Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 09-20-1983
, IL ORANGE COUNTY BOARD'OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING ! SEPTEMBER 20, 1983, 7:30 P.M. CHAPEL HILL COURTROOM CORNER Or-FRANKtIN 6 HENDERSON CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA A. BOARD COMMENTS 8. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1 . Mattet6 6 the ptinted agenda 2. Mattelts 1.ot o the pAinted agenda C. REPORTS 1. VoteA Idcation cakd 2. Chi& Ca e Repatt 3. AffiAmatilve Action D. BOARD DECISIONS 1 Animat cdritkoe Okdinance 2. One-Hat6 pent Sates and Use Tax 3. Audit 4. Pubtic. VekendeA. 06gce 5. Grading COntkact 6. Housing Rehabilitation Contact 7. AppointmOt Same Capitat Tatsk, Fotce 8. Prtoject 044nance Amendment 9. Budget Amendment 1 1 i 9/20/83 INDEX AGENDA ITEM AS R.CT P.GE P' - C-I VOTER IDENTIFICATION CARD 001 001 C-2 CHILD CARE REPOT 002 002-0. C-3 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION 014 014-0; D-1 ANIMAL CONTROL 'ORDINANCE 019 019-0! 0-2 ONE-HALF CENT SALES and USE TAX 039 039-04 D-3 AUDIT 041 041 D-4 PUBLIC VEFENVER1 OFFICE 042 042 D-5 GRADING CONTRACT 043 043-04 D-6 HOUSING REHAB CONTRACT 049 049-0! D-I , APPOINTMENT - SCHOOL TASK FORCE 053 053 D-8 PROJECT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 054 054-0! D-9 BUDGET AMENDMENF 056 056-0! MINUTES September 20, 1983 The Orange Courity Board of Commissioners met in ruviar session on Tues September 20, 1983 at 7:30 P.M. in the Courtroom of the Old Post Of Building, Chapel [dal, North Carolina. Commissioners Present: Richard E. Whitted, Chair, and Commissioners Lloyd, Shirley E. Marshall, Norman Walker and Don 1 A. EOARD COMMENTS, Commissioner WOlhoit added an executive session for consideration of acquisition of property. B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no Comments. 1. MATTERS WITI ON THE PRINTED. ADMA There were no cOmments . 2. MATTERS ON TEE PRINTED AGENDA There were no Comments. C-1 REPORTS - foter Registration 1 Ms. Margaret Parker , Chair of the Board of Elections, presented the voter registration cards to members of the Board and staff, and distributed 1 Board of Elections; pamphlet, which had been distributed already to Cot 1 offices, department's, clinics, libraries, banks, etc. 1 C-2 gialjLezigteport The charge to the ad hoc Committee was to look at alternatives 1 establishing enhanced child care in the County. All members were present: Jan Schopler (Ch4r of the Board of Social Services) , Dr . Arthur Mict Sharpe, (Chair of the Child Care Subcommittee of the Orange County He 1 Services Advisory Commission; and County Manager Ken Thompson. -• Commissioner Marshall noted that direct staff proposed in Model 3 was top heavy with administrators and suggested the Department Head could serve Social Services Suplprvisor . Dr. Schopler noted that the Board of Social Services passed recommendation for [ enhancement of day care services within the Department Social Services, bu with two serious modifications -- staff structure include a full-time Daycare Unit Director, a half-time supervisor, a half-i information and referral professional, and with the creation of an Advil Committee on Child Care Services . Commissioner Marshall noted the important need to recognize that the reI also asked for a department or program that would meet other needs of par€ and children besidels day care. Commissioner Whitted commended the Committee for providing an excel] report. C-3 Affirmativtion (see pages of this book) Commissioner Whitted noted that information requested by the Board has t supplied and incorporated into a set of seven recommendations. County Manager , : Ken Thompson noted changes in the composition of the Cou work force from 1976 forward and from a period of 1981 to present there i breakdown by salary, race and sex. Commisioner Willhoit noted a need to develop a format for reporting d in a more meaningful way. Virginia Weisz, 4 representative of the Affirmative Action Committee of Commission for Women recommended adoption of the recommendations made by Personnel Department and the County Manager and offered supplemental mater to members of the Board for clarification of the statistics pertaining to percent of total el9ployees who are female -- a statistic that is releva Ken Thompson, COunty Manager noted that the earlier report identified proportion of each protective class employed in the County. _ Ammo= Commissioner T4oyd voiced some concern for dealing with the handicappe a protective class in the area of affirmative action. He noted that particular goals on quotas are met and that point is surpassed, then you into reverse discamination. Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to put recommendatons of the Manager and the Commission for Women on the next ag( under the decisions category. VOTE: Ayes, 5; Noes, 0. D. Board Decisionsi D-1 , Anipa,1 Control Ordinance (for public comment and decision) (see r for this ordir4nce) Mr . Doug Champion spoke on behalf of the Animal Protection Society Orange County, resti.onding to the comments made at the meeting in Hillsboro 1 as requested -- a formal response was prepared and made available to the Bo for review. Additionally, Mr. Champion offered to try to put into perspect the needs for the Ordinance and the essential amendment changes. Mr. Champion stated and elaborated on three essential protections that needed: (1) protection of animals against mistreatment, abandonment, agaii unauthorized haborinig, and hit and run injury; (2) protection of responsil owners and keepers, Such as the right to have dogs for protection and the ric to reclaim animals; ' (3) protection of others (meaning other persons, ott animals, other property, and the public at large) by limiting nuisances. Mc of these are listed under offenses, with the exception of female dogs in heat It is proposed that those portions of the Ordinance relating to publ health and safety be rewritten to provide a process for citizen complaint animal control ordiAance citation, impoundment or confinement of danger() animals off the premises. Harvey Carnes stated that he has been a resident of the unincorporati portion of Orange County for twenty years, and would like to have tl assistance of the Board to keep other dogs off his property - day and ni He supports the Ordinance. Dwayne Dryer sitated that many refer to the problem of whining and bar dogs as a nuisance,: when one loses sleep night after night, then it is longer a nuisance, but a health endangered situation. Jean Simmons (la Veterinarian) stated concern for her goats ' safety: does not want to shipot someone else's dog, but she will if the Ordinance is adopted. Doug McKay spoke in favor of the proposed Ordinance and the char recommended by the! Animal Protection Society and noted incidents involving family and dogs. Alvin Kennedy noted the need for evening emergency calls for the Ani Protection Society as well as his concern for the number of dogs that are 1 on city streets andlroads. Hugh Wilson noted that people in the County use dogs for companionship protection and is particularly concerned that the Board consider that a ci and/or legal action of applying to the Magistrate is one remedy for deal with dog nuisances. Mr. Laws, resident of Eno stated that dogs killed two of his cattle 1 year , and asked that something be done to control the dogs. He presen pictures to the Board. Frances Stagg, member of the Orange County Animal Shelter stated tl education and legislation are the two most valuable aids toward responsil ownership. Because dog problems are the same everywhere, rural taxpay4 should have the samelrights and protections as taxpayers in urban areas. Ms. Cole stated that she is a resident of the County, and feels that t Ordinance is needed because of population growth in the County. Bill Rump, Chair of the North Carolina Humane Federation, which is organization of all the humane societies in North Carolina, stated that t 1 .• problem is not just in Orange County, but a statewide problem and is extre complex. The natiOnal average for shelters handling pets is $15 per pet, animal shelters are presently handling between 4,000 and 5,000 pets per 17( somebody has to bitp the bullet and force irresponsible pet owners to i responsibility for he actions of their animals. Dr . Robert Gre4berg noted that this Ordinance will pose no problem for owner who has dogsthat happen to wander from the owner 's property c another. But, it will take care of the vast problems in the northern southern parts of the County. Dr . Vanstee, a 4eterinarian, noted that people have rights to own anim and dogs have rights to be exercised, but others who take daily walks a should have the right not to be injured by dogs. Animal owners have responsibility to provide human care to animals. Commissioner Willhoit gave to the Clerk two letters received from reside] of the County in support of the Animal Control Ordinance. Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, committee, to inciude the County Attorney, Health Director, and representative from the Animal Protection Society (possibly Dr . Greenberg) , consider the proposed changes and comments heard at the two public hearings a bring back a documerit to consider for action at the first meeting in Octobe VOTE: Ayes, 5; Noes,' O. There was discussion regarding possible conflict of State laws relative i hunting dogs. Commissioner Whitted noted that the Ordinance, if adopted, will be appli( countywide. D-2 One-Half_ Cent Sales Tax Commissioner Whittled noted that the Board has received a resolution fro the Town of Chapel Hull correspondence from Carrboro and the Orange Count Schools as well as having had communication with Dr. Mayor and Mr. Caldwell o the Chapel Hill-darrboro School District in reference to the one-half sales tax option that was passed in the last session of the General Asseml Commissioner Marshall stated that sales taxes should be a part of considerations of the task force being set up by the Board to address cap needs; she believes it necessary to put any new sales taxes to the vote of citizens. 1 Commissioner Whitted stated that if the task force recommends the one-1 cent sales tax and the needs are identified, this item should be considerec 1 the next county-wide election -- the May primary. 1 Commissioner LlOyd stated that the County is overdue for some relief of property tax due to the drastic increases over the past several years; a et 1 range relief of theiCounty's problem is a sales tax of some kind. Commissioner Walked noted, in agreement with Commissioner Whitted the n to wait for the task force report and then go to referendum. 1 Commissioner Willhoit noted that some in-depth studies need to be made sales tax as an additional revenue source for Orange County. Max Kennedy, Chair of the County Board of Education, suggested this is be placed on the ballot with municipal elections in November and not at spring primary because at that time it will become a part of other politi issues. In response tc'., Mr . Kennedy's concern, Commissioner Whitted stated t there is a need for the public to be educated in regards to understanding tax and the needs; if the November vote is defeated, then a five year wait, period is mandated before another vote can be held. Commissioner Whited suggested he would draft a response to those who hi been in communication with the Board --raising some points of inter( mentioned -- and distribute copies of that response to the Board. D-3 Audit 1 Comprehensive alpnual financial reports and the management letter to 1 year end of June 301, 1983 were distributed. Wallace Harding, Finance Direci and representativeis of Touche Ross and Company were present for questions representative of Touche Ross and Company noted that of 100 counties, municipalities and 143 school districts in North Carolina, fifteen areas North Carolina were listed in the MFOA newsletter as areas that received 1 Certificate of Conformance. Orange County is on this list which is significant achievement. 1 D-4 Public Defemders Office(see page of this book) Mr . Kirk Osborn stated that the space for the Public Defenders Off should be located in Chapel Hill, because there is a need for a place that i centrally located. He asked that alternative #1 be ruled out complete Bob Mahler notJd that in order to do an effective job for defenders (w at least 150 cases at any given time) , there is a need for ready access; of the indigent cli nts are in the Chapel Hill area, making it difficult provide for transportation to Hillsborough. County Manager, Ken Thompson noted that Chatham County is not interested contributing any rental space for the Public Defenders Office as there is spz obligated for court personnel in their renovated courthouse. 1 Commissioner Marshall stated that she has a problem with using the c 1 Police Building unrenovated or renovated. Throwing good money after bad. S also noted that thelPublic Defenders Office should work with the Commissions 1 of Chatham County regarding space because Chatham County is involved. 1 Commissioner Lloyd moved, seconded by Commissioner Walker to use the 0 1 Police Building with renovations. VOTE: Ayes, 4; Noes, 1 (Commission 1 Marshall) . D-5 Grading Contract (see page . for this contract) There is consideration to award the landfill reclamation contra( 1 1 (clearing, grading," creek channelization and seeding) for Northern Fair Neighborhood Park. Commissioner LlOyd moved, seconded by Commissioner Walker to award $150 (not to include $33,525 for Public Works road repairs) to the Bob Glc Grading Company, as recommended by Ken Thompson. VOTE: Ayes, 4; NoeE (Commissioner Willhlit) . D-6 HO. ' 70 : • , ,c (see page for this contract) Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Whitted to accept recommendation fOr the three housing rehabilitation contracts. VOTE: Ayes, • Noes, 0. D-7 A. .o . 1 - 1 • • • • - 1 The Orange County Board of Commissioners have appointed eighteen members • the School Capital Tsk Force, and there is a stated goal of twenty-fi members 1 • Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to appoi j Milton Julian, Louise Baker, Thomas Shanklin, and Ed Riley to the Scho Capital Task Force. !VOTE: Ayes, 5; Noes, 0. Commissioner Whited stated that he would contact Dick Sharpless regardi: his willingness to chair the Committee and noted the need for the Couni Finance Office to se0e as support staff for this Committee. D-8 P 0 • - 0 - 1 Commissioner Wil4oit moved, seconded by Commissioner Whitted to (1) acce additional funds for the CETA LIB ABE program and to adjust the program' budget in accordance With the State's budget backup; and (2) accept the CET IIB YWE program's deObligation of funds and to adjust the program's budget i accordance with the State's budget backup. VOTE: Ayes, 5; Noes, 0. D-9 Budget Amendment (see page for this amendment) Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to accept the proposed amendnients for Supplemental Family Planning and Maternal and C Care. VOTE: Ayes,1 5; Noes, 0. D-10 44,, - 11 - 4.cj . - n- , Commissioner Whitted stated that the annual, meeting of the Triang] Council of Governments will take place at the Jane S. McKimmon Center September 18, 1983. Each members calendar schedule should be given to Clerk tonight, indidating availability for interviewing the Clerk to the Boa Commissioner Whitted moved, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to go Il executive session to discuss acquisition of property. VOTE: Ayes, 5; Noes, Richard E. Whitted, Chc Sharon Allison, Acting Clerk ORANGE COUNTY c't '''' BOARD OF CriiirSSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT item No. C-1 MEETING DATE SeptemElek 20. 1 9jj Subject: Voter Itcientification Card • Erjpartment: Elections • 1 I Public Hearing: Attachrmnt(s : Information Contact: Bobbie Strickland for Per? Parker Chairman Voter Identification Card Phone Number: 1472 PURPOSE: To introduice to the Board of Commissioners a new voter information card. NEED: This, hopefully, will educate new voters on polling places and their locations, and remind them to transfer their registration when they move to a new prenfrIct. 1 1 1 IMPACT: To further entiance the voter registration process in Orange County. ---,........,001■1•11111111111■ , -4110111m=111111 • • , : . • - •:-•;i ,-,:::,4i , ,' ' , . . • . „ . . , ... :' . • '',. :-','F , ,-,', - :.-': • I . . , . • ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF cannsstomess Action Agenda ACTION AGFADA ITEM ABS T R ACT Item No C-2 MEETING DATE S pp tpmhe r_20, 1 A R 3 Subject: Child Cre Report . Public Hearing: - yes , ' no1 - Attachrrent(s) : Information Contact: Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on County Manager's Office Alternative Models !for Child Care Se i - .- • - Phone Number: -: ; _ - puRposE: To present to the Board a report detailing alternative means of delivering enhanced 1day care services . NEED: At its May 17, 1983 meeting the Board received a report of the Child Care Committeelof the Orange County Human Services Advisory Commission citing the current state of day care service delivery in Orange County and the need for greater coordination and enhancement of existing services. At that time the Board moved to convene an ad hoc committee comprised of Ken Thompon, the County Manager, Janice Schopler, Chair of the Social Services Board and Michael Sharp, Chair of the Child Care Subcommittee to examine alternative means of delivering enhanced day care services in Orange County. 1 1 IMPACT: Three models of enhanced day care service delivery are examined in the attached ad hoc committee report: [ 1 . Maintenance of current day care unit in DSS at an enhanced service level . 2. Creation of a new county department, separate from DSS, to deliver enhancement day care services. 1 1 3. The format-inn nc , ... .!-_ , ' V s ._ 5.".^J"'' ..r,.s.n:.w..,....... --•.._....:. t ....,......:.....,....i.us.n:,...df.,:..;a. y i REPORT OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON ALTERNATIVE MODELS FOR CHILD CARE SERVICE DELIVERY I Ken Thompson, County Manager Janice Schopler, Chair Orange County Board of Social Services Michael Sharp, M.D. September 13, 1983 1 r • ^ • "' • t ,;L:7 A' 00 • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This ad hoc committee report is in response to a request from the Orange County Board oil Commissioners to examine alternative means of delivering enhance, • day care servic0 to meet needs outlined in the report of the Child Care Subcom- mittee of the Orange County Human Services Advisory Commission. • The Child Care Subcommittee report cited the current state of day care service delivery in Orange County as fragmented and stated that a number of child care need S in the community are not being addressed by existing service delivery agencies . This ad ho committee report examines the potential of four models to coor- dinate service lelivery and address unmet needs. These models are: Model #1 Maintenance of the Day Care Unit in DSS at its current service level Model #2 Maintenance of the Day Care Unit in DSS and enhancement of its current service level Model #3 Oreation of a new county governmental agency, independent of DSS, to deliver enhanced day care services Model #4 Creation of a private non-profit corporation to deliver enhanced day care services All models re predicated on the assumption that all direct Title XX staff funds currently used to support Day Care Unit (Model #1) will be available for transfer to and Use in the other models. Models #1 ad #2 would continue to receive policy direction from the Orange County Board of Social Services . Policy direction would come from a Board of Commissioners appointed advisory board in Model #3 and from a corporate Board of Directors in Model #4. Models #2 and #3 would require additional estimated current day care staff levels and additional estimated expenditures of $30,300 and $36,500 respectfully. Model #4 would require the procurement of an additional S65,000 to meet estimated operating expendAures. Implementatipn of model #2 would require procurement of funds to hire addi- tional staff and specific policy direction from the MS Board. Model #3 would require action by the Board of Commissioners creating a new county agency and: authorizing the DSS Board to enter into a contract with this agency for the delivery of current day care services, the procurement nf Addi- tional firnele - 1 . -" •`- ; • ; , • ,■.;.1 M,,rit:44340f4.1i'4/441-4.17C:%:- •-'4Cr • • 1 I. INTRODUCTION This report is in response to a request from the Orange County Board of Commissioners to examine alternative means of delivering enhanced day care services to meet needs outlined in the report of the Child Care Subcommittee of the Orange County Human Services Advisory Commission. It has been prepared by an ad-hoc committee designated by the Board and comprised of Kenneth Thompson, Orange County Manager, Ms. Janice Schopler, Chair, Orange County Board of Socia-gServices and Dr. Michael Sharp, Chair, Child Care Subcommittee of the Orange County Human Services Advisory Commission. Staff assistance- was provided by Rob Addelson, Management Analyst in the Orange County Manager's Office. II_ BACKGROUND1 On May 17, 11983, a report of the Child Care Subcommittee of the Orange County Human Services Advisory Commission was submitted to the Orange County Board of Commissioners for its consideration. The report cites the current state of child care service delivery in Orange County as fragmented and states that a number of child care needs in the community are not being addressed by existing service delivery agencies. The report attributes many of the problems in service delivery to the lack of coordination among existing child care providers as well as institutional , fiscal and legal ; constraints posed on the Day Care Unit of the Department of Social Services, Ithe major agent of day care service delivery in the county. Due to the amount and source of funds (Title XX dollars) the Day Care Unit is restricted as tothe activities it can undertake and the populations it can address. The provision of technical assistance is limited to those centers which are certified or seeking certification which precludes needed assistance to a large number of qther day care providers. Further, the report states that the public's perceptilon of DSS as a "welfare agency" stops many families from seeking information and referral and purchase of care funds from the Day Care Unit thus resulting in uninformed day care choices being made by parents. The report cbncludes with a proposal for the creation of a new agency to coordinate child care resources in the county and to enhance the existing level of services being' delivered. The report argues that a new agency will be better able than the current arrangement, to address the following needs: Need #1 : AdVocacy for child care in all sectors of the community including more stringent standards for non-certified day care homes and centers. Need #2: Enhancement of existing service delivery including: I a. increased technical assistance b , development of additional spaces c. expanded nutritional services d. provision of health supportive services e. naronfi. • ! . '00 ' • • i.` " 0 0 Need #4: ! Provide an identity for day care services separate from DSS to overcome the "welfare agency" image and the barrier it Hposes to the success of information and referral activities and other enhanced services. III. ANALYSIS; Basically; the committee has looked at four models of service delivery and assessed each on the basis of its ability to address the needs cited above. The current Day Care Unit is posed as the Model #1 to serve as a basis of comparison for the other three models. The four models are: Model #1 : Maintenance of the Day Care Unit in DSS at its current service level . Model #2: Maintenance of the Day Care Unit in DSS and enhancement of its current service level . Model #3: ' Creation of a new county governmental agency, independent of DSS, to deliver enhanced child care services. Model #4: 1Formation of a private non-profit corporation to deliver : enhanced day care services. Models #1 and #2 would continue to receive policy direction from the Orange County Board of Social Services. Policy direction would come from a Board of Commissioners' appointed advisory board in the case of Model #3 and from a corporate board of directors in Model #4. All models are predicated on the assumption that all direct Title XX staff funds ($74,414 in salaries and fringe benefits) currently used to support the Day Care Unit will be available for transfer to and use in the alternative models discussed. The chart On pages 4, 5 and 6 will assess the four models in regard to staffing, cost, ability to address the needs cited above, and advantages and disadvantages. IV. LOGISTICS -- - When the Child Care Report was first issued, questions were raised as to State regulatory barriers that might preclude the transfer of Title XX funds and functions from the Department of Social Services to a private non-profit corporation. - Consequently, meetings were arranged with the N. C. Office of Day Care Services , the N. C. Division of Social Services, the Mecklenburg County Depart- ment of Social Services and Child Care Resources, Inc. , of Charlotte to deter- mine if barriers ' did indeed exist. In fact barriers do not exist. Below is a list of neri-pi6=r1 k=,..4^, 44-4 IJ. • . COMPARATIVE MODELS MODEL 01 I:x MODEL #2 140DEL #3 HODEt. 64 ork Supervisor ( ), Social Social Work Supervisor { : Social Dept. bead (1); Clerk-Typist (1); Executive Director ( ); Clerk- 1�) Day Care Coordinator (1) Worker (1); Clerk-T pint 11), Day Social Work Supervisor (h); Social Typist (1); Accounting Technician Care Coordinator (1); Space Bevel- Worker (1); Technical Assistance (I); Technical Assistance Coordina- opment & Resource Coordinator (1); Coordinator (1); Information and for (1); Social Work Supervisor {)$); Information and Referral Special- Referral Specialists ( }; Social Worker (1); Information and 1st N. Referral Specialist (11) i DSS Board Advisory Board Board of Directors r-: $108,658 . � Q�3 4 074 Ela3;]q0 $143,740 .y, 0 $30,300 $36,500 $65,500 are Unit- is funded with Funding of new positions with non- Funding of ne-wipositions with non- Funding of new positions with non- funds where use is limited Title XX funds, i.e,?, pr#vate or Title XX funds would permit advo- Title XX funds would permit advo- ties which address target 100% County, Mould permit advocacy cacy for non-Title XX lictivitie5, racy for non-Title XX activities. ns for purchase of care or for non-Title XX activities. `r r potential service provi- �r As in Model 01 the County has two As in Model 11 the County has two 1come-eligible clients. As in Model #1 the County has two options for adopting more strin- options for adopting more strin- 1 )lic funds for advocacy options for adopting more stria- p p g li ible activities is ita gent standards for day care, vent standards for day care. g t, gent standards for day care. has two options for lore stringent standards :re. 3011-39 enables the Board •:,`+��+ Ith to adopt more strin- tandards than those of �. .. ate when deemed necessary tect the public health, ; unty may exercise its nce making power to enact r re standards over and those enforced by the State. :)y which day care is de- �. . s no bearing on the County's Copt more stringent stan- *This interpretation based on con- .versation with staff at the Insti- tute of Government. f _ MODEL #1 1400EL 12 MQDEL 93 fiDDEL N4 ; ant day care unit is not it :? Tire addition of tVta new positions A separate agency would perml t the A PtiPC would permit the enhancement ~� Of significantly enhancing would permit enhancement of ser- enhancement of services. An ac- of services. An accounting of time services due to enhance 3„ on current staff time. g typist would apermit ntimetcurrently and non-Title XX activities would activities would be Counting of time spent on Tine XX spent of Title XX and non-Title XX being spent by the SIC Supervisor, are required, required. t Social Worker and Day Care Coordi- nator on paperwork to be focused an enhanced service delivery. An accounting of time spent on Title � XX and non-Title XX activities would be required, u is enable to receive Model 92 has the same ca__j_l.i_ty As-a-new-agency;thi-s—,iWddeI would As an agency distinct from county N --- - - - --m ends and foundation-manias,---stated-iar-Madee"1�1. r : i be assured that targeted have a better opportunity to at- government altogether, this model -A spent for a specific pur- tract private funds than the first would have the greatest opportunity agh the establishment of two models due to its identity• for attractin g private and founds- is. The potential of the separate from DSS and its style successfully solicit pri- focus on provision of day care ser- 501 n()(3)sstatuscasedef defined in the to augment the current vices. Nonetheless, it being a internal Revenue Service Cede mould M; s ay care service is, in par! of local overnment wouldii' hood, limited. iraake the corporation eligible for remain a barrier to successful foundation grants that local' govern- solicitation of funds. 'rent lacy not be eligible far. this medal, day care Model #2 has the same capability As a new agency, with no public As an agent altogether ; tl cold remain in DSS, it is stated in Model Rl. Y separate that the "welfare agency" preconception of its function or from Orange Count lem could he overcome clientele, the opportunity exists rrxadel would not have overcomeirthe intensive campaign to mar- for an aggressive campaign to stigma associated with welfare pro- q market market an agency image where all services Of the'Day Cara 9raarts and its impact on service , R entity distinct from DSS. facets of day care service deliv- delivery to all sectors of the ery will be available to all pop- Orange County population. 'Y ulations in Orange County. ordinated and 'integrated Maintain coordinated and irate- 'very in DSS. grated service delivery in DSs. imageaproble�a�ity to overcome ern image separate from count " ernment. y 9av 4 0` disbursement of funds Indirect cost support provided Increased ability to attract + DSS & Orange County. g y• by other County departments, p+'i- increase in ability to attract ri- vote funds, p vate funds. departments. a•; t support provided by Control over disbursement of funds Indirect cost support provided by Coordination of countywide Child remains with OSS & Orange County. other County departments. Care Services. Moves toward coordination of Coordination of countywide Child Precedent in Child Care Resources, countywide Child Care Services. Care Services. inc., of Mecklenburg County . Precedent at State level in crea- # tian of Office of Day Care Services as distinct from Division of Social Sprvic�;s. , y�. MODEL #1 MODEL U2 MODEL 63 MODEL N4 ved image problem 1 Perceived image roblem 9 p Movement away from coordinated lie# htens liability of DSS for dis- :;' constraints prevent Limited ability to foster public- andpintegrated service Sdeli ry Positron of Federal and State funds ament of services private effort ' i Precludes coordinated and integrated �. I ability to faster public- New country department mould service delivery in DSS as in 4: effort p Additional funds rewired cur- increase administrative rently unavailable and yet to be burden on County Models #1 & #2 identified : No indirect County support which t r:' causes higher direct cost to be '" ': Heightens liability of DSS for borne by PtiPC. disposition of State b federal funds. _Additional.-ftrids_requi-red-cur-rentl - - - ----- -- — � -° -- unavailable and yet to be identified _ } Additional funds required cur- rently unavaf Table and yet to ' be identified ?z -n Necessary P '.� `... rocurement of additional funds Procurement of•additfopal funds Procurement of additional funds Contract between agency and DSS Contract between DSS and PNPC .l jfl. ,ti r j 1 . . . ,.^ ,.,, .... • . . ,. . 114. ;!.*.m.: 1.'',0_•::!r••••:' -.'P..477-.301.'; --'',,'"'',"'• .7.1: '•;,.._v",'*};, :_i•:. 5.. L).-:•■'.. . i;61k.'„,;;;_k--.c.:r;,,;, .,, . ...:-. ,:, ,::,: 4.:, -''-, . , :'''' '1!, lk: .04.1;4:44-0 ,,;.1'; '. '';',.?:;441,*:16, 1.17.'1:•1.1. .17-11.,W.;',-'0:2: -'0,rW:P4:,Vii.,' 't!'.1'' .. ':.'''''!..';'2',4;.: 1.,1.t •.,;-:...IC 'i.'.' ;.■ :5,•':''•■•■, ..V.•'. -' '. ,ii.4,;.:..? ..7.,--•'". ''..: ':.'L ,';;O:,•!,,;:i:?. '..ii.;:,,';';'..e:., ,A!,,,:Vi ',;:il■■,:ko:nle,,,A!!..rl' _•;:;77,!rd.,7?4.7.:,:4,,4,::: ..f.,,.,-: ,z.A.-.1,:.,:!..r1,,, 4' ,til L.,''':ri Pc.''.'.,': '''L 4 ' •-i';'14'..,':7?•',',T.r■,7''' . . I . I. . 1 . 0 1 1 . Transfer of Funds: There are two categories of public funds that couldbefF5hsferred to the private non-profit: Title XX staff funds and purchase of care funds. The mechanism for this transfer is by contract between DSS and the private non-profit. 1 2. Liabil1ity: Though DSS could contract with a private non-profit for expenditure of day care funds and the delivery of day care services, liability, in the event of contracting, would remain with the DSS. 3. Monitoring and Accountability: Though, in a contracting arrange- . ment, Prange County would retain liability for a private non- profi* non-compliance with federal and/or state regulations , or theSmisapplication of funds, there are a number of mechanisms available to mitigate this occurrence. ... - 1 . . . al The optimal arrangement would be for the County to .. retain control over the handling of all funds. In this arrangement, the private non-profit would be responsible for all programmatic areas while the County would retain all accounting, check writing and other fiscal functions. b. An alternative arrangement would be to vest all programmatic and fiscal functions with the private non-profit. The County could mitigate its liability in this arrangement by requiring of the private non-profit the following: 1. The County could require the private non- . profit -to undergo an annual financial and , compliance audit by an independent accounting firm. - - 2. The County could require the private non- profit to establish specific accounting procedures and internal controls to insure sound financial management. 3. The County could require the private non- profit to adopt an annual budget and submit monthly financial reports. 4. The County could stipulate in the contract that the private non-profit shall be respon- sible for any costs or expenses incurred as a result of any acts or omissions by the private non-profit or any of its officers, agents or employees. ---7------""6"..m.1.11111111111.111.11111.1111111=11111= . • ' - • . . , • • 01 4. Personnel : Though a private non-profit could administer state funds it would not be required to comply with the County's pay plan. However, it would not be desirable, in that the private non-profit would be competing with Orange County in the same labor market, for the private non-profit to pay at a higher • scale than DSS. The contract between the County and the pri- vate non-profit could require parity of the two organization's pay pl'ans. 5. Childrien's Protective Services: Currently, referrals to the DSS Day Care Unit from DSS's Children's PrOtective Services Unit receive priority consideration. An element of the con- ' tract could require continued priority attention for these children. • 6. '.Fundin : A private non-prafit corporation would require an estimated additional $65,500 in operating funds over and above the current Title XX day care staff funds that is proposed trans-*red to the corporation. To insure continuity of cur- rent service delivery, any decision to endorse a private non- profit Icorporation should be contingent upon the procurement of a written commitment from private sources for funds necessary for operation for a minimum of three years. V. SUMMARY Four models of day care service delivery have been examined in this report. If a decision is made to enhance day care delivery to address not only needs of current Title XX1populations but also day care needs of the community as a whole then three models are to be considered, 1. Maintenance of current Day Care Unit in DSS at an enhanced service level (Model #2). 2. The creation of a new county department, separate from DSS, to deliver enhanced child care services (Model #3) . 3. The formation of a private non-profit corporation to deliver enhanced child care services (Model #4) . Models #2 and #3 Would require expansion of current day care staff levels and additional estim4ed expenditures of $30,300 and $36,500 respectively. Model #4, the formation of a private non-profit corporation, would be separate from county government but would receive, through contract with the County, the $74,414 in Title XX staff funds currently allocated to the Day Care Unit in DSS. Additional estimated funds of $65,500 would be required to meet estimated operating costs. . , ' • , 4 Atsxlit - • -/ .t. r , "* " " • * 0 APPENDIX A: IMPLEMENTATION, Following is an outline of the steps that would be required to implement Models #2, Model #3 and Model #4„ Model #2: Maintenance of the Day Care Unit is DSS and enhancement of its current level of service. 1 . Procurement of funds to hi re additional staff requi red to enhance services. 2. Specific policy direction from DSS Board entailing the establishment of program goals, objectives and milestones. Model #3: Creation of a new county governmental agency, independent of DSS, to deliver enhanced day care services . 1. Action by the Board of Commissioners creating a new county agency and authorizing the DSS Board to enter into a contract with this agency for the delivery of current day care services. 2. Procurement of additional funds necessary for staff and operations to deliver enhanced day care services. 3- Specific pol icy direction from advisory board entail- ing the establishment of goals, objectives and mile- stones. Model #4: Creation of a private non-profit corporation to deliver enhanced day care services. 1 . Formation of a private non-profit corporation and establishment of a board of directors., 2. Procurement of private non-profit status from Internal Revenue Service. 3. Procurement of funds by private non-profit for staff and operations to deliver enhanced day care services . 4. Action by the Board of Commissioners authorizing the DSS Board to enter into a contract with the private non-profit for the delivery of current day care services. APPENDIX B: COMPARATIVE BUDG=ETS MODEL. #1 MODEL #2 MODEL #3 MODEL #4 Direct Indirect Direct Indirect Direct Indirect Direct $57,132 $14,028 $80,899 $14,028 $85,032 $2,154 $101 ,000 - i"S 17 282� 4 19,604 0 20,327 0 15,981 I 74,414 14,028 100,503 14,028 115,-959_ 2-,154 1161181 1,395 2,349 2,760 3,360 162 979 162 1 ,763 162 1 ,658 7,930 1 ,584 1 ,979 1,979 1,979 186 200 400 • ,: 400 3010 800 800 804 100 150 300 300 55 55 55 110 . 5 262 262 262 3,500 . 0 700 700 700 as 0 304 300 300 3,982 1 ,241 6,695 2,025 7,465 1 -� ,920 19,379 0 0 �. O 1 ,460 0 71380 78,396 15,269 108,658 16,053 114,884 4,074 143,740 ` - 93,665 124,771 118,958 143,740 0 34,262 36,488 65,344 F'r; - e_y .r•; •.- ' ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ! ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO. C-3 ■ MEETING DATE segenter_zo1983 I SUBJECT: Follow-ui) Information to Manager's August 16, 1983 Affirmative Action Report 1 - DEPARTMENT: CountylManager PUBLIC HEARING- YES X NO I ....._ 's ATTACHMENT(S) : 1 INFORMATION CONTACT: County Manager X50 Office 1 . Percent Increse by Category PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH - 732-8181 of Employee Chart HILLSBOROUGH - 732-9361 2. Distribution Of Employees by CHAPEL HILL - 967-9251 Salary Grade MEBANE - 227-2031 1 , DURHAM - 688-7331 ..___ PURPOSE: To respond to questions of the Board regarding analysis of employment salad( 1 The Reportsets forth the steps taken by the Board since 1976 to ensure that the County's personnel actions are based on the principle of merit. Board interest was in seeing an employment breakdown of race and sex by salary grade assigned. Attached are two summaries. One is the trend from when datalwere first gathered in July 1 , 1976 to August 31 , 1983. The second is a sub part showing the data from approval of the 1981 Affirmative Action Plan (February, 1981 ) to August 31 , 1981. . ...., Breakdown for protected classes is as follows : 1976-1983 Percentages of Increases/Decreases Total - Total Overall Non-Minority Minority Male Females Non-Supervisory (Grade 49-61) 90.6 46.3 184.0 132.0 58.3 Middle Management (Grade 62-71) 138.2 105.9 550.0 100.0 187.5 Upper Management (Grade 72-87) 257.1 200.0 400.0 250.0 300.0 1981:1983 Percentages of Increases/Decreases Total Total Overall Non-Minority Minority Male Females Non-Supervisory (Grade 49-61 ) 0.66 -2.9 6.0 5.4 -2.1 Middle Management (Grade 62-71) 19.0 7.1 23.8 9. 7 9.5 Upper Management (Grade 72-87) 19.0 10.5 100.0 40.0 -33.3 I The 1976 to 1983 figures taken as a trend show significant progress in moving -- -- toward a workforce that reflects a balance of protected classes of employees. Period from 1981 to 1983 reflects further gain in minority hiring but a declir in females1 at the non-supervisory and upper management levels. To view the last two years as indicative of a general trend would refute the progress reflected j'n dates for the longer period. As opportunities for hiring and promotionfiecame available, any declines in protected category_can be - taken into:account. : This is the essence of affirmative action to balance employee class representation without sacrificing quality of work force. RECOMMENDATION(S) : , Authorize follow-up on the recommendations included in the Progress Report of the Manager of August 16, 1983, and stated in the Commission for Women' s April _ 1R1 Affirm4.4. A...44.. . M L- 0 PERCENT INCREASE BY CATEGORY OF EMPLOYEE s 1976-83 BY RACE BY SEX MALES FEMALES TOTAL NON-MINORITY MINORITY MALE FEMALE W/Ei M/M W/F M/F '76 '83 Y '76 '83 % '76 '83 % A '76 '83 1 A '76 '83 '76 '83 '76 '83 % '76 '83 1 '76 '83 N-S 85 153 90.6 67 98 46.3 18 53 194.0 25 513 132 60 95 58.3 19 36 89.5 6 22 266.7 48 62 29.2 12 33 175. MM 55 131 138.2 51 105 105.9 4 26 550.0 31 62 100.0 24 69 187.5 28 50,, 78.6 3 12 300.0 23 55 139.1 1 14 1300. UM 7 25 259.1 7 21 200.0 0 4 400.0 6 21 250.0 1 4 300.0 6 19 216.7 0 2 200.0 1 2 100.0 0 2 200, TOTAL 147 309 110.2 125 224 79.2 22 85 286.4 62 141 127.4 85 168 97.6 53 105 98.11 9 36 300.0 72 119 65.3 13 49 27G PERCENT INCREASE BY CATEGORY OF EMPLOYEE 1981-83 N-S 152 153 .66 102 98 (2.9) 50 53 6.0 55 58 5.4 97 95 (-2.1) 36 26 (27.8) 19 22 15.8 66 62 (6.1) 31 33 6. MM 119 131 10.1 98 105 7.1 21 26 23.8 56' 62 9.7 63 69 9.5 46 50 (8.7) 10 12 20.0 52 55 5.8 11 14 27, UM 21 25 19.0 19 21 10.5 2 4 100,0 15 21 40.0 6 4 (33,3) 14 19 35.7 1 - 2 100.0 5 2 (60.0) 1 2 100. 2 30 36 20.0 123 119 (3. 4. 9 105 96 2 TOTAL 292 309 5.8 1 219 224 2.3 73 85 12.3 726 141 71,9 766 168 i � ) 43 49 13. CODES: N-S = Non-Supervisory (office clerical, service maintenance, protective Services) MM = Middle Management (paraprofessional, professional, technicians) UM = Upper Management (Department and Division heads) W/M = White Male W/F = White Female M/M = Minority Male M/F = Minority Female (�= Percent Change !;'.:::' : ., .;.-::,:' •.,,,,,:', .,_- ,,,:,•,';'•: •:; ; . ,,.;,-'::7; :., ':.•:• ' .'t-',,t , •':.,•,::1 • •,..:., •7;717.•:-.)7::::, --'•-:-:.'' ':11;':"Z%„ ,I.: . ''''7,:, ,',,,7L,t7!':: -" 7•• •::,• • ' ','• , -.I.,* .: ••.:' YEA1W3--- , , . **k SALARY GRADE AVERAGE TOTAL. II __________ SUMARMY SALARY EMPLOYEES BY RACE BY SEX MALES FEMALES .;1..::1. NON-MINORITY MINORITY MALE FEMALE W/M M/M W/F M/F Unclassified 7,368 8, 5 3 IMIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 49 11111111111111111111111111111=111111111111111111 50 a,,..i.....,nir.......,, 52 INIIIIIIIIII 0111111111 53 8,429 4 4 1111111100. 1110.11111MMIll ' " 54 11,074 11111111111 ,:„.. . ,:!ii,T 55 9,997 58 .IIIIIIIIIIIIMIIFMMrllMMIIIIIIIIII 55 I 10,417 24 20 4 24 -U Ell 51 8,513 1 3 1 2 I , '> 1 1. 1 -- 1 1 1 541 12,567 j 2 = 1 2 1 2 :,:i'•:, 59 +- 11,691 33 -)2. 11 12 21 A IIIMMillt7 ...-----_ : :. 60 . 12,502 22 14 8 7 15 ! 3 Ille 1 4 'i•,:1;' ., . 61 13,069 43-f'. 30 M11111 .30 13 22 8 . 8 5 . 62 14,592 31 22 9 17 14 13 4 6 5 '6'-:' . 63 : 15,273 17 15 2 MM. 11 1 4 1 ,•;:;••• . 64 : 16,338 3 3 el 2 1 111111 65 15,969 6 5 1 5 1 '•,.:.' _ 66 ' 16,180 , 30 24 6 IN 19 8 3 WI 3 ..........-- "•-•"7 • ' 67 16,726 17 11 6 6 11 . 4 2 M 4 , 68 20,331 9 8 1 6 3 5 1 3 , --- : 1=:•: : • 69 19,098 8 . 7 1 3. 5 2 1 5 ...,; •'-,- 70 19,883 2 2 1 1 1 1 71 .. :•:;: : -------- 20,569 8 .. 8 . • 4 4 4 4 '72 . 22,725 4 3 1 - 4 . 3 1 — — . - ,•••,-••%. 73 22,345 5 ' 2 - 3 2 3 . 1 1 1 2 - . . • . '74 25,973 3 3 3 — 75 26,918 3 3 . -------\--- . . 76 .27,330 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 i 77 29,925 1 1 1 ' 1 78 35,767 3 3 3 ME 3 1111111-----_ . . --- -,: 79 ' 28,565 1 1 1 MI 1 . BO 33,781 2 11.1110.111111111 2 , , 87 43,836 1 ' ' . a 1 1 1 i . , TOTALS . 309 224 35 168 105 36 119 49 • *** CODES: W/M - White Male - - W/F - White Female - 14/4 -- Minority Male i M/F - Minority Fema21- . ',?1,..! 1 1111 ' I , , . Fr_ . - 01 / 55. ., .. t - , YEAR:"iiiii --- SUMMARY *** SALARY GRADE AVERAGE TOTAL' 0 --------- SALARY EMPLOYEES BY RACE BY SEX , • MALES FEMALES , . ; NON-MINORITY MINORITYII FEMALE III 4 I Unclassified 7,218 7 4 3 49 III - , 50 • ' 52 9,204 1 T ■,:i.l, 53 7,958 15 III 1 4- 1 41 •,=.-.:f 54 9,699 5 ; 5 55 8,863 9 6 3 2 4 ' 1 1 56 9,328 36 26 1 10 • 3 31 111111111111111 2 i. ,• ) I - 53 11,552 8 •-- 4 4 7 1 4 3 1 • '.-, I — if10,674 , 22 4' 16 IN .4 16 4 NI 12 6 - 1 60 . 11,563 25 20 1111 0 Mai . • '1, 61 11111111111111111 24 . . 111r111 10 62 13,652 23 19 8 2 -- ---- . ;• , 63 12,723 17 14 al 9 Ill 2 _ gt ':"';"•=•I 64 14,433 7 6 as a 0 4 1 1 11 C'm , ' 1 66 14,785 29 23 111111111 12' 111111 MI 17 2 . - 67 16,623 8 6 NM 2 - ' 613 18,176 II 11 min 6 / INNIS ____ 2 17,644 NMI 3 liall1111111 111111111 71 17,622 4 , 2 . 1 In 1 I_ IIIIIIMMIIM 1 1 II 1111 1 ' 74 23,022 4 4 4 4 • , ■ 16 25,9081 1 1 . 1 1 1 ,. 77 27,132 'Immemmommon'l 1 1 1 1 78 29,178 11111111111 4 _ 3 1 3 111111111 79 29,756 1 1 1 111 • 1 80 31,284 1 1 1 . _ 87 41,676 1 1 TOTALS 292 219 126 166 II 30 123 43 1 1 *** 1 CODES: ' I W/M - White Male W/F - White Female - Minority Male - • M/F - Minority Feaw".,:e — , - - ----- —„— . o' ls . ,-.-,-:_e':1`..- --- . -•-.7.;:.‘7, T.,.• ,. . . .., , -- , , . . ' . - - ' -;-,'•:.•-,'!..•,,,,' t-' . --'' "'--,'-,7.-.`',"' *--,:,*::"..- ',-,1.- I 7 l,l Q10 ,:;?, YEAR: MARCES 1976 *** z'`h ' SALARY GRADE AVERAGE TOTAL II _ a SUMMA SEX MALES FEbLAI E5 SALARY EMPLOYEES BY RACE ii NON-MINORITY MINORITY MALE FEMALE' W/M M/M W/F ' 1� Unclassified 5,222 6 S 1 3 3 3 2 - 3 3 99 5,040 3 -• 3 2 50 6,168 2 2 2 , 52 5,784 2 L 1 1 ME 1 1 s=ia�z:• •`'` F I, y 53 5,331 11 , e 3 11 8 3 .; } 54_ 4 4 a 4 1 55 6,436 4 13 I 16 1 13 3 i 5 fi 6,441 17 r- --- Sa : f3:;27 _ ,2 ,z 1 �a z �ie 59 7,511 5 ��� �V 60 :_•8,450 ��� ;1 61 8,378 ©- i 62 10,504 �� _•: ,- 8 :'. 63 9,913 13 12 a ; 64 9,454 8 e 5 1 65 66 10,775 17 . 17 3 14 67 '11,892 1 1 1 — 68 13,264 - a:?- 69 11111�© t I_ ' ,;> 70 13,146 �- "° 72 14,052 al 1 1111111111 1111111111M 73 M�_ 111111111 • '75 17,052 1 MOM • i 1 76 15,624 . 1 IIIIIIIIIIIII 77 -t 78 79 • 80 18,408 2 2 l _PI .11_ 87 22,836 MN 1 TOTALS 125 22 1 9 1'i-.1 I **: CODES: 1 W/M White Male W/F - White r:male M/t, - M4:urity Male - M/Z..--Minority Female_._....._._ - _,- - _... - - i • I d ;* ( ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO. 12-7 MEETING DATE Sentember 20 : SUBJECT: Animal Control DEPARTMENT: Health PUBLIC HEARING: YES x NO _ . - — ! ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Commissioner Willhoi 1. Summary of Amendments IN* . 2. Proposed Animal Control Ordinance PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBORO Gil - 732-8181 3. Summary of Comments and Suggested HILLSBOROUGH - 732-9361 Animal Control Odinance Amendments — CHAPEL HILL - 967-9251 in Response Hereto MEBANE - 227-2031 DURHAM - 688-7331 PURPOSE: In gener0 , the purposes of this, ordinance are to define and prohibit the abuse of Ianimals ; to establish an animal cruelty investigation effort; to define and remedy public nuisance problems that are dangerous or prejudicial to publiC health, property, and livestock; to remedy the emission of noises that annoy or frighten citizens ; to regulate, restrict, or prohibit the keeping of strays; to prevent dogs from going at large and breeding in such manner as to maintain a superabundance of dogs and engaging in pack activitiE to permaently restrain vicious dogs; to establish a citizens complaint proc( and, to establish civil fines for viblation of the ordinance. NEED: Numerous Citizens are bitten each year (some persons sustain serious injury requiring hospitalization) ; the Animal Control Officers (ACOs) of the Health Department handle around 10 bite cases per month; dogs cause bicyclists and motorcyclists to have accidents; in some areas jogging and other outdoor exercise is hazardous due to dogs ; livestock are killed by dog packs ; roaminc dogs destroy property; citizens complain they are not able to enjoy their own yards due to roaming dogs ; the ACOS respond to about 170 citizen complain about dogs per month in the non-incorporated areas of Orange County. Several Major cases of cruelty to animals are discovered each year. We lack a systeir tized effort to discover the true extent of this problem and stop such prac- tices. Orange County does not now have an ordinance other than the minimal State RegOlations. The State Regulations are inadequate for the control of roaming and biting dogs - often our ACO's are unable to help people due to lack of regulations. IMPACT: A) Increased safety and security of citizens and property from animals. B) Provide ACO's with necessary regulations to do their jobs. C) Establish an animal cruelty investigation/prevention program. D) Minimal additional county cost but increased revenue due to fine collecti 543 i = - -- G 2 u SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND SUGGESTED c, - I ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS IN REPONSE THERETO I. It was suggested by persons attending the public hearing that the proposed ordinarice was deficient in that it failed to address depriving animals of adequate shelter. The ordinance defines adequate feed and adequate water and further states that depriving an animal ci causing it r0 be deprived of adequate food and adequate water constitutes cruelty to the animal. What constitutes adequate shelter varies considerably depending upon the animal in question. For this reason no one definition will suffice. A proposed definition of adequate shelter which would pertain to domesticated pets is included here along with a proposal which would make depriving a domesticated pet of shelter constitutes cruelty under the ordinance. f Addressing the adequate shelter issue beyond domesticated pets would require essentially an animal-by-animal analysis of what is adequate shelter and for this reason has not been attempted. In the same vein, questions arose regarding the need for a "sanitized" receptacle dish or container from which to feed animals. A proposed definition of sanitized is included below which definition comes directly from Section 19A-2306) of the North Carolina General Statutes. That statute is included in the Animal Welfare Act of North Carolina. Add the following definitions: Adequate Shelter: That shelter which will keep an animal dry, out of the direct path of prevailing winds and out of the direct sun. • Sanitize: To make physically clean and to remove and destroy to a practical minimum, agents injurious to health. ' 1 , • • 1.` • •-• - 562 .-* 2, • • Section IX A of the ordinance would be rewritten as follows to include depriving an animal of adequate shelter. A. It shall be unlawful for any person to subject or cause to • be subjected any animal to cruel treatment or to deprive or cause to be deprived an animal of adequate food and water. Depriving an animal or causing it to be deprived of adequate food and adequate water constitutes cruelty as defined in this ordinance. '1 • - With respect to domesticated pets, it shall be unlawful to deprive or cause to be deprived any such animal of adequate shelter. Depriving a domesticated pet or causing it to be deprived of 1-,• 1 adequate shelter constitutes cruelty as defined in this ordinance. All animal cruelty investigators appointed by the Board of County Commissioners as authorized by G.S. Section 19A-45 shall proceed in any case involving cruelty to animals as proscribed in Article 4 of Chapter 19A of the North Carolina General Statutes. 2. The civil penalty provision, Section XVII C 4 mistakenly stated • the civil penalties to be $15.00. That provision should be changed to state that the civil penalty is $25.00. 3. The concern was expressed that an animal would be considered a vicious animal under the circumstances desdribed in the ordinance even if the occurrence took place entirely on the property of the animal's owner. This can be corrected or changed by the following changes to the oridinance: The public nuisance definition at Section VI 15 at sub-paragraph (c) should be changed to read: The animal is vicious and off the property of the owner or keeper. Section X should be changed to read as follows: T s J7r 56,ri 024 It shall be unlawful for any person to keep any vicious, fierce or dangerous animal within the County unless it is confined within a secure building or enclosure, on the property of the owner or keeper ot`• securely muzzled or under restraint by means of a leash, chain or rope and firmly under control of a competent person at all times. 4. Concern was expressed regarding the possible conflicts between the ordinance provisions and laws regulating hunting dogs. To correct this, the first paragraph of Section XI can be changed by adding the following sentence: • ,.•�. Nothing in this section is intended to be in conflict with the laws of the State of North Carolina regulating, restricting, authorizing or otherwise affecting dogs used in hunting. This section should be read and enforced consistent with any such law. 5. Concern was expressed about the risk of harm to any one rendering medical or other assistance to an animal struck by a motor vehicle. This can be addressed by rewriting Section VIII as follows: " It shall be unlawful for any person who causes injury to an animal by running over or hitting the animal with any motor {;y. vehicle to fail to notify immediateli (1) the owner(s) of said animal (if known or ascertainable with reasonable efforts made to locate the owner) or (2) an Animal Control Officer, and (3) one of the following: (a) the Sheriff's Department or (b) the local humane society. 6. Concern was expressed about the appropriateness of some of the provisions of the ordinance in the rural parts of the county. This can be .4 1n 5434 . - 023 addressed in any number of ways. If the concern is with the requirement contained in Section Xl and the public nuisance definition that dogs be maintained at all times under the control, physically or otherwise, by their owners, it can be addressed by removing this condition county-wide and by creating a process for clearly defined "districts" within the county to petition for the full application of Section XL Under this proposal the first patak;raph ti of Section Xi would be re-written as follows: ' .4•=1 I Section XL From sunset until sunrise, it shall be unlawful for any owner or keeper of a dog to permit it to run at large or be off the premises of its owner or keeper and not under the restraint of a competent person. Upon on Animal Control Officer's observation of a dog running at large or off the premises of its owner or keeper and not under the control of a competent person, said officer shall impound said dog. [followed by the newly recommended provision related to hunting dogs). The public nuisance definition would be amended by eliminating subsection (a) which defines as a nuisance an animal repeatedly found at large off the premises of its owner or keeper. Finally a new section would be added which permits the creation of a district or districts (defined for example as contiguous property owned by a certain number of people consisting of a certain area) to petition the Board for provisions the same as those now contained in Section XI and the public nuisance definition. 7. An issue not raised at the public hearing but subsequently raised by the Health Director which has merit is the addition of a remedy to deal with problems which might otherwise result in impoundment. Under certain circumstances the Health Director could be authorized to issue a • *. i 56f i I t I ..n....�.v.� .,w J..:.N ,+.a.w'.rF+ - .. a .t r»..,. j 02,1 I confinement order to the animal owner which would require the owner to confine an animal violating provisions of the ordinance. Failure to do so { I would be a further violation of the ordinance subjecting the owner to criminal 1 or civil penalties. 7 I In a similar vein, Section XII D of the ordinance should be amended to read as follows in order to clarity that impounded animals may be reclaimed by owners according to policies of the Animal Control Shelter: Section XII D. If after forty-eight (48) hours of the date of receipt by the owner or keeper of the notice the nuisance is not abated, the animal creating the nuisance shall be impounded. Any stray may be impounded immediately upon the Health Director's determination that it is creating a nuisance as defined in this ordinance. After seven (7) calendar days of impoundment, the Shelter may allow the animal to be adopted or humanly destroyed according to its procedures. An animal impounded may be reclaimed by its owner or keeper according to the procedures of the Animal Control Shelter. i N . NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS of ORA= COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE PUBLIC COMMENT WILL BE RECEIvt0 • at THE REGULAR MEETINGS of• ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS on September 6, 7:30 PH, Court souse, Hillsborough and September 20, 7:30 PM, Old Post Office, Chapel Hill I ' The Ordinance amendments would --- A. Prohibit owners from alloying animals to create a nuisance by: 1. Being diseased and dangerous to public health; • • 2. Damaging property (such as, livestock, garbage containers, gardens, flowers, shubbery, trees); 3. Barking, whining, or howling repeatedly; 4. Chasing, snapping or barking at pedestrians, bicycles, or vehicles while unrestrained and off the owner's property; 5. Roaming while in heat; 6. Being a vicious animal that is unrestrained at any time or place. B. Require that dogs not be allowed off the owner's property unless restrained by competent person. C. Define and prohibit the abuse of animals by: 1 1. Deprivation of adequate food and water, 2. Cruel treatment, 3. Dog fighting or baiting, 4. Abandonment. D. Require persons who injure animals with motor vehicles Co render assistance and notify authorities. ; E. Prohibit the keeping of strays. F. Establish a citizen complaint process about ordinance violation. G. Establish civil penalities for ordinance violation: 1_ Animal Impoundment - Certain violations of this ordinance will result in animal impoundment at the Orange County Animal Shelter at the owner's expense. 2. Civil - Violation would be subject to a $25 civil penalty to be paid within 72 hours after issuance of the citation. An additional $25 penalty would be charged for failure to pay, * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Copies of the proposed amendments are available for inspection at the: Orange County Health Department Offices - Hillsborough and Carrboro Orange County Animal Shelter - Airport Road, Chapel Hill Chapel Hill Public Library Orange County Public Library - Hillsborough Orange County Courthouse Board of Commissioners Office DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO AN ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE FOR ANIMAL CONTROL AND PROTECTION IN ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA BE IT ORDAINED that the Board of Commissioners of Orange County hereby amend the Ordinance to Provide for Animal Control and Protection in Orange County, North Carolina by adding the following: Section VI. As used in this ordinance, the following terms mean: 1. Adequate Feed: The provision at suitable intervals, not to exceed 5 24 hours, of a quantity of wholesome foodstuff suitable for the species and age, sufficient to maintain a reasonable level of nutrition in each animal. Such foodstuff shall be served in a sanitized receptacle, dish, or container. 2. Adequate Water: A constant access to a supply of clean, fresh potable water provided in a sanitary manner or provided at suitable intervals for g the species and not to exceed 24 hours at any interval. 3. Animal: Any live, vertebrate creature specifically including but t not limited to dogs, cats, farm animals, birds, fish and reptiles. 4. Animal Control Shelter: A place provided and operated by Orange County directly or by contractual agreement, whether or not jointly with another 3 governmental unit, for the restraint, care and disposition of animals. 5. At Large: Any animal shall be deemed to be at large when it is off the property of its owner and not under the restraint of a competent person. 6. Competent Person: A person of suitable age and discretion to keep an anima' under sufficient restraint and control in order to prevent harm to person and property. 7. ;Cruel and Cruel Treatment: Shall be held to include every act, omission, or neglect whereby unjustifiable physical pain, suffering, or death is caused or permitted; but such terms shall not be construed to include lawful taking of animals under the jurisdiction and regulation of the Wildlife Resources Commission, lawful activities sponsored by agencies conducting biomedical research or training, lawful activities for sport, the production of livestock or poultry, or the lawful destruction of any animal for the purpose of protecting such livestock or poultry. 8. Exposed to Rabies: An animal has been exposed to rabies within the meaning of this ordinance, if it has been bitten by, or otherwise come into < contact with, any animal known or suspected to have been infected with rabies. 9. Harbor: An animal shall be deemed to be harbored if it is fed or sheltered by the same person or household for seventy-two (72) consecutive hours - or more. 10. Health Department: Orange County Health Department. U. Health Director: Director of the Orange County Health Department. 12. Keeper: A person having custody of an animal or who keeps or g harbors an animal or who knowingly permits an animal to remain on or about any premises occupied or controlled by such person. 8 13. Owner: Any person, group of persons, firm, partnership or corporation owning, keeping, having charge of, sheltering, feeding, harboring or taking care of any animal. The owner of an animal is responsible for the care, actions, and behavior of the animal. 14. Person: Any individual, corporation, partnership, organization, or institution commonly recognized by law as a person. 15. Public Nuisance Defined: Actions Deemed Prima Facie Evidence of a Public Nuisance: The following activities of an animal or conditions -2- ' maintained o permitted by the animal's owner or keeper shall constitute a public nuisance whether said acts are committed on or off the premises of the owner or keeper. (a) The animal is repeatedly found at large off the premises of its owner or keeper and not under the restraint of a competent person. (b) The animal repeatedly damages the property of anyone other 1 than its owner or keeper, including, but not limited to, turning over garbage containers or damaging gardens, flowers, shubbery, vegetables or trees. (c) The animal is vicious. (d) The owner or keeper maintains an animal in an environment which would constitute "cruel" treatment. (e) The animal barks, whines, or howls habitually and repeatedly. (f) The animal is diseased and dangerous to the public health. (.1 (g) The animal habitually or repeatedly chases, snaps at, attacks or barks at pedestrians, bicycles or vehicles and is not in an enclosure, chained tj or on the owner's or keeper's property. (h) The owner or keeper fails to confine a female dog while in heat (estrus) in a building or secure enclosure in such a manner that she will not 8 be in contact with another dog, nor attracting other animals; provided, this section shall not be construed to prohibit the intentional breeding of animals within an enclosed area on the premises of the owner or keeper of an animal involved in the breeding process. 16. Restraint: A dog is under restraint if it is controlled by means of a chain, leash or other like devise; is under direct control and is obedient to commands; is Ion or within a vehicle being driven or parked; or is within a secure enclosure. -3- 17. Security Dog: Any dog used, kept or maintained for the purpose of protecting any person or property. Any such dog shall be further classified as a patrol dog, sentry dog, or watch dog. (a) Patrol dog - A dog that is trained or conditioned to attack or otherwise respond aggressively, but only upon command from a handler either off or on lead. (b) Sentry dog - A dog that is trained or conditioned to attack or otherwise respond agressively without command. (c) Watch dog - A dog that barks and threatens to bite any intruder and that has not been specially trained or conditioned for that purpose. 18. Stray: Any dog wandering at large or lost, does not have an owner, or does not bear evidence of the identification of any owner, or any dog g whose owner, if determinable, has failed to pay for and procure a dog license tag or vaccination tag. 19. Suspected of Having Rabies: An animal which is unvaccinated t against rabies which has bitten a person or another animal. 0 20. Veterinary Hospital: Any establishment maintained and operated by a licensed veterinarian for surgery, diagnosis and treatment of diseases and 8 injuries of animals. 21. Vicious Animal: Any animal which constitutes a physical threat to human beings or other animals by virtue of an unprovoked attack or an attack of such severity as to cause property damage or physical injury to a person or another animal. Section VII. The Orange County Animal Control Program, as herein described and as otherwise described in other County ordinances related to animals and as otherwise described in the law of North Carolina, shall generally be administeed by the Orange County Health Director. Specifically, Ail The Health Director shall designate employees or agents enforcing thiS ordinance as Animal Control Officers and Rabies Control Officers. Animal Cruelty Investigators shall be appointed by the Board of County Commissioners as provided by law. In the performance of their duties, Officers and Investigators shall have all the powers, authority, and immunity granted under this ordinance and by the general laws of this state to enforce the provisions of this ordinance, and the laws of North Carolina as they relate to the care, treatment, cointrol or impounding of animals. B. Except as may be otherwise provided by law, no officer, agent, or employee Id the County charged with the duty of enforcing the provisions of this ordinance or other applicable laws, shall be personally liable for any damage that may accrue to persons or property as a result of any act required or g pemitted in the discharge of such duty unless he acts with actual malice. C. It shall be unlawful for any person to interfere with, hinder, or t molest any Animal Control Officer, Rabies Control Officer, Animal Cruelty g Investigator, police officer, veterinarian, or other duly appointed agent while in the performance of any duty authorized by this ordinance or to seek to release a any animal in the custody of said agents, except in the manner as herein provided. D. Animal Control Officers, Rabies Control Officers and Animal Cruelty Investigators are not hereby authorized to carry on their person firearms of any kind ;except as provided herein. The Orange County Animal Control Program may !store at the Health Department or carry in departmental vehicles firearms approved for use, and use such firearms when necessary to enforce sections of this ordinance or under applicable law for the control of wild, vicious, 1 -5- or diseased animals. E. The employees of the Animal Control Program shall: L Have the responsibility along with law enforcement agencies to enforce all laws of North Carolina and all ordinances of Orange County pertaining to animals and shalt cooperate with all law enforcement officers within Orange County in fulfilling this duty. 2. Enforce and carry out all laws of North Carolina and all ordinances of Orange County pertaining to rabies control. 3. Be responsible for the investigation of all reported animal bites, for the quarantine of any dog or cat exposed to or suspected of having 5 rabies, for a period of not less than ten (10) days, and for reporting to the Health Director as soon as practicable the occurrence of any such animal bite and the condition of any quarantined animal. 4. Be responsible for the seizure and impoundment, where deemed necessary, of any dog or other animal in Orange County involved in a ta, violation of this or any other County ordinance or state law. 5. Investigate cruelty or abuse with regard to animals separately or with a duly appointed Animal Cruelty Investigator. z 6. Make such canvasses of the county, including the homes in 8 the county, as necessary for the purpose of ascertaining compliance with this ordinance or state statute. 7. Keep, or cause to be kept, accurate and detailed records of: (i) Seizure, impoundment, and disposition of all animals coming into the custody of the animal control program. (ii) Bite cases, violations and complaints, and investigation -6- ••...1.1■ of same. (iii) Any other matters deemed necesary by the Health Director. 8. Be empowered to issue notices of violation of this ordinance in such form as the Health Director may prescribe. Secl tion VIII. It shall be unlawful for any person who causes injury to an animal by running over or hitting any animal with any motor vehicle to fail to stop at once and render such assistance as may be possible. Any person 5 ti* injuring an animal shall notify immediately (1) the owner(s) of said animal (if known or asOrrtainable with reasonable efforts made to locate the owner) or (2) an Animal Control Officer, and (3) one of the following: (a) the Sheriff's department or (b) the local humane society. Section IX. The following acts or failure to act relating to the g mistreatment of animals are unlawful and violations of this ordinance: z A. It shall be unlawful for any person to subject or cause to be u subjected any! animal to cruel treatment or to deprive or cause to be deprived ga any animal or, adequate food and water. As used in this ordinance depriving an 116 animal or causing it to be deprived of adequate food and adequate water 8 constitutes crul I elty as defined in this ordinance. All animal cruelty investigators appointed by the Board of County Commissioners as authorized by G.S. Section 19A-45 shall proceed in any case involving cruelty to animals as proscribed in Article 4 of Chapter 19A of the North Carolina General Statutes. B. It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or offer for sale, barter or give away within the county baby chickens, baby ducklings or other fowl under six (6) weeks of age or rabbits under eight (8) weeks of age as pets, toys, premiums or r'ovelties; provided, however, that this section shall not be construed -7- to prohibit the sale or display of such baby chickens, ducklings or other fowl or such rabbits in proper facilities by breeders or stores engaged in the business of selling for purposes other than for pet or novelties. C. It shall be unlawful to color, dye, stain or otherwise change the natural color of baby chickens or other fowl or rabbits. D. It shall be unlawful for any person to tether any fowl. E. It shall be unlawful for any person to entice or lure any animal out of an enclosure or off the property of its owner or keeper, or to seize, E molest or tease any animal while the animal is held or controlled by its owner or keeper or while the animal is on or off the property of its owner or keeper. F. It shall be unlawful for any person to commit any of the acts made unlawful by the provisions of G.S. 14-362, as the same relate to a dog or dogs, or to commit any other act made unlawful by any other law of the State of North Carolina relating to dog fighting or dog baiting. The repeal of such 27 law or laws of the State of North Carolina shall have no effect upon this t Section, and the acts herein made unlawful shall, in the event of such repeal, be (1 those referred to in said law or laws immediately prior to such repeal. G. It shall be unlawful for any person to abandon, leave, or forsake 8 any animal within the county. Section X. It shall be unlawful for any person to keep any vicious, fierce or dangerous animal within the county unless it is confined within a secure building or enclosure, or it is securely muzzled and under restraint by means of a leash, chain or rope and firmly under control of a competent person at all times. Section XL It shall be unlawful for any owner or keeper of a dog tc permit it to run at large or be off the premises of its owner or keeper and not under the restraint of a competent person. Upon an Animal Control Officer' -8- i observation of a dog running at large or off the premises of its owner or keeper I and not undei, the control of a competent person, said officer shall impound said dog. Upton an Animal Control Officer's receipt of a complaint that a dog is I running at large or is off the premises of its owner and not under the control of a competent; person, said officer shall investigate said complaint and upon a finding that there is probable cause to believe a violation has occurred, shall take any action provided for by this ordinance or any State law as the 5 circumstances may require. Section XII. It shall be unlawful for an owner or keeper to permit an animal or animals to create a nuisance, or to maintain a nuisance created by an animal or aniTnnts. Compliance shall be required as follows: a A. When an animal control officer or law enforcement officer observes a violation, the owner or keeper will be provided written notification of such violation i and be given forty-eight (48) hours from the time of notification ts to abate the Ouisance. 13. Upon receipt of a written detailed and signed complaint alleging that any persoin is maintaining a nuisance as defined in this ordinance, the Health 8 Director shall I cause the owner or keeper of the animal or animals in question to , be notified that a complaint has been received, and shall cause the situation complained oft to be investigated and a report and findings thereon to be reduced to writing. I C. I If the written findings indicate that the complaint is justified the Health Directcir or person duly authorized by the Health Director shall cause the owner or keeper of the animal or animals in question to be so notified in writing, and stall order abatement of such nuisance within forty-eight (48) hours -9- by whatever means may be necessary. In the event the owner or keeper of the animal or animals is unknown and cannot be ascertained, the notice and order, along with a general description of the animal or animals shall be posted for forty-eight (48)-hours at the Animal Control Shelter and the county courthouse. D. If after forty-eight (48) hours of the date of receipt by the owner or keeper of the notice the nuisance is not abated, the animal creating the nuisance shall be impounded. Any stray may be impounded immediately upon the Health Director's determination that it is creating a nuisance as defined in this 5 ordinance. After seven (7) calendar days of impoundment, the Shelter may allow the animal to be adopted or humanely destroyed according to its procedures. Section XIII. It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly and :0 intentionally to harbor, feed, keep in possession by confinement, or otherwise, any dog that does not belong to him, unless he has, within seventy-two (72) hours (.7 g from the time such dog came into his possession, notified an Animal, Control Officer. A. Any animal which appears to be lost, stray or unwanted, not 5 wearing a currently valid tax tag or a currently valid rabies vaccination tag as required by state law or this ordinance, or not under restraint in violation of this 8 ordinance, may be seized, impounded, and confined in a humane manner in the Animal Control Shelter and thereafter disposed of pursuant to procedures of the Animal Control Shelter. B. Impoundment of such an animal shall not relieve the owner or keeper thereof from any penalty which may be imposed for violation of this ordinance. C. Any animal seized and impounded which is badly wounded or diseased (not a rabies suspect), and has no identification may be destroyed - • pursuant to procedures of the Animal Control Shelter. If the animal has identification,I the Animal Control Shelter shall attempt to notify the owner or keeper before disposing of such animal. Sep' tion XTV. It shall be unlawful and is a violation of this ordinance for any animal owner, keeper or other person to fail to comply with the Laws of North Carolina relating to the control of rabies. Sec I tion XVI. Hospitals, clinics and other premises operated by licensed veterinarians for the care and treatment of animals are exempt from the 5 provisions of this ordinance except for the provisions relating to cruelty to animals and efabies control. Section XVII. The following penalties shall pertain to violations of - this ordinanceL A. The violation of any provision of this ordinance shall be a g misdemeanor and any person convicted of such violation shall be punishable as provided in G.S. 14-4. Each day's violation of this ordinance is a separate LI offense. Paym I ent of a fine imposed in criminal proceedings pursuant to this 0 subsection des not relieve a person of his liability for taxes or fees imposed under this ordinance. 8 B. Enforcement of this ordinance may be by appropriate equitable remedy, injunction or order of abatement issuing from a court of competent jurisdiction pursuant to G.S. 153A-123 (d) and (e). C. In addition to and not in lieu of the criminal penalties and other sanctions pro vided in this ordinance, a violation of this ordinance may also I subject the offender to the civil penalties hereinafter set forth. 11. Such civil penalties may be recovered by Orange County in a civil action in the nature of debt or may be collected in such other manner as I prescribed herein within the prescribed time following the issuance of notice for such violation. 2. Such notice shall, among other things: (a) State upon its face the amount of the penalty if such penalty be paid within seventy-two (72) hours from and after the issuance of the notice. (b) Notify such offender that a failure to pay the penalties within the prescribed time shall subject such offender to a civil action in the nature of debt for the stated penalty plus an additional penalty in the amount of twenty-five dollars ($25.00), together with the cost of the action to be taxed by ?, the Court. (c) Further provide that such offender may answer the said s, notice by mailing said notice, and stated penalty to the Health Department at P.• the appropriate address, and that upon payment, such case or claim and right of • action by Orange County will be deemed compromised and settled. 0 (d) State that such penalties must be paid within seventy- two (72) hours from issuance of such notice. Such notice shall further state that • if such notice of violaiton is not paid within said seventy-two (72) hour period, 8 court action by the filing of civil complaint for collection of such penalty may be taken. 3. The Health Director is authorized to accept such payments in full and final settlement of the claim or claims, right or rights of action which Orange County may have to enforce such penalty by civil action in the nature of debt. Acceptance of such penalty shall be deemed a full and final release ol any and all such claims, or rights of action arising out of such contendec violation or violations. -12- 4. The civil penalty for violation of this ordinance is fifteen ($15.00) dollars. Said penalty shall be paid within seventy-two (72) hours from and after the issuance of the notice referred to above. 5. The notice of violation referred to herein may be delivered to the person violating the provisions of this ordinance in person, or may be mailed to said person at his last known address. 6. In addition to the penalty prescribed in subsection (4) above, 2 should it become necessary to institute a civil action to collect any penalty hereunder, the violator shall also be subject to an additional penalty of twenty- five ($25.00) dollars. 7. All penalties paid to the Health Department or as may be 0 recovered in a civil action in the nature of debt as herein provided shall be paid into the general fund of Orange County. Section XVIII. This ordinance shall be effective Adopted this the day of , 1983. -13- •- . . . -- • - • - : . . _ ] TO:A. Orange Cou nt. • oard CaffMiSSiOnerS _. . .. . . . • Oeisz , Chair ,. , .. , . . .. .. , . •, FROM Virgin12.-. J,.',Action Cmmrtt,eis kinfnen - 1 . i ::, t- 1 ,f,Tozr • 1 - ., _ _ ___ __ . __________-__-_,-q*47itii1F-__41, ___47..)^±..5,,4,,P_e_ e ._€,•4•1,14,y-__ t!)-0--24 A:"./:*,,,C- .--- O.of,_r'**.e00;;•-____________ i . ..., __-_-_____________,e7eien___4-009-0-te-45.:?k_-...079?-CL/7.047_e_.47.- -_t6-6.:_-_"9..4.,_fie.___;_____--7:1•L_.pl 0_•.,:.________ : __________ ___ ,.02_4?.,,,..pen•Kos.pg_C___4257..'__ ---/4c!"'t`67- et-445-1:-4"_ _C-1.0 g'__ 0,:eft...v. E.40.€5,1-,6......c:cgt,_,K2 ____ . ___._._.....________Joiv._ .02t..ep,..Fte,j..%-__.-F...N..toz,g2 t'....09./. ._!?.?_sefie... ,.r-4-__!lie'•0_5"-,0-_ewe.crex-,420?*;''''_om)ce,1"-- ____ _ .„, I • „„., , _- - ------ -_ _:..C...44e. e_ *T._ _414,..r..(./E'. _„„ 1 7 ---- --4-4b--Ccek_44-#Z;-_,t7?__ndhirt-_ -_ega-_..r.'1__!---CI _e*Iti„.r.r* _ _________ i_•_ .31.1a'•Cde.f.0.-r.e1.- --te"-'.€7 .:47. _Arritc"-. 7.117'c.1.*Vi4.*,•._1;?''' --,S*...•re.e--105•%/1--C2-41%-......-_0-04-■E''.------------- 1 AT 1,-• '' 1 4:5 4:12r. dee;g-' (.0 „#‘14 4- :_r- 7e-ei,^11*-7/147, el- at04% ..6:e• --.--_,-----, 1_0,7 •:-- ----- _----4---7,700-"yte.......w...4,--,g5„,__ .7-... 1 e.2 .4.-• __ _ 27e___47.05204.!le ..._._.:e7„,.,_,. /14;,,-,. _ ...ste.......toZ■ ___,_a____ 1 ,,, ____ c., 649-- ' _± 7_ 1441We_A"t _p4../ti:e/0-17.f-e>07____.."1","_.01#41139"0""ocAnISeebi, 741 i ..' ,,,.. • . . ___40-J."?›.- 6.-o_cro 46'. LEL_.244.44..74-___ :4-r ___/C1t5:71--_0_.,Leire:e,;•-re.__.-16P-e_ fe_ cvlik.t" _ .0 5I f eie ___ _- ,,______.__,zspri_,....e.4%.52,kgf_45,..!.e0.74,4t . ..m....•-____At--±N___4.4_4.4_,_........4.-6. ,,T, _...,,,es$.4..„..__74-d:e_ __- . •74`,..ta, 7`"- • ._ ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO. D-2 MEETING DATE S- p - SUBJECT: One-half Percent Sales and Use Tax ---------- r 1DEPARTMENT: County Manager PUBLIC HEARING: YES y NO ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: County Manager's X50 1. Resolution Adopted by the Council PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH - 732-8181 of the Town of Chapel Hill HILLSBOROUGH - 732-9361 CHAPEL HILL - 967-9251 MEBANE - 227-2031 DURHAM - 688-7331 PURPOSE: For the Board to consider what action, if any, it wishes to take on exercisil the local option for enactment. NEED: Inquiries as to the Board's position have been received from citizens , the school boards and representatives of municipal boards. IMPACT: _ A RESOLUTION ENCOURAGING ENACTMENT OF THE ONE-HALF CENT LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX IN ORANGE COUNTY (83-R-133.2) WHEREAS, the NI.C. General Assembly in its 1983 Session authorized the enactment of an additional one-half cent sales tax on a local option basis in each County; and WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill has projected funding needs for future budget years; and WHEREAS, the on -half cent sales tax would apply to all residents; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council encourages the Orange County Board of Commis- sioners to call a Public Hearing to determine community sentiment on this matter at the earliest appropriate time, in their judgment. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council finds the enactment of the one-half cent local option sales tax in the best interest of the people of Chapel Hill and Orange County and urges its enactment at the earliest appropriate time, their judgment. This the 12th day of September, 1983. I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of the resol •'on ado ited by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill on the / day of ,- 1983. --- / -1( .45 _th 134,:fr• a P. erry, Deputy oii0 lerk TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL 306 NORTH COLUMBIA STREET CHAPEL HILL. NORTH CAROLINA 27514 OP•Ficz OF THE MAYOR Telephone (919) 9294111 September 1 , 1983 Mr. Richard yhitted Chairman, O1ange County Board of Commissioners 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC Dear Richard: Enclosed is la copy of a resolution requesting the Board of Commissioners to call a public hearing on the optional one-half cent sales tax and expressing support for enactment of the tax. The resolution was passed by the Chapel Hill Town Council on Monday, September 12. Jo ' Na sif Ma t' enclosure 01 OF Eov (Orange &nut *flouts ov 001.C`,6,vi •IL COUNTY • 200 EAST KING STREET -earroV,' HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 OFFICE OF TI"IESUFeRINTENDENT (919) 732-8126 September 16, 1983 Mr. Richard Whitted, Chairman Orange County Conimissioners Courthouse - Margaret Lane Hillsborough,JC227278 Rttit Recently, I was asked what the position of the Orange County Board of Education is relative to the ½ cent sales tax. After discussing this with Chairman Max Kennedy, I discussed the question with all members of the Orange County Board of Education. Three of the members indicated that they would prefer that the Commissioners proceed with enactment of the sales tax through the public hearirlg process. However, if that is not acceptable to the Commission, then those three members agree with the balance of the Board and endorse a referendum on the enactment of the tax. More than one Board Member commented that they would like for it to be considered by the public as soon as possible. However, whe lin asked if they preferred the vote at the November election as compared to a special election, all Board Members endorsed the idea of in- cluding this on lie ballot at the November election this fall. Mr. Kennedy asked that I communicate the results of my discussions to you so that you could communicate this information to the Commissioners for their consideration at the earliest time possible. Thank you for your consideration in this matter as we work together for the improvement of school facilities in the county. Sincerely, /111 G. Lunsford Superintendent DLG:ha cc: Orange County Board of Education Members u�� �`. ����, ORANGE COUNTY � �� ACTION AGENDA'�� BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS` ' ITEM NO.»-� ; .' ' � ACT�ON AG[Nn� lTEM AB�7nmx� __ � MEETING DATE' '» -m' o ^: ',x . . � SUBJECT: Orange-Chatham Public Defender Office . PUBLIC HEARING: YE3 _X__�o DEPARTMENT: County Manager `~ - INFORMATION CONTACT: County Managur'g ' XSOl • `. " ' ^ � RS; HILL3B8R0~`' - 732-8181 8J8l HILLSBOROUGH - 732-9361 CHAPEL HILL - 967-9261 MEBANE - 227-8031 DURHAM - 688-7338 �' ` ' ' � ��� | • PURPOSE: To consider establishment � Office as will exist for Orange County. ' . | i being approved by the State, effective NEED: With the function of public defense = �� ~'' th two counties to pay the \ July l lgB3 it became the responsibility of the temporary office in `� ' ^ ~^ and furniture. Chatham will provide a ��ora d in the ' cost of spacedi g in Pittsboro until permanent space can be arranged in � a county building is under renovation. Options for a counter7art office�� Courthouse which " Orange County include: `, •!! ! 1. Residence Converted ' feet l,2OO squa?� �ll ,4OO ' Rental is $9,50 per foot per year ($8,550 for remaining ' y months) and $11,409 for each additional year of lease ' `! 2. Old Police Buildin on Rosema Street, Chapel Hill - ' ' 1,200 square �� �0 �� . U ~^` is $4.00 per foot per year $4,600 y; Rental Renovation cost '' prepare for rental (8,200 for"rema remainder of year " � ' ! ` -~'i ,800 for each additional ' `! year) :::� . , ' 3. Residence converted to Office on E. Kin. Street, Hillsborou`h ' 1,000 square feet $3,000 Rental is $3.00 per foot per year ($2,240 for remainder of year : � and $3,000 for each year �� thereafter) ' . IMPACT: $10,000 was allocated in the budge t for the Orange County Office and furniture, 8esides rent other costs to be covered by the $10,000 include: �� �� $1`750 Orange County's portion of $2,625 rent for the Defender in ' University Square from July 1, 1983 thru September 39, 1983. P 2`965 Furniture Purchase :,- � `. � i ` Rental from October 1 , 1983 thru June 30, 1984. � | Any renovation cost. x | OPE 8ECOmlDU(5); within budget unless other Approve the location in order to stay =l or % - — � —c'*h ' would make possible option 2. funds are approved which . `��m/ � � ORANGE COUNTY C}U� BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ` / Item No' D-5 | ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT . MEETING DATE September 20, 1983 • • Subject: Landfill Reclamation Contract Award Department: Community Development ) Public Hearing: yes Information Contact: /Vber1 Kittrell Attachment(s): | ' - Bid Tabulations & Explanation Phone Number: 732-8181 Ext' 425 ` Purpose: To consider awarding landfill reclamation contract (clearing, chng, creek channelization and seeding) for Northern Fairview Neighborhood Park. • r� Need: On September 8, 1983 a bid opening was conducted by The John McAdams Company, consulting engineers and Community Development Department. The McAdams Company has tabulated all bids. Propst Construction Company 336,526.00 Concord, N.C. ; ^ ' Mellott Construction Company 175,405.00 Carrboro, N.C. - ' Bob Glover Grading Company 163,940.00 • High Point, N.C. ' The McAdams Company has recomwded that one item, ' . Public Works Road rapairs, be excluded from contract. • • Impact: Award of contract will facilitate the timely implementation of the landfill reclamation pro- `` ject. Recommendation(s): Award $150,415.00 (does not include $l3°525'00 for . Public Works Road repairs) to the lowest bidder, Bob Glover Grading Company, • , � ` ' ;At , 1 ■ , 1 1 60011 or at, 6(1!" I MEMORANDUM cttV g goo'. Orange County TO: Ken Thompson, County Manager eig---- 106 E. Margaret Lane FROM: Albert Kittrell , CD Director Hillsborough, N. C. 27278 DATE: September 1 , 1983 SUBJECT: Landfill Reclamation Bid Rejection On August 10, 1983, bids were received and opened for the ! Northern Fairview Landfill Reclamation Project. The bids were as follows: Mellott Trucking Company $535,000.00, Propst Construction Company $630,160.00. The bids exceeded the allocated Landfill Reclamation Budget. 1 County staff met with Mellott to see to what extent the project could be scaled down. It was found that to bring it 1 within budget would have required major alteration of plans Community 1 and specifications and scope of work. Essentially, it would Development 1 have been a different project. Authority to negotiate with D rtment i the low bidder under State law does not apply to such exten- epa 1 sive alteration. Therefore, staff recommended that bids be rejected. This the Board did in August. Subsequently, Calvin Mellott, of Mellott Trucking questioned the County's decision to reject the bids. He contended that his company's bid should not have been re- jected because his company had entered into negotiations with the County and had revealed their proposed bid on a revised project. Generally, he would be reluctant to bid again since his company had already prepared two bid packets. (919) 732-8181/9361 Chapel Hill 967 9251 Mellott Trucking has not been placed in a dis- 968-4500 advantaged position as a result of negotiations with the Durham 688-7331 County. In fact, Mellott has an advantage because his Mebane 227-2031 1 company is aware of the County's needs, the specific bud- Ext. 425 get limitations and the most appropriate means of perform- ing the work at a low cost. Realistically, Mellott has a competitive advantage over other bidders. Secondly, 1 although Mr. Mellott has gone through two bidding cycles , bids were not opened at the first scheduled bid opening August 1 , 1983. For the second bid opening, August ' 10,1983, Mr. Mellott could have and probably submitted the same unopened bid. The two bidding periods should not have caused a hardship on Mr. Mellott or reluctancy to bid again. . 1 .. ..7-41 it/6>i.. i Preservation/Revitalization i , II;- t. 1 _ , .. . , • f ''T'. .''.'-';51W,.:,': :-*;;.•::,f417. 1.Tr4/ 1 J.:N.-4.,.,'...-*',,,,':.-2v7('‘,,' ,,1,,4. ,'q,;i"-- -.-41; • #.' .- • - ta l' 1+: I 048 ,.. f I . , I'1::- °I- ..i:' 0 ,i r t 4:: di, Page 2 ..r t , , 1 , i., As discussed in previous conversations, the County ‘,. attorney has reviewed the bid rejection process and the t'. ramifications. He believes the county is consistent with state procedures 1 "J 'f. ATK/rw I,- •J,,-, . 1 '..., . fi 1 -,..,. i • .t 1:,.... I.11 ,...; .. ,4 r i.,.. t 4, ;m- e 6'. I i:a 1 k 1 tX [1: 4 1 Le ,, 1 1'71111 • '"---------ig THE JOHN R. MCADAMS COMPANY, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 100 HAYES BUILDING, GLEN LENNOX CENTER,CHAPEL HILL P.O- BOX 2896,CHAPEL.HILL NORTH CAROLINA 27514 (919)967-705 September 14, 1983 Mr. Albert Kitt4ell Community Development Director County of Orange 106 E. MargaretLane Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 RE: Northern Fairview Community Park , OCO 8001 Dear Albert: As you are aware, on September 8, 1983, at 2:00 P.M. , we opened bids received for the clearing, grading, and other improvements for the site of the Northern Fairview Community Park. Bob Glover Grading Company of High Point was the successful low bidder. The attached official bid tabulation itemizes all the unit and lump silm prices bid by each of the three bidders. ' 1 Based upon our discussions this morning, we recommend that Item No. 1, Public Works Road, notibe included in this contract; but be advertised and awarded : as a separate contract. We feel that the road repairs and resurfacing can be done for some $6000 lees than the amount bid by Bob Glover Grading Company for that work. f ■ We further recommend that a construction contract in the amount of $150,415.00 for all the work contained in Items 2 through 7, inclusive, of the Proposal, 1 be awarded to Bob Glover Grading Company of High Point. 1 . The proposed budget, based upon funds allocated for this work, is as follows: . I Construction $150,415.00 Engineering Fees: Design 6.5% Inspection 2.5% , 1 i I 9.0% 13,537.00 Contingencies 5,000.00 TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET $168,952.00 , If you should have any questions regarding our recommendation, please do not hesitate to call, us. I Sincerely, THE JOHN R. McADAMS COMPANY, INC. BY: 41/42144,6r1.1-1L/s-g----1 ROBERT (KIM) FISHER, P.E. RF:CW i Enclosure '.., c. SOB: Northern Fairview Area Neighborhood Park BID DATE: September 8, 1903 PAGE 1 OF 2 OWNER: Orange County TIME.. 2:00 PM C) CONTRACTOR pro st Construction Mellott Construction Bob Glover Grading �E BS OR CC APPROX. UNIT UNIT UNIT £SCRIPTION UANTITY PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL PRICE TAT ' Public Works Road: _ -- ---- a. Repair Existing Pave Road 300 SY 12.00 3,600.00 10.00 -- 3,000.00 17.25 5,175.00 b. Resurvace Existing Paved Road 1250 SY 2.50 3,125.00 2.50 3,125.00 6.68 8,350.00 Park Improvements - Area 1: LS 35,000.00 23,000.00 27,830.00 a. Clearing. b. Trash Disposal 800 CY 30:00 24,000.00 7.00 5,600.00 4.00 3,200.00 •c. Grading LS 55,000.00 15,000.00 8,309.00 d, Seeding and Mulching 11.5 AC 1,100.00 '12,650,00 1,200.00 13,800:00 1,100.00 12,650.00 e. Fifty Feet Wide Planted Buffer LS 3,000.00 _3«,000.04 1,800.00 Park Improvements - Area 2: `- a. Clearing _ LS 30,000.00 20,000.00 19,480.00 • - b. Trash Disposal 3.000 CY 30.0 30,000.00 7.00 7,000.00 9.00 4,400.00 s 5,675.00 , c. Grading IS 50,000.00 33,040,00 d. Seeding and Mulching 9,6 AC 1,100.0c 10,560.00 1,200.00 11,520,00 1,100.00 10,560.00` . Park Improvements - Area 3 4,000.00 4,000.00 3,340.00 a. Clearing LS E b. Grading LS 10,000.00 5.004.0 975.00 c. Seeding and Mulching 1.3•.AC' 1,100.0 1,430.0C 1,200.00 1,560.0 1,100.00 1,430,00 September 8, 1963 2 2 't44 JOB, Northern Fairview Area Neighborhood Park BID DATE: PAGE OF D OWNER: Orange County TIC: 2:00 PM i CONTRACTOR Pro st Construction Mellott Construction Bob Glover Grading BB OR CC APPROX. UNIT ^�r UNIT�T UNIT DESCRIPTION QUANTITY PRICE 'TO'T`AL PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL . Park Improvements -- Area A: a, Clearing .LS 5,000.00 4,040.04 2,156.44 b. Seeding and Melching 0.6 AC ,100.00 560.00 2,040.00 1:240.04 I,100.00 660.40 i. Creek Channelization 1600 LF 25.40 401000.00 15.44 24,004.04 15.47 24,112.00 7. Erosion and Sedimentation Control: a. Silt Fences 4200 LF 2.50 10,500.00 3.00 12,600.00 3.34 14,038.00 'b. Sedimentation Pit LS 3,404.04 2,000.40 635.00 LS 4,000.44 3,400.40 9,580.04 c. Temporary Sediment Basin Total Amount Bid for Pay Items 1,2,3,4,5* 61 7 335,525.04 - T Y 135,445.00 163,944_00 Bids received sealed and opened publicly. T hnl st AJt 1.� ET I 1E{ 9�2F' 12� —• riFt nt��'n:.r--- _ accurate. `t�tt � 'LiF�R VI/3 r�rro di • /}! ROBERT K. FISHER, P E. 9j9f63 031 %• ..jc ORANGE COUNTY 04 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. D-6 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE September 2O , 1983 Subject: Housing Rehabilitation Contract Award 1Department: colt' 1- - 'sirs Public Hearing: yes x no AttaEhmenT1T Information Contact: Wilbert McAdoo Bid Results 1Phone Number: 732-8181 Ext. 429 Purpose: Award of three Housing Rehabilitation Contracts. Need: Sealed bids were received and opened on September 1 , 1983. Attached is a tabulation of the bids by dwelling unit numbers. Impact: Award of contract to the lowest bidder will be consistent with present housing rehabilitation bid ' 1 572 05U i . . , , . . .1 . .. ,', • RESULTS OF BID OPENING %1 . OWER APPLICATION NUMBER 87 N : _kir •• . ..; .', 1 ADDRESS: Nye Street cost ESTIMATE: 5 556.08 PERCENTAGE OF BID OVER_________________ CHECK ONE JOB BID tip JOB NEGOTIATED t:::3 COMPANY , .• ------ , ' $ -1 1. Frank Griffin & Associates 5,525.00 ' 1 2. . #1 . 11 .ompapy—____.... U 3. McDuffie Constru '01 In.. ' 6 795.00 _ . - ! 4. Samuel English 5,0E10.00 -. . 5. ------ Bids opened by: Robert Wilson 300 p.m. Time of Bid Opening: . - . Date of Bid Opening Seetember .; . . ., , Witnessed by: Roxanne Warren ************************************************************************* ...., . Lowest Acceptable Bid: 5,080.00 Negotiated Amount: ' N/A Contractor: Samuel English NA1S Route 1, Box 16, Efland, N.C. 27243 ADDRESS 563-1292 . . , PHONE NUMER . - 1 ' B ..,,, . COMMENTS: .., . ..I J . ,t Voca419--- DATE: /3 - 3 - Submitted by: til I ---: , , I Bid ' proved by: Proceed Order: Issued E=] Not Issued t:::3 COMINTS: 1 I 051 . , 1 . i . RESULTS OF BID OPENING i . APPLICATION NUMBER 140 ; OWNER: Da . 1,.. .d ADDRESS:Homemont Avenu COST ESTIMATE: $2,655.00 _____ -.. PERCENTAGE OF BID OVER 3.63 UNDER CHECK ONE: JOB BID JOB NEGOTIATED t.= COMPANY BID AMOUNT ...------ 3 350 00 I. Frank Griffin & Associates ----2--z--------- 2. Gates Construction 5,500,00 .-..:, 3. , McDuffi- rel 4. Samuel En.lish 2 755.0' ____ _ . - - S. ' . . - :-- Bids opened by: Robert Wilson Time of Bid Opening: Date of Bid Opening September 1, 1983 Witnessed by Roxanne Warren Lowest Acceptable Bia:____2_155_0_ Negotiated Amount: N/A Contractor: Samuel English NAME Route 1, Box 16, Efland9 N.C. 27243 ADDRESS 563-1292 . , • PHONE NUMBER COMMENTS: . Subm itted by: V 1--11 ,-47:71/1', 4,1, -4■,'"1:"-- DATE: 7 -/ ? •1 Bid Approved by:. Proceed Order: Issued ED Not Issued i=ii i CO:WY-NTS: 1 . ; i i , - -1 C15 1 . .: RESULTS OF BID OPENING ,..'.. 1 OWNER: Johnny Johnson APPLICATION NUMBER 150 1 1 ADDRESS: Harper Street COST ESTIMATE: $6,982.00 :1 PERCENTAGE OF BID OVER CHECK ONE: JOB BID m JOB NEGOTIATED 1.= . ' .., tA. COMPANY BID AMOUNT .:. 1 1. Frank Griffin & Associates 8 ' 'I • Gates Construction V' II McDuffie Construction 7 990 00 —„_z,„__ ...---- 4. Samuel English 8,820,00 —— 5. ' Bids opened by: Robert Wilson ' . Time of Bid Opening: 3:00 p.m. ... -:-. September 1, 1983 l'^ Date of Bid Opening ,..: . 1, Witnessed by: Roxanne Warren . , . • Lowest Acceptable Bid: ' :' li J.. ; ----- Negotiated Amount: N A Contractor: Gates Construction Com.an .;_ Route 1, Box 8, Snow Capp, N,C, 27349 ''' ADDRESS , 376-6597 . . --------- . - ' PHONE NUMBER COMMENTS: ; . Submitted by: it,/ . if- 4 t/) - DATE: / „.. 3 - 73 ,-, Bid Approved by:________ ., Proce.-<-Drder: Issued 1---1 Not Issued ED ........- COMMENTS: , 1 1 i , 1 . 05 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONEPS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. D-1 MEETING DATE Septembet 20, 1983 Subject: APPOINTMENT - SCHOOL CAPITAL TASK FORCE Department: COMMISSIONERS Public Hearing: yes X no, ' At - t s Infornetion Contact: SHARON ALMON, ACTING NONE CLERK TO THE OARV Phone Number: 732-8181 ext. 505 PURPOSE: TO MAINTAIN COMMISSIONERS APPOINTED BOARDS AT EFFECTIVE MEMBERSHIP LEVELS. TO UPDATE BOARD ON UPCOMING VACANCIES. SCHOOL CAPITAL TASK FORCE: ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPOINTED II-MEMBERS ON SEPTEMBER 6, 1983. THERE ARE SEVEN VACANCIES REMATNING. THE ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD HAS SUBMITTED ONE ADDITIONAL NAME (ENCLOSED IN BOARD MEMBERS PAD MEMBERS APPOINTED 9/6/83: Mn.. Lindsay Egand M . Phytti4 SockweLE M6-.--ffeeta—Feismi.-nst-ton-- M . Loa Lee. DA. R6Eand 31.4.chanan Mn.. John McCotinick MA. Bob SthayhOAn MA. BOnmtle Knoke Mn., Keith Cateman Mn.. Fted Battte Mn.. Robbie !Smith Mn.. Dick Shatpters Mn.. Mac Mitht M . Rebecca. Ceank MA. RoEand Scott MA. Adete Thomas MA. RogeA Mauhatt Mn.. Jack Vogt of-" e. i !]► `KLtg gaunt 1.J (*hods ? zr ppAMC1, a CCC.II� "� • coUHYY : CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS LINCOLN CENTER,MERRITT MILL ROAD CHAPEL HILL,N.C.27514 Pamela S. Mayer, Superintendent TELEPHONE 919-967 August 23 , 1983 Ms. Sharon Alliison, Acting Clerk ()ranee CountylBoard of Commissioners 106 East Margaret Lane Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 1 Dear Ms. Allisdn: I am in reCeipt of your letter requesting recommendations for members of the Ad Hoc School Capital Task Force to study the capital financing for schools in Oranhe County. Following receipt of your letter, I have had an opportunity to discuss with Mr. Whitted the purpose of the task force which I interpret to be twofold: (1) . ! To provide recommendations to the County Commissioners regarding options for long range capital financing. (2). , To provide statements regarding strategies for inter- pretation to the public at large. In light of this outlined purpose, I am recommending the following individuals for appointment: ChaptlHill-Carrboro City Schools School Board - Phyllis Sockwell -Stherer1-9t-zr+f - (Administrative Assistant for School/ Community Relations) - Lois Lee (Teacher) Attorney - John McCormick Chapel Hilil-Carrboro Communit Grou.s League; of Women Voters - Bonnie Knoke South Orange Black Caucus - Fred Battle Chamber of Commerce - Dick Sharpless ChapeliHill Women's Group of Churches United - Rebecca Clark Intetf4ith Council - Adele Thomas Jack 1/09t Ms. Sharon Alison August 29, 1983 Pane 2 On behalf of the Board and staff of the school system, may I say that we are please to see this task force created and look forward to seeing their recommendations and statements to the Commissioners submitted in January 1994. This time line will allow anurooriate planning for the bud net year, 1981-85, and I am optimistic that the committee will provide a focus for our ;efforts in the area of lone range caoital improvements . Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to make the above nomina- tions. Sincerely, Pamela S. Mayer Superintendent PSM:hbh cc: Kenneth Thomnson, County Manager Task Force 4Nominees mks,.1•••••..•=0■11* — . • ^ ) oizc couNTy • • - - — BOARD OF COLvklISSIONM Action Agenda ACTION A I A MEM ABSTRACT item No. V-8 IIEETING ppm September 20, 1983 Subject: Project Ordinance Amendment - e Public Hearing: _ yes X no I Attachrrent(s) Information Contact.: Yes Donna Clayton Niter: 732-8181, ext. 495 PrigPrsE: Consideratiot of acceptance of project otdinance amendment for CETA Program. _ CETA: 1) To accept additional funds for the CETA LIB ABE program and to adjust the programs bOd get in accordance with the State's budget back - up. 2) To accept the CETA ixp YWE program's deobliga.tion of funds and to adjust the program s budget in accordance with the State's budget back - up. • IMPACT: CETA: 1) ThiS amendment will provide additional funding in the Orange County Employ- ment and Training Program. ORANGE COUNTY PROPOSED 1981 - 82 PROJECT ORDINANCE AMENTIMENF The 198 - 82 Project Ordinance of Orange County as adopted on September 27, 1982, and subsequently amended, is hereby amended as follows: 1) Source of Revenue: CEIA IIB Grant 805. Appropriation: CETA IIB ABE Participant - Operations 805. To accept additional CETA IIB funding. 2) Dec ease of Revenue: CEIA IIB Grant (10,180.) Appropriation: CETA IIB YWE r Participant - Personnel (10,180.) To Lccept deobligation of CETA JIB funding. Approved this day of . , 1983. :.. I . 05( ,,•:'144 ,,..,.,,ii ...,'.„• .,..,..-...i.,q,--',"..L.:':.:11f.,:r*-i;; .:„.' .„.-:.,i,*4,41;t4114:0RALN , EDUNTY • .,L:: . 1•• .- 44'44.,‘‘i ',..4.`--3..,1- , '1,1- N - -,-t4.,-- ,••,• il•t.. :--,4 0 .,,,,7' •.,‘I'''''''41,7:1:'.1"."1.''•• ' lerAie' '' r'." , OL'.,... f • $,,t 0-•••-.z . - ,....z.•4?..•0•1; -4:7' •■•41.,, S1&: .:. ef„. .•wp I, ARD OF aleassimess Actic. ill 9-..-naa - 1 Aclacm AGENDA ram ABSTRACT Item.No. D-9 ISEXIM DATE Se tein_p__ _19.33, . 1 . . I ' Subject: Proposed Budget Amendments . Departmait: Finance ; = 1 Public H--- –Frin ........ ..._lno I - I . .. ...m,„,*.....,,..*.,.....,.. .,.., I AttadurP...nt(S) ..,` I Inforrre.tIon Contact: 1 Yes I 1 Donna Clayton I , Phone Number: 732-8181, ext. 495 .. . .L..... _____........._.—...., 1 . , PUPPOSE: Consideratioi of Proposed Budget Amendments I ; 1 . I - ... ItED.: MIERgi FUND: I , ' I ' • 1) To budget for supplemental Family Planning and Maternal and. Child grants • that are available to the Orange County Health Department. _ 1 2) To budget for appropriations for the encumberance carry forwards. I -. . ' 1 , 1 i - 1 1 11 1 .. I I ; 1 i FIR 'U) I GENERAL ND:i , 1 . 1) This amendment will increase the funds fOrt the Family Planning and Materm , and Chid departments in the Health Department. I 2) ThiS amendment ill transfer funds from Reserve for Encumberances to Apprc . _ L . . ..,:, .•.:7,,. .,5,*.,-p:■•-;t,c>, '''f,'"•!':::-7:, '.•:'''''''' 7.''' ',' ' ' . ..* ' ' . ' ' ' , . . . ' . ..:. i , 7 , ORANGE mum, . H PROPOSED 1983 - 84 BUDGET AMENDMENT i . . '..;.:::. The 1983 - 84 Budget Ordinance of Orange County as adopted on June 27, 1983 and subsequently amended, is thereby amended as follows: „., GENERAL FUND: :.•.?4'. 1) Appropriation: Health - Family Planning 12,736. —,.. Health - Maternal and Child 19,046. Source: Health - Family Planning Grant 12,736. Health - Maternal and Child Grant 19,046. "•;*', To budget for supplemental grants available to the Orange County Health Department. 2) Appropriation: County Commissioners 105. Register of Deeds 1,308. :,:-;..,:,:. • Personnel 13. ,•':,,%,:.,- Purchasing . 380. ,•. ,: . , .::.,,... Tax Supervisor 927. Tax Collector 30. Data Processing 3,575. . • , Planning 207. - . .• Central, Services 283. •,.-. Health 1,894. ,.... . Recreation ■ 879. ,.. Aging 1,900. Sheriff 13,329. • Emergency Services 2,377. Public Works 5,951. Street Surfacing 9,598. H4. Source: .. Fund. Balance - Unappropriated 42,756. To appropriate funds for encumberanee carry forwards. . . • .' . -. 01..,...,;° Apprcre-sd this day of , 1983. 1111 , . ,• , '' ,,4;.'• * '1" ' () ..9-4414;1, : .oRANa:. cotrarY V - i • ... BOARD OF assiouErs Action Agenda 1 1 ACTION AC''''..'\1.101‘. ITEM ABSTRACT itallX0. 9_3 MEETING DATE September 20, 1983 1 . . 1 Subject: 1982 - 83 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Departnent: Finance 1 1 Public Hearing: yes A no Attachaent(s) : 1 Information Contact: 1 None Wallace Harding 732- 8181, ext. 496 1 Phone Number: _ . I PURPOSE: To present . he June 30, 1983 audit report to the Board of Commissioners. 1 . i 1 . . - „ . . NEE D1.1 The, report will, be presented to the Board and covers all financial activity of the County curing the fiscal year 1982 - 83. i Representative of Touche Ross and Company will be present to answer any questions. I i 1 . . 1 . 1 . . , . .. 1 1 1 1 IMPACT: Fulfill requirements of G.S. 159-34. 1 - - - REPORT OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON ALTERNATIVE MODELS FOR CHILD CARE SERVICE DELIVERY Ken Thompson, County Manager Janice Schopler, Chair Orange County Board of Social Services Michael Sharp, M.D. - September 13, 1983 • 0 , . II f. . 1 , , 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY , I This ad hoc committee report is in response to a request from the Orange County Board of Commissioners to examine alternative means of delivering enhanced day care services to meet needs outlined in the report of the Child Care Subcom- mittee of the Orange County Human Services Advisory Commission. , 1 The Child qare Subcommittee report cited the current state of day care service delivery in Orange County as fragmented and stated that a number of child care needs i in the community are not being addressed by existing service delivery agencies. This ad hod committee report examines the potential of four models to coor- dinate service delivery and address unmet needs. These models are: Model #1 Maintenance of the Day Care Unit in DSS at its current srvice level Model #2 Maintenance of the Day Care Unit in DSS and enhancement of its current service level Model #3 CI ation of a new county governmental agency, independent of DSS, to deliver enhanced day care services Model #4 Creation of a private non-profit corporation to deliver enhanced day care services All models are predicated on the assumption that all direct Title XX staff funds currently used to support Day Care Unit (Model #1) will be available for transfer to and use in the other models. Models #1 and #2 would continue to receive policy direction from the Orange County Board of Social Services. Policy direction would come from a Board of Commissioners appointed advisory board in Model #3 and from a corporate Board of Directors in Model #4, Models #2 and #3 would require additional estimated current day care staff levels and additional estimated expenditures of $30,300 and $36,500 respectfully. Model #4 would require the procurement of an additional $65,000 to meet estimated operating expenditures. 1 Implementation of model #2 would require procurement of funds to hire addi- tional staff and specific policy direction from the DSS Board. I Model #3 wo ld require action by the Board of Commissioners creating a new county agency and authorizing the DSS Board to enter into a contract with this agency for the delivery of current day care services, the procurement of addi- tional funds for enhanced staff and program needs , and specific policy direction from the advisory board. Model #4 would require the creation of a private non-profit corporation, procurement of finds for enhanced staff and program needs, and action by the Board of Commissioners authorizing the DSS Board to enter into a contract with the private non-profit for the delivery of current day care services. 2 I. INTRODUCTION This report is in response to a request from the Orange County Board of Commissioners t examine alternative means of delivering enhanced day care services to meet needs outlined in the report of the Child Care Subcommittee of the Orange County Human Services Advisory Commission. It has been prepared by an ad-hoc committee designated by the Board and comprised of Kenneth Thompson, Orange! County Manager, Ms. Janice Schopler, Chair, Orange County Board of Social pervices and Dr. Michael Sharp, Chair, Child Care Subcommittee of the Orange Co0ty Human Services Advisory Commission. Staff assistance was provided by Rob Addelson, Management Analyst in the Orange County Manager's Office. II. BACKGROUND On May 17, 5983, a report of the Child Care Subcommittee of the Orange County Human Services Advisory Commission was submitted to the Orange County Board of Commissiioners for its consideration. The report cites the current state of child care service delivery in Orange County as fragmented and states that a number of child care needs in the community are not being addressed by existing service delivery agencies. The report attributes many of the problem in service delivery to the lack of coordination among existing child care providers as well as institutional , fiscal and legallconstraints posed on the Day Care Unit of the Department of Social Services , the major agent of day care service delivery in the county. Due to the amount and source of funds (Title XX dollars) the Day Care Unit is restricted as tolthe activities it can undertake and the populations it can address. The provision of technical assistance is limited to those centers which are certified orlseeking certification which precludes needed assistance to a large number of other day care providers. Further, the report states that the public's perception of DSS as a "welfare agency" stops many families from seeking information and referral and purchase of care funds from the Day Care Unit thus resulting in uninformed day care choices being made by parents. The report Concludes with a proposal for the creation of a new agency to coordinate child care resources in the county and to enhance the existing level of services being delivered. The report argues that a new agency will be better able than the current arrangement, to address the following needs: Need #1 : Advocacy for child care in all sectors of the community including more stringent standards for non-certified day care homes and centers. Need #2: ErJhancement of existing service delivery including: a. increased technical assistance b. development of additional spaces c. expanded nutritional services d. provision of health supportive services e. parenting education Need #3: Thee attraction of private funds and foundation monies to meet additional costs due to enhanced service delivery and to increase the funds subsidized care. 3 Need #4: provide an identity for day care services separate from OSS to overcome the "welfare agency" image and the barrier it poses to the success of information and referral activities and other enhanced services. III. ANALYSIS Basically, the committee has looked at four models of service delivery and assessed each on the basis of its ability to address the needs cited above. The current Day Care Unit is posed as the Model #1 to serve as a basis of comparison for the other three models. The four models are: Model #1 : ;Maintenance of the Day Care Unit in DSS at its current 'service level . Model #2: tintenance of the Day Care Unit in DSS and enhancement of its current service level . Model #3: Creation of a new county governmental agency, independent pf DSS, to deliver enhanced child care services. Model #4: Formation of a private non-profit corporation to deliver enhanced day care services. Models #1 and #2 would continue to receive policy direction from the Orange County Board of Social Services. Policy direction would come from a Board of Commissioners' appointed advisory board in the case of Model #3 and from a corporate board of directors in Model #4. All models are predicated on the assumption that all direct Title XX staff funds ($744l4 in salaries and fringe benefits) currently used to support the Day Care Unit will be available for transfer to and use in the alternative models discussed. The chart oii pages 4, 5 and 6 will assess the four models in regard to staffing, cost, ability to address the needs cited above, and advantages and disadvantages. IV. LOGISTICS -- When the Child Care Report was first issued, questions were raised as to State regulatory barriers that might preclude the transfer of Title XX funds and functions from the Department of Social Services to a private non-profit corporation. Consequently, meetings were arranged with the N. C. Office of Day Care Services, the N. C. Division of Social Services, the Mecklenburg County Depart- ment of Social Services and Child Care Resources, Inc. , of Charlotte to deter- mine if barriers did indeed exist. In fact barriers do not exist. Below is a list of perceived barriers that were identified as having the potential to impede this transfer. Each barrier is followed by a description of safeguards that could mitigate any potential problems. COMPARATIVE MODELS MODEL #1 MODEL 02 MODEL #3 MODEL #4 Direct Social Work Supervisor ('�); Social Social Work Supervisor (h). Social Dept. Head (1); Clerk-Typist (1); Executive Director (1), Clerk- Staff Worker 1�) Day Care Coordinator (1) Worker (1); Clerk-Typist 1), Day Social Work Supervisor (h); Social Ty ist (1); Accounting Technician { Care Coordinator (I); Space Bevel- Worker (1); Technical Assistance (l�; Technical Assistance Coordina- opment 8 Resource Coordinator (1); Coordinator (1); Information and for (1); Social Work Supervisor (h); Information and Referral Special- Referral Specialists ( ): Social Worker (1); Information and ist Referral Specialist (11) Policy Direction BSS Board DSS Board Advisory Board Hoard of Directors Cost -D sect $78,396 _ $108,65H_ Totaled$15 5- $ 1"f�5� f� $143,740 Estimated Add itirnal Funds Required O $30,300 $36,50D $65,508 Need #1 The Day Care Unit is funded with Funding of new positions with non- Funding of newipositions with non- Funding of new positions with non- (Advocacy)Title XX funds where use is limited Title XX funds, i.e.,, private or Title XX funds would permit advo- Title XX funds would permit advo- to activities which address target 100% County, would permit advocacy cacy for non-Title XX 4ctivities. cacy for non-Title XX activities. populations for purchase of care or for non-Title XX activities. current or potential service provi- As in Model #1 the County has two As in Model #1 the County has two ders to income-eligible clients. As in Model #1 the County has two options for adopting more strin- options for adopting more strin- Use of public funds for advocacy options for adopting more strin- gent standards for day care. gent standards for day care. for non-eligible activities is pot, gent standards for day care. permitted. *The County has two options for adopting more stringent standards for day care. 1. NCfS 130A-39 enables the Board of Health to adopt more strin- gent standards than those of the State when deenfed necessary to protect the public health. 2. The County may exercise its Ordinance making power to enact day care standards over and above those enforced by the State. The means by which day care is de- livered has no bearing on the County's power to adopt more stringent stan- *This interpretation based on con- dards. versation with staff at the Insti- 'ute of Government. MODEL 81 140DEL 42 MODEL 03 140DEL 94 Need #2 The current day care unit is not The addition of two new positions A separate agency would permit the A PNPC would permit the enhancement (Service capable of significantly enhancing would permit enhancement of ser- enhancement of services. An ac- of services. An accounting of time Enhance- existing services due to existing vices. The addition of the clerk- counting of time spent on Title XX spent of Title XX and non-Title XX ment) demands on current staff time. typist would permit time currently and non-Title XX activities would activities would be required. being spent by the Si4 Supervisor, be required. Social Worker and clay Care Coordi- nator on paperwork to be focused on enhanced service delivery. An accounting of time spent on Title XX and non-Title XX activities would be required. Need #3 The County is enable to receive io4,el._#2_has_-the_.sam_capabi-li.ty—As-a--new-agency.—this-model--would--As-an~agency-distinct-from-county {Attrrac=VHVafe#'un s and four anon monies. stated in Model fl. have a better opportunity to at- government altogether, this model tion of donors can be assured that targeted tract private funds than the first would have the greatest opportunity Private monies are spent for a specific purr two models due to its identity for attracting private and founda- Funds) pose through the establishment of separate from dSS and Its stile tion monies. Procurement of Section trust funds. The potential of the focus on provision of day care ser- 501 (c)(3) status as defined in the County to successfully solicit pri- vices. nonetheless, it being a Internal Revenue Service Code would vate funds to augment the current part of-local government would make the corporation eligible for level of day care service is, in remain a barrier to successful foundation grants that local govern- all likelihood, limited. solicitation of funds. ment may not be eligible for. Need #4 Though in this rode), day care Model #2 has the same capability As a new agency, with no public As an agency altogether separate (Agency delivery would remain in OSS, it is stated in Model U. preconception of its function or from Orange County government, this Identity) conceivable that the "welfare agency„ clientele, the opportunity exists model would not have to overcome the image problem could be overcome for an aggressive campaign to stigma associated with welfare pro- through an intensive campaign to mar- market an agency image where all grams and its impact on service ket select services of the'day Care facets of day care service deliv- delivery to all sectors of the Unit as an entity distinct from OSS, ery will be available to all pop- Orange County population. ulations in Orange County. Advan- Maintain coordinated and 'integrated Maintain coordinated and inte- increased ability to overcome new image separate from county gov- tages service delivery in OSS. grated service delivery in OSS. image problem. ernment. Control over disbursement of funds Indirect cost support provided Increased ability to attract pri- Increase in ability to attract pri- remains with OSS t, Orange County. by other County departments. vate funds. vate funds. Indirect cost support provided by Control over disbursement of funds indirect cost support provided by Coordination of countywide Child other County departments. remains with OSS & Orange County. other County departments. Care Services. Moves toward coordination of Coordination of countywide Child Precedent in Child Care Resources, countywide Child Care Services. Care Services. Inc., of Mecklenburg County Precedent at State level in crea- tion of Office of Day Care Services as distinct from division of Social SPrvi ces. 3 MODEL 81 MODEL #2 MODEL #3 MODEL #4 01sad- Perceived image problem Perceived image problem Movement away from coordinated Heightens liability of DSS for dis- vantages and integrated service delivery position of Federal and State funds Funding constraints prevent Limited ability to foster public- in DSS as in Model #1 & Model 2 enhancement of services private effort i Precludes coordinated and integrated New county department would service delivery in DSS as in Limited ability to foster public- Additional funds required cur- increase administrative Models N1 & #2 private effort rently unavailable and yet to be burden on County identified No indirect County support which causes higher direct cost to be Heightens liability of DSS for borne by PNPC. disposition of State & Federal funds. Additional funds required-currently -- — - - -----— — ---- - - --- Unavai1A61e and yew to�be i&nff fled -- Additional funds required cur- rently unavailable and yet to be identified Means of No Action necessary Procurement of additional funds Procurement of-additional funds Procurement of additional funds Creation Contract between agency and DSS Contract between OSS and PNPC t rn i 7 1 . Transfer of Funds: There are two categories of public funds that could be transferred to the private non-profit: Title XX staff funds and purchase of care funds. The mechanism for this transfdr is by contract between DSS and the private non-profit. 2. Liability: Though MS could contract with a private non-profit for expenditure of day care funds and the delivery of day care services, liability, in the event of contracting, would remain with the DSS. 3. Monitoring and Accountability: Though, in a contracting arrange- ', ment, Orange County would retain liability for a private non- profit's non-compliance with federal and/or state regulations, or theImisapplication of funds, there are a number of mechanisms available to mitigate this occurrence. a. The optimal arrangement would be for the County to retain control over the handling of all funds. In this arrangement, the private non-profit would be responsible for all programmatic areas while the County would retain all accounting, check writing and other fiscal functions. b. An alternative arrangement would be to vest all programmatic and fiscal functions with the private non-profit. The County could mitigate its liability in this arrangement by requiring of the private non-profit the following: 1. The County could require the private non- profit to undergo an annual financial and compliance audit by an independent accounting firm. 2. The County could require the private non- , profit to establish specific accounting procedures and internal controls to insure sound financial management. 3. The County could require the private non- - profit to adopt an annual budget and submit monthly financial reports. 4. The County could stipulate in the contract that the private non-profit shall be respon- sible for any costs or expenses incurred as a result of any acts or omissions by the private non-profit or any of its officers, agents or employees. fe 8 4. Personnel Though a private non-profit could administer state funds it would not be required to comply with the County's pay plan. IHowever, it would not be desirable, in that the private non-prOfit would be competing with Orange County in the sage labor market, for the private non-profit to pay at a higher scale than DSS. The contract between the County and the pri- vate non-profit could require parity of the two organization's pay plans. 5. Children's Protective Services: Currently, referrals to the DSS Day Care Unit from DSS's Children's Protective Services Unit receive priority consideration. An element of the con- , tract Could require continued priority attention for these children. 6. Funding: A private non-profit corporation would require an estimated additional $65,500 in operating funds over and above the current Title XX day care staff funds that is proposed transferred to the corporation. To insure continuity of cur- , rent service delivery, any decision to endorse a private non- , profit Corporation should be contingent upon the procurement of a written commitment from private sources for funds necessary for operation for a minimum of three years. V. SUMMARY Four models of day care service delivery have been examined in this report. If a decision islmade to enhance day care delivery to address not only needs of current Title XXIpopulations but also day care needs of the community as a whole then three models are to be considered. 1. Maintenance of current Day Care Unit in DSS at an enhanced service level (Model #2). 2. The creation of a new county department, separate from DSS, to deliverlenhanced child care services (Model #3). 3. The formation of a private non-profit corporation to deliver enhanced child care services (Model #4) . Models #2 and #31would require expansion of current day care staff levels and additional estimated expenditures of $30,300 and $36,500 respectively. Model #4, the formation of a private non-profit corporation, would be separate from county government but would receive, through contract with the County, the $74,414 in Title XX staff funds currently allocated to the Day Care Unit in DSS. Additional estimated funds of $65,500 would be required to meet estimated operating costs. 9 APPENDIX A: IMPLEMENTATION Following is an outline of the steps that would be required to implement Models #2, Model #3 and Model #4. Model #2: Maintenance of the Day Care Unit is DSS and enhancement of rits current level of service. 1 . Procurement of funds to hi re additional staff required to enhance services. 2. Specific policy direction from DSS Board entailing the establishment of program goals, objectives and milestones. Model #3: Creation of a new county governmental agency, independent of DSS, to deliver enhanced day care services. 1. Action by the Board of Commissioners creating a new county agency and authorizing the DSS Board to enter into a contract with this agency for the delivery of • current day care services. 2. Procurement of additional funds necessary for staff and operations to deliver enhanced day care services. 3. Specific policy direction from advisory board entail- ing the establishment of goals , objectives and mile- , stones. Model #4: Creation of a private non-profit corporation to deliver enhanced day care services. 1 . Formation of a private non-profit corporation and establishment of a board of directors. 2. Procurement of private non-profit status from Internal Revenue Service. 3. Procurement of funds by private non-profit for staff and operations to deliver enhanced day care services. 4. Action by the Board of Commissioners authorizing the DSS Board to enter into a contract with the private non-profit for the delivery of current day care services. APPENDIX 8: COMPARATIVE BUDGETS MODEL #1 MODEL #2 MODEL #3 MODEL #4 Direct Indirect Direct Indirect Direct Indirect Direct Salaries $57,132 $14,028 $80,899 $14,028 $85,032 $2,154 $101 ,000 Fringe 17,282 0 192604 0 20,927 0 1 5,981 Total- Personnel 74,414 14,028 100,503 14,028 105,959 2,154 116,981 -- Telephone 1 ,395 2,349 2,750 3,360 Rent 162 979 152 1,763 162 1,658 7,930 Travel 1,584 1 ,979 1,979 1 ,979 Duplicating 186 200 400 400 Postage 300 800 800 800 Office Supplies 100 150 300 300 Equi pment 55 55 55 110 Audit 262 262 262 3,500 Printing 0 700 700 700 Contract Services 0 300 300 300 Total Operating 3,982 1,241 6,695 2,025 7,465 1 ,920 19,379 Capital 0 0 12460 0 1 ,460 0 7,380 Total 78,396 15,269 108,658 15,053 114,884 4,074 143,740 Total (Direct & Indirect) 93,665 124,771 118,958 143,740 Estimated Additional Funds Required 0 30,262 36,488 65,344 CD