 8.767
$87,675
Our vehicle configuration by late summer of 1984, after we receive these
vehicles, should be:
''. , -
One (1) 1984 mjn'i-bus with A/C
One (1) 1984 15-passenger van
One (1) 1984 35-passengwr bus with lift plus A/C
Two (2) 1984 vans with lifts
One (1) 1933 35-passenger school bus with A/C
Four 4 1983 vans with three lifts
l
Four (4) 1983 mini-buses, with four lifts plus A/C
One (1) 1982 mini-bus
Four (4) 1982 vans
One (1) 1980 van (127)
\ '
•
'
. .
�� ^•
5
E. In the spring of 1934, we Should apply to replace: a{)J
l ' JOCCA's 1980 Ford van (427)
This should be replaced by a van- Capital requirements would be approx-
imately:
i16,752 one van
838 S% contingency
Sl7,59D
Federal grant request 80% $14,079
State contribution lO% 1 ,759
Local contribution (10%) 1 `759.
$17,590 .
- _ ' _ _
3yrearly 7985, our fleet should be made up of:
One (1) 1985 van
One (1 ) 1984 mini-bus with A/C
One (1) 1984 35-paosenger bus with lift plus A/C
One (1) 1984 15-passenger van
Two (2) 1984 vans with lifts
One (1) 1983 35-pasaenger school bus with A/C
Four (4) 1983 vans with three lifts
Four (4) 1983 mini-buses, with foqr lifts plus A/C
One (1) 1982 mini-bus
Fbur (4) 1982 vans
Thus, by the spring of 1985, we will have replaced all of the vehicles
that had formerly had been used on an autonomous basis by the agencies.
The system will now have in its possession a fleet of vehicles consider-
ably better matched to the needs and dynamics of the agencies and clients
_ invglved in human services transportation in Orange County than was the
case at the system's inception in 1981, Operating needs should be con-
stantly evaluated during these first years of system's operations, so that,
in terms of vehicle replacement, any necessary changes in the replacement
pattern outlined here can be made.
The fleet as described in Section E should meet our needs until the spring
of 1985, UMTA 16(b)(2) round, when we-will begin to replace the vehicles
we received from our first application (based on a system) in April of 7981
(to be received June 1982). '
_ _ �
. ` .
- '
-
` ~
, . . .
ST..-t.T7 OF NORTE CAROL TNA tilac.:‘,,,,,a--;%%5 '
APPLICATTON 7OR Ca,%27"rAL ASSISTANCE
0 1.1... FR.LVATE. NONPR.OFTT FOR ORG.MIZATIONS
. .
T. 5:4CRAL
. .
I t.e.gaL Nadt a! AppLitaae ' i Asency Concatt/Titlet
$ .0....; u=•.izatica; J-i
nt Orance 1 Gloria 1,la Williams ..
1
'Chatham Community Nction I Executive Director
!
,.,,,.. .i
; Address:
loit,-sbaro NC 27312
919 ) gz9-.0494
1 SCZCZ I.= haita iacirporatect , Veri:itattoa:
I (Attach A--4-Tas ot I a= as ai'dicer at' the appiicaat
, Lacorporacisa) corporation here.,:.aartdam authorised
i to rake this veriatcatioa art its
1 1 behati. The stazadeats is the
1 Horth Carol ina tore'soi4nr; dote:dead are trhe of try
: own knowt_edge.
I declare that ;foe !ctgaia3 is true
„„becx :;_er--..7--:- ----
and correct.
1 • U"a-4-ed .- (
1 .... - A -.a. UA)
t. . '
ir ,/ ' 1 4/29/82
.....______3-4--ze ,...,. .„..... .)/, f.„.2 .,,..L._.
— •
1 V :;orturbattirad
ka(NUA "1/4.
re ....algaatera o,t ,orporate »ate
. Oet'icar/T.Lite
'Alatt is aearast :IA!
Durham
5Z. ZIANSIICRTAZ5CN
DES0.5.1F5ION: . ,
• '. r
N.t=e 0!' Seag:.";.?hical. d'rea(s) I Nuaber and type. od vehicies attd
to be served (towns, touncias) 1 equipaeat proposed:
__ - 22-passenger mini buses
I Orange County
with four lifts
1 — 4 - 15-passenger vans with I
1---Ti-eZTic aiiettele served by I
coorsinatad transportation three lifts
1 systen (thath.) 1 1 - 35-passenger bus
1 y Elderty X?hysitaLty I t
i
. .... _ ___1; _Y :dental:7 7.7-htladicapped 1 5 - air conditioning 1
- - --- -1-- daaditappet _A Other_
..._ (for larger buses)
Low Tricorn-a ,
......_......._
I Appraxidate ahraber JE elderly I Zsti.hated atFaber dE total. -"adds
aod aaadicapped
-a- s to use ' witaia thte tali:swiss Eroups:
serrite daiLy: :
i 40 Elrier!,7 per day ...., 3.1ack Ameriaza 5adian at '
31 'Haadiaapped par day i ASialt sr ?at;'" 17:::siaader i
i
1 -----p
hv l
/menta /economical I
. A li.isoaaic t
T
•. '
. . ... - .. . .L...... .*......
:5 . Ne7.5.75CAZ5CI:
X Attachad ate :attars ae susocri :tam each pubLic sad prirate i
. , .. .
; ',:radLoamadd paratradsti a:era :: in theproposed servite area
1 iadr.tatta; that he doal aot arid is aot iatantiag to ad'Eer
sar se:-rat in the sada eras. 1
i 1
Arzsbet, is.avideadt F,L, ai",:orts sada to zotif7 other possibt. I
providers a: servide ia :ht proposed servite aaaa. his ibc5hdaar i
:, tobies ae pubiit =nic i're n araa aewspapers:
' .5. a tiar. aE sgeacias aaaPparatars adacatted.„ i
tattreers 7: ,m iateraszad parties.
4
. i
, .
t .
T '
....— —
. ..
A(
, .
' •
, . ..
,. .. , --. .. 7.-. - , , — • . ..
.2r7c.AI :.3,r r D.A.c.17. : : Joint Oreno Inc.:-
e7Chatham CoMmullity Action-,
. .
PRO7CT .JUSIFICATION:
. . . .
7-'71 =oilowia= information is required as juSEification of the ?Ta-
booed broject. Note the page within the local Transportat, on.
5evelomenc Plan (TDP) on ' which it can be found.
a, ) aenefito to the elderly and handicapoed to be derived from the
Drajact (see attachment g ;-, Need Justification) (page(s) :
, . . ... _.
b. ) WayS ih which thisproject will overcome existing shortcam:G.TTS- -
in se-vico. (se attachment #9 Schedule of Actions & improve-; 50,-)7,4'
(see attachment #3 Vehicle replacement schedule) ments
c . ) Description of cransportatLom ser.ices now provided to elderly
and handicaoped by the applicant (schedules, frequency o2.,
service etc.) (page(s) : -41-"
d . ) Transportation services now offered to elderly and handicapped
by other agencies (schedules, frecuency of service etc.)
(gee attachment g4 OCCHS-New AgenCY Schedule) (page(5) ;c5 thru 30
e. ) Documentation or copies of existing lacerageacy agreements,
or documentation of unsuccessful coordination efforts:
(see attachment :15 Northern Orange Medical Route between (page(s) ;
OCCHS & 00A
V. I.ANNING REVIEW: (Check the appropriate box.)
-
. 1 Erbanized Area . 1
,
- .-... .
iTransit improvement Program (urbanized area) has been. -
1 . .
developed for this area and this oroject is include-1 in
the annual element (Attach TIP. only if it has been
amended recently because of this project:)
i
. Non-Urbanized Area
1
1 IA Transit Development Program has been devo.lobe^ go,- Ii.-
I
I - - area which included this project.
PROJECT UDc-ET SUM.VIY. :
......
IIndicate specific sources of funds (public and brivate) and =mounts 1
ro be used as local (non-federal) contributions to ==do.-=1 ,.----- - i
I Orange County 7,03 I
_
' I JOCCA- - - '
OPC Mental Health , . 3,783
oa
9,5 i
OCCH5 . 5,a27 .
I I
Total: 26,250
i
. i
•
Indicate specific sources and zmounts of the funds to be used for
Pro.:ec r. operating expenses :
OC:.:}15 5 50,000
•
JOCCA ---------- ------- 14 r'-g=n
. •
. ,
- - ,
. . -
. _...____... 57c-
t_. , .,_: ......,- . —. ..,-.,...::-....- - ', --....--...-47.-;:',...,-.--.7.-=';:..- , - - ' -:a..!-..";",:;',',,,,,-.,•;":=;:t7.f.,:-:tY:-...k.::',;.;-71:',.1,,,,..-7:,,'
' .-• ,- ' ',7"7-,..':;;',:.--E',:r-,,*•-.-
"- 0.1.:.:
. ..
.. . . . . _.
• ..
•
. .
VII. ASSUR1NCE OF COMPL1.2-_NCE, 1WTTH TT-71,7 VT OF 1 CTV7T R7GB71-S AC":"
_ ..,
07 194
, .
. .
. .
I Narn: ze ....rntIon: 1
I
,
1 Joint Orange Chatham Community Action , Inc. 1
. •
. •
I ,
HERESY AGREES 77--!AT;t Hill marricly avirn Title vi at zno C.,+•1 Rig7c.
IP.E.-:12- 21 and all Teouirement:imacser. ay me U, F. ..
Oecomment at 'r3n sdoratin to the erd that.,tn ar_ardanc: .vii Title VI
at thy Aca. no aersan+rr the Unite.c!tzars mail. an e ;round ot Tz=.
COiOr. ix or matte:nal ori■Fy•t„ae ee.4.u.aeot foam zarocaatten in, be
i dentea':tre benefit:.ot,or t-at atnerw et-Led ;o disc:urination under .
I
any rogram ar acdvity far-vnicr tr:e ReCcieot Tyzeives Petrel financTai ... — . ._ .._. - _
assgs=rrc... !rorn the.Cleoarunent:tracer F-*-t-oeral vroan .ma= transdarTation
:
dreac-ams: and HERSEY G I Vs:AS-SURANCE. THAT tt'NM immeciateiv
f
take any me2;4043.ile•Gt=rf = effee---aato haii asrer.rnerrt..
. .
If any mai arac-rort or ratIC:LIre ClefrOn ;1 are:Inds:4 or imeroved'mit" :he aio.
of r-e.:„.eroi financaa anis=nor. extended :a me Re.-.i.T.iern ZY me :la=isrrmr:1:
under Pee:era/ L;rogin m atson =rocarr,/, ;Tus Luurzr==an
! colic:ate the-.ReC'cient.or in .7t3 case of any transfer of htc-;aroaerzy.any '
I 7n -r- -, or;he aeriod during wrrica the-real oroderzy or raruc:ure is ,ssad
tcr
i a,urzoses for'frier me.,tter.eral finanCai asuotanco is ex:once:a or
,
! anatner-aurrocrse 4n-tallying ;he;rovisian at surrilar tervi=or benefit:-
any aeosar_al ,:rocerw is to ;novice: this aaastran= mall- attligato the-Reo.-,aierte i
— !or tne amicad during welts it Trains cvvnermia or ocsseasion at the oracplry,
I
In all atrt .=es. :his aso.srartc Mall aciigahr :he Redaiehr for the gerice.' •
- 1
during wrticl .'7.3e Frier-al FinanCal assioranc ;1 amvenomel to :t ay ;he
under Ftcer2) 60.--LIrs moss transpartation ...e.strarrts...
THIS ASSURANC:.:;1 siverr in carrsideeTation or.1:Tr: or the aureola
-al ;ran=;darn, =ntrams.:racer:,y, scounts cr other
le-raj fironsl assortanc extended atTri the data hereof to=e PeCroene
:
! ay Lhe Oecormhertr under '...e.o.eral .aban mass..T....ans-artott.on bro-.4m.ms.. The
Recarent •-ec.r.cniam ana arire-ss that suci Fecterr..1 financial zoison=',nil
, I
. .
. be entar.-ce-r: in rriiance art he fox:re:lei-nations atI4 mremenv.:made 'n True
! -1
no".and :rat my United States :nail ..:ace- :71e rigrr; ma irk it:die:AI
i
I
t enforcement
of :his assuran ., This assurance. !I binding arl the Rec.:herr
SLI=13CrS,. :ransiert-11„ and ssicrit-.-.•._ The-;:erSCO or oersom .vivcsr
sIgnatures aocear Oeio-w Jr r. 1uUlCrIt.,?..3 .7O Lieni me Reoictent.
i
1 -
,
1
i 5;cn e,..•. '-',Y ziff,:g-n,J..., /7"/ ../,r"--.W ..;_/2_,,,,,..70-1,3 ,
i
I \-4..?...zglo=rrt. ClIstrrnan ot Eta-aro,or zarnaaraoie JUCtICrtZr1 Of tiC31)
......_ r
it
!
arr 4/29/32
; D
I .
( t
I
it
a
- '
• -.i.
.58C
•
N.;•m= OF , D7,..TCANt.: FROM PAGE 1: Joint Orange Chatham Communit Action _
Cart; :ication of Special Efforts To
Transuortation That Handicapped Persons Can Use
•
Joint Orange Chatham Community Action, Inc.
Oiame of Applicant)
he-reby cartifies that special, efforts are being made in ins
service area to provide transportation chat handicapped pe:sons iludi wheeichair users and semiambulatory persons, can n.se.
For cpnts or ,funds 'under sections 3 and 5 of the Urban Yass
Transoortation Act of 1964., as amended (UHT Act ) , these soec4a7
al'fori.s (1) are consistent with the guidance in Appendix A to
49 CFR Part 27, Suhcar D and (2) are already made or 1,4411 be
made within six months of the effective data of 49 CSR 27.77.
For recipients of funds under section 18 of the tNT Act, the
transportation resulting from these speciel efforts- is renson-
able in comparison to the transportatlon provided to the gene,-aY
...-public -and meets .a.,...s.igni,c—c.Lant% traction of the actual transpor-
tation needs of such persons within a reasonable time.
Joint Orange Chatham
4/29/82 Community Action, Inc.
DA7". Legal Name of Apol =caw-
of Author4z,-=
- •
D6 I
. 7.i 1 . , . ,- , . ,it,,,.c..:7„....,1 :!.:. _ , , ,:::::- ...---,:-
N•mT 0F. §.PDTTCANT FROM PAGE 1 ; Joint Orang Chatham Community ActIon, Inc.
.TST7YA.T7D CAPITAL BUDGET FOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECT:
NUMBER UNIT COST TOTAL '
Vzh4-le Cost:*
15 aasseaver vehicle a 513.000
17-?6- oassencer vehicle 4 ] 7 100 100,0_
' 1
School 3us ( l_an5senzer) . , I
1 L____3a4a0______ 10
Total E3t4mated Veh4cle Cost 1 S-P M
1 -
Estimated Cost for Related Equipment: 1
Wheelchair lifts & related ecuinment 7 I 6 .500 I 45,500
Wheeichai- rams & related ecniomehtl I - 4 1
Radio Equipment
4..000
FM 4ob41A “n4ts 1 1 1.500 1
, _.
---
Air Conditioning (17-24435 passenger
vehicle) 5 4,500 2Z,500
----.----______--- r_...___--7.--------
To cal. Estimated Cost. for Related Equipment I I $ 77,t '
Total Estimate - I ----- i s .
1_
Contingencies (5%) __--_____
1
__ _
Total Estimated Cost of Project _-_- I .
1 S262 .500
Federal Grant Requested (5C of Project) ___- i
1 ______ I 5210.000
Stare Contribution (10% of Project) 1 S
________ 2 .950
Local Contribution (10%, of Project) I S
, .
Use total cost of vehicles. DO NOT show only the BOZ Federal shar..
-- -__
- -- -
..., . ...* " -
'41,
t i
t ,
s;
Agency Ve:ll, Yr. Seat Spec. 11 Current Avera e Tyke 2/ # Monthly Hethad 3/
or and Cali. Equip,T" Mileage Annua C11enL Riders of
Program }ypc !Mileage Operas:ion
CMS:
Low income Mixed rouge:
mvdlual Maxi Van Elderly 480 trips >ros
}cct llill
CLi' 'c ;
1977. Lt Lift 90,707 22,5'110 handicapped. to fiitisl�uxot l€}
11u�pit al -ticitcs dai l
Low income Fixed rctt}L
(X"Cils Ford Elderly (Sallie as Prospect: 1l�11. to .€Ii II;- ,
Medical +: Van 12 none 259,520 37,700 1landicalrped al,avc} boroticjll to Ci rrtroro
Clinic 1974 3 tildes (tsar:! }}p for
lltic:=}��r3 f
ma-rTtr man=nd van sits:
I}eucled for rc me)
Fixed area 'v
1X.:C€ts Low income Fixed
Medical Ford Van ! 12 none 125,302 32,000 Elderly 600 trilis t)r mand rt NpaF sc lac. U
Clinic 1974 Chapel 11111 f t 1,
Slc�alsil:rl__ ltandlcapf,ed lmm—'Illiyr' -1 t..
Billyliain Town_I}ips
Mon., 't'1fur,
f C11R:Llis. '1'(7wF};!}1115
Use abbreviations or code; Other codeable responses include:
ll wheelelluir lift L ramp, radio, safety parka a (l;eavy duty chassis, seat belts, fire Ct
extiuguialler, first aid kit, interior matt ution package, extra mirrors or fi.Flahers) n
2j elderly, handicapped, youth, loci incolaq, other{aides, parents, teachers, ett±, }
3J fixed route, fixed schedule, deillund-responsive, flexible rottteo, zones, a combination of
3 331
i�
V
c
VEHICLE UTILLI. t IfaN CHART
• i
Vehicle 6 a.m. 7 a V 113 it 12' ).111. 1 2 3 5 6
Occlis - 1937 Pod ie E3:00 - 11:30 M-F 12:30-3:30 1}.m M-b' 3:30-5:30 p.m. M.T.W. `
s maxi van witl} lift prospect 11111-Cedar Grove- P.1l.-Cedar Grove- Y.11.-itill.sizpru}}:ip�
1{974 ford Vac} R icktip) lli lisburo}sy1} -CI}a13e1 hill- P-11- Ilillsburouc311-C.11.-P.11. Chapel hill--I{rv_clsec:L 11
0:00-12:(10 g.m_ M-F' 1.00 - 5:00 P.an. 1.1--F'
€X clis E
Clcal}el 11.111 Township
Chapel Hill Township �
1374 Ford van} Bi I%it ham ICI Seekj, Mon Thur Iii}{ liam rheeks -Moll. Thurs.
_ t
�3j
r.1 4 1:
1 �
s �
r#
ri e
cl .r.
ID i1=
rr
•1.
�f
' � ' -- -� �
� '
Effettive May 27,:'7981.
~~
��
\ � ..'
TRANSPORTATION SCHEDULE IN MEDICAL ROUTE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN OCCHS AND DOA
Barbara Beasley will schedule trips for 0CCH5 at Prospect Hill .
Jim Powell is Clinic Manager. Inform all clients that after their
appointment at hospital/clinic to give name to person in front
lobby that they are ready.
Phone: 83-662-3311
84-929-4380 (Both phones ring in at Prospect Hill Clinic)
Pick-up schedule at Department on Aging office, Hillsborough
6 Wednesda
_ . _
9: 1-5' A'H'' Pick up at Hillsborough DoA offide
11 ; 30 A.M. Leave Chapel Hill
1 : 15 P.M. Pick up at Hillsborough DoA office
2:30 P.K. Leave Chapel Hill
3: 45 P.M. Pick up at Hillsborough DoA office
4:30 P.M. ' Leave Chapel Hill
Thursday and Frida
9:15 &'M' Pick up at Hillsborough DoA office
12: 30 " P.M. Leave Chapel Hill
2: 15 P.M. Pick up at Hillsborough DoA office
ce . '
3;16 P.M. Leave Chapel Hill
Note : 'The times indicated would be the earliest that clients
would be picked up and they may vary by approximately
15 minutes later. However, clients should be ready
at times listed above.
- —
. GLORIA M.WILLIAMS
JOINT OirKtOr
ORANGE CHATHAM
..g1
September 7, 1982
Mr. Jerry Passmore
Director
Orange County Department on Aging
300 W. Tryon Street
8111sborough, North Carolina 27278
Dear Jerry:
As promised I an forwarding you a copy of correspondence received from
the Office of1David D. King regarding our recently submitted 16 (b) (2)
application.
If there are questions please call. I plan to contact Charles Glover.
You may wish to contact him also.
Sincerely,
t
Gteria M. Williams
Executive Director
QM:ea
cc: Paul Alston
P0 30X 27 *171.9313F10 NORTH CAROLINA 27312 :9191 3424791 'ORANGE,' 2OLINTY 9191 929,34941
? •
n r14 79% 4:5A2R-■!•S.„'•• ',41 \
tror , 1
• ,
r• .
•!,
LL
Ale 2 4 ia7.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
OEPARTmENT OF TRANSPORTATION
w
RALEIGH 27611
JAMES a.HUNT JR
GOvERNOR August 20, 1982 PUELIC TRANSPORTATION OIVIEtON
POST OFFICE 30X 35201
WILLIAM R.ROBERSoN.JR 9111/733-4713
SECRETARY
Ms. Gloria M. Williams, Executive Director
Joint Orange—Chatham Community Action, Inc.
P.O. Box 1127
Pictsborol, North Carolina 27312
Dear Ms. Williams:
We regret to inform you that your application for
Section I6(b) (2) funds cannot be approved at this time.
While the Division' s review found the application to be
satisfactory, the State had an insufficient amount of funds
to accommodate all requests this year. Therefore, your
request as not approved.
The 1Publio Transportation Advisory Council did, however,
ask that your application be given first priority in the event
that addiltional funding becomes available. We anticipate
that somd, additional funding may be available for obligation
to your agency an or about January 1 , 1983. In anticipation
of this likelihood, we have already transmitted your
application to the Urban Mass Transportation Administration
and have requested "approval contingent upon the availability
of fundsl.
We will notify you in-mediately upon detarmiaiag when
additional funds b'eclme available, ?lease contact Charles
Clover or; or staff if you have any questions concerning
your ap?llicatLca.
Sincerely,
q211 I
D-avid D, King
Director ,
DDK:
•
- _ _ `' -_-_ _
�
�� ' ' - �
=�� '
��
I�
cm.AoE c0orrY
BOARD OF actiooAg=nda
Itammo'
ACTION AGENDA ITEMaSSTRACr
ri~^.czsG DATE SEPTEMBER 21, 1982
S
ubjant: Planning Director Salary Authorization
L =partr~= u'' y '~ '^r Public earing: yes X no
o,otac�t;Ken Thompson Iriformation
Att~C~.-^�`—' '
No ' shooe,Nustsz; 732-8181 ext. 501,
roneosE: To consider above entry hiring for the person selected.
NEED: The Manager and Personnel Director have completed the recruitment and selection
process for the position of Planning Director, A job offer has been made and
accepted by Mr. Marvin Collins contingent upon Board authorization to set the
salary at Salary Grade 77 Step 4B (S28,500)'
Above entry hiring is recommended based upon the training and experience of
the individual being higher than the minimum for the job class as required
by Article VI Section 4 of the County's Personnel Policy. Specifically,
the person would bring to the job:
--Over 12 years of experience in the planning field;
--Ten of the twelve years have been in a supervisory capacity;
--Knowledgeable of all functions of the planning department and
has performed most jobs;
--Well versed in the laws and regulations affecting planning and
inspections;
--Good oral and written communication skills;
--Has established and maintained good working relationships with
staff, other departments and the public;
--Well respected by others in the planning field.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the hiring of Mr. Collins at Salary Grade 77 Step 4B.
, .
�
�d~�~ . - ,02 �
476`e#07
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Commissioners
FROM: CountY Manager
DATE: September 21 , 1982
' RE; Status
This Import is to bring you up to date on the fiscal and/or adminis-
trative stat6s of Titles
(8), III(C) and V of the Older Americans Act,
the Hendstart Program and the Emergency Assistance Payments Program admin-
istered by DSS.
I. The Old4 Americans Act authorizes funding for Titles 111(8) , III(C)
and V thrrough 1985. At present, Congress has appropriated funds for
these programs through June 30, 1983, at a minimum, and, according to
TJCOG, probably through September 30, 1983.
A. (B\ Supportive Services and Senior Centers.
The rtment on Aging is administering a $54,335 federal grant
(total program cost is $81,518 including state and local match) under this
program to sqbsidize services provided at senior centers around the county
including vehicle operating costs, homemaker services, legal assistance,
and—information and referral. Part of the funds are used to cover portions
of the salaries of four employees in the Department on Ag1ng,
B. Title IlI(C Congregate and Home Delivered Nutrition Services.
lhis a $167*673 program which is administered by JOCCA and pro-
vides meals for senior centers and home-bound elderly in Orange and Chatham
Counties. $13,798 of the budget are Orange County funds. In both Chatham
and Orange County space for the nutrition sites are provided in-kind except
for the cost pf utilities. Salary cost covers 10.5 positions.
C. Tiltle V Community Service Employment for Older Americans.
Both J CCA and DOA receive allocations under this program. They do
not receive cash but rather an allocation of positions. The workers are
paid directly by the federal government.
JOCCA uses its 14 positions to assist in the management of nutrition
sites and the transport of meals prepared under Title lII(C).
DOA uses its 9 positions to drive vans to transport senior citizens
to III(C) nutiltion sites, do office work and provide home chore service.
Though these are separate programs, the Department on Aging and JOCCA
have worked to integrate them to maximize their efficiency; and yet, as we
recently saw, a threat to only one of the programs can undermine the viability
of the other 7xo programs.
Board of Co4issioners -2- st .atus _o.Fsevera.iGrant .,______________--------..mm...
= r.
September 21 ; 1982 Funded Programs
II. Headstart
A. JOCCA Administration .
The Headstart Program ($344,855) which is being temporarily adminis-
tered by Wake Opportunities was not threatened by the Reagan veto and prog-
nosis for fading stability is good.
_-_. . - -
In m �
JOCCA was foli.ced to give up the program. They were caught between two con-
flicting federal regulations; OMB Circular A-122 permitted JOCCA to charge
39.8% to eac of its programs for management and administrative costs,
whereas, the Department of Health and Human Services (the funding agency
for Headstar ) would only allow a 15% charge. MultiplYing an indirect cost
rate of 39.8$ against JOCCA's total direct personnel costs yields $93,500.
Fifteen percent of the total program cost yields only $60,000 leaving JOCCA
with a non-reimburseable cost of $33,500. Previously, overhead cost was
paid from a grant fliom the Community Services Administration. Under the ;
new uuow.wnit' Services Block Grant administered by the State use .
of fundsrfor other than direct program costs will not be allowed.
B. Wake Opportunities Administration
Wake Opportunities is in the process of assuming administration of
Headstart.for, the remainder of the program year. It has an indirect
rate [30%) that is in excess of the 15% allowed by Health and Human Services
-
and--] may have problems in sponsorship beyond the end of the year.
- ' | '` :.
There was a slight delay in the transition due to the need for JOCCA
to fully inventory the equipment they purchased with Headstart funds. My
office has bden in contact with Mrs. Dorothy Allen, Executive Director of
Wake Upportu 'ities to offer any assistance in the transition period.
C. project Outreach Assumption of Headstart
SponsJirship is still under staff study.
III. Emergedcy Assistance Payments
The stlApplemental appropriations bill which was passed by Congress
over `u veto contained no funds for Emergency Assistance Payments.
Funds Mere in the original appropriations bill but did not get
included in the final package. In addition, the Regional Department of
Social Servicies stated that no funds were requested by the state as both
state and county matches were required and no state funds were allocated.
It thJ= appears that the $19,500 shown in the FY 82-83 DSS budget for
emergency assistance will continue to be 100% county funds.
C-::—.,,,,
Kenneth R. Thompson
KRT:nm